Interim Budget Committee hears DOC deep dives as lawmakers press to clear parole backlog

Helena — The Interim Budget Committee on Tuesday reviewed follow‑up material from the Department of Corrections (DOC) and pressed agency officials about treatment wait lists that are delaying releases.

Scott Eichner, the department’s rehabilitative chief, told the committee DOC had answered seven outstanding questions from December and provided deeper reviews of four program types. Eichner said DOC is piloting a consolidated treatment model (ICPM) at men’s facilities and intends to implement it at the Montana Women’s Prison but has no firm implementation timeline because the Canadian model DOC is adapting is still being recalibrated.

The committee focused on two tally points Eichner highlighted: 15 people are waiting in custody for court‑ or parole‑ordered treatment whose completion triggers release, and 256 people are in a separate category where treatment was recommended but not required. "Those 15 individuals are waiting to get that, who once they get that done, they're out," Eichner said. He added the 256 group is deprioritized because the treatment is not mandatory and is therefore harder to schedule for limited class capacity.

Why it matters

Lawmakers worried that required conditions placed at parole hearings are creating a bottleneck that keeps people in custody longer than necessary. Committee members urged DOC to coordinate with the Board of Pardons and Paroles so recommended treatment can be administratively elevated or otherwise triaged to reduce that "limbo." "If we had additional resources, that's another group that we could increase the programming ability," Eichner said.

Program capacity and timing

Eichner said the ICPM model shortens treatment from multi‑year sequences to about 6–8 months of programming, but he could not provide a firm start date for the women's‑prison rollout. He credited a new STEP facility in Anaconda with adding roughly 70 treatment slots, which has already reduced the count of parole‑upon‑completion holds from a recent high (36) down to 15.

On goals, Eichner said bluntly when asked whether DOC had targets for reducing the backlog: "All of them. We gotta do a better job here." He said DOC aims to move programming earlier in an incarcerative cycle so people receive treatment before release‑eligibility proceedings rather than after.

Program spotlights

Eichner summarized the four deep‑dive examples DOC provided: a mobile welding trailer leased from Great Falls College that brings a 5‑week welding course to facilities with space constraints (about two classes a summer, roughly 12 trainees per year); the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (RAP), a voluntary, inmate‑led peer support/cognitive behavioral program; commercial driver's license (CDL) training (resource‑intensive, current capacity ~16 people per year); and religious programming including inmate‑led Native American sweats, which DOC reported cost about $4.13 per participation and accounted for roughly 3,200 participations in 2025 (DOC said that figure likely includes repeat attendees).

Data and evidence requests

Members asked for program breakouts by sex, participation and outcomes, and DOC agreed to provide male/female breakouts for the deep dives and a fuller program inventory ahead of the June meeting. Eichner also previewed an internal HiSET analysis showing HiSET completers are about 4% less likely to recidivate than the statewide average ("Montana numbers," he said), but emphasized the result is preliminary and DOC is validating methods before public release.

What’s next

Committee staff and members asked DOC to return in June with: detailed program lists and sex breakouts, a clearer timeline for ICPM at the women's prison, data on how long those waiting for treatment have been delayed, and proposals for administrative coordination with the Board of Pardons and Paroles to reduce the 256‑person limbo. Eichner said DOC will continue to expand capacity where possible and work with the board on administrative options.

Reporting notes

Quotes and figures in this article are drawn from committee remarks and DOC testimony at the interim meeting. Where figures are preliminary (for example, the HiSET‑recidivism comparison), DOC officials stated the numbers are still under review and will be provided with methodology in follow‑up materials to the committee.