Committee hears support for an independent corrections ombudsman as families raise concerns about Mississippi transfers

The committee spent a large portion of the day on corrections oversight, hearing how the Department of Corrections manages grievances and constituent services, presentations from out‑of‑state ombudsmen, and detailed questions and public comment about recent transfers of Montana prisoners to a Tallahatchie, Mississippi contracted facility.

Deputy Director Natalia Bowser described the department’s constituent‑services mailbox and tracking system and said the office fields hundreds to thousands of complex calls annually; public safety division chief John Schaffer walked members through DOC’s multi‑level internal grievance process, including facility resolution, grievance coordinators, warden and director appeals, and confidentiality protections.

Bernardo Granware (Iowa Ombudsman) and Keith Barber (Michigan corrections ombudsman) described independent ombudsman models: legislative appointment, access to records and premises, confidentiality to promote candor, and the ability to issue recommendations and public reports. Barber and Granware urged carefully drafted statutory access to policies, records and facility visits to ensure usefulness.

Multiple family members and advocates urged an independent corrections ombudsman, and several speakers described grievances they said were unresolved despite existing DOC procedures. Amanda McKnight, a family advocate, and others asked the committee to create an independent office for confidential, external review.

DOC director Eric Strauss then updated the committee on out‑of‑state placements: operational pressures and limited in‑state contracted capacity led DOC to consolidate placements with a single contractor at a Mississippi facility; the move aimed to improve equity of services, contract compliance oversight and consistency. Strauss acknowledged concerns about family access and three reported deaths at the Mississippi facility; two were being treated as medical incidents and one was self‑inflicted; autopsy results were pending on one case.

Committee members pressed DOC for concrete oversight deliverables: frequency of contract compliance visits (DOC said two weeks of on‑site presence per month, plus medical and investigative teams), access to camera footage and grievance records, enrollment and program participation numbers for Montana residents at the facility, reports on medication and mental‑health availability, and data on the demographic composition (including Native American populations) of transferred inmates. DOC committed to follow‑up reports, to supply the contract, and to improve family communication and program parity.

Outcome: Committee members asked staff to draft ombudsman language, requested DOC provide contracts and program enrollment/medical‑care reports, and discussed the possibility of a fact‑finding visit to the contracted facility for members who volunteer to travel.