Oklahoma Department of Mental Health challenges prison consent decree

At issue is the treatment of prison inmates who have been deemed mentally incompetent to take part in their own cases.

Sheriff Vic Regalado and District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said last week, not for the first time, that jails are not the place to treat such people.

The Ministry of Mental Health disagreed, saying it was possible in some circumstances.

“Not all prison inmates who require competency restoration treatment should receive inpatient treatment,” Mental Health Commissioner Allie Friesen said in a written statement over the weekend.

Friesen was responding to Regalado and Kunzweiler’s argument that prison authorities may be depriving inmates of their constitutional rights by failing to provide court-ordered services in a timely manner, and that this has been going on for more than a decade.

They urged Gov. Kevin Stitt, Friesen and other opponents to accept a proposed consent decree negotiated by Attorney General Gentner Drummond and plaintiffs’ lawyers in a 2023 lawsuit against the department.

Regalado and Kunzweiler have been in the field for more than a decade. For them, the Department of Mental Health has had more than enough time to address this issue. In addition to legal and ethical issues, they are tired of prison budgets and staff time being spent on mental health issues instead of law enforcement.

Friesen has only been in the position for a few months, and says he wants more time to investigate the matter because he wasn’t committee chair or even with the department when the lawsuit was filed.

“It is essential that we have the opportunity to identify the root causes of bottlenecks in the system,” she said in a statement. “If officials are not given that opportunity, they will not only waste taxpayer money unnecessarily, but they also risk exacerbating current systemic problems.”

Friesen seemed concerned about the issue being forced into priority, adding: “While competency restoration treatment is provided through our agency, we must not forget all the other parts of the system that must work to ensure every individual receives the services they need.”

“If the burden of the consent decree is imposed on us, we will lose our ability to resolve this issue in the most effective, durable and cost-effective way,” Friesen said.

Supporters of the consent decree see it as the same delay tactic that sparked the lawsuit in the first place: They point out that Friesen is only the third mental health commissioner in less than five years.

They also say the consent decree includes the flexibility Friesen sought, essentially requiring the state to develop a plan for providing some level of specialized evaluation and treatment to everyone found incompetent.

The consent decree will end the department’s current in-jail treatment programs, which many say are inadequate, but will allow for new programs that meet professional standards.

This includes benefits for people who can regain capacity by restarting their medication.

Friesen and Stitt said they are concerned that the costs of the consent decree are largely unclear: It would require the state to devote more of its mental health capacity to forensic work, likely requiring more staffing, improved training and possibly more beds.

But Drummond and others say the bigger financial risk is that the lawsuit goes to trial, which Drummond says the state would almost certainly lose.

“We remain committed to working with all stakeholders, including (Kunzweiler and Regalado), to come to a collaborative solution,” Friesen said.

Paul DeMuro, a Tulsa attorney leading the plaintiffs’ legal team, said much the same thing.

“Nobody has ever said in public comments that there’s no problem,” DeMuro said. “We’re hopeful that we can come to an agreement.”

But he’s also frustrated.

“I urge those who have been criticizing this plan to sit down and read it,” he said.