Nepotism in DOC — Shad Hagan, MS
Nepotism in Oklahoma Corrections DCCC I. Introduction II. Personal Experience as A Lens
In this paper, we explore the Oklahoma Correctional system and the nepotism within those systems. I am writing this from a first-person perspective in my voice as a former employee at the Dick Conner Correctional Center in Hominy, Oklahoma. Nepotism causes a toxic work culture and performance gaps, and these gaps lead to understaffing, an unmotivated workforce, and low morale. The deep-rooted nepotism and toxic work culture create conflict with the agency’s mission versus the reality at the facility level. The agency claims “we change lives,” of course; this is true, but is the agency protecting the public’s best interest fiscally, the staff’s safety, and the incarcerated residents’ welfare? In what way does the Department of Corrections change lives?
I worked at the facility for one year and four months as a Case Manager on various units within Dick Conners Correctional Center. There are seven clans of staff families inside the facility, and most of them are in positions they have promoted. We also have a clique. A clique is a group of people who may or may not be related but are considered the “in crowd.” These groups are the dominant power groups within the facility.
Early on, I wondered about these groups and how that would affect my chances for promotion and ability to advance. I applied for different positions during my tenure, as have many other very qualified people at the facility. However, it always seems a less qualified person obtains the job-either part of the clique or the seven clans. I will share some examples with the reader for context.
I applied for a training officer position. Everyone who applied for the position was technically qualified. However, I was the only person with teaching experience. As a Behavioral Health Case Manager, I taught CBT and facilitated group treatment in a drug treatment setting. I had experience with curriculum and delivering information to people in group settings. Nobody was selected in the first round.
III. Observed personal Experiences.
The facility did second interviews and said that the OKC office hires for the position now, so some participated in subsequent interviews, and some dropped out. Again, I was not selected; I wondered how this happens so often. Apart from myself, there were plenty of qualified candidates, but I was perplexed,d as were others, by the person chosen: a captain recently involved in an incident where she forced an inmate back into a cell who was requesting protective measures. The other person in the cell severely injured the person after he begged for help. I was told she was put in the position to keep her job, and she was not cleared to work security for at least two years, and now she trains the staff. Is an officer who abused her position and authority the best candidate to be teaching? Her husband is the Captain at Dick Conner Correctional Center.
My last application was for Procedures Officer. Again, several people applied. All the candidates OMES qualified showed up for interviews, and when the interviews were finished, as predicted, “A” got it. Everyone knew “A” would get the position; she was besties with the Warden’s Assistant. The staff had discussed that this was a waste of time, but we all applied regardless of the chances. I told the Warden my belief that the candidate was pre-determined, and all the staff knew what was happening. I addressed with him her lying on the application about their previous experience and, apart from that, the qualifications for the job. The facility decided to do a second interview. I was not called for the second interview, and my application was rejected before the interview took place. Later, I asked the Warden why I had not been selected for a second interview. He said, “he told them to re-interview everyone.” Of course, he could not explain how I was rejected before an interview took place and not invited to the second interview. A rejection was e-mailed the night before the interviews took place. Ms. “A” was selected in the second interview process. It is beneficial to be in the clique. Our facility staff knew “A” would be selected, “A” was part of the old guard that left after the Deputy Warden was fired, and CM IV quit because of her attachments to the Deputy Warden.
I spoke a lot about interviews where I was an applicant, so to avoid bias, the story of “Anonymous” should be added to this story. Nepotism impacts everyone, especially qualified people who genuinely deserve to advance. Anonymous is a person who has been with DOC for several years, and when I first started, Anonymous helped me if I had a question. I can remember having problems with the inmate profile. Moreover, I went to the records department, and she kept correcting me until I had it down. It was not her job to help me, but she was willing to help; she was an ethical team player. I was happy to receive the criticism and learn. Anonymous has a bachelor’s degree and several years of experience in DOC as a Case Manager and Records officer, comes to work regularly, and gets along with everyone. Anonymous is an honest and dependable worker with solid ethics and attention to detail.
Anonymous applied for a position as a CM IV (Case Manager Coordinator), and Anonymous is more than qualified based on education & and experience and an outstanding attitude toward other staff and the people incarcerated at the facility. I do not believe anyone would dispute that.
Unfortunately for Anonymous, a scandal was afoot at the time she applied. A man we will call Rod (Staff Member) was flirting with Jill, a female staff member dating another officer at the facility, and at some point, he texted a photo of his genitalia to Jill, the female staff member. It is unclear if the picture was taken on a state phone or his personal device. Should these types of interactions be allowed between staff?
Officer Largen, whom Jill was dating, would later find the photo of Rods’ genitalia, and these two who were dating had a physical altercation. Officer Largen and Jill both tried to file domestic violence charges against each other but eventually reconciled. During that time, there was a divide, with staff members taking sides with one person or the other. The Officer also informed Rod’s wife, Precious, an Auditor at Hinton, about the picture of her husband’s genitalia sent to Jill. Luckily for Officer Largen, no domestic violence charges were filed, or he would have lost his job. Could Jill have thought after witnessing the nepotism and favoritism that sex was a way to advance her career?
Rod’s office was moved into the records building away from Jill and right down from the CM IV’s office, which was vacant at the time. Jill was moved into an area where she would have little interaction with anyone, especially Rod. Jill was now in a separate building close to her supervisor, the Chief, a member of Q, according to his Facebook.
IV. Consequences of Nepotism V. Conclusion
Precious, distraught about Rod” genitalia being exposed, cried to Leata, her mother. Leata was angry and shared all the details in T-town during staff ICON training. Everyone was quite aware of the debacle, and it was not news to us. Leata said, “Rod had done this before, and he was a piece of shit.” It was clear Leata was mad at Rod but primarily blamed Jill. Leata works at the facility as a Unit Manager, has been there for many years, and likely helped her daughter through networking where she could monitor Rod closely.
Officer Largen was pretty upset about it and let us know on the unit that he was going to bed down a young girl at a motel and that his genitalia was larger than Rod’s. He let us know Jill was just a whore and screwing everyone. I think the reader gets the idea that the whole facility pretty much heard about this incident from one party or the other, whether you were at training with Leata or the facility with everyone else.
Anonymous applied for the CM IV position she deserved and is not involved in scandalous activity, simply trying to do the best job. She is qualified for the position with a degree and work experience within the facility. Anonymous wants to advance in their role as a loyal employee at the agency. Anonymous will not get that chance because Rod’s wife, Precious, also applies for the job, of course, less qualified, but an office down the hall from her husband. In this role, she can focus on watching her husband’s interactions, but not the job. Precious monitors Rod now; she says he is a “lazy, worthless fat ass that just sits on the couch and plays video games.” So that is the environment Rod must work in. Regardless of what he did or did not do, Rod does not deserve to work in that environment. Precious monitors and assassinates her husband’s character constantly. Leata has been there for several years and helped her daughter secure this position, which is evident to everyone. In the process, a qualified candidate for the job is passed over once again. Nepotism is deep-rooted, and it prevents our state agencies from having the best candidates in the best positions, and all at taxpayer expense.
The consequences of nurturing nepotism are severe in facilities within our corrections system, and we do a disservice to the taxpaying staff, hoping to advance their career ethically but competently. As staff witness one person being favored over another, staff become distrustful of the process. Productivity is reduced due to low morale, lack of motivation, and a sense of hopelessness. Staff members are not empowered to build relationships, and their professional growth is hindered. Staff members may even go as far as offering their bodies sexually to advance their careers. People working in our facilities begin to distrust the system, fail to report misconduct, and are afraid to speak up due to threats of retaliation. When this occurs, there is an increased risk of corruption and cover-ups to help family members or close friends. One of the most significant consequences of this system is promoting unqualified people into positions, which are usually stepping stones to high-ranking administration positions such as Warden and Deputy Warden. When this happens, we end up with unqualified people in charge who do not possess the tools to succeed. Staff safety is likely decreased due to poor work ethic under these conditions, and staff lose focus on “changing lives” and suffer burnout until capable of leaving the situation, causing constant attrition. Increasing the pay will not solve the staffing issue until you change the culture and have accountability for staff as well as incarcerated people. It is far from professional or ethical.
In retrospect, my personal narrative sheds light on the pervasive nepotism within the Oklahoma Correctional system, particularly at the Dick Conner Correctional Center. The troubling pattern of favoritism, evident in promotions and job allocations, underscores the urgent need for systemic reform. Nepotism’s consequences extend beyond individual disappointments, fostering a toxic work culture that compromises staff morale, productivity, ethics, and the correctional system’s efficacy. The stories of “Anonymous” and the scandal surrounding colleagues exemplify the far-reaching impact on qualified individuals and the erosion of trust within the institution. Urgent action is required to instill transparency, meritocracy, and accountability in personnel practices. The correctional system’s mission of positive transformation can only be realized by dismantling entrenched nepotistic practices and fostering an environment conducive to ethical conduct, staff well-being, and the holistic rehabilitation of all those entrusted to its care. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections must engage in truth-telling and transparency to foster change.
Originally published at https://shadhagan.com on February 5, 2024.
