Editor's note — Earlier this year, Colette Peters was named the new Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections. She replaced Max Williams, who held the post for several years. Between the Security and Security Plus locals, Oregon AFSCME represents over 3,000 DOC employees. On June 28, Peters sat down with Council 75 Communications Director Don Loving for a one-on-one interview to talk about her new position, her view of the union and more. The following is a somewhat paraphrased rendition of that conversation.

 

Don Loving: First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this. I think our Corrections folks will enjoy hearing from you somewhat first hand in this fashion. To start with, how about just talking about where you were born and raised, or otherwise consider yourself "from," education and the career path that led you to becoming Oregon's DOC Director.

 

Colette Peters: Great, this is my pleasure. I grew up in a small rural community in the northeast quadrant of South Dakota, bordering Minnesota. I really enjoyed growing up in the Midwest and having those roots. I did my undergraduate work in Minnesota at the College of St. Benedict's, a small, liberal arts Catholic women's college, with a degree in psychology. I was a "Bennie," and as the clichŽ there goes, I married a "Johnnie" from St. John's University, an all men's sister school about three miles down the road.

 

I began my career as a front-line staff in a closed custody facility in Iowa, then worked in Minneapolis in a program that dealt with gang members transitioning back into the community through halfway houses. We then moved to Colorado and both my husband and I began work on our graduate degrees. Mine was in criminal justice, and I worked for the Denver Police Department while I was doing my graduate study. I consider that one of the greatest jobs I've ever held in that it taught me so much. I ran a crisis mediation team that was housed within the Crimes Against Persons detective bureau. We responded on scene to all homicides, suicides, domestic violence issues, sex assaults; we did all of the death notifications in the city. I had the opportunity to provide crisis mediation or victim's assistance to folks in what was, I hoped, the worst moment of their lives. It was a chance for me to see these people reach inside of themselves at that worst moment of their life and figure out how to manage through it. So as a former victim advocate, I think that's really helped me through all the roles I've had after that, which is really understanding why we're all here. Public safety is here because we have victims; that's a very strong component of the job for me.

 

I then spent time as a staff administrator at the Colorado Legislature with both the House and Senate Judiciary committees and conducted all of their non-partisan criminal justice research. That was my first introduction to adult corrections, as Colorado was going through a very serious prison boom at that point. On a personal note, my husband and I were trying to move back to the Midwest, but my husband received a great offer in his field here in Oregon, so we sort of "happened" upon Oregon and quickly fell in love with it. As you know, I started working for the Oregon DOC in 2004, and later became the Assistant Director and Inspector General.

 

I did an Inspector General's report on the Oregon Youth Authority, and soon thereafter, with mixed emotions, we left around Christmas in 2008 and went back to Minnesota. The intent was for me to be a stay-at-home mom, and the trip home was fantastic for a while, getting to see and be with family, but we found we missed Oregon. So when Gov. Kulongoski's office called a few months later and asked if I'd consider coming back to become the Director at OYA, we said yes. So we're back — we were only gone from December 2008 until July 2009 — and we're never leaving!

 

It was such a privilege to run that organization, as you know, because AFSCME is involved in the field there. It had its trials and tribulations, but OYA is filled with incredible people. Those folks worked to rebuild that agency and its reputation, and they're now one of the most progressive, well-run Corrections agencies in the country. So I was proud to be a part of that, and then when Gov. Kitzhaber asked me to come back to DOC as the Director, I must say it felt like I was coming home, and it most definitely feels like a privilege ... and so, here we are.

 

Loving: So, I know the DOC has its mission statement, which talks about promoting public safety, holding offenders accountable and reducing the future risk of crime. But what's your vision for the DOC?

 

Peters: My vision for the Department of Corrections is to really build on the great work this agency has been doing for decades. The Oregon accountability model is our business strategy, and it's one I'm really proud of. I think that we do corrections uniquely and differently than many of our counterparts across the country in that we engage with the offenders in our care and custody. So while they come to us for accountability and punishment, and we keep the public safe by keeping them confined to the prisons, our focus really needs to be on that second half of the mission: what do we do to prepare them for re-entry? Because, as a former victim advocate, while I can't prevent the victim that was created when they came to us, I do think we can prevent future victims. And so that's what a lot of the latest reorganization was about. We looked at everything that works in corrections, and we know today so much more about what works in corrections than we knew 20 years ago. And the things that work are programming and treatment — cognitive behavioral therapy, alcohol and drug treatment, education, work-based education, vocational and industries training, inmate services, religious services, victims services. Things that connect us to community and family.

 

And so when we created the new Offender Management and Rehabilitation Division, that is, Don, what we really had in mind, I wanted to bring all of that together — a line of resources to come up with a very clear vision for that part of the business that we do in hopes that we tee up those offenders in a more successful way to hand off to our community corrections team and partners. So that's why we created that new division and why we took community corrections and raised it up as its own division to really create that three-legged stool of the Operations Division, Offender Management and Rehabilitation and Community Corrections.

 

So it's my hope that while [the East Coast research agency] the Pew Center on the States touts us as having one of the lowest recidivism rates in the country, we can take that down even further. When you look at things like visiting, for example, there was a 10-year study that came out of Minnesota that was a substantial study on what impacted recidivism. And while all of those things that you and I know work — all of the kinds of programs I just itemized a few moments ago — do you know what the single highest factor in the reduction in recidivism was? Visiting! It was visiting. And it didn't matter if it was family, it was did they receive visitors from the outside while they were on the inside? So now I've asked, how many of our offenders in custody receive no visiting? It's 59 percent. We have 59 percent of our inmates that receive no visiting whatsoever. And for all intents and purposes, absent the staff we need to secure the visiting room, that's "free" [treatment].

 

So I'm looking at what are we doing that prevents visiting? What am I doing that's putting a barrier in place to families and communities? How much of it is geography here? Two-thirds of our offenders are housed east of the mountains. What about our policies? We've traditionally very much thought about nuclear families, we haven't expanded it to that great aunt or great niece. And then, I would really like us as an agency to reach out to the business community, the communities of color, the communities of faith and say, "We can't do this alone — we need you to be engaging with these offenders." Ninety-three percent of them are coming back to our communities, and what do we want them to look like? So I think that [93 percent] is such a compelling figure, and our folks work so hard to keep our prisons safe and they do it so well. I think we have, knock on wood, some of the safest prisons in the country. That's because of our staff. They implement the management plan, they engage these offenders, they treat them respectfully and they do it in an incredibly difficult environment with the most violent Oregonians that we have. So it's really compelling to me to inherit a system that works and that we can make even more progressive on the programming and treatment side.

 

Loving: I know our members have been concerned that we have cut a ton of programming money over the years from the DOC budget. It sounds like you're ready to advocate to get some of that money restored?

 

Peters: First off, I'm proud that Oregon held on to at least some alcohol and drug treatment and other programming dollars; many other states didn't during this recession. But absolutely, I'll be advocating for additional dollars. I think not only do those program dollars help inmates' re-entry, they also help keep our prisons safe, right? If these folks are engaged in programming and treatment and education while they're inside our prisons, then they're not causing trouble.

 

Loving: Do you have a particular management style our members may want to be aware of?

 

Peters: Yeah, I really try to focus on four leadership principles. They are communications, building relationships, focusing on individuals and being kind. So as simple as those are, Don, they are very important to me and I really try to focus on them every day. I think in government we often don't communicate very well, so one of the things I'd like your members to know they can expect of me is over-communicating rather than under-communicating ... and just being as transparent as possible. I really believe in building relationships. I want to get out into at east one prison every month during my tenure as the Director and really get to know our employees and what their needs are and what's working and what's not working. It's really important for me that when we're making big policy decisions, whether it's budget cuts or changes in policies or rules, that we really think about how that is going to impact that front-line staff member. How is it going to impact that counselor inside the belly of one of our prisons? Because I really believe if we make policy decisions that are good for the aggregate and good for that individual person, we're making the best policy decisions. And then lastly, that whole idea of kindness. I think it's so incredibly important as a leader to operate with that in mind, and so your members can certainly expect that of me as well.

 

Loving: So that's a good segue into what I wanted to ask you next. Inevitably, there's going to be some disagreement between management and labor — it's at least partially set up as an adversarial relationship. Yet in the big picture, AFSCME likes to think of ourselves as a partner with the Department of Corrections. We're one of your great champions, as you know, at the Legislature for the DOC budget, for example. So what's your view on the relationship between the DOC and our union?

 

Peters: I feel the same way about this being a partnership. I had the privilege of working with AFSCME in the Department before, and I am quite proud of the collaboration and the working relationship we had. I'm very thankful that collaboration followed me to the Oregon Youth Authority, where we were able to build on that relationship and further those efforts while we were there, and I certainly felt welcomed by AFSCME when I returned back to DOC, so I appreciate that. I think you're right — I think it is a collaboration. I think there's an inherent, healthy tension between management and union. I think we do serve different roles as we move forward in developing policy or developing budget. But at the end of the day, Don, I think that we want absolutely the same thing — you want what's best for your members, I want what's best for our employees, and it's just really figuring out the path to get from Point A to Point B. I think that AFSCME's reputation and credibility is quite strong, both in the governor's office and at the Legislature, so I recognize that partnership is crucial to our success.

 

But I think it's really important for your members to know how much support they get from AFSCME executive leadership and local leadership and that you really do play an important role. You hold our feet to the fire, you push back when you think we're heading down a path that isn't going to benefit our employees and that we then listen and have that conversation and really engage in that collaboration.

 

Loving: Tell me something about Mary [Botkin, AFSCME's longtime Corrections lobbyist].

 

Peters: She's nothing but trouble! {Laughs.} OK, strike that I guess — but tell her I said so!

 

Seriously, I've had the privilege of working with Mary since I started at the Department in 2004. I was the public affairs administrator at the time, so Mary and I spent time stomping the halls of the capitol together, mostly in agreement, sometimes not, but I think it's important for your members to know she advocates very strongly for your membership and for the agency at large.

 

Loving: So, after we scheduled this meeting, I've since been out and around in some of the institutions and I've told members, "Hey, I'm going to sit down with Colette on June 28, is there anything you'd like me to ask her?" Obviously I got a wide variety of responses, but three things kept coming up. One you can't do anything about — the idea of some sort of bridge insurance to get folks from DOC retirement to Social Security. That's a bigger, state bargaining type of issue. The other two are staffing levels — our folks are concerned the institutions are still understaffed, particularly on graveyard shift, and they're concerned about what they see as a preponderance of management "double-dippers." How do you respond to those two concerns?

 

Peters: OK, let's first talk about staffing. I really want to let folks know that I recognize the challenges that we've pushed folks with as it relates to staffing, but also as it relates to their employment. They have some of the highest stress jobs there are, that's certainly been documented. The Oregonian highlighted the stress levels of our staff in an article a few weeks ago. We face the highest levels of anxiety, depression, symptoms of PTSD — and then we ask more of them. We haven't reviewed our relief factor in over 10 years. We've thrown furloughs at them, we have not given them pay increases, we're asking them to contribute to their health benefits, and all the while, they're dealing with the Great Recession at home. So I recognize the stress that we're putting on folks, and it concerns me. So I want you and the members to know we are reviewing the relief factor, to see if there's potential for us to be able to have a conversation with the Legislature where we can right-size that for two reasons. One, because of the stress it puts on staff, and two, because of the overtime factor. We have folks looking at the numbers right now, but I've got to believe that if we can right-size that relief factor, we'd see a positive impact on our overtime.

 

I'm so glad you mentioned the other topic, because I received an anonymous letter this week from an employee frustrated with a double-dipper in management, and because it was anonymous I didn't have a venue to get back to that person, which was unfortunate for two reasons. One, I would really like to stress to that employee — and to all of your members — that I have an open door policy. They can call me, they can send an e-mail, they can come visit me any time. We have had an open door policy in this agency for decades, and I will continue it. I had one as the Inspector General. So it's sad for me to get an anonymous letter, first of all. But secondly, on the topic of these double-dippers, I think there are some misperceptions out there around that issue. When you have individuals who have been with the agency for years in whatever role, represented or management, they have a significant amount of historical knowledge and assets they bring to the agency. And when you hire someone who has already retired and comes back to the agency for a short period of time — or long term, in those counties that have a population of 45,000 or less [as per state law] — it actually saves the state money. I don't think we do a good job of communicating that to our staff. And so it actually is a cost-savings mechanism. I think staff often see the total amount that employee is going home with — their retirement and what we're paying them now, but it's actually a cost savings measure for the state, as compared to actually hiring that new high level executive, for example.

 

Loving: I have what borders on being a personal question here, and I trust you won't be offended or take it the wrong way. But let me just throw it out here. Certainly we have female corrections officers and an entire women's prison at Coffee Creek. That said, generally speaking corrections is an environment that is male-dominated — some would go so far as to say "testosterone-driven" — on both sides of the bars. You are a relatively young woman, and an attractive woman. Has that ever been an issue or a hindrance to you in your career?

 

Peters: I think I've been fortunate. I did not have to push as hard as some of my female colleagues did. I give credit to my female colleagues that led the way in corrections. I will tell you first that I think it's an honor to be the first female Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, but with that I think comes great responsibility. I think it's every leader's responsibility to hire the best, the brightest and most diverse workforce, but I think that bar is raised for me as the first female Director. So I'm working very hard with the assistant director of HR to ensure that we're recruiting, training and preparing succession planning for women and minorities who are in the agency.

 

To get to your direct question, has it been a hindrance, I think I've seen more acceptance than one would think in this role. As I've moved up in the ranks there are certainly stories I could share with you where I think my being a woman in my position was sort of hard for other people to process through, but I would say I have been more privileged than not in the opportunities I've been given. And I'll say, it has been because of women who have come before me, but also men who were open to allowing that first [female] correctional officer to walk the tier as their equal partner. Overall, I think we've come a long way in Oregon, but we've got a long way to go.

 

Loving: The last thing I want to ask here in the time we have is simply if there's anything else that we haven't covered you'd like to communicate to AFSCME members?

 

Peters: It is a privilege to represent them. I feel like I work for some of the greatest employees in the State of Oregon. The work they do every day is challenging, and yet they come to work every day to uphold that mission  — and I know it isn't for the pay. It is because they are public servants who "get" that they are trying to make change, and for me that is so incredibly rewarding. And so I think the last thing I would like your members to know is that I plan to continue to get out and get to know our employees, that the lines of communication are always open, they are welcome to contact me any time, and again, it's just a privilege to be working for them.