Eleven months after the Oklahoma Legislature approved a consent decree without a full proposal for meeting mandated benchmarks, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services has yet to submit a final strategic plan about improving competency restoration services for pre-trial detainees deemed unfit for prosecution.
Following unanimous March 2025 votes in the Oklahoma House and Senate, ODMHSAS entered into a consent decree to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged long delays for competency evaluation and restoration services violated defendants’ constitutional rights. U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell appointed paid consultants to monitor compliance, and their most recent report was released last week.
A central element of the agreement required ODMHSAS to present a strategic plan about how the agency will improve its services, but a report issued by court consultants in September said “nothing resembling” such a plan had been submitted. After a mediation session between ODMHSAS and the attorneys who brought the lawsuit, the consultants issued another notice Jan. 23 confirming that ODMHSAS still lacks an official plan.
“The original deadline for creation and initial implementation of the plan was June 8,” the consultants wrote Jan. 23. “As of the date of mediation, the plan required by the decree neither exists nor has it been implemented. While the department provided court consultants (though not class counsel) with a new draft plan at the end of mediation, and presented material relevant to it during the plenary session, the court consultants and parties will not be formally presented with the draft until Jan. 30.”
The consultant team consists of attorney John Petrila, psychologist Neil Gowensmith, Ph.D, and Dr. Darren Lish, a forensic psychiatrist. In their Jan. 23 report, the trio said “implementation of the decree has been very slow.”
“We recognize that implementation of the decree is a complex undertaking. At the same time, only one of the initial June 2025 deadlines in the decree was met on time, and as of the date of the mediation — 10 months after entry of the decree and seven months after these initial deadlines — progress is still halting. Many of the mandates in the decree are still not met — including, most importantly, the plan,” the consultants wrote. “We remain optimistic about the ultimate success of the decree, but we are unanimous in our view that the core issues in the decree must be addressed much more rapidly than they have been to date.”
ODMHSAS spokeswoman Maria Chaverri said in a statement Tuesday that the new report is still being reviewed by interim Commissioner Greg Slavonic, who has repeatedly said the consent decree constitutes his top priority.
“The work required under the consent decree is complex and will take time to complete,” she said. “ODMHSAS is continuing to review the court consultants’ input and apply it as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen the system and make sustained progress for Oklahomans.”
Paul DeMuro, the lead attorney for class members, said the state faces “a make or break moment for the consent decree.”
“We’re seven months past the court-ordered deadline to develop a plan, and it hasn’t gotten done. We’re only talking about less than 300 people at any given time,” DeMuro said. “It’s a complete mystery to me why the department is not devoting sufficient resources to get this done.”
Chaverri confirmed that ODMHSAS is “in the process of hiring a dedicated position to coordinate consent decree compliance efforts.”
But as fines rack up for the agency’s noncompliance with the decree, DeMuro said Oklahomans’ constitutional rights remain in jeopardy.
“It’s a situation where things are getting worse and not better, and the evidence is compelling at this point that the department is not abiding the court’s order,” DeMuro said.
On Dec. 10, DeMuro and his fellow attorneys filed a “notice of issues” that formed the basis for the Jan. 13 mediation. From that meeting, the consultants issued findings and recommendations for ODMHSAS related to eight aspects of the consent decree:
- The strategic plan;
- A pilot program for jail-based competency restoration services;
- The validity and reliability of data provided by ODMHSAS;
- Training for legal stakeholders and staff related to competency restoration;
- Training, approving and monitoring qualified forensic examiners to conduct competency evaluations;
- Providing adequate responses to the court consultants when information is requested;
- Appointing a specific individual at ODMHSAS to oversee the decree’s implementation; and
- Reevaluating individuals awaiting competency restoration services.
The consultants acknowledged ODMHSAS’ progress on some topics, namely the introduction of qualified forensic examiners, staff training and responsiveness to questions. While the consultants made relatively few recommendations related to those items, they called for an independent audit to assess the validity and reliability of ODMHSAS’ data, which was revealed to be incomplete at best during an Oct. 3 hearing in Oklahoma County District Court.
But delays regarding the long-awaited strategic plan, characterized as the decree’s “cornerstone” in the consultants’ Sept. 26 report, received significant attention and criticism.
“ODMHSAS has not used ‘best efforts’ in creating and implementing the plan (…) nor has ODMHSAS engaged in the required consultation with class counsel and court consultants,” the consultants wrote. “A failure to use ‘best efforts’ constitutes a material violation of the decree.”
Court consultants: ODMHSAS had ‘no sense of urgency’ last spring
The consultants constructed a timeline of the strategic plan’s development in last week’s mediation report.
On June 6 — days after the Legislature removed Allie Friesen as commissioner and Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed Slavonic to lead the agency — ODMHSAS submitted a purported plan. However, the consultants reported that “none of those documents, individually or as a whole, met the requirements for development and implementation of the plan required by the decree.” On Aug. 12 — two months into Slavonic’s tenure — the agency submitted a new plan for review, but the consultants found it lacking again.
“We believe the plan has some good elements, but it is more of an assertion of past accomplishments and proposed policies than an actual strategic plan,” the consultants wrote Sept. 26.
The consultants also wrote that they perceived “no sense of urgency” from the agency between March and June, when Friesen was leading the beleaguered agency and a major budget snafu was spurring investigations. Underscoring the climate of Friesen’s administration, consent decree consultants even reported that agency staff had been advised not to speak with the consultants without legal counsel present.
“The consent decree was entered on March 10, 2025, after years of formal complaints and litigation. The department was not caught off guard by the entry of the consent decree or its requirements,” the consultants wrote. “It could have (and should have) made strong efforts to restructure and overhaul their services to align with the mission of the consent decree long before March 2025. From the information we have gathered, ODMHSAS chose not to make those efforts.”
In their latest update, the court consultants list a new reason for an increased sense of urgency: Oklahoma’s competency restoration waitlist is growing, not shrinking. The consultants reported the waitlist grew from 138 individuals on Nov. 10, 2025, to 218 on Jan. 13, with “no sign of this steady increase abating.”
“If unchecked, this increase will soon result in a waitlist at or exceeding the number of people on the waitlist when the decree was entered,” the consultants wrote.
‘This case is about the suffering of hundreds of individuals’
The court consultants held the mediation session as part of the consent decree’s dispute resolution process after the class counsel, led by DeMuro, moved for injunctive relief Oct. 13 in response to the consultants’ Sept. 26 report.
The September report noted evidence of hard work and good faith — offering Slavonic some grace owing to his short tenure — but the consultants still concluded that the agency’s shortcomings constituted “material violation” of the consent decree. The consultants said financial and injunctive relief were appropriate.
To that end, DeMuro filed for injunctive relief and expedited consideration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, summarizing the consultants’ full report in scathing terms.
“It was hoped that, under new leadership, defendants would appreciate the urgency of the situation. That hope was misplaced,” he wrote.
DeMuro emphasized the plight of those waiting to receive competency restoration care, the fundamental basis of the lawsuit. To do so, he quoted the court consultants’ September report.
“At its heart, this case is about the suffering of hundreds of individuals in county jails waiting for restoration treatment after being found incompetent to stand trial,” the consultants wrote. “Many of these individuals are acutely psychotic. They are confined to jail while they await access to care in often inhumane conditions spending much of their days in small cells without treatment, in circumstances that exacerbate their mental illnesses while increasing the risk of suicide, self-harm and victimization.”
But Frizzell, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit, denied the motion in November, writing that the class counsel should first go through the dispute resolution process.
“The continued delay in the provision of restoration treatment by the department should be and is of great concern to this court, as well as the general public. However, the department’s halting progress toward compliance with the consent decree’s requirements is not ‘an unforeseen combination of circumstances’ that requires immediate action by this court,” Frizzell wrote. “Having reviewed the briefs and other filings in this matter, the court concludes that the issues regarding the department’s compliance must be — and are best — first addressed through the decree’s dispute resolution process.”
Previous consultant reports outline ODMHSAS progress, delays
Months ahead of their first scheduled bi-annual report, the court consultants issued their first interim report June 13 “because of multiple events affecting the implementation of the decree that have occurred over the last few weeks.”
The “events” listed by the consultants included Friesen’s firing by the Legislature and the interim appointment of Slavonic, who initially indicated he might depart after six months but who now has signaled his intent to see ODMHSAS through the 2026 legislative session’s adjournment in May.
The consultants’ June report also noted the passage of HB 2785, a bill requiring the monitoring and approval of ODMHSAS expenses, and HB 2513, a measure requiring the designation of an ODMHSAS employee to implement the consent decree. (Stitt used the pocket veto to block HB 2513.)
The consultants also discussed a rash of suicides at the Oklahoma County Jail, fines levied by state judges for failure to provide timely restoration services and an increase in court-mandated competency evaluations.
The interim report addressed eight June 8 deadlines ODMHSAS had faced under the terms of the consent decree, along with a ninth item due at the start of the decree and a 10th with monthly deadlines:
- Reevaluate all class members waiting for restoration treatment;
- Develop and begin implementation of a plan to reduce competency restoration service wait times;
- Develop and begin implementation of a plan to increase new forensic beds dedicated to competency restoration;
- Develop and begin implementation of a plan to staff ODMHSAS with individuals qualified to oversee and analyze competency restoration services;
- Develop a “written triage screening protocol for class members (…) declared incompetent;”
- Develop and begin implementation of a plan to require all staff involved in competency restoration services to earn 12 hours of continuing education annually;
- Offer initial and periodic training to Oklahoma district court personnel, sheriffs, and members of the Oklahoma State Bar concerning competency evaluations and restoration;
- Develop and begin to implement a pilot in-jail restoration program at Tulsa County Jail;
- Submit all competency evaluations within 30 days of receiving a competency evaluation order; and
- Submit monthly reports to the court consultants and lawsuit counsel “accurately reporting the status of all class members then waiting for restoration treatment.”
In the June 13 interim report, the consultants listed six of the eight items due June 8 as “not met.” The only goal listed as being “met” was Item 6, which implemented continuing education for staff involved in competency restoration. Item 5, developing a triage screening for people declared incompetent, was listed as “partially met.” The ninth item was listed as “unknown,” while the 10th item was listed as “not met.” Consultants noted the agency’s first monthly report arrived in May with “fewer than one half of the required monthly elements.”
In their full report issued Sept. 26, the consultants provided status updates for the 10 items and noted whether they believed ODMHSAS was using its “best efforts” to implement each. The consultants found ODMHSAS has only offered “best efforts” for Item 6 and Item 10. The Item 10 goal was also listed as “met,” while Item 6 was listed as “partially met,” as the consultants noted many staff members still must undergo their continuing education.
In the Sept. 26 report, the consultants noted part of the barrier to crediting ODMHSAS with best efforts was the agency’s lack of communication. One of the consultants’ evaluation tools involves whether ODMHSAS “[responds] to requests for information from the court consultants,” a task with which the agency seemed to struggle. In that regard, ODMHSAS seems to have improved over the last five months.
In their Jan. 23 mediation report, the consultants noted “after change in executive leadership at the agency,” ODMHSAS is much more responsive, although “there are still occasions when requests for information receive no response.”
Read the consultants’ Jan. 23 mediation report
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://nondoc.com/2026/01/28/consent-decree-state-late-with-strategic-plan-service-waitlist-sees-steady-increase/&media=https://nondoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ODMHSAS-mediation-report.jpg&description=Court consultants say Oklahoma's mental health agency has made a "material violation" of a consent decree about competency restoration.){kind=link}