Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/27/2019 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Recidivism & Reentry by Laura Brooks, Deputy Director, Health & Rehabilitative Services, Department of Corrections | |
| Presentation: Alaska Doc Sanctions & Incentives by Michael Matthews, Research Analyst, Research & Records, Department of Corrections | |
| HB12 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2019
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Louise Stutes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA RECIDIVISM & REENTRY BY LAURA BROOKS~
DEPUTY DIRECTOR~ HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES~ DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: ALASKA DOC SANCTIONS & INCENTIVES BY MICHAEL
MATTHEWS~ RESEARCH ANALYST~ RESEARCH & RECORDS~ DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to protective orders."
- MOVED CSHB 12(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to
controlled substances; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; relating to reports of involuntary commitment;
amending Rule 6, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/19 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/19 (H) Moved CSHB 12(STA) Out of Committee
03/07/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/19 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7DP
03/08/19 (H) DP: VANCE, LEDOUX, WOOL, SHAW, STORY,
FIELDS, KREISS-TOMKINS
03/18/19 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/27/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LAURA BROOKS, Deputy Director
Health & Rehabilitation Services
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on Alaska recidivism and reentry.
MICHAEL MATTHEWS, Research Analyst
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on Department of Corrections
sanctions and incentives.
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered committee questions during the
presentation on sanctions and incentives.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
12.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
12.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:16 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Wool, Kopp,
Eastman, Shaw, Claman were present at the call to order.
Representative LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: Alaska Recidivism & Reentry by Laura Brooks,
Deputy Director, Health & Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Corrections
Presentation: Alaska Recidivism & Reentry by Laura Brooks,
Deputy Director, Health & Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Corrections
1:03:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation by Laura Brooks on Alaska Recidivism & Reentry.
1:04:53 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Deputy Director, Health & Rehabilitation Services,
Department of Corrections, began her PowerPoint presentation
[hard copy provided in the committee packet]. She addressed
slide 2, titled "DOC at a Glance." She said Alaska is one of
six states that operates a unified correctional system
encompassing both prisons and jails. She noted that some DOC
facilities function both as jails and prisons, which is to say
they house both sentenced and unsentenced/pre-trial offenders.
She said DOC operates 12 jails/prisons and 13 field probation
offices in addition to overseeing 15 regional/community jails
and 7 contract community residential centers (CRCs), known as
"halfway houses." She also mentioned DOC's electronic
monitoring program.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 3, also titled "DOC at a Glance."
She said DOC booked approximately 20,000 unique individuals into
its facilities in 2018, resulting in approximately 31,000 total
bookings. She shared that, as of December 31, 2018, DOC
oversees 4,437 offenders in jail or prison, 69 percent of which
are felons and 45 percent of which are unsentenced. She pointed
to statistics indicating that DOC oversees 3,547 offenders on
probation or parole, 967 offenders on pretrial supervision, 230
offenders in CRCs, and 167 offenders on electronic monitoring.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 4, titled "Demographics (July 1,
2018)," which featured pie graphs measuring DOC population by
gender and by age. She said about 90 percent of DOC's
population is male, which is typical when compared to other
states. She noted that DOC's fastest-growing population is
individuals 50 years-of-age and over; they make up approximately
20 percent of the total population. She added that DOC has
faced significant challenges related to an increasing juvenile
population.
1:07:22 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 5, titled "Recidivism." She said the
statutory definition of "recidivism" includes not just new
crimes but also probation/parole violations. She established
that a recidivist is a felon who returns to DOC custody on a
felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction, or probation
violation.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 6, titled "Alaska Recidivism Rates,"
which featured a line graph measuring recidivism rates by
calendar year. She explained that recidivism data is gathered
so as to cover the three years following an individual's
release; she said this is the national standard for calculating
recidivism rates. She reported that recidivism in Alaska has
been trending downward [to 61.33 percent for those released in
2015]. She attributed the decrease to a number of factors
including an aggressive shift in recent years to evidence-based
practices and assessment tools. She detailed the process
through which DOC identifies moderate- and high-risk offenders
who require more attention and resources. She spoke to reentry
programs that have developed over the past dozen years. She
also discussed community partnerships enabling DOC to oversee
"warm handoffs" so that releasees receive assistance in finding
employment and housing. She noted that a study of 30 states by
the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice
Statistics established a national recidivism rate of about two-
thirds. She said this means Alaska's recidivism rate is
significantly below the national level.
1:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, referencing the graph, noted a steep
decline beginning in calendar year 2013. He asked if this
accounted for individuals released in 2016.
MS. BROOKS said the population to which he refers consists of
those released in calendar year 2013. The data by which the
population's recidivism rate is measured was gathered in 2016.
CHAIR CLAMAN said it helps to annotate the x-axis to account for
the timespan. For example, he said, he amends "CY2015" to read
"CY2015-2018" so that he remembers it reflects the post-release
conduct of those released in 2015.
1:11:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if Ms. Brooks has any idea as to the
causality of the drop beginning in 2013.
MS. BROOKS said she cannot speak to true causality. She noted
that there was a major overhaul in DOC programming and
facilities starting in 2013 and 2014. She said it was during
this time that the department started looking at evidence-based
practices and revised curricula.
1:12:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if she could provide the committee
with raw recidivism numbers [as opposed to percentages]. He
suggested that recidivism rates could be decreasing because, in
a time of higher crime rates, criminals have a lower chance of
being caught in a larger pool of criminals.
MS. BROOKS said that is not something DOC has researched. She
said it is not something she can speak to.
1:13:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there is any anecdotal evidence
regarding what happens to inmates once released? He asked
whether DOC knows if "they're going straight" or if "they're
leaving town."
MS. BROOKS asked for clarification and whether he is asking
about reentry planning.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN rephrased his question by asking if DOC
knows what happens to releasees after they leave custody.
MS. BROOKS said that depends. She noted that only about 25
percent of those released from custody end up "on paper" via
probation and parole. She said DOC "[makes] referrals" for the
other 75 percent of releasees but does not have someone assigned
to follow those individuals.
1:14:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification regarding the 75 percent
figure. He asked if those individuals released not on probation
or parole include misdemeanor convicts, or just felons.
MS. BROOKS answered she believes that figure includes both
felons and the misdemeanor population but would have to double-
check.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for verification that recidivism data is
limited to those released on felonies. He noted that this is
both practical and stipulated by statute.
MS. BROOKS answered that is correct. She said the misdemeanor
population is in DOC custody for a very short period of time,
which makes data collection difficult.
1:15:57 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 7, titled "Recidivism - By Offense
Type," which featured two pie graphs. One graph measured the
reasons for reincarceration within six months while the other
measured reasons for reincarceration within three years. Ms.
Brooks said approximately 58 percent of those who return to
custody within six months and 46 percent of those who return
within three years are reincarcerated for technical violations
of probation or parole. She said the most common probation
violations within six months are alcohol use, drug use, and
failure to report. She noted that those not accustomed to being
on probation or parole are more likely to commit technical
violations. She spoke to the importance of identifying signs of
unwanted behavior so that controls can be tightened which may
include reincarceration - before it leads to a new crime and a
new victim.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 8, titled "Recidivism - New Crimes,"
which featured a line graph measuring the recidivism excluding
probation/parole violations. She noted that there is still a
downward trend of recidivism even when probation violations are
removed from the sample. She added that probation violations
are down about 15 percent over the last four years. She said 32
percent of recidivism occurs because of the commission of new
crimes, which includes both felony and misdemeanor offenses.
She reported that this is down 8 percent over the past four
years.
1:17:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, after receiving confirmation that the 2015
data point includes data through 2018, asked if there is any
reason to believe the trend is continuing.
MS. BROOKS responded that DOC is continuing to improve year
after year. She said DOC makes arrangements to ensure the trend
continues.
1:18:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the graph on slide 6 included a longer
timespan than the graph on slide 8. He asked whether a longer
range of years for the graph on slide 8 would offer any new
insight.
MS. BROOKS said DOC could run the numbers and submit the
requested graph to the committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested that all the graphs be extended to show
trend lines beginning in calendar year 2006.
1:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mused that the recidivism statistic covers a
broad spectrum of acts that include relatively innocuous
technical violations such as drinking in a bar. He said it is
unfortunate the much-discussed recidivism rate statistic
includes probation/parole violations. He noted that he has
advocated for less restrictive probation/parole conditions and
that adjusting those conditions could lead to a lower recidivism
rate.
1:20:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if everybody who leaves prison on
parole or probation, regardless of offense, is prohibited from
drinking alcohol.
MS. BROOKS said it is a decision of the court or parole board.
She said she is unsure of the formula used to levy restrictions
on probationers and parolees.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the standard condition of parole is
"obey all laws." He said a substance restriction is typically
added if drugs or alcohol are likely to have been involved with
the original offense.
MS. BROOKS said that is correct. She noted that 80 percent of
DOC's inmate population have drug or alcohol issues. She said
an alcohol restriction is a common requirement.
1:21:58 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 9, titled "Felony Recidivism," which
featured a line graph measuring the percentage of released
felons returning to custody for a felony. She reported a
decrease in felony recidivism from 25.59 percent in 2011 to
20.42 percent in 2015.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 10, titled "Recidivism by Offense
Class," which featured a table comparing recidivism rates by
offense class from 2013 through 2015. She said recidivism is
down in all categories except for offenses against a person and
weapons offenses. She pointed to a category called "PUBLIC
ORDER/ADMIN" and said it includes refusal of a DNA test,
hindering the prosecution, and similar offenses. She noted that
"DRIVING/TRANSPORT" and "ALCOHOL" are separated on the table,
and that driving under the influence (DUI) is included in the
alcohol category. She said the driving category refers to
things like reckless driving, vehicular manslaughter, and
driving without a license.
1:23:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to what Ms. Brooks attributes the
disparity in recidivism trends between certain offense classes.
MS. BROOKS said it is difficult to determine causal
relationships with this type of data and that more study would
be required to answer the question. She referenced recent
changes to programs aimed at sex offenders and suggested that
those changes may have contributed to the decrease in recidivism
for that category. She described the process through which DOC
identifies higher-risk offenders on whom to focus resources.
1:25:12 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 11, titled "Recidivism by Release and
Return Offense Class," which featured a table measuring the
original crimes and returned offenses of recidivists. She said
the data indicates that when individuals recidivate, they tend
to do so within the same offense class. For example, she said,
individuals released after committing alcohol crimes are much
more likely to return for an alcohol-related offense than any
other category of offense. She noted that the same applies for
those who commit property crimes.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 12, titled "Recidivism by Risk
Level," which featured both a table and graph measuring
recidivism by risk assessment. She said that those individuals
found to be higher-risk recidivate at a higher rate. She noted
that the data includes probation and parole violations. She
said DOC places higher controls on higher-risk individuals. She
restated the importance of interceding via probation violations
with medium- and maximum-risk offenders before the occurrence of
new crimes and new victims.
1:27:03 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 13, titled "When Are People Most
Likely to Return?", which featured a table measuring recidivism
rates by time since release from 2011 to 2015. She said the
highest risk of recidivism is within the first six months of
release, with 25 percent of releasees reincarcerated during that
timespan. She said if an individual is going to recidivate,
he/she is far more likely to do so within the first 12 months of
release. She said this data drives the focus of DOC's reentry
efforts on services for new and recent releasees.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 14, titled "Long-Term Returns," which
featured a graph measuring recidivism rates by years since
release. She said that the likelihood of returning to jail
decreases over time. She said the frequency of anti-social
behavior decreases over time as individuals stabilize, get
treatment, and learn how to conform behaviors to avoid technical
violations. She said DOC cannot attribute this trend to any one
reason but noted that less than 6 percent of its population
returned between years 6 and 10 of release.
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 15, titled "Reentry & Public Safety."
She said the current administration has made recidivism
reduction a priority and sees it as an important part of
addressing public safety issues. She said there are three
principles to effective intervention. The first is the
identification of individuals at the greatest risk of
reoffending. The second is the targeting of these individuals'
criminogenic needs. The third is the tailoring of a plan to fit
each offender.
1:29:41 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 16, titled "A Plan to Address Needs."
She explained that DOC's reentry plan begins upon admission.
She described how DOC assesses an inmate's criminogenic needs
throughout his/her incarceration so that a plan can be enacted
upon release. She listed the dynamic criminogenic needs
assessed by DOC that, when addressed, can reduce the likelihood
of recidivism. These include anti-social
values/belief/cognition, risky behavior, anti-social companions,
anti-social personality or temperament, anger management issues,
family and/or marital conflicts, substance abuse issues,
employment skills, education opportunities, and pro-social
leisure/recreation. She said that, once DOC has identified an
inmate's criminogenic needs, it can create a personalized
Offender Management Plan (OMP). She described an OMP as a
roadmap to determine how to approach individuals in custody.
She said an OMP document changes over time as the offender moves
through programs in the system and experiences behavioral
changes. She said the OMP is updated 90 days before release
with an eye to transitioning the inmate into the community. She
noted that an OMP follows an inmate into probation and parole so
that an offender's needs remain addressed after release. She
described DOC efforts to develop community supports for
releasees not supervised by probation or parole officers.
1:33:40 PM
MS. BROOKS addressed slide 17, titled "Reentry & Rehabilitative
Programs," which featured an exhaustive list of DOC programs.
She said all of DOC's programs are aligned on the same basic
premise: evidence-based practices help reduce recidivism. She
noted that reentry classes help inmates form a plan for what to
do once they "hit the streets." She said these classes help
inmates identify key needs such as obtaining identification,
healthcare, and employment. She described how faith communities
and mentoring programs help connect inmates to safe, sober,
social supports in the community. She noted that DOC's mental
health population is among its most vulnerable. She said about
65 percent of DOC's population have a mental health diagnosis
and that these individuals are nearly twice as likely to
recidivate. She spoke to the help offered to them by mental
health clinicians both in custody and in preparation for
reentry. She mentioned sex offender treatment programs both in
custody and post-release within various communities. She
described a relatively new telehealth treatment program that
allows sex offenders to remain in their communities instead of
requiring them to travel to a larger community like Anchorage
for treatment. She spoke to substance abuse programing
available to inmates and those within CRCs. She described the
work done by DOC's medical social workers to address individuals
with significant medical needs who will need to navigate the
medical system upon reentry. She addressed medication-assisted
treatment and a program that makes the drug Vivitrol available
to offenders upon release.
1:38:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how Alaska's current incarceration
rates compare to other states.
MS. BROOKS said she does not have that information with her but
would get back to the committee with it.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the table on slide 11. He
asked whether the data represented under "returned offense" is
based on arrests, charges, or convictions.
MS. BROOKS replied that it reflects convictions.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that a probation or parole violation does not
require a conviction, rather a finding that a violation that has
occurred.
MS. BROOKS confirmed this. She clarified that those violators
serve a sentence "on that probation violation."
1:39:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that recidivism rates are comprised
mostly of probation/parole violations rather than the commission
of new crimes. He asked whether this could be attributed to the
fact that it is easier to identify a violation than to prosecute
a new crime. He suggested that some recidivists may have indeed
committed new crimes, but those crimes would not appear in the
data because it was easier to incarcerate them on violations.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that it has been established that the rates
of probation/parole violations have been decreasing for a number
of years.
MS. BROOKS confirmed this. She said DOC is seeing a downward
trend in probation violations. To Representative Eastman's
question, she said she cannot speak to the prosecution process
for violations. She said that is a question for another
department.
1:40:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that an offender can have multiple
technical violations. He listed various examples of conduct
that could result in a violation. He said evidence shows that
the longer a person is on probation, the more likely it is that
he/she gets "caught up" in a rule violation as opposed to a new
crime.
MS. BROOKS confirmed this. She noted that the table on slide 11
considers the most severe issue involving a re-offender. She
clarified that when an individual recidivates on two technical
violations and a new misdemeanor crime, that person is
represented in the table as a misdemeanor violator.
1:42:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked about DOC's partnerships with
nonprofits and tribal entities with regard to reentry programs
such as transitional housing, job training, and job placement.
MS. BROOKS said DOC has expanded options over recent years. She
said the opportunities generated through partnerships vary
community to community based on available resources. She said
DOC understandably has more varied partners in Anchorage. She
noted that some smaller communities come together in unique ways
to address the needs of their returning citizens. She said DOC
is always reaching out for new partnerships. She added that DOC
recently hired a new reentry coordinator focused entirely on
this topic. She noted that probation officers and correctional
superintendents spend every day attempting to find the best ways
to facilitate warm handoffs
1:44:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the history of warm handoffs.
MS. BROOKS said warm handoffs have been happening in some DOC
programs for "a long time." As an example, she pointed to
decades of work by clinicians to help reintegrate DOC's mental
health population. She mentioned DOC's sex offender treatment
programs and noted that the goal is to ensure offenders have a
safety net upon return to their communities. She said that
safety net includes clergy, community elders, Village Public
Safety Officers (VPSOs), and others specially trained to deal
with released offenders. She connected the mission of probation
officers to the idea behind a warm handoff. She said DOC has
honed its focus on effective reentry in the last seven or eight
years.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled a conversation with a person
involved in a nonprofit organization focused on prisoner
reentry. She said this person told her that prisoners are often
released with little money and no place to go. She asked if
that person was giving her incorrect information.
MS. BROOKS explained that it is not feasible for DOC to ensure a
warm handoff for every releasee. She noted that DOC oversees
over 17,000 releases every year. She added that some people
cycle through the system so quickly that DOC is unable to
provide them with a thorough release plan, and that some people
who are offered a release plan elect not to take it.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what percentage of people released
from prison get a warm handoff.
MS. BROOKS said that is not something DOC tracks.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the committee could reach out to [Partners
Reentry Center] for information about its programs and how many
people it serves.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she would like to hear that.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would like to know what
percentage of people who receive a warm handoff end up
reentering the system.
1:48:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Ms. Brooks about the postsecondary
education opportunities available to inmates. He asked if they
are free.
MS. BROOKS said the education opportunities vary from facility
to facility. She cited the GED program, options for obtaining a
high school diploma, and opportunities to take college classes.
She said she does not think there is a charge but noted she is
not absolutely certain. She mentioned DOC's numerous trade
training and apprenticeship programs. She said DOC recognizes
it is important for individuals to have a skill and education
when they are released.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the process through which it
is determined in which facility an inmate will be housed. He
acknowledged the positives of keeping inmates close to their
community and family members. He noted that it could be
ineffective to send a recidivist back to a facility in which
he/she was previously housed.
MS. BROOKS said DOC has a classification unit that considers a
host of elements to determine placement. She noted that a
unified corrections system will have certain facilities that are
pretrial jails, like Fairbanks Correctional Center. She said
that once an offender is sentenced, he/she could be transferred
to a larger prison or, if his/her sentence is relatively short,
could remain at a facility like Fairbanks Correctional Center.
She noted that an inmate's security level can also impact the
decision regarding where he/she is incarcerated. She said there
are many variables in the classification process.
1:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP addressed the topic of warm handoffs. He
noted that those who are provided with reentry services have a
lower recidivism rate.
^Presentation: Alaska DOC Sanctions & Incentives by Michael
Matthews, Research Analyst, Research & Records, Department of
Corrections
Presentation: Alaska DOC Sanctions & Incentives by Michael
Matthews, Research Analyst, Research & Records, Department of
Corrections
1:52:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
a second presentation by DOC.
1:53:11 PM
MICHAEL MATTHEWS, Senior Research Analyst, Research & Records,
Department of Corrections, introduced his PowerPoint
presentation [hard copy included in the committee packet] and
said he would be discussing the recently-implemented system of
sanctions and incentives.
1:53:47 PM
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 2, titled "Understanding the Data."
He noted that the data to be presented is new and that DOC has
only been collecting it for about a year. He said the data has
not yet been thoroughly analyzed. He pointed out that he is a
research analyst and not a practitioner or policymaker.
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 3, titled "Sanctions." He defined
sanctions as actions by a probation officer in response to
negative behavior by an offender, including violations of
supervision conditions, which the probation officer wants to
stop or discourage. He said from January 1, 2017, through
February 5, 2019, DOC counted 21,403 sanction reports, 21,804
sanctions imposed, and 4,917 people sanctioned. He said that
amounts to about 4.4 sanctions per person.
1:54:53 PM
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 4, also titled "Sanctions," which
featured a table listing the types of sanctions and the number
of times each was imposed. He said the most common sanction was
a petition to revoke probation or parole (PTR).
CHAIR CLAMAN explained for the committee that a PVR [also found
on the table] is a probation or parole violation report.
MR. MATTHEWS confirmed this. He said the sanctions range from a
written warning to actual reincarceration.
1:55:42 PM
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 5, titled "Undesired Behaviors
Resulting in Sanctions," which featured a pie graph measuring
the frequencies of undesired behaviors resulting in sanctions.
He said the most common are drug- and alcohol-related behavior.
He clarified that the pie graph is his attempt at a distillation
of a wider spectrum of undesired behaviors. For example, he
said, the "drug/alcohol" category is comprised of positive
urinalysis tests, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other
related conduct.
1:56:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, referring to the graph, asked, "What is a PACE
violation
MR. MATTHEWS said, "PACE is a swift and certain violation." He
said someone with undesirable behavior is quickly incarcerated.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if PACE refers to a specific group of people
on probation/parole that is more intensely supervised.
MR. MATTHEWS remarked that it is a type of supervision but said
he does not know if it is more intense or not.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that another speaker later in the meeting
will be able to answer questions about PACE.
1:57:50 PM
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 6, titled "Incentives." He defined
incentives as responses to positive, prosocial behavior that the
probation officer wants to reinforce. He said verbal praise
makes up about 90 percent of all incentives. He stipulated that
this is new data and, after conversing with field officers, he
believes it is possible it could be underreported. He noted
that a lot of the incentives listed on slide 6 are ones that DOC
cannot pay for. He said it would be fantastic if someone were
to donate things like movie tickets or food coupons.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if DOC has any partnerships with
private and/or nonprofit organizations to provide those
incentives.
MR. MATTHEWS answered he does not know.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that question will be answered later in the
meeting.
1:59:32 PM
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 7, titled "Earned Compliance Credit
(ECC)." He explained how ECC works and that, for every month of
positive behavior while on probation/parole, 30 days are
deducted from supervision. He noted that once ECC is awarded,
it remains even if subsequent undesired behavior is exhibited.
He said that, from its inception on January 1, 2017, to March 2,
2019, 9,500 probationers and parolees have been eligible for
ECC. He added that, of those eligible, 7,823 were awarded ECC
at least once.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for some additional information about
how ECC is doled out.
MR. MATTHEWS said it is possible for individuals to earn ECC
beyond what is reflected on slide 7. He noted that the "ECC
earned" category on slide 6 reflects additional ECC awarded.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that ECC was part of the criminal justice
reform bills passed by recent legislatures. He noted that some
of the crime bills introduced during the current session dial
ECC back. He said, for instance, that instead of 30 days earned
for 30 days of good behavior, the award could be changed to 10
days. He said Mr. Matthews is not here to answer policy
questions, but rather to provide data to assist legislators in
making determinations.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether ECC gets automatically applied
or if it must be manually allocated.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the next slide might help with answering that
question.
2:02:42 PM
MR. MATTHEWS addressed slide 8, titled "ECC Award Rate," which
featured a pie graph and table. He said the slide compares how
many people were awarded ECC versus how many people were
eligible but not awarded it. He said it is approximately a 50-
50 split.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL rephrased his previous question by asking
whether ECC is awarded based on the discretion of the probation
officer or if it is automatic as long as "you didn't screw up
that month."
MR. MATTHEWS said he believes the awarding of ECC requires
active participation by probation officers.
2:03:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for confirmation that the data
reflects approximately 15,000 opportunities for ECC and
approximately 7,800 credits actually awarded.
MR. MATTHEWS answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there is a way to find out how
many violent reoffenders had previously benefitted from ECC.
MR. MATTHEWS said DOC can identify the offense that caused an
offender to become incarcerated and, if he/she gets released on
probation, whether or not he/she earned ECC. He asked if that
answers the question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was referring to a
scenario in which someone previously in custody gets released
and then recidivates on a violent offense. He asked if DOC can
determine how many from that pool of people were recipients of
ECC prior to reoffending.
MR. MATTHEWS, after clarifying the question, answered that DOC
could determine that.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that a more apt question would focus not
on whether a re-offending probationer earned ECC, but whether
he/she had been released from supervision as a product of the
ECC prior to a violent re-offense.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN concurred.
MR. MATTHEWS noted that ECC has not been in effect for a long
time so data on its long-range effects on recidivism will not be
available for a couple years.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that while ECC has not been around
for long, good time credit has.
2:07:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked a question about the populations
measured in the sanctions dataset versus the incentives dataset.
MR. MATTHEWS said each considers the same population. He said
some people eligible for incentives may be ineligible for ECC,
which could result in different cohorts.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that, since the populations are the
same, this means that there were half as many incentives awarded
as sanctions imposed. He mused that, with verbal praise making
up the majority of incentives, the incentives are rather sparse.
MR. MATTHEWS answered yes. He agreed that if verbal praise"
were removed from the incentives count, it would be drastically
lower.
2:09:34 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
explained that PACE stands for Probation Accountability with
Certain Enforcement. She said the program identifies offenders
who are more likely to violate probation and imposes stricter
and more intensive supervision. She said the PACE program was
modeled after [Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement]
(HOPE).
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for verification that PACE involves more
intensive supervision. He suggested that even a modicum of
violative conduct results in reincarceration.
MS. GOODE answered, "That is exactly correct. She noted that
those involved with PACE are aware that consequences are swift.
2:10:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about DOC efforts to include additional
incentives, noting that it is a relatively recent endeavor.
MS. GOODE said she cannot answer that precisely. She said
incentives are being used and that they are undoubtedly
beneficial.
2:11:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what percentage of people released
have an alcohol restriction.
MS. GOODE said she does not have that information at hand but
could find out for the committee.
2:11:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN repeated Representative LeDoux's question about
nonprofit and for-profit partners providing resources for use as
incentives.
MS. GOODE said DOC does have partners. She said many businesses
donate. She highlighted Subway's donations of gift cards. She
said other offerings vary based on the location. She stated
that the probation offices appreciate those types of donations.
2:12:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if it is true that DOC is planning to
allow PACE to sunset.
MS. GOODE said she is not absolutely certain about its status.
She noted there were still approximately 320 people involved
with PACE at the end of 2018. She mentioned that PACE is funded
by a grant.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that PACE is resource-intensive both
for probation officers and law enforcement but stressed that the
data shows it to be very effective when adequately funded. He
suggested the committee look into it.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Goode to get that information to the
committee by the end of next week so that it can inform
budgetary discussions.
MS. GOODE said she would do that. She shared that the PACE
program has a 55 percent success rate.
2:15:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN addressed the Level of Supervision/Service
Inventory (LSIR) form included in the committee packet. He
asked Ms. Goode to describe how the form is used.
MS. GOODE said the LSIR form is used to assess the risk of an
individual so that the probation office can determine the
necessary level of supervision.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested the LSIR form is like a prerelease risk
assessment tool.
MS. GOODE noted that the form is used after release in the
probation office.
2:16:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said DOC is supposed to issue regulations with
regard to the pretrial risk assessment tool. He requested an
update on the status of this process.
MS. GOODE said it has been determined that DOC under the prior
administration did not complete the regulations required by
Senate Bill 91 [Passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature] and other criminal justice reform bills. She said
DOC is currently working with the Department of Law (DOL) to
ensure the process is moved forward.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a timeline on when she thinks the
regulations will be ready for adoption.
MS. GOODE said she does not know yet but would get back to the
committee once she does. She said she hopes DOC will not be
forced to start over from the beginning.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested an update by the end of next week. He
thanked the presenters from DOC.
HB 12-PROTECTIVE ORDERS
2:18:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 12 "An Act relating to protective orders."
[Before the committee was CSHB 12(STA), version 31-LS0103\K.]
He announced that the committee would take up amendments. He
stated for the record that Legislative Legal Services has
permission to make any technical and conforming changes to the
bill.
2:19:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS0103\K.2, Radford, 3/18/19, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 10, following "section":
Insert ", if the petition alleges a change in
circumstances since the court's previous finding"
Page 2, line 15, following "section":
Insert ", if the petition alleges a change in
circumstances since the court's previous finding"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
2:20:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that Amendment 1 addresses a
concern raised by the court system. He said Amendment 1 relates
to the issue of a person denied a protective order renewal
returning immediately to the court to request reconsideration.
He explained that the petitioner would have to allege a change
of circumstance since the court's previous finding.
2:21:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the passage of HB 12 would
qualify as "a sufficient change in circumstance" for purposes of
this type of request. He clarified that changes in law could be
construed as a changing circumstance.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that it is conceivable, but he does
not know if it is possible. He noted that the petitioner,
regardless of whether his/her order has expired, would still
need to establish to the court that a protective order is
necessary.
CHAIR CLAMAN said Representative Eastman's query raises an
interesting question about for whom the new law would qualify as
a change in circumstances. He established a hypothetical in
which two people one whose protective order expired many
months prior and another whose order expired a few days prior -
claim the newly passed law as a change in circumstances.
2:24:11 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, said one concrete answer to that question can be
found in HB 12's applicability clause on page 2 starting at line
28. He said it stipulates that, should HB 12 become law, its
provisions would apply to all protective orders in effect on the
date of passage and all those issued after the date of passage.
He clarified that qualifying protective orders would be those
within 30 days of lapsing or those that have lapsed in the past
60 days. He addressed the hypothetical scenario in which HB 12
becomes law the day after a petitioner is denied a protective
order, and the petitioner returns the day after to request
reconsideration. He said a solution to that situation would
likely be at the discretion of the judge.
2:25:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:26:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-
LS0103\K.3, Radford, 3/26/19, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 10, following "section":
Insert "; or
(4) the petitioner appears telephonically at the
protective order hearing"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Amendment 2 would clarify that the
fact a petitioner is calling in telephonically is not a reason
to deny a protective order. He shared a personal experience in
which he accompanied a friend to a courthouse to deal with a
protective order issue. He said his friend was told by the
court clerk that her request would not be accepted if she was
not present in the courtroom to sign the necessary documents.
He explained that his friend, not wanting to confront her
abuser, left without being issued a protective order. He said
that people who are not able to or do not wish to confront their
abuser or attorney should not be disqualified from obtaining a
protective order.
2:28:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP shared that he has personally helped many
people obtain protective orders over the phone. He said he
believes there is nothing in Alaska law that prevents or
discourages telephonic applications. He noted that emergency
protective orders are almost always done over the phone. He
stated it is his understanding that ex parte orders, which are
for 20 days, are also routinely handled telephonically. He
called the amendment unnecessary.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman about the protective
order his friend was pursuing. He asked what kind of order it
was.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that it was a long-term order.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he is confused by Representative Eastman's
anecdote because the first protective order is typically an ex
parte order and requires no confrontation with the accuser.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that the situation he was
referring to was "a follow-up."
CHAIR CLAMAN said that there would typically be no new documents
to sign for a long-term protective order because those documents
get signed upon the granting of the ex parte order.
2:30:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, to Representative Kopp's comment, said
he would agree with Representative Kopp's assessment of
Amendment 2 if HB 12 dealt solely with ex parte protective
orders. He remarked that the broader nature of HB 12 may
require such an amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that telephonic appearances are allowed by
the Alaska Rules of Court. He said he shares Representative
Kopp's assessment that Amendment 2 is unnecessary.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he would support the amendment if he
felt it would do good or "enhance the process." He stated the
court system currently permits telephonic appearances for
emergency protective, ex parte protective orders, and long-term
protective orders.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL requested confirmation from the Alaska Court
System that the amendment is not needed.
2:32:27 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, said
Representative Kopp is correct that the court system routinely
hears and grants protective orders through telephonic hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, as HB 12 stands now, if the court
could deny a protective order based on the circumstance of a
telephonic appearance.
MS. MEADE answered that the court cannot deny a protective order
just because the petitioner is appearing telephonically and not
in person.
2:33:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that not allowing the respondent to
appear at a long-term domestic violence protective order would
run into constitutional issues about the confrontation clause.
MS. MEADE confirmed that the respondent is present at a long-
term order hearing for due process reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if a telephonic appearance would
not be permitted for a long-term order hearing.
MS. MEADE said a respondent could appear telephonically; he/she
has the right to appear. She noted that respondents sometimes
do not appear at all. Similarly, she added, the petitioner can
also appear telephonically at any hearing.
2:34:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she is confused about telephonic
allowances and requested clarification.
MS. MEADE apologized. She clarified that petitioners have the
right to appear telephonically at any hearing for any protective
order. She said respondents those accused of committing
domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault are not
typically notified about 72-hour or short-term protective order
hearings. She said respondents have a right to be "present" for
long-term protective order hearings and thus receive notice
because of due process requirements. She said respondents can
choose to be present telephonically. She noted that respondents
have the constitutional right to know a proceeding is occurring
against them because it could result in a grave consequence
against them.
2:36:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX considered that respondents do not have
the right in a long-term protective order case to confront their
accusers in person, as they would in a criminal case.
MS. MEADE answered correct. She said a protective order hearing
is not a criminal proceeding where the respondent is a criminal
defendant, so different protections apply. She clarified that
these hearings are civil proceedings. She added that due
process rights apply [for the long-term order hearings] and
respondents can opt to come and defend themselves. She noted
that respondents can do this by telephone. She said the
respondent does not have the right to insist the petitioner
appear for cross-examination.
2:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he feels Amendment 2 is necessary
because the language is of use to the public. He said it would
reassure and encourage people who may not be able to apply for
an order in person to still file the request.
2:38:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of Amendment 2. Representatives LeDoux, Wool, Shaw, Kopp,
and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was not
adopted by a vote of 1-5.
2:39:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 31-
LS0103\K.4, Radford, 3/26/19, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "for"
Insert "of or a contributing factor for granting"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 10, following "section":
Insert "; or
(4) the petitioner appears telephonically at the
protective order hearing"
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment would expand
the language of HB 12 so that if an act of stalking or sexual
assault was a contributing portion of the basis for a previous
protective order, that [an extension] could not be denied on
those grounds." He said the amendment would further protect
those in need of protective orders.
2:40:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that the amendment only adds
confusion. He noted that a protective order cannot be issued
without a probable cause finding that an act of stalking or
sexual assault has occurred. He pointed to the murkiness of the
amendment's language.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said, "I read [the amendment] five times and
then I got an interpretation of it, and I'm still confused."
MS. MEADE echoed the previous representatives' confusion about
the intent of the amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to clarify the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is concerned that the court could
potentially deny a protective order because an act of domestic
violence or stalking was a contributing factor rather than the
primary factor. He clarified that the amendment essentially
replaces the definite article "the" with the indefinite article
2:44:19 PM
MS. MEADE restated that protective orders get issued because a
court found there was "an incident" and there was "an act" of
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. She said the
court identifies the incident that was the impetus for issuing
the protective order. She said she is still unclear about what
might be considered "a contributing factor."
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that Representative Eastman has "done little
to lift the confusion."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reframed his explanation around a
hypothetical person coming to the court to fill out a request
for a protective order. He asked if that person is restricted
to listing just one incident on the form, or whether the person
has the right to list multiple reasons and incidences that may
have piled up.
MR. MEADE said she is beginning to understand his intent. She
confirmed that petitioners often list multiple incidents that
they want to rely upon at the hearing. She explained that
court-issued orders include checkboxes for each crime committed
by the respondent. If more than one box is checked, which is to
say there are multiple crimes that have provided the impetus for
the order, each would be treated as a basis for the order rather
than as "a contributing factor." She said the language of HB 12
as written already covers this situation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 3.
2:47:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 31-
LS0103\K.5, Radford, 3/26/19, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "for"
Insert "of or a contributing factor for granting"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 10, following "section":
Insert "; or
(4) the petitioner appears telephonically at the
protective order hearing"
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "for"
Insert "of or a contributing factor for granting"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "or"
Page 2, line 15, following "section":
Insert "; or
(4) the petitioner appears telephonically at the
protective order hearing"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Amendment 4 combines Amendments 2
and 3 and makes them applicable to each of the protective order
classes. He withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 4, citing
the committee's reluctance to adopt Amendments 2 and 3.
2:47:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 31-
LS0103\K.6, Radford, 3/26/19, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "for"
Insert "of or a contributing factor for granting"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 10, following "section":
Insert ";
(4) the petitioner appears telephonically at the
protective order hearing; or
(5) of the current geographic location of the
respondent"
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "for"
Insert "of or a contributing factor for granting"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "or"
Page 2, line 15, following "section":
Insert ";
(4) the petitioner appears telephonically at the
protective order hearing; or
(5) of the current geographic location of the
respondent"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the language of Amendment 5 deals
with geography. He established a scenario in which a petitioner
is denied a protective order because the court believes the
respondent, who has left the state, does not pose enough of a
risk. He argued that, given the ease with which the respondent
could travel from out of state to confront the petitioner, it is
important to clarify to the court that the respondent's
geographic location is not a reason to deny a protective order.
2:49:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN established a scenario in which a petitioner
requests a 6-month protective order against a respondent who is
imprisoned out of state and will continue to be incarcerated for
the next year. He asked why the court should not be able to
deny the request based on a lack of geographic risk.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the amendment would not limit that
situation because of the element of incarceration. He noted
that the reason for the denial would not be because the
respondent is out of state, but because the respondent is
incarcerated. He said courts would continue to be able to deny
orders for that reason.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP characterized the amendment as "a solution
in search of a problem. He noted that, to grant a protective
order, the court must establish that an order is necessary to
protect the safety of the petitioner. He said the court weighs
factors such as the type of crime committed, the identity of the
respondent, the respondent's location, and whether there is
currently an investigation. He validated Representative
Eastman's concerns about "a mobile society," but stressed that
the court is always tasked with determining the probability of
the petitioner being hurt. He suggested that the language in
Amendment 5 could confuse the court and interfere with its
"common sense application" of making causal determinations about
a petitioner's risk status. He opined that the amendment is
unnecessary.
2:52:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said if the argument holds that the court
can come up with its own justification based on common sense and
that it does not need the legislature to list out particulars,
then there is no purpose to supporting HB 12. He insisted that
there is value to putting this sort of language into statute to
encourage and inform people who may pursue protective orders.
2:53:59 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 5. Representatives LeDoux, Wool,
Shaw, Kopp, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5
was not adopted by a vote of 1-5.
2:55:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HB 12 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 12(JUD) was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:56:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.