Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/26/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB20 | |
| Presentation: Rearrest within 7 Days | |
| Presentation: Criminal Justice Reform in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 2019
1:45 p.m.
1:45:24 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Bill Sponsor; Stephanie Andrew,
Staff, Representative Geran Tarr; Carmen Lowry, Director,
Alaska network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault;
Susanne DiPietro, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial
Council.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Carly Wells, Sexual Assault Advocate, Fairbanks; Troy
Payne, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Justice Center, Associate
Director, Alaska Justice Information Center, University of
Alaska Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 145 PROPERTY CRIME; MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT TOOLS
HB 145 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN ALASKA
PRESENTATION: REARREST WITHIN 7 DAYS
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
1:46:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, BILL SPONSOR, introduced the
PowerPoint Presentation: "HB 20" and drew attention to a
handout, Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) 2019 Policy
Priorities, to help with context.
Representative Tarr provided some background information
beginning on slide 2. She explained there were two parts to
the bill. The first dealt with one of STAR's 2019
priorities. The second part of the bill was related to what
she referred to as the next phase of the rape kit reform.
She had started working on rape kit reform in the fall of
2014. At the time, she did not know the number of untested
rape kits there were in the state. The first step was to
complete an audit. She was able to get the audit into
another crime bill which was how she learned the state had
3400 untested rape kits. At the same time there was a crime
lab audit that that went into the bill. She had found some
problems with the way rape kits were handled through the
crime lab. For example, prior to the audit a chain of
custody system was not in place. The rape kits were
prepared in Anchorage and sent out to the over 200 law
enforcement agencies statewide but without any tracking
information. There was no way to know, once it left
Anchorage whether it was used, misused, or lost. As a
result of the crime lab audit, there was a new system in
place that had unique identifiers for each kit as it left
the crime lab in Anchorage, as it went out to a law
enforcement agency, and as it returned to Anchorage. The
kits would all be stored in Anchorage.
Representative Tarr continued that some other provisions
were part of HB 31. She explained that she had been working
with a national organization called the Joyful Heart
Foundation. They had what they called, "The Survivor Bill
of Rights." Some of the ideas had come from the foundation
and were ideas Alaska took into consideration. In HB 31 in
the prior year she included the victim-centered approach
which allowed an individual, after a sexual assault, two
options for submitting the kit. One was called an anonymous
report allowing the person to have the evidence collected
because of time sensitivity (the kit had to administered
within 72 hours of the event). She spoke of recently
hearing about a case that was thrown out of court because
they stated that it was not collected in a timely enough
fashion. Sometimes a person did not want to decide about
moving forward with the criminal portion, such as working
with law enforcement and going through the courts, because
of the trauma associated with the sexual assault. The
anonymous report allowed them to have the evidence
collected but be able to decide later. The other option was
the law enforcement report for an individual who was
deciding whether they wanted to move forward with
prosecution at the time the kit was collected.
Representative Tarr conveyed that the bill also required
training for all law enforcement professionals in sexual
assault response. Prior to HB 31 the statute only required
training on domestic violence. She wanted to make sure that
Alaska's law enforcement professionals had training on
both. The pieces that were not included and were a part of
HB 20 were a timeline established for testing and victim
notification once the testing occurred. She wanted to
provide the committee with context of all the pieces she
had been trying to incorporate. She was proud of all the
work on the issues over the past few years. Some
significant improvements had been made to how Alaska's
system worked.
Representative Tarr stated that she would skip over
sections 1, 2 and 3 and move to section 4 on slide 6:
"Section 4: Sexual Assault Examination Kits." She explained
that she wanted to establish the timeline for when the kits
had to be tested and a victim notification requirement. One
of the things she learned when she started working on the
issue was that some of the untested kits were multiple
years old. There were some that were more than a decade
old. She reported that in the court system sometimes kits
would not be tested until the cases went to court. The
delay could be a couple of years from the incident. She
conveyed how difficult it was for the victim to have to
wait. The bill established that the sexual assault
examination kits had to be sent to the crime lab within 30
days of collection. She had reached out to law enforcement
to make sure the timeline was not overburdensome. She
talked to the Alaska State Troopers and the Anchorage
Police Department and everyone confirmed that the timeline
was a good standard.
Representative Tarr reported that sexual assault kits would
also have to be tested within one year. When she started
looking into the issue, she discovered that the process was
taking an average of 18 months. Currently, the state has
reduced the timeframe to 10 months. She would like to get
to the place where 1 year became 6 months and 6 months
became 30 days. However, the state needed to work through
the process to build capacity first. She worked with the
crime lab and established that 1 year was more reasonable
than 6 months which was why she changed it. She wanted to
have some certainty. She furthered that when an individual
experienced sexual assault they knew when the kit was
collected, when it would go to the crime lab, when it would
be tested, and that the victim would be notified by law
enforcement that the testing was complete. With a process
and timeline in place it would help avoid retraumatizing
the victim. One of the unfortunate things that happened in
sexual assault cases was that if an individual wanted to
know what was going on with their case, they would have to
retell the story over-and-over which further traumatized
the victim.
1:53:27 PM
Representative Knopp clarified that the victim would be
notified within 2 weeks of testing which could take up to 1
year to be processed. Representative Tarr responded in the
affirmative. She added that currently there was no
timeline. She had confirmed with law enforcement 2 weeks
was a reasonable amount of time for them to receive the
test results and report back to the victim.
Representative Knopp asked how long it took to receive the
results once the kit was processed. Representative Tarr
replied that currently, the kits that were backlogged had
been sent out of state. She reported that part of
strengthening the capacity of the crime lab was to make
sure everything was happening in-state. Recent cases were
being processed in-state, and she wanted to keep it that
way. She wanted to make sure the timelines worked for the
current level of state staffing.
Co-Chair Wilson asked, for those anonymous kits, if there
was a data base that would show whether a person had been
involved in another potential crime. Representative Tarr
conveyed that it was her understanding that if a victim
chose to do an anonymous report, the kit would not be
tested until such time as they chose to have it tested.
There were circumstances in which a state prosecutor would
want to move forward with the victim in a Jane Doe
capacity. Under such a circumstance, if there was evidence
of a perpetrator of more than one crime, they might move
forward without requiring participation from the victim.
Co-Chair Wilson suggested there was not a current mechanism
that would allow evidence to be used without involving the
victim. Representative Tarr suggested that in the
circumstance presented by Co-Chair Wilson the survivor
could give permission to test their kit. She thought that
someone from the Department of Law could provide more
detail on the issue. She thought the circumstances could
move toward testing. It was different in that the victim
was granting their permission.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) would be present at the meetings over the
weekend and, the topic could be revisited.
1:57:46 PM
Representative Tarr turned to slides 7 and 8 dealing with
sexual examination kits. She referred to the Justin
Schneider case. One of the things that made it difficult to
move the case forward was losing contact with the victim.
When the case went into the court room it was a "He said,
she said" scenario, and there was no one to defend the
victim's side of the story. She indicated that when she
first started to address the issue, she wanted every kit
tested no matter the circumstances because of not wanting
to miss an opportunity to find evidence against a dangerous
person. However, the U.S. Department of Justice put out a
white paper about the importance of having a victim-
centered approach when doing the reforms which was the
reason for an anonymous report. Much of the time when an
individual chose an anonymous report initially, they later
chose to go forward. If an assault occurred in a community
with a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART), the team would
have a sexual assault nurse examiner, a police officer, and
an advocate present to avoid the victim having to tell
their story multiple times. Alaska had a very fragmented
system for the SART, only 6 communities in Alaska had them.
She reemphasized that depending on where a person lived,
the overall experience could be very overwhelming and could
result in a person choosing to remain anonymous.
Representative Tarr continued to slide 9: "Section 7:
Sexual Assault Examination Kits." She explained that the
audit report was included in members' handouts. The
information helped to understand what was happening with
the backlog and prosecutions and to further improvements to
the system. In working with some advocates, there was
interest in understanding why some of the kits were not
tested. The sections added language that identified three
categories needed. She read the slide:
Title 44: State Government
Chapter 41: Department of Public Safety
Section 70: Report on Untested Sexual
Assault Examination Kits
Amends 44.41.070 to add a new subsection (e) to read
A sexual assault examination kit is ineligible for
testing if the law enforcement agency or state
department finds that the sexual assault examination
kit
(1) was collected improperly
(2) is not necessary to identify the perpetrator
of the crime; or
(3) was collected from a person who does not wish
to proceed with criminal charges.
Representative Tarr highlighted the second item on the
list. She indicated it was important because sometimes the
kits weren't tested. In some instances, the identity of the
individuals involved were known, but consent was in
question. She furthered that in states where they had
conducted the testing, they found more serial offenders
than expected. For example, in Detroit, they found hits in
the DNA database in 39 other states. She had been told that
it would not be difficult to integrate the additional items
into the audit reports that were already being prepared.
2:01:59 PM
STEPHANIE ANDREW, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, noted
that the language had changed slightly in the most recent
version of the bill. The criteria included the kit was
scientifically unviable, did not meet eligibility
requirements for the inclusion in the CODIS [Combined DNA
Index System] database, and was collected from a person who
wished to remain anonymous. The concept was the same as
what Representative Tarr had discussed from the first
draft. However, the language was the same as the language
used by DPS in their report to the legislature.
Representative Tarr asked members to pull up the document
listing the Star priorities. She relayed that the committee
would be hearing public testimony from representatives of
STAR and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault. She drew attention to the first policy priority
which was to rename "Sexual Assault in the Second Degree"
to "Sexual Contact with or Penetration of an Incapacitated
Person." The first priority was related to the second
priority, rewriting the consent definition. The current
consent definition in Alaska's statute suggested that force
had to be used.
Representative Tarr elaborated that there were
circumstances where a person was incapacitated. Therefore,
there were no visible signs of force. When such cases went
before a jury, the jury was often left thinking an incident
was not sexual assault because they did not see visible
signs of force. STAR wanted to strengthen the definition
for sexual assault in the second degree to address the
issue. The suggestion on STAR's list was rejected by
Legislative Legal Services because sexual assault in the
second degree contained more than the piece about
interaction with an incapacitated person. They did not want
to redefine the entire category of sexual assault in the
second degree. Instead, they wanted to update the language.
Representative Tarr asked members to look in the bill in
the sections regarding sexual assault in the first, second,
and third degrees. She drew attention to page 1, lines 13-
14 of the bill which she read. By removing the words "the
offender knows" the default was what a reasonable person
should know. The grey area of how much a person knew or did
not know was removed. The issue was addressed in the
current bill and in the Senate's version, SB 35. There were
3 or 4 iterations of the language. She suggested the
language was what everyone had landed on and was the
cleanest version to tighten things up. The language was
repeated in Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3.
Representative Tarr mentioned that there were folks online
that could answer questions. She noted working with Senator
Hughes on the definition of consent.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated there was invited testimony. She
also indicated the committee would be hearing public
testimony the following day at 3:30 P.M.
2:07:48 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
and SEXUAL ASSAULT, reported that the entity had been
talking about the bill extensively for a long time
particularly because Representative Tarr had been involved
in the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). It was an
initiative supported by the state to address the backlog of
sexual assault kits. She highlighted how victim-centered
the bill was. It allowed for victims to be very clear on
what would happen. She indicated that the sections clearly
outlined the timeframes. The kit went to the crime lab
allowing a certain amount of time for processing. Law
enforcement had a certain amount of time to get the
information back. Knowing the time perimeters were critical
to allow a victim to understand that they were being
treated with respect and their kit was being treated with
respect. She returned to what had been discussed earlier
about anonymous testing. She relayed that for a person who
went to a hospital to get a sexual assault exam, it was
sometimes difficult to make a life altering decision to
move forward with reporting. She was thrilled that victims
could get health care and have a trained medical provider
to explain the forensic exam. They could also have an
advocate present. A victim could hold off making any
decisions until later. She thanked Representative Tarr and
the committee for the opportunity to speak on the bill.
2:10:58 PM
CARLY WELLS, SEXUAL ASSAULT ADVOCATE, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 20. She could not
stress enough the importance of passing HB 20. Alaska was
the highest in the nation for sexual assault in the middle
of an epidemic. She reported that the healing journey for
victims was long, painful, and difficult. Passing the
legislation would give a level of dignity back to someone
by knowing a timeframe when their kit would be processed
rather than it sitting on a shelf for an unknown period.
She argued that having a year would provide some peace of
mind. A victim would know they would not be receiving
multiple calls years later with the results, a frequent
occurrence to many victims nationwide. Passing the bill did
not bring extra costs in getting the kits tested and showed
how much the state cared about getting justice for the
victims in a reasonable timeframe. She stressed the
importance of passing the bill to avoid revictimizing
individuals and causing them undue trauma. She thanked the
committee.
Co-Chair Wilson asked members if they had questions for the
folks online. Seeing none, she indicated the committee
would set the bill aside.
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
^PRESENTATION: REARREST WITHIN 7 DAYS
2:13:50 PM
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that Mr. Payne was online.
2:14:03 PM
AT EASE
2:14:50 PM
RECONVENED
TROY PAYNE, PH.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, JUSTICE CENTER,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUSTICE INFORMATION CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), would
discuss an analysis that the folks at the Alaska Justice
Center had been doing on arrest data they received from
DPS. He provided a brief background of the Alaska Justice
Information Center and the University of Alaska Anchorage
Justice Center. He introduced the PowerPoint Presentation:
"Rearrest within 7 days."
Mr. Payne turned to slide 2: "Data Source." He indicated
that the analysis he was presenting used data that was
required by AS 44.19.645. The statute required that
agencies reported certain individually identified data to
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. The Alaska Judicial
Council would provide additional information later in the
presentation. Among the data required to be reported to the
commission were arrest and citation data as collected by
DPS and recorded in the arrest history repository for the
state.
Mr. Payne moved to slide 3: "DPS arrest and citation
Charge-level data." The Department of Public Safety data
had charge-level information on all felony arrests, felony
citations, misdemeanor arrests, and misdemeanor citations
covering a period beginning in July of 2014 through the end
of the calendar year of 2018. He noted that the data did
not include infractions, violations, and charges with no
arrest tracking numbers.
2:18:00 PM
Mr. Payne advanced to slide 4: "Methods." He reported that
what he received from DPS was a large table with several
columns. There was one record or row per charge. The table
contained 222,313 charges between July 1, 2014 through
December 31, 2018. Only a handful of fields were used to
collect data including an Alaska Public Safety
Identification Number (ASPIN) ID - the identification
number that uniquely identified a person. It was like a
Social Security Number but for interactions with the
criminal justice system. Other field uses for the analysis
included the arrest date, the arrest statute, and the
arrest tracking number which was a unique tracking number
attached to each arrest.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how many individuals were responsible
for committing the 222,313 charges. Mr. Payne would follow
up with the committee.
Representative LeBon asked him to include multiple repeat
offenders. Mr. Payne replied that the Alaska Justice
Information Center was actively working the data. He
encouraged members to make information requests related to
the analyses.
Mr. Payne continued to slide 5: "Methods: Calculate days to
next arrest." He explained that what his organization was
looking at was how many people were rearrested within a
short period of time. If someone was arrested in the
present day, he would be looking at whether they were
arrested within the following 7 days. That was the analysis
he was presenting in the committing meeting. He wanted the
broadest picture possible of individuals who were having
multiple engagements with the criminal justice system in a
very short period. He calculated the number of days between
an arrest and the next arrest for that person. He
determined whether it was 7 days or less and counted the
number of people who were rearrested for every week. He
would show the information plotted on a chart on the
following slide.
Mr. Payne turned to the chart on slide 6: "Number of people
rearrested within 7 days." He explained that the slide
started with the chart construction. He noted that the
chart started with only one dot representing the number of
people that were arrested in a specific week then
rearrested within 7 days.
Mr. Payne advanced to slide 7: "Number of people rearrested
within 7 days." The number of arrests each week were
plotted on the chart. Moving forward in time there was a
scatter of dots over time. He reiterated that he was
looking at the number of people who were rearrested within
7 days of an initial arrest overtime." He indicated the
chart did not show much difference in the period that he
had on the data prior to criminal justice reform (from July
2014 through July 2016), the period between criminal
justice reform SB 91 [The omnibus crime legislation passed
in 2016] and SB 54 [Legislation passed in 2017 regarding
crimes, sentencing, probation, and parole], and the period
after SB 54. There was a variation but there was not that
much difference in the period prior to criminal justice
reform compared to the period after criminal justice
reform.
2:23:09 PM
Mr. Payne reviewed slide 8: "Number of people rearrested
within 7 days." The slide showed the same information as
the previous slide, but instead of using dots a line was
used. It helped to reinforce that there was not a
significant amount of movement of the line. The line was at
the same point prior to criminal justice reform as it was
after criminal justice reform.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the issue was people were
reoffending with 7 days of release. Mr. Payne interpreted
the data such that the phenomenon of people being arrested
and arrested again in a relatively short period of time,
was very real. He indicated that when he heard reports of
the phenomenon from law enforcement and prosecutors, it was
clear that the phenomenon occurred. The question he was
seeking to answer was whether there was a difference in the
number of folks for whom it was true prior to criminal
justice reform compared to after. He was seeing from the
analysis that there was not a difference after criminal
justice reform compared to before. To the extent it was a
problem, it had not worsened after criminal justice reform.
2:25:17 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston referred to page 4 showing more than
22,000 arrests. She asked if the public safety number was
an individual number. Mr. Payne replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Cahir Johnston asked if the arrest tracking number
went with the Alaska public safety ID number. Mr. Payne
responded affirmatively.
Vice-Chair Johnston wondered if the public safety number
was the way in which he tracked whether they reoffended and
in how many days. Mr. Payne responded in the affirmative.
He could identify that a particular person was arrested on
a certain date and that another arrest record existed for
the individual on another date. He was able to take the
difference between the two dates.
Vice-Chair Johnston suggested that it was easy to track
individuals because of the i.d. number they were assigned.
Mr. Payne responded, "That is correct."
Co-Chair Wilson thought he was saying that people were
reoffending with the new tool, but people were already
reoffending prior to the tool being in place. She asked if
her analysis was accurate.
Mr. Payne would not necessarily agree with her analysis. He
thought her analysis extended outside of the data he had.
He was looking at a narrow slice. He offered that the
number of people that were arrested and arrested again
within the following 7 days had stayed constant over the
period in which he had data.
Co-Chair Wilson asked where on the chart the Department of
Corrections (DOC) started using the tool that allowed more
people to stay out of jail. She thought the tool was first
applied in January 2018.
Mr. Payne responded that her question was very complicated
to answer. He relayed that January 2018 was when DOC
started using the pretrial risk assessment tool. The
pretrial risk assessment tool began being used in January
of 2018. He thought there were some reforms to pretrial
detention practices that occurred in 2016, and there were
changes made around the same time to the bail schedule set
within the court system. He was evaluating the accuracy of
the tool. There were several changes to pretrial detention
that occurred around the same time. It was very difficult
to attribute causation to any of them.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated that the committee was getting
ready to do a crime bill. She was frustrated with not
having the right kind of data. Based on the data presented,
the state still had an issue with people reoffending. She
had hoped the number would have gone down. She wondered
what she was not understanding.
Mr. Payne indicated his analysis was very narrow. He
expounded that if there were more folks being released
pretrial, he might expect there to be more people who were
rearrested. There were a couple of different ways of
interpreting the data. He suggested that if the state was
releasing more people pretrial, it was not impacting the
measure he was looking at. It was a complicated issue
because of the number of changes that had been implemented
in a short period of time. He reported that the pretrial
enforcement division did not really start operating until
2018. It was a large difference from prior practice. It had
not significantly impacted the number of people that had
been rearrested.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Payne why he showed the committee
the graph if no information could be gleaned from it, and
it was too complicated to understand.
Mr. Payne responded that he would not characterize it as
being too complicated. He thought that trying to attribute
cause was difficult. The reason he would be interested in
sharing results from an analysis was to ensure that policy
makers had the relevant information to make policy. He
continued that to the extent that the State of Alaska was
releasing more people pretrial, the claim was that more
folks were being arrested in a short time afterwards.
However, he was not seeing the claim in the available data.
Co-Chair Wilson remarked that the legislature could not
make good policy without understanding the cost.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about whether there was a
concentration of arrests during any one of the periods of
time [denoted on slide 7]. Mr. Payne replied that in
general, the analysis did not look at the number of people
arrested over time. The analysis specifically looked at
folks who were arrested within a period of 7 days on slide
7. However, he could look at the number of people arrested
per week over time. He had the data to do so and could
follow up with her.
Vice-Chair Johnston would appreciate the information. She
thought it might help.
2:34:23 PM
Representative LeBon asked how the study would capture an
individual who was rearrested on the same day. Mr. Payne
responded that someone rearrested on the same day would be
counted as having been rearrested. If they were arrested on
a new arrest tracking number on the same day, it would be
counted as a rearrest.
Representative LeBon asked if the ATN was tied to a
particular arrest event. He wondered if the number would
change on a rearrest the same day. Mr. Payne responded that
his understanding was that the ATN should be unique to the
arrest event.
Representative LeBon reported that Anchorage or South
Central Alaska was suffering from several rearrests. He
asked if the data showed geographic distribution. Mr. Payne
suggested looking at the arresting agency which would be as
close as he could get to geographic distribution. He had
not done so for the analysis that he was discussing
presently.
Mr. Payne skipped to slide 11: "Number of people rearrested
within 7 days." So far what he had discussed excluded
violations of conditions of release (VCOR). Slide 11
included VCOR. He explained that the reason VCOR was
excluded in the prior slides was that, in the period
between SB 91 and SB 54, violating conditions of release
was not a crime. Rather, they were simply violations. The
data he had only included felonies and misdemeanors. It did
not include violations. In the period when VCOR were not a
misdemeanor or a felony, they disappeared from the data
set. Without subtracting them from the entire data series,
the line dropped during the period from July 2016 to
November 2017. In the interest of completeness, he added
VCOR. The overall picture was similar. There was a gap
between criminal justice reform and SB 54 where VCOR
disappeared from his data source. Otherwise, the story was
the same - there was not a large difference prior to
criminal justice reform and afterwards.
2:38:40 PM
Mr. Payne continued to slide 12: "Summary." The overall
summary indicated that each week statewide, there were
about 26 people who were rearrested within 7 days of an
initial arrest. He did not see any evidence of a change in
the number before criminal justice reform compared to
afterwards which was relatively constant across the entire
data series. He indicated that in members' briefing books
there were additional slides in which he looked at time
periods shorter and longer than 7 days. He had considered
3, 7, 10, 14, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days. The number of
arrests changed, but the overall story did not. The number
of people who were rearrested in whatever time window he
was looking at was constant before criminal justice reform
and afterwards. He concluded that, overall, the numbers
stayed relatively the same which was very consistent no
matter the period. One of the concerns at the beginning of
the analysis was that 7 days was too long or short of a
period to consider. However, it looked the same before and
after criminal justice reform.
Co-Chair Wilson thought that, based on the summary, there
would be 1,352 crimes in a year that were rearrests within
a 7-day window. She wondered how to mitigate the problem
with rearrests based on the data he had seen, as rearrests
appeared to be a large issue.
Mr. Payne offered that he could provide the total number of
arrests. His role was to provide an analysis of data. He
was not looking at policy solutions. He thought it was
notable, to the extent that there were changes made by
SB 91 and the associated reform bills since, that there was
not much movement in the particular measure he was
currently looking at. While the data had not improved, it
had not worsened. He suggested that there might be other
benefits from the policies that had been pursued in the
period since. He reiterated that he was looking at a narrow
measure trying to determine the extent to which rearrest
was a problem and the extent to which it had changed since
reform.
2:42:32 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston spoke of the changes to the provisions
of VCOR. She thought there were some changes to the data
that reflected a slight increase. She suggested that there
was a ramping up reflected in all the graphs. She asked if
he had any thoughts on the matter.
Mr. Payne could only offer speculation regarding her
questions. He thought it was possible that the standing up
of the pretrial enforcement division had some impact. He
reported that the VCOR numbers tended to stabilize over
time. They increased slightly post SB 54 and found an
equilibrium roughly the same as pretrial reform. There was
a much shorter period after SB 54. He did not know how much
he would read into it.
Representative Knopp spoke of not being very familiar with
SB 91. He thought Mr. Payne's material clearly showed no
change before or after [criminal justice reform]. He
thought Mr. Payne was correct that it did not lead to more
or less rearrests. He suggested that part of the reason the
state embraced criminal justice reform was due to the costs
of incarceration, particularly the cost of incarceration of
people who had yet to stand trial. He wondered what to take
away from the data. He asked if the state reduced any costs
of incarceration. He asked if he was accurate.
Mr. Payne relayed that the topic of Representative Knopp's
question was not part of his analysis. He was not looking
at the extent to which any of the individuals that were
arrested had been detained. That analysis would require
linking DOC's data to arrest data which was a technically
complicated task.
Representative Knopp was looking for anything that the
state had made gains in since the implementation of SB 91.
Mr. Payne relied, "Not in this analysis." He deferred to
the Judicial Council who was better suited to address his
question.
^PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN ALASKA
2:46:58 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUDICIAL
COUNCIL, provided a brief introduction and explained that
the chair had asked her to discuss a couple of things.
First, she was asked to remind members about the
commission, why they had the data, and what the commission
was doing with it. She hoped she would be able to address
some of Representative Knopp's concerns and questions. The
representative also asked her to review what the data was
showing, how things were going after reform, and how the
situation compared to pre-reform.
Ms. Di Pietro introduced the PowerPoint Presentation:
"Criminal Justice Reform in Alaska." She began with slide
3: "Members of the criminal justice Commission." The slide
listed the members of the commission. She reported that
membership was set in statute by the legislature. The
commission had membership from the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches. She elaborated that the idea behind
the membership was to have the most broad-ranging
perspective from the criminal justice system and the
Department of Health and Social Services, which was not
always thought of as being a part of the system. The
commissioners directed the staff to conduct the analysis
and provide the data they needed to make any
recommendations.
Ms. Di Pietro continued to slide 4: "Oversight and
reporting duties." She reminded members of a part of SB 91
that had been very helpful to the commission and, she
hoped, to the legislature with respect to data. the
commission was commanded to look at what was happening with
the recommendations that were made in 2015 and enacted into
law with the various reform bills. The commission had been
tracking the information since the reform passed and
submitted a report to the legislature every year on
November 1st. The reports were sent to legislators via
email but could also be found on the commission's website.
The commission's website was linked to the Judicial
Council's website. There was a lot of information available
online.
Ms. Di Pietro continued to slide 5: "Data Collection
AS 44.19.645(e)-(g)." She wanted to tell members about the
data the commission received to answer the question, "How
are we doing?" The court system provided information about
all charges that were disposed every quarter. The
Department of Public Safety provided the citations,
arrests, and charges every quarter. The Department of
Corrections provided several pieces of information related
to pretrial outcomes, related to the prison population, and
related to probation and parole data. The commission also
received data from the parole board. The information was
given quarterly.
2:50:50 PM
Ms. Di Pietro turned to slide 6: "Data Analysis." The
commission staff worked in partnership with the Alaska
Justice Information Center to analyze the data. The
commission analyzed the data with an eye to answering the
questions that were in statute. One of the things in
statute was recidivism data. She thought the question
underlying some of the discussion she had heard earlier was
what was happening with recidivism. There were a couple of
definitions of recidivism in statute that the commission
would be using. The commission would be collecting
additional data because of the importance of policy makers
understanding the topic. She reported that the normal
window for looking at recidivism was 3 years. The reform
was passed so recently that 3 years had not gone by yet.
The commission was keeping track of the information. She
noted that members might have seen some recidivism from DOC
which was excellent data. However, it was slightly more
limited than what the commission would be reporting.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that the commission would also be
attempting to report recidivism data from misdemeanants
such as property offenders and felons. The commission was
not only looking at the people who went to prison, it was
also looking at individuals charged and convicted but whom
might not have had a prison sentence or served their time
pretrial. The commission wanted to provide the most
comprehensive information that it could.
Ms. Di Pietro pointed out that the information the
commission had was unique in the sense that the information
was from 3 different agencies, and it could be knitted
together in the way Dr. Paine had mentioned. The commission
had data that could offer a broader perspective than from
an individual agency. The commission was happy, ready, and
excited to do analyses for members of the legislature. She
wanted to provide the data members needed as much as was
possible.
Ms. Di Pietro highlighted a couple of reports that the
legislature told the commission to publish, which it had. A
report on restitution, a report on Title 28 offences
(driving under the influence offences), and a new
publication on sex offenses were all posted on the
commission's website.
Ms. Di Pietro indicated she would be discussing the results
of the data analysis. She would go quickly through the
first slides in the section.
Ms. Di Pietro advanced to slide 8: "Reasons for reform."
She reported that the slide listed the issues the Criminal
Justice Commission uncovered when it conducted the criminal
justice assessment. She clarified that the assessment
spanned information up to about 2014. One of the main
problems identified was that Alaska was experiencing some
unsustainable prison growth. The recidivism rate, the rate
at which people went back to prison after they were
released, was fairly high. She thought the most interesting
information and studies the commission did were studies on
pretrial detention. The commission found that the ability
to be released pretrial was related to a person's ability
to pay bail. It also uncovered racial disproportionalities
in pretrial detention.
Ms. Di Pietro moved to slide 9: "Reasons for reform
prison growth." The slide contained the chart showing
prison growth over time.
2:55:21 PM
Ms. Di Pietro advanced to slide 10: "Reasons for reform
prison growth." The slide showed the expected increase in
the cost of corrections. She relayed that the numbers were
inflation adjusted.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about slide 10. She noted that DOC
increased by 1100 people, but the cost increased by $200
million. She wondered why there was such a large increase.
She was looking at the growth in the number of inmates from
4133 to 5267 [Slide 9]. She opined that there was a much
larger increase [in costs] than the number of people. She
asked if Ms. Di Pietro knew why there was such a
substantial increase as opposed to the increase in people.
Ms. Di Pietro did not know off the top of her head. She
speculated that it might have had something to do with new
prison that was built which would have increased operating
expenses. The chart did not include capital expenditures.
She suggested directing the question to DOC.
Ms. Di Pietro explained slide 11: "What reforms were
enacted?" The slide showed the evidence-based principles
that the commission used when it made recommendations that
later became a part of criminal justice reform. The
foundational principles were built on hundreds of studies
that had been done nationally and in Alaska about what
worked and what did not work for people arrested and
charged with crimes. The first principle was to focus
prison beds on serious and violent offenders.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that the commission recommended
strengthening supervision practices at DOC. The commission
did a series of crime victim round tables throughout the
state and amassed a list of crime victim priorities posted
on the commission's website. There were several recommended
priorities from the reports that went into the reform bill.
The commission was very clear about the need to implement
evidence-based pretrial practices which began in 2018. The
commission also strongly recommended reinvesting in
treatment, which the legislature did. The commission was
also keeping track of what the reinvestment was in
treatment and prevention programs every year. It also kept
track of what the State of Alaska received in exchange of
its investment. In other words, the commission followed
what programs were invested in and how many people went
through them.
Representative Josephson thought it would be valuable to
have a list of savings and a list of expenditures resulting
from SB 91. He would appreciate seeing the information.
Ms. Di Pietro indicated that every year on November 1 the
commission was required to produce an annual report which
contained the information Representative Josephson was
looking for. She did not have the numbers with her but
could look into it. She was unclear about his reference to
the reappropriation issue.
3:00:33 PM
Representative LeBon referred to slide 11 and pointed to
the fourth bullet regarding the implementation of evidence-
based pretrial practices. He wondered what it meant.
Ms. Di Pietro indicated the answer was on the following
slide. She turned to slide 13: "Pretrial Reforms
Risk-Based Decision-Making." She explained that the
evidence-based phrase referred to the use of an actuarial
risk assessment tool. The bottom line regarding the tools
was that studies showed that more accurate decisions about
pretrial detention were made when information was included
from a risk assessment tool as opposed to relying only on
professional judgement. It was the reason the commission
recommended enhancing the pretrial decision making by using
the tool.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that the other piece of the pre-
reform was to create the pretrial enforcement division. She
highlighted the left-hand side of the chart in the "Before"
category. She emphasized that most people had a money bail
imposed on them which created a situation where people who
had access to cash could get out, and people who did not
have access to cash could not. She thought it did not seem
fair. More importantly, how much money a person had did not
appear to be related to their risk of pretrial failure. She
wondered why money was being used. She also highlighted the
second-to-last bullet point which was that 37 percent of
defendants released pretrial before reform were rearrested
for a new offense. She personally looked at the number and
wanted to do better than 37 percent. It was one of the
statistics the commission was trying to address. Another
key piece in the prior practice was that judges imposed
third party custodian requirements on several different
defendants. The commission's research showed that being in
the position of a third party custodian was strongly
associated with the inability to be released pretrial.
3:03:46 PM
Ms. Di Pietro skipped to slide 15: "Pretrial reforms
risk-based decision making." The slide addressed the
question of whether more people were being released
pretrial after reform compared to before reform. She
reported that the Alaska Judicial Council had been doing a
study of defendants who were released a few months after
the pretrial reform provisions, and the Pretrial
Enforcement Division (PED) went into effect even before HB
312. The council gathered a bunch of case files and had
been studying and following the defendants. The commission
wanted to figure out who got released, who did not, and
what bail conditions were imposed on them. She did not have
complete answers to the questions because not enough time
had passed for the cases to be resolved. There were still
quite a few people from the file sample of about 400 files
who were still in the pretrial phase. She wanted to be
cautious about providing the data. However, because of the
importance of the issue, she wanted to provide some
information about what the council knew thus far.
Ms. Di Pietro pointed to the right-hand side of the chart.
It appeared that more defendants were being released during
the pretrial period after reform, than before. The figure
from before was about half. In other words, before reform
about half of the defendants were not released before their
case was resolved. Presently, about 69 or 70 percent of
defendants were released by judges. She also reported that
fewer money bonds were being used. Before, about 69 percent
of defendants had a money bond imposed. About 41 percent of
defendants had the condition in the sample the council was
studying. Also, there were much fewer third party
custodians which was related to the fact that if there were
PED officers available to supervise a person, a third party
custodian was not authorized. The council was seeing a
large increase in the use of unsecured bonds. An unsecured
bond was when a person promised to pay money in the event
they messed up during pretrial. A secured money bond
required money upfront. Whereas, an unsecured bond required
payment if a person failed. All the research showed secured
money bonds were equally effective at ensuring the
appearance of the defendant as compared to unsecured money
bonds. She added that with an unsecured bond people could
get out more easily.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that another study showed that
about half of the defendants in the study were assigned to
PED supervision suggesting that the courts were heavily
using PED to supervise people being released pretrial.
3:07:09 PM
Ms. Di Pietro reported that the commission was trying to
get at the issue of ethnic disparities. The Alaska Judicial
Council had conducted a couple of studies documenting
ethnic disparities in pretrial detention situation. She
reported that an Alaska Native was more likely to be
detained then if they were Caucasian. The first time the
judicial council documented that in a robust study was in
2004. The council did another study in 2015, pre-reform,
and found similar ethnic disparities with about 26 percent
of Alaska Natives being released in comparison to 55
percent of Caucasians. She reminded members that about half
of all people were being released pretrial.
Ms. Di Pietro drew attention to the 2018 sample. she
cautioned members that the study was not final yet. It
looked as though the disparities between Alaska Natives and
Caucasians had decreased significantly. She highlighted
that the percentages of people being released were
different on the current slide. She had been reporting 50
percent. There was a problem with the comparison because
another thing that changed that was not a part of criminal
justice reform but has complicated the council's ability to
analyze the pretrial situation, was the bail schedule
changed. People were also being released on the bail
schedule. The council could not compare people released on
the bail schedule currently to people released on the bail
schedule before because of not having the right kind of
data.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that if a person looked at everyone
released after arrest, whether by bail schedule or by
appearing in front of a judge, the number was higher than
the figure she provided to the committee earlier. She was
happy to follow up with anyone who wanted further
clarification regarding her explanation.
Ms. Di Pietro advanced to slide 16: "Pretrial reforms
pretrial outcomes being studied." Although more people were
being released, she thought the question was whether they
were being arrested more. She thought Dr. Payne's analysis
was an important data point regarding the question. She did
not believe the question had been fully answered yet. She
reported that the judicial council was tracking some cases
and Dr. Payne, who was under contract with the justice
center and DOC, was asked to reevaluate the pretrial risk
assessment tool. Part of the revalidation analysis would
include rates of rearrest. The information was forthcoming.
She reiterated that in the scheme of the criminal justice
system and how it operated, there had not been sufficient
time between the effective date of the reform and 6 months
later (when HB 312 went into effect) for the system to
stabilize and to generate sufficient data to provide the
type of analysis that everyone wished they had. The
information was a start. She hoped to provide more
definitive answers going forward.
Ms. Di Pietro continued to slide 18: "Sentencing Reform."
She reported that sentencing reform was the next category.
They would be looking at people who were convicted and
sentenced. Under sentencing reform, the focus had been on
prison beds for serious and violent offenders. For a low
risk offender, time in prison could make a person more
likely to recidivate. For some of the violent high-risk
offenders, prison was the place they needed to be. For some
of the lower risk offenders, such as property offenders,
prison might not have the desired effect of reducing
recidivism. Rather, it might have the opposite effect. The
idea was to be more targeted in how the state used
incarceration. Incarceration was a very expensive resource,
and the state wanted to use it in the best way possible to
get the best results. The last point on the slide was that
prison should be used for individuals that citizens were
afraid of, rather than angry at, if the goal was to achieve
recidivism reduction.
3:12:25 PM
Representative Carpenter referred to the bullet indicating
time in prison could make some low-risk offenders more
likely to recidivate. He wondered if the statement was an
opinion or a statement based on facts. Ms. Di Pietro
responded that it was a fact-based, data-based observation.
The council had the R-2015 report with footnotes showing
all the relevant studies available on their website. She
added that she would welcome information from people who
disagreed with their findings. She thought the finding was
a bit surprising. She would send the committee the specific
information she was referring to.
Ms. Di Pietro moved to slide 19 "Violent vs Non-violent
Prisoners." The chart on the slide showed that changes in
the law caused the state to slowly begin to focus its
prison beds more on violent offenders. She thought it was a
great example of the analysis the state was doing based on
the statutes.
Representative LeBon asked for the definition of a low-risk
offender. Ms. Di Pietro responded that the study the
council relied on was looking at the risk-assessments such
as the LSI [Level of Service] and the LSI-R [Level of
Service Inventory - Revised] that DOC had talked to the
committee about recently. She indicated some good examples
were the misdemeanant offenders, although some of them
could also be high-risk.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked Ms. Di Pietro to
provide a list of violent versus non-violent offenders. Ms.
Di Pietro responded that the commission used DOC's
definitions of violent versus non-violent, the same list of
statutes. She did not have the list on hand but could
provide it.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked for some examples.
Ms. Di Pietro replied that any offense in 1141 would be a
violent offense. She also noted that as a rule 1146
offenses were not included as violent. Representative
Sullivan-Leonard requested the list.
3:16:56 PM
Representative Josephson clarified that the 1161 offenses
were not put in the violent category which was troubling to
him, because it included firing a weapon in a moving
vehicle. He hoped the commission would consider it violent
and treat it accordingly in the data. Ms. Di Pietro was
uncertain. The commission relied on DOC for a list of
categories.
Ms. Di Pietro advanced to slide 20: "Admissions for Drug
Crimes". She pointed out that the slide showed admissions
to prison for drug crimes. The chart indicated that prior
to reform, when possession of a small amount of heroin,
opioids, and methamphetamines was a Class C felony, there
were several admissions in a fiscal year. After reform,
when the crime of possession became a misdemeanor, felony
admissions went down. However, the number of misdemeanor
offenses went up but not as large as the Class C felony
offenses were originally. She thought it was interesting
that the Class B felony offenses, the distribution
offenses, were not going down. She thought it was
encouraging because the research showed there was not a
great way to deal with drug crimes. The idea of arresting
and prosecuting the commercial distributors and dealers
vigorously was to get them out of the system disrupting the
chain, at least for a while. It was not necessarily helpful
to convict the people of a felony who possessed small
amounts or sold small quantities to friends. It was also
not necessarily helpful to give them a significant amount
of prison time unless they received treatment. The slide
showed how things were working under the new scheme.
3:20:29 PM
Representative Josephson expressed concern that above the
FY 17 and FY 18 bars there was untold drug usage. It was
not plausible that there was a marked decline during an
opioid epidemic. The people in the void were not being
treated. He wondered if the commission was looking into it.
Ms. Di Pietro thought Representative Josephson had a very
good point. One of the questions was whether possessors
were being arrested post-reform. Another question was
whether they were seeing treatment. She conveyed that the
commission was very concerned about the current heroin use
and other drugs. She noted that the law did not change an
officer's ability to arrest a person for drug possession.
However, there might be unintended consequences with
arrests going down.
Representative Carpenter asked what the slide depicted in
terms of success given the state's statutory goals. Ms. Di
Pietro answered that part of the goal was to not convict
single possessors of a Class C felony which would impede
their ability to get a job, to secure housing, or to seek
rehabilitation. The chart showed that fewer people who
possessed smaller amounts of drugs were convicted of Class
C felonies. She thought the chart also showed that the
total number of admissions for drug crimes had gone down.
She agreed that it needed to be investigated further.
Representative Carpenter suggested that perhaps employment
was not necessary based on the following slide which showed
a disturbing increase in theft crimes. He speculated that
the state had reduced the numbers of low-level drug users
in jail only to increase the number of thefts. He commented
that it did not pass the common sense test. He did not care
that less people were in prison if there were more thefts
occurring.
Ms. Di Pietro pointed out that slide 21 showed admissions
to prisons for theft crimes, although she would speak to
larceny theft in another slide. The graph showed that
people were still being arrested and admitted to prison for
misdemeanor and felony theft crimes. One of the things the
council would want to review since the penalties were
lessened, was whether there was a significant decrease in
people being admitted (which was not the case).
3:25:24 PM
Representative Carpenter noted there was a decrease in
admissions for low-level drug crimes and an increase in
admissions for theft crimes. He asked about the net. Ms. Di
Pietro requested the representative restate his question.
She wondered if he was asking about the net change in
admissions. Representative Carpenter responded in the
affirmative.
Ms. Di Pietro moved to slide 22 and continued to discuss
prison admissions. The slide reflected the number of
admissions. Since SB 54 passed, there had been an uptick in
prison admissions for non-violent crimes.
Ms. Di Pietro continued to slide 23: "Prison Population
Down." She reported that earlier in the presentation there
had been a question about prison population. She reported
that the prison population had reduced since reform. She
noted the difficulty of generating a prison population
because it fluctuated substantially. The prior slides
reflected admissions which were counting people as they
went into prison. The current slide showed a snapshot day
of how many people were sitting in beds in DOC. Care needed
to be taken as to which day to look at. The council had
chosen the same day each year to make things consistent
from year-to-year to properly track changes.
3:27:53 PM
Representative Carpenter noted that the state had seen
admissions for drug crimes from FY 15 to FY 18 of around
1200 in FY 15 to 700 in FY 18. He noted a decline of 500
admissions. He noted about the same amount of increase in
theft crimes. He was unsure the state succeeded. He
surmised that the state might have added to the prison
population.
Ms. Di Pietro mentioned that the prior slides showed
admissions. For example, a person who was counted in
slide 21 for an admission for theft might have been
admitted, served their sentence, and been released without
being counted on the day that the prison population
snapshot was taken [shown on slide 23]. She explained that
the reason the council looked at admission and a static
population snapshot was because it wanted to measure the
churn. Admissions might appear to be up with people cycling
in and leaving. However, the prison population on average
might not be increasing as fast or at all. She thought it
would be misleading not to show both. She indicated that a
person could not add the numbers on slides 21 and 22 to get
to the numbers on slide 23.
Representative Carpenter was not suggesting that he was
adding the numbers on slides 21 and 22 to get to the
numbers on slide 23. He was pointing out that there was a
decline in prison population "success" for drug crimes and
an increase in population for thefts on slide 21. He was
wondering about the effect the legislature was trying to
get with the policies that were enacted. He thought the
state had incarcerated more people.
Ms. Di Pietro offered that one of things that she had heard
was that there were some people who were using or
possessing substances who were not committing crimes. Those
people were not necessarily being arrested. However, the
people who were using, possessing, and committing crimes
were being arrested - it was a higher priority to arrest
them and get them into the system. She did not see a
contradiction between 20 and 21. It was only her theory.
She understood where the representative was coming from.
3:31:36 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked a global question. She wondered
if the data was from ACOMS [Alaska Corrections Offender
Management System]. Ms. Di Pietro responded in the
affirmative.
Vice-Chair Johnston suggested that the people on the
Criminal Justice Commission were the right people at the
table. She wondered how many times the commission met and
what the statutory requirement was.
Ms. Di Pietro noted that the commission met about every
other month, although they were only required to meet 4
times per year. The commission had work groups that
typically met in the off months. The commission has had at
least one meeting since the new administration took office.
The was another meeting scheduled in the current month. The
new commissioners either came themselves or sent
representatives. The commission had not stabilized around
the new members yet. She noted that the public defender
membership was currently up in the air.
Vice-Chair Johnson noted that the committee had bumped up
against the end of meeting time.
Representative LeBon referred to slide 23. The slide showed
a period from 2010 to 2018. He noted that slide 21 and
slide 22 went back to 2015. He wondered if it would help
the committee to understand trends by looking at the same
8-year period on slides 21, 22, and 23. Ms. Di Pietro was
happy to make a change to slide 23.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Co-Chair Wilson was
presenting a bill in another committee but wanted members
to review the remainder of the slide presentation on their
own.
Ms. Di Pietro thanked the committee for the opportunity to
present. She drew attention to slide 28 had some great
feedback about how DOC was working on its probation and
parole discharges.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Di Pietro for her work. The
committee would adjourn until 10:00 A.M. the following day,
Saturday, April 27, 2019, at which time discussions would
continue on HB 20.
ADJOURNMENT
3:36:24 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN Criminal Justice Reform in Alaska April 26.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| CSHB020 Supporting Document - Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| CSHB020 Sectional Analysis 04.22.19 ver. R.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 House Finance Presention.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - DPS -SAK-Inventory-Report-and-Plan-2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - DPS-SAK-Inventory-Report-2018_ 11.01.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - Rape Kit Joyful Heart Foundation.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - STAR policy priorities.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| AJiC Rearrest presentation HFIN 4.26.2019 (002).pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |