Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB195 | |
| SB110 | |
| SJR13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 195-PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS' CASELOADS
1:32:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 195.
1:32:22 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE, sponsor of SB 195, said the impetus for the
bill was concern about burgeoning caseloads for probation and
parole officers, and the possibility of establishing ratios. The
bill is intended to start a dialog with the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC).
SB 195 would establish in statute a maximum of 60 cases for
probation and parole officers at any given time. Parole officers
in the Anchorage area are often responsible for more than 100
cases in prisons, jails, and community resident centers, leaving
little time to improve the quality of the individual that is
returned to civilian life. This legislation alone won't reduce
recidivism, but it can be part of the solution along with other
resources that provide evidence-based programing for offenders
and training for officers.
The PEW Center Public Safety Performance Project on States
reported that in FY08 about nine of every ten dollars spent on
corrections is devoted to state prisons, although nearly 70
percent of offenders are supervised in the community. The issues
associated with large caseloads include: an inability to do
field observations or home visits; an inability to attend court
hearings; and high officer turnover rates due to burnout.
SENATOR MCGUIRE reported that in the last five years, four other
states limited caseloads by statute and three of those states
set the limit of 60 parolees per officer. She concluded that SB
195 will start a conversation about the effectiveness and
systemic costs of the corrections system in this state.
1:39:45 PM
RONALD TAYLOR, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), stated that working with the
sponsor and the committee will be a proactive opportunity.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how he came to be in his current position.
MR. TAYLOR related that he supervised the Alaska Alcohol Safety
Action Program (ASAP) for 18 years, and in September transferred
to DOC as division director. He noted that he also served as
executive director of the Board of Parole for three years.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he would be in charge of more than the
probation and parole officers covered under the bill.
MR. TAYLOR replied he was in charge of the field and electronic
monitoring officers covered under the bill, and the community
residential centers throughout the state.
CHAIR FRENCH asked about the different categories of
probationers.
MR. TAYLOR explained that there are three categories of
specialized field probation officer caseloads: sex offender,
enhanced supervision, and mental health. The enhanced
supervision caseloads include high-risk offenders.
1:42:56 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN joined the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to describe the duties of an
institutional probation officer.
MR. TAYLOR explained that they develop institutional programing,
classify offenders and ensure that the offender management plan
will help a person be successful when he or she is released from
the institution into the field. Responding to a further
question, he said that field officers definitely outnumber
institutional officers, but he didn't know the ratio. He was in
charge of field POs and the institution directors were in charge
of institutional POs.
CHAIR FRENCH asked where presentence report writers fit in.
MR. TAYLOR explained that each probation office has a
presentence writer.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if those positions would be covered by the
bill.
MR. TAYLOR replied that was part of the dialog.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Taylor to discuss what resources go into
writing a presentence report, and how it follows an offender.
MR. TAYLOR explained that the presentence report impacts how the
offender will be sentenced by the court and governs how he or
she will be supervised when released into the community.
CHAIR FRENCH related that Texas Representative Jerry Madden
opined that the vast majority of prisoners fall into one of two
categories: "people we're mad at and people we're afraid of." He
asked if the presentence report writer tries to sort these two
categories out.
MR. TAYLOR answered yes; the information in the presentence
report is used to develop a realistic case plan for a person who
is under institutional supervision and when he or she is
released.
1:47:43 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many more probation officers would be
needed to accomplish the 60 caseload goal
MR. TAYLOR replied the division was working on an estimate.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many POs there were statewide, and if
most had caseloads of about 100.
MR. TAYLOR offered to follow up with specific numbers for
institutional POs, electronic monitoring POs, and field POs. The
division had 142 individuals assigned to it, but that included
POs, criminal justice technicians and office support staff.
1:48:52 PM
LINDA GERBER, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections,
said she had worked for DOC for more than 20 years in both the
institution and field, and had worked specialized caseloads in
mental health, sex offender, and substance abuse. She was
currently one of four POs who work the out-of-state unit
covering more than 1,050 prisoners. She described POs as ground
zero for implementing the plans for offenders, and observed that
quality time and sometimes training were in short supply.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what other tasks she would focus on if she
had fewer probationers to supervise.
MR. GERBER replied she would have more time to work with each
prisoner to ensure successful reintegration. This would include
discussions with the local field officer about available
resources for housing, jobs, and treatment.
1:53:13 PM
WARREN WATERS, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said he was an institutional PO, and had worked at the
Anchorage Jail for the past six years. His duties included the
supervision of about half of the 400 offenders that reside at
the community residential centers or halfway houses. These
offenders are a mixed bag of sentenced and un-sentenced
misdemeanants and felons. They all require some form of
supervision and work, but the heavy caseloads do not leave much
time per offender. A caseload of 100 calculates to just 4.5
minutes per day for each offender, and that doesn't include
administrative time. That isn't much time to make a difference
when the goal is to help offenders successfully reintegrate and
not recidivate.
1:56:01 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if other probation officers had similar
caseloads.
MR. WATERS said yes; the ten POs at the Anchorage jail supervise
roughly 900 offenders at any given time, and are also
responsible for the offenders at the halfway houses.
1:56:55 PM
TRAVIS MORRIS, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said he had been a PO about four years and was currently
assigned to the Anchorage field services office. His caseload
was over 100. He offered his belief that reducing caseloads
would give POs the ability to help an offender obtain
employment, interact with a counselor who was providing
treatment, and attend court hearings. Oftentimes the offender is
left to fend for him or herself and that typically leads to
recidivism. This affects POs and translates to high turnover
rates. Burnout is common.
Although field work is an integral part of field probation, it
is typically done in a reactive state. Reducing caseloads to a
manageable level will enhance community safety and
rehabilitation of the offender. Long-term benefits will be
reduced government spending, higher quality of life for the PO
and offender, and a successful, proactive offender monitoring
program.
2:02:45 PM
LEILA SHEFFIELD, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said she was a field probation officer assigned to the
adult probation field office in Bethel. Her caseload was 109,
two-thirds of which lived in the surrounding villages and
reported by phone and mailed a report each month. She explained
that DOC relies on Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) to
help monitor offenders residing in villages, but not all
villages are staffed with one.
She said her workday is typically spent on the phone, although
offenders who live in the Bethel area make office visits. These
offenders are assessed using LSI-R (Level of Service Risk
Assessment) tools, and this takes about 1.5 hours. If her
caseload were smaller, she would spend the extra time in the
villages developing relationships with treatment providers and
the elders. She described a recent case where a probationer was
not successful to illustrate the stress that POs are under. She
described her broad work experience with DOC over the last 20
years and stated strong support for SB 195.
2:07:35 PM
DONNA WHITE, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, said she was
the previous director of the Division of Probation and Parole
for DOC. She thanked the sponsor for introducing the bill and
opening the dialog, because the higher the caseload in the
field, the less proactive a PO can be with the offender. She
opined that this was the place to look if the state was
concerned about recidivism and interested in working toward
reentry. When caseloads are over 90, the PO is reacting to
violations as opposed to being proactive and identifying what
may become a violation. The reaction is typically to file a
violation report and return the person to jail, which does not
help recidivism rates. She concluded by expressing appreciation
that the Senate was willing to open the discussion.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked what the caseload trend was the last 10
years and if it might give an idea of where it would be in 3-4
years.
MS. WHITE related that in the 80s she worked in Kodiak as a
field PO and had a caseload of about 60. She speculated that it
may be between 75 and 90 today, and without a cap it could reach
140. She noted that specialized caseloads were already capped,
causing the non-specialized caseloads to consistently go higher.
And the more specialized caseloads, the fewer probation officers
to handle the generic caseloads. She also pointed out that the
type of offender had changed significantly since the 80s. They
are more violent and have less respect for authority.
SENATOR PASKVAN commented that it sounded as though the state
was behind the curve and that the trend would get worse for
probation officers.
MS. WHITE agreed.
2:13:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and remarked that the cost
to put more POs in the field may be a topic of conversation in
the budget subcommittee.
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 195 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 195.PDF |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195-Sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 backup NCSL.PDF |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 backup -ADN articles.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 letter of support.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SJR 13 Ver.M.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 Sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 ADN Editorial.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 Center for Responsive Politics article.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SB110 Version M (1).pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB110.APOA Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB110.Support Ltr.Violent Crimes Compensation Board.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |