Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/09/2004 01:44 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
An Act relating to therapeutic courts; and providing
for an effective date.
DOUG WOOLIVER, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, ANCHORAGE, stated that
HB 451 would extend the termination date for two pilot
therapeutic court programs until after a planned study of
the Courts had been completed and reviewed by the
Legislature. The bill removes a sunset clause to the
Anchorage Superior Court judge position that was added to
administer one of the therapeutic courts.
In 2001, the Legislature passed HB 172, which established
felony-level Therapeutic Courts in Anchorage and Bethel.
Each Court was set up as a pilot program scheduled to run
for three years. The Anchorage Court admits those with a
felony conviction for driving under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance (DUI).
The Bethel Court admits those convicted of either felony DUI
or certain felony drug offenses. The findings section of HB
172 explains the purpose of the Courts:
The purposes of Therapeutic courts are lasting
sobriety of offenders, protection of society from
alcohol-related and drug-related crime, prompt payment
of restitution to victims of crimes, effective
interaction and use of resources among criminal
justice and community agencies, and long-term
reduction of costs relating to arrest, trial, and
incarceration.
Mr. Wooliver stated that in order to determine the
effectiveness of the Courts, the Judicial Council was
charged with evaluating them and publishing a study for
legislative review. Unfortunately, both the Anchorage and
Bethel programs sunset before the evaluation is scheduled to
be complete and because the report is to be published in
July, before the Legislature has an opportunity to review
the evaluation. If the Legislature looks at the evaluation
study and decides that the programs should continue, it
would be too late and both programs would have ended more
than a year earlier. In order to fix that problem, HB 451
would extend the termination date of the pilot program until
after the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the
effectiveness.
HB 451 removes a sunset clause from HB 172 that would
terminate the Anchorage Superior Court judge position added
by the bill. The new judge was necessary not only to do the
work of the Therapeutic Court but also to help absorb the
growing felony caseload in Anchorage. The sunset clause
would take effect this summer at the same time the
Therapeutic Court program was scheduled to end. Not only
will that mean the end of the felony Therapeutic Court, also
mean that Anchorage will have one less judge for other
Superior Court work. The Therapeutic Court judge in
Anchorage spends most of her time on general Superior Court
work unrelated to therapeutic court cases. If the Judicial
System looses the judicial position, it will impact all
Superior Court cases in Anchorage.
Mr. Wooliver concluded that the loss of a Superior Court
judge in Anchorage would return the State to the number of
judges initially established in 1984. Since that time, the
felony caseload in Anchorage has increased approximately
100%. Alaska cannot afford to lose a Superior Court
position in Anchorage and to return to a level of judicial
coverage that was appropriate 20 years ago.
JUDGE STEPHANIE JOANNIDES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, ANCHORAGE, voiced her frustration with
sentencing more and more people for longer periods of time
when they continue to re-offend. She claimed that the State
can no longer afford to keep doing that both economically
and from a public safety perspective. The State must look
at new ways of doing business. Because of that frustration,
judges, courts and lawyers have the realization that
something must be done about the problem.
The Drug Court model was first used in Florida in the
1980's. Since then, the original model was so successful
that now there are over 1,000 across the country. Five
years ago, there were only about 400 in operation. She
reiterated that currently, there are over 1,000 drug court
models and that is the model the Anchorage Court system
uses.
Judge Joannides emphasized the success rate of people in
that program. There are mothers that are having "clean and
sober" babies that might have otherwise had Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome (FAS), parents learning how to better interact with
their children and offenders are staying clean and sober for
longer periods of time. She requested that members come to
observe the Court in Anchorage to better witness the
strengths of the program.
JUDGE LEONARD DEVANEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, BETHEL, echoed sentiments made by Judge
Joannides and stated that the Therapeutic Court in Bethel is
having a great success rate. He advised that nearly 100% of
the crimes in that area are alcohol related and the results
of the Court has been very good.
Judge Devaney noted that the Bethel Court has only been in
existence for about 18 months. He pointed out that they are
using $25 dollars per day for treatment as compared to the
$100 dollars per day incarceration costs. The Courts in
Bethel take many different substance abuse crime clients.
Judge Devaney offered to answer questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Harris inquired about the recidivism rate and asked
if there had been a "dramatic" drop in that number.
Judge Joannides replied that it would be premature to
provide those statistics. Almost 2/3 of people in her court
were re-offenders; in other words, had a prior felony and
then quickly reoffended. She stressed that they have seen
success in that population and on a national level, the
success has been promising. She understood that it is
difficult to convince members without the "hard" numbers
available but reiterated that it is early in the program to
determine. The people in that program could be serving from
12 to 18 months and those people are just beginning to get
back into their community. She pointed out that many people
in the program could not have made it eighteen months
without picking up another felony DUI and that information
is promising.
Judge Devaney reiterated that the Bethel program started
later and stated that only seven people had graduated from
the program to date. He pointed out that they would need
another year or two to determine the recidivism rate. There
is success being seen but the number is difficult to
quantify at this point.
Co-Chair Harris inquired about using an "implant" or other
device. Judge Joannides responded that Anchorage is not
using any type of implant with the offenders in the program.
They do use other tools to monitor sobriety. Some of the
clients are on naltrexone but that is not required for
everyone in the program. Some are monitored using a
sobritor attachment to test them for alcohol consumption.
She added that these people are tested 1-5 times a week,
with a minimum of 3.
Judge Devaney noted that Bethel does use naltrexone if the
doctor prescribes it and it is used for six months. They
take it at treatment five days a week and then on the
weekends, the participants come in for breath tests. In
Bethel, there is no electronic monitoring, as the
infrastructure in Bethel does not allow for the use of the
scram.
Representative Fate inquired if preliminary data had been
collected. Mr. Wooliver responded that it is and is an
important aspect of HB 172, as a direction to Judicial
Council to undertake a long-term study and journaling the
statistics.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 451 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
attached fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
HB 451 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the Alaska
Court System, zero note #1 by the Department of
Administration, zero note #2 by the Department of
Corrections, zero note #3 by the Department of Health &
Social Services and zero note #4 by the Department of Law.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|