Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2002 08:09 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HCR 26-HOUSE ARREST/ELECTRONIC MONITORING Number 1394 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business was HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26, Supporting increased use of the house arrest program/electronic monitoring with sobriety monitoring as a means of preventing crime and reducing the high costs of imprisonment in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HCR 26, spoke about the history of electronic monitoring. He mentioned that there previously was a bill to provide electronic monitoring of prisoners who posed no real threat and were serving time for the crimes they had committed, and he noted [an effect of that monitoring] was the reduction of crowding in prisons. He reported that, in some parts of the state, the results of this monitoring were astounding and a significant amount of money was saved by the state. More importantly, he said it has helped reintroduce those people into society who displayed deviant behavior and has allowed them to [acknowledge their wrongdoing], rather than place them with "a bunch of other hardcore people and expect them, when they're released, that they could immediately come back into the same situation they were before they were arrested." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated a "national phenomenon over the last, I would say, six to eight years, with increasing proportions, but on two regards": First, the State of Texas has the attitude that if more people are arrested, it will build bigger and better jails - a plan which the state has carried out. Second, other states, predominately in the Midwest and the Northeast, have chosen to give an early, longer parole, while allowing a gradual reintroduction into society, in several cases using electronic monitoring to maintain that those on parole are abiding by the rules of parole. He said if a parolee violates the rules, the monitoring catches that, and the parolee is then arrested and must serve regular time. In conclusion, he said that the [monitoring program] has been successful, both in Alaska and the Lower 48. Number 1623 JESSICA MENENDEZ, Staff to Representative Joe Green, testifying on behalf of the sponsor of HCR 26, told the committee she would provide information regarding the proposed committee substitute (CS) for the resolution. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that the proposed CS had just been given to the committee. Number 1644 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt [version 22-LS1578\C, Luckhaupt, 3/13/02]. There being no objection, Version C was before the committee. Number 1655 MS. MENENDEZ explained that the main reason for the additions of language into [Version C] was to have the language read more consistently. On page 1, line 7 of the original resolution, the words "curing alcoholism" were used. Ms. Menendez stated that "we all know" that alcoholism and other drug addiction is treated, not cured. [Therefore, the word "curing" has been replaced by the word "treating".] Ms. Menendez noted that the other change was to use the term "24 hour" before "electronic monitoring and supervision", to clarify that electric monitoring is an around-the-clock activity. Number 1707 MS. MENENDEZ said that electronic monitoring was viewed by some as not being punitive enough; conversely, she reiterated that a person being electronically monitored is being watched for 24 hours. Number 1749 MS. MENENDEZ, in conclusion, told the committee that copies of the resolution are being sent to the commissioner of the Department of Administration, the commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services, and the president of the Alaska Bar Association. Number 1775 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Menendez to address the cost and makeup of electronic monitors. MS. MENENDEZ answered that the cost of the program is $14 a day. She indicated that Gary Webster was on line and was able to give additional information. She specified that participants of the program pay some or all of the cost, which can be up to $14, and the payment goes back to the Department of Corrections. CHAIR COGHILL suggested that the committee members would have an opportunity to peruse [Version C] while listening to the several testifiers via teleconference. Furthermore, their testimony may "lift up some of the discussion." Number 1827 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he did not fully understand the point of the resolution. He asked: "Why couldn't a letter from the leadership to these commissioners and the governor have accomplished this? Has that been tried?" REPRESENTATIVE GREEN deferred the question to Ms. Menendez. MS. MENENDEZ replied that "we" have met with the commissioner of the Department of Corrections and have received information and background regarding the success of the "house arrest program." She mentioned that Judge Wanamaker was standing by via teleconference and indicated that he would give information regarding the "wellness program." MS. MENENDEZ said that "the program is there," but added that it could be better utilized. She said: One of the issues that has come into being, with two of these programs being new, is that the awareness of these programs isn't completely out there. And, certainly, the parameters as to how they can work - especially with one another - hasn't been explored fully. So, the resolution is an attempt to urge all the players involved - the Department of Corrections, the Department of Law, defense attorneys, the Alaska court system, and other agencies involved - to get together and look at the benefits of these programs, and better utilize the programs, and come up with a working plan, so that it is fully used to the capacity that it was certainly intended for. Number 1927 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that when the program first started there was concern whether it would be effective; whether people would [return to] being a menace to society. He gave credit to the Department of Corrections for saying that this program was going to work for selected numbers of people - those people who must first decide that they want to be on electric monitoring and who - with the exception of indigents - would pay as much of the $14 as they can. He noted that the Department of Corrections determined that this program would not be offered to hardened criminals, rapists, or murderers, for example. Furthermore, the majority of [those in Alaska's correctional system are not hardcore criminals]. He said he thinks that there is concern by some that the program has worked, thus far, but may fail in some ways if it were expanded, without first securing a "good, solid foundation of success." Number 2000 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN told Representative Hayes that there will be some limit as to what degree this program will be useful. He indicated that [he and his staff] would like the legislature to encourage the Department of Corrections not to be afraid to take a risk. Notwithstanding that comment, he added that the people [who would be monitored electronically] are not a risk to safety. Number 2030 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said it seems that the proposed legislation has come too soon. He said he thinks a letter might be sent first, asking for cooperation. If the letter was unsuccessful, then legislation could be brought forward, he added. CHAIR COGHILL noted that members of the various aforementioned departments, judicial representatives and legislators were all together in the room now; therefore, he suggested that the present time afforded a good opportunity to work on this resolution. Number 2070 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN told the committee that Ms. Menendez would conclude "with that very concept; that having all these people together is probably the very best way that this will work." Number 2088 MS. MENENDEZ directed the committee's attention to the summary page of the background information [included in the committee packet]. She paraphrased a portion of the summary, which reads as follows: Both these programs have had a degree of success in providing for alternatives to incarceration. Continuing to expand community correction programs, alcohol and other drug treatment, and other sentencing alternatives can partially attempt to control the growth of prison expansion and incarceration and hence, the cost of corrections. More importantly, there is a growing awareness that long prison sentences are not the answer to crime in many instances. Alaska's budget shortfalls, the need to cut state expenditures, and substantial shifts in funding for criminal justice programs force us to look for program approaches that draw on community resources and use problem-solving empirically based model programs. Associations, such as the American Correctional Association, American Probation and Parole Association, International Community Corrections Association, and the National Institute of Corrections have all supported the rapid expansion of treatment- oriented alcohol and drug courts, community policing, and restorative justice programs. HCR 26 looks towards the joint efforts of the Alaska Court System, the Department of Law, the Public Defender Agency, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health and Social Services, and other agencies to work together in developing a mutually agreed-upon plan that expands the use of the house arrest program/electronic monitoring and promotes and utilizes the program elements established in therapeutic courts, alcohol and other drug courts, and wellness court programs. Number 2224 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he holds out great hope for therapeutic courts, wellness courts, and the Naltrexone program now available, and he commended Representative Green for bringing forward this resolution. CHAIR COGHILL said he believed that, in general, the committee shared [Representative Crawford's sentiments]. He stated his intent was to hold a thorough discussion on the record. He asked Judge Wanamaker if he could wait a little longer with his testimony. Number 2320 RUDOLPH NEWMAN, board member, Partners for Progress, testifying via teleconference, told the committee that he was born in Holy Cross, Alaska, is presently a resident of Eagle River, and was a graduate of the wellness court, December 19, 2000. He said he has been sober "so far, that long." Mr. Newman stated that the wellness court gave him a choice between an 18-month jail-term, or "be a third party; you know, it's just like being my third party - I have to be with her 24 hours a day." He told the committee that that choice changed his life, because he had been "locked up" 46 times. Furthermore, he used to have the attitude that jail was a place in which he could relax, eat, sleep, and watch cable television, he said. He described himself during that time as a "very angry person." He indicated that the court system had a different opinion of him than he did and he "eased- up," "got soft," and decided to change, which is when his life turned around. MR. NEWMAN said he thinks electronic monitoring is a wonderful tool. Notwithstanding that, he added that he did not think it would [work] for everybody. He said "it's just people, you know." He said that saving money is a much-discussed topic and this [program] is a good way to do that. MR. NEWMAN said he supports "what's happening." He said, "If you're responsible for your own actions, I think you have to pay for you're crime." He said that choosing [the electric monitoring] changed his life; it made him responsible for his actions, for himself, for his family, and for his community. CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Newman for his testimony. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES also thanked Mr. Newman, and she noted that she had a long acquaintance with him. Number 2466 CARMEN CLARK, [Partners] for Progress, testifying via teleconference, told the committee that her background was as a former chief municipal prosecutor who had assisted in the development of the wellness court, with Judge Wanamaker. She added that she is the only person she knows who has served as both prosecutor and civil defense attorney in the program. Ms. Clark said the program has been effective in several ways, not only for people like Mr. Newman, but also in forcing the court system to take notice of how it does things in general and to find areas in need of improvement. She said she thinks there has been a "ripple effect" that has "given all of us a better sense of justice." She specified that everyone present was already aware that the program is a good one; the decision that needs to be made now is what step to take next. MS. CLARK said she would like to address some questions previously heard in testimony - the first one relating to cost. She noted that there is a cost of up to $14 a day; however, that cost is - in addition to the statutory cost of imprisonments - automatically ordered. For example, a misdemeanor DWI (driving while intoxicated) offender who goes through therapeutic court will be ordered to pay a $270 cost of imprisonment, in addition to the cost of electronic monitoring, she said. Furthermore, that also pertains to second and subsequent offenders whose statutory cost of imprisonment is $1,000. Ms. Clark opined that the Department of Corrections should probably not "be in a position where it's not cost-effective to utilize this program." MS. CLARK referred to another aforementioned question, regarding how far this program is being utilized. She stated her understanding that a person would not qualify for the electronic monitoring program for the following reasons: having a conviction for domestic violence; having convictions for sex- related offenses, which is more broadly defined than simply "rape" and "assault"; having instances of "conviction, or charges, with regard to assault on police officers, resisting arrest, escape, or eluding." She said these guidelines are in effect in an attempt to use this program for individuals whose criminal history shows that their likelihood of re-offense is linked to substance abuse. Additionally, the type of offenses committed by those individuals are those that can, essentially, be eliminated by the 24-hour supervision provided by electronic monitoring. MS. CLARK addressed a third question, previously mentioned [by Representative Hayes] which asked why a letter could not effectively accomplish the intent of the resolution. She said the reason legislation is needed is linked to the history of the program's development. She noted that the legislature passed statutory language in the recent past, which indicated that DWI offenders should serve time in places with appropriate supervision, such as halfway houses. She highlighted that the language in that statute states that a "place of appropriate supervision" includes treatment centers, for example, that maintain a "24-hour onsite supervision" - language that caused "specific problems in front of Judge Wanamaker in wellness court." MS. CLARK explained that there were offenders who were well- employed, had significant alcohol problems, but were without any other "contacts with the law." They were the type of people who could, normally, post money to get out of jail, she added. She said that she thought most people "on the bench" and in society would agree that it is one issue to have money on the outcome of a horserace; one roots harder for that horse. However, she specified, the money does not prevent a person from "doing anything." Ms. Clark noted that alcoholics are famous for loosening up just as they get their drinking under control. She indicated [there are] people who are released on bail, who have money, but have no one watching out for them on a daily basis. Number 2724 MS. CLARK noted that she was referring to two individuals who were both single; they had no wife, husband, mom, or dad with whom they lived, who could pose as their third-party custodian and watch them 24 hours a day. She mentioned that, even if they had, they could probably have lost their employment, which may have made their situation worse. Ms. Clark told the committee that Judge Wanamaker attempted to utilize the Department of Correction's electronic monitoring system as a condition of bail, "and the State of Alaska opposed, very vigorously, for a number of reasons." MS. CLARK explained that, although this legislative body had indicated that it thought the [electronic monitoring] program was a good idea, by the time "these people were released from bail," not only did the state object to their having been released, but they also objected to them getting jail credit against that sentence, "even though if they had done the program after they were sentenced, it would have qualified." Number 2795 MS. CLARK reiterated [Representative Hayes's] question and answered it with a "no." She explained that "a letter would probably be insufficient to adequately address and clarify what the legislative intent for 24-hour, onsite supervision means." She said, in regard to these particular cases, the Department of Corrections had interpreted the 24-hour onsite to include the electronic monitoring sensor device. Expensive litigation ensued in regard to that, she added. To avoid a repetition of that type of litigation, [HCR 26] was drafted to clarify legislative intent, to such a degree that there would be no question that the legislature saw electronic monitoring as a useful device. MS. CLARK said that then the issue would be to ask "why should we be extending it from a place where people serve their sentence in incarceration, to something that they utilize as bail?" In response to a request from Chair Coghill to finish the testimony, Ms. Clark concluded, as follows: It's similar to what we do with all the (indisc.) corrections: we start off very strictly, and then we slowly release those factors to see if people can make it. And that's what electronic monitoring allows people to do - as a condition of bail. Number 2874 JAMES WANAMAKER, Judge, 3rd Judicial District Anchorage, District Court, Alaska Court System, testifying via teleconference, clarified that he was testifying as an individual judge in support of HCR 26, not as a representative of the entire Alaska Court System. JUDGE WANAMAKER read from [Version C, page 2, lines 26-28] which read as follows: (1) expand the use of the house arrest program/electronic monitoring (HAP/EM) as a condition of bail, in the manner pioneered by the Department of Corrections and the Anchorage district court wellness court program; JUDGE WANAMAKER said that the Department of Corrections cooperated in [formulating this program], which he stated is a wonderful tool. He spoke hypothetically of a defendant on a second felony, DWI, who has hit another vehicle. In this instance, Judge Wanamaker told the committee, he might tell the defendant: "Sir, I don't feel safe having you out on bail, unless you're in [an] intense treatment program." He outlined the structure of the wellness court treatment program [used in Anchorage, Alaska] as follows: [the use of the anti-craving medication] Naltrexone; alcohol treatment; and in-treatment with a state-approved treatment provider. He mentioned the house arrest program: electronic monitoring with "the sobrietor," which [is used] three- to five-times a day over the telephone to test for consumption of alcohol. He stated that he feels very confident that [the person enrolled in the above-mentioned programs] will not harm the public and will be getting "cured from alcohol." Judge Wanamaker said that [the court] demands absolute abstinence. TAPE 02-26, SIDE B Number 2999 JUDGE WANAMAKER told the committee about a new [program] called, "wellness jail," which he described as a "win-win," because, not only are the participants serving their jail time at no cost to the public, but also they are paying for their own electronic monitoring and cost of treatment. Judge Wanamaker said, "You're saving the cost of a hard-bed jail, but you're also curing this person of alcohol." JUDGE WANAMAKER said a survey of 26 people in the wellness court was conducted between 2001 and 2002. The results showed that, in those people's lifetimes, they had spent "$2 million-worth of jail." He added that they had not spent "any" since then. The saving in jail time alone is enormous, he emphasized. Judge Wanamaker noted that a study had been done in Portland of a program in which "the drug court model" was applied to cure people of drugs. They found that the cost savings to the public were ten dollars saved for every one dollar spent on the program. JUDGE WANAMAKER expressed that that is what he sees as the reason to act now on this legislation; there is a great tool that is available and it's a "win-win" situation. He said, "You can get people - that are willing to address their alcohol addiction - cured of alcoholism." He acknowledged that [the sponsor] had refrained from using the word "cure," but said he viewed it as when people reach the stage when they don't drink anymore; hence, both society and the defendant win. Number 2893 JUDGE WANAMAKER pointed out that it is a much better system than the old one, in which people in jail lose their jobs, their connections, their ability to cope with life, and they are living with "bad apples" and come out "dry drunks, ... with their minds in a worse place then when they went in." He concluded by saying that it is a real opportunity to use this new technology [of electronic monitoring] and new kind of thinking to run a therapeutic kind of jail. Number 2862 CHAIR COGHILL expressed his appreciation for the pioneering work done by Judge Wanamaker and for his "stepping out in Anchorage." He asked Judge Wanamaker if it were the case that some effort was being made to improve tension which may exist between the court system and the jail system, or if this [legislation] was just an attempt to improve a system that is moving slowly. Number 2844 JUDGE WANAMAKER replied that the Department of Corrections has been very cooperative, whereas the "district attorney's office is slow to come to the table on therapeutic things." He noted that he has been a prosecutor, a district attorney "of this district," and a judge. The real power, he said, is in the prosecutor's office; if their attention is gained, then this "model" can move forward more expediently. Number 2818 JANET McCABE, testifying on behalf of Partners for Progress, via teleconference, told the committee that that organization provides the community-based support for the Anchorage wellness court. She stated that Partners for Progress has worked closely with offenders on the program, as well as with the staff, including the Department of Corrections, which, she said, runs [the program]. Furthermore, Partners for Progress strongly supports [HCR 26], as a way to more fully utilize an existing program and tool for protecting the public, for helping alcoholics to change their life pattern, and as a substantial cost-savings measure, through the use of house arrests. MS. McCABE brought attention to several key points: First, it is well-established that [the electronic monitoring program] provides excellent security - far better than by putting people solely on bail; therefore it should be used more extensively to protect the public against alcoholics who drink and drive. Second, the public benefits through the cost savings. Jail costs $144 a day, she said, whereas this program can, for most people, cost nothing and is a good alternative for many who are in jail because of behavior influenced by alcohol use. Third, it requires people to be productive and commit to supporting themselves and their families. Fourth, Ms. McCabe mentioned the difficulty of transitioning out of jail. She said it is well- known that 75 percent of the repeat DWI offenders who get out of jail re-offend, and the use of this program can help people turn their lives around and "get out of that terrible statistic." MS. McCABE urged the House State Affairs Standing Committee to pass [HCR 26] and let those who want to make this program work, do so. CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. McCabe how she would envision the involvement of Partners for Progress in, perhaps, giving a seminar, or being involved in some type of educational outreach. MS. McCABE answered that the organization would like to do that, beginning with the house arrest program, [for example]. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that his question was in regard to whether she envisioned the organization requesting access to halfway houses. He asked how she viewed the educational process. In response to a request for further clarification, Chair Coghill asked specifically about the monitoring program. He asked: "Would you see it with you, maybe, interfacing with the Department of Corrections, would you see trying to get judges together; how would you see that? I'm trying to look at it from your eyes." MS. McCABE responded that the resolution is the best step; if the fact that the legislature is supporting the program is highlighted, then the Partners for Progress will back the legislature up with publicity and a workshop, if applicable. She noted that the commissioner of corrections is willing to work towards implementing "this concept." CHAIR COGHILL stated that he was looking for the legislature, the Department of Corrections, and the judicial system to be initiators in this process. Number 2533 PAMELA WATTS, Executive Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse, came before the committee and acknowledged that the prior speakers had addressed the critical elements of the resolution. She stated her belief that this legislature has rightfully stressed the accountability and productivity obligations of Alaskans to their state and their communities. She referred to the aforementioned statistic regarding 26 people spending $2 million in jail time, and she said that that comes as no surprise to her at all; the cost of incarceration is significant. This program not only "frees up" needed prison beds, she noted, but it allows offenders to function productively and address their work, and education, and family obligations. She said, "I think it's an example of how people can be held accountable for breaking the law, be responsible for their obligations as citizens, and receive the needed structure of sobriety monitoring, in conjunction, possibly, with medication that reduces the craving for alcohol, or other drugs." Number 2470 MS. WATTS recalled that Judge Wanamaker had referred to the use of a "sobrietor" [in the program]. She said she had been impressed last year when she discovered how that device functions. For the benefit of those present who might not be aware of its use, she explained that someone can call the person who has the sobrietor and determine whether or not that person has been drinking alcohol. Number 2429 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how the caller could determine that the person breathing into the phone equipped with the sobrietor is actually [the person on the program]. JUDGE WANAMAKER answered that the machine is equipped with a "wish recognition chip," which is programmed with certain words spoken into it by the defendant; therefore, the computer recognizes if it is the defendant speaking. He said the device must be held at the defendant's mouth, whereby they speak, are verified, then blow into the device, and get verified. If the device is transferred [to someone else] "the alarms go off." CHAIR COGHILL agreed [with an unidentified speaker] that this is "tight monitoring," and he said, "That's one of the reasons that many of us are concerned that it's not misused, but that it's properly used." Number 2390 MS. WATTS stated her belief that this program offers opportunities for treatment, previously mentioned by Judge Wanamaker, and opportunities for lasting change in behaviors, which the public demands. She said she is confident that the screening process adequately selects people who have the greatest "opportunity" to achieve positive outcome. She told the House State Affairs Standing Committee that the Advisory Board on Alcoholism & Drug Abuse supports [HCR 26] and encourages the committee to [pass it]. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that what was already being asked for was the continuation of alcohol monitoring programs, many of which are already "in force." He asked Ms. Watts if her concern was in regard to "a matter of alignment": was she [concerned with] trying to make the system work better? MS. WATTS answered yes. She said she did not have extensive knowledge of the difficulties between, perhaps, the Department of Corrections and the district attorneys in coming to some meeting of the minds regarding how this program would best work; however, she stated her confidence in the research, which indicates that this is a positive way to go to address the problem. She noted that it isn't an "easy way out." She referred to [Mr. Newman's] previous testimony indicating that this [program] requires effort, and she stated her belief that it holds people more accountable, results in better outcomes, and is more cost-effective. CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Watts, as an advisory board member, if she could see herself involved in, perhaps, putting on a seminar, or in educational outreach. MS. WATTS responded that she would be happy to do that. Number 2235 CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner - Juneau, Department of Corrections, came before the committee members and told them that she serves as the legislative liaison for the Department of Corrections. She officially stated that [the department] supports [HCR 26] and appreciates the efforts of Representative Green to assist the department and the offenders in rehabilitation. She stated her belief that [the department] has worked diligently in the past several years to find alternatives to incarceration for offenders who are lower risk. She said, "Obviously, it's expensive for people to be in our prisons, but beyond that, there's a rehabilitative factor that we can't ignore." Number 2207 MS. BROWER said that [the department] continues to work hard to ensure the electronic monitoring program continues to be successful. Part of that process is a balance between the primary concern of public safety and rehabilitation. She said she thinks that expanding the program will require some risk, because "we'll have to consider, perhaps, people that have not been eligible in the past, and that's always a possibility." She stated her belief that it is important to understand that electronic monitoring is a tool, a piece of the program. Enough treatment must be made available in the communities, she added, "to provide that other piece of support." Ms. Brower said she has some concerns about that, because of budget cuts, for example. Furthermore she said she wants to be certain that [the department] has the elements available to support [those in the program] who are making important progress. MS. BROWER said that, with the budget cuts received, one of the impacts that [the department] is expecting is that it may be placing more people on electronic monitoring, in place of community residential center beds, [for the purpose of] cost reduction. She added, "So, our hand will definitely be moving in that direction." CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Brower what can be done, immediately, in regard to monitoring. He referred to Ms. Bower's comment regarding expanding electronic monitoring and asked what the capacity was presently. MS. BOWER reported the following: We have 70 slots in Anchorage-Matsu. We have 15 slots in Fairbanks, 20 in Juneau, and 10 in Ketchikan. Currently, they're not all fully utilized. MS. BOWER said that there sometimes is resistance to this new program, because people consider it somewhat risky. There is an effort being made to bring people along, she said, that takes longer with some than with others. She told the committee, "We have a total of 105 slots right now, statewide." She said that she doesn't know "where we would be thinking of expanding," but that it's a process that the commissioner has made a commitment to address with the other parties. CHAIR COGHILL asked: "Is ... part of the issue those who would volunteer for it, or is it a reluctance, like you say, in the risk factor for a particular jail?" MS. BROWER answered that it is a combination of things. She noted that people are resistant to change, and [the department] has taken it slowly to ensure the success [of the program]. She stated that, obviously, one bad case could jeopardize the program. CHAIR COGHILL asked if there had been any significant failures to this program. MS. BROWER deferred the question to Gary Webster. Number 2049 GARY WEBSTER, Assistant Director, Central Office, Division of Institutions, Department of Corrections, testifying via teleconference, asked for clarification of the question. CHAIR COGHILL reiterated the question. MR. WEBSTER said it has been a successful program; one of the better things [the department] has been able to do. CHAIR COGHILL asked, out of 105 slots, how many are filled. Number 1987 MS. BROWER said she thought the following statistics, which she had just received that morning, were probably accurate: There are 70 slots in Anchorage, but 77 on monitoring, which effects the count in other areas. There are 8 in Fairbanks, none in Ketchikan, and none in Juneau, currently. She said the sum is 85 out of the 105. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the highly technical telephone monitoring, of which Judge Wanamaker previously spoke, limited the availability of the monitoring system. MS. BROWER deferred again to Mr. Webster. CHAIR COGHILL, in response to a request for clarification, asked Mr. Webster if the technology of using the phone [device previously referred to by Judge Wanamaker as "the sobrietor"] limits the availability of this type of monitoring. MR. WEBSTER indicated he was not sure what limits [Chair Coghill referred to]. He said the number of people [the department] can put on [the program] is "virtually unlimited." There is a certain number of units that [the department] designated as available to itself; however, he explained that is just an operational number. He noted that [the department] would not have to change any contracts, or make any revisions to add [to] the numbers. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that he wanted to know if there were any technological limitations to using the monitoring system. MR. WEBSTER said [the department] is actually "looking at increasing that a little bit." It is considering a voice- recognition system offered by the vendor, which is based on a slightly different program where [the department] would program in the machine where an individual is 24 hours a day and the machine would call that person to see that they are actually where they are supposed to be. MS. BROWER added a clarification that there are certain requirements necessary before a person can qualify for electronic monitoring - the basic one being that they own a telephone. Beyond that, she said, that person cannot have call waiting, or any other feature that would divert the system. Those requirements are checked at the start and periodically. CHAIR COGHILL expressed his appreciation of the cooperation that has existed between [the Department of Corrections] and the judicial system. He said, "What I'm trying to get straight in my mind, as we go down through this resolution is what we have in place, and what the capacity is, [and] if we're not up to the capacity, why." MS. BROWER said she is not certain why [the program is not up to capacity]. Furthermore, she said she thinks it is one of the jobs of [the department] to figure that out and try to intervene in any roadblocks. CHAIR COGHILL recognized that this was a work in progress. He said he thinks that what is being asked for is a "little more horsepower" into [the program]. Number 1750 JUDGE WANAMAKER mentioned that there are two continuing legal education programs in Anchorage to make people aware of the house arrest program, with the next meeting scheduled to take place on April 1. He said he thinks that may be part of the reason that [the program] is overused in Anchorage, with 77 slots used out of 70 allotted. CHAIR COGHILL said he thinks that just shows the interest of the community. Number 1715 MS. MENENDEZ referred to the question previously posed to Ms. McCabe, asking about an outreach or education seminar. She said that efforts in Juneau have been underway with district court Judge Peter Froehlich to compile a workgroup and noted there has been success in engaging some of the agencies necessary to "put something together." She said that Judge Froehlich is working diligently to "get all players to the table," so that the slots in Juneau are utilized. CHAIR COGHILL commented that it appeared that commitments were being made to continue the discussion. DON DAPCEVICH, Consultant for the Department of Health and Social Services, told the committee that one of the dependent issues in making this program fully operational is whether there is adequate treatment in the community. He continued, as follows: And right now, as you all know, there are waiting lists in most of our communities for treatment availability. With the current budget that's proposed, there's going to be a longer waiting list, and that will limit availability of treatment, which in turn will limit the number of people that can partake of this program, which we fully support. Number 1597 CHAIR COGHILL expressed that the difficulty was in how to continually provide for the growing need, under declining revenues. He said, "Certainly, our intentions could be very clear, but our ability and our intent may not be entirely aligned." He reiterated his concern regarding capacity. He noted that discussing the resolution brings [the various groups] to the table. Chair Coghill said, "To go ahead and develop anything new, or to bring new seminars out, we might be fooling ourselves just a little bit, at this point in history." He added that it was his view to recognize that "the early intervention brings us the greater benefit." He mentioned Judge Wanamaker's work with Naltrexone, explaining that the drug is useful in freeing people from alcohol addiction. Number 1499 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHCR 26, version 22- LS1578\C, Luckhaupt, 3/13/02, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHCR 26(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|