Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB64 | |
| SB138 | |
| Presentation: the Heads of Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, Risks, and Benefits | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act establishing the Alaska Sentencing Commission;
relating to jail-time credit for offenders in court-
ordered treatment programs; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court-
ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving while under the influence or refusing to
submit to a chemical test; relating to court
termination of a revocation of a person's driver's
license; relating to limitation of drivers' licenses;
relating to conditions of probation and parole; and
providing for an effective date."
9:11:15 AM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, related that the bill had the three
overriding goals of improving public safety, slowing the
growth of the prison population, and saving the state
money. He related that if things were not changed, the
Senate Finance Committee might to consider how to build the
state's next big prison. He stated that the bill was a
cooperative effort between himself, Senator Ellis, Senator
French, and Senator Dyson that had been under development
for well over a year and half. He continued that the bill
was the result of many hours of testimony and that the
sponsors had hammered out a good piece of legislation that
the committee would be able to appreciate. He thought that
there were several things in the bill that would help the
state turn the corner on a variety of things that "really
kicked the feet out from under us," which was the drug and
alcohol problem in Alaska. He stated that the legislation
would give the Department of Corrections (DOC), the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and the
Department of Law (DOL) real tools to help manage a
population that needed better avenues. He stated that
Alaska needed to figure out how to deal with the issue of
sobriety, as well as how to keep people accountable and not
spend the most amount on jail time. He spoke of the need
let people have as much freedom as possible and be
productive while still protecting public safety.y.
Senator Coghill related that in his mind, there were
several over-arching aspects as the bill was being put
together. He reported that he had always had an eye to the
victim and that in Alaska, victims were quite often left
without remedy. He thought that even as Alaska was trying
to give avenues for those who had offended, the state
wanted to make sure that the public was safe and that the
victims were given every opportunity for restoration; he
thought that there were avenues to do this under the 24/7
Sobriety Program. He reported that the 24-7 program allowed
people to be productive while under accountability, which
allowed them to pay restitution in other ways; he thought
that the bill fell into what Senator Dyson had pushed on
restorative justice. He added that the protection for the
victim and the need for accountability were heavily
embedded in the bill in the most cost-effective ways. He
noted that the legislation contained a sobriety program and
established the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission that
would study the question of whether there were areas of
Alaska's mandated sentencing laws that the legislature
should be looking at; the bill would provide the commission
with a list of things to think about and would require it
to come back to the legislature with a report.
Senator Coghill thought that through the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission, it was time to examine how Alaska
looked at its criminal code, mandatory sentencing, and how
the sentencing had fit in real life; this would not be done
with the intent of how to be soft on crime, but to be as
real as possible in accountability. He stated that that
imbedded in the bill was a Probation Accountability and
Ccertain en Enforcement ??(PACE) program that acted
swiftly in the event of a parole violation. He noted that
the sponsors were requesting that a fund be established
within the bill that would allow the state to have a
programmatic approach for those exiting jail; he noted that
were several ways to setup of a fund and hoped that he
would have a clearer path forward on that issue the next
time the bill was before the committee.
Senator Coghill noted that thresholds for felony theft had
not been adjusted since 1978 and thought that it
represented an important thing to do because currently,
Alaska could produce felons for things that really did not
rise to the level of a felony; if under certain
circumstances, they more than once they could be a felon
if they offended more than once. He noted that under the
bill, some of these felonies needed to be adjusted and that
the time value ofand money and crime needed to be
considered. He noted that the sponsors were asking the DOC
epartment of Corrections and the Department of Health and
Social Services DHSS to assist in creating better risk and
needs assessments. He thought that the bill would help
protect the public and keep people more accountable. He
reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee had included a
section for people who picked up children and did not have
good identification; the section heldp people to a level of
accountability if they did not have the right to pick up a
child at school. He concluded that were multiple aspects in
the bill, but its real focus was public safety,
accountability, and avoiding building another prison that
would cost the state $300 million or more.
9:18:25 AM
Senator Dunleavy pointed to the fiscal notes attached to
the bill and inquired if the he bill's cost would represent
an increase to the budget or a transfer from another area.
Senator Coghill replied that the way the bill was written,
it would was a general fund appropriation to the stated,
but added that he would have his staff propose ways to
decrease that cost and produce a CS. He stated that
decreasing the bill's cost really revolved around the
recidivism fund. He observed that the legislation did have
an expected savings that was very hard to quantify which
was the reduction in cost of keeping people accountable
outside of jail versus a the higher cost of incarceration.
He related that the cost savings would be very hard to
quantify, but it was expected to occur. He thought that
there might be an estimation of what that savings was
sometimes in the future, but reiterated that he was unsure
if the DOCdepartment would be able to quantify the number.
9:20:30 AM
JORDAN SCHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, spoke to a
PowerPoint presentation titled "Senate Bill 64 Omnibus
Crime/Corrections bill" (copy on file). He spoke to slide 1
of the presentation and read off his talking points (copy
on file).:
SLIDE 1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hearing Senate Bill 64
today in light of a full schedule.
Just to bring you up to speed on where SB 64 has been:
(2) senate state affairs
(2) joint judiciary
(7) senate judiciary
The Senate Judiciary Committee received input from the
Department of Law, Dept. of Corrections, the Court
system, Public Defender, and as a result of that
feedback, this CS was formed.
Today we go over version D.
9:21:34 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 2 and spoke from his talking
points.:
SLIDE 2
The state is not receiving good value for the money
spent on our corrections system. 2 out of 3 of our
prisoners return to prison quickly after release.
Most of these offenders return in the first 6 months -
which is one of the worst recidivism rates in the
country. So, we must ask ourselves: with state
revenues falling, is this how we want to spend our
money?
M
9:22:00 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to a graph on slide 3 and reported that
currently, the price of incarceration was $159 per day,
per inmate and was about $54,000 per year, which was
approximately twice as much the cost in the Lower-48.
9:22:09 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 4 and read from his talking
points.:
SLIDE 4
Today Alaska is at a crossroads. If the prison
population continues to grow at its current rate, the
state's prisons will be, yet again, at full capacity
in just two years. So, the state must today either
start planning to build a new prison, start sending
prisoners out-of-state, or, look at programs that are
proven to work - things other states are doing today -
to reduce recidivism, reduce our DOC budget, and put
off a huge capital expense (and an operating expense)
of building another prison.
Mr. Schilling related that the graph on slide 4 was from
the Legislative Finance Division. He stated that the red
line was the maximum capacity of the prison system and that
the blue line was the prisoner population. He stated that
the prison population in Alaska was growing at a steady 3
percent per year and that in 2016, where the blue and red
lines intersect, was when the system would be over
capacity. He stated that the horizontal cells at the bottom
of slide showed the budget and relayed that the lately, it
had increased about 7.3 percent per year.
9:23:14 AM
Co-Chair Kelly requested Mr. Schilling to repeat the
figure. Mr. Schilling confirmed that the corrections the
corrections budget had been increasing 7.3 percent per
year.
9:23:20 AM
Mr. Schilling pointed to slide 5 and read his talking
points.:
SLIDE 5
Many states have been faced with the same problem -
the problem of needing a new prison every 5 or 10
years. Those states identified the things driving
their prison growth and developed policies to address
them.
Over the last couple years, 15 of those states
actually closed prisons.
Texas and Kansas were among the first states to make
some big changes. Texas was faced with building 4 new
prisons. Instead of doing that, they funded some of
these programs, and they ended up not needing a single
new prison, and they actually closed a prison a few
years later… so we can look to what other states have
done to see what works.
Kentucky's omnibus corrections bill is projected to
save them $420 million over the next 10 years.
Arkansas' omnibus bill is expected to save $875
million.
We haven't done much in corrections reform. The vast
majority of Alaska's criminal statutes were rewritten
in 1982. The Alaska criminal code was based on the
best research at the time. Research, however, has
continued to advance during the last 25 years and much
has been learned about effective ways to address our
prison problem
9:24:29 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 6 and related that the bill
had three main goals, which were to increase public safety,
reduce recidivism, and reduce costs.
M
9:24:38 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 7 and spoke from his talking
points.:
SLIDE 7
Now, the DOC has similar goals. This is the mission
statement of the Department of Corrections.
1) Secure confinement
2) Reformative programs
3) Community Reintegration
That mission is pulled right from the Alaska
Constitution. So, it's not that their goals are
wrong, but it's how they allocate resources to achieve
those goals.
M
9:25:02 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to the charts on slide 8 and read from
his talking points:
SLIDE 8
This is how they allocate those resources.
The Department places a major emphasis on secure
confinement, and barely any emphasis reformative
programs or community reintegration. Yet those are
the very areas where we can affect recidivism.
If we keep doing the same thing, we'll keep getting
the same results. These are the results we're getting
right now.
Mr. Schilling discussed the top pie chart on slide 8 and
stated that it depicted how DOC allocated its full-time
positions; 86 percent of the positions were focuseds on the
warehousing aspect, 4 percent wereas focused on reformative
programs, and 10 percent wereas for supervised release.
9:25:39 AM
Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to the
graph on slide 9 and addressed his talking points.:
SLIDE 9
The Department of Corrections made this graph and it
shows the drop in recidivism over the past few years.
While it may look like a dramatic decrease is
occurring, you'll notice this is about 1.5% reduction
over 4 years. That's not enough, and it's not
happening quick enough. At that rate, our prison
system will be at capacity by 2016. And 63% is still
one of the highest recidivism rates in the country.
M
9:26:12 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 10 and spoke from his talking
points.
SLIDE 10
SB 64 has 8 main pieces to address our recidivism
problem:
· SB 64 establishes a 24/7 Sobriety Program used to
prevent offenders from drinking. The program
includes twice-a-day alcohol testing and swift
punishment if alcohol is consumed.
· SB 64 creates the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
to evaluate the system and make recommendations.
· SB 64 expands a program called P.A.C.E. which is a
different way of doing probation that prevents
violations and new crimes.
· SB 64 requires the Dept. of Corrections to conduct
more assessments of their prisoners.
· SB 64 establishes a Recidivism Reduction fund in the
Department of Corrections to grant money to
transitional re-entry programs.
· SB 64 increases the felony theft threshold from $500
to $750. The threshold was established in 1978 and
has never been adjusted for inflation.
o Lastly, SB 64 incentivizes treatment and expands
the ability to get credit for time in treatment.
Mr. Schilling inquired if Co-Chair Kelly would like him to
go through the bill section by section. Co-Chair Kelly
replied in the affirmative.
9:27:35 AM
Mr. Schilling pointed to slide 11 and addressed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 11
The first 3 sections of the bill fill a gap in our
criminal codes relating to attempted child abduction.
These sections of the bill resulted from an amendment
in Senate Judiciary.
Mr. Schilling related that while the first 3 Sections of
the legislation did not deal directly with recidivism, it
had a strong public safety aspect.
9:27:59 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 12 and spoke from his talking
points.:
SLIDE 12
If a potential abductor goes to a school/daycare, and
attempts to pick up a child that doesn't belong to
them, the only charge currently on the books that can
be made against the person is Criminal Mischief.
These sections create a crime of "custodial
interference in the 2nd degree" if an attempted
abduction like that is made.
9:28:41 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if there were comments or
discussions about cases of custody in and divorces
situations in the Senate Judiciary Committee. She wondered
what would happen if a mom who had custody of her child
sent a neighbor to pick up the kids and that because of the
volatility of the situation, a restraining order, or some
other unkownsituation, the school did not want to release
to a friend who the child knew;. sShe wondered how this a
situation like the one described above would be dealt with
and pointed out thought that the father might claim that it
was an abduction. Mr. Schilling responded that it was a
good question and relayed that the issue had been discussed
in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He directed the
committee's attention to page 2 on line 16 of the
legislation and stated that it was where the language was
added that stated that in order for a crime to be
committed, a person must have no legal right to pick up the
child; the language had been added to address the type of
situation that Vice-Chair Fairclough had referred to. He
explained that if someone who had custody of a child gave a
person permission to pick that child up, that would suffice
as a legal right.
M9:29:56 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 13 and related that the next
15 sections of the bill, which were Sections 4-19, dealt
with Alaska's felony theft threshold.
9:30:08 AM
Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to slide
14 and discussed hise talking points.:
SLIDE 14
Sections 4-19 address the felony theft threshold.
The dividing line between a misdemeanor theft and a
felony theft is $500. If you steal something over
$500, it's a felony. If you steal something under
$500, it's a misdemeanor. That dividing line, the
felony threshold, was established by the legislature
over 30 years ago.
Because that amount has never been adjusted, it fails
to take into account 30 years of inflation. $500 in
1978 had much more purchasing power than it does
today. In fact, $500 in 1978 is equivalent to $1800
today. In other words, what amounted to a misdemeanor
30 years ago may now constitute a felony.
9:30:44 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 15 and related that the graph
showed where Alaska was compared to other states on the
West Coast regarding felony theft thresholds. He reported
that Alaska had was one of the last holdouts that had a
felony threshold rate this low for theft. He added that the
graph needed to be updated and that not only had Colorado
adjusted theirs in 2007, but that it had done so again
recently. He stated that property crimes made up the
largest portion of Alaska's felonies and that the sponsors
were seeking a modest increase in the threshold from $500
to $750.
9:31:19 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 16 and stated that the
following statutes were those that would need to be
adjusted if the felony theft threshold was changed from
$500 to $750:
Theft 2nd degree
Theft 3rd degree
Theft 4th degree
Concealment of merchandise
Removal of identification marks
Unlawful possession
Issuing a bad check
Fraudulent use of an access device
Vehicle theft in the 1st degree
Criminal mischief 3rd degree
Criminal mischief 4th degree
Criminal mischief 5th degree
Criminal simulation
Misapplication of property
Defrauding creditors.
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 16 and stated that the reason
that there were 15 sections in the bill dealing with
statutes was because of the of the number of them of them
that were affected by the threshold change.
Mr. Shilling read from his talking points:
A felony conviction carries lifelong consequences.
There are thousands of consequences and barriers that
follow a felony for the rest of his or her life.
A felony conviction greatly diminishes the ability of
that individual to lead a productive life.
This problem disproportionately affects those in rural
Alaska. A basic window, if broken in Anchorage might
only be a misdemeanor, but that same window in rural
Alaska could trigger a felony. As inflation
continues, this problem will get worse.
One criticism we have heard is that some think theft
will increase.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if the sponsor had had discussions
about the $750 dollar amount and thought that it did not
seem achieve that much. Mr. Schilling responded that when
Senator Coghill had originally introduced the idea several
years prior, the suggested new threshold had been $2,500
and that when the bill was again reintroduced the previous
session, it was at $1,500 , but and it was amended down to
$1,000; it was then amended again down to $750 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He agreed that the number was
not very significant if it was going by inflation.
9:32:40 AM
CoCo-Chair Kelly thought that the threshold in the bill
needed to higher than $750 and inquired if the cost of a
dented fender in the charge of criminal mischief would be
applied under the legislation. Mr. Schilling responded that
Co-Chair Kelly was correct.
9:33:10 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that small businesses are
the ones advocating for a smaller threshold because they
felt that breaking a storefront window in Anchorage rose to
the level of a felony.
Vice-Chair Fairclough referenced slide 15 and noted that
only 10 states were provided. She inquired if the 10 states
on the slide were the bottom 10 and requested a range
inside of the U.S. where the level might be set. She
recalled that the bill had been originally introduced with
a new felony theft threshold of $2,500 and now appeared to
still be second to the bottom at $750. She felt that
businesses were not aware of how much the current threshold
was costing the state in the form of corrections and the
Alaska Court System. She understood the offense and that
perhaps if businesses wanted to keep the threshold low,
they could help carry the burden. Mr. Schilling responded
that Vice-Chair Fairclough was correct in that not every
state was listed on slide 15 and that there were, in fact,
states that had a lower such threshold than Alaska. He
stated that it was also true that the National Federation
of Independent Business had pushed back on the bill's
concept.
9:34:44 AM
Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to slide
20 and thought that it was important to understand that
theft under $500 was still a class A misdemeanor and
carried up to a year in jail and up to a $10,000 fine;
furthermore, these crimes would not go unpunished, but the
threshold was being adjusted to track the original intent
of the legislature when it had put in the $500 limit.
9:35:04 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered what the bar graph on slide
15 represented inside of the U.S. She inquired whether it
represented the high and the low or another category. Mr.
Schilling responded that the x-axis was showing a dollar
amount and that Alaska's current bar was about $500; the
numbers next to the bars were the years that the thresholds
had been established. He noted that Alaska's threshold was
established in 1978, but the state just above it on the
chart, which was Nevada, had a threshold of $650 that was
established in 2011.
9:35:43 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough commented that there were 50 states
and that she was looking for a range. She inquired if the
chart's states reflected the high and the low or were there
numbers that were not shown on the extrapolation for the
graph. Mr. Schilling responded that the graph did not
reflect a high or low range, but that he would produce the
information for the committee.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that she was trying to get a
range for the committee. Mr. Schilling replied that he had
a seen a low threshold of about $300, but that he could
not recall which state that was; he believed that $2,000
was the new threshold for Colorado.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if Mr. Schilling thought
that the high was Colorado at $2,000. Mr. Schilling
responded that he believed that it was.
9:36:29 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 17 and. He related that there
had been concerns by the business community that the bill
would result in increased crime and theft; however, other
states had not seen those effects from similar legislation.
He pointed to slide 17, 18, and 19's graphs and related
that they graphs had come from the PEW Research Center,
which had conducted a lot of research on the issue. He
noted that Arkansas had raisedchanged its threshold in 2011
and that instances of theft remained unchanged.
M
9:36:55 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 18 and related that Ohio had
increased its threshold in 2011; theft had actually dropped
there since then.
9:37:00 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 19 and pointed out that South
Carolina had doubled its threshold in 2012; again, crime
was steady.
9:37:06 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 20 and related that it was a
visual representation of what the sections did.
Mr. Shilling spoke to his talking points for slide 20:
These sections also raise the lower threshold of $50
that sits between a class A misdemeanor and a class B
misdemeanor to $250.
So, we propose to increase the threshold to $750.
It's a modest amount, but it's a step in the right
direction.
9:37:28 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired why the threshold was being
changed if there were results that showed it did not make a
difference on the crime rates. Mr. Schilling replied that
the purpose it was to reduce the number of people who were
receivingbeing felonies es for crimes above $500, but under
$750. He furthered that the sponsor was trying to reduce
the collateral consequences that followed someone for the
rest of their lives if they received a felony convictions.
He offered that it was becoming easier and easier to
receive a felony conviction.
9:38:06 AM
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the point was that the crime
level did not go up as a result of the changing the of
felony theft threshold; it could benefit the state by
having the cost be a lot less with the same amount of
crime. He observed that the sponsor was also trying to
address a human element with the change, but that it could
not be quantified.
9:38:27 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested that the presentation be
directed back to slide 17 and noted that when she looked at
the graphs, she saw something different. She offerednoted
that in Arkansas, it appeared as though theft had been
trending downward until the threshold had been raised
there. Mr. Schilling responded that the uptick in the graph
was right before the state had changed the threshold and
that it appeared to him as though the line level was level
at the point at which it was changed.
Vice-Chair Fairclough observednoted that there was an
inflection downward in one of the categories of theft. Mr.
Schilling replied in the affirmative.
9:39:09 AM
Senator Bishop requested the average age of peoples of the
felons whothat committed felony theft. He wondered if most
of these types of crimes were committed by people who were
18 and 19 years old and expressed that he added that
wanted to help paint the picture. He added that felony
theft could be a barrier to a young person who was seeking
employment and noted that it prohibited these people from
working on the pipeline. Mr. Schilling responded that that
he would work with the Alaska Ccourt Sysystem to determine
if that was a number that he could obtain.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if there had been discussion
regarding in the Senate Judiciary Committee about a judge's
discretion related to the bill. She relayedted that some
judges had indicated to her that sometimes the legislature
was so prescriptive in what it did that there was sometimes
very little latitude for judges to consider what was
happening in the court room or to an individual who might
be a troubled child who threw a rock or might be a multiple
offender. She further clarified the question and wondered
if the discussion of giving judges the flexibility of
weighing an individual perpetrator's circumstances in his
decision. Mr. Schilling responded that the issue had not
been discussed specifically in regards to the felony theft
threshold, but that he understood that giving judges very
little discretion was a problem.
9:41:19 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough recalled the example of a mischievous
child breaking a window and thought that perhaps exceptions
could be made in certain cases. She appreciated the work of
the bill's sponsor but had heard from the judicial system
that the legislature was getting very prescriptive and that
a having justice versus prescriptive penalties was
something that was sometimes out of judges' hands.
9:42:07 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 22 and read off of his
talking points.
:
SLIDE 21
Alaska has, for decades, been in a long struggle with
alcohol. It has reached epidemic proportions and
costs the state millions each year. The societal cost
of alcohol is huge too - from FASD and suicide to
domestic violence and sexual assault.
Alcohol is a factor in many (if not most) crimes - For
example, alcohol is involved in 75% of domestic
violence offenses -- and if we can address that area,
alcohol abuse, we could see a huge reduction of
recidivism in Alaska.
Sections 20-22 establish 24/7 in pre-trial.
24/7 Sobriety is a program developed in 2005 in South
Dakota. It curbs alcohol use, it makes the public
safer, and it reduces recidivism. The best part is
that it costs the state next-to-nothing.
24/7 Sobriety is a growing trend in the U.S. There
are 3 states with an established program (SD, ND, &
MT), 11 states with pending legislation, and 5 more
states operating pilots.
The program has one goal: sobriety 24 hours per day, 7
days a week. The program requires the participant to:
1) refrain from alcohol and
2) show up twice-a-day for a breath alcohol test.
(The court may also order remote monitoring in certain
cases.)
9:43:42 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 22 and discussed his talking
points.:
Participation in the program can be required as a
condition of probation, parole, or pre-trial.
So, if an offender commits a crime, and alcohol is a
factor in that crime, the court can order that person
on 24/7 Sobriety, either as a condition of their
release before trial, or as part of their probation.
It is a particularly effective program for repeat DUI
offenders.
9:43:56 AM
Senator Hoffman requested that Mr. Schilling address the
how remote monitoring would work in rural Alaska. Mr.
Schilling deferred to DOC regarding where the department's
monitors could and could not be used; however, he had
information later in the presentation that would cover some
of the devices and ways that it would work in rural Alaska.
9:44:24 AM
Mr. Schilling continued to address slide 22 and spoke to
his talking points:
So, if an offender commits a crime, and alcohol is a
factor in that crime, the court can order that person
on 24/7 Sobriety, either as a condition of their
release before trial, or as part of their probation.
It is a particularly effective program for repeat DUI
offenders.
9:44:38 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 23 and discussed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 23
All testing fees are paid by the participant, so it's
a self-funded program. The cost is anywhere from $4-5
dollars per day, which the offender pays - and that's
enough to sustain the program.
9:44:52 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 24 and addressed his talking
points:
SLIDE 24
There are several ways to test: in-person, ankle
bracelet, home-based device, or a portable
Breathalyzer. While in the program, participants
remain in society, conduct their daily lives, go to
work, pay their fees, and fulfill their
responsibilities, as long as they remain sober.
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 24 and stated that the device
on the far left side was a portable breathalyzer and the
one in the middle was a home-based device that was being
used in a pilot program in Anchorage; the device on the far
right was an ankle device referred to as the SCRAM bracelet
and was something that DOC was using.
9:45:28 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 25 and addressed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 25
Someone can be on the program anywhere from a week to
a couple years.
The program was based on personal responsibility and
accountability, backed by swift and certain sanctions
if there is a violation. If the offender blows hot,
they receive a swift sanction (arrested immediately, a
quick hearing, and a short jail sentence, usually 1-3
days.)
M
9:45:52 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 26 and read from his talking
points.:
SLIDE 26
The program works. Most people on the program quit
drinking completely, and another 30% quit drinking
after their first couple violations.
24/7 Sobriety is a public safety measure. South
Dakota has been collecting data on their program for
almost 10 years now, and the results are very
exciting.
Mr. Schilling pointed to slide 27 and addressed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 27
They have seen a 9% decrease in domestic violence and
a 12% decrease in drunk driving. The program is
reducing recidivism and saving them money.
The bottom line is: a majority of the people in the
program quit drinking completely, and that's good for
public safety and good for the budget.
9:46:29 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 28 and read from his talking
points.:
SLIDE 28
The next section, 23, makes changes to AS 12.55.027.
This section of law lays out the requirements to
receive credit for time served in a treatment program.
By relaxing these requirements on treatment programs,
the program can offer better treatment, and
participants can more readily earn credit for time
served there. Remember, offenders have little
incentive to enter (and pay for) a treatment program
if they won't get credit for their time.
9:47:06 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 29 and spoke to his talking
points.:
For 25 years, it was the Court that made
determinations of what counted as credit for time
served in a treatment program, based on years of
caselaw, starting with Nygren v. State in 1983. In
2007 the legislature enacted this section of law.
Now, it is laid out in statute, and is much more
restrictive than it was pre-2007. It leaves little
room for an offender to participate in activities that
programs would like to provide, such as going to a job
center, attending church, vocational classes, or going
to AA and NA meetings.
If we relax the requirements in this statute, it
encourages rehabilitation and treatment, and allows
treatment programs to do more. And it brings the
statute more in-line with how things were done prior
to 2007.
The way these changes are written in SB 64, we're
still preventing credit for time served for going to
dinner and a movie.
So, SB 64 says that in order to get credit for time
served, one must live in a treatment facility and can
only get a "day pass" for things like employment, voc.
tech classes, AA or NA meetings, and any other purpose
that is directly related to their treatment. This
encourages treatment, which is by far less expensive
than a prison bed.
9:48:39 AM
Mr. Schilling related that Sections 26 through 28 of the
bill dealt with the expansion of PACE.
a program called Probation Accountability and Certain
Enforcement (P.A.C.E).
Mr. Schilling pointed slide 30 and discussed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 30
When an offender is put on probation, they are given a
list of things they can't do - like use drugs. If
they violate the conditions of their probation by
using drugs, it's called a "probation violation" and
that can trigger you going back to jail. In Alaska,
we have a big problem with people on probation getting
these violations or committing new crimes and
repeatedly coming back into the prison system. This
revolving door of people coming in and out of the
prisons is one of the biggest drivers of our high
recidivism rate. But more important to this committee,
it is one of the biggest cost drivers to the
Department of Corrections.
9:49:28 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 31 and addressed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 31
There is a way to stop this revolving door. There is
a different way of doing probation and it's a program
called P.A.C.E. (Probationer Accountability and
Certain Enforcement).
Mr. Schilling pointed to the pie graph on slide 31. He
related that the green slice represented 14 percent and was
the amount of people who were serving time currently solely
based on a probation violation.
Mr. Schilling continued to address slide 31 and read from
his talking points.:
..it was first developed in Hawaii and is now being
used in 17 other states. It reduces the number of re-
arrests, reduces the amount of drug use, reduces the
number of missed appointments, and ultimately reduces
the number of people going back to jail.
It's an intensive program for offenders who have been
identified as likely to violate the conditions of
their probation. The program involves frequent and
random drug tests and responds to any violation with
swift, certain, and short terms of incarceration.
Probation-as-it's-currently-done-today comes with high
rates of violations. For example, despite rules
requiring sober living, probation-as-usual oftentimes
affords offenders opportunities to continue using
drugs, which in most cases means continuing to commit
other crimes. Drug testing tends to be too infrequent
and sanctions are too rare and too delayed. When
sanctions are imposed, they tend to be too severe
(months, or occasionally years, in prison) rather than
a 2-3 day jail term.
P.A.C.E. takes away the discretion of the Probation
Officer because when someone violates a condition of
his or her probation by, for example, testing positive
for drugs or missing an appointment, under P.A.C.E,
that individual is arrested immediately and brought to
court within 72 hours. At the court hearing, the judge
imposes a sanction of a short jail term, commonly two
to three days. If the offender violates his or her
terms again, the process is repeated. In short, every
single probation violation is dealt with quickly and a
sanction is imposed each time. In contrast, under
"probation as usual," revoking someone's probation or
holding a court hearing might not occur until several
probation violations are reported. As a result, the
process can require several costly court hearings over
a six-month period and can be generally characterized
as anything but "swift and certain."
This is more intensive probation, but it can be scaled
at low cost. In Hawaii, the program grew from 35
probationers to more than 1400 without adding
courtrooms, judges, court clerks, police officers, or
jail cells. To begin putting a tourniquet on our rate
of recidivism, this bill establishes PACE statewide
immediately, which the Department of Corrections
estimates needing additional personnel for.
Mr. Schilling observed that the bill did have a fiscal note
that accounted for the need of the additional personnel
within DOC.
9:52:25 AM
Co-Chair Kelly observed that the fiscal note for the bill
was for about $1.6 million and inquired if there was any
way to anticipate the savings that it would result in. Mr.
Schilling replied that there were ways to estimate the
savings and believed that the sponsor had a report from the
Division of Legislative Research to that effect. He thought
that the report was in members' packets (copy on file) and
stated that further along in the presentation, he would
discuss the reduced number of days in prison that people
had under P.A.C.E.
9:52:51 AM
Mr. Schilling continued to address slide 32 and stated that
P.A.C.E. probationers were 55 percent less likely to be
arrested for a new crime and were 72 percent less likely to
use drugs. He noted that the graph depicted a precipitous
drop off after the first violation of a positive
urinalysis.
9:53:14 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 33 and stated that P.A.C.E.
probationers were 61 percent less likely to skip
appointments.
9:53:22 AM
Mr. Schilling addressed to slide 34 and relayed that
P.A.C.E. probationers were ultimately 53 percent less
likely to have their probations revoked, which was where a
cost savings could be found because they were not coming
back to prison.
9:53:37 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 35. He stated that the graph
also reflected the likelihood of P.A.C.E. probationers'
probation being revoked, but it reflected the state's pilot
P.A.C.E. program in Anchorage.
9:53:47 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 36 and stated that it showed
how many less days a P.A.C.E probationer would spend in
prison; they served 48 percent fewer days in prison. He
reported that when the cost of incarceration was $160 per
day, a 48 percent decrease was huge. He observed that each
new probation officer in Alaska paid for their own salary
and benefits if they kept just 2 people out of prison for a
year.
9:54:17 AM
Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to slide
37 and discussed his talking points.:
SLIDE 37
The Department of Corrections evaluates inmates to
figure out their risks and needs. This type of
evaluation can give the DOC an idea of the underlying
reasons that person committed the crime like if they
have a substance abuse or a mental health problem.
Based on this assessment, you have a good idea if the
offender needs to be in PACE, if he could use
substance abuse or mental health treatment, basically,
discovering what the underlying issue is.
9:54:45 AM
Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 38 and related his talking
points.:
SLIDE 38
The department uses a 54-item assessment, which
identifies problem areas in an offender's life and
helps predict their likelihood of recidivating.
The assessment looks into 10 areas like family/marital
issues, attitudes, substance abuse or alcohol issues,
etc.
However, when someone is sentenced to serve time in
prison here in Alaska, more often than not, we do not
evaluate or assess that person. The Department of
Corrections assesses less than half of the felons
coming through the system, and assesses hardly any
misdemeanants, even though misdemeanants are the
future felons.
You can't link an offender to treatment if you don't
assess them. You can't understand the underlying,
root causes for their crimes if you don't assess them.
In speaking with the department, a risk-needs
assessment takes about 45 minutes to complete.
Mr. Schilling addressed slide 39 and read fromaddressed his
talking points.:
SLIDE 39
So, this section [Section 29] of the bill requires the
Department to perform a risk-needs assessment on all
offenders who have been sentenced to 30 days or more.
This will mean a significant increase in the number of
assessments the Department conducts. The Department
estimates needing additional probation officers to do
these assessments.
9:55:54 AM
Co-Chair Kelly wanted the record to reflect that Co-Chair
Meyer had rejoined the committee.
9:56:14 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 40 and relayed his talking
points.:
SLIDE 40
When someone has served their entire sentence, they
are released from prison. Every state releases their
prisoners differently. Some states transition that
person into a halfway house or some other type of
gradually phased re-entry. But here in Alaska, more
often than not, these prisoners are released into the
parking lot of the prison without any resources
whatsoever. This is one of the root causes of our
high recidivism rate - we dress them in the clothes
they entered prison with, and we release them into the
parking lot. They don't have first month's rent or a
deposit, and they can't get a job. They certainly
can't afford treatment. And if you're from rural
Alaska, you're probably being released in a city
you're unfamiliar with. So, as a result, many of those
recently released go straight to a homeless shelter
and are back in jail in no time.
It's this approach to re-entry that is the main cause
of Alaska's high recidivism rate. Of all of the
recidivism we're seeing, most of it occurs in the
first 6 months.
If, during those first 6 months after release, we
could, put them in a transitional re-entry program - a
place with a structured environment, sober living,
treatment, and help getting a job or education in
their own communities -- we could greatly improve
their chances of not reoffending.
9:57:13 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 44 and related his talking
points.:
This section creates a fund to start those types of
programs. This fund will distribute money to programs
that have those 4 things: case management, sober
living, substance abuse treatment, and work placement.
By putting some focus on re-entry, we can drastically
reduce our rate of recidivism. This fund would be
managed by the Department of Corrections, which comes
with a fiscal impact to administer the fund.
9:57:34 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 46 and related that the bill
established the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, which
was simply a commission that would review, analyze, and
evaluate the effect of laws and practices within the
state's criminal justice system. He stated that an original
CS to the bill had the commission set at 17 members, but
the amount had been reduced to 12; the commission had a
sunset date established of 5 years.
9:57:58 AM
MrR. Schilling addressed slide 47 and stated that the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission had some powers and
duties that were essentially pulled from the state
constitution, did not have an executive director, was
staffed by the Alaska Judicial Council, and provided an
annual report to the legislature each year.
9:58:07 AM
Mr. Schilling discussed slide 49 and related the
applicability and transitional provisions in the bill. He
noted that the bill had an effective date of July 1 of the
current year; however, the legislation gave DOC the ability
to start working on the regulations immediately.
9:58:51 AM
AT EASE
10:12:06 AM
RECONVENED