Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/11/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | 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."
9:06:28 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked the bill sponsor to provide any
additional comments prior to public testimony.
JORDAN SCHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, stated that
he had no additional comments and thanked the committee for
opening the bill up for public testimony.
9:07:01 AM
SHIRLEY LEE, CHAIRPERSON, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE JUSTICE
TASK FORCE, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SB 64. She stated that the 42 tribal
organizations of Tanana Chiefs Conference were having their
annual meeting the following week and that concerns and
issues that affected its members and people would be
discussed; one of the main issues was the disproportionate
number of Native Alaskan men who were incarcerated. She
recalled the conference's past requests to a build prison
in Interior Alaska to help assist with the rehabilitation
of tribal members, but noted that the philosophy had
recently shifted from building prisons to rehabilitation.
She stated that the conference supported any efforts to
shift focus towards rehabilitation and that the bill
provided an avenue to that end. The conference liked the
legislation's intent and use of innovative programs and
thought that it was a good start to much needed criminal
justice reform; it also appreciated the diversity on the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission and hoped that it would
have greater partnership with tribes regarding justice
issues in the future.
9:09:33 AM
HEATHER SCHIMANSKI, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB
64. She shared a personal story about her experience in the
justice and corrections system. She explained that she was
on felony probation and had been sober since October 15,
2008. She stated that while in jail, she had participated
in the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program
(RSAT), which treated and addressed her addiction problems.
She discussed various reentry program that were available
during her release in 2011, including intensive outpatient
treatment, and a women's support group. She related that
she also lived in transitional housing after release and
observed that since release, she had never had a parole
violation. She concluded that reentry programs and
assistance were very helpful for someone recently released
from incarceration and that without the services that she
had been able to access, she would not be where she was
today.
9:11:17 AM
Co-Chair Kelly congratulated the previous testifier on her
sobriety and observed that society benefitted when people
made effort to get their lives together and become well.
KATHRYN CHAPMAN, JUNEAU REENTRY COALITION AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE JUNEAU AFFILIATE OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON
ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG DEPENDENCE, JUNEAU, testified in
support of SB 64 and related that she was in long-term
recovery and had not used drugs or alcohol since 2010. She
related that becoming sober had enabled her to finish her
master's degree in social work; it had further enabled her
to be a productive member of the community. She supported
efforts towards implementing and funding programs that
assisted ex-offenders to be successful. She offered that
the 24-7 Sobriety and the Probation Accountability and
Certain Enforcement (PACE) programs were shown by studies
to improve public safety, were cost-effective, and reduced
recidivism. She discussed the makeup of the Juneau Reentry
Coalition and indicated that it was diverse. She stated
that she viewed reentry as recovery and that the top three
reoccurring themes of reentry were a lack of safe and sober
housing for people coming out of jail, an inadequate amount
of long-term residential substance abuse services, and the
need for more peer-support services. She offered that many
of the state's ex-offenders were people with substance
abuse disorders that were often untreated and pointed out
that SB 64 had extended risk assessment that would be
required for people who were incarcerated for 30 or more
days; she thought this aspect of the legislation
represented a positive direction to take and that people
had different needs. She opined that addiction was the
problem and that recovery was the solution. She relayed her
own experience in recovery and how it provided her with
great insight into the problem with recidivism and its
cycle. She stated that she had been lucky and had support
systems, but that people who were not really needed the
reentry programs in order to succeed. She spoke of how
difficult recovery was to maintain and that it was an
ongoing process.
9:16:08 AM
Senator Hoffman noted that there was a provision in the
legislation that dealt with monetary values of stolen
property regarding when it became a felony; the range for
the felony threshold in the U.S. was between $200 and
$2,500. He inquired if Ms. Chapman had an opinion on what
the felony threshold for stolen property should be in
Alaska. Ms. Chapman inquired if the proposal was to raise
the threshold to $2,500.
Senator Hoffman responded that the range was from $500 in
Virginia to $2,500 in Indiana. He believed that the
threshold in the bill was $500 for Alaska. Co-Chair Meyer
interjected the proposal in the bill was for $750. Ms.
Chapman replied that it was her opinion that the threshold
should be increased; based on her knowledge, the amount had
been set years prior. She thought that the value of things
had increased since then.
9:16:57 AM
KEVIN ENLOE, JUNEAU REENTRY COALITION, JUNEAU, spoke in
support of SB 64 and related that he was also in long-term
recovery and had been clean since December 12, 2010. He
related that he had extensive experience with drug usage
and incarceration that stretched back about 20 years. He
stated that he had 4 felony charges, 12 misdemeanor
charges, and 55 dropped charges, all of which were drug
related; this spanned back to a minor consuming that he
received at the age of 13. He related that he was never
offered or ordered to take a treatment program after a drug
offense and spoke of the lack of follow up and aftercare
for drug offenders.
Mr. Enloe stated that he had served about 12 years at Lemon
Creek Correctional Facility and that the prior year had
been the first time that there had been a substance abuse
treatment program available to him; he had taken the class,
but it did not seem long enough to him. Based on his
experience with reentry assistance, treatment was too short
and lacked follow-up or checks and balances. He discussed
the difficulties and time it took to change your entire
lifestyle; additionally, there was stigma involved with
being an offender that tended to prevent someone from
moving forward. He supported investing more money in
reentry and treatment programs for the long-term. He
stressed that getting sober was only one small aspect of
the road to recovery; all the work that came after sobriety
took years and there needed to be assistance available. He
explained that there was a small window where someone
decided to ask for help and if it was not available, that
person slid back into their subculture. He thought that it
would be nice if all the services were held under one
umbrella corporation; he had been responsible for searching
out and his own aftercare. He thought that more interactive
classes were important. He stated that his support group
had become corrections officers and maintenance workers. He
recalled having left jail many times with nowhere safe
place go, which had resulted in repeat offences.
9:22:37 AM
CHRISTINA LOVE, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of SB
64. She related that in her experience with the AWARE
shelter. She related that she had attempted suicide because
she did not think that there was a way out of addiction;
she was too shameful to talk about her problems with
substance addiction and her family did not talk about it
either. She related that she did not make it to a detox
program for another year after her suicide attempt and that
at the time, the waiting list to get to get into treatment
was too long; as result she had relapsed. She observed that
after relapsing, she went to outpatient services and stated
that those did help because they planted the seed of a way
out. She learned in recovery that sobriety was the catalyst
for recovery and that it was not a moral issue;
furthermore, addiction was a disease that could be
arrested. She stated that the Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance Program (TBRA) had helped her significantly to
find a safe home. She stated that community and support
were critical for her recovery. She spoke of how the timing
of getting an addict into treatment was very important and
related that after getting out of detox, there had been a
30-day wait for her to get into treatment. She related that
assistance for substance abuse was a life or death issue
for her and the addicts that she helped. She supported
funding for increased substance abuse programs.
Senator Bishop commented that the testifiers had been very
articulate and applauded people for being able to discuss
their issues with addiction.
Co-Chair Kelly requested the previous testifiers to stop by
his office to discuss a program called Set Free Alaska that
had a very high success rate with addiction counseling. He
related that the program was probably based on a slightly
different premise than the testifiers had heard before. He
recalled that each of the previous testifiers had
identified themselves as an addict or an alcoholic and that
although he understood and supported the 12-step programs,
he invited them to believe that the label was a deception;
they were not addicts or alcoholics but were children of
god who would beat their addiction.
9:29:15 AM
CHRIS NETTELS, PRESIDENT, GEOTEK ALASKA INC., NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that he was against the felony
threshold for theft being raised any higher than $750. He
pointed out that he was originally against the threshold
being raised to $750, but that the National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB) had compromised. He believed
that raising the threshold any higher than $750 would be a
mistake that would cost small businesses money and spoke of
increased instances of theft at businesses in Anchorage. He
believed that raising the threshold would increase theft
even further.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that business theft was a concern that
impacted everyone because it forced businesses to raise
prices to cover the losses. He inquired if a shoplifter
knew the difference between a felony and misdemeanor and
planned their theft accordingly. He wondered if a criminal
rationalized the threshold in their own mind.
Mr. Nettels replied that he thought criminals were well
aware of the threshold, but the theft that occurred in his
business was not shoplifting. He related that his business
conducted construction work and people would take tools. He
offered that it was fairly common for people to come on a
Saturday night when no one was working and steal stuff off
of the yard. He asserted that thieves were active on
weekend nights in Anchorage, knew what they were doing, and
would know the difference between a misdemeanor and a
felony; however, attempts on his business had been
significantly higher than $500-$750. He concluded that
there were professional thieves who certainly knew what the
felony threshold was. He offered that while the prices of
some things had gone up, computers and other items had come
down in price. He thought that stealing a computer or a TV
was still theft and ought to be dealt with in a strict
manner.
9:33:04 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that as the state was about
to draw $2 billion from its savings account, one of its
challenges was assessing state investments. She noted that
Alaska was in the lower one-third of states where the
threshold was $500, but understood the perspective of
businesses.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if it was Mr. Nettels'
experience as a business owner that a theft was typically
over $500. Mr. Nettels replied he had instances of theft
both over and under the threshold. He believed that based
on the sheer number of thefts, the majority were below the
threshold; however, there had also theft attempts on things
like trailers. He recalled a recent attempt where a
perpetrator trying to steal one of his trailers had escaped
after being caught in the act. He added that the hoods of
trucks in his parking lot had been into and that the
catalytic converter had been stolen. He was unaware of the
street value of a catalytic converter, but observed that
those types of theft were occurring at an increasing rate
over the last two to three years.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that theft over or under the
threshold would still be a crime. Her only issue was
whether the act was a felony and would go through felony
courts versus a misdemeanor.
9:35:12 AM
CARMEN GUITERREZ, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 64. She discussed her background
of 25 years working in the criminal justice system; most
recently, she had served as deputy commissioner for the
Department of Corrections (DOC). She related that with the
department, her responsibilities had been to work on
prisoner rehabilitative programs and to improve prisoner
reentry outcomes. She stated that the people behind the
scenes who were working on SB 64 had been doing so since
the fall of 2012 and related that intent behind the bill
was to do what policy makers could to improve the value
that Alaskans were receiving for state's criminal justice
dollars. She believed that when two out three Alaskans
returned to prison within three years of their release from
custody, it was safe to assume that the state was not
getting enough value from its dollars that were spent in
the criminal justice system. She stated that when she had
been at DOC, the issue had revolved around figuring out
what could be done to try to provide better outcomes in the
state's criminal justice system.
Ms. Gutierrez reported that many other states had also
started looking at their criminal justice system to
determine if they could get better value; as a result, a
lot of research had been conducted on programs. She stated
that proven, evidence-based approaches were implemented all
over the country. She thought that Jordan Schilling from
Senator Coghill's office had presented substantial
information about many of the programs that other states
had implemented that were not only reducing recidivism and
criminality. She discussed the PACE and Sobriety 24-7
programs and offered that rehabilitative programs worked if
they were constantly reassessed for quality control and
implementation. She stated that DOC's rehabilitative
programs were starting to show some very positive outcomes.
She referenced prior testimony and asserted that recovery
worked if there were aftercare and support programs in
place for people upon their release. She remarked that
without the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission she was
unsure who would be taking a leadership role in trying to
present to policy makers evidence and research regarding
what was and was not working. She believed that the
commission could serve a great role and stated that every
successful reentry into the community essentially meant one
less victim. She recalled recently hearing in another
committee that the Goose Creek Correctional Facility was
already at 96 percent capacity. She was concerned that the
prison population would continue to grow at a very high
rate if the state did not implement new, proven strategies.
She opined that the strategies in SB 64 had been proven in
other communities to reduce recidivism and concluded that
reducing recidivism would better serve Alaska's criminal
justice dollars that were spent.
9:43:35 AM
LISA RIEGER, GENERAL COUNSEL, COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 64.
She stated that the Cook Inlet Tribal Council had been
operating an alternative program for prisoner reentry for
the past six or seven years and spoke of her service on the
statewide reentry task force. She discussed the PACE and
24-7 Sobriety Programs, as well as the establishment of the
recidivism reduction fund to promote transitional reentry
programs. She emphasized that her experience was that it
was much harder to go to a program and change than it was
to serve time in prison. She offered that the council had
saved the state millions of dollars by offering treatment
that had kept people out of jail; most importantly, the
program changed lives in the community. She stated that the
council supported allowing alternative programs to
substitute for prison time.
9:46:14 AM
JEFF JESSEE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 64 and related that the bill contained a
number of targeted strategies that focused on what the
state could do in the short-term to try to improve its rate
of recidivism and incarceration. He thought that it was
hard to improve on the earlier testimony regarding the
effectiveness of treatment programs and other supports in
the community. He stated that the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA) liked the expansion of the PACE
program and related that it was a proven evidence-based
strategy that had originated in Hawaii; the program ensured
a short leash on individuals on probation. He offered that
the expanded risk/needs assessment was also very important
and that it allowed the state to get a better idea of what
a prisoner's situation was; it would enable the state to
more finely tune strategies. He stated that the Recidivism
Reduction Fund was an innovative strategy to create a
funding mechanism to support transitional reentry programs,
which were critical to reducing recidivism. He explained
that the bill would also expand the 24-7 Sobriety Program,
which was also an evidence based program that assisted
people with staying sober. He understood that there was
some controversy surrounding raising the felony theft
threshold and stated that he could sympathize with
businesses that were faced with thefts and other crimes
against their businesses; however, at some point, how
various levels of criminal behavior were handled should be
looked at. He was doubtful that many criminals looked at a
potential theft and pondered whether it would come in over
or under the $500 threshold for felony theft.
Mr. Jessie continued to offer his testimony and thought
that because the value of items had risen with inflation,
the statute should be changed to keep pace. He noted that
the bill also created a commission. He asserted that
creating the commission was a worthwhile investment and
referenced testimony that the state was on pace to have to
build another prison in short order. He offered that the
only way to avoid having to build another prison was to
invest in a series of strategies that would drive down the
recidivism rate and avoid the need to further incarcerate
an increasing rate of people over time. He stated that the
House Finance Committee was considering intent language
that would encourage a number agencies that already
collaborated on recidivism issues to develop more of a
long-term plan and a portfolio of strategies; these
organizations would include the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, the Department of Health and Social Services,
DOC, and AMHTA. He supported the intent language and
encouraged the committee to consider similar language. He
stated that in his 34 years of working in the field, he had
never before seen the synergy that existed currently in the
state, particularly regarding the impact of alcohol or
alcohol abuse. He spoke of the Rasmuson Foundation's
Recover Alaska Initiative and related that AMHTA had
identified alcohol and substance abuse a as focus area; the
Mat-Su health foundation had identified alcohol and its
effects as a number one health problem in the region. He
pointed out that Co-Chair Kelly was leading the Empowering
Hope Campaign and that the trust's tribal partners had
worked diligently on this effort over time. He concluded
that the trust believed that SB 64 was a great start
towards looking at a comprehensive approach to the issues.
9:53:49 AM
STUART GRENIER, SELF, MULDOON (via teleconference),
requested that language be added to SB 64 that would
increase the penalties for those providing alcohol
through sale or other methods to people restricted from
having alcohol. He thought that the best way to accomplish
this was to make the legal code the same for people with
"red stripes" and for underage drinking with equal
penalties. He thought that the change was necessary because
it would facilitate an expanded use of issuing alcohol
restrictive IDs to members of the community that were prone
to public inebriation. He noted that in Anchorage, people
who drove under the influence were issued red stripes and
experienced the full force of the law; however, people
without resources to own a vehicle were allowed to purchase
alcohol and become intoxicated in wooded or public areas;
these people became a problem to themselves and people
attempting to use public areas. He thought that
strengthening the language for alcohol restrictive licenses
and posting it on the doors for the sales points would get
the system ready for expanded use of those licenses for
chronic inebriates; it would give communities a better
handle on the problem. He discussed his personal history on
the issue and a murder that occurred next to his condo. He
asserted that public inebriates were access points to
alcohol for underage drinkers. He supported a more
conspicuous billing of the red striped license concept. He
discussed another case in his neighborhood where a police
officer was killed by an underage drunk driver who was
provided alcohol by someone outside of a liquor store. He
recalled that four years prior in Anchorage, almost 70
percent of the electorate had voted to approve universal
carding for alcohol purchases and thought that tools like
the red stripe need to be worked on.
Mr. Grenier continued to provide his testimony and related
that it was discriminatory to throw the full force of the
law at people who could afford a car and drove drunk, while
people were allowed to be inebriated in public. He wondered
how many people were freezing to death due to public
inebriation. He thought it was time to revisit the law
related to public inebriation and thought that the state
was not caring to its chronic inebriates. He hoped that SB
64 could address some of the issues he had mentioned.
9:59:43 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony on SB 64.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that a lot of the components that made
up the financial costs of the program were for probation
officers, as well as PACE and the 24-7 Sobriety program. He
thought that unless a person was willing and accepting of
treatment, it was really just a waste of money. He wondered
if his assumption accurate.
Ms. Chapman replied that it was true for some people, but
that it was pressure from the criminal justice system that
had pushed her into recovery. She communicated that
investing in the programs would offer an intervention for
many people, which would get them headed in the right
direction.
Co-Chair Meyer understood the expense that came with an
absence of treatment programs, but he thought that people
did not always take treatment seriously because they had no
desire to make the necessary lifestyle change for a full
recovery. He noted that Ms. Chapman was in full recovery
and was wondering if she could offer help to the committee
to ensure that the state would get the maximum value of its
dollars spent.
Ms. Chapman understood that the bill was looking to fund
programs that had many components in addition to treatment.
She thought that providing safe and sober housing, peer
support, and getting people connected to social activities
and jobs were all important aspects of reentry programs.
10:03:35 AM
Co-Chair Meyer recalled that Ms. Chapman has stated that
she had earned her master's degree while see was in jail.
Ms. Chapman clarified that she had earned her degree in a
halfway house.
Co-Chair inquired if it was the criminal justice system
that had encouraged her to get treatment and the help she
needed. Ms. Chapman replied that the impetus had been her
fear over what would happen if she did not comply.
Ms. Chapman stated that she was not a good representation
of the majority of people who were incarcerated. She
thought that she was higher functioning, that she had
support systems in place, and was plugged in to a 12-step
program. She explained that when she was in the halfway
house, she was not at a phased level that would allow her
to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings; as a result,
her AA fellowship had visited her for support. She had used
services that were not very accessible, but she did not
believe everyone was as resourceful.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired if there was a way to separate the
felony theft threshold from property damage in the bill.
Mr. Schilling responded in the affirmative.
10:06:17 AM
Senator Hoffman requested the sponsor to address the
concerns raised by businesses that increasing the threshold
would increase the crime rates. He inquired what the crime
rates were in the states that had a higher monetary
threshold for felony theft because he did not believe that
it was uniformly the case those states had increased rates
of theft. He wanted to see crime rates on theft and
property values by those states and thought it would help
the committee make its decision. He pointed to the chart
that Mr. Shilling had previously presented that showed
western states and the thresholds (copy on file). He noted
that Alaska's threshold of $500 was set in 1978 and that if
it was set at $750, it would still be $1,000 lower than the
inflation rate in 2011; accounting for inflation, the
adjusted $500 would be $1,730. He thought that the issue
was critical particularly in Alaska where the costs were so
high. He offered that there were currently people in prison
for a felony who would not be there if the state had kept
the threshold up with the rate of inflation.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered how the value of something was
determined and wondered if the wholesale or retail price
was used. He noted that a store paid wholesale, but they
marked it up at retail. Co-Chair Kelly noted that Co-Chair
Meyer raised a good point.
10:08:26 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if the committee needed
information from an insurance company and recalled
testimony from NFIB had indicated that there might be a
threshold that an insurance company uses to reimburse the
actual business. She referenced an NFIB letter that
notified her about the money coming directly out of the
pocket of the business owners. She wondered if what the
insurance company was actually covering played into the
bill. She wondered if an insurance company would reimburse
fully for a felony, but would not fully cover a
misdemeanor. She was uncertain of the accuracy, but
recalled reading the information.
Vice-Chair Fairclough hoped that the committee was
considering adding an audit provision with a sunset date in
a CS in order to allow the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee to examine the commission instead of standing up
another organization.
Co-Chair Meyer thought that Vice-Chair Fairclough raised a
good point. He related that the state already had a lot of
boards and commissions and wondered what the committee's
thoughts were on creating another board and commission.
10:10:16 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that one of the tasks of
drawing money from savings was to review how Alaska
invested its dollars to get the highest possible use out of
its investments. She wondered if there was another
organization currently working with recidivism and
corrections that might be able to handle the task instead
of starting another commission
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the committee might consider a
task force that had a limited timeline, worked towards a
specific outcome, and was dissolved after that outcome was
reached.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the DOC fiscal note and stated
that 31 positions were a lot to add. He understood that the
bill would require a multitude of new positions; he did not
want to reduce the number of positions to the point where
the bill would be ineffective. He inquired what the
sponsor's thoughts were on the issue.
Mr. Schilling stated that DOC could probably speak better
to what its needs would be, but that from his perspective
the salary and benefits that were required for a probation
officer would pay for themselves if the officer could keep
two people out of jail for a year. The sponsor hoped to see
savings from additional personnel.
10:12:17 AM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that he believed the sponsor, but
that the committee heard many times that increasing funding
would result in savings.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that one of the things that
struck her through listening to testimony was that Alaska
wanted DOC and its officers to do things differently. She
was not opposed to a one or two-time increment, but that
the idea was to change the direction instead of permanently
adding another layer of government. She believed sometimes
money had to be spent in order to make improvements;
however, the legislature wanted DOC to use the money it was
receiving to provide genuine rehabilitation inside of a
correctional facility or divert people from those
facilities instead of using it to lock people up. She was
in support of the one-time funding and thought that DOC had
to change the way it did business.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed, but noted that when people were
hired, it was hard to let them go.
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the legislature had a
frustration with the corrections system and that it was an
issue that never seemed to be solved. He recalled that
overly harsh punishments did not seem to work and that
being too lenient did not either. He recalled speaking with
a previous testifier, Kevin Enloe, who had indicated that
an inmate could not get treatment in a facility until their
release date was in sight. He thought that there were all
kinds of hiccups in the system that did not make sense. He
thought that these kinds of questions would be very
difficult to deal with and that there would need to be more
legislation to delve into different aspects of corrections
and treatment.
10:15:50 AM
Senator Bishop thought that a benchmark of the programs'
success hinged on whether a new prison would be needed in a
few years' time.
Senator Bishop inquired if the 24-7 Sobriety Program
included a provision that a DUI offender would be able to
get a conditional license to drive to work. Mr. Shilling
replied that the limited license provisions had been
removed in the Senate Judiciary Committee's CS and were not
in the current version of the bill.
Senator Bishop thought that the removal of the limited
license provisions represented another barrier to
employment and that the provision should be added back into
the bill. He pointed to instances where a spouse had to
make lengthy drives to get their partner to work. He
expressed displeasure at the removal of the limited license
provision.
Mr. Schilling agreed. He stated that the sponsor had worked
hard on the provisions, but had run into some workability
and drafting issues regarding how the courts and the
Division of Motor Vehicles synced up. He added that
sponsors supported the provisions and were open to their
reinsertion; however, due to limited time, the sponsor had
opted to drop the provisions from the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer thought that the courts had the option of
letting someone drive with the ignition interlock. Mr.
Schilling replied that there were mandatory interlock laws,
but the sponsor had run into an issue related to how
administrative license revocations versus court ordered
revocations would be cancelled or terminated.
10:18:51 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked DOC to come forward. She stated
that in 2008, Alaska had passed legislation to create a
task force to review domestic violence and sexual assault
in Alaska. She stated that one of the recommendations that
she had contacted DOC about for the last five years but
continued to linger related to the ability to provide
treatment services while people were incarcerated. She
stated that she had received different responses as to why
this could not happen; the response from DOC had been that
there was a lack of funding. She noted that the judiciary
system had relayed to her that the issue was not funding,
but that someone had to actually be charged with a crime
before they could enter into treatment; this assertion was
backed by previous testifier, Kevin Enloe.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wanted to know the answer for the
record and inquired if it was money or a judicial issue
that was keeping people from entering treatment. She
expressed frustration that the recommendation had not been
implemented since 2009 and that people had not received
needed treatment when they were inside a state correctional
facility. She thought that these people, particularly rural
Alaskan's, should have the opportunity to succeed and noted
that treatment should be available to rural Alaskans when
they were in an urban correctional facility.
10:21:04 AM
Co-Chair Kelly thought that Vice-Chair Fairclough was
referencing the courts inability to impose treatment on
someone who had not been sentenced yet. He reported that
there could be 18 months where someone wanted and needed
treatment, but the courts could not impose it because they
were going through negotiations. He relayed that his
explanation was the short-term answer, but that he was
unsure what long-term answer was.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered why the programs could not
be part of a judge's determination to allow people the
option of going into treatment prior to conviction; it
could be a retrospective for good time served.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Nancy Meade from the court system
was also present and requested her to join Mr. Taylor.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated
that the court could not impose certain things on people
before they were convicted; however, people wanted to be
released on bail and it was already a practice for people
to propose some treatment during that bail period in order
to get credit at a later time towards their sentence. She
added the bill did address the issue and that the sponsor
had the intent of broadening which sorts of treatment would
qualify for credit as time served; she thought that the
language could be found in Section 23 of the bill. She
stated that until someone was proven guilty, the court did
not order the person to do something; however, it could do
so as a condition of bail. She concluded that there were
programs available to people before they were convicted.
10:24:28 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the only time that a
person would remain in jail before conviction was if they
had not made bail or were not allowed bail. Ms. Meade
replied in the affirmative and added that there was a
constitutional right to bail and that the judicial officer
set bail by weighing things like the severity of the crime
and the threat to public safety versus the person's right
to be out on bail. She related that a common condition of
bail was a third-party custodian to watch a person and
ensure that they made they court dates and did not violate
other conditions of bail.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that two things came to mind,
one of which was from a different bill that the committee
had considered. She wondered why Alaska did not mandate
inmates to file for their Permanent Fund Dividend. Ms.
Meade replied that there was a court rule that required
people in felony judgments to apply every year they were
eligible. She believed that there was a state statute
specifying that if a person was incarcerated for a felony,
they were not eligible. She understood that felons'
Permanent Fund Dividends went to a fund that was used by
DOC for some of the programs. She related that felons would
be required to use that Permanent Fund Dividend money to
pay their share of an appointed counsel if they had a
public defender and stated that Alaska had over a 90
percent rate of felons using public defenders.
10:26:33 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough thought that felons should not have
to fill out the dividend application every year and be
denied. She appreciated the court's perspective on the
issue and requested the DOC's perspective on the
availability of treatment. She stated that the issue inside
of the taskforce had been that treatments provided in
courts were sometimes either too short to be meaningful or
too long. She wanted DOC to talk about alignment and how
the state would provide more services to meet the needs of
incarcerated individuals in order to allow them assist them
with rehabilitation and reentry to life.
RON TAYLOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
replied that unless the parole board or the court had
directed people into treatment, DOC did not have the
authority to force people do so. He stated that there were
a number of provisions in the bill that would give DOC ways
to incentivize people to enter treatment programs and
stated that 24-7 Sobriety Program as a bail condition and
PACE would help the department in that regard. He stated
that the risk/needs assessment was a big component that
would help DOC determine who was best suited to go to
treatment.
Mr. Taylor addressed Vice-Chair Fairclough's original
question and asserted that DOC had improved regarding
offering treatment availability. He stated that over the
past few years, the department had expanded treatment
significantly. He stated that there were a number of
problems that still existed with the department's treatment
delivery system in custody. He reported that there were a
number of areas in the state where DOC was not able to
offer certain types of programming and that there was
limited programming in terms of the Life Success and
Substance Abuse and Treatment (LSSAT) and RSAT Programs. He
reported that DOC had a consultant examine its programs
overall to find ways to expand the department's treatment
capacity and expand the way that services were delivered in
custody. He relayed that the department looked at the risk
and needs of the individual and did its best to align its
services and programs based on need; aside from the past
year or two, part of DOC's problem was that it had not
aligned the two. He concluded that aligning the risk and
needs of individuals with DOC's services was something the
department was doing now. He offered that he would be happy
to provide the committee with further information regarding
DOC's treatment services in its institutions, as well as
the services it provided in the community itself.
10:30:42 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough appreciated the response and thought
that department was just as frustrated as anyone with
ongoing issues. She stated that another item she discussed
with DOC year-after-year was reentry into the job market
and providing someone who was coming out of the prison
system with a job. She thought that people were struck by
economics, they tended to stick with the behavior that got
them there.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the state was starting to
look at a work reentry program where the state took the
first risk on the inmate that was being released. She
wondering if there was some safe place within the state
where inmates could work six months or a year, so that the
state was the first employer. She offered that the state
could bet on its own correctional system that the inmate
would stay clean and would not steal; this person could be
given a living wage so that they could see what that looked
like and state could be the trial ground for reentry.
Mr. Taylor replied that Vice-Chair Fairclough was
referencing apprenticeship programs that the department had
expanded over the last several years and its work with the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development to look at
pilot programs with the seafood industry. He reported that
DOC had taken minimum security prisoners down to Kenai and
Seward to conduct work with the seafood industry so that
the inmates were able to make a living wage before they
were released and were able to support their families, pay
restitution and child support, and have a first or a second
month's rent while they were out on the street. He
concluded that the department was beginning to look at the
types of work programs that Vice-Chair Fairclough was
speaking to.
10:33:02 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if DOC had written the fiscal note
and noted that the 24-7 Sobriety Program had a cost of $10
per day. He thought that the committee had heard that the
cost of the same program in South Dakota was $4 per day.
Mr. Taylor responded that South Dakota would probably say
that it was $2 per day and that the department had been
looking at the program to find ways to reduce its cost. He
stated when DOC had submitted the fiscal note, it was based
on the current contract that were in place, working through
its community jails and its electronic monitoring. He
relayed that the department could go back and look at ways
to reduce that cost. He added that the note was the maximum
amount and was based on if the court had ordered all 2,400
people into that program.
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the costs in Alaska were
higher but thought that a cost that was five times the cost
in South Dakota seemed excessive and requested that the
number be reworked. He requested an explanation of the 14
new positions in the PACE program.
Mr. Taylor replied that before he spoke to the PACE
program, he wanted the committee to understand that the
programs in other states were not connected to a community
jail or DOC's electronic monitoring; the programs in
reference in other states were using a private entity. He
related that primarily, the clients were paying for the
services and the department was not asking for $4 million;
the $4 million was actually from receipt supported services
where the client was actually paying for the majority of
the money.
Mr. Taylor addressed Co-Chair Meyer's question regarding
the PACE program and related that the initial pilot
programs in Anchorage and Palmer were conducted with
existing resources. What was in the bill was a statewide
expansion of that program to probation and parole. He
related that DOC would be going into all of its communities
where there were probation offices and anywhere a parole
board had ordered someone to reside that required a
probation to monitor that in order to ensure that the same
type of swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions were
being applied in those areas as well.
10:36:49 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that people in recovery needed support
and that a lot of times they did not have a family. He
understood that corrections was a very people intensive
business.
Co-Chair Meyer spoke to Recidivism Reduction Grant Fund and
observed that there were six new positions in the fiscal
note. He inquired what types of grants would be issued and
wondered if six new positions would be too many. Mr. Taylor
replied that if DOC had to write the grants, it had no
infrastructure to do so and was not a granting agency.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if another agency could write the
grants. Mr. Taylor replied that there were probably other
departments that did grants that would be available to
help. Co-Chair Meyer noted that the committee would discuss
the issue with the sponsor.
Co-Chair Kelly noted that the 24-7 Sobriety Program
envisioned having the offenders pay for the cost of the
programs, which was not necessarily a bad idea; however, he
was thinking about the cost in terms of someone who had
just gotten out of jail. He thought that the $10 cost per
day seemed high and inquired what it would cost someone to
take the program for a month. Mr. Taylor replied that it
would depend on how long someone was on the program but
that at $10 per day, it would have a cost of $300 per
month.
Co-Chair Kelly relayed a story about a young man who was
married, had 2 kids, and had had just turned 18; he had
committed a felony and was sentenced to several years in
prison. Since release, the young man had tried everything
to reintegrate into society and do the right thing, but
could not get a job or a commercial driver's license. He
related that the you man had worked for a company that
liked him, had promoted him up the ranks to a manager
position, but took the position away when they found out
about the felony. He thought that someone in this young
man's position who had 4 children could not afford $300 per
month. He thought that it was tough for most middle class
people to produce a $300 per month payment. He agreed to
some extent, with the perpetrators paying for the cost of
classes, but he preferred for the state to pay for the
program. He believed the benefit sobriety programs provided
to the state was worth the cost. He communicated that he
and Vice-Chair Fairclough were heavily involved in fighting
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in the state. He emphasized that the
sobriety program would reach individuals who may not
receive help otherwise. He stated that preventing pregnant
women from drinking would save a minimum of $1 million. He
reiterated that paying $300 a month out of pocket was not
feasible for many Alaskans.
10:41:36 AM
Co-Chair Meyer remarked on the importance of funding the
program. He spoke to the program's expense and hoped to
determine a more cost-effective way to provide funding. He
referenced testimony that DOC was not in the business of
writing grants; however, there were other departments that
were. He surmised it may be possible to save money.
Senator Olson referred to Mr. Nettles' testimony that
people were aware of the difference between having a
misdemeanor versus a felony. He wondered if the department
observed that offenders made decisions based on whether a
crime was a felony or misdemeanor.
Mr. Taylor responded that some offenders consciously made a
decision to commit crimes that did not cross the line from
misdemeanor to felony charges.
Senator Olson clarified his question. He wondered if
offenders thought about whether a crime would result in a
misdemeanor or felony. He was interested in whether a
person weighed the risks when committing a crime. Mr.
Taylor replied that crimes were based off of timing and
opportunity. He was not sure criminals were focused on
whether an offence fell under the misdemeanor or felony
category.
Senator Olson asked if Mr. Taylor disagreed with Mr.
Nettles. Mr. Taylor replied he had not heard from offenders
that they contemplated whether a crime was a misdemeanor or
felony.
Ms. Meade addressed a question from a prior meeting related
to the costs of felonies versus misdemeanors. She referred
to a comment by Vice-Chair Fairclough that it was difficult
to determine the actual cost of handling felonies versus
misdemeanors. She communicated that in general the court
had a system for identifying a cost comparison. She
detailed that felony offences increased juror costs. For
example, there were 12 jurors for felony cases versus 6 for
misdemeanor cases and the average trial time for a felony
case was 4 days versus 2 days for misdemeanor cases.
Additionally, the trial rate for felonies was about 4
percent compared to 1 percent for misdemeanors. She shared
that superior court judges and caseloads were different for
misdemeanors that were handled in district court. The
problem with computing the change in the felony threshold
was that presumably a number of cases that were in superior
court as felonies (i.e. a stolen item valued between $500
and $750) would be moved down into district court for
handling as a misdemeanor; however, the charging document
data listed the crime as a Class C felony theft, where all
that was known was the stolen item was valued between $500
and $25,000. The court could not pull out the number of the
low value item filings (approximately 1,800 per year). She
believed thefts of small dollar items may be plead down or
dismissed quicker because they were relatively minor.
10:46:52 AM
Senator Olson spoke to superior versus district court and
asked whether magistrates ever dealt with misdemeanors.
Ms. Meade responded that magistrates were within the
statutory jurisdiction of the district court and could deal
with misdemeanors and pre-trial proceedings. Additionally,
per statute, magistrates could also handle a trial with the
written consent of the defendant.
Senator Olson wondered if raising the felony threshold
would save the state money because more offenders would go
before the magistrate or district court.
Ms. Meade replied that the answer depended on whether theft
cases for items valued between $500 and $750 were already
something the district attorneys decided not to file as a
felony; it was not possible to know the facts. She noted
that the implication was that some cases would be handled
as misdemeanors instead of felonies.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered whether police had to do more work
for felony charges versus misdemeanor charges. Ms. Meade
deferred the question to the Department of Public Safety or
the Department of Law.
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed that the fiscal note
outlined that receipts would pay for the 24-7 Sobriety
Program. She asked if a pay issue raised by Co-Chair Kelly
had been discussed. She believed it may be discrimination
if people without economic resources to get out on bail
were stuck in jail due to their inability to pay for the
program cost.
Mr. Schilling believed a person could not be sent back to
jail because of an inability to pay. He agreed it would be
unfair. He noted that one of the risks of charging
offenders $10 per day was that it was unaffordable for some
people. He relayed that the bill included an indigency
clause that the department would be responsible for paying
the bill in those cases.
10:50:39 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if the term "can't afford"
would be defined somewhere. Mr. Schilling responded DOC and
the court system were familiar with indigency waivers that
were in use at present for other things. He deferred the
question to the departments.
Co-Chair Meyer spoke in support of the bill. He remarked on
the bill's high cost, but believed it would change lives
for the better.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the schedule for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Letter of Support - Akeela.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - AMHTA.PDF |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - Catholic Social Services.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - Cook Inlet Tribal Council.PDF |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - Juneau Reentry Coalition.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - NCSL.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - Nine Star.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - Partners for Progress.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - PSEA.PDF |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Letter of Support - Rep. Madden.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 - Letter of Support - NFIB.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Testimony - Dilley.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Testimony - Vandergriff.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - opposition - MacKinnon.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Bolivar.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Cooley.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Franks.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Harris.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Harvey.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Henriksen.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Kincaid.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Kuiper.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - Loomis.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 - support - O'Keefe.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Backup Documents - Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testimony - Ferris.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testimony - McConnochie.doc |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testimony - Weedman.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testomony - Big Bobs Flooring.msg |
SFIN 3/11/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |