Legislature(2013 - 2014)ANCHORAGE
09/22/2014 10:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Sb 64 and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
September 22, 2014
10:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Lynn
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Lesil McGuire
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 64 AND BEYOND: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REINVESTMENT IN ALASKA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE SCHMIDT, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 64
and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska.
RONALD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 64
and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 64
and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of SB 64
and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska.
MARY GEDDES, Project Attorney
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion on SB 64
and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska.
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint during the briefing
and discussion on SB 64 and Beyond: Criminal Justice
Reinvestment in Alaska.
ZOE TOWNS, Senior Associate
Public Safety Performance Project
PEW Charitable Trusts (PEW)
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint on PEW Charitable
Trusts Protecting Public Safety and Containing Corrections Costs
in Alaska during the meeting on SB 64 and Beyond: Criminal
Justice Reinvestment in Alaska.
TERRY SCHUSTER, Senior Policy Associate
PEW Charitable Trusts
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint on potential Public
Safety Performance Project partnership with Alaska during the SB
64 and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:08:37 AM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 10:08 a.m.
Present at the call to order were Representatives, LeDoux,
Foster and Keller and Senators Dyson, Wielechowski, and Coghill.
Representatives Pruitt and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress. Representative Josephson was also in attendance.
[Due to audio technical difficulties, the call to order and
agenda announcement was not captured. The recording was started
after the meeting was in progress.]
^SB 64 and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska
SB 64 and Beyond: Criminal Justice Reinvestment in Alaska
10:08:52 AM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on SB 64 and Beyond: Criminal Justice
Reinvestment in Alaska.]
CHAIR COGHILL introduced the first invited speaker, Deputy
Commissioner Joe Schmidt, Department of Corrections, and briefly
reviewed the agenda, including electronic monitoring for first
time DUI offenders, risk assessment for offenders sentenced to
30 or more days, statewide expansion of Probationer
Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE) for probation and
parole programs, 24/7 Sobriety Program, Recidivism Reduction
Program, and Alcohol & Substance Abuse Monitoring and Treatment
Program.
10:09:01 AM
JOE SCHMIDT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), offered to provide a quick overview, noting that the
department was very excited when SB 64 passed. He related that
the DOC has already moved forward with some of the strategies
contained in SB 64. He viewed this process as an expectation
from the public to the legislature, and indicated the department
takes this work very seriously. One of the greatest benefits is
that the department believes in these strategies and has the
resources to move forward. One of the first things the
department has done is to fill needed program positions as
quickly as possible. Mr. Schmidt stated that as Deputy
Commissioner Ron Taylor moved forward with his report to the
committee, members would see the department is comfortable with
the implementation pace. He added that one of the consultants,
Dennis Schamps (PH), has been working with five states working
on justice reinvestment and is very experienced with
implementation. It's great to have data and polices, but those
things just represent the beginning of this process. He
characterized the implementation phase as the "nuts and bolts."
MR. SCHMIDT added that he calls the approach being taken justice
reinvestment, which means the state is investing in strategies
and some of the results are positive. Some states have taken
encumbered funds for new prisons and have reinvested those
funds. Alaska has not done so. He recalled from a conference
he attended that one of the states decriminalized some crimes,
closed two prisons, and reinvested those funds. He said that
many of the strategies Alaska uses are similar, but the state is
not asking the public to recriminalize or reduce any crimes and
is working within that parameter.
10:13:44 AM
SENATOR DYSON asked generally what rights inmates have if court
ordered treatment is not available. He further asked what
responsibilities the department has to make it available and the
tension between receiving treatment while incarcerated or paying
for it once the inmates are released.
MR. SCHMIDT turned to Alaska's Constitution, relating that
Alaska has the principle of reformation listed as one of the
department's guiding principles. He was unsure how many states
include reformation, but not all of them do, he said. Thus, the
department believes there is a right to reformation. Sometimes
treatment can be provided during incarceration, but sometimes
not. He said the department believes that "on the street"
treatment is the best place, since that is when alcohol and
drugs are available, as well as all the anti-social behavior
that brings them to jail in the first place. In response to
Senator Dyson, he said that Mr. Taylor was in charge of
operations and some of the areas include reentry coalitions,
interfacing with employers, landlords, and community service
providers. Blurring the line between the prisons walls and the
street represents a very important piece and the department has
been working to provide these types of services, he said.
10:15:59 AM
SENATOR DYSON commented on the Department of Corrections and
Health and Social Services coordination [of court ordered
treatment.]
10:16:57 AM
RONALD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
cautioned that mentioning court ordered treatment doesn't mean
that those services are offered immediately while the inmate is
in custody. If the court has ordered them to participate in a
program while in custody, the department makes those services
available. Any other substance abuse condition or requirement
is voluntary as to whether they want to complete the substance
abuse program in custody so it's only on a limited number that
the court actually requires participation while in custody.
10:17:18 AM
CHAIR KELLER commented on the [importance of timing of services
being provided for offenders in prison or out of prison.]
MR. TAYLOR answered that is correct.
10:17:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was curious under what
circumstances and how frequently court ordered treatment was to
be provided inmates while in custody.
MR. TAYLOR replied that he has not looked at those numbers but
offered to try to provide it. Mr. Taylor stated that he did not
want to presume the reasons for why the court makes its orders;
however, he could say that when he worked with the parole board,
the board would look at those persons who had failed on numerous
occasions to complete treatment while in the community. These
were people the court felt very strongly would not get treatment
unless the treatment occurred while in custody, and unless
treatment was ordered, the system would set them up for failure.
He was unsure of the parameters and deferred to one of the
judges or someone from the court system to answer.
CHAIR COGHILL, in response to Representative LeDoux, said that
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System would be
testifying.
10:19:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether inmates are more likely to
successfully integrate into the community if they complete their
treatment while still in custody. She would like someone to say
yea or nay on that, she said.
MR. TAYLOR offered his belief that the department believes in
treatment for defendants while in custody, noting the department
has one of the more extensive programs in the country in terms
of the wide variety and availability of programs. He said the
department works to identify an inmate's risk and plugs the
inmate into programs as quickly as possible. Again, unless the
court has ordered treatment, these programs are voluntary. He
related that the department works to incentivize them, but it is
up to the inmates to elect to attend the programs.
10:20:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether treatment continues to be
voluntary or if it depends on the length of time the inmate is
in custody.
MR. TAYLOR was unsure if the court specifies a certain period of
time. He suggested that the court might order a defendant to
obtain an assessment within 30 days of release, which he has
observed in court orders. He directed attention to the
department's overview of actions taken to meet the requirements
of SB 64. He reported, in terms of electronic monitoring for
first time DUI offenders, that the department has 53
participants with a number pending in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
Juneau. He suggested that perhaps 100 individuals will be using
the program once the pending referrals are processed. The
department has seen an increase in number of first time DUI
offenders being referred to the department for electronic
monitoring.
10:22:25 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the parameters placed on the
monitoring.
MR. TAYLOR answered that the department contracts out for
electronic monitoring, typically to monitor boundary
restrictions on offenders 24/7 and to ensure that alerts occur
if these boundary restrictions are violated. In fact, the
department will map out a specific route participants can use to
go to and from work or school for the three-day duration for a
first time DUI offense.
10:23:20 AM
MR. TAYLOR turned to risk assessment for offenders sentenced to
30 or more days. The risk assessment protocol will actually be
implemented in the next fiscal year and although this is
something the department has currently been doing, the
assessment has been revised and the Level of Service Inventory
Revised (LSIR) has now been normed. The department has reviewed
the risk assessment to ensure programming needs are available in
the institutions. In addition, the department plans to work
with community coalitions to ensure the inmates' needs are met
in the community if they were not provided while the offender
was in custody.
MR. TAYLOR turned to FASD [Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder] or
other brain-related disorder assessments, noting this is
automatically done as part of the medical protocol or medical
screening at the time offenders enters the institution. He
reported that risk assessments are currently being conducted;
however, the department has expanded the assessments to meet the
conditions of SB 64. This will ensure that once probation
officers are hired in the next fiscal year, the department is
ready to move and expand its services.
10:24:48 AM
MR. TAYLOR related that in terms of statewide expansion of the
probation and parole PACE [Probationer Accountability with
Certain Enforcement] program that the department has been
currently recruiting for the 14 positions and at least 10
positions are filled and 4 are in the process of recruitment,
conducting interviewing or psychological screening. He reported
that training for judges and those involved in the system for
the PACE program was provided in June. He added that the
department has a preliminary draft of guidelines to standardize
how probation officers will handle PACE. The Palmer and
Anchorage courts have been meeting regularly to develop the
process to expand the program. He offered his belief that
Anchorage has not quite doubled its participants but has added
40 to 50 new people to their program.
10:26:28 AM
MR. TAYLOR directed attention to the 24/7 Sobriety Program, a
program the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
oversees. He reported that 12 defendants have been placed on
the 24/7 as a condition of bail. He further reported that DHSS
has been working with the courts, the DOC, and the public
defender agency to ensure that staff is aware of the
availability of the 24/7 Sobriety Program tool and has been
working internally to ensure referrals occur. He anticipated
this process will be forthcoming for probation and parole
functions. Mr. Taylor next turned to the Recidivism Reduction
Program, a grant program handled through the DHSS. He explained
that the DOC uses a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) to
fund the program. He related that the DHSS has a position
pending and once established, the DOC will issue the RFP
[Request for Proposal] for the program. In response to Senator
Coghill, he agreed that regulations will likely be developed for
the program.
MR. TAYLOR thanked Senator Dyson for the reminder to identify
any acronyms.
10:28:33 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked Mr. Taylor for his thoughts on the best way
to proceed with LSIR.
MR. TAYLOR responded that the DOC's senior staff provides the
training for the LSIR, which he will extend to legislators so
members can become more familiar with the LSIR process.
10:29:24 AM
SENATOR DYSON asked for further clarification on the DOC's
programs to help achieve the goal of successfully transitioning
from incarceration to living in the community.
MR. TAYLOR explained that the department offers the Residential
Substance Abuse Treatment Program and the [RSAT] and the Life
Success Substance Abuse Treatment Program [LSSAT].
10:29:56 AM
SENATOR DYSON questioned how inmates can participate in these
programs and if they do participate, how they can afford to pay
for the services. He described the situation in which offenders
can't obtain a driver's license and yet are trying to get jobs
as being a "Catch 22" situation. He hoped the DOC would develop
the attitude and resources to do everything reasonably possible
to smooth the way and help probation/parole offenders avoid
conflicts. He recalled conversations with staff of several
successful programs. These staff highlighted the need to have,
in essence, a case manager for each prisoner to take care of
everything they need and to ensure that everything is in place
as they transition out of an institution. He commented that he
feels strongly about this aspect.
MR. TAYLOR explained that the Life Success Substance Abuse
Treatment (LSSAT) is a program offered in three communities.
The DOC contracts to provide outpatient programs in those
communities and people can attend free of charge. In further
response to Senator Dyson, he clarified that the LSSAT program
is offered in the facilities and in the communities.
10:31:46 AM
SENATOR DYSON asked for further clarification that these
services are provided in-house while inmates are incarcerated
even if the servicers are not court ordered.
MR. TAYLOR agreed. He answered that the program is available
while offenders are incarcerated and upon release.
SENATOR DYSON asked for further clarification on whether the
program is available to inmates even if the program is not a
court ordered program.
MR. TAYLOR agreed that the program is available for prisoners
while incarcerated as well as when they are released. In
further response he assured Senator Dyson that there isn't a
waiting list and the inmate can participate in the LSSAT and the
RSAT programs while incarcerated.
10:32:25 AM
SENATOR COGHILL related his understanding that it's also one of
the things that DHSS handles beyond the discharge. He suggested
that it's pretty hard to make that mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that it sounds like a great idea
to have a case manager for each prisoner; however, she asked
whether anyone has any idea of the cost of doing so.
MR. TAYLOR responded that the department has institutional
probation officers who function as case managers inside the
institutions. In fact, the department has also been working
with the community coalition in an effort to establish case
managers in the community. He did not currently have any cost
estimates to assign case managers to every single probation
officer, he said.
CHAIR COGHILL said that sheds a little light on this issue and
he appreciated the early update. He related his understanding
that some of the regulations have not yet been adopted, but he
looked forward to receiving an update on regulations. He
thanked Mr. Taylor.
10:35:39 AM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, said she was asked to give a
brief update on the Probationer Accountability with Certain
Enforcement (PACE) program and the 24/7 Sobriety Program. She
offered to continue where the DOC left off on the PACE program.
The DOC related the department has hired 14 new probation
officers and plan to expand the current program in Anchorage and
Palmer to Kenai, Fairbanks, and Juneau. The Alaska Court System
has a 10-judge committee that has been working closely with the
DOC to ensure that the judges in charge of the programs
understand what the goals of the program are and how PACE works.
Initially, defendants are advised of what will happen if they
violate any of the conditions of probation. If so, an officer
would file a PTRP [Petition to Revoke Probation]. Under the
[Probationer Accountability and Certain Enforcement] (PACE)
program, when an officer files a PTRP, the offending party
immediately comes before the court, and the court dispenses
small but graduated consequences for their behavior. In fact,
the concept behind PACE, which is based on [Hawaii's Opportunity
Probation with Enforcement] (HOPE) model, is to administer
immediate, small, and graduated consequences, which have been
found to be more effective in helping change behavior. The PACE
program has been a successful program in Anchorage and Palmer
for some time and the three judges involved have been educating
and training other judges in Alaska using scripts and best
practices. The program expansion is about to roll out and the
Alaska Court System is ready to schedule hearings promptly to
implement PACE in other areas of the state.
10:38:34 AM
MS. MEADE directed attention to the 24/7 Sobriety Program,
noting she has been working very closely with the DHSS. Under
the program, judges can order program participation as a
condition of bail or probation and the party reports to the ASAP
[Alcohol Safety Action Program] office. This program has begun
in Anchorage and the first inmates were assigned three or four
weeks ago. Under the program, the court allows the party out on
bail, but the offender must submit to 24/7 Sobriety's
conditions. The person would go to the ASAP office, located in
the Anchorage courthouse, and the ASAP office helps the person
figure out how to submit to the 24/7 monitoring program.
Currently, the ASAP has only one vendor, but the DHSS hopes to
expand vendors as they gain additional participants. To
participate in the 24/7 Sobriety Program, the person must go to
the vendor's facility and blow into a breath test (APBT) twice a
day to ensure the person is maintaining the court-ordered
sobriety. Non-compliance results in an immediate remand to
custody. Ms. Meade said she has been working with the DHSS to
ensure the program guidelines are ones the court can follow and
agree with, and that the court is comfortable with the vendor
contract to ensure that the judges are comfortable with the
language that participants will sign. Although the 24/7
Sobriety Program is just starting, she remarked that the program
has promise.
10:40:41 AM
MS. MEADE, in response to a question, answered that the 24/7
Sobriety Program stems from SB 64, and is permissible as a
condition of bail for unclassified felonies, class A felonies,
sexual felonies, any cases of domestic violence, and any alcohol
or drug related crimes. She added that after speaking to
prosecutors and public defenders, she believes the target
audience will be first and second time DUI offenses. However,
judges can order the 24/7 Sobriety Program for any of the
aforementioned cases, as well as for drug offenses, as a
condition of probation.
10:42:47 AM
MS. MEADE, in response to a question, elaborated that the court
does not order certain things to happen to defendants while they
are in DOC's custody, but the court can recommend treatment
during incarceration. She described the process, such that when
the defendant enters DOC custody, the department assesses and
classifies the defendants using guidelines to identify the
threat of violence or other behavior. Although the court does
not order treatment during custody, the court does have the
authority to order conditions of probation. For example, the
court may recommend alcohol abuse counseling while an offender
is incarcerated, but will order as a condition of probation that
the party receive an assessment and enter an alcohol treatment
program. Sometimes the condition of bail orders have timelines;
a judge may order the defendant to obtain an assessment and
begin treatment within 60 days of release. Ms. Meade wasn't
certain why the orders don't always specify a timeline, but
understands that it can happen. It is up to the defendant's
probation officer to walk the person through the probation
conditions and ensure that the defendant makes an effort to meet
them. Sometimes it might be too constraining for an offender to
obtain treatment within 30 days due to other obligations, but
the probation officer establishes a relationship to ensure the
person follows the conditions; if not, the probation officer
will file a Petition to Revoke Probation (PTRP).
10:44:44 AM
SENATOR DYSON asked, in the event that the committee and
commission decided that it made sense for reentry to have all
the required treatment provided while the defendants are
incarcerated, what mechanism the commission or legislature
should use to petition judges to recommend that in-house
treatment occur.
MS. MEADE was unsure. Currently, the courts don't have the
authority to order the DOC to provide services to defendants so
some change in authority would be necessary, she said.
10:45:52 AM
SENATOR DYSON related his understanding of the separation of
powers; however, he asked if the legislature wants the court to
recommend incarceration treatment as a means to reduce
recidivism, whether the clerk could forward such a
recommendation to the judge or how else that could occur.
MS. MEADE offered to contemplate this and get back to the
committee. She clarified that currently the courts can
recommend treatment, but they cannot order it. She understood
the question is how the court could order treatment.
SENATOR DYSON clarified his question. He recalled that
sometimes the courts will recommend treatment while the
defendants are incarcerated. He wondered how the legislature
could encourage the court to provide more treatment while the
parties are incarcerated. He further wondered if that could be
the default.
10:46:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX thought she previously heard the DOC
testify that in a certain number of cases the court will order
defendants receive some treatment while incarcerated. She asked
what type of follow-up the court uses to ensure that treatment
happens when the department has recommended the defendant to
receive treatment while incarcerated. She recapped she is
interested in whether the compliance rate is 100 percent, 50
percent, or some other figure.
MS. MEADE answered that once the court signs the judgment at the
end of the case, the defendant falls outside the court's
jurisdiction, unless the defendant comes back before the court
under a petition of violation of probation. The court does not
track what happens with defendants once they fall under the
DOC's jurisdiction. She said it is up to that agency to track
treatment or decide how the defendant should be classified.
Therefore, the court does not know whether its recommendations
are followed.
10:48:15 AM
MS. MEADE, in response to Senator Wielechowski, explained that
the court will now have an additional tool in its tool box since
it can order treatment as a condition of bail. Typically, it is
up to the attorney to ask for the conditions of bail. The court
does not usually make decisions on conditions of bail. She
highlighted the court's educational outreach to public defenders
and district attorneys inform them of the 24/7 Sobriety's
Program's availability and the program may help. She related
that in her experience, most of the public defenders and
district attorneys did not know about the 24/7 Sobriety
Program's existence. Whether it is asked for in specific cases
remains up to the attorneys, she said. For example, it might
not be reasonable for a first time DUI to be asked to report
twice a day during two months of bail to blow into a portable
breath test; however, for a second DUI, it might be more
applicable, since the person may have a substance abuse issue
but not addiction issue. She said she was certain that the
criminal record would also be reviewed to glean what else might
be going on with the individual. She indicated that the
treatment would be very different for a person with a second DUI
offense without other issues present than for a person with a
lengthy criminal record that includes substance abuse related
thefts or assault charges. The judge and the attorneys have a
whole panoply of information available to them to make informed
decisions on whether the defendant is appropriate for the
program.
CHAIR COGHILL asked members to pull the mikes closer to improve
the audio quality of the meeting.
10:50:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for further clarification on the
subject of when a judge issues the final judgment remanding a
defendant to the custody and care of the DOC, whether the court
in the technical sense has lost its jurisdictions unless the DOC
later files a motion in regards to violations of probation
conditions.
MS. MEADE answered that is correct.
10:51:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referenced Senator Dyson's question,
regarding if there was anything the legislature could do to
require or allow the court to retain jurisdiction for treatment.
He asked whether there would be any constitutional impediment to
the legislature enacting legislation - noting that it might be
necessary to amend court rules - that would allow or require the
court to retain jurisdiction for such things as incurring mental
health treatment.
10:52:14 AM
MS. MEADE offered to look into it, though she suggested there
would be some constitutional impediments. The court's function
is to resolve conflicts, impose judgment, and sentence
individuals. It is within the jurisdiction of the DOC and the
executive branch to deal with those individuals who have been
sentenced by the court. She said it would be a fundamental
change and not a small one to have the court retain authority
over prisoners once incarcerated. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Gruenberg, Ms. Meade affirmed her
prior answer but opined that she would like to further research
the issue in order to give a more thorough response.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested this is beyond the scope of what he
intended for today.
10:53:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he was just trying to get some
idea.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested it might depend on how far the
[legislature] wants to grant jurisdiction to the court regarding
treatment during incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX wondered why it would be necessary to
involve the court if the legislature or executive branch decided
that it wanted to mandate that all treatment be provided during
incarceration. She suggested there wouldn't be any reason why
the court would have to have any jurisdiction if that were the
case.
MS. MEADE agreed that it would be DOC's responsibility and duty
and the department would do so if it were so ordered.
10:54:26 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked about calendaring time for the 24/7 Sobriety
and PACE programs.
MS. MEADE answered that the court is committed to calendar these
hearings promptly as contemplated in [SB 64]. She reported that
in Anchorage the court currently conducts PACE hearings as well
as warning hearings and she also thought that Palmer's schedule
was similar. She said the court calendaring offices are aware
that these hearings need immediate attention and are prepared to
do so. She said that the courts can accommodate the schedule.
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that this is important to him as a
legislator. He commented that the system is almost in place and
accountability is important. He thanked Ms. Meade for all the
work she has put into this effort.
10:56:10 AM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council
(AJC), stated that SB 64 designated the Alaska Judicial Council
as the staff to the Criminal Justice Commission, which the
legislature created to take a comprehensive look at sentencing
and criminal justice practices and procedures. The legislature
established a methodology of using evidence-based practices and
public outreach with various constituencies to arrive at
recommendations about how to improve many aspects of the
criminal justice process. She stated that the list of things
the Criminal Justice Commission must study is comprehensive and
could encompass all parts of the criminal justice process. She
offered to provide an update on the project thus far.
10:57:45 AM
MS. DIPIETRO stated that the Alaska Judicial Council is very
excited about the establishment of the commission and the
council started at end of fiscal year to build position
descriptions and have hired two part-time people, Mary Geddes,
the new project attorney for the commission, and Julia Caufmann
(ph), a research analyst who will focus on data analysis. As
part of the Alaska Judicial Council's responsibility to conduct
studies to improve the administration of justice, the council
had already been working on a felony sentencing study. She
hoped the study would provide baseline information on what is
happening now in terms of sentencing within the criminal justice
system to better inform the commission. The council has that
database, is working on the study, and has a draft report that
she anticipated the council would share with the legislature
next session. More importantly, the Alaska Judicial Council
also developed a database of felony offenders who were sentenced
in 2012-2013.
10:59:21 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked whether the database includes drug cases.
MS. DIPIETRO answered yes; that is one of the types of offenses
that the council is looking at and in fact, this is one area
that will be scrutinized due to the mandate in SB 64, she said.
She hoped to provide the commission with the most detailed
information on drug offenses.
MS. DIPIETRO related that the Criminal Justice Commission
inaugural meeting is this afternoon at 1:30 p.m., which will
primarily be an organizational meeting. The commission is
mandated to meet four times a year. She hoped that the
commission will meet more frequently than that since a very good
work plan could be developed and staff is ready to do so. She
suggested that perhaps the commission will meet again in another
month.
11:00:57 AM
CHAIR COGHILL related that [13] members have been appointed by
the governor.
MS. DIPIETRO affirmed that the roster is complete.
11:01:08 AM
CHAIR COGHILL noted the recommendations would include
sentencing, corrections, and re-entry, among other things.
MS. DIPIETRO, in response to a question, related that the
Criminal Justice Commission meeting will be held at 1:30 p.m.
Peterson Towers; 4th floor.
11:02:17 AM
MS. DIPIETRO reported on Results First. She related that some
members may recall some of the work done earlier on Results
First, which is the brand name for the statistical analysis cost
benefit model developed by Professor Steven Aos of the
Washington State Institute of Public Policy. This model has
been used as a tool for policy makers to assist in making
funding decisions. An earlier version of that model was used in
Alaska. The legislature worked with the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER). This effort resulted in a report,
which she characterized as a good one, by Dr. Stephanie Martin
that analyzed a variety of programs in Alaska. The model rated
Alaska's programs for effectiveness, for example, in reducing
recidivism versus the cost to do so. This model has been
further developed for accuracy, plus it has been expanded
outside the adult criminal justice and encompasses child
protection, mental illness, and juvenile justice.
MS. DIPIETRO directed attention to the adult criminal aspect of
the model. She has been in touch with colleagues of the PEW
Center for the States, with the support of some legislators, to
see if it makes sense to bring that model to Alaska. If so, the
model would be given to the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Justice Center since they know how to operate it. She related
that the UAA Justice Center has expressed a willingness to house
the model, which could be used by agencies that have the
capacity to provide the data. She emphasized the difficulty in
obtaining data from operating systems. The question the Alaska
Judicial Council has been exploring is whether the state has the
capacity to build the model, keep it, and use it. She noted it
is very preliminary, but the council is very hopeful,
interested, and engaged.
11:06:12 AM
MARY GEDDES, Project Attorney, Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission, discussed the directive the legislature gave the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) to review Alaska's DUI
laws under Title 28 of the Alaska statutes. The directive
includes reviewing whether Alaska should maintain both an
administrative and a judicial driver's license revocation
process and if the Ignition Interlock Device Program is
effective not only in reducing the occurrence of driving under
the influence [DUI], but also in reducing recidivism. Finally,
the legislature asked whether the punishment, fines, and costs
associated with drivers' license revocation periods should be
decreased or increased, the general effectiveness of programs,
and whether limited sentences should be available to more
persons convicted of driving under the influence or refusal.
Ms. Geddes opined that "these are big questions."
MS. GEDDES related she has begun some preliminary research and
intends to provide a report to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJS). She hopes to flesh out the research with
respect to the effectiveness of ignition interlocks and other
types of monitoring such as transdermal monitoring, which
provides alternative ways to track alcohol consumption.
Research shows that ignition interlock programs are only
effective so long as the device is in place, but the devices
have no effect on recidivism. This leads to the question of
whether the interlock devices are an effective strategy.
Nationally, many people report that relatively few people who
are required to get ignition interlock devices prior to the
reinstatement of their drivers' licenses obtain them due to the
prohibitive cost of the devices.
MS. GEDDES said her research needs to determine such things as
how many people who have had their drivers' license privileges
suspended or revoked in Alaska are actually able to get their
licenses reinstated. She expressed interest in knowing the
types of questions the committee has for the commission to
explore, but certainly, one question is how long these
incapacitating sanctions such as jail, license revocations, or
suspensions should be kept in place.
11:09:17 AM
CHAIR COGHILL said one of the things he is interested in is the
administrative revocations by the DMV. Overall, the goals are
to provide protection to the public, the right to be accused,
and restitution. In terms of methodology, considering the
variety of constituencies, as well at the 12 recommendations for
the commission. He related the commission has been given the
power and duty to conduct the research and the methodology.
Certainly, the other issue is the collateral consequences of
criminal justice. He anticipated the legislature will await the
results. He thanked her for serving.
MS. GEDDES said they are honored to participate.
11:11:17 AM
CHAIR KELLER said one item to consider is the option of
restitution. He expressed interest in considering whether
restitution by the offender to the victim is effective.
CHAIR COGHILL referred to intent language in members' packets,
which is one thing that came out of an appropriations bill [HB
266]. One section relates to crime victims' rights and another
related to recidivism plan.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed an interest in the impacts on an
offender's ability to work since it provides the ability to make
restitution.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said there were a couple of specific
issues he is interested in.
CHAIR COGHILL said he looked forward to working with the
commission.
11:15:05 AM
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA), stated that he has prepared an in-depth memo
for the committee that he will not cover today. He directed
attention to the first slide, entitled "HB 266: Legislative
Intent," noting the intent language in HB 266 did not occur in a
vacuum [slide 2]. He offered his belief that significant
ongoing efforts can cumulatively have an impact. In Alaska, for
example, the criminal justice working group has been working for
a number of years on the issues surrounding recidivism and more
administrative efficiency within the criminal justice system.
The Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHTA) has had a disability
focus area for nearly 10 years. This includes the expansion of
therapeutic courts across the state, crisis intervention team
training for peace officers statewide, including troopers and
local police departments, to enhance their ability to work with
the AMHT beneficiaries in crisis situations.
MR. JESSEE said the AMHTA has worked with the DOC on substance
abuse treatment within the department. He recalled questions
made earlier today in terms of when treatment is ordered, when
is it recommended, and how does it get funded. Regarding
Representative LeDoux's comments about whether to focus
treatment on inmates while they are incarcerated or following
their release, Mr. Jessee referenced Ms. DiPietro's discussion
of the work done in Washington State. He further opined that
the AMHTA is a very data-driven organization and works
extensively in trying to determine whether treatment during
[incarceration], upon release, or in both settings is the best
path forward.
MR. JESSE related the terms of how to ensure the DOC provides
treatment during incarceration when recommended by the court.
He said that it is largely a measure of the willingness of the
administration and legislature to fund the treatment. He
commended the department's work, saying they have done an
excellent job in very difficult fiscal times to continue efforts
in enhancing their ability to provide treatment despite the
pressures to start a new prison and work on all the other
activities within the department. He related that the AMHTA has
also been working with other reentry programs such as APEC
[Assess, Plan, Evaluate, and Coordinate], which identifies and
coordinates needs as inmates reenter communities. This includes
how to identify an appropriate plan, connect inmates to
services, and coordinate the reentry plan so that inmates have
housing, employment, and support for their recovery. One thing
the AMHTA has learned more recently with an update on a study
the AMHTA did several years ago, was to reference that 42
percent of the inmates in the DOC are trust beneficiaries. The
department has improved its efforts in reviewing that data. A
recent study used a broader sample to examine additional data
bases.
11:19:09 AM
MR. JESSEE said that they examined additional databases, and not
just what the DOC was able to do in assessments, but to look at
other indicators, such as whether the defendants have been
previously admitted to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API),
if the defendants have been billed for mental health or
substance abuse services through Medicaid, or other indicators.
When those indicators are factored in, the percentage of
beneficiaries in corrections is actually closer to 65 percent.
MR. JESSEE cautioned that the AMHTA is not trying to claim these
inmates, but it is important to identify them since providing
services and support to them can be critical in their ultimate
success at reentering the community and becoming functional
citizens. He shared some good news: that the recidivism rate
for beneficiaries has been reduced from 45 to 39 percent and for
non-trust beneficiaries the rate has been reduced from 24 to 21
percent. He asked whether all the results could be tied to the
programs that the department has provided in facilities and
efforts to support people with re-entry and answered no.
However, he stated there is a logical nexus between those. He
indicated that is the reason to use the PEW Charitable Trusts
Justice Reinvestment Initiative staff to focus in on these
issues. The AMHTA will be working on the SB 64 and criminal
justice system issues, noting that his efforts will be focused
on the legislative intent related to the recidivism plan. He
indicated that he co-chairs the group with Commissioner Schmidt.
11:21:15 AM
MR. JESSEE directed attention to slide 3, to the bullet points
for the legislative intent, including to gather and analyze data
on substance abuse, mental health, employment, and housing
services needed and the services provided to the released
clients, proposing effectiveness and efficiency measures, and to
provide the types of services people need when released from
incarceration. The recidivism plan further requires working
with agencies developing and reporting on an implementation plan
and data finding to the legislature by February 2, 2015. He
stated that one reason the legislative intent was put in HB 266
related to conversations in both finance committees on the issue
of recidivism. He said when ISER reviewed the prognosis in 2007
for an increase in the prison population and where the state
would need to build prisons, it determined the first prison
would need to be built in 2012 and the next in 2017. The
aforementioned ISER study examined what it would do to the trend
if the state enhanced alternative services based on a cost-
benefit analysis.
MR. JESSEE said the study found that it would bend the curve and
with the right investments the state could match the capacity to
incarcerate with the desire to incarcerate. He reported that
the investment did not happen and as ISER predicted, in 2012 a
new prison was opened. This expended $250 million in capital
and $50 plus million in operating expenses. He said what the
numbers indicate now is that in 2017, the state is slated to
open another prison, in which the capital costs may approach
$300 million in construction with operating costs estimated in
excess of $50 million per year. Unfortunately, the state is on
the wrong track. All too often the emphasis has been on
providing funding for the usual criminal justice system elements
including corrections, the court system, public safety, district
attorneys, prosecutors, and public defenders. In fact, some of
the biggest agencies that can impact recidivism are not often
thought of, including the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, the AMHTA,
and the Department of Health and Social Services, where many
services are provided, since up to 65 percent of the inmates may
be AMHTA beneficiaries.
11:24:26 AM
MR. JESSEE summarized by stating that providing inmates
reentering the community with a housing situation that provides
safe and consistent housing, employment that provides an
opportunity to build a future, and support for their recovery
are the means that can impact recidivism.
MR. JESSEE said that the AMHTA has hired a contractor, Carmen
Gutierrez, who has a long history with the DOC and the criminal
justice system, to help the recidivism group pull information
together to develop a plan [slide 3]. One of the first things
that the group did is to define recidivism since there are many
ways to define it. He asked whether it is limited to felons,
misdemeanants, or both, and does it mean recidivism in one year,
three years, or ten years. The group agreed upon the following
definition for recidivism, "an individual who is released from
incarceration and returns to incarceration as the result of a
conviction for any offense type - felony, misdemeanor, or
parole/probation violation - within three years of release." He
emphasized that it is critical to get this definition dispersed
since that is the measure to determine whether the system is
making progress on the measure. Furthermore, the metric cannot
keep changing. Mr. Jessee stressed the importance of keeping
the same data points and relentlessly focusing on whether the
investments being made are actually leading to those results.
He said this comes right out of the legislative intent language.
MR. JESSEE outlined the objectives [slide 4], as follows:
1. Delay or prevent the need to fund a new
correctional facility.
2. Encourage continued and expanded collaboration
across departments to reduce recidivism.
3. Identify best practices to reduce recidivism.
4. Ensure appropriate use of prison beds.
5. Ensure re-entering prisoners have the tools and
resources required to successfully return to their
community.
6. Promote government business and community
partnerships to reduce recidivism.
MR. JESSEE quoted Texas Representative Jerry Madden who said,
"Keep the ones you are afraid of inside, not just the ones you
are mad at." He talked to Representative Craig Johnson, his
representative, about the reasons for incarceration. He
suggested that if the system is upset with the guilty party,
it's important to decide how much the state is willing to pay to
make that specific point as opposed to investing in activities
that could turn them into more successful citizens. He
emphasized that it is about getting the whole community together
so that people are willing to take a chance on people coming out
of correctional facilities. He cautioned that if no one will
give them a job and the community creates significant barriers
to employment that it is then unrealistic for offenders to get a
job and the result will be failure since these people will end
up back in prison.
11:29:55 AM
ZOE TOWNS, Senior Associate, Public Safety Performance Project,
PEW Charitable Trusts (PEW), said she is joined by Terry
Schuster, Senior Associate, PEW Charitable Trusts. She offered
to provide an overview on corrections and sentencing reform,
highlight some of the drivers and trends in the national
landscape, and outline some technical assistance the
organization provides to states. Mr. Schuster would speak
briefly about sentencing and corrections trends as they pertain
to Alaska.
MS. TOWNS stated that the project she has been working on is the
Public Safety Performance Project [slide 2]. She said the Pew
Charitable Trusts' goal is to help states advance fiscally sound
and data-driven sentencing and corrections' policies. The
organization works on the goal of advancing fiscally sound data-
driven policies across a wide variety of issue areas, but her
focus is on corrections and sentencing. The question the PEW
organization asks state government is whether they are getting
the best return on correctional system spending. The Pew
Charitable Trusts (PEW) does this in two ways, in working on
research publications to capture national trends in sentencing
and corrections and by providing technical assistance to state
leaders who are interested in advancing reforms.
11:32:14 AM
MS. TOWNS highlighted that the technical assistance is done
under the umbrella of "Justice Reinvestment," which is an
initiative that PEW partners together with the federal
government. She directed attention to a chart pointing to
states listed in blue that have an active justice reinvestment
reform with PEW's technical assistance and to states listed in
yellow that are currently active justice reinvestment states
[slide 3]. She related she and Mr. Schuster have been spending
time in Utah to work with a commission on justice reinvestment.
She related that the corrections has changed and the U.S.'s
prison system has grown dramatically. In 2010, 1 in 104
American adults were in prisons or in jail [slide 4]. This has
grown in the larger corrections' population, including
probation, parole supervision, and inmates in jail and prison.
This growth has been affected by the local corrections system.
By 2010, 1 in 33 American adults were under some form of
correctional control. She indicated that this has come at
dramatic cost.
11:33:51 AM
MS. TOWNS directed attention to a slide that captured state
spending over the last several decades [slide 5]. As of 2010, 1
in 14 state general fund dollars was spent on corrections, which
has been the fastest growing state budget item behind MEDICAID.
In response to a question, she acknowledged that the figures
were adjusted for inflation.
MS. TOWNS pointed out that a significant majority of dollars
spent on corrections and the DOC budgets end up as institutional
spending for hard prison or jail beds. She acknowledged this is
understandable since it costs more to incarcerate someone than
to treat them in the community, but given that the vast majority
of felons are in the community on probation and parole and a
minority are in prison, it is of note that the vast majority of
spending, about 1 in 9 corrections' dollars follows them there
[slide 5]. Thus, the bulk of the corrections' spending actually
ends up going to pay for those hard prison beds.
MS. TOWNS addressed the question of what states receive for all
this spending in terms of public safety outcomes. She recalled
Mr. Jesse discussed recidivism and defined recidivism, and noted
the PEW study uses a very similar definition, which is to
identify offenders leaving incarceration that are back inside of
three years for any reason, including technical probation or
parole violations, or for committing a new crime. The PEW found
that about 4 in 10 adult offenders are returning to prison
within three years of their release. She pointed out that the
numbers in 2007 release cohort nationally haven't changed since
2002. Thus, the recidivism rates are high, and in fact, are
stubbornly high, and are not being brought down by all this
spending, she concluded [slide 6].
11:35:55 AM
MS. TOWNS highlighted another trend, the dramatic decrease in
violent and property crime rates nationwide [slide 7]. She
reported that over the course of the last two decades the U.S.
has achieved a significant crime decline, which has happened
concurrently with the increase in incarceration. The first
question is whether one is drying up the other, noting that a
very broad body of work in the criminological and economic
communities attempts to assess the relationship between
incarceration and crime reduction. She further reported that
the broad consensus is that incarceration or the increased use
of prison did, in fact, help reduce crime by 30 percent.
However, the majority of the decrease in crime is attributed to
two other factors, which is better policing and prosecutions to
improving community corrections, improvements in urban planning,
and the waning of the crack epidemic. Although prisons provide
important tools against crime, they are not the only tools. She
highlighted that viewing states nationally, but also breaking it
out by state helps to identify the relationship and reveals that
a great many states have achieved that same or better crime
decline while reducing their prison populations. She concluded
that it is possible to have less crime and less incarceration.
11:37:40 AM
MS. TOWNS once again pointed to blue states, noting they have
reduced crime rates and incarceration rates over the past decade
from 2002 to 2012 [slide 6].
MS. TOWNS said two states, New York and Florida, were able to
achieve reductions in their crime rates [slide 7]. She related
that New York achieved this reduction alongside a pretty
dramatic decrease in its imprisonment rate and Florida also
achieved a tremendous crime decline with an increase in its
imprisonment rate.
11:38:15 AM
MS. TOWNS highlighted that the data has led the public and
policymakers to ask different questions. One thing PEW has done
is to conduct public opinion polling at the national and state
level to ask voters what they are after when they invest state
funds in public safety policies. The PEW has found that crime
reduction is most important purpose. She said it does not
matter if nonviolent offender is in prison for 21, 21, or 27
months, but what matters is if the system does a better job of
ensuring that when the offender is released that he/she is less
likely to committing another crime. She directed attention to
the survey results on slide 7, entitled, "Bottom Line... Let's
Reduce Crime," and indicated that 73 percent of respondents
agreed and 90 percent totally agreed with the importance of
offenders not committing another crime. She clarified that the
survey was given across party lines and across law enforcement
households, victim households, and other stakeholder groups.
11:39:21 AM
MS. TOWNS also reported that the public believes prisons should
be for violent offenders [slide 8]. The statement tested was
the question of whether there too many low-risk nonviolent
offenders in prison and if the state needs alternatives to
incarceration that cost less in order to save expensive beds for
violent and career criminals. The responses were that 69
percent of respondents strongly agreed, and respondents 88
percent totally agreed. Again, the survey was given across
party lines and across law enforcement households, victim
households, and other stakeholder groups.
11:39:44 AM
MS. TOWNS directed attention to a slide that provided an example
of new or emerging voices coming to this issue. She related
some national partners, such as Right on Crime, a coalition of
conservatives, that have come together and pledged to be tough
on crime, but also on criminal justice spending [slide 8]. She
pointed out that Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida; Newt
Gingrich, American Solutions for Winning the Future; David
Keene, former president of the National Rifle Association (NRA);
and others have come to industry to talk to state leaders to
promote conservative stewardship of taxpayer spending [slide 8].
11:40:26 AM
MS. TOWNS stated another interesting coalition is the business
community. PEW has worked with the American Chamber of Commerce
executives. She directed attention to five leaders who came
together to talk publically from a business perspective to ask
for a better return on investment and correction spending. For
example, these business owners felt that a 4 in 10 failure rate
was unacceptable and want a better return on investment, she
said. She said that PEW has worked to reframe the debate from
being tough on crime to obtaining a better return on correction
spending [slide 9].
11:41:23 AM
MS. TOWNS directed attention to the next slide, entitled
"Justice Reinvestment," which helps explain some of the thinking
on reinvestment. She pointed out on the right hand side to ways
to safely contain the prison population and once that is done
that states can free up some resources to invest in programs
that have been proven to reduce recidivism in community
corrections or elsewhere, which will lead to fewer revocations,
fewer crimes, fewer prison beds needed, and can be a self-
perpetuating cycle, she said.
11:42:00 AM
MS. TOWNS referred to the Mississippi and Oregon case studies in
members' packets, noting that PEW has worked in many states in
the last seven years, including Texas in 2007, and in many
states since then [slide 10]. She directed attention a report
in members' packets [entitled, "Mississippi's 2014 Corrections
and Criminal Justice Reform"] and to the chart on the bottom of
page 11 that projects prison population. She stated that the
prison population has grown significantly in 40 years. Absent
reform, the 2024 prison population was projected to grow by
2,000 beds at a cost of $266 million [slide 11]. The
Mississippi legislature pulled together during the 2012
legislative session to pass a bill that established the Task
Force on Corrections and Criminal Justice. This body was
charged with making recommendations to control the prison
population safely and on reinvestment into community corrections
and elsewhere. She related that PEW came on board to assist the
task force with its charge.
11:43:39 AM
MS. TOWNS explained the process via which the PEW asks the DOC,
the courts, and any relevant body to share sentencing and
corrections' data. States report data to the federal level, but
the PEW also likes to review minute data being collected at the
state level and spends several weeks or months analyzing the
data. The PEW's goal has been to review who is coming into the
correctional system, how long they are staying, what are the
costs and outcomes, and what works incredibly well that could be
expanded. Further, PEW reviews any trends headed in the wrong
direction that needs to be curtailed. The PEW calls this
"looking at the data drivers" or what is driving the
correctional spending. In the case of Mississippi, PEW reviewed
disposition rates for felony offenders and found that half were
sentenced to prison [slide 12]. She stated some alternatives
are non-adjudicated probation, probation, or IFP or house
arrest. Another finding for Mississippi was that admissions and
length of stay affect prison population growth. She related
that in viewing admissions, PEW noticed the trend, which happens
nationwide, is that more offenders enter prison for revocation
of supervision than as new prisoners from a new criminal
conviction [slide 12]. She stated that the revocation line was
always high, but had increased and surpassed the new court
conviction rate in 2012.
MS. TOWNS said this raised the question of what was working and
what was not working in Mississippi since the failure rate was
so high. In addition, it raised questions about what decisions
states are asking courts and other decision makers consider when
it comes to the point of a revocation.
11:45:57 AM
MS. TOWNS highlighted that another finding was that nearly 75
percent of offenders were sentenced to prison for nonviolent
crimes [slide 13]. Again, the two things that affect prison
populations are size, or who goes into prison, and growth, or
how long the offenders are kept in prison. In reviewing length
of stay, PEW found that new prisoners released in 2012 served 17
percent longer than those released in 2002 [slide 13]. She
reviewed the time served, which was broken out into offense
type, noting that the increases in time served were also for
nonviolent offense types. For example, non-violent drug
possession incarcerations increased by 31 percent, which is one
of the least serious felony offense types in Mississippi whereas
all drug crimes increased by 10 percent [slide 14]. Thus, the
length of time offenders were spending behind bars for drug
possession had gone up by several months.
11:46:57 AM
MS. TOWNS noted that significant work has been done by the task
force, including policy deliberations, and ultimately the
recommendations they made were captured in a report to the
Mississippi legislature and governor. She reviewed several of
the recommendations that speak to the data drivers. The reforms
that were recommended and adopted by law, included expanding
eligibility for prison alternatives such as probation,
electronic monitoring, and drug courts. The Mississippi
legislature invested nearly $11 million in specialty courts such
as drug and mental health and authorizing the creation of a
veterans' court. Secondly, to address the finding that more
offenders were entering prison from supervision than as new
prisoners in 2012, the recommended reforms, which were
ultimately codified in statute, were to strengthen community
corrections through the use of graduated sanctions and to
establish an earned discharge system [slide 14]. She related
that offenders in correctional facilities could earn time off
their sentences for compliance, which often incentivizes them to
be compliant. Mississippi also created specialized detention
centers for people revoked on supervision, capped at 90-120 days
instead of having to serve the remainder of their sentence. She
noted the focus was on treatment.
MS. TOWNS said with the finding that nearly 75 percent of
incarcerated offenders were sentenced for nonviolent crimes,
Mississippi reviewed their sentence structures for drug and
property crimes with the focus on reserving prison beds for
those serious and violent offenders and restructured their
felony drug statutes to raise the threshold from $500 to $1000
and to institute preventive probation for certain lower level
property and drug crimes. Finally, in terms of time served
which had increased by 17 percent in the last decade,
Mississippi reviewed its sentencing structure to create
structured sentences. Their review wasn't just about reducing
penalties. Mississippi considered other factors, such as
reviewing the penalties for commercial drug sales, which prior
to the reform had a 0-30 year sentence range for any amount of
drug sale. Policymakers restructured the drug sentences based
on possession, for example, breaking it out to possession of
less than 2 grams, up to 5 grams, and more than that amount to
create corresponding sentences thereby increasing them with
severity as the possession increased.
11:50:08 AM
MS. TOWNS recapped that Mississippi reduced penalties for low-
level offenders, but enhancing them for higher level offenders.
She stated that taken together the reforms averted all of the
ten-year prison population growth and actually dip the current
population level below current levels. She noted that due to
the extensive reforms to strengthen community corrections and
hold offenders more accountable, PEW believes that the reforms
will improve public safety and keep it at current levels. She
said that Mississippi's reform was embodied in H.B. 585, which
passed and was signed into law by Governor Bryant on March 31,
2014.
MS. TOWNS related that Mississippi's reforms were met with
widespread support, with a majority of Republican members, so a
lot of national Republican and conservative champions coming to
the state to discuss the work, including the American
Legislative Exchange Council, that speaks on the issue of
prudent corrections' spending [slide 16]. She reported that the
state had a big "weigh in" from the faith-based community, such
as the Baptist community and the largest Baptist action network
did significant work in the Capitol to educate members on the
importance of these issues to the faith community.
11:51:35 AM
SENATOR DYSON related his understanding that she has documented
folks on the right as being supportive. He hoped that people on
the political left have been very sympathetic to this issue.
MS. TOWNS responded that Mississippi hasn't experienced much
traction without conservative support since the majority of the
state is conservative so their support was particularly
important in rallying support on the issue than other voices.
She pointed out that the [American Civil Liberties Union] ACLU
and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which are more
traditionally left groups, were huge supporters of the reform in
Mississippi. She noted that in many of the states in which PEW
has worked, it has been more important to have conservative
support rather than the progressive voices.
11:53:27 AM
SENATOR DYSON said he wanted to have on the record that folks on
the left have been very active on this issue for the past four
or five decades.
MS. TOWNS answered absolutely. She related that business
members in Mississippi who weighed in from a business
perspective. She offered to skip the Oregon study.
11:54:16 AM
TERRY SCHUSTER, Senior Policy Associate, PEW Charitable Trusts,
Washington, DC, explained that when PEW works with a state and
provides technical assistance it starts with the most accurate
snapshot of current practices, which it can obtain by an in-
depth review of state data; however, today PEW will discuss
state data collected by federal agencies from every state.
Thus, the PEW has the ability to look at more broad brush
strokes trends in corrections. He said that crime is down in
Alaska. He pointed out that property crime was down 44 percent
and violent crime was down 9 percent between 1992 and 2012
[slide 23]. According to the Uniform Crime Report, with a rate
of 4,900 property crimes per 100,000 in 1992 has been reduced to
2,700 property crimes, which means that in the course of 20
years Alaska has been successful in reducing property crime in
half. In addition, violent crime rates have also noticeably
been reduced in the past 20 years. He said this mirrors the
national trend.
11:56:02 AM
MR. SCHUSTER pointed out that during the same period the prison
population has doubled, noting this refers to prisons and jails
[slide 23]. He reported that in 1992 there were over 2,800
prisoners and this increased to 5,600 in the course of 20 years.
He stated that in 2013 there was a dip in prison population,
with a more recent downward turn, but over time there have been
several dips. He explained that when viewing broader
correctional trends, it's important to look at 10-20 years. He
concluded that the prison population has doubled in the past
twenty years.
MR. SCHUSTER directed attention to his next slide, noting that
the prison population growth is depicted, but it is overlaid
with another line depicting the general population of the state
[slide 24]. He stated that the general population has also
increased as measured by the "y" axis. In 1992 Alaska's
population was under 600,000, which increased by 25 percent in
2012, to 730,000 people. Therefore, if the prison growth were
attributable to the state's population growth, a similar growth
rate of 25 percent would be expected. However, the prison
population grew by 100 percent, which means the prison
population is growing in Alaska four times faster than the
general population. He highlighted that even from this very
preliminary data, PEW can ascertain that the doubling of the
prison population was not due to an increase in crime and not
entirely due to an increase the state's overall population.
11:58:35 AM
MR. SCHUSTER noted that the prison and jail population is not
the only correctional population since there is a significant
number of people under supervision in the community, including
parole and probation [slide 24]. He pointed out that the bottom
line represents prison population and the line above it
represents parole populations. In 1992, about 700 people were
on parole and this number increased by 165 percent to 1,900.
The top line indicates the number of offenders on probation. In
1992, 3,000 offenders were on probation, which has increased by
140 percent to 7,200 on probation. In viewing the entire
correctional population, a pretty steep growth curve ensues,
with more people in Alaska under some type of correctional
supervision than ever before.
11:59:42 AM
MR. SCHUSTER noted that the increase in the number of people in
the correctional system means that it costs more. He directed
attention to the actual budget numbers, not adjusted for
inflation. In 1992, the full correctional budget was $144
million, which has increased in 2012 to $358 million,
representing over a 50 percent, when adjusted for inflation. He
noted that more accurate budget figures may be available since
these figures were derived from federal data [slide 25].
MR. SCHUSTER related that PEW's technical assistance is focused
on fiscally sound corrections and sentencing policies and
practices. This means that PEW takes the $358 million figure
and asks whether the state could spend less or the same amount
and get better public safety outcomes, or could the state obtain
a better return on its investment.
12:01:03 PM
MR. SCHUSTER brought up the cost of prison beds and of building
new prisons or jails and raised one question legislators ask,
which is whether these beds are being reserved for the most
serious and violent offenders. Further, he asked whether there
are practices in place that are supported by the best research
in the field on what works to reduce recidivism and what works
to change criminal offending behavior.
MR. SCHUSTER said that PEW's technical assistance can provide
several things. He stated that PEW will look very closely at
the population coming into prison and view these trends over
time to determine what types of offenders are contributing to
the growth. In addition, PEW will review what types of
offenders are increasing, such as what types of crimes, the
criminal history and examine this data in numerous ways to
consider risk levels, how long each type of offender is spending
in prison and how many are incoming versus being directed to
alternatives. The PEW will use that data and the research in
the field on what works to reduce recidivism and change criminal
offending behavior to guide an in-state task force, such as the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission through a policy development
process. He characterized this process as being fairly
intensive and can discuss this later today in terms of what that
would look like.
12:02:42 PM
MR. SCHUSTER said the process would consist of a very intensive
short term effort by the PEW Charitable Trust, noting that all
of the technical assistance is paid for by the organization. He
stated that there are not any state costs except for state staff
time. He indicated the PEW is very excited about working with
the state and noted that numerous people have been engaged in
the criminal justice reinvestment process. As Alaska joins the
states that have been involved in this process, he wanted to
remark that he understands members take this responsibility very
seriously. He hoped the process, which is so data driven and
focused on the research will be appealing to the committee.
12:03:50 PM
CHAIR COGHILL thanked the presenters for coming to Alaska. He
reviewed some things that might come up and described the
process of criminal justice reinvestment as a dynamic process.
MS. TOWNS said what is so wonderful about Alaska is that it
already has significant momentum in place. She assured members
that PEW Charitable Trusts doesn't want to hinder or replace any
of the work that has been done when it assists states. Instead,
she suggested that PEW will likely try to figure what is being
covered and figure out what gaps exist and fill them.
12:05:43 PM
SENATOR DYSON thought that his questions have been answered. He
related that the committee and commission have a job to do, but
are well on their way. He described the criminal justice
reinvestment effort as one that has crossed political
boundaries. He asked whether the public's reaction is generally
due to inattention.
MS. TOWNS said that the public reception in other states has
been overwhelmingly positive. She said it has a lot to do with
educating the public on purpose of the reforms, for example,
when asked whether the offenders will be let out to save money
and to let them know that answer is no; and when asked if the
legislature and administration will reduce prison populations to
spend money elsewhere, to let them know the answer is no.
12:06:49 PM
SENATOR DYSON said he has a lot of respect for the commission
and supports collecting information, but he is skeptical about
the amount of resources the state has available. He stated that
it's important to do all the things necessary, including front-
loading treatment for a period of time with funding and staff.
He asked whether it has been PEW's experience in other states
that funding often needs to be front-loaded. He wondered once
success is realized and states get "over the hump" whether
institutional budget levels and staff can be reduced.
MS. TOWNS answered that rather than this conversation being
about slashing DOC's budget, it's about ensuring that
correctional spending is obtaining the best outcomes. She
acknowledged that it has been so important for states to begin
the process of justice reinvestment by making investments. She
stated that oftentimes it means making upfront investments and
entry programs. She characterized it as spending "a dime to
save a dollar."
12:08:13 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked for PEW's overall sense of the reductions
once changes to the correctional system have happened and the
alternate services are in place, whether any staff or cost
reductions have occurred in other states.
MS. TOWNS answered yes. She said that in some states prisons
have closed and in many states staff levels have been reduced.
There are ways to carefully do this, she said.
12:08:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, in terms of the types of offenses, asked
what PEW has discovered in other states and if there are similar
trends and types of offenses that are filling prisons or whether
the reasons are totally different. He expressed concern about
the public's feeling of safety through this process.
MS. TOWNS answered that the presentation has reviewed some
national statistics and figures, but it is also important for
PEW to delve into the state specific trends and data, as well as
to identify policy desires and inclinations. She agreed that
many similar offense trends occur across states in the
aggregate; however, as one digs down they find differences, too.
For example, in Utah PEW has found a much higher percentage of
sex offenders being sentenced to prison, but in Mississippi PEW
found a much higher percentage of revocations occurred. She
acknowledged that the offense types exist in every state;
however, there are variants, in terms of the trends and policy
approaches at the political level. She emphasized that the PEW
tries to capture the trends, but really works to stay in
communication with policy makers to gain a sense of their
comfort level, in terms of policies, and find ways to tweak
them.
12:10:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding that PEW would
review statutes that were enacted during the timeframe, not just
in terms of length of sentencing, but in terms of identifying
priorities for lawmakers based on analysis of the 20-year
period. He suggested that lawmakers can decide if they still
have the same passion to put people in prison.
MS. TOWNS answered that is correct. She said PEW will review
the statutes to capture trends as well as to provide evidence
that these responses are giving the legislature the best public
safety outcome. Once that information is compiled, it will be
possible to go to policymakers and determine if the direction
will be the same, and if not, to provide them with ideas on how
to tweak the system.
12:11:55 PM
CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that Ms. Towns is
suggesting that the PEW Charitable Trusts has a template to help
states think through the process to find answers and solutions.
MS. TOWNS disagreed. She cautioned that PEW does not have any
model policies, since this process is about finding state
specific solutions and processes. She anticipated that the
commission will be a great place to do the solutions.
12:12:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, with respect to non-violent offenders,
asked what would substitute, since she did not think that
alcohol or mental health treatment alone will suffice since
nothing shows condemnation. She wondered what kinds of things
could replace prison and still have some sort of shame or
justice involved.
MS. TOWNS answered that PEW has discussed finding ways to best
hold offenders accountable. She acknowledged that it is
comparative across any public safety choice, whether the
punishment is prison or something else, to still have that
accountability piece. She related that oftentimes PEW has found
accountability metrics, for example, by measuring them in terms
of restitution payments. Some selections are not always
assisted by incarceration, since oftentimes offenders can be
held more accountable through parole or probation supervision.
12:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered what she characterized as an
egregious example to illustrate the need for a public shaming
component, by suggesting that someone like Bernie Madoff should
be held accountable for the financial fraud committed. For
example, embezzlers need to have something more than just an
order to repay the funds they stole, such as public
embarrassment. Certainly, it's important that the offenders be
able to work, but something more needs to be done.
MS. TOWNS answered absolutely; noting that Representative LeDoux
has touched on the heart of the question on sentencing and the
purpose of incarceration. For example, incarceration can be
used as a deterrent, for incapacitation to keep the public safe,
and to seek vengeance, shaming, or justice. She suggested that
PEW isn't here to talk about which purpose should be weighed
more heavily, but to speak to the public safety piece. Science
can help interrogate to what extent the public safety measure is
working or not working. Using that information, the state can
make decisions as to whether community justice has a value even
if an extra four-month sentence for incarceration does not
provide additional public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that is the public policy
decision.
12:15:52 PM
MR. SCHUSTER commented the research will examine and identify
offenders that are driving prison growth, but it is unlikely
that large scale financial fraud will drive the majority of the
growth in the prison population. However, if some other
category of offender is identified as being responsible for
prison growth it will allow the legislature and administration
to zero in on those types of offenders. The larger policy
package that emerges will be focused on places where a single
policy or a small group of policy changes could have a large
impact.
12:16:52 PM
CHAIR COGHILL noted the differences between what PEW provides
through the research and analysis and the legislature's policy
decisions and implementation of policy decisions. He thanked
Ms. Towns and Mr. Schuster for their willingness to work with
Alaska on the criminal justice reinvestment. He said that
enlisting all three branches of government will be important and
the research PEW can provide will be very valuable.
12:18:57 PM
CHAIR KELLER remarked that he is very excited about the group of
people who are engaged in this restructuring and review. It is
very encouraging to have so many people from the administration,
the legislature, and public policy researchers involved in this
process. He looked forward to working on these challenging
issues.
12:19:43 PM
CHAIR COGHILL thanked his staff, Jordan Schilling, and Amory
Lelake, staff to Senator Johnny Ellis, for their work. He
thanked the court system, the presenters, the administration,
and members for their participation.
12:19:51 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the joint committee, the
House and Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|