Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/18/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 18, 2016
1:41 p.m.
1:41:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lance Pruitt
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jorden Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill.
SUMMARY
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM
OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
1:42:18 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill.
Representative Wilson asked what version of the bill he
would discuss. Senator Coghill relayed that the bill before
the committee was the House Judiciary Committee version.
Representative Gara suggested that the sponsor speak to any
concerns over the way the bill changed during the committee
process.
Senator Coghill provided a high level overview of the
legislation. He referred to a sectional analysis color
coded chart (copy on file) that matched the topic to the
related bill sections. He explained that SB 64 Omnibus
Crime/Corrections/Recidivism (CHAPTER 83 SLA 14 -
07/16/2014) established a commission [Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission] that examined criminal justice issues
defined by the legislature. The commission discovered that
the recidivism rate was extremely high and a cause for
concern. The issue was so broad that the commission was
tasks with further studies of recidivism. Subsequently, the
commission developed 21 recommendations that were contained
in the bill in some form. He related that formulating the
recommendations was a consensus driven process. The
commission was comprised of public defenders, judges,
victims' advocates, police, and others. He voiced that the
process had been very thorough. The commission was "housed"
in the Judicial Council. He delineated that the council
examined the issue for years but only related to court
rules and procedures, the impact on probation officers,
etc. Many of the same individuals from the council were
members of the commission and brought beneficial
information and experience on the issue. He noted that the
state had "shortcomings" with its criminal justice data.
Throughout the nation a move to work on judicial reform
called "reinvestment reform" was already in progress in
many states that explored how to reinvest money within the
criminal justice system. The Pew Foundation and Council of
States Governments West had facilitated data driven
studies. He recounted that the governor, House, and Senate
requested that Pew closely examine the state's criminal
justice system and formulate data specific to Alaska. He
remarked that it was the first time the state had taken a
hard look at the issue.
1:50:32 PM
Senator Coghill deemed that due to the discovery process he
described the commission's recommendations were data
driven; researched and outcome based programs that worked
in other states. In the process, he and Senator Johnny
Ellis examined the "Right On Crime" resources that had
turned the corner on reducing cost, recidivism, and crime
in Texas. The Right On Crime information was provided to
the commission. He discussed the recommendation's
categories the commission developed that were listed on the
color coded sectional as follows: pretrial, sentencing,
community supervision and other areas. The goals were to
improve pre-trial procedures. The sentencing
recommendations were developed out of the examination of
what worked from felony, drug, and parole related issues.
The community supervision recommendations attempted to hold
individuals accountable but produce better outcomes. He
stressed that if sentencing changed accountability should
not change. He expounded that there were several
recommendations that did not fit into the first three
categories. He provided the example in Alaska that
subsequent to the release of a person convicted of
committing a violent crime the individual was eligible for
food stamps however convicted drug offenders were not. He
noted that the issue fell into the other category. Issues
regarding license revocation for drinking and driving were
dealt with in the bill. He further explained the sectional
analysis chart that associated the provisions in the bill
by category, policy, recommendation number and bill
sections. He detailed that the bill sections contained the
"code of law." He related how he performed his own personal
study of the statutes relating to the bill versions.
1:56:03 PM
Co-Chair Thompson thought the sponsor's personal
information paper would be helpful for the committee
members and requested copies for distribution. Senator
Coghill related that he had not updated his information for
the new bill version, but offered to provide it.
Representative Gara asked why some of the bill sections
related to recommendations and policies on the sectional
analysis sheet were highlighted and other were not. Senator
Coghill answered that the highlighted area were the main
places where the policy was impacted and the non-
highlighted section references designated conforming
provisions. He noted that his office had done a sectional
analysis for the most recent version and would provide
further information to the committee. Senator Coghill
explained that the presentation provided reform statistics
and proven practices. He voiced that things were not
working at their optimal level in the state's current
correctional system. He spoke to high recidivism. He
referred to pre-trial accountability and reported that the
bill contained new policies. The new policy established a
risk assessment tool that did not grant individuals
determined to be a high risk bail and low risk individuals
would be monitored in a different way. He continued that
the bill changed the way probation/parole was done so that
the higher the risk the more accountability and lower
accountability ascribed to low risk individuals. He
emphasized that reductions in prison sentences provided
cost savings to reinvest in programs that would eventually
reduce the crime rate and change behaviors.
2:01:44 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the committee had one hour to
hear the presentation. He noted that the bill would come
before the committee multiple times.
JORDEN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "SB 91: ACJC
Recommendations" dated April 15, 2016 (copy on file). He
spoke to slide 2 titled "Prison Population Up 27% Over Last
Decade" and relayed that the chart depicted that the
state's prison population had grown 27 percent over the
past decade and was "significantly" faster than the
residential population that grew at one third of the prison
growth rate. He detailed that prisons were over capacity
and without reforms would jail an additional 1,300 inmates
by 2024. Despite all of the spending the state experienced
very low return for the money and was spending on things
that did not work or change criminal behavior. The
situation spurred the legislature to create the Criminal
Justice Commission. He turned to slide 3 titled "Prison
Population is Half Sentenced Offenders, Half Supervision
Violators and Pretrial Defendants" that identified the main
drivers of the increased prison population.
Pretrial - 28 percent
Supervision Violator - 22%
Sentenced - 50%
Mr. Shilling reported that three-quarters of offenders
entering prison post-conviction were convicted of a non-
violent felony offense and their length of stay was up 31
percent.
2:04:39 PM
Mr. Shilling relayed that probation violators made up one-
fifth of the prison population that only committed a
technical violation of probation. The commission developed
a comprehensive set of reforms that addressed the three
population divers. The reforms were proven factors that
other states had used successfully while protecting the
public, hold offenders accountable, and reduced the daily
prison population. The savings could be reinvested in
programs proven to reduce crime. He noted the pretrial
population grew 81 percent in the last decade. He moved to
slides 4 through 6 and addressed pretrial recommendations.
Slide 5:
Pretrial Recommendations
1. Expand the use of citations in place of arrest for
lower-level nonviolent offenses
2. Utilize risk-based decision-making
3. Implement pretrial supervision
4. Focus supervision resources on high-risk defendants
Mr. Shilling presented slide 6:
The Commission recommended expanding the use of
citations in place of arrest for lower level non-
violent offenses.
•76% of pretrial admissions to prison are for
misdemeanor charges.
•56% of pretrial admissions to prison are for non-
violent misdemeanor charges.
Mr. Shilling turned to slides 8 and slide 9.
Slide 8:
Growth in Pretrial Population Linked to Large Number
of Nonviolent Offenders Held Pretrial, Longer Stays
Behind Bars
•Half of pretrial defendants are detained on
nonviolent charges, including misdemeanors
•Defendants staying longer pretrial than they used to
Slide 9:
Research Shows: Detention Should be Linked to Risk,
Limited for Low-Risk Defendants
Source: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
•Pretrial risk assessment can help predict likelihood
of pretrial failure (far better than a defendant's
ability to pay bail); and
•Pretrial detention can lead to worse outcomes,
particularly for low-risk defendants.
Mr. Shilling elaborated that most pretrial defendants were
misdemeanants in order to stem the number of pretrial
arrests. He discussed the pretrial risk assessment tool and
highlighted that the tools were found to be highly
predictive. Research indicated that pretrial detainment of
low risk individuals made them more like to commit new
crimes and recidivate. Based on a bail review study, low
risk defendants were in prison with very low bail amounts
of $500 and $1000 while high risk defendants were being
released if the bail requirement was met.
2:09:01 PM
Mr. Shilling relayed statistics from Kentucky that employed
a similar type of pretrial risk assessment tools. In
Kentucky 70 percent of pretrial defendants were releases of
which 90 percent appeared at all of their hearings and 92
percent completed pretrial without any new arrests. He
referred back to the remaining two pretrial recommendations
and turned to slide 11:
Implement Pretrial Supervision
•Minimal supervision with court date reminders
•Basic supervision (in-office appointments, phone
calls, field visits)
•Enhanced supervision (higher frequency contacts, drug
and alcohol testing, electronic monitoring)
Research shows that enhanced supervision should be
focused on those who are most likely to fail pretrial.
Representative Wilson spoke to the risk assessment. She
asked whether all defendants were required to participate
in risk assessment, even if the individual could meet bail
requirements. Mr. Shilling answered that following arrest
the individual would receive a pretrial assessment and
would apply to every defendant which approximated 35
thousand each year. The risk score would be used as a tool
for the judge to make an informed release decision.
Representative Wilson asked whether a person could make
bail and avoid jail and risk assessment. Mr. Shilling
stated that the bill envisioned eliminating bail schedules
entirely and the option to be released on bail could not be
exercised until the state determined the risk to public
safety. Representative Wilson spoke to another bill HB 15
Elect Monitoring Credits; Mitigating Fctrs. [Chapter 20 SLA
15 - 05/14/2015 Sponsored by Representative Wilson]. She
asked whether the provisions for electronic monitoring
under HB 15 would be eliminated with passage of SB 91 and
the pretrial supervision provisions. Mr. Shilling answered
that the bill would not affect the option of electronic
monitoring since the assessment occurred before
arraignment. Representative Wilson wondered how the bill
fit in with pretrial supervision. Mr. Shilling reiterated
that credit for electronic monitoring always occurred after
arraignment and would not be affected by SB 91.
2:14:50 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the risk assessment. He
cited information from slide 9 regarding risk assessment
and prediction of pretrial failure and asked for backup
data. Mr. Shilling answered that the research was out of
Kentucky and offered to provide it. He added that the
research showed that the pretrial actuarial tool was better
than professional judgement alone. Representative Kawasaki
wondered about enhanced supervision and asked how the
provisions differed than current practices. Mr. Shilling
responded that currently the state did not supervise any
one on a pretrial basis and viewed the provision as one of
the larger public safety enhancements of the bill. He added
that the Department of Corrections (DOC) would determine
what supervision level each defendant received based on
their assessment. He indicated the program carried costs to
the state.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether there was any evidence
about the effectiveness of citations in lieu of an arrest
as a deterrent. Mr. Shilling would follow up with specific
data.
Representative Gara understood that leaving low level
offenders in jail for too long made them "better
criminals." He asked whether research back up his
assertion. Mr. Shilling answered in the affirmative. He
noted that a large body of research was available on the
issue. He relayed that pretrial low risk defendants that
were detained for more than 24 hours led to worse outcomes.
His deduced that detrimental results happened when the
individual was removed from his community for a long enough
period of time to lose the stabilizing elements in his
life. In addition, data pointed out that mixing low and
high risk offenders led to "criminogenic" effects on the
low risk offenders.
Representative Munoz referred to the graph on slide 2 of
the presentation that depicted to main spikes in the prison
population in 2007 and again in 2011. She asked whether the
sponsor had analyzed any changes in law that occurred. Mr.
Shilling replied that a number of laws the legislature
enacted affected the prison population. He indicated that
following the Blakely Decision [2004] by the United States
Supreme Court the legislature increased sentencing ranges
as well as increased sex offender sentences in the mid-
2000s and many conditions on probation and parole.
Representative Munoz asked for a listing of the statute
changes. She asked for examples of technical probation
violations. Mr. Shilling replied that some common technical
violations were a missed appointment, changing an address
without notifying a probation officer, and substance use.
2:20:36 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referred to an editorial by Martin M. Moody
from the Juneau Empire. He noted that the editorial was
written by an inmate. He asked Mr. Shilling how the
sentences would change. He read from the editorial:
In response to Kara Nelson's column in the Juneau
Empire on March 31, I wish to tell you the dark side
of Senate Bill 91 and House Bill 205.
You see, your wife, girlfriend and daughter will all
do their first shot of heroin, crystal meth, crack
cocaine or whatever other drugs because they are
offered for free. This is how drug dealers get them
hooked. Over the next couple of weeks or months, drug
dealers will sell her the drug she needs to get by
from day to day. At some point she will eventually run
out of money to support her habit.
It is at this point drug dealers will break her will
to perform sexual acts for a hit. She will be shot up
with a large dose to make her sick. While she is
puking out her guts in the toilet or in some other
state of debilitation, she will be sexually violated.
If she resists, she will be physically abused until
she submits. She will be emotionally wrecked, but if
she behaves she will be rewarded with another hit to
make her feel good.
Afterward, your wife, girlfriend or daughter, who is
lying there on the bathroom floor, will be offered to
any man who is present at the time as a party favor.
At this point, the drug dealer owns your wife,
girlfriend or daughter. He has broken her physically,
mentally, emotionally and spiritually. He will have
her selling herself to support not only her drug habit
but his as well. She will steal, harm children and
walk away from her marriage. She will commit crimes,
go to prison and may even contract STDs. Your daughter
will have what seems like teenage behavioral problems,
but the truth is she will not tell you what is going
on. They both will always go back to the drug dealer
for another hit, no matter how demeaning the dealer is
to her or how degrading he is to her sexually.
The dealer does not care about her feelings, nor does
he view her as a human being with value. Your wife,
girlfriend or daughter are nothing more than a party
favor.
The drug dealer does not care about the harm he will
cause her, family members or friend or if he destroys
her life. The drug dealer will not care about her
children because when the time is right he will turn
the children into future drug dealers and prostitutes.
The more she comes back to the dealer, the more he
controls her. She will lose her self-worth and self-
esteem. The last thing the drug dealer will take is
her self-respect.
You see, SB 91 and HB 205 award extra time off credits
for people who will only get out and return within a
few months. Since my arrival at Lemon Creek
Correctional Center in September 2014, I have watched
the same one-third of the prison population get out
and come back. And their return is always for the same
thing: dealing drugs or dirty urinalysis tests. They
will do a small amount of time and be returned to the
streets or be given the opportunity to go to the
halfway house, only to return to prison again in a few
days, weeks or months on new charge or for probation
violations.
I am happy for Ms. Nelson and she deserves the support
of the community. She has overcome her demons and
moved forward in life. I commend her for the work she
has done. I have never met her, however, I have seen
her here at Lemon Creek. What I have written about is
what I hear day in and day out in various
conversations between inmates. And I really would not
call it "conversation," it is more "bragging" than
conversing. There are three women here right now who
have been involved in the very situations I just
described above involving five inmates who openly brag
about "turning these women out."
By the way, I am a convicted sex offender, so please
explain to me, who is the real boogeyman in society?
Since being a sex offender is more demonized by
society, law enforcement, Department of Corrections,
social services and legislative policymakers, I am a
little confused on the matter. Because from what I
heard every day for the past 18 years, there seems to
be very little difference between what I did and what
a drug dealer will do to a woman in order to "turn her
out."
2:25:01 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked how SB 91 would sentence drug dealers
and sex offenders and whether any funds were available in
the bill for Alaskans like the one in the article and what
it would do for victims and vulnerable Alaskans. Mr.
Shilling replied that SB 91 would not change any
presumptive sentencing for sex offenders. He communicated
that the editorialist was correct, but the bill did seek to
address rampant theft, rampant substance abuse and other
crimes that were driven by addiction. He relayed that the
state's current response to drug addiction "absolutely" did
not work. He specified that sentence reduction and sentence
increases did not deter drug use and related crime. He
restated that justice reinvestment was about halting
spending money on policies that did not work and
reinvesting it in the correct intervention.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to Recommendation 11: Incentivize
Completion of Treatment for Sex Offenders with an Earned
Time Policy from the "Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Justice Reinvestment Report" from December 2015 (copy on
file). He read the following:
Specific Action Recommended: To incentivize
participation in and completion of sex offender
treatment, the Commission recommends:
a. Implementing an earned time policy for sex
offenders who are currently ineligible for mandatory
parole, whereby offenders are able to earn up to one-
third off their sentence if they complete in-prison
treatment requirements set forth by the DOC.
b. Expanding the DOC's capacity to provide
residential, long-term sex offender treatment that
focuses on ensuring the offender is held responsible
for harmful behavior and teaches cognitive behavioral
strategies to end patterns of abuse.
Co-Chair Neuman stressed that legislation he previously
worked on established ineligibility from mandatory parole
because the recidivism rate of sex offenders was 92
percent. He strongly disagreed with the recommendation in
light of the high recidivism rate of 92 percent. Mr.
Shilling concurred that recommendation 11 incentivized
completion of sex offender programming through establishing
a one-third credit. He explained that the Senate Judiciary
committee reduced the credit to one-fifth and that the
Senate removed the credit entirely. He remarked that the
sponsor favored the Senates response to the recommendation.
Co-Chair Neuman requested that addressing the
recommendation was a very high priority for the committee.
Mr. Shilling moved to slide 13:
Sentencing Recommendations
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
8. Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
9. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
10. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
11. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling briefly addressed slide 14 titled "Vast
Majority of Admissions to Prison are Misdemeanants." He
noted that most of the offenders and crimes were non-
violent. The commission recommended a variety of sentencing
changes including:
Reducing low level Class B misdemeanor to violations
Changing how driving with a suspended licensed was
addressed and differentiate between suspension for DUI
or a point's revocation
Reduce disorderly conduct to a maximum 24 hour hold
Mandatory electronic monitoring for first time DUI
offenders
A new presumptive range for Class A misdemeanors of
zero to thirty days with the exception of Assault IV
2:30:59 PM
Mr. Shilling noted sentencing Recommendation 6: Revise Drug
Penalties to Focus The Most the Severe Punishments on
Higher-Level Drug Offenders and turned to slide 16:
Over Last Decade, More Offenders Entering Prison for Drug
Crimes, and Staying Longer
Over past 10 years-
· admissions to prison for felony drug offenses has
grown by 35%, driven in large part by a 68% increase
in admissions for MICS 4 offenders; and
· length of stay for Alaska's felony drug offenders has
increased by 16%.
Mr. Shilling moved to slide 17:
Research Shows: Long Prison Sentences for Drug
Offenders Have Low Deterrent Value
•There is no significant effect of longer prison stays
on recidivism rates (i.e. staying in prison longer
does not make an offender less likely to recommit a
crime).
•In addition, some studies find that severe
punishments such as felony convictions and prison
terms may have criminogenic effects, causing offenders
to be more likely to commit crimes in the future.
Mr. Shilling explained that the commission recommended
establishing a 2.5 gram threshold whereby more than 2.5
grams of a 1A, 2A, or 3A substance was prosecuted for a
higher level felony and under 2.5 grams was a lower level
felony. He spoke to slide 18 that listed sentencing
Recommendation 7: Utilize Inflation-Adjusted Property
Thresholds. He reported that the legislature established
the dividing line between misdemeanor and felony theft in
1978 at $500. Inflation had eroded the value and the
commission recommended raising the value to $2000 that was
close to the $500 value adjusted for inflation. He moved to
slide 19 that included a chart titled "Felony Theft
Threshold in Alaska has not Kept Pace with Inflation." He
discussed slide 20:
Research Shows: Raising the Felony Theft Threshold Has
No Impact on Crime
•Between 2001 and 2011, 23 states raised their felony
theft thresholds. In these 23 states, the change in
threshold had no impact, up or down, in the state's
overall property crime rate.
•In fact, property and larceny crime rates fell
slightly more in the 23 states that raised their
thresholds from 2001 to 2011 than the 27 states that
did not.
Mr. Shilling moved to slides 21 and 22. He addressed
sentencing Recommendation 8 Align Non-Sex Felony
Presumptive Ranges with Prior Presumptive Terms. He moved
to slide 22 titled "In 2005, Alaska Moved From Presumptive
Terms to Presumptive Ranges." The chart depicted how the
legislature raised sentences in 2005. He explained that due
to the Blakely Decision in 2005, states were required to
mandate sentencing differently in response to the Supreme
Court case. Alaska moved from a presumptive term system to
a presumptive range system. The legislature used the entire
presumptive term as the floor of the new presumptive range.
The legislature added intent language at the time that the
legislature was not attempting "to bring about an overall
increase in active imprisonment time." However, using the
previous term as the floor of the new range increased
prison time significantly. He turned to slide 23:
Change in Felony Sentencing Led to Increases in Length
of Stay Behind Bars
From 2004 to 2014, average length of stay for:
· Class A felonies grew 80 percent;
· Class B felonies grew 8 percent; and
· Class C felonies grew 17 percent
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to slide 22 and asked what the
20 years meant on the presumptive terms for a Class A
felony. Mr. Shilling answered that the 20 years was the
maximum hard cap for sentencing if an aggravator was
proven.
Mr. Shilling moved to slide 24 titled "Align Ranges with
Prior Terms" that contained the sentencing range chart with
the commission recommendations.
2:35:34 PM
Mr. Shilling turned to slides 25 and 26. He referenced the
sentencing Recommendation 9: Expand and Streamline the Use
of Discretionary Parole. He turned to slide 26 titled "
Parole Eligibility Applied Inconsistently" He indicated
that currently eligibility for discretionary parole was
restricted for the most serious crimes of unclassified
felonies including murder and kidnapping or the lowest
level felonies and not for any felonies that fell within
the two extremes. The bill expanded the eligibility. He
addressed slide 27:
For Those Who are Eligible, Parole Underutilized.
•On any given month in 2014, an average of 463 inmates
were eligible for discretionary parole, and an average
of only 15 parole hearings were held.
Mr. Shilling detailed that the commission wanted everyone
eligible for parole to receive a hearing. The commission
also established an administrative parole provision;
currently not in statute. Administrative parole
presumptively granted parole to first time B and C Felons
by restricting hearings only to individuals that failed to
comply with their case plan did not obey institutional
rules, or to individuals that requested a hearing.
Mr. Shilling addressed slides 28 and 29. He discussed
sentencing Recommendation 10: Implement a Specialty Parole
Option for Long-Term Geriatric Inmates. He presented slide
29 titled " Population of Oldest Offenders Has More than
Doubled in Past 10 Years" and detailed that the elder
population was the fastest growing age group and was due to
the significant increase in sentences in the past decade.
Currently, the state had no parole option for the older
offenders. He moved to slide 30 titled "Alaska's Oldest
Offenders Least Likely to Recidivate Upon Release." He
added that the elder inmates were the costliest to the
state. The recommendation offered an opportunity to receive
a hearing if the inmate was 55 or older and served a
minimum of 10 years of their sentence. It was notable that
the age ranges were expanded in the Senate and some types
of offenders were excluded. The current policy reflected
the commission's recommendations and did not reflect
changes made in the Senate. He opined that the elderly were
the safest inmates to release and were the costliest
inmates by two to three times.
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 31 that listed sentencing
Recommendation 11: Incentivize Completion of Treatment for
Sex Offenders with an Earned Time Policy. He skipped the
data and mentioned that the policy mitigated one-third off
of a sex offender's sentence subsequent to treatment. He
highlighted to slide 35:
Community Supervision Recommendations
12. Implement graduated sanctions
13. Cap incarceration time for technical violations of
supervision
14. Establish a system of earned compliance credits
15. Reduce maximum lengths for probation terms and
standardize early discharge proceedings
16. Extend good time eligibility to offenders serving
sentences on electronic monitoring
17. Focus ASAP resources to improve program
effectiveness
18. Improve treatment offerings in CRCs and focus use
of CRC resources on high-need offenders
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 36 titled: "Almost Two-Thirds
of Offenders Released Return to Prison Within Three Years."
He voiced that graduated sanctions were tools probation
officers used to gain compliance by addressing bad behavior
quickly or eliciting good behavior through incentives. He
turned to slides 37:
Swift, Certain, and Proportional Sanctions Effective
at Changing Offender Behavior
•Research shows that responding to violations quickly,
certainly, and proportionally is the most effective
way to change offender behavior. Key elements of a
successful system include.
Mr. Shilling moved to slide 38 that listed Community
Supervision Recommendation 13: Cap Incarceration Time for
Technical Violations of Supervision. He restated that one-
fifth of Alaska's prison population was comprised of
individuals that did not commit a new crime.
2:41:14 PM
Mr. Shilling turned to slide 39 titled "Petitions to Revoke
Take a Month to Resolve." He addressed slide 40 titled
"Once Sentenced, Nearly Half of Revocations Staying More
than One Month." He noted that the graph also depicted that
some individuals spent over a year in prison for a
technical violation. The commission had recommended
creating a cap for the violations as follows:
The first revocation received 3 days in prison.
The second revocation received 5 days in prison.
The third revocation received 10 days in prison.
The forth plus revocation was left to judicial
suspension allowing imposition of the remaining
sentencing time.
Mr. Shilling spoke to slide 41 that listed the Community
Supervision Recommendation 14: Establish a System of Earned
Compliance Credits. He noted that currently offenders were
kept on probation and parole for long periods of time; even
those considered low risk. Almost all violations happened
in the first year and repeat violators were easily
identified early on. He added that Parole and Probation
Officers caseloads "were out of control" and averaged over
50. He spoke to slide 42:
To Change Offender Behavior, Rewards More Effective
than Sanctions
•Research shows that states achieve higher successful
supervision rates when rewards outnumber sanctions.
•Successful supervision programs provide incentives
for meeting case-specific goals (for example,
rewarding an offender with a drug addiction for
participating in an out-patient drug treatment
program), thereby enhancing supervisees' motivation.
Mr. Shilling voiced that the commission recommended a month
for month compliance credit that was intended to achieve
sustained compliance and lessen recidivism.
Mr. Shilling discussed Community Supervision Recommendation
15: Reduce Maximum Lengths for Probation Terms and
Standardize Early Discharge Proceedings. He examined slides
44 through 46. He briefly mentioned slide 44 titled
"Average Length of Stay on Community Supervision Up 13%
Over Past Decade." He cited the data depicted on the graph
on slide 45 titled:
"Failure Most Likely to Happen Within Three Months"
that clearly demonstrated that the majority of
probation or parole violations occurred within the
first three months [62 percent]. He spoke to slide 46:
Frontload and Focus Supervision Resources
•Research shows that supervision resources provide the
greatest public safety returns when focused on those
most likely to reoffend: high-risk offenders and those
recently released from prison. Key elements of a
successful system include:
•Identifying offenders who warrant enhanced
supervision and those who do not, including reducing
reporting requirements for those who are succeeding;
and
•Deterring future crime and technical violations by
changing offender behavior in the first few days,
weeks, and months after release.
Mr. Shilling furthered that in order to reduce probation or
parole violations and new crimes it was important to
frontload the states resources and focus limited resources
on those likely to offend. The commission recommended
limiting probation term lengths and discharging individuals
on probation or parole after one year of perfect sustained
compliance. He spoke to Community Supervision
Recommendation 16: Extend Good Time Eligibility to
Offenders Serving Sentences on Electronic Monitoring. He
moved to slide 48:
Unlike Those in Prison, Offenders on EM Unable to Earn
Good Time
•The ACJC found that, while most offenders who are
housed within an institution have the opportunity to
earn "good time" up to one-third off their sentences
in acknowledgement of positive behavior, offenders on
electronic monitoring are currently banned from
earning this incentive.
Mr. Shilling elaborated that currently most inmates often
choose to remain incarcerated in order to accumulate good
time.
Representative Wilson asked whether inmates who accumulated
good time had "the choice to take the full sentence." Mr.
Shilling answered in the affirmative and added that an
inmate could refuse electronic monitoring. Representative
Wilson reiterated her question and clarified that she
wondered whether an inmate could refuse probation. Mr.
Shilling believed she was referring to mandatory parole. He
understood that an individual could not deny mandatory
parole.
2:46:51 PM
Mr. Shilling spoke to slide 49 that listed Community
Supervision Recommendation 17: Focus ASAP Resources to
Improve Program Effectiveness. He discussed slide 50:
Increases in Referrals to ASAP Have Limited Program's
Effectiveness
•Alaska's Alcohol Safety Action Program ("ASAP")
provides needed screening and treatment referral
services for thousands of misdemeanor offenders who
are referred by the court.
•However, the Commission found that increases in the
number of referrals to ASAP have not correlated with
increased funding for the program, resulting in
limited program effectiveness.
•In fiscal year 2015, ASAP received nearly 7,250
referrals. 57% of which were statutorily mandated
referrals (DUI and MCA). The remaining 43% were
referrals that were not mandated by statute.
Mr. Shilling informed the committee that the program was
housed in the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS). He highlighted the last Community Supervision
Recommendation 18: Improve Treatment Offerings in Community
Residential Centers (CRCS) And Focus Use of CRC Resources
on High-Need Offenders. He turned to slide 52:
CRCs Mixing High-and Low-Risk Offenders; Not Providing
Evidence-Based Treatment
•The Commission found that CRCs, otherwise known as
halfway houses, are likely mixing high-and low-risk
offenders, which research has shown can lead to
increased recidivism for low-risk offenders.
•Additionally, the Commission found that CRCs would be
more effective at reducing recidivism if the
facilities offered evidence-based treatment for
offenders in addition to supervision.
Mr. Shilling mentioned that the recommendation included
requiring treatment when housed in a CRC and prohibited the
mixing of low and high risk offenders.
Mr. Shilling spoke to the concept of reinvestment beginning
on slide 53. He briefly cited slide 54 titled "Absent
Reform, Prison Population Projected to Grow by Additional
27% over Next Decade, Costing at Least $169 Million." He
moved to slide 55:
Reinvestment Directive to the Commission
"In this budget climate, investments that expand
treatment and services only become possible with a
reform package that results in substantial, real net
savings to the state."
•Letter to Alaska Criminal Justice Commission from
Finance co-Chairs, Senate President, and Speaker of
the House
Mr. Shilling shared that the letter directed the commission
to "think big" and requested recommendations that resulted
in "real systemic change." He illuminated that the
commission had met for months and had provided
recommendations that were projected to reduce the average
daily prison population by 21 percent over the next decade.
The commission's recommendations were projected to save the
state $424 million over the next ten years that included
averting future prisoner growth and savings to current
population and marginal offender costs. The savings did not
take into account the possible closure of DOC facilities
and the changes in the new version reduced the savings due
to reductions to the prison population of only 18 percent.
He addressed slide 57:
"Justice Reinvestment" concept
Free up funds by focusing prison beds on serious
violent offenders, and reinvest a portion of the
savings into the services needed to reduce recidivism
and protect the public.
Mr. Shilling related that more than 30 states had gone
through the process. He reiterated that the approach was
data driven, analyzed the state's spending, and allocated
offender populations in a more cost effective manner. He
listed the steps necessary as a state moved through justice
reinvestment as follows:
1. Establish a working group. The state created the
commission in 2014.
2. Analyze the drivers.
3. Develop policy recommendations
4. Work on codifying recommendations. The work was
currently in progress.
5. Reinvest savings in things that reduced crime.
Mr. Shilling presented slide 58:
Reinvestment Priorities
•Pretrial supervision;
•Violence prevention and victims' services;
•Community-based treatment; and
•Reentry and support services
Mr. Shilling referred to the fiscal notes and relayed that
there was money appropriated to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) for victims' services.
2:51:46 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked how the bill addressed the need for
treatment after arrest. Mr. Shilling replied that
reinvestment was really only possible if savings were found
from items that were not working and spent on programs that
achieved results. The committee had its own reinvestment
decisions to make. He detailed that the Senate Finance
Committee emphasized DOC treatment, halfway house
treatment, and community based treatment. He noted the
effectiveness of the treatment programs he mentioned.
Senator Coghill added that one of the new concepts was the
risk assessment in pretrial with its resulting
"diversionary potential." A treatment option could be
mandated instead of jail time. He believed the new pretrial
services offered a valuable new tool. Co-Chair Neuman
thought the sponsor had stated that the biggest problem in
delivering treatment after arrest was the lack of funding.
Mr. Shilling responded in the affirmative.
Senator Coghill interjected that was exactly the problem.
He believed that doing things differently saved costs and
freed up money for treatment, which could be mandated
through pretrial.
2:55:44 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to the aim of modifying the
behaviors of individuals to change the outcomes in the
criminal justice system. He wondered to what extent
modifying behaviors within the correctional institutions
were "individuated" versus categorized. Mr. Shilling
answered that DOC currently did a number of assessments to
determine inmate needs.
Senator Coghill elaborated that COC employed the LSIR
[Level of Service Inventory - Revised], which was an
assessment tool. The bill directed the use of new and
different assessments that currently were employed. The
risk assessment in the bill morphed into individualized re-
entry planning as the inmate neared release.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the schedule for the following
morning. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair
[Note: the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
2:58:35 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB91 - Visual Aid ver V.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 - Supporting Document (Letter to Commission 25% Reduction).pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Presentation.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 - Sectional Analysis ver V.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| 4 18 16 Cash Flow under HB245 version I.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 CS WORKDRAFT FIN vI.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 245 |
| SB 91 Editorial Juneau Empire.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Actuarial Letter 4.18.16.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91_HB205_Opposition_Letter_.pdf |
HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 SB 91 |