Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/30/2019 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 30, 2019
9:05 a.m.
9:05:32 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Matthews, Lead Research Analyst, Department of
Corrections; Kelly Goode, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Corrections.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ronald Taylor, chief, Prisons Division, National Institute
of Corrections, Washington D.C.; Bryan Brandenburg, Former
Director, Division of Institutions, Department of
Corrections.
SUMMARY
HB 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
9:06:10 AM
Co-Chair Wilson noted the committee would hear from Ronald
Taylor who had been the commissioner of the Department of
Corrections (DOC) when recidivism numbers were declining.
She wondered what measures were taken to achieve the
reduction.
RONALD TAYLOR, CHIEF, PRISONS DIVISION, NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF CORRECTIONS, WASHINGTON D.C. (via teleconference),
introduced himself. He shared that he served as
commissioner, deputy commissioner, and Director of the
Division of Probation and Parole in his former tenure with
DOC. He indicated that the decline in recidivism began with
the former DOC commissioner, Commissioner Joe Schmidt and
his administration. The department took a three phased
approach that included programming, changes in probation
and parole, and implementing a prison reentry program via a
prison reentry task force. He delineated that the
programming systems within the department were
significantly improved. In addition, the commissioners
office worked with the Division of Probation and Parole and
enhanced its focus to include offender success along with
enforcement. The commissioners office ensured that the
changes in the division aligned with the direction they
were taking the department. They utilized a risk assessment
tool and provided training within the institutional setting
for correctional offices, case managers, and probation
officers to ensure the risk assessment tool was being used
and the information was properly shared within the
institution and in the community. They embarked on a
robust prisoner reentry program in 5 communities via the
reentry task force.
Co-Chair Wilson inquired about the types of programs that
were implemented. Mr. Taylor responded that they
reestablished a number of programs within the institutions.
He listed the programs: substance abuse programs, Alaska
Native Specific program, Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment (RSAT), community after care, and outpatient
program. In addition, they provided a spectrum of mental
health treatment to the prison population that included
assessment and referral to individual counseling, anger
management, tele-psychiatry, transitional services and
release planning. They also focused on sex offender
management that included community counseling and polygraph
testing. They complemented the programs with faith-based
programs that included peer support and mentoring programs.
9:10:19 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston referenced the risk assessment tool
and asked whether it was different than the current tool.
Mr. Taylor answered that he was unaware of the current
tool. The department was using the (LSI-R) Level of Service
Inventory- Revised and he assumed that the current tool was
similar. Vice-Chair Johnston inquired whether the
department utilized a personal management agreement [an
individual management plan] with the inmate population. Mr.
Taylor deduced that Vice-Chair Johnston may be referencing
the offender management plan that they had designed and had
implemented the risk/needs assessment. The assessment
determined the inmates appropriate institutional programs
and it followed through to their program needs in the
community. Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the program was
much different than the current plan. Mr. Taylor was
unaware of the what plan was currently in use.
Representative Josephson asked about the risk assessment
and surmised that the tool was internal and had nothing to
do with bail hearing. Mr. Taylor affirmed and added that it
was exclusively for DOC use.
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the programs were evidence
based.
9:13:15 AM
Mr. Taylor replied that most of the programs were evidenced
based. He possessed DOC data for 2014 and 2015. He relayed
data regarding assessments and referrals for reformative
programs in 2014. He noted there were 583 inmates receiving
assessment referrals: 444 received LSAT, 135 received RSAT,
and 214 received after care. In 2015, the assessment and
referrals jumped to 1,046; 601 received LSAT, 152 received
RSAT, and those completing the active share increased to
301. Co-Chair Wilson asked for the reason the numbers
increased from 2014 to 2015. Mr. Taylor replied that the
increase was due to roughly $1 million in additional
funding for the department. He qualified that only 2
percent to 3 percent of DOCs budget was appropriated for
the programs. Co-Chair Wilson asked what it would take to
maintain programs at a level that significantly lowered
recidivism. Mr. Taylor replied that it was a difficult
question to answer. He believed that many other things had
to take place within the institutions, probation and
parole, and the community. He observed that the communities
needed to step up in terms of reentry options. He
recounted that at the time, the they offered a complete
package with tremendous support from the criminal justice
system and partners from various state agencies like
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL) and
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) with a
laser focus on reducing recidivism that began to make a
difference. He concluded that it was not just a program or
two that was a silver bullet for reducing recidivism; a
wholistic approach was necessary.
9:16:31 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if inmates had a certain amount of
sentenced time left when DOC implemented the programs, or
if they began when inmates were initially sentenced. Mr.
Taylor responded that the process started the moment a
person entered an institution.
Representative Carpenter asked about inmates participating
in the program in 2014 and 2015 - and the increase in
funding. He asked if the inmates were participating in the
programming because it was mandated or whether it was a
choice. Mr. Taylor remembered that it was a combination of
both. He recounted that DOC had a tremendous waitlist for
inmate treatment and the inmates were volunteering for
them. The programs provided the inmates the opportunity to
transition into the community with skills they lacked prior
to entering the institution.
Representative Josephson asked whether the approach had
been Mr. Taylor's or the departments creation or adopted
from another approach. Mr. Taylor answered that the
approach came from the National Institute of Corrections
Transition from Prison to the Community Model. He
elaborated that the approach incorporated three phases; the
institution, the transition, and the community phase and
sought to move a person through the phases successfully.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about Mr. Taylor's current work. She
wondered whether the institute was starting to see results
in decreasing recidivism. Mr. Taylor answered there were
numerous states that had seen recidivism reductions. He
offered to follow up with specific information.
9:20:35 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston was interested in statistics from any
states that had an increase in recidivism due to the impact
from opioid addiction. She noted that the opioid epidemic
tended to be a rural issue more than urban. Mr. Taylor
agreed to follow up.
Co-Chair Wilson directed a question to the Department of
Corrections regarding the fiscal notes. She asked for an
explanation of the calculations used and how it led to the
threshold to reopen the Palmer facility.
MICHAEL MATTHEWS, LEAD RESEARCH ANALYST, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, replied that the calculations depended on what
was being asked that predicated which years the analysts
used. He delineated that anything that pertained to a roll
back to pre-SB 91 [SB 91-Omnibus Crim Law & Procedure;
Corrections (CHAPTER 36 SLA 16 - 07/11/2016)] conditions
were based on 2014 data. A general change in the law, for
example, increasing the number of days in incarceration,
they used the most current data, which was from 2018.
9:23:40 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked for more clarification regarding how
2014 data was used. Mr. Matthews answered that they took
the number of people convicted for a specific offense,
which became the baseline number, and incorporated the
length of the incarceration. He exemplified that if someone
was convicted of DUI (Driving Under the Influence) and
murder he would not include the person under the DUI length
of stay data. Co-Chair Wilson referenced ACOMS. She asked
what the anacronym stood for and what data it contained.
Mr. Matthews answered that it signified the Alaska
Corrections Offender Management System (ACOMS) and was the
correctional system database. The data began when the
inmate was initially booked into the facility or system and
documented every detail regarding the inmate during the
entire sentence that included assessments. Co-Chair Wilson
asked whether the data generated included aggregated data
on any given day to determine the composition of the
population. Mr. Matthews replied that some information was
confidential for a time and might not be comprehensive on
any given day.
9:26:18 AM
Co-Chair Wilson considered the bigger picture and the
composition of the population regarding crimes; violent or
non-violent, pre-trial, etc. She asked if the legislature
would have the ability to look at the populations make-up
in the aggregate and not the individual. She was frustrated
to be asked to make decisions without understanding the
population. Mr. Matthews asked for clarity. He inquired
whether she wanted record level information. Co-Chair
Wilson clarified that she wanted a holistic number that
included a breakdown of the number of offenders convicted
of felony A, B, C, misdemeanors, etc. She was interested in
the larger picture to understand the current population.
She wanted to understand how the fiscal notes were
developed and whether he had a spreadsheet. Mr. Matthews
replied they could provide information regarding a
breakdown by crime and degree and report trends by offenses
and demographics. He surmised she was looking for a high
level overall picture of what was occurring in the
institutions populations. Co-Chair Wilson wondered whether
the information could provide information regarding the
level of custody required.
9:29:18 AM
Mr. Matthews answered in the affirmative and added that DOC
had custody level information.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked whether the department had
offender management tool and risk management tool data. Mr.
Matthews answered that they tracked the LSIR and
OMP(Offender management Plan) tools.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if they tracked the effectiveness
of the tools. Mr. Matthews answered that they analyzed LSIR
regarding the likelihood to recidivate. He offered to
provide the data.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that Mr.
Matthews was one of the primary analysts for DOC. Mr.
Matthews answered in the affirmative. Representative
Josephson asked whether he was familiar with the decrease
in recidivism in 2014. Mr. Matthews replied that the
department tracked recidivism annually and could look back
to 2002. Representative Josephson asked whether recidivism
was trending down prior to the implementation of SB 91. Mr.
Matthews responded in the affirmative and added that it had
only decreased a couple of percentage points.
9:31:53 AM
Representative Josephson asked if Mr. Matthews was asked
for his opinion on policy and felt his position was used
properly in terms of providing beneficial information. Mr.
Matthews answered in the affirmative and added that the
department asked him the question daily.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the department could go back to
2014 and 2015 and identify the programs in use and data
regarding their success and whether they currently remained
in use. [Secretary Note: The teleconference connection was
lost.]
9:33:18 AM
AT EASE
9:33:46 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Wilson pointed to 2014 and 2015 when programs had
been reestablished that Mr. Taylor indicated had begun to
make a difference in recidivism. She reiterated her
question regarding data. Mr. Matthews answered that
unfortunately programming was not well recorded in the DOC
system. Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the scenario had
always been the case. Mr. Matthews replied that it had
always been the case. Co-Chair Wilson assumed he was behind
all the fiscal note data. Mr. Matthews responded in the
affirmative. Co-Chair Wilson restated her request for how
he calculated the numbers in the fiscal notes.
9:35:43 AM
Mr. Matthews provided an example of the data she requested.
He concluded that she wanted him to show the math. Co-
Chair Wilson replied in the affirmative.
Representative LeBon asked if the calculation would include
data on repeat offenders. Mr. Matthews answered the
department could show who had been incarcerated in the past
and why but would be difficult to aggregate the information
into a presentable package. He asked for more specifics.
Representative LeBon replied that the committee was trying
to determine trends, recidivism, and how provisions in SB
91 were working. He emphasized that statistics on
recidivism was crucial to their decision making process.
Mr. Matthews described the type of recidivism information
he could provide.
Representative Knopp thought that Representative LeBon's
question required a different calculation. He ascertained
that Co-Chair Wilson was looking for how the fiscal note
numbers were derived based on longer sentencing. He noted
that Representative LeBon was asking about the efficacy of
the programs and determined that the answer called for a
different equation, which he recalled was difficult to
quantify. He deemed that it was impossible to predict when
an individual would reoffend. He asked whether his
deduction was correct.
9:38:34 AM
Mr. Matthews answered that the department lacked robust
data regarding programs and any type of data connecting
programs and recidivating was difficult and required many
assumptions.
Co-Chair Wilson referenced the committees frustration over
lack of data.
Representative Carpenter asked if Mr. Matthews was a
database manager. Mr. Matthews replied that the manager was
another position. Representative Carpenter asked when the
ACOMS system had last been updated. He wondered whether it
was possible to revise the type of data that could be
tracked. Mr. Matthews answered that ACOMS had gone online
in 2010. The database was from a consortium and was an open
source system. The department frequently updated and
revised the system. Representative Carpenter asked for
verification that it was possible to update the system to
track new program efficacy. Mr. Matthews answered in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the assessment tool
pertaining to individuals on pretrial electronic monitoring
(EM) had reoffended prior to going to court. Mr. Matthews
answered in the affirmative. He reported that DOC tracked
pretrial supervision, the individuals offenses, and
whether they were returned to incarceration. Co-Chair
Wilson referenced a presentation the previous week where
the committee had learned about a hypothetical criminal
named, Offender Joe who reoffended during pretrial. She
asked if ACOMS collected data of that nature.
9:41:58 AM
Mr. Matthews responded that if the individual came back to
DOC custody they would know and retain the data.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for verification that the department
would know when an individual had been released and had
reoffended. She was interested to know whether individuals
were being released while waiting for trial and those
individuals who were reoffending prior to trial. Mr.
Matthews affirmed. He informed the committee that pretrial
release was in effect before pretrial supervision was
implemented. Co-Chair Wilson reiterated that she wanted to
measure the program's efficacy regarding whether a person
was on the right path prior to a court hearing.
Representative Carpenter asked if ACOMS was adequately able
to answer the questions posed to the department. Mr.
Matthews answered that ACOMS had been designed to know who
was where when. Any additional data revisions were extra
stuff. Often, he had to fill in the gaps due to missing
information. He qualified that the analysts were only aware
of individuals who came to the department's attention by
being arrested and booked. He provided an example of when a
person was arrested, found guilty but not given jail time;
in the scenario the department would not receive the
information. Representative Carpenter thought Mr. Matthews
was describing an inventory management system instead of a
system that was designed to interpret data. Mr. Matthews
agreed with the conclusion and restated that it was a
system designed to know who was where when.
9:45:30 AM
Representative Carpenter considered that the program was
not intuitively designed to get at the questions asked by
the committee. He suggested that modifications were
necessary to obtain the answers the committee sought.
Co-Chair Wilson agreed with Representative Carpenters
conclusions, but she was also frustrated that the committee
was not able to get the data to know how changes would
impact the system. She furthered that when crafting policy,
some things would work, and others would not. She did not
believe the committee had all the data it truly needed to
get to the root of the problem. She stressed that the
public wanted harsher sentencing and to change the
outcomes. She opined that programs were necessary to
rehabilitate an individual. She emphasized her desire for
data to drive the policy outcomes.
Representative Carpenter appreciated Mr. Matthews being
present to answer questions. He ascertained that the
department staff was requesting the data to help inform
intelligent decisions. He sensed that Mr. Matthews was able
to make the system work to a point, but the system was not
designed for that purpose. He asked whether his conclusions
were accurate. Mr. Matthews replied that the statements
were generally true. He elaborated he spent much of his
time calculating numbers and lacked the time to research
the reasons for the outcomes.
9:48:53 AM
Co-Chair Wilson thanked the presenter. She wondered when
the committee could expect the information. Mr. Matthews
replied that when the department received a bill it
generally took anywhere from one to two hours per bill
section.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked Mr. Matthews for his time. She
clarified that the following testifier would speak to a
risk assessment tool for recidivism that was not the
pretrial assessment tool.
9:50:02 AM
BRYAN BRANDENBURG, FORMER DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
INSTITUTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via
teleconference), shared that he was the Deputy Director of
Operations under Commissioner Schmidt for four years before
he was the Division Director of Institutions for four more
years. He indicated that he was tasked with implementing
progressive treatment programming in the correctional
institutions. He detailed that in 2007, when the process
began, DOC lack any programming and they had looked to the
National Institution of Corrections, Transition from Prison
to the Community Model for guidance. He explained that the
model encompassed an initial inmate assessment upon
entering an institution that included screening,
assessment, and classification of the individuals and
referral into evidence-based programming while incarcerated
and a process of reintegration into the community through
the offender management plan. He emphasized the importance
of identifying the population that would most benefit from
the treatment programs. The division utilized the LSI -
Screening and LSIR to identify the level of risk of an
offender. High risk individuals were referred to the
programs. When assessing a criminal population for
recidivism risk, certain characteristics were identified,
and the programs were designed to address the
characteristics. Some of the programs implemented were a
90-day intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment
program, a criminal attitudes program to address the
beliefs and attitudes that drove the thinking, an anger
management program, and parenting program. The medium and
high risk individuals were referred to the programs and
were tracked through completion and given an OMP. He
characterized the plan as a discharge summary. The plan
informed the inmate of their conditions of release. The OMP
included a reentry plan that incorporated many of the
community providers with a focus primarily on jobs,
housing, and aftercare.
9:54:31 AM
Mr. Brandenburg noted that the committee had heard from Mr.
Skidmore the previous day regarding the decrease in
recidivism. He remarked that he had left the department in
2014 with positive data regarding recidivism reduction. He
believed that the programs he helped establish proved very
effective in showing that treatment had been making a
difference. He had worked in a jail in Oregon after leaving
DOC and incorporated many of the same programs. The jail
experienced a reduction in recidivism from 71 percent to 61
percent during his three years in Oregon.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked where DOCs funding for the
programs came from. She recalled that in 2007 and 2008,
the state had received federal funding to treat the state's
meth problem. She asked if some of the funding had been
used in DOC for that purpose. Mr. Brandenburg was not aware
of using federal funds for the programs. He remembered that
DOC received funding from the legislature for the programs.
Vice-Chair Johnston assumed that the funding was
operational and not capital funds. Mr. Brandenburg replied
in the affirmative.
9:56:52 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked for specifics about the programs. Mr.
Brandenburg replied that the administration prior to
Commissioner Schmidt had eliminated all institutional
programming apart from some basic education and RSAT
programs. He elaborated that when they reimplemented
programming, roughly half of the population needed
substance abuse treatment and DOC only had the resources to
serve 200 inmates a year through the RSAT program. Co-Chair
Wilson asked whether Mr. Brandenburg had observed success
utilizing the Community Residential Centers (CRC) and EM
programs during reentry. Mr. Brandenburg answered in the
affirmative. He indicated that CRCs were designed as
reentry tools to transition the inmate back into the
community, but they were unable to utilize them fully. They
had some success in several communities [Kenai, Seward, and
Juneau] due to access to work in fish processing plants. He
explained that the idea behind OMPs and reentry was the
cohesion between probation and parole and working with
community providers to assist in the transition. Many
inmates required assistance to follow through on the
conditions of release. The community providers performed
in-reach prior to inmates release to help set up the
transition process and make the process smoother. Co-Chair
Wilson asked whether there was substance abuse treatment in
the CRCs to address the treatment backlog. Mr. Brandenburg
answered in the affirmative. He elaborated that that the
department had worked with CRCs to develop substance abuse
treatment on the outside. The intent of developing the
program was to provide treatment while incarcerated so
inmates could focus on housing, reunification, and work
post release. He emphasized that it was more effective to
complete treatment while incarcerated and offer aftercare
upon release.
10:02:10 AM
Representative Knopp asked why CRCs had not been utilized
as much as the department had wanted. Mr. Brandenburg
replied that he misspoke. He clarified that the department
had used the CRCs and had kept the 750 beds full. The issue
had been that the centers had not been used as much as he
would have liked for individuals that had completed
treatment programs while in prison.
Representative Carpenter asked what the challenges were for
individuals completing programming in the CRCs. [Secretary
Note: Mr. Brandenburg's call dropped]
Co-Chair Wilson asked how much of the $168. per day per
offender expense was spent on treatment.
10:04:17 AM
KELLY GOODE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, replied she would follow up by the end of the
day.
Representative Carpenter inquired whether the transition
model employed by DOC under Commissioner Schmidt was
currently in use. Ms. Goode replied that she would follow
up. She noted that the same programming mentioned by the
prior administrations testifiers were still in use.
Representative Carpenter cited a statement from the
departments website and read the following:
Develop the capacity to measure change towards
specific outcomes and track information that can be
used for planning future improvements.
Representative Carpenter thought the bullet point spoke to
what he felt the legislature's job was; how to manage
change to achieve the desired outcomes.
Co-Chair Wilson highlighted her concern regarding the
latest CRC contracts in Juneau that did not include any
treatment.
10:06:37 AM
Representative Carpenter restated his earlier question
about CRCs. He asked if the issue had been a lack of
training outside or within the CRCs. Mr. Brandenburg
answered that different CRCs had different programming. He
reported that some programs were less than ideal. There
was not a very good tracking system at the time.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked Mr. Brandenburg for his time and
information.
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:08:27 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|