Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/21/2016 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 | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 21, 2016
1:36 p.m.
1:36:26 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 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 David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jorden Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill; Dean Williams, Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; Diane Casto, Policy Advisor,
Division of Behavior Health, Department of Health and
Social Services; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Lauree Morton, Executive Director, Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public
Safety; Representative Dan Ortiz; Representative Mike
Chenault.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brann Wade, Chief Probation Officer, Division of
Institutions, Department of Corrections; Audrey O'Brien,
Manager, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Administration.
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."
1:37:43 PM
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda. [Note: the
committee was addressing bill version CSSS SB 91(JUD).]
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, spoke to the oversight and
reform issues. He referred to the color coded sectional
analysis provided by his office (copy on file). He directed
attention to Section 175 (page 105, line 10) related to
powers and duties of the commission. He relayed his intent
to address additional duties and oversight of the
commission and how it would report to the legislature. He
explained the commission had been directed to evaluate the
effect of sentencing laws; criminal justice practices; the
criminal justice system; and whether the sentencing laws
and criminal justice practices provided protection for the
public, community condemnation of the offender, the rights
of the victims of crimes, the rights of the accused and the
person convicted, restitution from the offender, and
principles of reformation. The commission had done its best
to come forward with the recommendations. Additionally, the
commission had been tasked with providing cost ranges from
the most expensive to least expensive. The bill also
included a requirement for an annual recommendation to the
governor and the legislature on the savings that could be
reinvested. The changes were not necessarily about cutting
the budget or setting criminals out, but about how the
state could reinvest for the specified outcomes including
public protection, community condemnation of the offender,
the rights of the victims of crimes, the rights of the
accused and the person convicted, restitution from the
offender, and principles of reformation.
Senator Coghill turned to page 106 (line 17) and addressed
that the commission may appoint a new working group to
review and analyze the implementation of the
recommendations and to report on the implementation status.
He pointed to page 107 related to the commission's ability
to track and assess outcomes from the recommendations the
commission had made and corresponding criminal justice
reforms. He believed the language needed to be cleaned up
due to some redundancies. He referred to subsection (3) at
the top of page 107 related to the commission's
responsibility to request, receive, and review data. He
noted the following sections would specify how the work
would be done. He detailed a new section had been added on
page 107 directing agencies to report data (line 17) and
the judiciary to report (line 28). He moved to page 108 and
pointed to requirements for the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) to report (line 4) and the Department of Corrections
(DOC) to report (line 13). He added the bill included a
list of things the agencies were intended to report. The
language related to the review process that would be set
into motion by the commission. The process would also alert
every agency dealing with a criminal justice system to
review and report the outcomes along the way. He remarked
there would be numerous eyes reviewing the structure.
Senator Coghill turned to Section 177 on page 109 where
annual report and recommendations had been amended. He
detailed the section addressed how the commission would
recommend to reinvest any intended savings in order to
reduce recidivism, which was the bill's primary goal. He
stressed that a reduction in recidivism would mean reduced
crime. The performance metrics would be produced and shown
to the legislature. He believed the state would see real
time data that was better than ever before in Alaska
related to the review, report, and recommendations from the
commission. Page 110 included specific items that were not
yet known for sure, including a percentage of inmates
returning to prison within three years and the same
percentage of those individuals who return for new crimes.
The commission would also recommend reforms that may
include recommendations to the legislature for
administrative actions.
1:44:31 PM
Senator Coghill pointed to Sections 178 and 179 (page 110)
specifying the commission would submit reports and
recommendations no later than November of each year. The
current bill version would extend the commission to June
30, 2021. He noted a couple of other places in the bill
included language related to specific recommendations for
the treatment of sexual abuse and sexual crimes. He
believed the language appeared in Section 196. He asked for
his staff to identify the specific location.
JORDEN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, referred the
committee to language on page 119 related to some special
reports the commission was required to provide. The
commission was to provide reports on driving while
intoxicated and other Title 28 issues, restitution, and
social impact bonds. The specific working group related to
sexual offences was located on page 107, line 5, subsection
(4). The section required the commission to appoint a
working group to review and analyze sexual offence statutes
and report to the legislature if there were circumstances
under which victims' rights, public safety, and
rehabilitation of offenders were better served by changing
existing laws. He noted there was some additional language
as well.
Senator Coghill remarked that the bill asked the commission
to do a substantial amount by December [2016]. He
recommended asking for preliminary and primary reports
during the first session of the 30th legislature. He was
uncertain whether the commission could complete all of the
working group issues. There were three working groups plus
new commission duties; the bill asked the commission to
report by November, which was fine, but he guessed it would
be a preliminary report. He assumed the bill may not go
into effect or be passed until July and agencies could not
begin work until it was handed to them by the governor, in
which case the commission would probably have less than
four months to complete the project. He believed the
commission and the agencies would do a review and report.
He mentioned law enforcement by the police as one of the
areas the state needed to understand how things would land
on the ground, which he did not believe would be known
until a year into changes brought on by the bill. He
continued that watching what was done along the way would
be very important, which he believed every agency would be
doing.
1:48:32 PM
Co-Chair Neuman stated that the bill included reporting
requirements for the commission to provide recommendations
on where to spend expected savings. He asked what the
expected savings may be annually.
Senator Coghill replied that the fiscal notes would provide
information about the anticipated [savings]. He noted that
the commission and Pew Trust had looked at an anticipated
averted cost (jail) and marginal cost (jail time days).
Costs had been added due to pretrial and increased
probation/parole officers. The first year of savings were
close to $60 million; the expected savings could be $150
million over the next five years if implemented as
currently proposed. The averted cost would be the $300
million or so for a correctional facility or around $150
million if prisoners were sent out of state. He still
believed there would be a savings; it then became a matter
of how to reinvest the money to make Alaska's society a
better place and hold people accountable in the proper
ways. For example, the recidivism reduction fund was
established by the bill and could be used to make
appropriations to DOC, DPS, and the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) for recidivism reduction
programs (page 105). He detailed people would have to apply
and savings would be rolled into the fund.
Senator Coghill pointed to page 116, Section 186 that
established the recidivism reduction program to promote
rehab for persons on probation or parole or incarcerated
for offences and recently released from correctional
facilities; the program would potentially be funded with
savings. Additionally, [the DOC] commissioner had new
duties to work with the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
on the evidence-based programs. He explained it was
necessary to have continual reach-out related to the best
practices the state could benefit from. Page 117 included a
definition for "evidence-based" to demonstrate the need for
well-reviewed, credible programs. He explained they had
worked to specify the commission should review, report, and
make recommendations. Additionally, the agencies were
directed to reach out and a fund had been created, which
the Office of Victims' Rights, Victims for Justice, or the
domestic violence network could be a part of. He specified
problems related to behavioral health, drug or alcohol
addiction, or sexual addiction had to be included in the
lowering of the recidivism rate.
1:53:24 PM
Senator Coghill stated that the bill included models where
restitution became a bit easier. They had made efforts in
the bill to make restitution a better possibility if
someone was thieving for a living.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that he and Senator Coghill had
been working together for several years. He addressed where
the state would spend the money it was supposed to save
under the legislation. He asked if there was any particular
program the commission had discussed as one that would see
the highest value for cost savings (e.g. behavioral health,
addiction, or other).
Senator Coghill answered that there were three areas where
change was necessary. He was glad that Jeff Jessee (chief
executive officer of the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA)) had been part of the commission because
the behavioral health element was huge. He stressed that
something had to change. He continued that people still
needed to be held accountable for bad action. The trust had
agreed to help out and was looking for ways to go from
treatment to housing. He discussed planning for getting out
of jail and relayed jobs, housing, and treatment were
paramount; money had to be invested in the state's
behavioral health system. He explained the alcohol and drug
abuse problems in Alaska were probably hurting the state
more than anything else. He surmised alcohol was probably
the entry level, but perhaps marijuana would take its place
as it had become legal. Alcohol problems were factors in
things like forth degree assault on a school yard, domestic
violence, and road rage. He stressed that damage was done
in major ways. He continued that people were different when
drunk and if they could be held accountable and could get
over the hump of addiction, society would be better. He
remarked the same thing applied to drugs. He added it was
harder on drugs.
Representative Edgmon pointed to Section 174, subsection
(d), which mentioned appropriations to DOC, DHSS, and DPS.
He wondered if there was any room in the legislation to
include language about partnerships with Native nonprofit
organizations. He detailed the Bristol Bay Native
Association was working on a major reentry program directly
tied to recidivism that he believed would be groundbreaking
in the region. He thought other nonprofits around the state
were working on the issue.
Senator Coghill answered in the affirmative. He asked his
staff to point to the specific location in the bill.
Mr. Shilling directed attention to page 107, lines 13
through 16, which tasked the commission to look into the
idea.
1:57:22 PM
Senator Coghill discussed that separately from SB 91 he had
introduced a bill related to the need for a structural
agreement between state and tribal groups pertaining to
misdemeanants. He noted there were some memorandums of
understanding (MOU), but he wanted a formal agreement so a
citizen would not have to give up Alaska state citizenship
to become a tribal enrollee. He did not believe there
should be a contest between those two rights. He believed
some methodologies would be found in the bill. He added the
issue was something that required answering sooner or
later.
Representative Guttenberg referred Section 174 related to
the to the recidivism reduction fund. The bill language
addressed taxes and he asked for detail.
Mr. Shilling replied that the tax referred to in Section
174 was the marijuana tax revenue that would be collected
in the upcoming years. The tax was one of the mechanisms
the Senate Finance Committee had used in order to fund some
of the reinvestment priorities highlighted in the fiscal
notes.
Senator Coghill added that the language had been put in by
the Senate Finance Committee based on the upcoming
marijuana tax.
Representative Guttenberg stated that hopefully reduction
in recidivism would mean fewer people and fewer days in
jail and significant cost savings to the state.
2:00:04 PM
Senator Coghill stated that the first part of the
commission's report had provided a good high-level view of
proven practices and statistics. He noted it was not a
heavy study and was a useful tool.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed the committee would hear about
the bill sections related to reentry.
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
shared that Sections 156 and 158 articulated the area of
reentry and new related requirements for DOC. Both of the
sections stepped up the requirements and expectations of
the department in a number of ways. He furthered the
sections included requirements DOC had started on its own,
but they provided a benchmark for going forward in terms of
reentry planning for inmates getting released. One of the
section requirements increased the planning for prisoners
getting released from 30 days to 90 days. He detailed the
bill backed up the release planning to ensure issues were
being addressed. He noted the provision was logical as it
took longer to get some of the things done. The sections
required DOC to coordinate with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD) in terms of job training and
ensuring the state was fully utilizing DLWD's job placement
resources.
Commissioner Williams pointed out the bill would require
DOC to assist inmates with obtaining state identification
or drivers licenses prior to their release date. He noted
it was real, but important work. He continued that items
specified in the sections would make it easier for a chance
of successful reentry once a prisoner was released from
custody. Part of the bill created an expectation that DOC
would have better partnerships with nonprofits in order to
get past the notion that the individuals were DOC's inside
the prison system and that it would only cooperate more
fully once the prisoners were released. The bill set an
expectation that people could and should be visiting
facilities to work with inmates and prisoners before their
release. He stressed the department should be embracing the
idea and he personally did. He believed it would solidify
the expectation. The sections also established standards
for electronic monitoring (EM) by private contractors to
ensure the state was monitoring the program and that
standards were set in order to prevent something from going
sideways. He reiterated that the bill required a ramped up
effort - part of the way the work would be accomplished was
as inmate populations hopefully began to decline, the
department could reallocate some of its existing resources.
He communicated the provisions would require significant
work for DOC, but the work was valuable and would put the
department on the line, which he thought was a good thing.
The provisions were all designed to make sure the state
could address the 62 percent recidivism rate.
2:06:17 PM
DIANE CASTO, POLICY ADVISOR, DIVISION OF BEHAVIOR HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, relayed that she
had recently been hired to oversee the Medicaid reform
related to behavioral health. She remarked that throughout
the process substance abuse and mental health came up
repeatedly; therefore, DHSS saw its role very clearly in
reentry and recidivism reduction. She highlighted that some
the sections mentioned by Commissioner Williams were
critical. She referred to Section 158 and relayed that
Medicaid reform would complement the bill well. She
addressed partnering with other state agencies to enable
prisoners to sign up for their state identification or
driver's license; the other important component was getting
people signed up for Medicaid. She furthered that Medicaid
expansion would allow a significant number of the
individuals coming out of the correctional system to be
eligible for Medicaid (primarily men without children that
fell below 136 percent of the federal poverty level). She
elaborated it would be a huge benefit to get individuals
signed up for Medicaid in order to access needed services.
Ms. Casto continued that it was evident through surveys
that the number one reason people did not seek treatment
for substance abuse and mental health services was they did
not believe they needed it. The second reason people did
not seek treatment was the inability to afford the service.
The department was hopeful through Medicaid reform and its
behavioral health component that it would be able to assist
individuals coming out of prison to gain access to
Medicaid; the hope was to reach people prior to their
departure from the correctional institutions in order to
provide them access to services they did not have in the
past. She recalled an earlier question about the things
people really needed in order to be successful when leaving
jail. First, people needed treatment for substance abuse
and mental health services, which was a major issue for
many individuals in Alaska. Second, people needed housing
in order to get their lives back together. She noted it was
not possible to be on EM without a residence. Third,
individuals needed a job in order to integrate back into
the community.
Ms. Casto relayed that in January [2016] the governor had
called a housing summit, which had included a workgroup
related to housing for individuals coming out of prison.
She detailed the report had come out earlier in the week
and provided specific ideas about how the state could do a
better job working with the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), private, and nonprofit partners to
ensure adequate housing for individuals. She spoke to the
need for individuals to gain employment. She referred to an
employment specialist position to be funded by AMHTA that
would work specifically with DOC partners and DOC
institutions to ensure people were coordinated with job
coaches and opportunities upon their release from prison.
There were many things underway that would help move things
forward.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the committee had the [housing]
report.
2:11:16 PM
Ms. Casto provided the report to staff for distribution
[note: the handout included a letter addressed to Governor
Bill Walker from AHFC dated April 14, 2016 and the
"Governor's Housing Summit" report (copy on file)]. She
referred to Representative Edgmon's earlier question about
community partnership. She explained DHSS was very
interested in expanding, enhancing, and working with
community partners. There were currently four community
reentry coalitions in Mat-Su, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
Juneau; the entities were grassroots organizations that
were receiving a small amount of funding from AMHTA to do
an assessment of their service system and capacity they had
to meet the needs of individuals returning from
incarceration. Additionally, there were four developing
coalitions in Bethel, Nome, Dillingham, and Kenai. She
added that the coalition in Dillingham was currently doing
incredible work. The department was hoping that through
some of the reinvestment dollars to give the additional
four coalitions enough money to hire a coordinator to keep
the momentum going. The hope was the coalitions would have
the ability to start addressing some of the things included
in the bill related to partnering with nonprofit
organizations to provide services. She added the coalitions
were very eager and ready to do that. There was also a
partner reentry program currently working with reentrants
in Anchorage. She noted hopefully the coalitions would move
towards a more structured program that referred reentrants
to coalitions where they would work with the reentry plan
developed while they had been in prison to help link them
to services.
2:13:45 PM
Ms. Casto addressed Section 181 related to temporary
assistance. She shared that Alaska was one of seven states
that still had a ban on allowing a person with a past drug
conviction from ever obtaining public assistance (e.g. food
stamps and other). Section 181 allowed with certain
conditions that someone could regain the ability to access
the services, which were critical in helping a person get
back on their feet. The department was hopeful it would be
another critical piece of giving people the opportunity to
get themselves settled, back on their feet, into a job, and
off of any assistance in the future. She mentioned other
items in the bill related to reentry including the 24/7
alcohol testing program, and the Alcohol Safety Action
Program (ASAP) where individuals were monitored in the
community. She noted the program coordinator was available
online if needed.
Ms. Casto thought it was very important that reentry was a
critical step. She stressed the need to stop the cycling
into and out of the prison system. She had worked for DOC
for a short time in reentry and she had dealt with
substance abuse and behavioral health more often and in a
more serious way at DOC than in her 12 prior years with the
Division of Behavioral Health. She believed that as the
state partnered some of the Medicaid and behavioral health
reform, it would get treatment to individuals earlier and
hopefully prevent individuals from committing crimes, going
to jail, and coming out for treatment.
2:16:33 PM
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the need for treatment, housing,
and jobs. He reasoned a person needed treatment prior to
acquiring a job in order to be drug and alcohol free.
Currently there was not enough treatment, jobs, or housing
available. He asked if the money was available whether
there were sufficient treatment programs, housing, and jobs
available.
Ms. Casto replied that the state did not have sufficient
capacity to meet the need. She detailed that during the
past three years DHSS had been focusing on the three areas
clearly and deliberately; the department had recognized
where the needs were and was starting to move in that
direction to increase them. She spoke to treatment and
explained the department believed the system could be
expanded. She specified that the state did not have enough
detox and sobering centers to help people early on. The
plan was to start building some of the services to utilize
Medicaid payments in an efficient way, cut costs, and
increase services. The work was at the starting point, but
the department had compiled numerous reports to determine
the state's capacity versus its need. She conceded there
was currently a clear gap. She reasoned the point of moving
forward with behavioral health systems reform was to
increase the capacity. She relayed she had met with the
director of the Alaska Behavioral Health Association the
previous day and had talked about ways to do a better job
expanding. She hoped that through reform, changes would be
made to broaden the population eligible for Medicaid and to
expand Medicaid to some of the private providers who were
currently not eligible, which should also expand some of
the service delivery. She summarized there was currently
not enough treatment available to meet the demand; it would
need to be expanded as the state was also looking at what
the increased need may be.
2:19:55 PM
Co-Chair Neuman wondered what the success rate would be
amongst the prisoners, if treatment, housing, and jobs were
available.
Ms. Casto asked for clarity on the question. She asked if
he was referring to individuals enrolled in Medicaid.
Co-Chair Neuman elaborated he was speaking about the
overall corrections population. He explained some may be
Medicaid eligible, but the amount was probably minimal. He
guessed the amount would be around 200 due to Medicaid
restrictions. He estimated the current prison population at
6,000 and believed about one-third of the population could
potentially receive treatment. He stated about one-third
may never figure it out and the remaining third would
figure it out because they did not want to go back to jail.
Under the scenario, he wondered what the treatment success
rate would be for the 33 percent who were treatable.
Mr. Casto replied the answer involved "looking a little bit
into the crystal ball." She stated that treatment usually
took more than one time because addiction was a very
powerful thing. She believed if people were given the
opportunity, 60 to 70 percent of the individuals could be
successful. Additionally, a person's success was also
dependent on whether or not they wanted to get clean and
sober. Often times having a job, home, family, and support
system helped people to be successful in treatment. She
furthered that having those things often helped an
individual to make a decision to get treatment quicker.
Without some of those things it was very easy for a person
to slip back into addiction, which was seen many times with
individuals coming out of prison. She provided an example
of a person getting out of jail with plans to live with a
girlfriend and work for their brother-in-law. Frequently in
that situation the relationship breaks up and the job fails
to follow through. She continued that many times the person
began aftercare, but without a support system they
frequently relapsed. She spoke to the importance of looking
at the entire picture, the necessity of having all of the
things moving at the same time, and having support for the
individuals. She believed the combination would mean
individuals would be more apt to be successful.
2:23:25 PM
Co-Chair Neuman was concerned that there were thousands of
Alaskans losing their jobs with the recession who were not
felons and had no criminal records. He guessed there would
be an increase in housing available when people moved out
of the state. He reasoned it was necessary to have housing
near jobs. For example, it did not matter if there was
housing available in Big Lake because there were no jobs in
that area.
Co-Chair Thompson spoke to Section 158, which addressed
starting a program 90 days prior to a prisoner's release.
He asked if some individuals who received probation or
parole could slip through the cracks and not receive the
program.
Commissioner Williams imagined many things would slip
through the cracks due to the significant change and work.
He believed setting the desired expectation was a good
thing. He was doubtful everything would work just right
immediately after being launched. The department was
currently implementing a plan for prisoners on a 30-day
basis. He detailed people recognized the need, but the bill
would set the date back 90 days, which was a good thing.
All of the changes were realigning expectations for the
department. He furthered the implementation phase would be
a lift for DOC, but the work was good. He added there would
be some slipups, but he believed it was the future in terms
of how the recidivism issue was addressed.
Representative Wilson was struggling with the sections of
the bill currently under discussion. She referred to
parents in the Office of Children Services (OCS) system who
could not get the treatment they need. She continued that
as a result they could not get their children back and due
to a lack of jobs they could not find employment. She
believed the bill would direct more resources and more
attention to individuals who made substantially worse
choices. She asked what would happen to the OCS parents
without services.
Commissioner Williams understood the concern. He did not
believe anything in the bill discounted the concern and
work to be done within OCS. He surmised there were many
state systems deserving significant attention and reform.
He explained the state was spending a lot of money on its
corrections system. He referred to the state's high
recidivism rate. The bill represented one step in doing
something to improve recidivism rates. He referenced
successful methods used by other states. He used Wyoming as
an example and relayed it had a recidivism rate of 25
percent. He noted there was something about work being done
inside the Wyoming facilities, but he believed it would
also be prudent to study how it was handling reentry
issues. He added a number of states were making significant
progress. He emphasized that the bill would reduce
recidivism and would bring crime down. He acknowledged the
bill did not fix the other parts of the system that may
need attention; however, it did do a significant amount. He
explained the bill employed similar strategies to those
used in other states. He emphasized that recidivism and
crime would go down as a result. He added that if crime
increased with the passage of the bill something was
seriously wrong.
2:28:27 PM
Representative Wilson countered that other states did not
have the problems that Alaska did related to specialties,
which was her concern. She did not want to see people put
back in jail either, but she was not willing to sacrifice
parents due to a lack in resources. She stated she believed
the bill's action was great, but she believed most of the
help would not come to the target population until
individuals were released from prison because Medicaid was
not available to prisoners. She mentioned a lack in
behavioral health professionals. She wondered if people
coming out of prison would bump parents trying to get their
children back from the state off the waiting list for
services. She stated her concern was about the particular
section, which would increase needed organization and
management; however, she did not want parents in the OCS
system to have less opportunity for needed services.
Ms. Casto answered that she had a background in child
protection and understood the concern outlined by
Representative Wilson. She explained that many people in
the state's prison system were parents. Additionally, she
had visited women at the Hiland Mountain Correctional
Center numerous times; many of the incarcerated women were
working with OCS. There were many connections between the
men and women in prison and OCS. She relayed hopefully the
state could continue to look at both issues. Additionally,
Medicaid and behavioral health reform was targeting
everyone in the state; OCS was a key player, because DHSS
realized that the population needed better mental health
and substance abuse services. She had formerly been the
director of the Division of Youth Services and one of her
largest concerns had been how the state handled parents
with substance abuse problems. She explained that children
had been removed from their homes, the parents were sent to
treatment, nothing had been done for the kids, and they
were brought back together after the parents became sober,
but the children continued to react to their parents as
they had before the parents had become sober. She explained
that it had been a disaster. She remarked it was no wonder
there were then additional incidents of child abuse. She
furthered the state was working to improve how services
were provided in the specific area. She addressed
behavioral health reform and detailed the goal was to look
at the integrated and overlapping systems as a whole to
determine capacity for everyone. She stressed that
substance abuse was killing Alaska.
Representative Wilson expressed appreciation for Ms.
Casto's work for the state. She asked what happened if
providers did not come due to the state's small population
(compared to other states).
Ms. Casto answered that part of behavioral health and
Medicaid reform was workforce development. She agreed that
the state did not have enough. Through reform, the
department was looking at how to utilize more
paraprofessionals (i.e. behavioral health aides and other)
to provide some of the services under the direction of some
of the specialists the state did not have enough of.
Additionally, there were a number of programs at the
University aiming to expand the state's workforce
particularly in rural areas where the state was missing
specialists. She elaborated that some specialists came to
Alaska for a few years and then moved back to the Lower 48.
She elaborated the University of Alaska Fairbanks had a
rural human services program through the social work
department where a student could get a certificate for
working in rural Alaska. She detailed the certificate then
applied to bachelor's and master's degrees. She continued
there were more and more individuals from rural Alaska
going that route. She hoped the state could continue to
build its workforce in that way because it was necessary to
stop relying on experts coming from out of state. She
emphasized the importance of building the state's own
capacity in order to retain people who understand the
culture, needs, and geography. She reiterated that
workforce development was a critical component of
behavioral health reform and how the state would improve
its reentry and recidivism reduction.
2:35:07 PM
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure that the state did
not end up sacrificing one population for another.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Section 156,
subsection (8), page 96 of the bill related to the duties
of the [DOC] commissioner. He referred to the requirement
to provide a case plan for a prisoner within 90 days after
sentencing. He referred to different 90-day requirements
under Section 156, subsection (9) and asked for the
difference between the two subsections. He surmised that if
a sentence was 90 days the department had to begin working
on the plan on day one. He pointed to language in
subsection (8) requiring the department to establish a
procedure providing for each prisoner required to serve an
active term of imprisonment of 30 days or more within 90
days of sentencing. He assumed that a sentence began and
the department had 90 days to establish a plan. He observed
that subsection (9) included a requirement that DOC
establish a program to begin reentry planning with each
prisoner serving an active term of imprisonment of 90 days
or more within 90 days. He asked about the difference in
the sentencing guidelines.
Commissioner Williams deferred the question to Mr.
Shilling.
Mr. Shilling answered that the subsections applied to two
separate plans. The first [subsection (8)] applied to a
written case plan containing different things, whereas
subsection (9) related to the reentry program individuals
would go through 90 days prior to release.
Representative Guttenberg asked Mr. Shilling to repeat the
information.
Commissioner Williams restated the remarks. One subsection
related to a plan requiring DOC to provide a case plan
within 90 days for prisoners in jail for more than 30 days.
The second subsection required the department to develop a
reentry plan for individuals 90 days prior to their release
from prison.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the release plan requirement
applied to individuals with jail time exceeding one year.
Mr. Shilling answered that the reentry program was for
individuals serving a prison sentence of 90 days or more.
Co-Chair Thompson pointed to language Section 158, page 98,
line 4:
The commissioner shall establish a program to prepare
a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment
exceeding one year for the prisoner's discharge
Mr. Shilling answered that he would follow up with a
response.
2:39:30 PM
Representative Guttenberg referred to Section 156, new
subsection (10) related to establishing minimum standards
for EM. He asked if there were currently no EM standards.
Mr. Shilling replied that the language was an attempt to
provide some modicum of oversight over private EM companies
in the same way DOC provided oversight for interlock
companies. He did not believe there were currently any
minimum standards set by DOC for private EM companies.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification there were
no standards for a person with an ankle bracelet or another
monitoring application. He asked how the state assumes that
an ankle bracelet or smart phone app complied with anything
if there was no minimum standard.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Dan Ortiz was
present in the room.
Commissioner Williams replied in the affirmative to
Representative Guttenberg's question. The provision
directed the department to establish standards, to
determine what worked best, and to implement some oversight
of private EM, which did not currently exist.
2:41:35 PM
Representative Kawasaki remarked that Sections 156 and 158
provided context for the reentry program. He wondered how
reentry was currently conducted. He surmised there must be
some type of current reentry program operated by DOC.
Commissioner Williams deferred the question to department
staff.
BRANN WADE, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, DIVISION OF
INSTITUTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via
teleconference), restated his understanding of the
question. He explained that currently an offender
management plan (OMP) was developed by DOC for each
incoming prisoner within approximately 30 days of
sentencing. He detailed the plan followed the prisoner
through their entire incarceration; it was a working
document that was never complete. The closer a prisoner got
to their release date the department began working with the
person on housing and existing needs and risks. He
reiterated the plan followed a prisoner through their
entire period of incarceration.
Representative Kawasaki surmised the department already did
some of the things required in the provisions under
discussion [Sections 156 and 158]. He referred to current
statute and stated that the written plan due 90 days prior
to release included housing, employment or alternative
means for support, options for treatment and counseling,
education and job services, and obtaining a driver's
license and other. He asked for detail.
Mr. Wade answered that DOC currently did not do a
significant amount regarding identification. However, if an
offender was in a halfway house on furlough the department
worked with them to obtain identification because they
could not get a job without it. He believed DOC currently
did a much better job working with individuals once they
were out in the community because it was easier to assist
them in obtaining identification.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the requirement to
develop the OMP 90 days prior to a prisoner's release and
asked if it was a realistic goal at present. Alternatively,
he wondered if it would take more time, staff, or
resources. He asked about how it worked in rural versus
urban Alaska where there may not be things such as
alternative means of support or treatment and counseling
services.
Mr. Wade spoke to the second component of the question
related to how the OMP worked in rural communities. He
stated there was less housing and job opportunities [in
rural Alaska]. He detailed that due to limited housing the
department sometimes put individuals up in halfway houses.
He did not have an answer related to the employment aspect
- he noted it was even difficult in Anchorage to find
employment for individuals. He stated the requirement to
develop the OMP 90 days prior to a prisoner's release was
very reasonable. Currently, the department did a
significant portion of the release planning at 30 days;
therefore, it was reasonable to move it to 90 days for
prisoners serving enough time.
2:46:26 PM
Representative Kawasaki remarked that the bill proposed
some significant changes to the way the state did business.
He recognized the need for rehabilitation and reentry. He
believed treatment and counseling services were more easily
done in jail with a confined setting compared to out of
jail where a person's day was not as regimented. He
commented there appeared to be more ability to change a
person's attitudes within a confined setting versus a non-
confined setting. He asked for comment from the department.
Commissioner Williams agreed there was more time and
opportunity when a person was incarcerated. He detailed the
department had been discussing how to enhance everything
possible while a person was in prison versus requiring a
person to go to treatment after release while they were
simultaneously trying to find employment and other. He
specified it was a heavy load and failure rates existed. He
explained the bill contemplated numerous area including
doing as much as possible during a person's incarceration.
He continued it was not possible to know whether something
stuck until after a person was released from prison;
therefore, failure rates would occur on a regular basis
until treatment stuck. The model was to keep individuals
actively engaged in treatment. The department was working
to answer whether its expectations for individuals released
from prison reasonable. He reiterated the importance of
doing as much as possible while a person was in prison. The
bill forced DOC to contemplate the same questions and he
believed the department would be forced to take some new
directions, which he believed was a good thing.
2:49:11 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to page Section 159, page 98
regarding correctional restitution centers (CRC). He noted
that earlier on during consideration of the bill he had
thought CRC stood for community residential center. He
asked if a correctional restitution center was a halfway
house.
Commissioner Williams responded in the affirmative. He
noted he had also thought CRC stood for community
residential center; however, it was correctional
restitution center.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many CRCs were located in
Alaska and whether the capacity was sufficient.
Commissioner Williams stated that there were currently
vacancies in the CRCs. He continued there was a struggle
around why the CRCs were not filled. He spoke to two
reasons for the struggle. The first reason indirectly
related to the goal of Section 159, which was to monitor
quality assurance and what was taking place in the CRCs. He
explained that CRCs were a valuable resource and the cost
was about half of the cost for a hard bed. However, it was
a real risk factor associated with understanding the
dangers when choosing to place a person in a CRC. He
detailed it was necessary to ensure a valid risk assessment
for pre-trial and post-trial individuals placed in CRCs.
Second, the provisions in Section 159 would force the
department to know what was happening in the CRCs. He
communicated that a drug problem existed in the CRCs;
therefore, he did not believe it was a good location for
people with substance abuse issues. He had discussed the
issue with the contractor; if the state was going to have
CRCs he wanted the drugs out. He stressed the locations had
to be places where he and others would feel comfortable
putting a family member; however, there was currently a
ways to go. Section 159 of the bill codified the effort he
planned to initiate to clean up the CRCs. He remarked that
as progress was made it would be much easier to place
people in the facilities. Part of the situation pertained
to the systemic issue of how to get people in; there were
systemic reasons every CRC bed was not filled, which was
bothersome because it was a waste of money. He emphasized
the state should be utilizing every CRC bed available,
which would enable the department to make cuts elsewhere.
He welcomed the legislation because it codified the
department's efforts.
2:53:18 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler reiterated his question about the
current CRC capacity.
Commissioner Williams deferred the question to Mr. Wade.
Mr. Wade responded that statewide halfway house capacity
was 819.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to the requirement in Section 159
directing DOC to provide certain offenders with
comprehensive treatment for substance abuse, cognitive
behavior disorders, and other criminal risk factors
including aftercare support. He stated the requirement was
a tremendous lift and mission. He wondered if DOC was being
held responsible for creating a new tranche of substance
abuse treatment centers and whether the bill sufficiently
funded and staffed the requirement.
Commissioner Williams responded the work was anticipated
with the current contracts; there were several contractors
- the largest being the GEO Group. The bill included that
requirements would be enhanced. He had spoken with
contractors and everything would be economic dependent. The
reinvestment piece of the legislation was diminished in
some ways, which caused him concern. He continued that
whatever happened the department would do its best to work
with what it had; it was currently doing some of the things
required in the bill, but it increased the expectation. The
contractor was doing some of the things. He had recently
been in Bethel and he knew programming was being slowly
added; it was not a complete rebuild, but an enhancement of
the department's work.
2:55:26 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that it was a huge mission. He
referenced earlier testimony that a parent had put their
daughter in a correctional facility because she could not
find access to treatment any other place; however, the
woman had died in custody. He wished the department the
best possible luck with the work. He pointed to page 111,
which listed three conditions when a person could be
eligible to reacquire food stamps or adult assistance. He
referenced the requirement for a person to participate in a
drug or alcohol treatment program. He asked if
participation and treatment services at a CRC qualified. He
asked about the meaning of participation.
Mr. Shilling replied that any one of the factors would
suffice to comply. He stated using the language
"participation" instead of "successfully completed" opened
the door a bit, which was something the committee could
choose to address.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if participation in substance
abuse treatment at a CRC qualified to meet the condition on
page 111, line 11.
Mr. Shilling read the section to mean that participation in
programming in a halfway house would suffice to comply with
the condition.
Vice-Chair Saddler added "and to the satisfaction of the
department."
Representative Gara asked if the capacity would be built in
a fairly timely manner.
Ms. Casto replied that it was the department's intent. She
stated that it was a heavy lift and Medicaid expansion was
a huge endeavor. She spoke to building capacity in primary
care settings, which would enable the state to address
people's needs sooner. They would continue to build the
services to a more serious end - it was about determining a
balance and what capacity Alaska could maintain.
2:59:40 PM
Representative Gara recalled that in the distant past the
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program had operated in prisons,
but there had not been additional treatment services. He
questioned whether treatment programs had increased in
prisons. He asked about patients needing six-month
inpatient alcoholism treatment. He did not believe a
program was currently available in Alaska and wondered if
the individuals would be treated out-of-state. He reasoned
that a three-month program would not suffice if a person
needed a six-month program.
Ms. Casto answered that programs provided in the state's
prisons exceeded the AA program. She elaborated that the
prisons had three-month residential treatment programs.
Additionally, there was an outpatient treatment program and
support services. She referred to a question by
Representative Kawasaki about the need in prison versus out
of prison. She detailed that even prisoners who received
intensive treatment in prison needed ongoing aftercare in
order to be successful. She reasoned a person's ability to
manage a job, housing, children, and life without falling
back on drugs or alcohol was difficult. She elaborated that
aftercare was another critical piece to build on treatment
received inside in order for individuals to maintain
sobriety. She noted that AA was one component, but there
were many other support systems. As the department built
the behavioral health system it was identifying existing
gaps (e.g. long-term treatment) and determining the need,
with the goal of matching the two. She added that things
like sobering and detox centers were critical.
3:02:43 PM
Representative Gara referred to Commissioner Williams's
testimony that one of the reentry or rehabilitation
sections had been diminished. He asked if something in the
bill had been diminished that was cause for concern.
Commissioner Williams answered that there had been hopes in
terms of what the reinvestment piece would be regarding
what the state would put upfront in reference to substance
abuse treatment inside the prison. He remarked that other
states had the same struggle. He added that Alaska was in a
very strained fiscal climate at present. He explained that
if some of the in-house treatment services were ramped up
it would provide more treatment inside the facilities.
However, he would play with the cards he had been dealt and
would make the best use of the reinvestment dollars for
treatment services. He specified the more the state could
invest on the frontend to provide treatment services inside
facilities would give him additional options as the DOC
commissioner. He noted that earlier on there had been some
discussion of greater reinvestment on some of the treatment
services.
Representative Gara understood the limitations; however, he
wondered what the committee should look at before moving
the bill if the commissioner felt the reinvestment portion
would constrain success.
Commissioner Williams responded that there would be
differing opinions about the issue. He would feel better if
there were enhanced reinvestment opportunities for
treatment, but the subject represented a policy call for
the legislature. He stressed the importance of the bill
even if it did not look precisely how departments
implementing the plan would like. He stated he would of
course like to see some enhancements in terms of increased
treatment. For example, there were many more sex offenders
than the state had treatment for. He considered all of the
issues in terms of how to decrease prison populations in
order to reinvest in treatment services for high risk
individuals. He appreciated a provision the Senate Finance
Committee had included related to using some marijuana tax
to decrease recidivism. He hoped that in a year if he came
back to the committee with a request for additional
treatment the committee would consider increasing treatment
capacity to deal with people inside the state's prisons;
however, he did not want the bill to currently get tied up
on the particular nuance because he believed the overall
picture was too important.
Co-Chair Thompson surmised that the commissioner was saying
that the bill was a good start. Commissioner Williams
replied in the affirmative.
3:06:40 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed the committee would move on to
address limited licenses.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, spoke to
limited licenses under Sections 99 and 106 of the
legislation, which provided a mechanism for more people to
obtain a type of driver's license after a DUI (driving
under the influence). She clarified that the Alaska Court
System was neutral on the specific issue and on the bill in
its entirety. She explained the limited driver's license
was not truly a court related issue, but she had worked
with the sponsor's office and staff over the years on
trying to get something that would logistically work.
Additionally she had pointed out some flaws in prior
drafts; therefore, she had become involved in the issue and
was working to address the sponsor's concern that people
without a license may still drive; the court system saw a
high number of individuals for driving with suspended or
revoked licenses. She understood that legislators sometimes
heard from constituents about how difficult it was to live
in Alaska without a driver's license.
Ms. Mead explained that currently individuals with a
misdemeanor DUI (i.e. first or second DUIs were
misdemeanors, as was a third or more if the others had
occurred more than ten years earlier) lose their driver's
license for a very specific period of time. Unlike others,
DUI misdemeanors had very specific consequences set in
statute by the legislature. She detailed first-time and
second-time DUI offenders lost their license for 90 days
and 1 year respectively. The bill did not impact the
current law that enabled misdemeanants with a DUI to obtain
a limited driver's license. Based on information from the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) around 200 people applied
for and received the limited license annually.
Ms. Mead communicated that the bill addressed felony DUI
offenders who currently had no means to obtaining their
driver's license. By statute, felony DUI defendants had
their driver's licenses permanently revoked, but a separate
subsection of the law noted a person may apply to have
their license restored after ten years. She detailed that
ten years was a lengthy time period and a person's
eligibility required a clean record during that ten-year
period. She noted the requirement was quite difficult for
people to achieve and had only been in law since either
2012 or 2014. She continued that not many people had
applied and few applicants met the requirement. She
elaborated that many of the individuals had been caught
driving with a suspended license during the ten-year
period.
Ms. Mead pointed to Section 99, page 62 of the legislation,
which would enable individuals to obtain a limited license
privilege. She noted the page listed five conditions
individuals had to meet: 1) an individual had to be a felon
(there was a separate section dealing with misdemeanants);
2) the individual had to be in or have completed the
court's therapeutic court program (the program was a
minimum of 18 months of intensive meetings with court
staff, the Division of Behavioral Health, a probation
officer, the district attorney and the PD to help an
individual overcome the addiction or other issue, which led
to a DUI); the individual was required to have proof of
insurance; the individual was required to use an ignition
interlock device; and the individual could not have had a
limited license revoked in the past. She furthered that
insurance and the use of an ignition interlock were
standard and were also required for misdemeanants obtaining
a limited license. She explained people could apply for the
limited license through DMV by showing the appropriate
certification they had completed the therapeutic court
program.
Ms. Mead turned to language in Section 106 beginning on
page 66 specifying the department shall restore the
person's license fully if they had been driving under the
limited license for three years without a problem, they had
completed the therapeutic court program, they had not
received another DUI, and they were otherwise eligible
(i.e. they had paid a reinstatement fee and did not have a
certain number of points or revocations stacked).
3:13:06 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked the Department of Administration to
address how the bill would impact DMV.
AUDREY O'BRIEN, MANAGER, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), relayed
that the bill would enable the division to assist felons to
obtain the limited license, which had previously not been
available. She detailed the bill seemed to provide a
mechanism for people to work their way to the termination
or revocation to obtain their full driving privileges back
[in the future].
3:14:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the five conditions an
individual would be required to meet to obtain a limited
license. He surmised the conditions included participation
in a therapeutic court program, a felony conviction,
insurance, an ignition interlock device, and that the
individual had not previously been granted a limited
license. He mentioned a friend with a felony who he thought
had gone through a court that was not specifically
therapeutic. He wondered if the individual would be
precluded from obtaining the limited license. He believed
therapeutic courts were new in some locations and
nonexistent in other places.
Ms. Mead replied that the person in the scenario provided
would be precluded [from obtaining a limited license]; the
bill required an individual to go through a therapeutic
court program. She believed the sponsor would view the
provisions in the bill as a beginning. The bill would not
address every Alaskan with a felony DUI who may feel their
addiction had been overcome and who some people believe
ought to be driving again. The bill was a start and
addressed a group of individuals where there was some
assurance that the individuals had overcome addiction
because they had gone through a structured program.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that
therapeutic courts were not available in every
jurisdiction. Ms. Mead replied in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that if therapeutic courts
were only available in the state's major urban centers
(i.e. Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, and potentially Kenai)
it would prevent a person with a felony DUI in other
locations from obtaining the limited license. He believed
it unfairly hurt a certain group of Alaskans. He asked for
comment.
Ms. Mead replied that the issue was a policy call for the
legislature. She believed the bill sponsor's view would be
that the provisions in the bill represented a beginning.
She detailed that from a public safety standpoint the
sponsor wanted some assurance that the person would be a
good candidate get their driver's license back, in light of
the legislative intent in current DUI statute stating a
license was permanently revoked for DUI felons.
3:17:34 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked how limited licenses would be
revoked (e.g. speeding ticket, DUI, or any small thing).
Ms. Mead referred to page 62 of the bill, which specified
the limited license would be revoked if an individual was
convicted of a DUI or refusal or for a similar municipal
code or ordinance. The individual would not lose the
limited license for a minor offence.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that under
the bill an individual would get their license back just
like any other person if a limited license was revoked for
points. Ms. Mead answered that the limited license would
only be revoked for another DUI or refusal. She added it
would be a problem for a person if they had nonrelated
revocations the DMV considered to be stacked, which could
preclude the individual from obtaining their license.
Representative Wilson asked which communities had
therapeutic courts. Ms. Mead answered most of the
communities on the road system including Anchorage, Palmer,
Fairbanks, Bethel, Juneau, and possibly Ketchikan.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if Kenai had a therapeutic court.
Ms. Mead did not believe there was one in Kenai but she
would follow up.
Representative Wilson asked if anything would prevent a
person living in a community without a therapeutic court
from traveling to access the program in another community.
Alternatively, she wondered if there was a provision
requiring a person to be a resident in the community where
a program existed.
Ms. Mead responded that the court system would be amenable
to allowing a person to participate in a therapeutic court
program in a location away from their home community. For
example, if a case began in Kenai, the person could
participate in a program in Anchorage. She specified that
participation in therapeutic courts was with the consent of
all involved parties (i.e. the district attorney, defense
attorney, and the court). She could not think of a court
hurdle from having a person participate outside of their
home town.
Representative Wilson asked how full the therapeutic court
programs were. She wondered how hard it was to get into the
program. Ms. Mead answered that it depended on the
location, but generally the program could accommodate more
people. She noted that the Fairbanks program tended to
operate at full capacity, but there was a good balance in
terms of the demand and supply.
Representative Gara asked for details of the driver's
license revocations for a first, second, third, and fourth
DUI offense.
Ms. Mead answered that a driver's license was revoked for
90 days for the first DUI offense, one year for the second
offense, three years for the third offense, and five years
above a third offense. She detailed that if a third offense
occurred within ten years of a prior offense it became a
felony, at which point the revocation became permanent. She
explained that some third-time offenses would remain a
misdemeanor if there was a ten-year gap between
occurrences. She noted that most third-time offenses became
felonies because ten years had not elapsed between
occurrences.
Representative Gara asked if a license was revoked
permanently once a person reached the DUI felony level. Ms.
Mead answered in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the loss of
a license time period could be shortened for misdemeanants
by the granting of a limited license.
Ms. Mead answered that misdemeanor limited licenses were
not addressed in the legislation and were already provided
for. Representative Gara replied that was what he meant.
3:22:29 PM
Representative Gara asked if DMV was allowed to issue a
driver's license revocation that was longer than a length
of time designated by the court. Alternatively, he asked
whether DMV was responsible for following the court's
determination.
Ms. Mead answered that the administrative revocations set
by DMV, which usually occurred more quickly than the court
system, were the same time periods she previously mentioned
[for DUI offenses]; the statutes referred to the same
subsection of statute for periods of revocation.
Representative Gara spoke to the group of individuals
without access to a therapeutic court. He noted there was a
limited number of judges and the programs were offered in a
limited number of locations. He wondered if there had been
discussion about providing another way (outside a
therapeutic court) for an individual to demonstrate they
had addressed their alcohol problem.
Ms. Mead answered that an expansive list of options had
been discussed by legislators and staff for at least four
years. There was difficulty with someone proving they had
overcome their addiction. She reiterated her earlier
testimony that the sponsor viewed the provisions in the
bill as a beginning.
Representative Gara asked Ms. Mead to elaborate on a couple
of the other options that had been discussed related to
individuals who did not qualify for a therapeutic court.
Ms. Mead answered that legislators had asked questions
about whether a person could present certification to the
DMV from two licensed health professionals verifying the
individual no longer had a substance addiction. She did not
have another example related to ideas individuals had
entertained.
Vice-Chair Saddler had heard from friends that the number
of hoops a person had to jump through in order to get their
license back was "Kafkaesque." He hoped the bill was not
establishing more hoops, but that the provisions set out a
practical, workable way for a person to reacquire their
driving privileges. He surmised that a person with a
revoked license could receive a limited license for three
years and after successful probation they could apply for a
permanent license through the DMV. He understood it would
not be allowable for a person to get another DUI while on a
limited license, but he wondered about an offense such as
rolling through a stop sign.
Ms. Mead answered that a person would have to get a DUI or
refusal to have the limited license revoked.
3:26:20 PM
Representative Munoz referred to a constituent who had a
DUI and had eventually had the court-imposed restrictions
removed by the court after meeting the appropriate
timeframe; however, he had been unable to get his license
restored by DMV. She thought Ms. Mead had testified that
the DMV could not go beyond restrictions set by the court.
Ms. Mead answered that there were numerous issues with
people trying to get their licenses back. For example, it
was very expensive and potentially not possible for a
person to get insurance (the issue was up to insurance
companies like State Farm and Progressive). The bill
established a way for individuals to get their licenses
back, but there were very practical problems with doing so.
Individuals also needed an ignition interlock device, which
was expensive and difficult for people to handle. She
detailed the requirement meant people had to take their car
in to be calibrated and other. Additionally, many
individuals in the category were not good drivers and would
have their license suspended or revoked within the DMV
database into the future for other reasons. For example,
people could have their license revoked for failure to pay
child support or for committing perjury. She furthered that
DMV used the same checklist as the one put into statute,
but many people did not realize the stacked revocations
were an issue. She noted there was not an apparent way to
overcome the issue.
Representative Munoz provided more information about her
constituent. She explained the individual had a DUI and a
refusal to take a breathalyzer on a second DUI. She
furthered the second charge had been dropped by the court,
but DMV was not recognizing the second charge as being
dropped; therefore, the individual was not eligible to
receive his commercial driver's license (CDL).
Ms. Mead deferred the question to DMV.
3:29:42 PM
Ms. O'Brien replied that every [driving] record was very
different and she spoke in generalities. She explained that
there were administrative revocations, which were
independent and separate from court convictions. She was
guessing the specific individual had an administrative
refusal, which was later convicted of a DUI. However, the
individual would not have a lifetime CDL disqualification
unless there were two separate DUI incidents. She noted
alcohol related incidents was a requirement under federal
law. She believed there must have been two separate
[alcohol related] incidents that would have impacted the
CDL.
Representative Munoz replied that the description was
correct, but the second charge had been dropped by the
court. She wondered why DMV did not follow the court's
direction.
Ms. O'Brien answered that under AS 28.15.161, there was a
requirement for the DMV to implement an administrative
revocation if an individual provided a breath sample
(implied consent) over .08 or they refused to provide the
sample during a law enforcement stop. After an
administrative revocation was issued the individual had an
opportunity within the first seven days to request a
hearing to contest the revocation. She continued that if
the individual did not request the hearing or they lost the
administrative appeal, the revocation was placed on their
record immediately. She explained that if a person was
later convicted of a related action (e.g. a DUI) for the
same incident, the revocation backed up to the DMV
revocation, which usually went on a person's record sooner
than a court conviction. She added that the records ran
independently because the Alaska administrative revocation
was taken under a different statute than the court
conviction.
3:32:19 PM
Ms. Mead pointed out that Section 97 of the bill addressed
something that may be of concern to members. She explained
the bill acknowledged that DMV revoked a license whenever
someone blew a .08 or refused a breathalyzer and the new
provision stated that if a court acquitted or the case was
dismissed, the administrative revocation would stop. The
language was a first attempt to try to coordinate the items
better. Additionally, SB 91 and 2014 legislation (SB 64)
tasked the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission with
conducting a comprehensive review of AS Title 28,
specifically related to administrative and court
revocations, ignition interlocks, and several other related
items. She expected the legislature would be getting
something from the commission soon; the change included in
the bill was not from the commission. She referenced an
earlier question by Representative Gara [related to an
alternative option to therapeutic court]. She recalled
another idea had been to change the DUI statute so
individuals did not receive a permanent license revocation.
3:33:54 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked the Department of Public Safety to
address how the bill would impact victims.
LAUREE MORTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
spoke briefly about the two victim survivor roundtable
discussions mentioned by a Ms. Stanfill from the previous
day. Additionally, a national crime victim advocate who
helped the Pew Charitable Trust with its justice
reinvestment initiatives met with close to 20 victims and
survivors in the Anchorage area and included all of the
information in a report, which had been disseminated to
members prior to the current meeting. She relayed the
report had been the impetus for Section 195 of the bill,
which placed the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault (CDVSA) in uncodified language to further its
violence prevention and victims service efforts throughout
the state.
Ms. Morton spoke provided detail on the council's
priorities: 1) improve victim assistance services in rural
and remote areas; 2) continue to provide and strengthen
crime prevention and bystander intervention services; 3)
ensure basic victim services during the pretrial phase of
the process were created to guarantee victims were
appropriately notified, involved, and safe; 4) the
development and expansion of evidence-based and culturally
competent programming and supervision for offenders; 5)
improved capacity by DOC to monitor inmate communications
including phone calls and visits in order to protect
victims from unwanted contact; 6) the consideration of
crime victims as clients during the parole and reentry
phase of the criminal justice system (often people
reentering society were reentering into the lives of
victims) in order to educate victims about their rights and
roles; 7) institutionalized training for criminal justice
professionals related to what constituted victims' rights
including understanding victim sensitivity, trauma, how to
talk to victims, and cultural diversity and competence; 8)
additional training and oversight for law enforcement
officers responding to domestic violence calls in
identifying the principal aggressor; 9) increased services
for child victims and witnesses statewide; and 10) improved
language accessibility throughout the criminal justice
system.
Ms. Morton continued that Alaska was the first state
participating in the Pew reinvestment initiative, which
incorporated victims' services into recommendations and
priorities. She believed it was a good recognition of how
seriously policy makers all Alaska's executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of government took the
issue of victims' services and the effort to balance
victims' rights with those of the offender. The council was
appreciative of the strong inclusion in the report and
commission's [Alaska Criminal Justice Commission] 21
recommendations.
Ms. Morton relayed that victims' services and concerns were
woven throughout the bill; she did not believe it was
possible to address the criminal justice system without
having a victim concern. She appreciated the willingness of
the commission, the bill sponsor, and legislative committee
chairs to meet with victims, survivors, victim service
providers and their efforts to address the concerns and
have a sensitivity to offender reentry, community
condemnation, and approximate justice for victims.
3:39:38 PM
Ms. Morton continued that a victim's life was irrevocably
changed after an incident of domestic violence or sexual
assault. She continued that a victim could receive
approximate justice and the person could be held
accountable, but the victim's life was forever changed in
ways that were not always recognizable. She relayed that it
was not always possible to receive complete justice for
victims; sometimes only approximate justice was available,
which could hopefully eventually allow victims to move
forward with some closure.
Ms. Morton addressed four areas in the Senate version that
did not end up in the House committee substitute. The first
was in Section 75, page 43, line 29 related to the period
of probation for misdemeanants (including domestic violence
assaults). She elaborated that originally the bill included
a probation period of four years, which had been reduced to
three years by the Senate Finance Committee, and reduced
further to two years in the current version. She detailed
that some rehabilitation programs for perpetrators of
domestic violence were six months to one year in length.
The council believed it would be appropriate to extend
probation to three years to provide time to understand and
monitor whether the programs had an opportunity to take
effect in a person's life.
Ms. Morton turned to the second area on Section 131, page
82, line 27. She believed the issue may have been an
oversight. She explained that under current law victims of
domestic violence were required to receive victim
notification regarding possible parole of the offender. The
Senate version had added victims of sexual assault to the
provision; however, they had been removed in the current
committee substitute. The council hoped the committee would
add victims of sexual assault back into the language.
Ms. Morton moved to the third area in Section 155, page 94,
line 29 related to allowing sex offenders to reduce their
sentence by one-third after completion of treatment. The
Senate Finance Committee version had completely removed the
language. She continued the provision did not represent
current practice and was not supported by CDVSA. She
advocated for the language in the Senate version of the
bill. She referenced testimony by the public defender from
the previous day related how sex offenders had the lowest
rate of recidivism. She acknowledged that it may be the
lowest in the 2011 Alaska Judicial Council survey, but low
did not mean little. She detailed that 18 percent were
rearrested in their first year of release, 32 percent were
remanded back into prison during their first year, and 20
percent were convicted within two years of release. She
conceded that the rate may be the lowest, but she stressed
that it was too much. She emphasized that the number was
staggering and was not acceptable. She remarked that Co-
Chair Neuman was not currently present in the room, but
that he could relay a significant amount of information
about the effort because of his work on the sex offender
issue in terms of how the system worked. She detailed that
before an offender reached the point of being picked up by
law enforcement they had committed many sexual assaults.
She explained that sometimes a polygraph done after a
person was convicted showed they had over 100 victims. She
stressed that it was not easy to get arrested in Alaska for
sexual assault and it was not easy for victims to come
forward to tell their story; sexual assault was one of the
least reported crimes nationwide. She underscored that it
was not acceptable to say the recidivism rate was low.
3:45:35 PM
Ms. Morton continued that there were too many people who
suffered lifelong sentences of having their souls taken
away, which she believed people needed to be respectful of.
The fourth area was geriatric parole. Under the Senate
version the parole applied to individuals age 60 or older,
but the current CS reduced the number to age 55. The Senate
version had carved out felony sex offences and the current
CS version did not, which CDVSA did not believe was
appropriate, particularly for pedophiles. She detailed that
a pedophile offender could be 70 years of age. The council
did not support the reduction.
Ms. Morton relayed the council believed it was appropriate
to have a working group look at the sex offences and range
and would appreciate the opportunity to participate with
the commission on the effort. Additionally, CDVSA believed
that the Safe Children Justice Act, "Erin and Bree's Law,"
would be a help in situations where young people were
exploring their sexuality. She addressed if child abuse
awareness started in kindergarten and went through high
school (and dating violence awareness and training) with
teachers, kids, and parents, people would be better
equipped to understand how to interact with each other. She
believed it was critical to enact the opportunities in the
state's schools. She emphasized that 12 year-olds were
still children even in cases where they looked older. She
stressed that a 19 year-old knew that 12 year-olds were
still children. She stated if that was not the case, shame
on the 19 year-old and shame on society for not making it
clear. She underscored it was not appropriate to have
sexual contact between 12 year-olds and 19 year-olds.
Ms. Morton acknowledged communities working day-to-day on
prevention that were trying to prevent heinous acts from
happening and to create different societal norms. She
referred to a statewide 2010 Alaska Victimization Survey
conducted through the University of Alaska Anchorage
Justice Center. The survey had reported that 58 out of 100
adult women in Alaska suffered intimate partner violence,
sexual violence, or both. A five-year lookback had been
conducted in 2015; the number was still horrible, but it
was better and had dropped to 50 out of 100. She spoke to
the difference in those 5 years - shelters, first
responders, rape crisis centers, and personal safety
classes in schools, had all existed in 2010 and 2015. One
of the changes was the primary prevention activities and
programming the state started in 2011. She mentioned the
council's fiscal note that had started out at $2.5 million.
She elaborated that throughout discussions around cost
savings and reinvestment it had become important to show
savings at the bottom line instead of knowing all of the
savings would go towards reinvestment. Therefore, the note
had been reduced to $1 million. She stressed the need to
continue successful programming.
3:51:22 PM
Ms. Morton spoke She referred to programs like Green Dot,
Compass (developed in Alaska by Alaska Native men working
with young men aged 12 to 18), Girls on the Run
International (the program had become stabilized in Juneau
and coordinated the statewide effort for the program
targeting girls in 5th through 8th grade), and Coaching
Boys Into Men (where high school athletic coaches worked
with sports teams to learn what it meant to respect women
and girls). There were 19 communities with prevention teams
that came together to look at ways individual communities
could support the evidence-based programs and efforts. She
commended effective programming efforts and asked that
efforts and progress not be taken a step backwards. She
explained the operating budget contained no money for the
programs; without a financial structure it was not possible
to continue to support communities to autonomously
integrate the concepts and change. She stressed that Alaska
could be the state that stopped domestic violence and
sexual assault and everyone could work together to make it
happen. She added that the state had a responsibility to do
the work. She believed the bill represented a step forward
in that direction.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to Section 131 and asked Ms.
Morton to restate her objection. He believed the provision
included that both victims of sexual assault and domestic
violence would be informed [regarding possible parole of
the offender]. The only change he saw in the section
involved deletion of the term "discretionary."
Ms. Morton responded that she believed that victims of
sexual assault had been left out. She noted perhaps she had
seen an earlier version of the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to page 82, line 27 and read "a
victim of a crime involving domestic violence or of a
sexual assault under AS 11.41.110 shall be informed by the
board" before considering parole.
Ms. Morton thanked Vice-Chair Saddler and stood corrected.
Representative Wilson asked about the fiscal note. She
wondered if certain parts of the bill were associated with
the $1 million cost (e.g. geriatric parole or good time
that put people back on the street).
Ms. Morton replied that the cost was associated with the
uncodified language in Section 195, which directed CDVSA to
expand violence prevention and victim service efforts.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for verification the fiscal note
had been reduced from over $2 million to $1 million. Ms.
Morton replied in the affirmative; the note had been
reduced from $2.5 million to $1 million.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the following
meeting. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair
[note: the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
3:55:51 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 National Crime Advocate Anne Seymour.pdf |
HFIN 4/21/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Supporting Doc AHFC.pdf |
HFIN 4/21/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 - Changes between N and V.pdf |
HFIN 4/21/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |