Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/22/2019 04:00 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 | |
| Presentation: Criminal Justice Reform Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 22, 2019
4:00 p.m.
4:00:13 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 4:00 p.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
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Jen
Winkleman, Director, Division of Parole and Probation,
Department of Corrections.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dan Traxinger, Classification Supervisor, Department of
Corrections; Jeff Edwards, Executive Director, Parole
Board, Department of Corrections.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM UPDATE
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the meeting agenda.
^PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM UPDATE
4:00:52 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
discussed violations of probation and parole. She explained
that the court ordered probation and had nothing to do with
parole, which was handled by the Department of Corrections
(DOC). A person can simultaneously be on probation and
parole. She related that the maximum sentences were changed
in SB 91-Omnibus Crim Law & Procedure; Corrections [CHAPTER
36 SLA 16 - 07/11/2016]. She listed the maximums for
certain crimes. She specified that the maximum for a felony
sex offense was 15 years, an unclassified felony was 10
years, and other felonies were 5 years. The maximum for
crimes against a person including assaults, domestic
violence and sex crimes that were misdemeanors was 3 years,
2 years for a second Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and
1 year for other misdemeanors. She furthered that there
were minimums for sex felonies: unclassified was 15 years,
Class A or B felony sex crimes was 10 years, and Class C
felony sex crimes was 5 years. The court had some
discretion to order probationary terms. She delineated that
during a probationary term the law allowed an offender to
get off probation earlier than the court ordered.
Currently, a probation officer could recommend a
termination of probation for the offender who followed all
the conditions of probation after serving a certain length
of time. The time periods had been adjusted in SB 54-
Crimes; Sentencing; Probation; Parole [CHAPTER 1 4SSLA 17 -
11/26/2017]. Presently, a probation officer could recommend
a termination of probation after 2 years for Class A and B
felonies and one year for Class C felonies. The early
termination did not apply to unclassified offenses, sex
offences or domestic violence. She noted that SB 54 changed
the time from one year to 18 months and SB 91 allowed for
credits for time on probation; for each month an offender
complied with conditions a month could be shortened off the
end of their time period.
4:05:14 PM
Ms. Mead discussed the many conditions that a court could
impose on probation. Some conditions must always be imposed
like; obeying all state and federal laws and other
conditions depended on the crime committed. Two of the most
common conditions were to comply with a probation officers
orders and the offender must undergo an assessment and
follow the recommendation of the assessor. She qualified
that one exception was mandatory sex offender treatment.
4:06:35 PM
Representative Josephson used an example of a six-year
sentence with three years suspended. He noted that
suspension was different than three years of probation.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if he meant three years' probation or
three years' parole.
Ms. Mead interjected that the good time credit an inmate
received reduced the length of sentenced incarceration
time. The credit was statutorily mandated and termed,
mandatory parole. Mandatory parole was served
simultaneously with a probationary period. The individual
could be brought to the court under a petition to revoke
probation or the parole board to revoke parole depending on
the violation. The court or parole board could then impose
the suspended time for violating conditions of release. The
legislature had added technical conditions of probation in
SB 91. She explained that if the violation was not a new
crime or failure to meet certain conditions it was
considered a technical violation. The first several times a
person received a petition to revoke probation was capped
at 3, 5, and 10 days and if a fourth violation occurred all
the suspended time could be re-imposed.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how many people were currently on
probation and parole with technical violations.
4:09:23 PM
Ms. Mead deferred to the Department of Corrections.
JEN WINKLEMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, would follow up with the
information.
Representative Josephson thought that mandatory release was
not really something a parole board dealt with; it just
meant a person was incarcerated for 3 of their 6 year
sentence, as an example.
Ms. Mead replied that was her understanding, but she tried
not to answer questions about parole because it was not
under the court's purview.
Representative Carpenter asked for clarity regarding
technical violations. Ms. Mead replied that SB 91 had
included a provision about technical violations of
probation. She provided examples of technical violations.
The first offense, when a probation officer filed a
petition to revoke the probation (PTRP) was statutorily
limited to a penalty 3 days, the second time the judge
could impose 5 days and then 10 days for a third time and
any violations thereafter was subject to the amount of
suspended time. She furthered that the exception to
technical violations applied to a new crime or if the
offender skipped treatment.
4:11:50 PM
Representative Josephson asked if during the 3, 5, and 10-
day technical violation hearings the defendant could prove
that the violation did not occur; therefore, was not an
automatic imposition. Ms. Mead responded in the
affirmative. She relayed that in the case of a three-day
maximum penalty the defendant often plead guilty. She
reported that the court had experienced very few trials for
technical violations. She remembered that another exception
to technical violations included sex offenses.
Co-Chair Wilson moved to conclude a prior unfinished
presentation.
Ms. Winkleman continued reviewing a PowerPoint presentation
[last heard on April 18, 2019] titled "Criminal Justice
Review: The Story of Offender Joe" (copy on file). She
began on slide 10 titled Offender Joe's Transition From An
Unsentenced to Sentenced Inmate;
Offender Joe pleads guilty or is convicted at
trial of 2 counts of
Misconduct Involving Controlled Substance II
Offender Joe received a sentence of 2 years on
each count, with 6 months suspended, 3 years to serve.
The court also sentenced Offender Joe to 2 years of
probation.
Because Offender Joe was sentenced to longer than
30 days, he will be evaluated for an Offender
Management Plan (OMP)
Offender Joe will mandatorily release from
incarceration after serving 2/3 of the sentence to
probation and parole. The Parole Board may authorize
early release to discretionary parole prior to the
mandated release date.
Ms. Winkleman reiterated that the statutory good time
credit was two-thirds [one-third] off for mandatory
release. She indicated that with 3 years to serve, Joe
would be released in 2 years and would be on mandatory
parole for one year.
4:16:23 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked for verification the sentence would
be two-thirds, not one-third. Ms. Winkleman affirmed and
corrected that the one-third off was the mandatory parole
time.
Ms. Winkleman moved to slide 11 titled OMP Guidelines-
LSISV Level Service Inventory Screening Version:
All offenders sentenced to 30 days or more, will
receive LSISV and Offender Management Plan (OMP)
All offenders who score medium risk or higher on
LSISV (3 or higher) will receive a Level Service
Inventory Revised (LSIR)
OMP is completed with Offender Joe provided within
90 days of sentencing
Is a working document while Offender Joe is
incarcerated
The OMP is often referred to as the reentry plan or
release plan
Ms. Winkleman explained that the Level Service Inventory
Screening Version (LSISV) was an assessment tool used by
the Department of Corrections (DOC) and any offenders who
scored medium risk or higher would receive a Level Service
Inventory Revised (LSIR). The revised assessment was more
detailed and contained 54 questions versus 8 questions on
the LSISV. The revised version identified the risk of
recidivism. The LSISV was still predictive regarding
offender management. She characterized the OMP as a living
document.
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the inmate received a paper
copy of the plan. Ms. Winkleman deferred to a colleague.
DAN TRAXINGER, CLASSIFICATION SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), replied in the
affirmative. He viewed the OMP as the inmates road map
through the whole rehabilitation process.
Co-Chair Wilson found his answer interesting. She shared
that she had recently visited a prison and offenders did
not have a physical copy of the OMP and did not know
exactly what an OMP was. Mr. Traxinger would follow up.
4:20:22 PM
Co-Chair Wilson provided an example of a person in jail for
9 months and had not yet been sentenced. She asked what an
unsentenced offender could do while waiting. Mr. Traxinger
answered that what programs were available varied by
institution. An unsentenced inmate may participate in a
program. Co-Chair Wilson used the Lemon Creek Correctional
Center (LCCC)in Juneau as an example. She asked Mr.
Traxinger to list the programs available in LCCC for
unsentenced individuals and whether the inmates were aware
of the programs. Mr. Traxinger asked for clarification. He
asked if Co-Chair Wilson was inquiring whether there were
programs available for unsentenced inmates at LCCC. Co-
Chair Wilson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Traxinger
noted that programs were available, but he did not have a
list on hand. Co-Chair Wilson shared that she met inmates
that expressed frustration. The inmates were unable to
participate in any program because they were unsentenced.
Ms. Winkleman continued to slide 11 titled "OMP Plan":
• As a working document, the Offender Management
Plan (OMP) includes, but not limited to:
o Program completion dates
o Referrals should reflect risk/needs/responsivity
of LSIR and professional recommendations of PO
o Housing
o Employment or alternate means of support
o Treatment
o Counseling services
o Education or job training services
o Any other requirements for successful transition
back to the community, including EM or furlough
for the period between a scheduled parole hearing
and parole eligibility
Ms. Winkleman reported that the OMP was frequently updated
by the institutional probation officer (PO) with referrals
and program completions while in custody.
Vice-Chair Johnston discussed whether a person could
participate in treatment or if it depended on program
availability. Ms. Winkleman replied that it was only the
case if treatment was available at the institution. The
offenders could place themselves on a waitlist, which would
demonstrate an attempt to comply with court orders.
Co-Chair Wilson noted the committee would review the DOC
programs the following Wednesday. She asked DOC to provide
the waitlist numbers and the length of the programs
available.
Representative Josephson confirmed that the OMP existed
prior to SB 91 and noted that the administration was not
asking to end the OMP. Co-Chair Wilson stated it was her
understanding that prior to SB 91 the plan was only
presented a few years before release. She asked for
confirmation. Ms. Winkleman deferred to her colleague.
Mr. Traxinger answered that the OMP started in 2010 and was
called the IRP. The requirement passed in SB 64-Omnibus
Crime/Corrections/Recidivism Bill [CHAPTER 83 SLA 14 -
07/16/2014] with the timelines currently in place.
4:26:26 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what tied the failure to
follow the OMP to probation or a parole violation. Ms.
Winkleman answered that because an inmate had not released
on probation or parole the OMP was not tied to a violation
but was indicative of their behavior and compliance in the
institution. Representative Carpenter surmised that someone
on probation had already completed an OMP plan. Ms.
Winkleman replied that an OMP would be completed prior to
their release and would follow the inmate to probation or
parole. Representative Carpenter deduced that the OMP plan
followed the offender to the field parole or probation
officer. Ms. Winkleman answered in the affirmative. She
moved to slide 12 titled Offender Joe may be eligible for
community placement towards the end of his sentence.:
Community Residential Centers (CRC)
? Furlough
? Inpatient Treatment
Electronic Monitoring (EM)
? While incarcerated, if eligible, he can apply to
serve the remainder of his sentence on electronic
monitoring.
Mr. Traxinger elaborated on the slide. He reported that the
inmate must meet certain criteria to be placed on furlough.
He discussed that the offender must serve one-third of
their sentence and based on their classification would
determine the length of furlough in community placement.
The minimum and medium custody inmates were furloughed for
the last three and two years of their sentence. The higher
risk, sex offenders, and arsonists had closed custody and
were ineligible for furlough.
4:29:33 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if all CRCs had inpatient treatment.
Mr. Traxinger answered in the negative. He commented that
there were specific treatment locations that were furlough
eligible. He provided a facility in Anchorage as an
example. Co-Chair Wilson requested more information
regarding the facility and program. Mr. Traxinger offered
to follow up.
Representative Carpenter asked if individuals were referred
to a CRC that did not offer treatment. Mr. Traxinger
answered that treatment was addressed in a couple of ways;
either treatment at the CRC or via a community partner.
Representative Carpenter asked for clarification that a
person could get referred to a CRC that did not have the
required treatment but would receive treatment offered
outside the CRC and was only the case when an individual
was classified with a risk level allowing them to leave the
CRC. Mr. Traxinger clarified that once an inmate was
approved for furlough, they could receive treatment through
a community partner. Representative Carpenter asked if low
and medium inmates could leave a CRC. Mr. Traxinger
answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for the list of service providers and
which CRCs had inpatient treatment and if not where in the
community the service was provided and who paid the
community partner. Mr. Traxinger agreed to provide the
information.
Ms. Winkleman continued to address slide 12 regarding EM.
She elaborated that an inmate could apply to serve the
remainder of their sentence on EM. She listed the
eligibility requirements as follows: the charge did not
include domestic violence; the inmate was within three
years of their release date; and they could not carry a
closed custody classification.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for a definition of closed custody
inmate.
Mr. Traxinger reiterated that the DOC had a classification
system and inmates were classified as minimum, medium, or
closed custody. He explained that closed custody depended
on a person's scoring in the classification matrix and was
based on the type of conviction, and behavior while
incarcerated.
4:34:05 PM
Co-Chair Wilson needed clarity. She asked for an example of
the crimes a person may have committed to fall under the
closed category. Mr. Traxinger replied that an inmate
convicted of murder in the first degree was a closed
classification for the first year of incarceration
indicating a high risk. Other crimes like assaults and
combined with other criteria that included their
disciplinary history would lead to the closed
classification. He exemplified the if an inmate was found
guilty of a sexual act or assaulted another inmate while in
custody would likely increase their classification to
closed custody.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for verification the state was not
letting people who murdered people out on electronic
monitoring. Ms. Winkleman replied that closed custody was
not eligible for EM. She added that an inmate was
ineligible for EM if they had a major or high moderate
infraction within the last 120 days of their incarceration.
Co-Chair Wilson assumed that the inmate would also be
ineligible for good time credit. Ms. Winkleman elaborated
that as a result of a disciplinary matter a person could
loose good time credit but could appeal to their
institutions superintendent for reinstatement. Ms.
Winkleman answered that short-time inmates (sentenced to
less than one year) were approved for release via EM by
their supervisor and long-time inmates (sentenced over one
year) were approved by the directors office and their OMPs
would be updated reflecting their conditions of release.
4:36:37 PM
Ms. Winkleman continued to slide 13:
Offender Joe has Probation and Parole following
release from incarceration. Institutional Probation
Officers send a Notification of Release (NOR) to the
Field Parole/Probation office. This NOR includes
Offender Joe's Offender Management plan and conditions
of Parole/Probation supervision.
Ms. Winkleman elucidated that the process listed on the
slide was completed within 30 days of the pending release
except for sex offenders. She communicated that the release
process for sex offenders started earlier 90 days. The
institutional officers were starting to plan the polygraphs
and containment model supervision approach.
Ms. Winkleman turned to slide 14 titled Offender Joe's
Parole Options:
The below calculations are based on the 3 year prison
sentence issued by the Court.
Offender Joe will be eligible for Discretionary parole
after serving 9 months. Early release from
incarceration will be at the discretion of the Parole
Board.
If denied Discretionary parole, Offender Joe will
release to Mandatory parole after serving 2 years (2/3
of the sentence) provided he does not lose any
statutory good time.
Representative LeBon asked about electronic monitoring and
the program's success. Ms. Winkleman replied that she
believed the program was very successful and the department
had an excellent policy. She characterized EM as a
reward. She detailed that within the last 12 months less
than one percent escaped. The department did not track
individuals following release to know about recidivism of
individuals that had been on EM but felt that that the
results were pretty good.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if there was a similar record for
pretrial. Ms. Winkleman replied there were not the same
results due to the number ordered by the courts. The
individuals did not apply for EM, the court ordered it.
Co-Chair Wilson surmised that both programs were operated
by DOC, but the inmate released from prison was more
successful because EM was desired by the individual versus
in pretrial where the court ordered to option of EM. She
asked whether the pretrial individual could refuse EM
release.
4:42:28 PM
Ms. Winkleman stated it was her understanding the
individual could not refuse EM in pretrial.
Representative Josephson asked if EM was part of a pretrial
bail application. He thought that EM was granted due to a
request from the defendant and attorney asking a judge to
give the defendant a break. Ms. Winkleman deferred to Ms.
Mead.
Ms. Mead explained the way a bail review or arraignment
worked. She communicated that the bail hearing decided two
factors: should a person be released on their own
recognizance (OR) or if monetary bail was necessary because
of a risk of failure to appear or was a threat to the
community. She shared that if a person was released, she
had never heard a defendant say they would rather stay in
jail. She thought that the scenario could hypothetically
happen. The prosecutor could offer clear and convincing
evidence to hold a person in jail or request monetary bail.
The matrix was for nonviolent crimes against a person and
nonserious felonies. The matrix offered a presumption and
did not directly specify whether EM was appropriate. The
court would be free to impose conditions deemed
appropriate.
4:45:45 PM
Representative Carpenter asked who made the decision
whether EM went forward. Ms. Winkleman answered that if a
person was sentenced to one year or less the probation
supervisor would make the decision and if over one year,
the director's office made the decision. She reminded the
committee that the inmate had to apply for EM.
Representative Carpenter asked about the furlough condition
that required the inmate to serve one-third of their
sentence prior to furlough. Ms. Winkleman deferred to Mr.
Traxinger.
Mr. Traxinger answered that furlough required that the
inmate served one-third of their sentence. Representative
Carpenter asked if it also applied to EM. Mr. Traxinger
deferred the question to Ms. Winkleman.
Ms. Winkleman responded answered in the negative.
Representative Carpenter asked if there was a minimum time
required before granting EM. Ms. Winkleman replied in the
negative.
4:48:16 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz recalled that only some areas of the state
had access to EM. He asked whether that was still the case.
Ms. Winkleman answered in the affirmative. She expounded
that the equipment did not work in some areas or there were
not probation officers to monitor the equipment. Vice-Chair
Ortiz asked if it was the same for the Court System
Ms. Mead answered that the Court System did not supervise
EM. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if some people had access to EM
and others did not under pretrial circumstances. Ms. Mead
answered in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson referenced the parole and
probation discussion. He exemplified someone with a nine-
year felony sentence with three years suspended and six
years to serve. He assumed that the person received
mandatory parole after 4 years. He wondered whether the
parole board could reinstate time for an egregious act
perpetrated by the offender after release on mandatory
parole. He asked if the board could impose the suspended
time along with revoking the mandatory parole time and
whether the suspended time and mandatory parole time was
running concurrently or consecutively.
4:52:01 PM
Ms. Winkleman responded that the items could run
simultaneously. She delineated that DOC had a policy that
it would file with only one entity for technical violations
- they filed first with the Parole Board. She understood
that the last entity imposing a sentence would decide
whether the time ran consecutively or concurrently.
Co-Chair Wilson moved to the next testifier and would
follow up with Representative Josephson's question if he
was unable to answer the follow up question.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAROLE BOARD, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), replied that the
paroling system dealt with prison terms and the court dealt
with suspended terms. The board and courts operated
independently of each other. He referenced the example
provided by Representative Josephson and answered that if
the inmate violated mandatory parole and probation
(suspended time) with a non-technical violation (a new
criminal offense) or if a sex offender violated a condition
of release the board could impose the mandatory parole time
and the court could impose the suspended period of time. He
noted that technical violations were a separate issue.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for an explanation of discretionary
parole. Mr. Edwards explained that following sentencing DOC
did math calculations called time accounting. The
department issue a time sheet based on the sentence using
the math calculations. If the sentence was in excess of 180
days, the equations included two parts: the mandatory
release date and the discretionary application date. He
commented that an inmate was automatically released on
mandatory parole after serving two-thirds of a sentence if
they had not lost any statutory good time while in prison.
Prior to mandatory parole, most inmates sentenced after SB
91 were eligible for discretionary parole. He noted that
the time calculation was more complicated. He cited slide
14 as an example.
4:58:24 PM
Representative Carpenter asked whether discretionary parole
existed prior to the adoption of SB 91. Mr. Edwards
corrected that discretionary parole had been available
since statehood. He communicated that SB 91 expanded the
class of crimes eligible for discretionary parole. He
discussed that prior to SB 91 a more limited class of
inmates were eligible for discretionary parole. Subsequent
to SB 91, most inmates would be eligible to apply for
discretionary parole. Currently, Class A, B, and C felonies
were eligible for discretionary parole after serving one-
quarter of a sentence. He continued that unclassified
felonies, Murder I and II, Mix 1, Kidnapping, etc. were
eligible for discretionary parole after serving one-third
of a sentence or the mandatory minimum whatever was longer.
He offered that every unclassified sentence had a mandatory
minimum sentence. Under current law, just under one
thousand inmates per year were eligible for discretionary
parole versus 200 prior to the enactment of SB 91. He
summarized that SB 91 impacted the number of inmates
eligible for discretionary parole.
Co-Chair Wilson requested a comparison of discretionary
parole before and after SB 91 that included the number and
eligible crimes. Mr. Edwards agreed to provide the
information.
Vice-Chair Johnston referenced the OMP. She asked about the
waitlist for treatment programs. She asked how many people
on mandatory or discretionary parole were located in
communities outside of their home.
Co-Chair Wilson requested the answers by the Wednesday
morning meeting.
Representative Carpenter asked whether statute impacted the
discretion of the parole board or if they maintained
complete discretion.
5:03:39 PM
Mr. Edwards responded that two sections in statute guided
the parole board when making release decisions. He detailed
that one was specific to unclassified felonies and the
other governed the remainder of the felonies. The board may
release a person on discretionary parole for unclassified
felonies based on four governing factors. The regulations
contained 23 factors for the parole board to consider. He
furthered that for Class A, B, and C felonies there was a
shall release provision in Alaska statute AS 33.16.100
(f). He read the statute as follows:
(f) The board shall authorize the release of a
prisoner who has been convicted of a class A, class B,
or class C felony, or a misdemeanor, who is eligible
for parole under AS 12.55.115 and AS 33.16.090, has
met the requirement of a case plan created under AS
33.30.011(a)(8), and has agreed to and signed the
condition of parole under AS 33.16.150, unless the
board finds by clear and convincing evidence on the
record that the prisoner poses a threat of harm to the
public if released on parole. If the board finds that
the incomplete case plan is not the fault of the
prisoner or that the prisoner would not pose a threat
of harm to the public if released on parole, the board
may waive the case plan requirement.
Mr. Edwards recapped that the statute included a may and
shall clause based on the presumption of release. He
delineated that if it was determined that the offender
would be compliant with their OMP upon release, the shall
clause applied, unless there was clear and convincing
evidence releasing an individual would present a danger to
the public.
5:05:39 PM
Representative Josephson was concerned that the parole
board needed clear and convincing evidence. He ascertained
that under SB 91, if the five member parole board
unanimously believed that an inmate was likely to reoffend
it was not enough to keep the inmate in prison.
Ms. Winkleman continued with the presentation on slide 15
titled "Offender Joe on Supervision":
Since a portion of Offender Joe's sentence was
suspended by the Court, he will release to probation
supervision
Conditions of probation are set by the Court
Conditions of Parole are set by the Parole Board
During intake, Field Offices review Offender
Management Plan and conditions with Offender Joe
Field Officers conduct a risk assessment to determine
the level of supervision required
Offender Management Plan is updated by Field Officers
based on conditions of supervision and the risk/needs
Ms. Winkleman moved to slide 16 titled Other Factors to
Consider Surrounding Supervision;
Earned Compliance Credits
Violations
Administrative Sanctions and Incentives
Parole Violation Report/Petition to Revoke
Probation
Early Termination
Ms. Winkleman explained that Earned Compliance Credits were
established in SB 91 and allowed offenders to earn
compliance credits for time off supervision for 30 days for
good behavior. Sex offenders and domestic violence
offenders had to complete treatment before credits could be
earned.
Ms. Winkleman turned to slide 18 titled Offender Joe
Completes Parole/Probation Successfully:
Upon successful completion of Probation and Parole,
Offender Joe and the Division of Elections, will be
sent a letter stating Voter Rights can be reinstated,
and supervision has been completed successfully.
Ms. Winkleman concluded the presentation with slide 18
titled Oversight, Reporting, Training, and
Accountability. The slide contained references to the
statutes that corresponded to the requirements DOC had to
comply with.
Representative Carpenter asked whether data was collected
related to CRC furlough, EM, and discretionary parole to
determine when there was a problem and when the use of
discretion was successful. Ms. Winkleman answered they were
collecting data, but she did not know how it was used.
Representative Carpenter stressed that the pain felt in
communities was due to crimes by repeat offenders. He
wanted to understand where the problems with the system
originated.
Co-Chair Wilson noted the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission would testify in a future meeting. She discussed
the schedule for the following morning.
ADJOURNMENT
5:12:20 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal Justice Review - FINAL 4-18-19.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2019 4:00:00 PM |
HFIN |