Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/25/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB93 | |
| HB3 | |
| Presentation: Prison Programs by Dept. of Corrections | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 25, 2019
9:00 a.m.
9:00:23 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Knopp
ALSO PRESENT
Barbara Barnes, Staff, Representative Tammie Wilson;
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Companion Bill Sponsor;
Representative George Rauscher, Bill Sponsor; Anne Weske,
Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of
Revenue; Jen Winkelman, Director, Probation, Parole, and
Pretrial Services, Department of Corrections; Kelly Goode,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Sara Chambers, Director, Division Of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing, Department Of
Commerce, Juneau; Darrell Breese, Staff, Representative
George Rauscher; Marty Parsons, Director, Division of
Mining, Land, and Water, Department of Natural Resources;
Laura Brooks, Deputy Director, Health and Rehabilitative
Services, Department of Corrections; Pam Martin, Deputy
Chief Classification Officer, Department of Corrections;
Courtney Donovan, Akeela, Anchorage; Shannon Pritchett,
CFO, Akeela, Anchorage; Rosalie Nadeau, Former CEO, Akeela,
Anchorage; Janice Weiss, Re-Entry Program Director,
Department of Corrections; Taryn Link, Probation
Supervisor, Department of Corrections.
SUMMARY
HB 3 STATE LAND SALE; PFD VOUCHER AND ASSIGN.
HB 3 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 93 MEDICAL PROVIDER INCENTIVES/LOAN REPAYM'T
HCS CSSB 93(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
fiscal impact note by the Department of Health
and Social Services.
PRESENTATION: PRISON PROGRAMS BY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
PRESENTATION: UNSENTENCED PRISON POPULATION
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the meeting. The
committee would be taking up SB 93. The committee had heard
its companion bill earlier in the week.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 93(HSS)
"An Act relating to a workforce enhancement program
for health care professionals employed in the state;
and providing for an effective date."
9:00:51 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT proposed House Committee
Substitute for CSSB 93 (FIN), Work Draft 31-LS0589\S (Marx,
04/24/19)(copy on file).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:01:26 AM
BARBARA BARNES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON,
reviewed the changes of the committee substitute. She
pointed to page 1, line 9. Rural was added to the list of
areas to be covered by the bill. On page 5, lines 12-16 a
new subsection was added to allow for inflation and
utilization of the Consumer Price Index 5-year average for
calculations and allowing for the option of changing the
annual amounts without having to come back to the
legislature.
Ms. Barnes continued to page 7, lines 19-21 rural was
defined as a community with a population of 5,500 people or
less that was not connected by road or rail to Anchorage or
Fairbanks or with a population of 1,500 or less connected
by road or rail to Anchorage or Fairbanks. On page 7, line
25 doctor of nursing practice, clinical psychologist, and
counseling psychologist were added to the Tier 1 health
care professionals category. She concluded with the changes
to the committee substitute.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for a review of the fiscal notes.
9:02:54 AM
AT EASE
9:03:17 AM
RECONVENED
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS, AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, JUNEAU (via teleconference), reviewed Fiscal
Note 1. She explained that the original version of SB 93
included some responsibilities for the Board of Nursing
within the division. Therefore, she had submitted a zero
fiscal note. However, the responsibilities were taken out
in the committee substitute. The division had withdrawn its
fiscal note and currently did not have any affiliation with
the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed Fiscal Note 2 from the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS). She explained that
the only change to the fiscal note was the amount of money
to start the program. She reminded members that it had to
be a state program in order to receive the benefits from
the federal government. She reported there would be a
change in revenue in a forthcoming fiscal note. She
highlighted that as the fiscal note was currently written,
it was a general funds source but would be changed to
statutory receipt authority and would match page 2. The
wrong fund source was originally inserted but the amounts
would not change.
Representative Tilton referred to page 3, lines 27-29 which
talked about how an employer's payment could come from any
available source including a philanthropic institution,
health foundation, government agency, community
organization, or private individuals. She wondered if it
was possible for an employer to be receiving grants from
the State of Alaska and using them for the program.
Co-Chair Wilson invited the sponsors of the bill to the
table.
9:05:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, COMPANION BILL SPONSOR,
responded that it would have to be consistent with the
grant award received by an employer and would depend on
whether the grant award allowed for the funds to be used
for the compensation of employees. She did not believe
there would be a conflict, but it depended on the grant in
question rather than the eligibility for SHARP.
Representative Tilton asked whether, as long as a grant was
consistent with a grant award, the monies could be used for
repayment. She was asking because it sounded like that much
of the program came through non-profits. Many non-profit
organizations received grant funding through the federal
government.
Representative Spohnholz responded that most of the
organizations eligible for the SHARP 3 Program were
primarily non-profits for Medicaid billing. It could also
include some grant funding. The state did some substance
abuse treatment that was grant funding. She surmised that
as long as it was consistent with the terms of the grant
application, she thought it would be okay.
Representative Carpenter noted the comment regarding not
having to come back to the legislature for additional
authority. He asked Representative Spohnholz to comment.
Representative Spohnholz explained that the rational was to
allow for the program to keep up with the cost of doing
business over time without having to come back for
permission from the legislature. She felt if the private
sector was going to essentially fund the program support
increases, and was willing to pay for it, it would not be
necessary to come back to the legislature, especially with
appropriate sideboards in place. She noted that health care
inflation was more aggressive that the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). Health are in the State of Alaska in the prior year
was about 7 percent, whereas CPI was under 2 percent. The
increases were not aggressive.
Co-Chair Wilson commented on the use of the word "may"
instead of "shall."
Representative Carpenter added that the increases were not
decided by the federal government. They would be decided by
the employer.
Co-Chair Wilson responded that he was correct that they
would have that opportunity.
Representative Spohnholz followed up that the decisions
would be made by the SHARP Council in consultation with
members of the employer community. It was not being done to
employers but by them.
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to report HCSCSSB 93(fin) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 93(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Health and Social Services.
9:09:51 AM
AT EASE
9:10:57 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the purchase and sale of state
land; relating to discounts for veterans on state land
purchases; and relating to assignments of permanent
fund dividends."
9:11:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, BILL SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing his bill. He read the bill sponsor
statement:
Alaska has an abundance of three things: land, PFDs,
and veterans. House Bill 3 is a means to bring these
three together.
House Bill 3 encourages the sale of state lands, thus
creating growth, allowing for the use on an
individual's Permanent Fund Dividend to purchase the
land. It encourages veterans to use the statutory
discount in combination with the PFD assignment to
purchase land.
Alaskans who have resided in the state for at least
one-year immediately prior to the opening of the land
disposal and who are at least 18 years of age can
participate. The state regularly offers surplus lands
for sale either by auction or over-the-counter sales.
House Bill 3 aims to make these land sales more
accessible to Alaskans by allowing the assignment of
the PFD by individuals to pay for the purchase.
Representative Rauscher urged the committee to support
HB 3.
9:13:03 AM
DARRELL BREESE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER (via
teleconference), reviewed the sectional for the bill. The
bill made a couple of major changes of how land sales would
be handled by Department of Natural Resources (DNR):
Section 1: Changes the discount on state land sales to
eligible veterans from 25 percent to one-third.
Section 2: Makes a technical and language conforming
change to the definition section of statute for an
"eligible veteran". changing U.S. armed forces to
United States armed forces.
Section 3: Creates clarifying language that veterans
may not combine multiple discounts when purchasing
state land. Example -Preventing three veterans from
joining together to purchase land for free with the
discount offered under section 1 of the bill.
Section 4: Establishes the ability for the Permanent
Fund Division within the Department of Revenue to
include on the electronic Permanent Fund Dividend
application the ability for an individual to assign
all or a portion of their PFD to the Department of
Natural Resources to make payment for land purchased
through the state land sales program.
Section 5: Establishes the ability for the Permanent
Fund Division to create and charge an administrative
fee for processing payments under Section 4 to the
Department of Natural Resources.
Section 6: Applicability language clarifying the
eligible veterans are entitled to only one
discount. including the 25 percent discount available
in existing statute or the one-third discount after
the passage of this bill during their lifetime.
Section 7: Establishes an effective date for the bill
of August 1. 2019.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked what drove the decision to
increase the discount from 25 percent to 33 percent.
Representative Rauscher explained that it was to encourage
more participation of Veterans. The amount of veterans
available to participate would increase based on the
percentage.
9:16:27 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the fee in Section 5 that
the Dividend Division would be able to set. She wondered if
there should be a cap on the fee or whether he was
comfortable with the division setting it. Representative
Rauscher was comfortable with the division setting the fee.
Vice-Chair Ortiz supported the intent of the bill. He asked
about the necessity of including Section 4 regarding the
creation of a separate function of the Permanent Fund
Division. He did not understand the connection of the
Permanent Fund Dividend to the bill. Representative
Rauscher responded that it was basically a pass-through
method rather than multiple people handling a PFD check. It
was faster, cheaper, and saved a significant amount of
money.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if Mr. Breese had any further
comments. Mr. Breese thought Representative Rauscher
described the intention of the bill very well.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for further detail about the
savings. He wondered about additional costs for setting up
the new function at the Permanent Fund Division.
Representative Rauscher responded that there was a fiscal
note attached that was about $1,800 for upkeep. There was
also an originally set-up fee of $10,000.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed the committee would review the
fiscal notes shortly.
Representative LeBon was curious about some of the workings
of the program. He asked about the land in question. He
wondered if a Veteran could request a certain portion of
land.
9:19:48 AM
MARTY PARSONS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND, AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), responded that the department had a
statewide land sale program in which lands were offered
through auction every year. Lands that were not sold at
auction were sold over-the-counter. House Bill 3 would
allow a veteran to apply the discount to purchase any of
the parcels offered by the department statewide.
Representative LeBon asked about the parcel in question. He
wondered if there were requirements for the cash down
payment for the purchaser and whether the discount
eliminated the cash down payment requirement.
Mr. Parsons responded that when bidding through the auction
there was a bid fee. The department did not require earnest
money or a down payment. However, a purchaser could make
forward payments. At the time of going to contract, the
contract would be based on the remaining balance of the
purchase price. If a parcel was purchased through the over-
the-counter method, it would require either paying cash or
entering into a purchase contract for the land. The state
was very generous in its ability to create contractual
obligations for purchases of land.
Representative LeBon asked about the interest rate and the
term of a loan. He asked if there was a requirement for
improvements of the land. Mr. Parsons replied that the term
of the contract was negotiable. There was the ability to
provide several payment options. He asked the
representative to restate his questions.
Representative LeBon asked about the interest and whether
it was fixed or variable rate. He also wondered whether
there were any requirements of the land purchaser to make
improvements. Mr. Parsons replied that there was not a
requirement to make improvements to the land. The interest
rate was fixed at prime plus 2. He added that an Alaskan
with a driver's license was eligible for a contract with
the state.
Representative Merrick asked about any tax liability or tax
breaks on the PFD. Representative Rauscher deferred to Mr.
Parsons.
Mr. Parsons could not accurately answer about tax
obligations without conferring with the Department of
Revenue (DOR). However, he assumed if an individual
received a PFD, it would still be reportable on their
federal taxes. Co-Chair Wilson responded that Mr. Parsons
was correct. Representative Merrick commented that was what
she assumed.
9:24:09 AM
Representative Tilton asked about the assignment of the
dividend and whether it was limited to Veterans or whether
other people could use their PFD check towards purchasing
land through the DNR sales.
Representative Rauscher replied in the affirmative. He
elaborated that anyone could use their PFD check towards
the purchase of DNR lands. The software that would be used
would make it easy to specify the use of a person's PFD
towards a state land purchase. He argued that the bill
facilitated a way for a significant amount of people to be
able to partake in the bidding process. It would be
beneficial to the state as well because it could
potentially drive up the price.
9:25:30 AM
Representative Carpenter referred to Section 4 which
provided a pass-through method of payment for the land with
a person's PFD check. He queried about a different process
if the PFD was eliminated by the legislature in the future
and it was the means in which a person was paying for their
land. Representative Rauscher assumed a person would have
to write a check.
9:26:17 AM
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED Public Testimony.
9:26:27 AM
Co-Chair Wilson Closed Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Wilson invited Mr. Parsons to review the fiscal
note.
Mr. Parsons indicated that the fiscal note [Fiscal Note 1 -
OMB Component Number: 3002] showed a slight decrease in the
monies collected on the income that would be generated for
the land sales program. He reported that the department's
assumptions were spelled out on the second page of the
note. The department was not anticipating a major increase
in the number of veterans that would potentially
participate. However, the difference between the 25 percent
discount currently in place up to a 33.3 percent discount,
would account for a reduction of about $21,000 to the
program.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Parsons about a booklet for
people to look at online at the DNR website regarding land
sales. Mr. Parsons responded in the affirmative. Booklets
were available online and at public information centers in
Fairbanks and Anchorage. Booklets were also available in
Juneau at the DNR office. The over-the-counter sales were
available to see online.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated there was another fiscal note:
Fiscal Note 2 by the Department of Revenue, OMB Component
Number 981.
9:28:30 AM
ANNE WESKE, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, relayed that the Division included
$10,700 for the set-up costs for the program. The amount
would facilitate the programing required to add a question
to the application and ensure that the division included
details that might come about as the process continued. It
would be the first electronic assignment for the PFD. The
division had typically done assignments through a paper
process previously. The $10,700 would cover approximately
89 hours of programming at a rate of $120 per hour. After
the programing was completed, $1,800 would be required on
an annual basis for upkeep of the system. It would include
the production of reports for DNR and any bug fixes needed
to the application.
Vice-Chair Ortiz had a broader question related to the
Permanent Fund Division. He wondered about the costs over
the years with additions to the PFD application such as the
Pick. Click. Give. program, the potential lottery program
and education money. He wondered if there had been a need
for additional manpower and economic resources.
Ms. Weske responded that the program was very popular and
there was more participation across the state. The division
was seeing a need to produce a template for the cost to add
programs. She suggested that at some point it might be
necessary to have management of ancillary programs within
the division. The application was growing. She was
currently trying to make it accessible for Alaskans to
choose any option without having to add multiple pages to
the online application. It might need to be managed
differently in the near future.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if Representative Rauscher wanted to
comment further. Representative Rauscher believed the bill
was a good idea. He reported that representatives that had
been in the military signed on in support of the bill
immediately. He had received several calls in his district
about people wanting to see whether they could use their
PFD in such a fashion to help pay for some of the land they
had already purchased. He relayed that the 25 percent
program would end changing to 33.3 percent.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated amendments were due by 5:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
HB 3 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:33:07 AM
AT EASE
9:34:01 AM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: PRISON PROGRAMS BY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
9:34:21 AM
JEN WINKELMAN, DIRECTOR, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PRETRIAL
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, introduced herself.
She would be advancing the slides while other experts would
address the presentation.
9:34:47 AM
LAURA BROOKS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
continued the presentation beginning with the subject of
substance abuse treatment. She reported that the Alaska
Department of Corrections (DOC) was also the largest
substance abuse treatment provider and played the role of
providing the most drug and alcohol detox services to DOC's
population. She informed members that about 80 percent of
DOC's population had substance use disorders and on any
given day the department had about 40 inmates being
monitored or treated for withdrawals. About 10 inmates per
day were on medically managed protocols which meant they
were so deep in the withdrawal process that they had to be
under a provider's supervision. Of those 10, a handful of
them had to go to a hospital because their withdrawal
became so severe that the department could not manage them
within its facilities. Substance abuse for the department's
population was a tremendous problem.
Ms. Brooks moved to slide 11 which showed on-site substance
abuse services. The slide showed the different types of
programs the department provided. She would offer a brief
rundown of the meanings for some key programs. Since FY 11,
the department had worked diligently to expand its services
offered to its population that struggled with substance
abuse. In the previous 3 years the department's programming
had changed significantly. The department had made a
concerted effort to go to evidence-based programming. She
indicated that the slide showed all of the different
programs DOC provided currently.
Ms. Brooks mentioned medically assisted withdrawal services
and discussed screening assessment processes. In 2017, the
department streamlined its screening assessment process.
The screening process provided basic information such as
whether a person had enough of a substance use issue to
warrant a referral to a substance abuse program. The
assessment was more in depth and determined the level of
care the individual needed.
Ms. Brooks reported that in 2016 the department
significantly changed the way it provided interventions for
things in pre-trial. It looked at its psychoeducation
programs and entered them into the pre-trial systems. The
psychoeducation program lasted for 6 weeks, explored risk
factors associated with use, and provided education about
consequences. It was a basic level of treatment. However,
the department found that inmates in pre-trial, a transient
population, did not have time to go through a full program.
She reported that the intensive outpatient treatment was
located at Goose Creek Correctional Center and Spring Creek
Correctional Center where they had sober living units. At
both facilities there were units where individuals lived on
site and attended outpatient treatment. Other facilities
also had intensive outpatient programs, but the inmates
came to a classroom to participate in a group then meet
individually with substance abuse counselors.
9:38:16 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if Ms. Brooks had indicated there was
outpatient treatment for Goose Creek Correctional Center
and Spring Creek Correctional Center. Ms. Brooks replied
that the department had sober living at both facilities.
The department used to have a residential substance abuse
treatment program in Spring Creek. However, it could not
find treatment providers which resulted in the program
closing at Spring Creek. It was moved to the Wildwood
Correctional Complex. In the absence of the program at
Spring Creek a sober living unit was added there.
Co-Chair Wilson noted Ms. Brooks reported doing evidence-
based treatment. She wondered what the department was doing
before. Ms. Brooks responded that upon evaluation of its
programs, the department found that they were being run
differently. The department worked to standardize the
curriculum. Evidence-based treatment provided true fidelity
to the model. The substance abuse counselors of the program
were following the curriculum. Whereas, when the department
evaluated the treatment program several years prior, that
was not the case. Even though there might have been
curriculums that were nationally evidenced, they were being
presented by treatment providers in a way that did not
ensure they were fully meeting the requirements of the
program. The department did a revamp about 3 years prior to
make sure that the department was getting the most out of
the programs.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about success rates of the programs
showing that the evidence-based programs were more
successful than the previous programs. Ms. Brooks responded
that recidivism numbers were based on 3 years post-release.
She indicated that the end of FY 19 would mark the first
year the department would be able to evaluate the
recidivism for the 2017 cohort under the new program. She
added that when the department looked at the numbers of
people entering into treatment and completing the programs,
it was seeing an increase. However, there had been a number
of things over the previous couple of years that had
impacted the numbers as well.
Ms. Brooks reported that one of the major issues the
department had in FY 17 was that the substance abuse
contractor cancelled the contract. There was an 8-month
period where the department was trying to put the program
back in place where there was not a contract. The
department had to significantly reduce its services during
that time. The folks that were in the program were allowed
to complete it, but the department had to reduce what was
offered. The period was between the end of FY 17 and the
beginning of FY 18.
Ms. Brooks continued that since the department brought the
Salvation Army onboard for the residential treatment
program at Hiland Mountain Correctional Center and doing
the intensive outpatient program at Goose Creek
Correctional Center, the department had started to see the
numbers to where it had hoped they would be. The department
was still in the process of increasing the numbers. In
addition, the contract that was cancelled a couple of years
ago was a statewide contract. The department lost services
in all facilities. Since that time, instead of having one
statewide contract, the department had been looking for
local providers to go into its facilities to provide
treatment programs. Depending on the community, the
department had various levels of success. The lack of
substance abuse treatment providers in Alaska's communities
was a statewide problem and one that DHSS had identified as
a major gap.
Ms. Brooks elaborated that the workforce continued to
impact the departments programs. The department had closed
its intensive outpatient program in Lemon Creek as well as
its community program because it was consistently
underutilized. Also, the community provider in that
location could not keep up with the staff needs required to
keep the programs going. Systemwide, the department had
seen its numbers go up and down depending on where there
were treatment providers.
9:43:17 AM
Representative Josephson spoke of the urgent needs around
the previous year's earthquake in Anchorage. He suggested
that Ms. Brooks was describing a type of emergency as well.
He noted the need for a holistic system. He asked why the
legislature was not being notified of the need to fix
certain things regarding SB 91 [Omnibus crime bill passed
in 2016] in a more urgent way.
Ms. Brooks agreed that the substance abuse problem in
Alaska was at an emergency level. It had been for years, as
Alaska had the highest alcoholism rate in the country. The
last governor declared a state of emergency for the opioid
crisis. What she had seen as the real issue was a lack of
treatment providers in communities. She did not have a good
answer to Representative Josephson's question. She
suggested that it was an easy process to become a substance
abuse treatment provider in terms of education and
credentialing. However, it was not a specialty profession
that seemed to draw many people's interest.
She suggested that DHSS could possibly speak to his
question. She agreed, that it had reached a crisis level
being that 80 percent of DOC's population was in need of
treatment. The department had not been able to reach the
people it needed to reach.
Representative Josephson established that it was an
individual problem for the person with the substance abuse
and a problem for society if they reoffended. He wondered
how individuals complied as a condition of probation if
sufficient services were not available. He wondered if
compliance would not happen.
Ms. Brooks responded that when individuals left the system
with a requirement to complete substance abuse treatment in
their community, they went on a wait list if treatment was
available. The waitlist might be weeks or months depending
on the community and the level of treatment required. In
some communities telehealth systems were being set up to
assist with treatment. She was not sure where the state was
in the process. However, telehealth only addressed a
certain level of treatment. It did not address the need for
detox or residential treatment. For a person on probation
or parole, it was a challenge to meet their treatment
requirement. It might be a significant amount of time
before they could meet their requirement.
Ms. Winkelman commented that regarding people on probation
or parole, if they were placed on a waitlist and treatment
had not become available before their time was expiring,
they would appear in court through a petition to revoke
probation or a summons to let the court know they were not
able to complete the terms of their probation. At that time
the department would either make a recommendation to honor
the time lapse or to extend their probation period in order
to complete a treatment program.
9:48:15 AM
Representative LeBon restated that approximately 80 percent
of Alaska's prison population struggled with substance use
disorders. He wondered how to judge and measure the 80
percent of the population. He wondered how low the bar was
that defined someone as having a substance abuse disorder.
Ms. Brooks clarified that the 80 percent applied to the
jail and prison population. Representative LeBon suggested
that she add the word "prison" before population on the
chart on slide 12.
Vice-Chair Johnston noted methadone bridging. She asked
about the blocker medication that had started being used
about 5 years prior. She asked if Vivitrol was currently
being used in DOC's programs. Ms. Brooks responded in the
affirmative. The department started a Medication Assisted
Treatment for Reentry (MATR) program. It included the drug,
Vivitrol or long-acting Naltrexone. The program was started
about two years previously and was currently part of the
release process.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if she would be providing
statistics of the success of MATR. Ms. Brooks replied that
the department had partnered with the University of
Alaska's Center for Circumpolar Health Studies. The
department was in the process of studying MATR, as it was
presently a pilot program. The department was receiving the
medication at no charge from a pharmaceutical company,
which would not last indefinitely. The injection of the
medication was approximately $1000 per treatment. The
department wanted to make sure that when the pharmaceutical
company no longer provided the drug cost-free, it was clear
the drug was positively effective against recidivism and
clinical relapse. She indicated that the University would
be completing the project in the coming summer and could
report back with solid numbers in the coming fall.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the frequency of giving
Vivitrol. Ms. Brooks reported that the injection lasted
about 28 days and was administered to a prisoner about 3
days prior to their release. A person had to have all
opioids out of their system before they could receive the
medication. Individuals were put through a mental health
and a medical screening to make sure there were no
contraindications to taking Vivitrol. The department made
referrals in order for individuals to follow up in their
community to receive an additional shot in 30 days. The
department also made referrals to substance abuse
treatment, as the research showed that Vivitrol in
conjunction with a cognitive behavioral treatment program
was more effective than the injection alone. It was similar
to someone who took an antidepressant. Someone who took an
antidepressant and went to therapy would have a much better
outcome than someone who took the medication alone. How
long a person took monthly shots in their community
depended upon how their other substance abuse counseling
progressed. The hope was that individuals would no longer
need the medication after developing alternative coping
skills through cognitive behavioral treatment.
9:53:51 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the topic of lack of access to
substance abuse services. He asked if the state was making
any progress in satisfying the supply and demand for
treatment services.
Ms. Brooks would have to get numbers from DHSS in order to
reply accurately. Anecdotally, she thought gains were being
made. There was a greater recognition over the previous
several years about the lack of services within Alaskan
communities. More attention had been brought to the issue.
She could not speak to specifics about the strides DHSS had
made. She confirmed a statewide plan had been developed.
She thought DHSS could better address his question.
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the issue of being able to
recruit people to work in the area of substance abuse
treatment. He wondered if the issue had to do with a lack
of commitment to put resources towards recruiting people.
Ms. Brooks did not attribute the issue to a lack of
recruitment efforts. Training and certification rather than
a college degree were required to work in the field. She
was uncertain why people were not seeking to work in the
field.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the pay was low in the
profession. Ms. Brooks thought pay for substance abuse
counseling was a factor.
Co-Chair Wilson queried the average yearly salary in the
field. Ms. Brooks did not have the information.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked why Akeela, Inc. no longer
provided services for the state. She asked for details
regarding its contract. Ms. Brooks responded that Akeela,
Inc. canceled the contract prior to its completion.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if she could provide the reason
they had given for ending their contract early. Ms. Brooks
relayed that the Akeela, Inc. felt that it was not
beneficial to them as an agency. Midway through the
contract they determined they financially could no longer
provide services at the contracted rate.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the state's payments were not on
time. Ms. Brooks responded that the rate of pay was not
sufficient.
9:58:29 AM
Representative Carpenter brought up the issue of parole and
the availability for substance abuse treatment. He wondered
if there was a process in place to sync the dates of
release with the date of treatment availability.
Ms. Brooks responded that when someone came into the system
requiring substance abuse treatment they were referred to
that program. The department had waitlists for substance
abuse treatment. Waitlists for residential substance abuse
treatment could be 60 days or more. A person who was
incarcerated for years had the opportunity to participate
in the programs. She offered that when an individual came
up for discretionary parole but had not completed a
recommended substance abuse treatment program, it would be
up to the parole board to allow them to seek substance
abuse treatment in their community or deny them parole
until it was completed while in custody. The parole board
looked at a number of factors when making considerations
including the efforts an offender made to get into
treatment. There was a surprising number of offenders that
were not interested in seeking treatment even when it was a
legal requirement. Syncing parole and treatment had to do
more with a review of what the offender had done and their
efforts to seek treatment. The parole board would make a
determination after a review.
Representative Carpenter was specifically talking about
discretionary parole. He clarified that he was talking
about those individuals that came up for parole and there
was some discretion to the state as to whether they were
released. It was his understanding that the state was
releasing individuals on parole and were free to do what
they wanted and were on a waitlist for a long duration for
a treatment option. He suggested it was no surprise that
they would recidivate, as they had not dealt with the
underlying issues that led them to incarceration. He was
concerned with the idea that the state would choose to
release them prior to addressing their issues. He wondered
if there was a way to sync the waitlist with the discretion
to release an inmate such that their date of release
matched the date of treatment availability.
Ms. Brooks replied that the difficulty with Representative
Carpenter's suggestion was that most substance abuse
treatment programs would not put a person on a waitlist
until they were released from prison. The waitlist clock
did not start ticking until a person was out of
corrections. The issue was further complicated because the
community providers frequently did not accept the
assessments DOC did in custody and wanted a new assessment
completed. A person would be given an appointment for an
assessment, an assessment would be conducted, a level of
care would be determined, and the person would be placed on
a waitlist. She agreed that a simple system was not in
place for offenders. She noted that the department was
trying to change the way in which assessments were done. In
the current year DOC purchased access to Continuum
Software, a national gold standard tool. Employees of the
department received training in the use of the new software
which the department would begin using in the near future.
It was a standardized assessment tool that DHSS was also
looking at using. The hope was that when DOC did an
assessment it would automatically transfer to any treatment
provider in Alaska's communities in an attempt to
streamline the process. Until then, the process remained
complicated and did very little to aid offenders in
rehabilitation once they reached the community.
10:04:14 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if treatment providers had
the ability to do an assessment prior to parole. Ms. Brooks
answered in the affirmative; it happened in many of DOC's
facilities.
Representative Carpenter hoped the committee was
highlighting a process problem that allowed people who
needed to receive treatment while in prison, not receiving
it before being released. He thought the state was part of
the problem and that the public was feeling the pain. He
was very frustrated to hear something being described as
"the way it is."
Co-Chair Wilson wondered whether the law needed changing or
whether treatment needed to be ensured. She thought it was
unclear whether changing the law would change the outcome.
She intimated that if treatment was not available, inmates
would reoffend once on parole. She wondered if the
department was aware of the drugs that entered its
facilities. She asked if drug dogs were brought into
prisons. Ms. Brooks replied that the department was aware
of contraband entering DOC's facilities. She recommended
having someone from the Division of Institutions or Deputy
Commissioner Goode speak to the subject.
10:07:21 AM
KELLY GOODE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, was aware contraband entered into DOC
facilities throughout the state. The department had a drug
dog, Coda, who had done some amazing things in the previous
few years. She was happy to provide a list of things that
Coda had found within DOC's facilities.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if DOC only had one drug dog and
asked for the number of facilities the dog served. Ms.
Goode responded that DOC currently had one canine.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if DOC was working with Department of
Public Safety (DPS), as DPS had more than one drug dog. Ms.
Goode reported that DOC was collaborating with the
Department of Public Safety to broaden the canine program
to better address contraband in DOC facilities.
Co-Chair Wilson wondered why the issue was only being
addressed presently. The issue had existed for several
years. She had been told by inmates that it was easier to
obtain contraband in DOC's facilities than it was on the
streets. Ms. Goode responded that her team had only been
serving under the current administration for about 5
months. The department recognized the problem and was
working to address it. The department was working with DPS
to actively address curtailing the contraband. She could
not speak to the actions of the previous administration.
However, the current administration was working to find
ways to address the issue. Co-Chair Wilson commented that
the legislature was happy to help encourage DPS in its
cooperation.
Representative Carpenter asked a question regarding
discretionary parole. He wondered why it a person would be
released on parole with an unaddressed drug problem.
Ms. Winkelman thought the question would be best addressed
to the parole board. She offered that often times when a
parole board encountered an individual coming before them
for discretionary parole, they had to consider the totality
of the circumstances. The recommendation of when a person
would be released often required that they complete
treatment in a certain facility in order to be released. A
person could appear before the parole board and be granted
parole for a later date once a treatment plan was
completed.
Representative Carpenter was hearing that individuals were
paroled and placed on a waitlist for community-based
treatment which did not fit with what was possible and what
Ms. Winkelman conveyed. Ms. Winkelman explained that there
were two types of parole, discretionary parole and
mandatory parole. Those persons that were on discretionary
parole saw the parole board as she had previously
explained. Individuals with mandatory parole were released
based on statute after serving two-thirds of their
sentence. Individuals on mandatory parole would wind up on
a waitlist.
Representative Carpenter clarified that those released on
discretionary parole did not get released until they have
completed treatment. Ms. Winkelman replied, "Not
necessarily." She noted that the parole board would
consider the totality of the circumstances. There were some
individuals that were released that were required to obtain
treatment in their community and had to be placed on a
waitlist.
Representative Carpenter thought he might need to talk to
the parole board. He wondered what the parole board based
its decisions on. Ms. Winkelman was not sure.
Co-Chair Wilson wondered if some inmates were kept in jail
longer because of a lack of treatment availability and were
required to complete treatment prior to release. She noted
that there was a backlog for sex offense treatment. Ms.
Winkelman deferred to other available testifiers online.
Co-Chair Wilson restated her question.
10:13:09 AM
PAM MARTIN, DEPUTY CHIEF CLASSIFICATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), responded that the
department could not keep an inmate past their statutory
release date. In regard to discretionary parole, if the
parole board required the inmate to complete a program
prior to their release, the inmate could be held either
until the treatment was complete or until the statutory
release date.
Co-Chair Wilson provided a hypothetical scenario. Ms.
Martin explained that a prisoner on mandatory parole would
be released on their release date. A person on
discretionary parole could be held until their mandatory
release date.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if an inmate could be released if
their mandatory release date came, and they had not been
able to get their prescribed treatment in time. Ms. Martin
replied that the department could not legally hold someone
past their mandatory release date. The department could not
hold someone longer than their sentence.
Co-Chair Wilson commented, "That could be part of our
problem too, then." Ms. Martin reiterated that once an
inmate's release date was established on their timesheet,
they had to be released on that date.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if a person could be taken back into
custody if they did not complete community-based treatment.
Ms. Martin responded that the field probation-parole
officer would have the option to submit a petition to
revoke probation or send the person to the parole board
with a parole violation for failure to complete treatment.
Co-Chair Wilson supposed the person would basically be
taken back into custody without treatment and spend more
time in jail. The idea did not make sense to her.
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the topic of discretionary
parole. He wondered if it was possible for a prisoner to be
transferred to a facility that had treatment available.
Ms. Winkelman responded in the affirmative.
Representative Carpenter commented that inmates could be
transferred between institutions as well. He was aware of
that happening on a regular basis.
10:17:02 AM
Representative Josephson referred to the statute having to
do with discretionary parole. He read directly from Alaska
Statute 33.16.100. Under SB 91 for unclassified felonies,
the most heinous crimes, the board might authorize
discretionary parole, but it might not. He continued that
for A, B, and C felonies, which were very serious, the
board "Shall" authorize, unless there was clear and
convincing evidence that the prison posed a threat. The
relevant portion read that the prisoner must have met the
requirement of a case plan created under AS 33, and the
case plan would have a treatment recommendation. It also
stated the following:
"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."
Co-Chair Johnston explained that the idea of SB 91 was to
not blame the inmate if a program was not available. The
Board of Parole was invited not to blame the inmate.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that her bigger concern was
recidivism and people who were violated as a result.
Representative Carpenter asked about the mandatory parole
date. He wondered if the date was a part of their sentence.
He provided an example. He thought the right thing would be
to ensure the individual received treatment prior to
parole. He wondered if there was a process in which a
conversation could occur. Ms. Winkelman did not have an
answer for him. She relayed that for an individual to be
released on mandatory parole they needed to be sentenced
for over 2 years in prison. When an individual was
sentenced for over 2 years, one-third of their sentence
would be removed. She deferred to Ms. Martin for more
specifics.
Ms. Martin responded that the mandatory parole date was the
same as an offender's statutory release date. If the
offender had not completed their program they had to be
released anyway.
Representative Carpenter still wondered if there was a
process to take the inmate in front of the judge to stop
them from being released until they completed treatment.
Ms. Martin replied, "Yes." There was a mechanism if the
offender was court ordered to complete treatment while
incarcerated, an important phrasing had to be in a
judgement. If the wording was present, the inmate could be
taken back to the court under a probation violation prior
to their release.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how an offender could violate
probation if they were still in the institution. Ms. Martin
explained, they would still be under the conditions of the
judgement which fell under the court rather than the parole
board.
Co-Chair Wilson mentioned that someone from Akeela, Inc.
would be calling in during the meeting. She thought they
could provide more information about what happened between
them and DOC. She asked the presenter to continue.
10:23:28 AM
Ms. Brooks continued with the presentation returning to
slide 11. In 2018, the department added a dual diagnosis
program for inmates that had both a mental illness and
substance use disorders. It followed the general and
intensive outpatient models but was tailored to those with
cognitive disabilities or mental illness. The departments
residential substance abuse treatment program was 6 months
in length and was an intense treatment. She detailed about
25 hours per week were devoted to group and individual
counseling. The Medication Assisted Treatment (MAR Program)
was added in 2017.
Ms. Brooks continued that along with the MAR program the
department had Methadone bridging. There was a large number
of individuals in the community that were currently going
through Methadone Treatment. It was a difficult withdrawal
process for someone to enter the system and be taken off of
Methadone. The department had worked out agreements with
community providers for them to provide Methadone to anyone
who was serving time for less than 30 days. It was a
significant change for individuals in those types of
programs. The department also added a video based
programming for individuals in segregation. It allowed
individuals in segregation to access psycho-education
services for substance abuse while they were spending time
in segregation rather than until they came out. It was a
significant change.
Ms. Brooks continued that in 2017, the department changed
the way offenders in halfway houses accessed treatment. The
department made agreements with community providers in
several different locations resulting in dedicated
substance abuse treatment slots for individuals in a
halfway house. Someone who went to a halfway house did not
have to be waitlisted, as certain spots were held
specifically for individuals in halfway houses. The change
was made about 1.5 years prior.
Ms. Brooks reported adding peer-based intervention
services. The department had approximately 36 inmates
trained as facilitators and hoped to expand the number. It
was one way the department was trying to address the lack
of treatment services available because of the lack of
treatment providers. It did not replace true substance
abuse treatment, as it did not qualify for such a level of
treatment. However, it provided an additional layer of
services available to DOC's offender population.
Ms. Brooks conveyed that not everything the department did
resulted in growth. She informed the committee that when
the department closed the substance abuse treatment program
at Spring Creek and moved it to Wildwood, the department
lost a number of beds - about 6 female residential
substance abuse treatment (RSAT) beds when men were moved
into Hiland. It was reversed and was back to full capacity
in Hiland.
10:27:30 AM
Ms. Brooks moved to slide 12: "Substance Abuse Assessments
and Screenings." The slide showed the number of substance
abuse screenings and assessments being done in the past
couple of years. She suggested the number would increase
significantly with the use of the Continuum Software
because of the resulting streamlining.
Ms. Brooks turned to slide 13: "Substance Abuse
Programming" which provided an overview of each of the
different levels of care, where they were located, the
number of beds in each location, and the length of the
program. She relayed that the state had over 400 slots for
substance abuse treatment in custody. The department had
another 18 furlough treatment beds available at Clitheroe
Center and Akeela, Inc. The department also had 58
dedicated treatment slots for people in the community
residential centers. The department had waitlists for the
programs. At any given time it had 50-60 people waiting for
RSAT and about 30 waiting for intensive outpatient
treatment. The psychoeducation program did not generally
carry a waitlist because it was an open-ended program that
anyone could join at any time.
Ms. Brooks advanced to slide 14: "FY18 Substance Abuse
Program Participation" which showed the program
participation for the past year. She noted that 458 people
completed institutional substance abuse treatment in 2018.
It did not include the furlough or CRC numbers. She would
have recidivism data for the committee after FY 19 when the
3-year cohort could be studied.
Ms. Brooks had already covered what was on slide 15:
"Medication Assisted Treatment for Reentry (MATR)."
Representative Josephson asked if the governor was
curtailing any of the substance abuse treatment programs in
an effort to cut the budget. Ms. Brooks had not seen where
any of the changes were expected to affect DOC's substance
abuse program.
Co-Chair Wilson noted a representative from Akeela was
currently online. She would break from the presentation for
a moment to hear from Ms. Donovan.
10:30:38 AM
COURTNEY DONOVAN, AKEELA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
made herself available.
Co-Chair Wilson asked why Akeela pulled out of its
contract.
Ms. Donavan indicated that Akeela's previous chief
Executive Officer largely handled the decision at the time
and was available online. She indicated that it had been a
difficult decision for Akeela to end the contract. She
explained that the company obtained different contracts for
each site. For example, if the company operated a program
in the Anchorage Correctional Complex and in the Goose
Creek Correctional Complex there would be two separate
contracts. In the renewal process DOC decided to roll the
individual contracts into one large contract. By doing so,
it made budgeting and program operations more difficult for
Akeela. It also impacted the organization's rate of pay.
She explained that the rate of pay was no longer
competitive with local providers around the state. Also,
there was an issue in the contract around the amount of
hours that were to be paid. She further explained that a
full time employee worked 2080 hours per work year. The
contract reimbursed for less than 2080 hours. It did not
allow for an employee to be sick or on vacation. Akeela
provided approximately 2 weeks of vacation and sick leave
per year or about 80 hours.
SHANNON PRITCHETT, CFO, AKEELA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), relayed that in addition the contract
required Akeela to have a floater to fill certain hours. In
Alaska trying to find the qualified staff that was required
to fulfill the DOC contract was extremely difficult. She
suggested that if an employee of Akeela was sick or trying
to take vacation, they could submit to use some of their
hours. For example, they could take 8 hours for vacation
leave if they were sick for a day. The way that the DOC
contract was written, it did not allow for the company to
recoup any money for those 8 hours. At the end of the year
the amount exceeded $600,000 for sick time and vacation
time that was not recouped by the contract. The company
could not financially continue the arrangement.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for details about the program and why
Akeela ended the contract.
ROSALIE NADEAU, FORMER CEO, AKEELA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), did not recall the performance statistics,
but remembered they were good. The company was aware it was
losing in excess of $500,000. She had informed DOC of the
loss. At the time of renewal in May she and her deputy,
Courtney, met with the commissioner and his staff
explaining the situation. The commissioner relayed he did
not expect the company to lose money on the contract. In a
room full of people he asked her to sign the contract
promising that the department would pull out if it did not
work to the benefit of the company. Courtney was present at
the time. She trusted the commissioner and signed the
document. She tried to get in touch with the commissioner
who would not return her calls. When she did get ahold of
him he hung up on her after she had the chance to tell him
that her people had been trying to reach him for months
without anything happening. At the time she had secured a
lawyer. The commissioner went on to call all of Akeela's
representatives liars. Some of the people working for the
commissioner, who had been at the meeting where the
commissioner made promises, indicated they were willing to
testify on behalf of Akeela. Finally, she told the
commissioner that Akeela could no longer do business with
the State of Alaska giving him a notice of 6 weeks,
January 1. The commissioner responded that Akeela had to
continue to provide total programs until January 1 and had
only 1 day to close down any operations the company had
within the institutions. She relayed that with facilities
throughout the state it was a challenge, but the company
did it. She conveyed that Akeela had liked the program but
felt that a small non-profit should not be expected to
donate over $500,000 per year to the state.
10:39:13 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if Akeela had to pay any money to
break the contract. Ms. Nadeau responded in the negative.
The department had been aware that the company would have
gone to court had there been any penalties.
Co-Chair Johnston clarified that the issue had not gone to
court. Ms. Nadeau responded, "No." She offered to have
Akeela's attorney provide additional background if the
committee wanted.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked her for her testimony. She was
sorry Akeela's program was no longer in the state's
facilities. Ms. Nadeau responded, "we're sorry also."
Co-Chair Wilson reported that the committee would move on
to the sex offender programs.
10:40:09 AM
Ms. Brooks moved to the section on sex offender management.
She specified that Alaska had the highest rate of sexual
assault in the country. The Department of Corrections used
the containment supervision model for management of sex
offenders in communities. The containment model was the
best practice for supervision of sex offenders and had been
proven nationally to be the most successful at reducing sex
crime recidivism. The containment model used specially
trained probation and parole officers in conjunction with
polygraph testing and focused cognitive sex offender
treatment. Each sex offender released on probation was
followed by the specially trained probation and parole
officers. They underwent polygraph testing and engaged in
sex offender treatment in Alaska's communities.
Ms. Brooks reported that there was an important piece when
a sex offender was released from custody called a safety
net. It was an integral part of their reentry plan. It was
made up of a group of leaders such as people like elders,
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs), clergy, and others
who were aware of the crimes of the offenders and were
trained in recognizing high risk behaviors and help to
support and monitor the offender in the communities. They
worked with the probation and parole officers and treatment
providers to keep folks safe in communities.
Ms. Brooks continued that the intensity of the treatment
and the length of supervision were key factors associated
with successful management of sex offenders. She emphasized
the importance of the polygraph.
Ms. Brooks moved to slide 17: "Sex Offender Programming"
showing a list of where Alaska's sex offender programs were
available. She explained that the department provided
institutional sex offender programing and also community
programs. She reported that approximately 250 sex offenders
were released each year. The Department of Corrections had
118 institutional programming slots. There were 15 in a
halfway house and another 24 spots by telehealth. The
telehealth option was instituted by the department in the
previous year for offenders in rural communities allowing
them to remain in their home community and not be
transplanted to a larger urban setting. There were about
170 spots available in communities. The department had seen
its treatment numbers go down slightly in the prior year
because of a long-time treatment provider retiring. The
caseload for that provider was about 70 people.
Ms. Brooks reported about 30 offenders were currently
waitlisted for community treatment which took about 90 to
120 days for the list to turn over. There were about 50
offenders on any day waiting for in-custody treatment.
Priority was based on offenders' risk factor and release
date. Priority was given to highest risk sex offenders such
as those who were at highest risk for violent sex offenses
who had a shorter anticipated release date. The waitlist
was constantly changing because someone who was considered
a higher risk offender might leap-frog to the top of the
list.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if individuals at Lemon Creek
Correctional Center were primarily released into the City
of Juneau. Ms. Brooks replied in the negative. The
individuals would be returned to their home community to
participate in sex offender treatment in person or via
telehealth. There were not necessarily released in the
community where the treatment program was.
10:44:11 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the majority of individuals that
were released from treatment in Juneau ended up staying in
Juneau. Ms. Brooks responded that they were not.
Co-Chair Wilson asked where they went. Ms. Brooks answered
that they were returned to their community of arrest
regardless of where they served their time unless they
chose to stay in the community where they currently were.
There might be some individuals that would choose to stay
in the community where they were incarcerated but, it was
unusual. Most of them chose to go home.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that it was the offender's
choice. Ms. Brooks responded, "That's correct."
Representative Carpenter asked how long the containment
supervision model had been used in Alaska. Ms. Brooks
thought about 10 to 15 years.
Ms. Brooks detailed the chart on slide 18: "Sex Offender
Program Participation." In FY 18 the department had 442
offenders in sex offender treatment. She reiterated the
slight drop due to the 70 treatment slots lost in the
community. The department had a completion rate of about 83
percent which was considered high. Due to the length of
treatment some offenders found it very difficult to
complete treatment the first time through. Offenders were
allowed to return to treatment if they voluntarily left or
were discharged from treatment. Most of them returned to
treatment, as it was a legal requirement. Most of the
offenders eventually successfully completed treatment
programming. She reported that discharges from treatment
were due to a variety of things including technical
violations and engaging in high risk behavior. They were
allowed to eventually return to the program.
Ms. Brooks highlighted that the slide also showed the
number of people polygraphed in the previous year. She
reported that 526 offenders were polygraphed and were
polygraphed approximately 850 times. A large number of the
individuals were polygraphed multiple times. It depended on
the situation and the results of a polygraph. If an
individual failed a polygraph, they would work with their
treatment provider and their probation officer to address
whatever came to light in the polygraph and would be
polygraphed again at a later time.
Ms. Brooks highlighted the recidivism rate for new offences
of 13 percent. The national recidivism rate for sex
offenders who had gone through the containment model was
about 5 percent. Alaska's recidivism rate for new sex
offenses was just over 1 percent.
Representative Merrick asked what kind of questions were
asked during a polygraph. Ms. Brooks did not have a list of
questions. Ms. Winkelman also did not have a list of the
questions in hand. However, most of the time the questions
were based on certain behaviors observed by probation
officers. A question might be whether the person had
contact with a minor, been in a certain location, or
consumed alcohol. The questions typically were around
triggers of sex offense behavior. Ms. Brooks indicated Ms.
Weiss was available to present the next portion of the
slide.
10:49:15 AM
JANICE WEISS, RE-ENTRY PROGRAM DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), began her portion of the
presentation by explaining that the purpose of the
institutional programs was to enhance the security of
Alaska's institution, to safeguard the public, and to help
reduce recidivism.
Ms. Weiss moved to slide 21: "Program Categories." The
institutional programs were broken down into 4 categories
including education, vocational, pro-social, and faith-
based.
Ms. Weiss turned to slide 22: "The Offender Management
Plan." She explained that within the education program the
department tried to tie what was in the offender management
plan which was based on the risk assessment results. It was
very important to look at the risk of someone reoffending
when trying to decide what programs the person should be
given. When an incarcerated person was getting ready to
enroll in some of the programs, they had the opportunity to
talk with several people including their probation officer,
the education people, the mental health people, and the
housing people to discuss what kind of things would work
best for them while incarcerated. The idea was for the
department to lead inmates to a better outcome when they
returned to their communities. She provided several of
examples of better outcomes.
Ms. Weiss looked more closely at education programs on
slide 23. She reported that the basis of any education was
for someone to earn a high school education or a GED if
they did not have one. The opportunity to obtain a GED was
available in all institutions. She had been told that DOC
was the third highest provider of the GED Program in
Alaska. Of all GEDs that were granted within any year, 15
percent of them came from someone incarcerated. Just over
100 people per year received their GED while they were
incarcerated. Getting a GED was not always an easy
accomplishment. The state served approximately 800 to 900
people per year working on their GEDs. In order to get a
GED a person had to pass 4 tests with a certain score. In
order to take those tests a person had to be able to type
40 words per minute. They often had to attend a computer
class first to practice their keyboarding and typing
skills.
Ms. Weiss continued that the GED was often one of the
prerequisites for a person to be able to participate in one
of the vocational programs. The vocational programs tried
to address what was going on in the state that required
more employees for a particular industry. Also important
was determining if a person could make a living wage at the
job they could get with the vocational training the
department provided.
Ms. Weiss referred to the vocational program list on slide
24. She pointed out the extent of the list. Overall, DOC
offered about 166 programs for inmates in various areas.
The heaviest concentration of programs was in construction
trades including carpentry, plumbing, and electrical. The
vocational programs also offered training in the items that
accompanied the construction classes such as OSHA 10
training and OSHA 30. The idea was to show that people had
the necessary training to go to work immediately.
10:53:44 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted he had a constituent that voiced a
concern about a lack of unified curriculum in the prison
system by facility. It created various roadblocks for
inmates. He asked if she was aware of such concerns.
Ms. Weiss had heard the concern. She explained that
regarding the GED, it would be available at any
institution. If someone was working on their GED and was
moved to a different facility, they could continue to work
on it, as it was a standardized test with standardized
workbooks. She thought the inconsistency might have to do
with vocational education because some institutions had
different programs available than another depending on
their size, location, and whether they served long-term or
short-term people. A long-term sentence might afford a
person the opportunity to attend a 2-year apprenticeship
program and shorter programs for people serving a shorter
sentence. She believed the main concern regarding education
within an institution was whether a person could complete a
program that would lead to a job or further education in
the same area. She thought it was important to work with
the education coordinators in each facility to make sure
they were working with inmates on a career path.
Vice-Chair Ortiz surmised the state was doing a better job
of meeting the particular concern. Ms. Weiss answered in
the affirmative. She reported that from 1996 to 2006 she
had served as the education coordinator at Hiland Mountain
Correctional Center. Coming into her current position she
recognized significant progress since her time at Hiland
leading towards the connection between community and
institutional corrections. She referenced receiving the
Second Chance Act grant, which enabled a contractor to look
at the department's programs and their effectiveness in
reducing recidivism. She thought the department was
currently making giant steps.
10:57:46 AM
Ms. Weiss turned to slide 25 and addressed general
participation requirements of the education and vocational
programs. The main goal of the education program in any of
the institutions was to offer the chance to have some
training and education to anyone that wanted it. In every
institution every effort was made to include anyone who
wanted the opportunity. She relayed that everyone could
work on their GED or high school diploma. The vocational
programs in general were open to the sentenced people.
However, unsentenced could participate depending on their
location and what was being offered. She conveyed that the
point of the programs was to have them open to as many
people as possible. She had been asked how a person found
out about the programs. She offered that information was
posted on the bulletin boards within the institutions.
Generally, the education coordinators would go to the
housing units and talk about the available programs. Also
information was spread by word of mouth. Inmates that had
completed a program would talk about it with their friends
and house mates. The contractors offering the programs
would come into the facilities to talk about the programs
to potential participants.
Ms. Weiss discussed slide 26: "Pro-Social and Extra-
Curricular." In addition to the GED and vocational
programs, the department offered other trainings that were
more difficult to classify. She suggested that pro-social
and extra-curricular were other ways to look at them. Under
pro-social programs, for example, the department looked at
changing the way someone thought; a cognitive program such
as criminal attitude or anger management. The department
had an anger management course offered through invitation
that was different than the one offered through mental
health. In most of the institutions, parenting courses were
offered. Re-entry was offered in every institution.
Representative Carpenter asked if the programs were used as
incentives for substance abuse, anger management, and other
behavior modification programs. He wondered if inmates
could choose not to participate in substance abuse
treatment programs but still engage in vocational
rehabilitation.
Ms. Weiss responded that a person would be able to
participate in vocational programs depending on what else
they were doing in the institution. Enrollment would be
looked at by the inmate's probation officer and the
education department. If a person had not done their
substance abuse treatment it would be discussed with them.
She could not say whether they would be allowed to take
another class.
Ms. Weiss addressed slides 26 and 27. She reported that one
of the most important programs DOC had inside the
institutions was the parenting program. She indicated that
760 inmates enrolled in a parenting course in FY 18 and 410
completed it. In general, in the 24 hour course there were
a couple of different curricula used. A completion number
of 410 was very good. In FY 17 over 1000 inmates enrolled
in the course and 621 completed it. One of the incentives
offered along with the parenting class was an enhanced
visiting program. The class offered the opportunity for the
parent to do more bonding with their children if they
completed it. Enhanced bonding might include an extra day
of visitation or an inmate being able to sit with their
child and read a book.
11:02:53 AM
Ms. Weiss continued to review programs on slide 26. She
relayed that many activities were used as incentives such
as yoga, orchestra, gardening, and writing. If inmates were
doing what they were supposed to, they were allowed to
participate in extra-curricular activities. She highlighted
that the extra-curricular activities helped individuals to
see that they were not the center of the universe but
members of a team. It was a means to addressing the
pro-social risk of returning to incarceration. She reported
that when someone had the opportunity to be with people in
a pro-social way, it helped them learn how to get along
with others as a team. She referenced an analysis that
concluded that inmates who participated in correctional
education had a 43 percent less chance of recidivating that
those who did not participate. She concluded that
correctional education played an important role in keeping
the public safe.
Ms. Weiss turned to slide 27: "Faith-Based Programs."
Faith-based programs were available in every institution.
Every group was able to do something within their own space
within an institution. The options were open for whatever
someone might need while they were incarcerated. There were
some institutions that had housing units that were
completely faith-based and had activities such as bible
studies and services available. Many faith-based volunteers
go into the facilities. She noted that as part of reentry,
the reentry programs relied on faith-based communities
outside of the institutions to participate with people that
were incarcerated. She stressed the importance of keeping
the connection from the inside to the outside to curtail
recidivism.
Ms. Weiss moved to the CRC programing on slide 29. She
explained that much of what the halfway houses offered was
similar to what was offered while people were incarcerated.
It was a good continuum of the kind of education and
information that people were getting while incarcerated
that continued into their community.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about drum circle and civil world
under NorthStar. Ms. Weiss was not familiar with civil
world. Regarding drum circle, an effort was made in some
communities with larger populations of native people to
address cultural things. A drum circle would be a cultural
education program.
Co-Chair Wilson pointed out that substance abuse and
behavioral health were the largest issues. She wondered why
there were not inpatient programs included. Ms. Weiss could
not answer the question.
Co-Chair Wilson noted that no one else had been able to
either.
Representative Josephson asked if programming was at the
discretion of the CRC. He wondered how it came to be that
the program, Living in Balance, was offered. He asked why
behavioral health was not being offered.
11:08:51 AM
Ms. Weiss was not able to answer the question.
Ms. Winkelman thought Ms. Martin could speak to what the
CRCs offered and why. Ms. Martin asked for the question to
be repeated.
Representative Josephson restated his question. Ms. Martin
thought that some of it was compelled to encourage more
programming at the halfway house. Many of the facilities
that were Geo [The GEO Group, Inc. - a same community
reentry center corporation] facilities used the programs
that were part of Alaska's CRC programs. The programs were
included to provide more options for halfway houses.
Co-Chair Wilson reported that the state rewrote a contract
in Juneau that removed treatment and raised the amount of
money the state paid per person to $158. She asked why the
state would do such a thing. Ms. Martin could not answer
the question, as she was not involved in the contract
negotiation process.
Co-Chair Wilson wanted committee members to be aware that
the state had opened negotiations. She agreed with
Representative Josephson that the state could write the CRC
contracts anyway it needed. She was frustrated with the
underutilization of halfway houses and thought the state
was missing out on an opportunity.
Ms. Weiss concluded the presentation. She conveyed that one
of the things that was very important to the administration
was a review of the programs that were being offered inside
the institutions to determine their effectiveness and
whether they addressed risks of recidivism. The department
would be conducting a review over the following 1.5 years
particularly under the Second Chance Grant.
11:12:15 AM
Representative Carpenter noted that most of the CRC's
included Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous with
the exception of Bethel which he thought was concerning. He
asked about inmates being trained as facilitators. He
thought it appeared some inmates wanted to be of help in
some capacity. He asked if a mentor program was possible
for long-term inmates that wanted to make an impact on
another person's life. He asked if the opportunity for a
long-term inmate to get in front of the pre-sentenced
inmates to form a mentorship opportunity.
Ms. Weiss responded positively. She thought it was fair to
say that inmates wanted to help each other, and that
mentorship was a popular thing to do. The department was
making the opportunity available especially to long-term
inmates. She reported that peer mentorship was an
established part of programs at many institutions. She
suggested that it would continue to be standardized. She
noted there was always the availability for peers to do
tutoring for basic education.
Representative Carpenter wondered if there was a program or
a concerted deliberative effort to get the first-time
offender connected with a long-term sentenced inmate
establishing a mentorship. He believed a crashing and
building up needed to occur for an individual to
successfully rehabilitate themselves. The mentorship goal
would be to wake up the newer inmate.
Ms. Weiss could not speak to a specific location or program
using the deliberate process he was talking about. She
offered that she was aware of many places using peer
mentoring as a way of assisting people into incarceration
and reentry. She indicated that base communities were
involved in preparing people for reentry. She would be
happy to look into any programs that deliberately address
the question Representative Carpenter was asking. She asked
for any additional input from testifiers online. Ms.
Winkelman suggested asking Ms. Link, the probation
supervisor.
11:17:30 AM
TARYN LINK, PROBATION SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
(via teleconference), noted the peer mentor programs that
she was aware of were tied to substance abuse programming
or the transformational living community. She was not aware
of any other pure mentor programs targeted at newly
arriving inmates.
Representative Carpenter commented that it was a missed
opportunity.
Co-Chair Wilson conveyed that, regarding programing for
Seaside, there was an intensive outpatient substance abuse
program at the CRC through the Norton Sound Health
Corporation. She thought similar programs could be applied
in other areas. She wanted to see additional data about
what programs were working. She expressed concerns about
DOC having the expertise to provide the needed behavioral
health programs, as the State of Alaska, being the number
one provider for behavioral health.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated the committee was out of time and
would not be hearing the scheduled presentation on the
unsentenced prison population. She explained that she had
looked at the presentation and discovered it only contained
a portion of the information she was looking for. She
suggested that 45 percent of Alaska's inmates were
unsentenced sitting in institutions. There were 2000 more
people awaiting pre-trial under supervision or electronic
monitoring. There were additional people out on their own
reconnaissance or bailed out prior to becoming part of the
system. She posed the question whether it was the system
that was the problem.
Co-Chair Wilson noted over 5,000 individuals that were
currently in the system but not sentenced. The state was
looking at adjusting its crime levels, but if individuals
could not get through the system, the state needed to fix
it. She wondered if money was the issue. If so, she
wondered what area needed more money. Presently, she was
uncomfortable adjusting the criminal code until there was
an understanding of the problem. It was not about blame,
but about getting out of the silo the state had been in for
a significant amount of time.
11:21:32 AM
Representative Josephson was reminded that there were
vacancies for several deputy commissioners within DOC. He
wondered if the department could comment.
Co-Chair Wilson directed Ms. Goode to respond to the
question.
Ms. Goode did not have any information.
Representative Josephson suggested that there was no great
story, rather the positions simply had not been filled. Ms.
Goode replied that she did not know of any forward movement
in filling the positions. Her understanding was that two
individuals had been pulled out of retirement to get the
department running but did not know anything else.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Ms. Goode to explain the duties of
the two deputy commissioners. Ms. Goode responded that one
deputy was over the Division of Institutions which also had
a director, Dean Marshall. There was a deputy commissioner
of parole and probation. Currently, the division had
Director Winkelman in place.
Representative Josephson commented that the other
departments had filled out the upper echelon. He did not
understand why the positions had not been filled.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
11:24:52 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:24 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSSHB 3 Explanation of Changes Ver M to Ver U 4.16.2019.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| CSSSHB 3 Sectional Analysis 4.17.2019.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement 4.16.2019.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| SSHB 3 Explanation of Changes Ver A to Ver M 3.27.2019.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 NEW FN DOR TT PFD.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| Unsentenced - 4.24.19 FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HFIN-DOC |
| DOC Programs (2) 4.23.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HFIN |
| HB 3 NEW FN DNR MLW.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |