Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/27/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB148 | |
| Presentation: Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2020
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Laddie Shaw
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to solemnization of marriage."
- MOVED HB 148 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION: ALASKA REHABILITATION & REENTRY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 148
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE WITNESSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
04/29/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/29/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/20/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/20/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
RON WILSON, Chair
Board of Directors
Alaska Therapeutic Court Alumni (ATCA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation of "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry."
THOMAS ROEHL, Board Member and Activities Director
Alaska Therapeutic Court Alumni (ATCA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation of "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry."
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator
Division of Health and Rehabilitation
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Alaska Rehabilitation and
Reentry A Report to the Legislature" with the use of a
PowerPoint presentation during the presentation of "Alaska
Rehabilitation & Reentry."
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
of "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry."
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:17 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACH FIELDS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Representatives Vance,
Thompson, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to
order. Representatives Hopkins and Story arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 148-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:03:54 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
3:04:43 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 148 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected. She acknowledged the value of
the proposed legislation for the marriage industry serving
people coming to Alaska; however, she stated that she does not
support easing the two-witness requirement under HB 148. She
expressed her hope that the license application could be re-
worked to make the process clearer for applicants, which would
be another way of helping the industry.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Thompson, Hopkins,
Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of HB 148.
Representative Vance voted against it. Therefore, HB 148 was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of 5-1.
3:08:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:08 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry
PRESENTATION: Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry
3:11:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be a continuation of the presentation on "Alaska Rehabilitation
& Reentry" began during the 2/13/20 House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting.
3:11:36 PM
RON WILSON, Chair, Board of Directors, Alaska Therapeutic Court
Alumni (ATCA), relayed that he is a 2010 graduate from Alaska's
therapeutic court system. He shared that he started using
alcohol at the age of 15, grew up in a traditional family, and
was the only one in his family with addictions or interaction
with the judicial system. After high school graduation his
engagement with alcohol and drugs went from recreational use to
addiction. He had his first driving under the influence (DUI)
charge in 1996; in 1999 he received his second DUI; and in 2002
he received a felony DUI. The felony sentence he received in
2002 "changed his life drastically." Through intensive
outpatient treatment, he learned he had been "medicating" an
anxiety disorder. In 2005, he was charged with cocaine use; and
in 2008, he was charged with use of a controlled substance and
faced a six-year sentence. At the time, he was married with
four children. He served six months of inpatient treatment at
Akeela, Inc. [a 501(c)(3) mental health and substance abuse
service provider], then transferred to therapeutic court. As a
non-violent offender, he was able to address his treatment and
legal issues while at home. He returned to work and completed
the 18-month therapeutic court program; he learned how to manage
his anxiety disorder and has been "clean" for ten years. He is
a homeowner, a business owner, and works as a member of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (EBEW).
MR. WILSON pointed out that there are limited slots for
therapeutic court participants - 60 in Anchorage, and less in
Palmer, Kenai, Fairbanks, and Juneau. He maintained that due to
the necessity for offenders to have access to the services that
will change their lives, it is imperative that the state find
ways to fund reentry programs, organizations, and resources that
will provide those services. He emphasized that there are many
offenders seeking that help, and many would be very successfully
rehabilitated. He stated, "Drugs and alcohol take good people
to bad places."
3:16:16 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after acknowledging that money is a
major variable, asked whether there are other actions the
legislature could take - beyond money - to further empower the
therapeutic court system or have it serve more participants.
MR. WILSON replied that expansion of program and wrap-around
services would be helpful. He mentioned that many people with
addiction have lost the ability to have sustainable housing.
With housing, they can begin to address their substance and
alcohol issues. He maintained that the peer-to-peer component
is important; the ATCA has developed rapport, alliance, and
networking with reentry programs to assist offenders in
navigating the recovery process.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Wilson for his understanding
of the demand for slots relative to availability in the
therapeutic court system.
MR. WILSON answered that there is a large demand for treatment
slots, and many offenders are being turned away. He stated that
he did not know the numbers, but he does know that the
therapeutic courts operate at about one-sixth of the cost of
incarceration. There is a beneficial financial component to
using that type of alternate justice as opposed to conventional
justice.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked about the composition of the board
that Mr. Wilson serves on.
MR. WILSON responded that the board is exclusively for graduates
of the program. The alumni group was started in 2006 and is the
longest running such alumni group in the country. It offers
peer support for offenders who have graduated from the stringent
structure of the therapeutic court and are on their own.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the board has any
responsibilities for implementing the therapeutic court program.
MR. WILSON replied that the alumni group has rapport with the
court's treatment team; and as the chair of the board and
program coordinator, he meets with program coordinators
statewide. [Members of the group] work with the current
participants of the court on issues; they participate in process
groups that participants are required to attend; and they share
with participants the challenges and successes that they, as
former therapeutic court participants, experienced. He
confirmed for Representative Hopkins that the volunteer board
provides support to graduates by connecting them with services,
housing, employment, and whatever is needed to promote the
success of the program.
3:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about any support that Mr. Wilson's
family received or is receiving through ATCA.
MR. WILSON responded that a monthly game night has recently been
implemented. It is a sober activity provided by the alumni to
current participants and their families, friends, and children;
about 50-70 people attend these functions. He added that it is
a chance for children to see their parents doing a different
type of activity than what they may have witnessed previously.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether there were other supports for
the family during the time a participant was in the therapeutic
court program.
MR. WILSON replied that outpatient treatment offered family
counseling. He mentioned that family members attended and
participated in court proceedings. He added that summer picnics
and holiday parties with families were a big component.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Wilson is required to
have SR-22 car insurance - a high risk vehicle insurance -
because of his DUIs in the '90s.
MR. WILSON answered, "I did back then." He explained that his
felony DUI was in 2002; the SR-22 was a five-year requirement;
and he is past that requirement. He further explained that at
that time, a 5-year revocation was imposed; today it is a
lifetime revocation with the possibility of a limited license
after ten years.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the monthly cost of the SR-22.
MR. WILSON answered that it was $100 per month for him, totaling
$6,000 for five years.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how the extra cost affected him.
MR. WILSON replied that it was a financial hardship to him and
his family; he also was charged a $10,000 fine.
3:26:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether Mr. Wilson's family ever
mentioned the need for family supports, and whether the board is
exploring other avenues besides the game night.
MR. WILSON answered yes. He said that there have been requests
for "significant others" to participate in the weekly process
groups; however, the dilemma is that the court team is not able
to vet all of the significant others and there is a risk of
exposing the participant to a harmful situation or person. The
ATCA is always looking at adding groups, but since the position
of facilitator is voluntary, it is difficult to find someone to
take the time.
3:27:34 PM
THOMAS ROEHL, Board Member and Activities Director, Alaska
Therapeutic Court Alumni (ATCA), stated that he organizes events
for families, including game night, bowling, and disc golf. He
maintained that family involvement is very important and
therapeutic.
MR. ROEHL relayed that eight years ago he hurt his back; his
insurance was Medicaid; he was sent to a pain clinic and given
an [opioid] pain medication - Dilaudid; he needed surgery, but
no one was willing to perform surgery on a Medicaid patient.
After a year of using and abusing his pain medication, a surgeon
was identified who would do the surgery. He said that the
surgery fixed his back and he was taken off pain medication, but
he was addicted. When he returned to his medical provider to
have his addiction treated, he was given a new medication -
Suboxone. But the Suboxone didn't work, so he sold it "on the
street" to be able to afford a medication like what he had been
taking, which turned out to be Roxicet - an opioid pain
medication he could buy on the street. A friend asked him why
he was paying so much for Roxicet and introduced him to heroin.
He said, "Once you find heroin, there's almost no escaping." He
went on to methamphetamine, cocaine, and crack cocaine. He
described one of his darkest moments: When the firefighters
resuscitated him using NARCAN, he was angry that his life had
been saved.
3:30:48 PM
MR. ROEHL relayed that a couple months later, he briefly met a
man who was a graduate of Alaska's therapeutic court. The man
explained that to get into therapeutic court, a person must have
a drug-related crime or a DUI. Mr. Roehl said that a couple
months later, he went into The Home Depot store to steal some
items to pay for his addiction; he remembered what the stranger
had told him and made up his mind to get caught, so that he
could get into a wellness court. He made sure that he got
caught and that the law enforcement officer recorded that he was
stealing to pay for his addiction.
MR. ROEHL related that four months later, he entered wellness
court. In the first three months, it paid for and arranged
housing. The court has a rigorous schedule - two classes per
day, five Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA)
meetings per week, and one or two alumni meetings per week. He
stated that another component of the success of wellness court
is a medication called Vivitrol; Vivitrol blocks the [opioid]
receptors in the brain and lasts 28 days. He said that his
first day out of jail, he met with his probation officer (PO);
he asked to be given Vivitrol that day, which his PO arranged;
he had no insurance, but the first time sample was free; and the
moment he received the Vivitrol injection, it erased all craving
for heroin. He stayed on Vivitrol for ten months, paid for by
Medicaid. He said, "I owe pretty much everything to ...
therapeutic court, and Vivitrol, and the whole [therapeutic
court] team, and people like Ron, who was my peer support
through [ATC] Alumni Group."
MR. ROEHL mentioned two close friends whom he met through
Alaska's therapeutic court. He concluded by saying that he has
seen Alaska's therapeutic court save many lives.
3:36:13 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Roehl could identify
ways - beyond funding and creating more slots in the program -
that the legislature could help.
MR. ROEHL answered, "That's pretty much it." He said that ATCA
partners with Partners for Progress, a reentry program. He
offered that until there are more slots available, there is a
need for such programs; they offer a way for people to become
aware of therapeutic court. He stated that not everyone knows
about therapeutic court; he didn't know about it; he had been in
and out of jail many times; and he wished he had known about
therapeutic court the first time he was caught for shoplifting.
He expressed his conviction that the first time someone goes to
jail for anything drug-related, that person should be assessed
automatically as a candidate for therapeutic court. He stated
that he wished that had happened to him five years ago; he
definitely would have been open to the possibility.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for more comment on non-violent
offenders entering the criminal justice system and not being
aware of therapeutic court.
MR. ROEHL responded:
Pretty much the only way you hear about Alaska
Therapeutic Court - and I can vouch for this 100
percent - sometimes in therapeutic court they do give
you jail sentences; that's usually a last resort; and
it's usually 24 hours to 48 hours sentence. And when
you're in there for that 24 to 48 hours, you're going
to talk about wellness court. And that's pretty much
the way the word is spread. And it's a positive
experience usually because ... you know you're getting
out. ... You know it's just a moment for you to
reflect on what you did and what you can do to correct
it. You usually have an assignment while you're in
there to come out with something written down about
why it won't happen again.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that because therapeutic court
[participants] are so segregated from traditional inmates
serving time in correctional facilities, it creates a firewall
of awareness. Awareness of therapeutic court comes about
through hearsay.
MR. ROEHL answered that he didn't consider it segregated; once
an offender gets a "jailable" sanction and is in for 24-48
hours, he is not segregated but is just in with one other
roommate. The chances are very high that the roommate is also
in for a drug-related offense.
3:39:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked whether some offenders fail in
therapeutic court.
MR. ROEHL replied, "Absolutely, yes." He said that he doesn't
know the percentages but offered that "some people are ready for
it and some people aren't." He maintained that the ones who are
ready for it "make it very well." He added that there are many
success stories.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked about the qualities of the
offenders who are ready for therapeutic court - if there are
common denominators among them.
MR. ROEHL said no. He stated that addiction is ravaging every
walk of life no matter the economic status of a person.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that he was not asking about
the characteristics of those who get addicted, but the qualities
of those offenders who are ready for therapeutic court and to
put forth the effort.
MR. ROEHL relayed that some people use therapeutic court to get
out of jail and "that's okay." He continued by saying that at
some point, usually within the first three months, there is a
"light switch moment" when the program starts working for the
individual. The person engages more, shares more, attends AA
and NA meetings, and engages with his/her sponsor. The whole
team looks for that to occur and can see that the program is
working. He added that once the offender starts to work his/her
own program, the POs will fight for that person. He referred to
the reentry simulations and offered that he would like to see a
therapeutic court simulation. Under the therapeutic court, the
offender does not go back to jail for every sanction; there are
alternatives, such as community service.
3:43:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the 60 therapeutic court
slots in Anchorage are always full and whether the other slots
in communities around the state are always full.
MR. WILSON answered that the slots are not always full, and it
varies. He said that it depends on the selection process and
the criteria; because of the limited number of slots, there is a
vetting process.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether slots are open because of
the lack of awareness of therapeutic court. He asked whether an
offender convicted of a drug-related crime could be told that
therapeutic court is an option at the time of conviction. He
expressed his understanding that the slots are all funded.
MR. WILSON agreed that the slots are all funded. He stated that
increased awareness of the program is key. Many don't hear
about the program until they are incarcerated and find out about
it from another offender.
MR. ROEHL offered a suggestion: Show a video about Alaska's
therapeutic court in the jails. He stated that his suggestion
may come to fruition through the efforts of Partners for
Progress.
MR. WILSON offered that the most successful people are those who
complete the drug course; they are the ones proven to be less
likely to recidivate. The alcohol offenders - because alcohol
use is socially acceptable and legal - tend to be less
successful after completing the program. He offered his guess
for the success rate for completing the program to be about 95
percent. In answer to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins's question
about commonalities among offenders who are ready to get help,
he stated that the peer-to-peer component and the process groups
allow offenders to be enlightened by those who have "hit rock
bottom" and can share what's ahead for the offenders.
3:46:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the timeline of the program and
the opportunity to give the offender additional time to reach
that light switch moment.
MR. WILSON answered that there is an 18-month requirement for
the DUI court; there is a 12-month timeline for drug offenses.
He maintained that a continuum of care is what is really needed,
because after graduation - when all the oversight and
accountability is gone - there needs to be something to bridge
the gap. He said that he has thought of collaborating with the
Department of Corrections (DOC), the probation office, and
prosecutors to implement a requirement that the graduate
participate in the alumni group for four months after completion
of the [therapeutic court] program to provide accountability.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why the program is shorter for drug
offenses compared with alcohol offenses.
MR. WILSON responded that he did not know why.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a PO could request additional
time in the program for an offender.
MR. ROEHL answered that the need for additional time becomes
evident; sometimes people relapse in the program and the time is
extended, or they are put back into an earlier phase to "reset."
He mentioned that the alternative is jail time.
3:50:00 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the peer-to-peer support
is "baked" into the therapeutic court program.
MR. WILSON answered, yes it has been. He said that once the
alumni group was formed, the peer-to-peer support component was
adopted as part of the program. He offered that nationally it
is recognized as an important component.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the lower recidivism rates
among therapeutic court participants and the reduced cost - one-
sixth the cost of incarceration. He expressed his interest in
Pay for Success (PFS) - Social Impact Bonds - which is a
financial tool to fund something proven to create better long-
term social outcomes, even when there is considerable upfront
cost. He offered that the limiting factors - the number of
slots available and awareness of the program - could be
addressed through policy changes.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her interest in redirecting
dollars from less successful programs to proven programs.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented that the public's perception is
that this type of treatment is occurring in Alaska's DOC, but it
is not; therefore, there is a false expectation that the issues
that put offenders into the correctional system are resolved by
the time they are released. She offered that the state needs to
provide directives to DOC on how to give direction and options
to offenders. She opined that it is unfortunate that it has
taken the state this long to recognize and implement these
effective programs. She lauded the two testifiers for their
rehabilitation and testimony; their experiences are being used
as a tool to help other offenders and to help the legislators
provide better policy.
3:55:57 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:55 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.
3:58:19 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator, Division of Health and
Rehabilitation, Department of Corrections (DOC), continued her
presentation (from the 2/13/20 House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting and included in the committee packet),
entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation and Reentry A Report to the
Legislature," by starting with slide 11, entitled "Vocational
Programs." She explained that the report was a requirement
under HB 49; it reviews DOC's rehabilitative programs and
statewide efforts for reentry. She stated that lack of
employment is one of the criminogenic factors that contribute to
recidivism; the vocational programs through DOC are integral to
rehabilitation. She pointed out the 15 programs listed on the
slide and mentioned that there are vocational program
coordinators in all DOC facilities who ensure the availability
of a wide variety of programs. The programs are chosen based on
inmate interest, instructor availability, size of the facility,
and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD)
occupational forecast to ensure that the programs being offered
meet the needs of the offender and of Alaska. She stated that
the programs are constantly being reviewed to make sure that DOC
is providing the appropriate program to the right offender at
the right time. The programs can take anywhere from one day for
certification to two years. She relayed that last year, 24
individuals received a trade certification while in custody.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how DOC tracks the outcomes of
training as far as inmates being hired upon release, and how the
current occupational needs influence class offerings.
MS. BROOKS replied that DOC is continuing to develop a review
process, but the outcomes are difficult to track. She said that
DOC can determine if an individual is employed or not employed,
but there currently is no mechanism in place that determines
that an individual, who completed a program, was hired in that
field upon release, except through anecdotal information from
probations office and education coordinators. She relayed that
DOC looks to DOLWD recommendations for programs that meet the
needs of the offender population.
4:02:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked why information technology (IT) is
not on the list on slide 11. She also asked if there is data on
how many people enlisted in each of the classes.
MS. BROOKS answered that DOC keeps rosters for each class and
tracks the number of people completing each class. She said
that a computer skills class is one of the core programs under
the education group of programs. The department is looking to
expand that program.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether DOC has considered collaborating
with employers that have apprenticeship programs; he mentioned
union, non-union, regional and village corporations, and Alaska
Native corporation shareholders. He said, "The model that the
operating engineers and the iron workers developed could be
extended beyond those trades and beyond union apprenticeships to
more generally leverage multi-employer associations and some of
our largest employers, which would be Alaska Native regional
corporations." He asked her to discuss DOC's capacity to
formalize those linkages.
MS. BROOKS responded that DOC has several partnerships related
to the programs he mentioned. The education coordinators,
institutional POs, and field POs are some of the strongest
linkages to ensure that individuals - through the offender
management program - have opportunities and linkages to
employers in the community, once a class is completed. She
added that through a grant, a job specialist from DOLWD was
placed at one of the facilities with incredible success; the
specialist placed about 130 women out of Highland Mountain
Correctional Center (HMCC) into jobs. The grant has expired,
but DOC has partnered with DOLWD to put job specialists back
into the facilities; there is one currently at HMCC, and DOC is
trying to make that job fulltime. She maintained that job
placement is a critical piece for inmates to use the skills they
have learned.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the cost of having a DOLWD staff
person fulltime in every facility.
MS. BROOKS answered that she did not know.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked to be provided the information and
mentioned the possibility of it being included in the fiscal
year 21 (FY21) operating budget request.
4:06:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked about the process for getting
employment for the inmate and the contribution of the job
specialist.
MS. BROOKS answered that it varies depending on the trade
program. She said that often the job specialist works with the
inmate on determining what job is a good fit, which class to
take, and then prepares an employer in the community for the
employee. She maintained that the effort is in collaboration
with the other job skills programs provided to the inmates while
in custody - resume writing and interview skills - to prepare
them to succeed at the job and be a good employee.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS concurred that the first step for the inmate on
release is connecting with reentry services and searching for a
job; however, the more refined model is for them to leave
incarceration and have a job lined up, which takes an additional
level of coordination. He asked about the differences between
facilities as far as involvement with these programs,
considering the reliance on skilled instructors.
MS. BROOKS replied that it depends on size of the facility: at
Goose Creek Correctional Center (GCCC), DOC can offer several
robust trade programs by virtue of the size of the facility and
the space available; Anvil Mountain Correctional Center (AMCC)
and Fairbanks Correctional Center (FCC) cannot. She added that
AMCC and FCC have large pretrial populations; however, Spring
Creek Correctional Center (SCCC), Wildwood Correctional Center
(WCC), and GCCC all have longer-term prisoners - the sentenced
population - therefore, are better positioned for those types of
programs.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked her to discuss facilities with strong
programs and what enables success at those facilities.
MS. BROOKS relayed that the barber program is one of GCCC's
popular programs; there is an inmate who teaches the class and
manages the program. She mentioned that the program is being
replicated in WCC and SCCC. She offered that the welding class
is taught out of a mobile welding truck. Some facilities have
welding simulators for practice. The department has
partnerships with the ironworkers; several individuals who
operate the mobile welding truck were former inmates. The
welding class is very popular and always full.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS commented that the building maintenance
apprenticeship was an apprenticeship initiated by DOC with
DOLWD; he asked for the status of that program.
MS. BROOKS stated that she would follow up with that
information.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether DOC has leveraged its power of
procurement to support these programs, that is, provide
opportunities and incentives to the employers who employ
returning citizens by offering the companies work at the
facilities.
MS. BROOKS responded that she didn't know whether that
opportunity is written into the procurement policy; however, she
stressed that DOC has absolutely been able to forge those types
of relationships through the instructors and the individuals
that come into the facilities, who become familiar with the
inmates, and in turn, work with the inmates, giving them every
opportunity for employment upon release. She mentioned that
DOLWD has the Fidelity Bonding Program [for the employment of
at-risk job seekers] and there is a federal tax credit available
to employers who hire at-risk employees.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that DOC consider procurement
incentives for companies that hire returning citizens.
4:12:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the job training was for
sentenced inmates or all inmates.
MS. BROOKS answered that there are programs available for the
pretrial population, but the length of the program is the
limiting factor. A pretrial inmate can be put on the wait list
but would be farther down the list than a long-term inmate.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Brooks to comment on the status of
seafood employment partnerships at the different facilities for
both inmates and returning citizens.
MS. BROOKS answered that DOC is currently working on identifying
a pool of offenders who will be eligible to work in the canaries
next season. She offered that there is a demand for those
workers.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether that type of work is limited to
communities with both a correctional facility and a processing
plant, or whether inmates can be dispatched to another community
for the work.
MS. BROOK replied that when DOC looks for a pool of offenders
for seafood processing, it looks statewide. She relayed that
inmates working at the seafood plant in Kenai would not have to
necessarily come from WCC.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether there are processing plants in
King Salmon, Naknek, and on the Aleutian Islands that are
employing returning citizens and whether DOC has managed the
hurdles, such as workers being able to meet with their POs.
MS. BROOKS answered that she is unsure and will follow up. She
maintained that there has been interest from several employers
across the state for inmate hire.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that there is a perpetual
undersupply of labor for seafood [processing]; importing people
to do that work is difficult; and although the work is hard, the
pay is good. He said that it is a partnership that he wishes to
support.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS agreed. He maintained that hiring inmates is
cheaper than hiring a J-1 [non-immigrant] Visa worker and
"smooths" the transition of the inmate back into the community
when released. He said, "That would be such a win for the state
both in terms of the inmates and the processors."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE mentioned that the University of Alaska
(UA) is offering courses on seafood processing and trying to
generate more activity, because the number of non-residents
working in the industry is extremely large. She asked whether
DOC has partnerships with UA in programs, such as seafood
processing, to fill the need and provide for jobs.
MS. BROOKS replied, "We don't for seafood." She continued by
saying that there are some college programs available to the
offender population, most are self-study programs, and DOC
provides tutoring. The department has an agreement with
Ilisagvik College [Utqiagvik] to work with some of the women at
HMCC.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the program involving the
seafood industry has started and if so, how many have
participated.
MS. BROOKS relayed that last year some offenders participated in
the program - with mixed success. She explained the difficulty
in identifying offenders to go to the processing plants: it is
the same population that DOC needs to fill the community
residential center (CRC) slots, and some offenders are not
interested in working in the seafood industry because it is very
hard work. She offered that DOC is trying to build up a pool of
workers so that when the processing plant is ready for workers,
there will be a group ready to go. She maintained that the
industry is very interested in the inmate population, and DOC is
trying to encourage inmates to apply.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS remarked at the challenges of the processors in
getting employees, the need for predictability of a supply of
workers as they enter a very busy season, and the role of the
state in providing workers.
4:19:15 PM
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 12, entitled "Faith-Based Programs,"
and offered that DOC provides many opportunities for offenders
in custody to find spiritual supports; it has fulltime chaplains
primarily provided by religious volunteers through Alaska
Correctional Ministries [a nonprofit organization that partners
with DOC Chaplaincy Ministry statewide]. There are about 1,200
active religious volunteers who provide the following: fulltime
chaplains; chapel services; "faith mods" [an ecumenical
residential model]; transformational living communities - an
intensive faith-based residential program which offers a
spiritual approach to addressing anger management, criminal
thinking, and addictions; religious studies; and spiritual
support.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether there is an overlap between
medication assisted treatment and faith-based programs, or are
they separate tracks.
MS. BROOKS responded that someone in the faith-based program
could participate in medication assisted treatment, but the two
are separate programs.
MS. BROOKS continued with slide 13, entitled "Prison-Based
Domestic Violence Programs," and relayed that DOC partners with
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Alaska Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA). Currently DOC and
CDVSA are engaged in a comprehensive review of the domestic
violence programming to ensure that the programs are evidence-
based and being delivered as designed. Presently the domestic
violence prison-based programs are only available in three of
the facilities - GCCC, Lemon Creek Correctional Center (LCCC),
and FCC. Once the review is complete and DOC implements the new
curriculum, the hope is that it will be offered in every
facility. She stated that the need for that program certainly
exists.
MS. moved on to slide 14, entitled "Sex Offender Management,"
and stated that Alaska has the highest rate of sexual assault in
the country and about 15 percent of DOC's population are
incarcerated for sexual crimes. The department worked hard to
establish the programs, and enrollment increased 25 percent last
year. She mentioned that the "Institutional Sex Offender
Treatment" program is in five institutions; there are 88 slots
for treatment; and there are about 30 on the wait list. She
mentioned that there are more offenders needing the program, but
they prefer to wait until they are out of custody and can
participate in the community treatment programs. There are
about 240 slots in the community programs and the waitlist is
about 80. She said that a little over a year ago, DOC started a
"Video-Based Treatment" program; an Anchorage-based mental
health clinician provides sex offender treatment to offenders
who return to their rural communities.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why the inmates wait to get sex
offender treatment until that are outside of the facilities.
MS. BROOKS answered that the inmates are not required by the
court to participate in in-custody treatment, and there is a
stigma associated with being a sex offender in custody. The
high-risk sex offender residential program in custody is
intensive; the inmate lives on a "mod" and undergoes treatment
every day. There are no residential sex offender treatment
programs in the community, and for some, the community treatment
model is more appealing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Ms. Brooks has a sense of
which model is more successful.
MS. BROOKS responded that she doesn't have that data but can
offer that Alaska operates on the "containment model"; once an
individual is released from custody, there is a specially
trained PO and the released inmate engages in cognitive
behavioral treatment and undergoes polygraphs. For individuals
who complete the program, the recidivism rate for sexual crimes
is under 5 percent. It is a very successful model and
considered the national gold standard for sex offender
maintenance and treatment nationally. She clarified that the
model is for released inmates. She explained that recidivism is
defined as offending within three years post-release. For a
non-sex offender, the recidivism rate is 59.9 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the length of time the offender
is subject to the containment model.
MS. BROOKS answered, it depends. She said that the treatment
provider's recommendation in collaboration with the PO's
recommendation determines whether the offender's treatment is
complete. Goals are established, and once the offender achieves
the goals, the treatment team meets and makes the determination.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there are similarities
between the wellness court and the containment model. She
expressed her understanding that both the wellness court and the
containment model are very successful models; however, there is
"a huge swath of people in between" that are not getting what
they need.
4:26:22 PM
MS. BROOKS replied that one of the most effective models for
reducing recidivism is putting individuals through cognitive
behavioral treatment. She maintained that the challenge for the
Alaska correctional system is that only about 25 percent of the
population is released on probation and parole; that leaves a
huge percentage of the offender population for whom there is no
requirement to participate in substance abuse treatment, sex
offender treatment, education, or any of the programs. She
explained that DOC is working very hard to build up programs in
custody, so that when the offenders are literally a captive
audience, DOC can offer them the opportunities. She reiterated
that DOC cannot force them to participate in the programs; it
tries to incentivize the programs, and staff encourages inmates
to participate. She maintained that the success stories that
the committee heard is a powerful tool; therefore, DOC is trying
to build up peer mentorship and support programs. That would
allow individuals, who have been successful in the recovery and
reentry process, to encourage and direct inmates toward
recovery.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether mandating participation in
the programs violates [inmate] freedoms, and whether there are
court-ordered treatments.
MS. BROOKS responded that it depends: anyone convicted of a sex
offense must participate in sex offender treatment; there are
some substance use cases for which the offender is court ordered
to participate in substance abuse treatment. She said that if
there is not a court order in place, it may be put in place by a
parole board. She mentioned that education is never a court-
ordered program and DOC cannot require it; therefore, there must
be intrinsic motivation for the offender to participate. She
said that some inmates are not interested, and the most DOC can
do is to offer it, make it attractive to inmates, and encourage
them to participate.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed her understanding that there was
a policy to give inmates credit for time served if they
participated in treatment. She offered that it is a smart
policy and asked for a history of such a policy.
4:30:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) was working on peer support
certification, and whether DOC has worked with DHSS to bring
more peer support into facilities. He asked for an update on
that effort.
MS. BROOKS confirmed that DHSS is working on a peer
certification program to ensure that people who are interested
in this work have the appropriate training. There are paid
positions in the community currently. There is an agency out of
Fairbanks doing that training and certifying people, which is
not DHSS approved, but the training is required.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked where the sex offender treatment
programs are located.
MS. BROOKS answered that the in-custody sex offender treatment
programs are in GCCC, LCCC, AMCC, WCC, and HMCC.
4:31:54 PM
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 15, entitled "Prosocial & Give-Back
Programs," and declared that a busy inmate is a safer inmate.
Some of the programs listed on the slide are designed to keep
the inmates busy and engaged in healthy prosocial programs. She
said that yoga, running, and basketball are life skills which
teach the inmates healthy living. Book clubs encourage healthy
communication; quilting and hobby craft teach concentration and
focus and perhaps the opportunity to create and finish something
for the first time. She emphasized the power of these
activities to foster self-satisfaction and an opportunity to be
engaged in positive work. She mentioned the value of the canine
program - to train a dog and experience a feeling of
accomplishment. She maintained that the giveback programs offer
the opportunity to put someone else first, give back to the
community, and grow "self-worth." She stated that creative
writing classes can be therapeutic for the offenders; the
Lullaby Project at HMCC pairs inmates with musicians to write a
lullaby to one's child. She offered that most of these programs
are implemented through the special interests of the staff and
community volunteers. She also talked about the knitting and
woodworking projects that are dispersed as gifts. She asserted
that the prosocial activities are an integral part of
rehabilitation and addressing the criminogenic needs for
developing prosocial attitudes, prosocial peers, and prosocial
activities.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed the importance of people in the
community positively engaging with inmates.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked where the prison system gets their
books, and what DOC can do to expand newspaper access. He
stated that he understands that there is no access to news in
the prisons.
MS. BROOKS answered that the facilities have libraries.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the prison libraries were
state-funded.
MS. BROOKS expressed her belief that most of the books in the
DOC libraries are donated. She added that the General Education
Development (GED) testing books are funded through the education
program.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY mentioned two successful programs offered
at LCCC: the Northwest Coast Arts Partnership Expansion
program, sponsored by the Sealaska Heritage Institute (SHI); and
"The Flying University" program [the study of literature and
philosophy led by a professor at the University of Alaska
Southeast (UAS)]. She expressed her understanding that both
programs were discontinued. She asked for follow-up regarding
those two programs.
4:37:19 PM
MS. BROOKS continued by turning to slide 16, entitled "Reentry,"
which read: "PROCESS BY WHICH OFFENDERS WHO HAVE BEEN RELEASED
RETURN TO THE COMMUNITY." She relayed that reentry is the
process that helps offenders return to the communities and
successfully resume family and community responsibilities. She
maintained that reentry is not a new concept; Alaska has reentry
coalitions, reentry events, reentry in-reach, and grant funds
focused on reentry. The POs and mental health clinicians have
been engaged with reentry for a long time. She stressed that
"reentry" is not a buzzword and it's not a program but really a
philosophy. The offender management plan (OMP) - from day one -
builds toward successful reentry and returning the inmates to
the community. She stated that given the fact that 95 percent
of inmates return to the community, DOC has an obligation to
ensure that these individuals return "better" than when they
came to DOC and that someone in the community is ready to help
them keep the momentum going.
MS. BROOKS moved on to slide 17, entitled "Systemwide Reentry
Efforts," and stated that the slide represents a general
overview of the report. She mentioned DOC's "Second Chance Act
Grants" of $1 million to develop a sustainable approach in
establishing policies and practices to improve recidivism
outcomes. The grants fund dedicated reentry POs to work with
offenders while they are still in the facilities to transition
them to the community with their OMPs and supports. The grants
also provide transportation, clothing vouchers, housing
vouchers, or whatever is needed by the reentrants to "get on
their feet" in the first few months after release. She stated
that other Second Chance Grants have been awarded in Alaska; DOC
collaborates with the other recipient agencies to ensure they
are well equipped to maximize the grant opportunities.
MS. BROOKS discussed two mental health reentry programs -
Institutional Discharge Project Plus (IDP+) and Assess, Plan,
Identify, Coordinate (APIC) - that have been in place for a very
long time and are specific to DOC's mentally ill population.
Individuals who suffer from serious mental illness and/or
cognitive disabilities have a very structured release plan when
they leave prison, which includes a place to live, access to
medications, case management, and Medicaid. These programs have
support from the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA).
She stated that DOC is working on increasing case management
access to DOC facilities; there is a request for proposal (RFP)
for a reentry coordinator for substance abuse so that someone
completing the substance program in custody has an immediate
connection to aftercare in the community upon release. For an
inmate who was assessed with a substance abuse problem but was
unable to complete treatment in custody, a case manager will
guide him/her to a program in the community.
MS. BROOKS described the in-reach projects of the reentry
centers and reentry coalitions; community providers come into
the facility to put on a "reentry fair" informing the inmates
about community services that are available to released inmates.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for information about the DOC staff
person who coordinates with the reentry agencies to ensure the
"web of support."
MS. BROOKS responded that currently DOC has one position who is
an overall reentry coordinator. She stated that there is a
request of $740,000 in the current budget (FY21) to establish a
reentry unit and add additional staff. She relayed that it is
an area needing more collaboration, organization, prioritizing,
and resource management.
4:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked about the release of inmates. She
said that she heard while touring SCCC that inmates get a bus
ticket upon release and are on their own; however, she
maintained that busses bring inmates to the facility weekly.
She asked, "Why aren't we helping those ... people who are
reentering get a bus ride back to the community, so that they're
not feeling stranded that they ... have to create that first
step on their own?" She asked whether what she heard was
accurate.
MS. BROOKS answered that the bus that Representative Vance is
referring to is a DOC bus; DOC has a statutory requirement to
return people to the point of arrest. She added that because
SCCC is for long-term offenders, they are from every possible
community in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is a differential
between a person's point of arrest and the person's "home"
community, where the released person can connect with his/her
PO, housing, and employment.
MS. BROOKS replied that she doesn't have data, but generally an
individual is returned to his/her home community, which is the
point of arrest.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked that DOC offer comments and suggestions to
the legislature on making a policy change that would offer the
returning citizen a choice in that matter.
4:46:35 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections (DOC), clarified that DOC has a statutory obligation
to take the inmate back to the point of arrest, but that policy
is often waived. She mentioned that for an inmate who has been
in prison a long time, his/her family may have relocated. In
answer to a question from Representative Fields, she confirmed
that DOC takes the inmate back to his/her home community when it
is in the best interest of the state.
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 18, entitled "Rehabilitative
Services Moving Forward," and stated that DOC is looking for a
"pilot" halfway house that will be reentry focused. It would
give that released inmate, who is not quite ready to go back to
the community, an opportunity to continue receiving program
services. It would be an intensive program that might include
DOLWD post-incarceration employment classes, GED classes,
interview skill classes, or whatever classes the person may
need. She offered that DOC is standardizing its core curriculum
throughout its facilities; therefore, someone can transfer
between facilities and continue in a program. She said that a
section of HMCC is being remodeled to expand its mental health
unit to ensure that DOC's most vulnerable population has as much
access to support as possible. She emphasized the training
opportunities for staff: mental health first aid; trauma
informed care; and crisis intervention models.
MS. BROOKS continued by saying that offenders struggle to get
substance abuse assessment in custody and after release. The
department has moved to a standardized software which is a gold
standard for addictions, entitled "Continuum Software"; staff
have been trained and the software is being implemented; DOC is
considering it for its treatment providers. She reviewed the
benefits of the different agencies using the same assessment
tool.
4:52:01 PM
MS. BROOKS referred to the medication assisted treatment (MAT)
within DOC and DHSS's new pilot program in Anchorage. It is
focused on increasing the number of people receiving MAT
services and expanding the treatment provider availability to
that population. She offered that access to MAT in rural
communities is still very limited.
MS. BROOKS stated that the Department of Education & Early
Development (DEED) is another partner of DOC for funding,
programs, and education supports for the offender population.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for an explanation of "Increased Access
Through 1115 Waiver," shown on slide 18.
MS. BROOKS explained that it is a DHSS program in which the
[1115] Medicaid waiver would allow greater access to substance
abuse treatment and behavioral health treatment. She added that
the waiver is anticipated to have a significant impact and make
it much easier for the DOC population to access that critical
treatment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for confirmation that the 1115 waiver
would allow Alaska to tap additional federal resources to
provide substance abuse treatment to more people.
MS. BROOKS answered, "once they get out in the community, so not
in custody." She said that the programs offered in facilities
are state-funded; in the community, access is limited; the
waiver will increase benefits and access to both mental health
and substance abuse treatments.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the percentage of inmates with
mental health [illness] and brain injury, and the training that
staff receive to work with people with mental illness.
MS. BROOKS responded that DOC has mental health clinicians in
every facility and psychiatrists on staff. Offenders are
screened as soon as they enter the facilities. About 65 percent
of the inmate population are AMHTA beneficiaries, that is,
individuals with a diagnosable mental health disorder, cognitive
disability, or developmental delay; about 80 percent of the
population have substance use disorders; about 20-22 percent of
the population have a serious and persistent mental illness,
such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. She stated that it
is very difficult to determine the percentage with traumatic
brain injury (TBI); nationally the percentage is anywhere from
15 to 87 percent. She said that TBI is often self-reported, and
the events causing TBI vary greatly; however, DOC looks at an
individual's ability to function to determine the presence of a
TBI.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether all staff have training on
managing people with mental illness.
MS. BROOKS replied that DOC has mental health clinicians,
psychiatric nurses, and the medical staff. She added that the
correctional officers (COs) receive mental health training and
suicide prevention training in the academy; AMHTA funds
additional trainings for mental health, such as mental health
first aid, trauma informed care, and a train-the-trainers for
crisis intervention training (CIT). Through community law
enforcement, there is now a model for correctional crisis
intervention teams.
4:57:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how DOC could let inmates know
about therapeutic courts while they are in jail and offer them
that opportunity.
MS. BROOKS acknowledged that she was unaware of the difficulty
in accessing the program. She stated that the public defender's
office and the judges often recommend the program and are the
primary conduits. She mentioned that she passed her business
cards to the testifiers and is open to posting information in
the facilities. She opined that there are opportunities through
DOC substance abuse treatment programs, institutional POs, and
mental health clinicians for making people aware. She
maintained that DOC works very closely with the mental health
courts and regularly refers individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for follow-up in the form of a plan
for implementing those suggestions.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked about the role of local police departments
in identifying people who are stealing to "feed" an addiction
and filling out the police report in such a way that the person
can access the therapeutic court.
MS. BROOKS moved on to slide 19, entitled "Needs Assessment for
Continued & Enhanced Services," to review the feedback from the
other agencies involved in reentry, to identify gaps [in
service] that still exist. She said that the reentry unit will
work on the items listed on the slide.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the delta between housing that
reentrants are finding and housing that reentrants need. He
asked whether the state has tried to meet housing needs for
reentrants through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
supported housing options. He maintained that doing so would be
much less expensive than reincarcerating someone when the person
fails to find housing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for follow-up on possible statutory
changes to facilitate obtaining a REAL ID Act identification
(ID) for a reentrant.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he is interested in knowing which
facilities can issue state-recognized IDs upon release of an
inmate, as opposed to having to get one at a Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) office.
MS. BROOKS responded that DOC gives the inmate a DOC ID; it is a
voucher with the individual's picture and verifies his/her
identification. The DMV does accept that document; however, the
person still needs to go to DMV. About 12 percent of the
released population are requesting assistance with getting an
ID.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether DMV could bring ID services into a
facility - perhaps on an itinerant basis - so that everyone
leaving a facility who needs a driver's license could get one
without having to visit DMV.
MR. BROOKS maintained that there have been discussions regarding
that issue, and she will provide an update.
5:03:39 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at [5:04]
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Rehabilitaition Reentry comments, Anglea Hall.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
|
| DOC Rehabilitation Report 01-30-2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
|
| DOC HSTA Presentation - Rehab and Reentry Report 02.13.2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB148 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.11.2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB148 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.11.2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.11.2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Sectional Analysis 2.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/2/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Supporting Document HAP.pdf |
HSTA 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 2.13.2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/20/2020 8:00:00 AM HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |