Legislature(2013 - 2014)WASILLA
07/25/2013 10:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
WASILLA, ALASKA
July 25, 2013
10:27 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster - via teleconference
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Lance Pruitt
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Donald Olson
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Max Gruenberg
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Hollis French
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Josephson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Shelley Hughes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act establishing the Alaska Sentencing Commission; relating
to jail-time credit for offenders in court-ordered treatment
programs; allowing a reduction of penalties for offenders
successfully completing court-ordered treatment programs for
persons convicted of driving while under the influence or
refusing to submit to a chemical test; relating to court
termination of a revocation of a person's driver's license;
relating to limitation of drivers' licenses; relating to
conditions of probation and parole; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/27/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/13 (S) STA, JUD
04/04/13 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/04/13 (S) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/09/13 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE
04/09/13 (S) DP: DYSON
04/09/13 (S) NR: GIESSEL
04/09/13 (S) AM: COGHILL
04/09/13 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/13 (S) Moved CSSB 64(STA) Out of Committee
04/09/13 (S) MINUTE(STA)
07/25/13 (S) JUD AT 10:00 AM WASILLA
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefed the committees on what led to
today's meeting.
JERRY MADDEN, former Chair
Corrections Committee
Texas House of Representatives
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the mission to keep from building
any new prisons in Texas.
JUSTICE WALTER CARPENETI
Alaska Supreme Court
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed why SB 64 is needed, what it
should cover, and what must follow.
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, former Chair
Alaska Prisoner Re-entry Task Force
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed her work on the Alaska Prisoner
Re-entry Task Force
KIMBERLY MARTUS, Manager
Tribal Court Enhancement
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the culture-based prisoner re-
entry program that the Bristol Bay Native Association
established in 2012 after acquiring federal grant monies.
LARRY COHN, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the work of the
Criminal Justice Working Group (CJWG).
RON TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided statistics on the Alaska prison
population and recidivism.
STEVEN KING, Criminal Justice Planner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to recidivism
rates in the context of SB 64.
WALT MONEGAN, President
Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the Alaska Native Justice Center
re-entry program in the context of SB 64.
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff
Senator John Coghill
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of SB 64, version O.
ALISON LAWRENCE, Senior Policy Specialist
Criminal Justice Program
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the provisions of SB 64 and
justice reinvestment, focusing specifically on the proposed
sentencing commission and the PACE Program.
JESSE WIESE, Policy Analyst
Justice Fellowship
Prison Fellowship Ministries
Lansdowne, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed corrections spending and criminal
justice reform in the context of SB 64.
JUDGE JAMES N. WANAMAKER - retired
Partners For Progress
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Partners For Progress and
therapeutic justice in the context of SB 64.
JANET MCCABE, Chair
Partners For Progress
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about Partners For
Progress and therapeutic justice in the context of SB 64.
BILL SATTERBERG, Attorney
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to SB 64 and provided
examples of how working on a problem piecemeal creates
unintended consequences.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 64 on behalf of the Alaska
Court System.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:27:14 AM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 10:27 a.m.
Present at the call to order were Senators Wielechowski, Dyson,
McGuire, and Chair Coghill; Representatives Pruitt, LeDoux,
Lynn, Foster - via teleconference, Millett, and Chair Keller.
SB 64-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
CHAIR COGHILL announced consideration of SB 64. [CSSB 64(STA),
version 28-LS0116\O, was before the committee.]
10:34:02 AM
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS briefed the committees on what led to
today's meeting. He noted that faith-based organizations,
community nonprofits, training programs such as Nine Star, and
the Parnell Administration were represented. He stated that the
hearing was in part a result of discovery that tough-on-crime
conservative Republicans nationwide are pushing for corrections
reform to reverse the skyrocketing growth of state prison
budgets. He observed that people with left-of-center political
views for years have been interested in rehabilitation and a
smarter approach to justice. He highlighted that conservative
Republicans are leading this effort in an extraordinary way to
do better across the state. He described this as "a magic
moment" in American political history for making progress
together.
SENATOR ELLIS reported that a host of conservative states have
begun to implement new approaches to smart justice because their
state budgets can no longer support past practices. He said
that, in this area, leaders like Grover Norquist are right on
track looking for better more cost-effective measures than
simply continuing to incarcerate more and more non-violent
offenders at unsustainable public expense. He stated agreement
with the principles and goals articulated in the Right on Crime
website and acknowledged that the conservatives are right about
corrections reform. He described Newt Gengrich, Ed Meese,
William Bennett, Governor Jeb Bush, and Texas Representative
Jerry Madden as a few of the leaders who have joined Mr.
Norquist in this initiative. This matters in Alaska because the
state's high recidivism rate and rapid growth in its prison
population is a recipe for fiscal disaster, he said.
10:37:47 AM
SENATOR ELLIS highlighted that the 2011 report by the Alaska
Judicial Council showed that Alaska is among a handful of states
that has the highest prison population growth in the nation and
an alarming recidivism rate. In 1982, 1 out of 92 Alaskans were
incarcerated. In 2009, 1 out of 36 Alaskans were incarcerated
and two-thirds were back in custody within 3 years of their
release. He emphasized that if the state's prison population
continues to grow at the current rate of 3 percent per year,
Alaska prisons will be at capacity in 2016. He noted that the
most recent Alaska prison, [Goose Creek], cost $250 million and
has operating expenses of $50-$60 million per year. However, if
Alaska follows the example set by Texas, it won't have to build
another prison in the next three years. That state has paved the
way on correction reform with great success.
SENATOR ELLIS described the hearing today as an important step
toward a smarter, evidence-based, fiscally prudent corrections
system. He said this is an opportunity to learn from experts on
the ground in Alaska and from one of the best minds in the
country on corrections reform.
SENATOR ELLIS introduced former Republican member of the Texas
House of Representatives Jerry Madden and reviewed his career
accomplishments. Under his leadership, Texas adopted cost-
effective, evidence-based, corrections reform that includes
treatment, rehabilitation, and re-entry programs while still
providing the necessary corrections structure to protect public
safety. This is a smarter use of public dollars, he said.
Senator Ellis welcomed Representative Madden describing him as
one of the nation's foremost experts on corrections reform and a
great American.
10:41:59 AM
CHAIR COGHILL welcomed Jerry Madden.
JERRY MADDEN, former Texas House of Representatives Corrections
Chairman, stated that he is a West Point graduate who thinks
like a soldier and an engineer. He explained that he served for
20 years in the Texas Legislature and that he had no experience
with corrections for the first 12 years. It was therefore quite
a surprise when in 2005 the Speaker informed him that he would
be the chairman of the Corrections Committee. When he asked what
he was supposed to do the Speaker said, "Don't build new
prisons; they cost too much." Representative Madden said that
became his mission. He emphasized that having a well-defined
mission is critical so that everyone can look to it and work
toward it. He passes that advice along to other states that are
looking at corrections reform.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN explained that in 2005 about 150,000
people were in prison in Texas, some 400,000 were on probation,
and 75,000 were on parole. These numbers were projected to rise,
just like the forecast in Alaska and almost every other state,
he said. Looking for solutions, he forged a working relationship
with a minority Senator who had worked unsuccessfully on
criminal justice issues for a number of years.
10:46:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN said there are two choices when addressing
a rising prison population and building another prison isn't an
option: either open the door and let people out or figure out a
way to slow the numbers of people coming in. He acknowledged
that, in Texas, letting people out was not politically advisable
so the only workable alternative was to slow the numbers of
people coming in.
A review of the statistics showed that the people working in
probation had some good ideas, and with more money they could
probably do something to reduce prisoner numbers. Because new
money wasn't available, the only viable alternative was to
change things within the system and use those public dollars on
things that work. This strategy has become known across the
country as justice reinvestment or smart justice.
10:50:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN said the Texas Legislature passed
legislation to implement this strategy, but it was vetoed
primarily because it shortened the terms on probation time.
However, the bill did have some good provisions like expanding
specialty courts and returning money to communities to keep
people from going to prison. During the Interim, legislators
worked on the legislation focusing on how to break the cycle.
Some of the things that were identified were jobs, technology
support for people working in parole, mental health treatment
programs, and substance abuse treatment programs.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN explained that the Texas Parole Board
previously was granting parole to people if they completed an 18
month drug treatment program. The problem was that there was an
18 month waiting list to get in the program. In Texas, the hard
bed cost per prisoner per year is about $20,000 so the cost
savings would be tremendous if 5,000-10,000 prisoners could be
released 18 months earlier. Paying for 10 more prisoners to go
through the program saved enough money to pay for expanding the
program, he said.
10:54:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN discussed cost saving programs that keep
people from entering the system the first time. The numbers show
that spending money on the education system is more cost-
effective than spending money on a person after people have
entered the justice system. Texas also changed its juvenile
system. Over the long term, investing in families and early
childhood saves money, he said.
At the start of the 2007 legislative session, the Texas
Legislative Budget Board projected there would be 17,700 more
prisoners in the state by 2012, and 8-9 new prisons would be
needed to house these people. This would cost the state about
$250 million plus annual operating costs of $40,000 to $50,000
per prison. At about the same time the statisticians returned
the numbers that showed that reinvestment in smart justice
programs would work and stabilize the prison population for the
next five years. He said it was gratifying to see that the $500
million that the governor had included in his budget to build 3
new prisons could instead be spent on education, transportation
and other things to benefit the state as a whole.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN said the result of implementing justice
reinvestment and smart justice programs is that between 2011 and
2013, Texas housed 7,000 fewer prisoners. Parole rates were much
higher, parole revocations declined 40 percent, juvenile
probations declined 30 percent, and the arrest rate dropped 10
percent. In 2011, the legislature closed one prison and in 2013
voted to close 2 more. In 2011, $100 million was cut from the
juvenile system yet it is better and more effective. This is
where "Right on Crime" started, he said.
11:00:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN described bringing together liberal and
conservative think tanks to rewrite the probation bill so that
it would be palatable to both parties. The original legislation
was broken into 3 separate bills and the ideas that were
developed began to radiate around the country. Since then other
groups have come together to work on these ideas. Texas was the
first to implement these reforms, and now other states are
following this path and making even better changes. He said
these are smart policies that make the public safer, are
friendlier to addictions, and cost less money.
11:02:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN discussed some of the smart things that
Texas did within the system that have been helpful in other
states. He also offered suggestions and observations
specifically related to SB 64: expand the proposed sentencing
Commission to include the entire criminal justice system because
the charge language is broader than just sentencing; ensure a
broadly based commission; include specific representation for
alcohol abuse; look at the legislation that Georgia and South
Dakota passed; and do a risk analysis of the prisoners. He said
there are two types of prisoners: the ones we're mad at and the
ones we're afraid of. For the ones we're mad, change their
behavior so we're no longer mad at them. He noted that the
legislation passed in Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia provides good examples in this area.
11:08:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN emphasized the importance of leadership
when working on justice reinvestment and implementing smart
justice programs. He noted that some states have done it with
legislative leadership and others with a combination of the
legislative, executive and judiciary. It's also important to
make sure something works and is done properly. Finally, it's
important to have the courage to make further changes if
something doesn't work as planned.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN discussed specialty courts and suggested
adhering to the standards set for these courts. He concluded
that the process to pass smart justice legislation is demanding
but it is the right thing to do.
11:13:56 AM
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Representative Madden for his
recommendations.
SENATOR MCGUIRE commented on the value of an outside
perspective. She asked, based on the legislation passed in
Georgia and South Dakota, if he had a recommendation for
expanding the proposed sentencing commission to the "justice
reinvestment commission" or the "justice reinvestment in
victims' rights commission."
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN suggested she look at the legislation in
those states because they did have specific names for their
commissions. He reiterated that those states addressed the
entire system, not just sentencing.
11:16:32 AM
SENATOR DYSON expressed appreciation for the comments regarding
victim restitution. He noted that prison fellowship wants to see
the victim restored as much as possible to their pre-event state
and the perpetrator restored in their relationships and a
productive lifestyle. He said his sense is that making
restitution helps that offender's attitude about re-entry and
forgiving themself. He opined that Alaska is doing an appalling
job of restoring the victim and getting the offender into the
restoration cycle. He asked for recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN agreed that victim restitution is very
difficult and suggested looking at how North Carolina defined
ways to provide restitution. He noted that prison fellowship
opened his eyes to the fact that it's difficult for somebody who
is back in the community to get out of the cycle of poverty and
that affects other social programs in the community. He
emphasized that these things should be part of the discussion.
CHAIR COGHILL said the committee would look at and rethink the
nonviolent "barrier crimes."
SENATOR DYSON asked if he had experience expunging felony
convictions from someone's record after they're released in
order to facilitate re-entry.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN said he worked on an expungement bill in
2011 and it was a difficult process, but his belief is that a
person who actually changes should be given help.
11:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if he would recommend large or
gradual legislative changes.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN replied the states that have done it would
recommend going big, because the climate may change and there
may only be one chance.
SENATOR COGHILL thanked Representative Madden and welcomed
Justice Carpeneti.
11:26:53 AM
JUSTICE WALTER CARPENETI, Alaska Supreme Court, Juneau, Alaska,
stated that none of the decisions of the legislature are more
important than protecting the safety and security of Alaskans,
providing for the opportunity of all citizens to reach their
full potential, and doing these things in a cost-effective way.
Establishing the conditions that allow justice to be done is one
of the highest functions of government, and the sponsors of SB
64 deserve the thanks of all Alaskans for proposing legislation
that seeks to further these goals, he said.
JUSTICE CARPENETI said he would break his remarks into three
areas: why this legislation is needed, what it should cover, and
what must follow.
He suggested members look at the materials in the research
summary on the cost of crime from the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) to understand why this legislation is
needed. It points out that Alaska's prison population remains
among the fastest growing in the nation. There were five times
more inmates in 2007 than in 1981 and the number has doubled
since then, during a time when crime rates dropped by about 30
percent. The fact that the Department of Corrections budget is
approaching $300 million and the cost of the last prison was
$250 million clearly demonstrates the need.
JUSTICE CARPENETI discussed his thoughts on what a sentencing
commission should cover. He said crime and the proper response
to it is a very complicated area, and the approach that the
legislature takes must recognize that reality. This is not a
one-size-fits-all situation, and there is no silver bullet.
JUSTICE CARPENETI said he believes that the legislation should
address in-prison, before-prison, and after-prison programs;
sentencing; and offender risk and needs assessment tools.
The ISER report shows that a lack of availability of prison
treatment programs is an impediment to progress, just as
Representative Madden discussed. He suggested the legislature
look at programs designed to change prisoners' cognitive
thinking, because the evidence shows that this is an area where
the most progress can be made. He highlighted the importance of
looking at community-based treatment programs as well as what
happens before prison. He noted that Representative Madden
discussed the importance of programs for juvenile offenders, and
Figure 7 in the research summary provides data from the Judicial
Council study on how expanding specific programs would
contribute to reducing growth in numbers of inmates. The
evidence shows that the high return programs are the ones that
start the earliest. Pre-school programs for at-risk children and
programs for juvenile offenders demonstrate that the return can
be very high if resources are put in the right place. He said
Carmen Gutierrez would talk about after-prison programs and re-
entry. This important area can't be overlooked.
JUSTICE CARPENETI addressed probation, parole, and sentencing.
He said the Probation Accountability and Certain Enforcement
(PACE) Program was started in the last several years and should
be considered carefully. With regard to sentencing, he said he
believes it is important to incorporate offender risk and needs
assessment tools. He noted that he addressed this in detail in
his 2012 State of the Judiciary speech.
11:32:05 AM
JUSTICE CARPENETI reviewed specific provisions in SB 64.
Referencing the powers and duties of the commission found on
page 4, he suggested it would be safer to include the specific
language about risk and needs assessments if legislators agree
that this is a really important tool for judges to have. He
noted that in his State of the Judiciary speech last year he
reported that the National Conference of Chief Justices in 2011
endorsed a resolution encouraging state and local courts to
incorporate offender risk and needs assessments in the
sentencing process. He described it as an area that holds
promise. Directing attention to subsection (5) on page 4, he
said the language might be interpreted to include the means to
enhance the effectiveness of probation and parole programs like
PACE, but it might be safer to include that specifically in the
legislation.
11:33:34 AM
JUSTICE CARPENETI suggested that legislators might look at the
field of collateral consequences of conviction (barrier crimes)
and noted that the Uniform Law Commission recently adopted a
proposed uniform law on collateral consequences of conviction.
He said the number of statutes that affect a person after
emerging from prison is astonishing and there is need to be much
more focused in addressing the risks and the areas that need
risk protection. Protection beyond that point makes it much
tougher for somebody to go through the re-entry process for no
purpose.
JUSTICE CARPENETI read the following excerpt from the Executive
Summary of the Alaska Sentencing Commission report from 1990:
Across the country governors, legislators, and
corrections officials are trying to manage corrections
systems that seem out of control. Prisons are
overcrowded, incarceration rates are climbing, and
corrections budgets are growing rapidly. Sentencing
practices have come under increasing attack for being
inequitable and inconsistent and for making
inefficient use of limited correctional resources.
During the last decade, Alaskans had the largest
percentage increase in prison population in the
country. It has used its oil wealth to keep pace with
this increase by building new prison facilities, but
it cannot continue to do so indefinitely. Other states
have found that trying to build prisons fast enough to
keep up with the rising incarceration rates is a
losing proposition.
Prison overcrowding points out the need to take a
balanced approach to management of the corrections
system. Offenders who present the most serious threat
to public safety, the violent criminal and serious
recidivist clearly should be in prison. On the other
hand, prison is not the only means by which offenders
can be punished. Limited prison capacity dictates the
need to create a continuum of non-prison corrections
programs tailored to the less serious offender.
JUSTICE CARPENETI said the critical point of the forgoing is
that it was published in 1990. He applauded the current effort,
but cautioned against allowing the work product to end up as yet
another report that ends up on a shelf for an ex-Chief Justice
to dig up 23 years from now.
He concluded that after study the next critical step is action,
and that is the legislature's power and responsibility.
11:37:26 AM
CHAIR COGHILL offered his belief that the risk and needs
assessment is probably a key element. He asked how credible the
current risk assessment is and how it plays out in the
courtroom.
JUSTICE CARPENETI replied it's difficult under the current
statutory scheme. He offered his understanding that most of the
risk assessment that's done now is done in corrections. He
reiterated that the Conference of Chief Justices strongly backed
the idea of the use of risk and needs assessment at the time of
sentencing. He said the current sentencing structure doesn't
provide the opportunity at a very high level, and the proper
balance is one of the things that the proposed commission can
look at.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that corrections does a risk and needs
assessment, but it becomes a different issue for sentencing.
JUSTICE CARPENETI clarified that the point he was trying to make
is that under the current statutory scheme the ability to use a
risk and needs assessment tool is probably very limited.
11:40:05 AM
SENATOR DYSON said his sense historically is that a huge
percentage of cases are pled out so judges aren't able to use
discretion about the appropriateness of the sentence. He asked
if presumptive sentencing is one of the things that legislators
need to look at with the proposed sentencing commission.
JUSTICE CARPENETI agreed that is one of the things to look at,
because a judge isn't able to do much judging when the
presumptive scheme has steadily narrowed the discretion of the
sentencing judge. He noted that in his last State of the
Judiciary speech he said that most judges will accept a
negotiated plea that is within a larger or smaller zone of
reasonableness, but negotiated pleas transfer the discretion of
the judge first to the prosecution and then to the defense.
SENATOR DYSON commented that the statistics seem to show that
perpetrators that confess and take responsibility for their
misdeeds do disproportionately poorer in the sentencing process
than someone who has the means to retain an effective defense
attorney. Further, it appears that for some it is a cultural
norm to face their mistake when caught and start the
reconciliation process. He asked if that is a pattern and, if
so, what can be done about it.
JUSTICE CARPENETI replied he wasn't sure it's a pattern. He said
a lot is involved in the decision to enter a plea and either
confess guilt or enter a no contest plea, and he didn't agree
with the observation that people who step forward and take
responsibility earlier do more poorly. He suggested it would be
necessary to ask the district attorneys their view. He relayed
his personal experience as a defense lawyer was that the clients
who were able to step up and accept that they were guilty and
give him the opportunity to negotiate on their behalf did the
best in terms of how they came out overall. A person going into
jail while maintaining his or her innocence, even knowing that
wasn't true, did not set themselves up for reform.
11:45:15 AM
SENATOR FRENCH discussed the dramatic change in sentencing
policy announced yesterday by the Department of Law and how that
will affect the discretion that trial judges will have in the
sentencing decision. He asked Justice Carpeneti his idea on how
moving the risk and needs assessment up to the sentencing phase
will play out, if it will take the form of a pre-sentence
report, and who would do that work.
JUSTICE CARPENETI replied he had never sentenced somebody after
a risk and needs assessment, but in the states that have adopted
the approach the probation and parole office does the work-up
and presents to the court what the use of that tool would
indicate the appropriate sentence or range of sentence should
be.
11:47:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER said he can understand the risk analysis as a tool,
but he struggles to understand the needs portion. He asked what
that tool would look like and if it would be a self-reporting
survey.
JUSTICE CARPENETI replied there are three principles involved.
First, the supervision and treatment levels should be determined
by the offender's risk of reoffending. Second, the need
principle calls for targeting the provision of services with
specific risk factors that will most likely contribute to a new
offense. Third, the responsivity principle specifies that
treatment interventions must employ cognitive social learning
strategies. These approaches are designed to change behavior and
are directed at an offender's specific risk factors.
He continued to explain that the person answers a long series of
questions and that information is developed into a matrix of
possibilities. There is a fair amount of discretion in applying
this tool to the person involved, but this is the result of a
lot of research over the years. This gives a sense of the risk
the person presents, the needs the person has and if they can be
met within the system, and how responsive the person is expected
to be.
11:50:31 AM
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Justice Carpeneti and introduced Carmen
Gutierrez.
11:51:27 AM
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, former Chair, Alaska Prisoner Re-entry Task
Force, provided her credentials. She explained that the
Department of Corrections (DOC) has a three part mission: 1)
provide secure, safe confinement; 2) provide rehabilitative
programs; and 3) provide a process of supervised community re-
entry. When she was hired by DOC the commissioner specifically
tasked her to work on re-entry. She relayed that Chair Coghill
invited her to talk about the Alaska Prisoner Re-Entry Task
Force and her comments would focus on what the task force has
achieved to date.
She explained that early in 2010 the Criminal Justice Working
Group formed a subcommittee called the Alaska Prisoner Re-Entry
Task Force. The task force developed a mission to reduce
Alaska's recidivism rate and thereby improve public safety and
the overall health of Alaska's community. The membership is a
broad cross section of state and community members. One of the
first goals of the task force was to draft Alaska's first five-
year strategic re-entry plan. It was to be a working document
that would evolve over time. One of the best outcomes achieved
by virtue of the work of the task force is a growing awareness
across the state that Alaskans are not getting good value for
the criminal justice dollars spent. For example, two out of
three Alaskans return to jail within three years of release, and
the 2013 corrections budget is up to $323 million compared to
$167 million in 2005.
11:57:10 AM
MS. GUTIERREZ reported that in 2002, 42 percent of the people in
prison were non-violent offenders and 58 percent were violent.
In 2011, 62 percent of the people in prison were non-violent
offenders and 38 percent were violent. She questioned whether
this is making good use of very expensive hard prison beds. She
said she's very mad at the citizens that don't follow the law by
using drugs and commit theft to support their drug habit, but
she doesn't fear them. Nevertheless, she said, under the current
presumptive sentencing scheme, many Alaskans are going to prison
for two to four years for that kind of behavior.
MS. GUTIERREZ noted that the task force initially was Anchorage
centered, but members quickly recognized that needed to change
because every community in Alaska has its own unique set of
resources and unique set of problems. With support from the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority and the Alaska Judicial
Council the task force was able to hire a project coordinator,
and she established community re-entry coalitions in the Mat-Su
Valley, Juneau, Bristol Bay region, Kenai, Fairbanks, and
Anchorage.
The goal of the community coalitions is to 1) identify the
community-based re-entry resources available; 2) make sure local
parole officers are aware of these resources; 3) identify the
gaps; and 4) develop strategies to fill the gaps. Filling the
gaps doesn't necessarily mean more money, but more efficient use
of existing resources. However, until communities are prepared
to these receive these people, the recidivism numbers may not
improve.
MS. GUTIERREZ said the task force identified several primary
areas to focus on and created specific workgroups to address
substance abuse, housing, and employment. She noted that in many
cases the state's corporate landlord will not rent to convicted
felons.
12:04:58 PM
MS. GUTIERREZ discussed collateral consequences. She explained
that the Justice Center is funding the National Collateral
Consequences Inventory, and the American Bar Association is
reviewing statutes and regulations in every state to identify
the existing barrier crimes. She relayed that when she contacted
the director of that project she learned that the inventory for
Alaska would be completed last. With written encouragement from
Senator Coghill, Senator Ellis, Justice Bolger, and Attorney
General Geraghty, Alaska was moved to the top of the list. The
list is available online and shows that Alaska has more than 500
barrier crime statutes and regulations. This does not include
federal barriers. She posed a hypothetical example to illustrate
that a conviction for drug possession at age 23 will follow that
person throughout their life and limit opportunities for
housing, employment, and things like becoming a foster parent.
12:09:46 PM
MS. GUTIERREZ explained that misdemeanants represent the largest
group of offenders that come through the criminal justice
system, but there is but no effective means of dealing with that
behavior. Judges and prosecutors have said that the single
greatest deterrent in trying to work with these individuals is
that there are no community-based treatment programs for this
population. These offenders need to change their criminal
thinking through cognitive behavioral treatment programs but
there aren't any so they're sent to prison instead. The
consequence, according to statistics from the Judicial Council
Study, is that misdemeanants are rapidly becoming felony
offenders.
Justice reinvestment is an opportunity to identify the drivers
of the prison population and reinvest a small portion of the
money to build the next prison into other proven strategies that
will reduce the number of people entering prison. This is what
Texas has been so successful in doing.
12:11:57 PM
MS. GUTIERREZ concluded her comments by quoting excerpts from
the speech President George Bush delivered when he signed the
Second Chance Act of 2007. The intent of this legislation was to
fund demonstration re-entry projects across the nation.
The country was built on the belief that each human
being has limitless potential and worth. Everybody
matters. We believe that even those who have struggled
with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way
we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners
who've paid for their crimes - we help them build new
lives as productive members of our society.
The work of redemption reflects our values. It also
reflects our national interests.
The bill I'm signing today, the Second Chance Act of
2007, will build on work to help prisoners reclaim
their lives. In other words, it basically says: We're
standing with you, not against you.
12:13:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN suggested that the judiciary chairs
schedule hearings to learn about the Second Chance Act programs
that come to the State of Alaska.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Ms. Gutierrez and introduced Ms. Martus.
12:14:20 PM
KIMBERLY MARTUS, Tribal Court Enhancement Manager, Bristol Bay
Native Association (BBNA), Dillingham, Alaska, stated that BBNA
serves 31 villages in the Bristol Bay region, and in 2012
acquired a federal grant to develop a culture-based prisoner re-
entry program. The goal is to reduce recidivism, improve
outcomes for returning prisoners, and increase public safety in
the region. She relayed that BBNA is a member of both the Alaska
Prisoner Re-entry Task Force and one of the prisoner re-entry
community coalitions.
She agreed with Senator Ellis that the search for new approaches
and evidence-based programs is uncharted territory. In addition
to culture-based programs, BBNA also hopes to address peer
mentoring for released prisoners, family reunification while in
and after prison, and re-entry as soon as a person enters the
prison system. She noted that the literature says that one
factor that leads to successful re-entry is family contact and
visits. It has been difficult for families from rural Alaska to
visit prisoners in urban areas and even more difficult for
prisoners who have been incarcerated outside of the state. The
program will also have components to addresses anti-violence
training, and substance abuse with a family and community focus.
MS. MARTUS said there are no evidence-based cultural programs
for Alaska Natives or other indigenous groups so the idea is to
build on the traditional "Men's House" model that is used for
men to support and interact with each other.
12:19:19 PM
The hope is that these efforts will lead to funding of a data
reporting center and funds for a facility that could provide
residential treatment. For many people, Alaska Natives in
particular, the recovery process doesn't start until after the
person is released from prison so these programs and services
are very important.
MS. MARTUS noted that the funding BBNA will pursue is only
available to tribes and tribal organizations from the U.S.
Department of Justice. She highlighted that the federal funds
that BBNA is leveraging to make improvements to the state
justice system is costing the state nothing. This helps stretch
the limited state justice funds in rural Alaska.
12:20:41 PM
MS. MARTUS discussed why developing these programs is important
from the rural, Alaska Native perspective. According to the
Alaska DOC 2012 Offender Profile, 66.8 percent [sic.] of
offenders who are incarcerated are Alaska Natives, and 47.5
percent of juvenile offenders are Alaska Natives, yet Alaska
Natives comprise only 17 percent of the overall population.
She said that Alaska Natives collectively shoulder the majority
of the over 400 collateral consequences that are codified in
state statutes. This affects civil life, civic life,
citizenship, voting, employability, housing, and eligibility for
public entitlement programs. There are also collateral
consequences on commercial fishing occupations and wildlife
guiding, because some licenses are no longer available to
someone with a conviction history.
12:23:15 PM
MS. MARTUS discussed the difficulties that small, interconnected
and extended rural Alaska families face when a family member is
incarcerated in urban Alaska. She said that entire communities
are affected, and anecdotally relayed that extended families are
sometimes comprised of both perpetrators and victims.
MS. MARTUS emphasized the importance of funding additional
recidivism studies for Alaska Natives compared to the overall
population to better define the size and scope of the problem.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Senator French pointed out that DOC
data indicates that Alaska Natives represent 37 percent of the
prison population, not 67 percent.
MS. MARTUS clarified that the statistics she cited were from the
Alaska DOC 2012 Offender Profile.
12:27:38 PM
CHAIR COGHILL recessed the meeting.
1:32:20 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and welcomed Mr. Cohn.
LARRY COHN, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, expressed appreciation for
being invited to give a brief overview of the work of the
Criminal Justice Working Group (CJWG). He explained that the
CJWG is comprised of commissioners and other top policymakers in
state agencies that intersect with the criminal justice system.
The CJWG was formed in 2007 and the members collaborate on ways
to improve the criminal justice system. The group is currently
co-chaired by Justice Bolger and Attorney General Geraghty, and
meets about nine times a year. The two main committees in the
working group are the efficiencies committee and the
prevention/recidivism committee.
The efficiencies committee tries to find ways to make the system
work more efficiently. One of the first projects the committee
undertook was to address the increasing time it takes to dispose
of and resolve criminal cases. The consensus was that the major
contributing factor is the time it takes to exchange discovery
in criminal cases. A determination was made that it would be
very useful to conduct discovery electronically. A pilot project
was implemented in Juneau earlier this year and by most accounts
it is operating successfully. A manager has been hired and the
project will be evaluated and outcome measures identified in
terms of the staff time saved, agency resources saved, and the
impacts on case dispositions.
MR. COHN said the efficiencies committee also took on an audit
project of the way that public defense attorneys accepted
criminal cases. There was concern from some legislators that
defendants appeared to be getting lawyers at public expense that
they didn't deserve. The Court System identified 400 cases that
were arraigned in one week and the Judicial Council reviewed
them to see whether the judges were following the rules for
appointment of public council. The information was provided to
the court to do background checks on the defendants to see if
they were truthful about their financial resources. In addition,
a survey was done of private attorneys who represent criminal
defendants to determine whether the criminal rules for the
appointment of public counsel were still current, because they
were 15 years old.
1:38:50 PM
Another area the efficiencies committee has worked on is
information sharing between agencies. It is important for
research and other purposes that agencies be able to share data
in the criminal justice system in a way that is efficient yet
secure and confidential. Members of the Criminal Justice Working
Group have received some training on the new national standards
called Global Reference Architecture (GRA), and are working with
the reconstituted Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board,
which is housed in the Department of Public Safety. The goal is
to develop uniform standards among agencies so that an
individual is identified the same way in all agencies.
1:40:42 PM
The minor offense subcommittee is helping to define more
efficient ways to handle traffic violations. The Therapeutic
Court Subcommittee coordinates agency funding and looks for ways
to maximize the effectiveness of those courts. The Judicial
Council has interviewed stakeholders to make sure that courts
are operating at maximum capacity. That subcommittee is also
looking for ways where some offenders may be able to get their
driver's license back and find employment in a way that is
consistent with public safety; at resolving issues that came up
with a jail closure; and the feasibility of a justice center in
Bethel that might house the Court System, district attorney, and
public defender.
1:41:52 PM
MR. COHN described the work of the recidivism subcommittee. In
2007, the Judicial Council published a study of about 2,000
offenders who were charged with a felony in 1999 and had been
released from jail for at least three years. These people were
followed and provided data for the often cited statistic that
two-thirds were reincarcerated within three years of release.
That contributed to the formation of the Criminal Justice
Working Group and in large measure has been the impetus for the
work that the recidivism subcommittee has done in the area of
prevention.
The subcommittee reviewed a Washington State meta-analysis that
looked at hundreds of evaluations of programs and alternative
ways to deal with recidivism other than incarceration, and
identified the most cost-effective programs. These ranged from
childhood and early family intervention through juvenile
justice. With funding from the legislature, the subcommittee
worked to put this information into an Alaskan context to
identify the most cost effective alternatives in Alaska. That
has helped guide the work since then. The committee has a keen
interest in continuing the recidivism data and at their request
the Judicial Council did further recidivism studies, which were
published in 2011. It tracked 23,000 offenders released to
Alaska communities in 2008 and 2009, including misdemeanants.
That turned out to be significant, because misdemeanants have
higher recidivism rates than felons. It also turns out that
people convicted of lessor, C felonies, have higher recidivism
rates than those convicted of more serious felony offenses.
The data was analyzed in a number of ways such as the
demographics of the offender, type of offense, and location of
the offense. The report suggested that the state's efforts to
address recidivism could be most effective if it targeted less
serious offenders, violent property offenders, youthful and
minority offenders, and offenders in Anchorage and Southeast. It
showed that early intervention and dealing with people when
they're misdemeanants pays off.
1:45:21 PM
MR. COHN noted that Ms. Gutierrez discussed the Prisoner Re-
Entry Task Force, which was formed by the recidivism
subcommittee. He thanked Chair Coghill, Senator Ellis, Justice
Carpeneti, and Attorney General Geraghty for working with the
American Bar Association to highlight Alaska's interest in the
National Collateral Consequences Inventory.
He noted that the committee asked the Judicial Council to
evaluate Alaska's Therapeutic Courts and also the DOC substance
abuse program. Therapeutic Courts were analyzed in Anchorage,
Bethel, Juneau, and Ketchikan and they found the programs were
promising, particularly for graduates.
MR. COHN discussed the Probationer Accountability with Certain
Enforcement (PACE) Program. He explained that it is a pilot
program that began in Anchorage and is modeled on Hawaii's
Project Hope Program. It deals with offenders who are chronic
probation violators by providing swift and certain punishment.
The Judicial Council evaluated the pilot project in Anchorage
and found that it appeared to be successful. However, several
areas were identified that needed more data. The program has
been expanded to Palmer and Fairbanks, which focuses on domestic
violence cases. He expressed hope that the council would be able
to follow up on these programs to evaluate their worth.
1:49:19 PM
MR. COHN said the working group also has a competency
subcommittee that examines cost effective ways to deal with high
recidivism rates of defendants who are found to be incompetent
to stand trial. The committee has also become interested in a
study by the Division of Juvenile Justice. In 1996 the
legislature changed the law and waived into the adult system
certain juveniles who are charged with more serious offenses.
The study shows that juveniles that are handled in the adult
system have higher recidivism rates than those who are handled
in the juvenile justice system. That finding needs more study
and discussion, he said.
MR. COHN said the Judicial Council supports the efforts to form
a sentencing commission and other provisions in SB 64. He
highlighted that a constitutional responsibility of the council
is to conduct studies to improve the administration of justice
in Alaska and to report periodically on those studies and
recommendations to the legislature and the Alaska Supreme Court.
He offered his belief that the Judicial Council has been a
useful resource in the area of research. However, he read the
annual reports from the previous sentencing commission issued in
1990-1993 with mixed emotions. As Justice Carpeneti touched on,
those reports could have been written last week. Many of the
same problems that were identified then persist today, including
prison overcrowding and high recidivism rates.
MR. COHN noted areas where progress has been made since the
early 1990s: eliminating disparities in sentencing; more
evidence about what works and what does not work; using a single
identifier for offenders to make it easier to follow them
through the system; more and better programs; and more
information on recidivism. These factors can be attributed to a
climate change for ways to deal with recidivism without locking
more people up for longer periods of time. He described the
bipartisanship that the legislature has manifested and the
collaboration in the Criminal Justice Working Group as a
fortuitous event that makes it more likely that the proposed
sentencing commission will be more successful than the previous
one. If the commission is convened, the Judicial Council would
be happy to provide staff and administrative support. A fiscal
note has been submitted.
1:54:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked why recidivism rates for misdemeanants
are higher than recidivism rates for felons.
MR. COHN said the answer involves some speculation, but one
difference is that misdemeanants who are placed on probation are
not under supervision. That might be an area to review, he
added.
CHAIR COGHILL asked about the working relationship and
authorities of the Criminal Justice Working Group and the
proposed sentencing commission.
MR. COHN emphasized the importance of collaboration and
highlighted the potential resource of the Judicial Council.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Cohn and introduced Mr. Taylor. He
asked him to clarify whether Alaska Natives represent 67 percent
of the prison population or 37 percent.
1:59:59 PM
RON TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that Alaska Natives represent
37.16 percent of the correctional population for males and just
under 36 percent for females. He directed attention to the
PowerPoint included in members' packets and opined that
Commissioner Schmidt has brought the Department of Corrections
forward in terms of looking at evidence-based practices,
restoring lost programs, and ensuring that the programs that are
in place are appropriate. He reviewed the department's mission
statement and highlighted the goals to protect the public;
reduce recidivism; delay the need for the construction of a new
prison for sentenced offenders; ensure that incarcerated
offenders spend their time in custody productively; and work
collaboratively with stakeholders to achieve the foregoing
goals.
MR. TAYLOR offered additional statistics. In 2012, DOC booked
40,347 offenders into its facilities. As of December 31, 2012,
5,955 offenders were in prison, a halfway house or on electronic
monitoring. An additional 6,143 offenders were on probation or
parole. There are 13 facilities statewide and 13 field probation
offices. DOC has 15 regional and community jail contracts with a
bed capacity of 157, and 8 contract halfway houses with a bed
capacity of 839. Electronic monitoring programs are operated in
7 communities with a capacity of 385. He noted that in some
locations DOC has doubled and tripled the use of electronic
monitoring and halfway houses.
December 33, 2012 demographics show that males represent 88
percent of the population in institutions, 82 percent in halfway
houses, and 78 percent on probation/parole. What is surprising
is the growth rate of the female population. Since 2003, the
female population has grown just over 6 percent, which is triple
the growth rate of the male population in the same time period.
Age demographics have remained fairly constant except that the
50 and older population is increasing, which has caused medical
care costs to increase tremendously. The race and ethnicity data
shows that Alaska Natives are overrepresented in the
correctional system. Alaska Natives represent 37 percent of the
population in institutions, 32 percent in halfway houses, and 26
percent on probation/parole.
2:06:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked why the Alaska Native population is so
over represented in the correctional system.
MR. TAYLOR replied that was not his area of expertise; he was
reporting the data that DOC captured.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN observed that Alaska Natives and African
Americans comprise 47 percent of the population.
MR. TAYLOR responded that all minorities represent over 50
percent of the population.
CHAIR COGHILL said the disparity becomes very apparent when the
numbers are compared to the representation in the general
population.
MR. MR. TAYLOR concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if he could speculate on the reasons
for the growth in the population.
MR. TAYLOR deferred the question to prosecutors or public safety
representatives.
2:08:34 PM
MR. TAYLOR reviewed types of offenses in the institutions and
halfway houses. He highlighted that offenses are against a
person such as assault and disorderly conduct represent just
over one-fourth of the population in institutions followed by
the sex offender population, probation/parole violations, and
property offenses. By comparison, the numbers show that alcohol
offenses are filling the halfway houses followed by person
crimes, property, and probation/parole violations. He
highlighted than no sex offenders are going to halfway houses;
those individuals are in custody and they're staying much
longer. Sentences have doubled in the last decade and 40 percent
fewer are released to supervision than just five years ago. Over
the last year, the institutional sex offender population has
increased one percent.
2:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked which offense has the highest
recidivism rate.
MR. TAYLOR suggested that the Judicial Council study would be
the best reference for recidivism rates.
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that alcohol offenses, probation/parole
violations, and property violations would represent a good
percentage.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN added that nationwide it's generally young
drug offenders that have the highest recidivism rate. That is
the case in Texas.
2:11:19 PM
MR. TAYLOR discussed the three principles of effective
correctional intervention: risk, need, and responsivity. He said
the Department of Corrections is very averse to risk, and will
err on the side of keeping a person in custody or on
probation/supervision longer or returning them to jail at a
higher frequency than simply having a more willingness to work
with that person. Although that has been the case in the past,
DOC has come to understand that if the risk isn't tied to the
need, people are returning to the system with the same
unaddressed issues. It's up to DOC to do a better job of
addressing those needs when the individual is in the institution
or when they're out on probation and parole.
2:12:44 PM
MR. TAYLOR discussed the principles of assessing risk. He
explained that DOC reviewed and updated the classification
system, emphasizing behavioral incentives that encourage
compliance with programming and other expectations. He confirmed
Ms. Gutierrez's statement that in the last 10 years the
institutional population has shifted from a violent population
to a nonviolent population, yet the classification tools didn't
shift. The result is that people are incarcerated at a higher
frequency and more highly scrutinized when they were on
probation and parole. DOC's offender re-entry policy now
includes an Offender Management Plan (OMP) that provides a
roadmap for prisoners to determine what programs are needed and
will provide a means of measuring a prisoner's readiness for re-
entry into the community. In addition, Probation and Parole has
received technical assistance from the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC), and is in the process of modifying the
current risk assessment protocols. These officers are receiving
better training in assessment to ensure that risk is assessed
and needs are being met. Parole board members are also being
educated to make better conditions based on risk and needs.
2:16:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referenced her earlier question about
reoffenders, and commented that there must be some analysis of
the reoffender population to successfully gear programs to
reduce recidivism.
MR. TAYLOR replied that DOC uses the risk assessment tools to
determine the moderate to higher risk cases. Under the previous
system, too much time and money was being spent on lower risk
persons and not enough on the persons who really needed the
services.
MR. TAYLOR concluded the presentation with an overview of the
substance abuse programs that DOC offers.
· The assessment and referral services include a
comprehensive substance abuse needs assessment. These are
conducted in the Anchorage Correctional Complex, MatSu
Pretrial Facility, and in the Anchorage community. Up to
1,000 offenders per year can be served.
· The Alaska Native Based Substance Abuse Treatment (ANSAT)
is a pilot program that uses traditional Alaska Native
values combined with cognitive behavioral principles. This
4-6 week program focuses on individual sessions and
increased group hours each week. These pilots are conducted
in the Anvil Mountain Correctional Center (AMCC) and the
Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Center (YKCC). These programs
have a capacity to serve over 160 offenders per year.
· The Life Success Substance Abuse Treatment (LSSAT) is a
medium intensity, out-patient, cognitive behavioral
treatment program. This program is offered in 8
institutions with a capacity to serve over 500 offenders
per year; and in 5 Alaska communities with a capacity to
serve over 450 offenders per year.
· The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) is an
intensive inpatient treatment program that uses a cognitive
behavioral approach. This program is offered at the Hiland
Mountain Correctional Center (HMCC) in Eagle River, the
Goose Creek Correctional Center (GCCC) in Wasilla, and will
be offered at the Spring Creek Correctional Center (SCCC)
in Seward in FY14.
· The community based aftercare program is designed to
complement the offender's custodial treatment. The length
and requirements of the program are based on individual
needs. Aftercare programs are offered in Anchorage, Juneau,
Kenai, and Palmer. The combined capacity is over 800
offenders per year.
MR. TAYLOR highlighted that DOC has followed substance abuse
program completers for 2.5 years and the evidence shows a 14
percent reduction in recidivism. He reported that DOC is doing a
much better job of getting people into programing. The data
shows that 65-69 percent of the people who enter programing
actually complete it. Community program referrals are also
showing increased success. About 53-55 percent of people who
reenter the community are following up with aftercare, which is
well above the 30 percent national average.
2:18:30 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if DOC is doing assessments to find out
whether a success in Anchorage translates to success in
Fairbanks, Barrow or other locations.
MR. TAYLOR deferred the question to Mr. King.
STEVEN KING, Criminal Justice Planner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), Anchorage, Alaska, confirmed that DOC looks at recidivism
rates by program and location.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he could get specifics from the
recidivism task force.
MR. KING said yes.
2:19:33 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if DOC had started to identify the
gaps that led to the tragic Jerry Active case in Anchorage so
that nothing similar ever happened again.
MR. TAYLOR replied DOC has taken an exhaustive look at itself,
and speaking for himself he would never have predicted the
tragedy. Secondly, when DOC has a person in custody they're
assessed and offered programing, but inmates can't be forced. In
that case the person met institutional compliance but not the
programmatic compliance that needed to happen. Once the man
returned to the community, there was no time for probation or
parole officers to work with him. DOC is certainly looking at
whether it can close a gap of transitioning between
institutional and field probation officers.
CHAIR COGHILL said the handoffs are very important and
legislators will continue to look at accountability.
2:22:43 PM
SENATOR DYSON offered his understanding that, in January 2014
under Obama Care, the state will have access to Medicaid,
Medicare and perhaps Indian Health Service funds for healthcare
for the prison population.
MR. TAYLOR replied a different deputy commissioner with DOC is
working with the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
on that topic.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed disbelief that there was nothing
in the former prisoner's background that could make DOC
anticipate his actions.
MR. TAYLOR clarified that there was nothing in the man's
background that indicated he would do what he did.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed interest in learning better ways to look
at programs and the sentencing structure to attain the best
outcomes possible. He forewarned that the next questions for DOC
would focus on programing.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Taylor and introduced Mr. Monegan.
2:26:38 PM
WALT MONEGAN, President, Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC),
Anchorage, Alaska, reported that ANJC has had a re-entry program
for about the last 7 years and it can serve about 300
applicants. About 10 percent of the participants graduate from
the program, and the recidivism rate is about 20 percent. He
said he supports the program and he came to support SB 64,
because it's a sincere step to address the issue of seeking
equity for everyone. He noted that an Alaska Judicial Council
publication on criminal recidivism says that age and economic
status are the most important factors related to recidivism. The
next most important factors affecting an offender's chance of
returning to the justice system were whether the offender had
mental health, alcohol, or drug problems, whether the offender
had a criminal history prior to 1999, and whether the offender
was an Alaska Native. What's worse than that is the number of
Alaska Native youths that are adjudicated or convicted of a new
offense during the first year of release from judicial services.
The recidivism rate is 39 percent, which eerily approximates the
percentage in prison, he said. Also alarming is that children in
foster care show a predisposition to later passage into the
justice system, and about 50 percent of all the children in the
state's foster care system are Alaska Native.
MR. MONEGAN said he supports SB 64 because he senses a growing
awareness among policymakers that big changes are better than
small ones. This legislation offers a better approach than in
the past, and combining agency resources can result in more
widespread improvements. He concluded that everything that is
said here today is important, but what is done from here on out
is what will be the measure.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Monegan and asked Mr. Hutchison to
provide a brief overview of SB 64
2:38:52 PM
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff, Senator John Coghill, provided a brief
overview of SB 64, version O. The bill creates the Alaska
Sentencing Commission, modifies law relating to licenses, and
creates new duties for the Department of Corrections and Parole
Board.
Section 1 discusses credits against a sentence for time spent in
a treatment program.
Section 2 creates the Alaska Sentencing Commission. The
membership will be from the House and Senate; active or retired
judges of various levels; the Native community; the departments
of corrections, public safety, and health and social services;
the Public Defender Agency; the Office of Public Advocacy; and a
victim rights advocate. The intent of the commission is to
create and evaluate recommendations for improving criminal
sentencing practices. The commission shall consider the statutes
and Court Rules, sentencing practices, crimes and incarceration
rates, and effectiveness. Recommendations shall be based on
seriousness of each offense, prior criminal history, and
resource availability.
He noted that the State Affairs Committee changed page 2, lines
16 and 17. The commission will be established in the Office of
the Governor rather than in the Alaska Court System. On page 2,
line 18, the second change was to add a victim rights advocate
representative to the membership. On page 2, lines 25-31, the
judge memberships were changed to either active or retired.
Previously they all had to be active. On page 3, lines 1-2,
changed the member from the Alaska Native Justice Center to a
member of the Alaska Native community, appointed by the
governor. Page 3, lines 8-9, changed the membership from the
director of juvenile justice to the commissioner of health and
social services or designee. Page 3, lines 14-15, added the
victims' rights advocate to the membership of the commission.
Page 3, lines 16-17, added the provision that the Alaska Native
community member and the victims' rights advocate serve at the
pleasure of the governor. Page 3, lines 21-22, changed staff and
administrative support from the Alaska Judicial Council to the
Office of the Governor.
Section 3 discusses terminating a revocation of a license for a
DUI or refusal. A license can be revoked a minimum period
depending on whether the person is a misdemeanant or felon, or
if the person successfully completes a court-ordered treatment
program, has good behavior, and has successfully driven under
the limited license for the minimum period.
The State Affairs Committee changed on page 6, lines 3-16, the
conditions terminating a license revocation for a DUI.
2:43:06 PM
Section 4 outlines when a court may grant limited license
privileges. These may be granted if the revocation was for a DUI
or a refusal; if the person is participating in a court-ordered
treatment program; if the court grants the limited license for a
minimum time of either the period of revocation while the person
is participating in the court-ordered treatment program or for 5
years for a person convicted of a felony DUI or refusal. That
includes the period of revocation while the person was
participating in the court-ordered treatment program. The person
also has to provide proof of insurance, must agree to be free
from drugs and alcohol, and pay the cost of testing for the
substances. The court shall revoke a limited license if the
person is charged with or convicted of a DUI or a refusal or
tests positive for the use of alcohol or a controlled substance.
Of particular note is the 5-year time period for felony DUI or
refusal.
Section 5 outlines the procedure a person needs to perform in
order to go through the process. The person must enter a plea of
guilty or no contest; the court has the option of providing
incentive for completing the recommended treatment successfully,
and may reduce the sentence or fine or license revocation. The
State Affairs Committee made no changes to Section 5.
Sections 6 and 7 deal with DUI revocations for felonies.
The State Affairs Committee made changes to Section 6 on page 8,
lines 11-27. A person's license shall be restored if they have
driven successfully under a limited license for at least 5
years, haven't been convicted of a criminal offense since the
license was revoked, and the person provides proof of financial
responsibility.
2:46:31 PM
Section 7 has the same language that was described in Section 6.
Sections 8 and 9 address the extension of the PACE Program. They
direct the commissioner of the parole board to establish
programs for probationers and parolees. It does include random
drug testing and requires the supervising officer to file a
petition to revoke probation if the probationer is in violation.
It allows the court to give prompt notice of a violation and
take action as necessary. The State Affairs Committee clarified
the language in Section 8.
Section 10 addresses applicability and changes.
Section 11 provides transitional provision.
Section 12 provides an immediate effective date.
2:48:07 PM
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the bill addresses three issues:
the scope of the sentencing commission, its membership, and its
recommendation authority. He asked the House members to bring
suggestions forward and noted that an earlier suggestion was to
include an attorney in private practice to the membership. He
noted that the PACE Program will have attached cost outside of
the pilot project and the question is if the cost will mitigate
other costs.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested it would be helpful in future
meetings to talk to probation officers to find out why probation
violations are so high. She also asked for some discussion about
community support for individuals leaving an institution and
reentering a community.
CHAIR COGHILL agreed to address those issues in a future
meeting. He noted that written testimony from Alison Lawrence
from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) was
included in the packets. She also asked to testify.
2:51:43 PM
ALISON LAWRENCE, Senior Policy Specialist, Criminal Justice
Program, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), said
she would discuss the provisions of SB 64 that relate to justice
reinvestment, focusing specifically on the proposed sentencing
commission and the PACE Program. She read the following into the
record:
Today states have available more and better
information about what works to reduce crime and
control corrections costs. Legislatures are using this
data to inform the policymaking process and enact
cost-effective measures that reduce recidivism and
maintain public safety.
Justice reinvestment is a data-driven process used by
a growing number of states. It involves collecting
data and analyzing drivers of prison populations and
costs. Policies are then developed and adopted to
address these factors. This strategy is characterized
by reallocating funds to support effective sentencing
and corrections policies and, in some states, by
reinvesting a portion of savings achieved policies and
programs that reduce recidivism.
Since 2007, at least 28 states have enacted justice
reinvestment reforms. These reforms have included
expanding eligibility for community-based diversion
and treatment programs, employing the use of risk
assessments and evidence-based practices for improved
community supervision, and revising sentence lengths
and eligibility for prison release. These efforts have
been supported by a public-private partnership of the
Bureau of Justice Assistance and The Pew Charitable
Trusts.
2:54:13 PM
On the last page I have included a chart that shows
South Carolina's identified prison population drivers
and the policy responses adopted by the General
Assembly in 2010.
SB 64 proposes establishment of a sentencing
commission. A distinguishing feature of some of the
most comprehensive sentencing and corrections changes
in recent years has been the use of cross-governmental
commissions or task forces. These have involved
stakeholders from all branches and levels of
government to oversee data collection and analysis,
and put forth recommendations for legislative and
administrative order. In some states, these
commissions have been created through executive
action, while others, like the proposed sentencing
commission, have been codified. These groups not only
make recommendations but will continue to track and
evaluate to ensure that policy choices continue to be
data-driven and that desired results are achieved.
Connecticut, Illinois and Louisiana have recently
created or redefined sentencing commissions to focus
their work on improvement of public safety; ensuring
sentencing laws and practices are fair, proportional
and consistent; and increasing efficiency and
[effectiveness] of criminal penalties.
A number of state commissions have oversight
responsibility for not only sentencing practices, but
also for prison policies, reentry programs and
community-based supervision. Some also make funding
recommendations. The South Carolina Sentencing Reform
Oversight Commission evaluates and tracks savings from
policies adopted in their 2010 omnibus act and makes
recommendations to the General Assembly on
reallocating a portion of the savings.
Swift and certain non-prison sanctions for probation
and parole rule violations is a data-driven policy
that many states have adopted in recent years. Data
show that offenders who are sent to prison for
technical violations contribute substantially to
prison populations, and more than half of all state
inmates meet the criteria for substance abuse or
dependence. Swift and certain sanctions, like the
proposed Probation and Parole Accountability with
Enforcement program, hold these offenders accountable
while allowing them to remain in the community,
continue to work, pay restitution and child support,
and attend treatment.
At least 17 other states currently operate programs
modeled after Hawaii's HOPE. Five of these states -
Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, South Dakota and
Virginia - have passed laws; the others have been
created by judicial action. The enacted laws authorize
local pilot projects and some have included state
general fund appropriations to cover startup costs.
The laws include a list of permissible sanctions and
require program evaluation and reporting. Arkansas,
Kentucky and Virginia laws also require use of a
validated risk assessment tool to determine which
offenders are high risk.
These HOPE-type programs are similar to another
policy, called graduated sanctions. Authorized by more
than 20 states in recent years, graduated sanctions
operate statewide and are used for most offenders, not
just those designated high risk. These policies
involve clearly established non-prison sanctions that
are delivered quickly, and with the severity of the
sanction proportionate to the violation. Sanctions
include increased reporting or drug testing
requirements, electronic monitoring, participation in
treatment, short jail stays and specialized violator
facilities. In many of the states, probation and
parole officers are authorized to handle the rule
violations rather than referring the offender to the
court or parole board for formal proceedings. This can
decrease the response time for delivering sanctions
and clear up crowed dockets.
Making the best use of corrections dollars is a key
component of the justice reinvestment process.
Effective community supervision policies like swift
and certain sanctions help to maximize corrections
dollars by allowing agencies to focus resources on the
highest risk offenders.
The six states that adopted justice reinvestment
legislation in 2012 have a collective projected
corrections savings of nearly $685 million over the
next five to 10 years. Savings are expected to be used
for increasing availability of treatment options and
supervision technology, training for corrections
officers on evidence-based practices and risk
assessments; and supporting law enforcement and
victims' services.
2:59:51 PM
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Ms. Lawrence and relayed that he would
probably ask her help to develop a matrix of what other states
are doing.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN noted that Adam Gelb presented one of
those menus at a recent Pew Charitable Trusts conference.
CHAIR COGHILL introduced Mr. Wiese.
3:02:27 PM
JESSE WIESE, Policy Analyst, Justice Fellowship, Prison
Fellowship Ministries, Lansdowne, Virginia, said his primary
goal today is to show solidarity for the proposed sentencing
commission, particularly the victim component. He explained that
Justice Fellowship is a conservatively-oriented Christian
organization that has worked for 30 years to reform the criminal
justice system so that communities are safer, offenders become
law-abiding citizens, and victims are respected.
MR. WIESE highlighted that state corrections spending in 1998
was $12 billion and in 2011 it was more than $52 billion.
Skyrocketing corrections spending and declining state revenues
is often putting concerns about the bottom line in competition
with public safety, he said. However, strategies tested in a
number of states and local jurisdictions shows that there are
effective ways to address the challenge of containing rising
correction costs while also increasing public safety.
He said these drastic costs increases coupled with new knowledge
about corrections has created a perfect storm of opportunity for
conservatives and liberals to work together toward meaningful
comprehensive criminal justice reform. Instead of investing
money almost exclusively on incarceration, it is time to invest
corrections dollars in places and programs that generate higher
returns. Some things to consider include changing the thinking
about accountability by providing effective community-based
programs that hold low-level offenders accountable without
sending them to prison. Crime victims are direct parties and
should be given the necessary rights to enforce their standing
within the administration of justice.
Expensive prison beds should be reserved for violent and career
offenders, while nonviolent offenders should be punished with
mandatory supervision and access to Therapeutic Courts. These
reforms are working in other states and the federal government
is beginning to recognize these accomplishments. He highlighted
that the US House Appropriations Committee has recently proposed
the creation of the Charles Fulton Task Force on Federal
Corrections to review how state criminal justice reforms can be
replicated at a federal level.
3:06:16 PM
MR. WIESE encouraged the committees to talk to people in South
Dakota about considering implementation issues as the bill is
drafted. He also suggested consideration be given to renaming
the commission because the goals are broader that just
sentencing. He agreed with an earlier suggestion to rename the
commission to include victim issues and rights. Finally, he was
encouraged to hear about the discussion regarding barrier crimes
and collateral consequences. Judging from some of the discussion
he heard today he believes that Alaska can lead the country in
some of these reforms.
SENATOR DYSON asked Mr. Wiese to comment on the restoration of
relationships and what that can mean to both victims and
offenders.
MR. WIESE responded that Justice Fellowship is a proponent of
restorative justice, which is to restore the community, the
offender, and the victim. To that end, Justice Fellowship has
instituted programing in nearly 200 prisons nationwide. For
example, Sycamore Tree is a victims-based program that is
oriented to encourage a meeting between the offender and victim.
Justice Fellowship strongly believes that the victim should have
this right if he/she chooses, because restoration happens during
these meetings. Viewpoints and lives are changed for both the
victim and offender.
CHAIR COGHILL said he subscribes to the idea of treating the
whole person, and that includes the spiritual side.
He thanked Mr. Wiese and introduced Judge Wanamaker.
3:12:04 PM
JUDGE JAMES N. WANAMAKER (retired), Partners For Progress,
Anchorage, Alaska, introduced himself and Janet McCabe and
explained that Partners for Progress was founded 15 years ago to
protect the public and reduce criminal recidivism by supporting
therapeutic justice. He stated support for Sections 3-7 of SB
64, version O. These sections create a way for a defendant who
is participating in the Therapeutic Court to receive a temporary
driver's license and then a conditional permanent driver's
license. He described this as a valuable, but voluntary, carrot
to bring people into the Therapeutic Courts. Using an automobile
analogy, he described therapeutic courts as the Cadillac model
for smart justice.
JUDGE WANAMAKER continued to use an automobile analogy to
comment on electronic monitoring. He characterized this as a
"top of the line" Chevrolet on the track of social justice that
approximates what is done in the Wellness Court. People are
supervised and required to do treatment. The leash is short and
there are immediate consequences for deviating from the
requirements.
He stated that Partners For Progress is suggesting an amendment
to SB 64 to allow people to qualify for electronic monitoring
when they have a first DUI. He noted that Deputy Commissioner
Taylor indicated it makes sense since electronic monitoring is
allowed for the second and third DUI. He directed attention to a
new tracking and monitoring device that is a breathalyzer, GPS,
camera, and cellphone. When the device emits a buzz the
defendant must blow into the breathalyzer while his/her picture
is taken, and the information is sent by cellphone to
headquarters. He said this and future improved technology will
allow people to serve their time in their communities, facing
their triggers for addiction with their families and building
their own self-esteem, as opposed to losing all these things by
going to jail.
JUDGE WANAMAKER said therapeutic courts and electronic
monitoring are two areas where it's possible to go big, as
Representative Madden suggested, and get rewards.
JANET MCCABE, Chair, Partners For Progress, Anchorage, Alaska,
said the long term data shows that the recidivism rate for
people that emerge from community residential centers is 62
percent, whereas the recidivism rate for people on electronic
monitoring is 18 percent. She then predicted that the upcoming
legislative session would be an opportunity for legislators to
make a significant change.
3:20:22 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said the support is bipartisan and the governor is
positively disposed. He articulated three cautions: bad actions
will not be treated softly; things must be done cost
effectively; and public safety is paramount.
He asked Judge Wanamaker what the deciding factors are for a
defendant to agree to put him/herself under the accountability
of the therapeutic court, and if judges are sometimes reluctant.
JUDGE WANNAMAKER answered that the population of offenders who
might qualify for therapeutic court is relatively small and most
of the people are aware of who is being successful with their
addiction. His approach was to encourage people to watch the
process in court and that proved successful in getting people to
sign up. Partners For Progress also helped explain the system in
the courthouse and by distributing information about therapeutic
courts across the state.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he believes that therapeutic courts will
always be the Cadillac model, because cost is one of the
criticisms in the legislature.
JUDGE WANAMAKER opined that it will move to the production model
when the Department of Law is fully onboard.
MS. MCCABE added that the possibility for offenders to receive a
limited driver's license is a tremendous step forward, because
barring all opportunity to receive a license is a Catch-22.
CHAIR COGHILL asked, because of the requirement for twice daily
testing, if compliance will be problematic for persons who
receive a conditional license.
JUDGE WANAMAKER said the carrot is more powerful than the stick,
and the power of the group in Therapeutic Court is tremendous.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN highlighted that the Hawaii HOPE Program
provides a swift and sure consequence for noncompliance.
MS. MCCABE added that the longer a person stays sober the more
likely they are to not abuse.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Judge Wanamaker and introduced Mr.
Satterberg.
3:30:22 PM
BILL SATTERBERG, Attorney, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated support for
the idea of a sentencing commission, because working on a
problem piecemeal creates unintended consequences. He cited two
examples: the attorney general's recent announcement that there
would not be plea bargaining in various types of cases; and the
Nygren credit (credit against a sentence) legislation the
legislature passed.
MR. SATTERBERG said a sentencing commission is a good idea
because it gives a group of professionals the time to analyze
and work on prospective resolutions. However, he has concerns
about the proposed bill. First, the proposed membership does not
include a private sector lawyer. The membership should not be
limited to public agency representatives. He also recommended
including a member of the alcohol or drug rehabilitation
community to the commission, because most of the crimes in
Alaska are committed with tangential involvement of drugs or
alcohol.
MR. SATTERBERG addressed the limited license provisions of SB
64. He commended the idea of a limited license when a person has
attained a certain level of sobriety and compliance, but the
bill doesn't go far enough in the right direction. He suggested
that use of the interlock should continue in communities where
it's possible. The sentencing commission can deal with the fact
that it isn't available in rural communities. He suggested the
committee seriously consider allowing the suspended imposition
to become available for an individual who has completed the
Wellness Court Program and has remained compliant for a set
period of time afterwards. Someone who is compliant can get a
felony removed from their record, which would automatically
restore their driving privileges. He said there isn't a whole
lot of incentive for a person with an alcohol addiction problem
to become sober if he/she won't be able to drive again and will
be a convicted felon forever.
MR. SATTERBERG criticized the Wellness Court Program in
Fairbanks for focusing on its success ratio and not taking on
hard cases. He cited an example and opined that the function of
the Wellness Court should be to deal with the hard cases, not
just the ones that make the statistics look good. He opined that
the sentencing commission could deal with that.
MR. SATTERBERG concluded that he likes the concept of a
sentencing commission that will analyze the laws rather than
grandstanding. Alcohol and drugs are a major problem in Alaska,
which is why people who work with these issues should be on the
commission. Also, one private attorney should be included in the
membership.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Satterberg and introduced Ms. Meade.
3:38:23 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
the Alaska Court System supports the Sentencing Commission as
described in [Section 2] of SB 64. The Chief Justice is
enthusiastic and has people in mind to appoint to the
commission. She is particularly enthused that the commission
will take a comprehensive look at sentencing and other aspects
of the criminal justice system. It will not be a piecemeal
approach.
MS. MEADE said the Court System does not have a position on the
provision in the bill to give limited licenses back to
Therapeutic Court participants and for Therapeutic Court
graduates to receive their full licenses after a period of time.
However, the Court System supports Therapeutic Courts and would
like the program to expand. Studies have shown that the
recidivism rate is much lower for people who graduate from those
programs. She noted that the bill is drafted to be used mostly
for felony DUIs. The judge has the discretion to grant some
driving privileges as well as for testing. That is not spelled
out in the language of the bill to accommodate for different
communities.
MS. MEADE described the PACE Program and reported that the
judges that handle the PACE calendar in Anchorage and Palmer
believe it is successful, that it saves the state money, and
that it is a better way to handle probationers than the typical
protocol. However, it does remove discretion from probation
officers. If a probationer doesn't show for an appointment or
fails a test, the probation officer must immediately file with
the court to revoke probation. The judge must give an immediate
consequence, and the standard is three days incarceration for
the first noncompliance. Swift and certain enforcement appears
to help people learn a lesson quickly.
3:45:03 PM
SENATOR ELLIS requested that she ask the Chief Justice to be a
signatory to a letter to The Pew Charitable Trusts asking for
help with technical assistance as Alaska engages in this
collaborative process.
MS. MEADE replied she would be happy to deliver the letter.
CHAIR COGHILL voiced support for the idea.
CHAIR KELLER stated that it would be a significant shot in the
arm if Pew were to select Alaska as one of the two states it
would help this year.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Ms. Meade and reiterated his thanks to all
the participants, Representative Madden in particular. He
reviewed areas that need additional attention: the name of the
commission, issues on methodology, issues related to assessment
of risks and needs, and the assessment of the programmatic
approach.
SENATOR DYSON expressed appreciation that many of the people
here today are here because they care, and not because it's
their job.
3:52:22 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said he would look very carefully at
implementation and while it is outside the scope of the bill, he
would also look at mitigation. The first things to discuss would
be the PACE Program, conditional driver's license, and a
commission that deals with everything from sentencing to
recidivism.
[SB 64 was held in committee.]
3:57:26 PM
There being no further business to come before the committees,
Chair Coghill adjourned the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Judiciary Standing Committees at 3:57 pm.