Legislature(2013 - 2014)Fairbanks
11/04/2013 09:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
Fairbanks, Alaska
November 4, 2013
9:31 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Donald Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: INFORMATIONAL HEARING ON SB 64 - OMNIBUS
CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the informational hearing
on SB 64 and presented a PowerPoint overview.
RONALD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner - Anchorage
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
BILLY HOUSER, Programs Administrator
Division of Probation and Parole
Department of Corrections
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
PAT VENTAGEN, Chief Clinical Officer
Akeela
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
KELVIN LEE, President
New Life Development Inc. (NLDI)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
JANET MCCABE
Partners for Progress
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
BILL MICKELSON
Law Enforcement
South Dakota
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
TOM BUTLER, Colonel
Montana Highway Patrol
Montana
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
DENNIS JOHNSON, Program Director
Alaska Pre-Trial Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
DOUGLAS MOODY, Deputy Public Defender
Criminal Division
Central Office
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
SHIRLEY LEE
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of SB 64.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:31:39 AM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 9:31 a.m.
Senators Coghill, McGuire, and Dyson, and Representatives
Keller, Millett, Pruitt, Gruenberg, and LeDoux were present at
the call to order.
Overview: Informational Hearing on SB 64 - Omnibus
Crime/Corrections Bill
9:33:39 AM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the only order of business would be
an informational hearing on SB 64 - Omnibus Crime/Corrections
Bill. [In front of the committee was CSSB 64(STA)]
CHAIR COGHILL explained that the goal was to discuss its budget
projections, incarceration and alternatives to incarceration,
reentry issues, and community supervision. He offered his
intent for a forthcoming proposed committee substitute (CS) to
address the points raised in this meeting, with an objective to
decrease costs while maintaining the high priority for public
safety and respect for individuals. Referring to the provisions
of the proposed bill that would establish an Alaska Sentencing
Commission, he offered his understanding that, although one such
commission had been statutorily established in the 1990s, there
would be differences with this commission.
9:38:08 AM
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, directed attention to CSSB 64(STA), and declared
that the proposed bill was a joint, bi-partisan effort initiated
by Senators Ellis and Coghill, with contributions by Senators
Dyson, Myers, and French. Referring to the PowerPoint
presentation titled "Presentation For CS For Senate Bill No.
64(STA)," he listed the goals to include: improvement of public
safety, intelligent review of Alaska's criminal justice system,
reduction of recidivism rates, and reduction of government costs
(slide 3). He indicated the three major provisions of the
proposed bill, slide 4, "What does SB 64 do?": One, it would
establish an Alaska Sentencing Commission to review and analyze
Alaska's sentencing laws, procedures, and statistics in order to
reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of Alaska's criminal
justice system; Two, it would amend the statutes pertaining to
limited driver's licenses in order to assist chronic offenders
to the crimes of driving under the influence (DUI) and refusal
to submit to a chemical test, via the use of therapeutic courts
and treatment; and, three, it would create new duties for the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and the State Board of Parole to
establish an alcohol and drug-testing program that provided for
prompt response to probation/parole violations. Referring to
slide 7, "Section 1," he explained that this would refine the
conditions for qualification of credit for time spent in a
treatment program against a sentence of imprisonment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, stating that he supported the proposed
change, offered his understanding that Section 1 would reverse a
decision by the Alaska Court of Appeals. He relayed that the
House Judiciary Standing Committee (HJUD) had discussed this,
and that it was an important addition to the proposed bill.
9:43:26 AM
MR. HUTCHISON expressed his agreement for the importance of
Section 1.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Section 1 attempted to allow both
freedom and flexibility within the accountability.
MR. HUTCHISON went on to explain that Section 2 of the bill
addressed the establishment of an Alaska Sentencing Commission,
and that its membership makeup would include members of the
House and Senate, active or retired judges and justices,
representatives of the Native community, representatives of
certain departments, agencies, and offices within the
administration, and a victims' rights advocate, slide 8.
CHAIR COGHILL added that the policy questions of whether to
provide for an executive director and whether to include a
private-sector attorney in the proposed list of commission
members were still to be discussed.
MR. HUTCHISON, moving to slide 9, "Section 2 (Continued)", said
that the proposed Alaska Sentencing Commission should evaluate
and make recommendations to improve the criminal justice system,
and should consider statutes, sentencing practices, and
crime/incarceration rates to make recommendations. These
recommendations should be based on several factors, including
seriousness, prior criminal history, and resources available to
the agencies. Pointing to slide 10, he noted that a change
incorporated into CSSB 64(STA) was that the proposed Alaska
Sentencing Commission be established in the Office of the
Governor, rather than in the Alaska Court System (ACS), so there
would not be any perceived bias should the court be asked to
rule on recommendations made by the commission. He indicated
that the aforementioned previous commission had also been
established in the Office of the Governor.
CHAIR COGHILL recollected earlier discussion that, as the court
system was "loathe to make policy calls," the commission would
better serve in the "policy making arena than it does in the
judicial."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking on behalf of the minority
membership of the joint committee, referred to the provisions of
the bill addressing the appointment of legislative members to
the proposed commission, and suggested that in order to avoid a
conflict of interest, those provisions be amended such that
appointments of legislators from the minority caucuses shall be
made by the minority leaders.
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that this point should be further
discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether there was precedence for
any other committee appointments by the minority leader.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the list of proposed
commission members should be amended to include a representative
from rural Alaska, given that the representative from the Alaska
Native community may not necessarily live in rural Alaska.
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged the point, and observed that the
issue of who would appoint such a member would also need to be
addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested that the list of proposed
commission members be further amended to include "a substance-
abuse expert," given the prevalence of substance-abuse problems
among offenders.
CHAIR COGHILL, noting that both the Department of Public Safety
and Department of Health and Social Services were represented,
acknowledged that point as well.
SENATOR DYSON, opining that the committee could become quite
large and unwieldy, suggested that the list of proposed
commission members be amended to include someone who had
significant criminal history, had been incarcerated in Alaska,
and had successfully reintegrated into society.
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that suggestion.
9:52:44 AM
MR. HUTCHISON, directing attention back to slide 10, explained
that other changes incorporated into Section 2 of CSSB 64(STA)
included the addition of a victims' rights advocate to the list
of proposed commission members and a conforming change to the
provision stipulating that the commission should now consist of
17 members. There was also addition of the phrase "active or
retired" to the provisions listing the justices and judges that
could be designated as members. Referencing slide 11, he noted
a change to now include a representative member from the Alaska
Native community, rather than the executive director of the
Alaska Native Justice Center or his/her designee, thereby
widening the pool from which that member may be drawn. He
listed a change such that the member from the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) shall be designated by the
commissioner or deputy commissioner, rather than the director of
the Division of Juvenile Justice or a designated supervising
regional probation officer.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether there were any over-
represented incarcerated populations other than Alaska Natives
that ought to be represented on the proposed Alaska Sentencing
Commission.
CHAIR COGHILL ventured that it was necessary to address the fact
that Alaska Natives were over-represented in Alaska's prisons,
and he questioned whether the Department of Corrections had
information for other groups which were over-represented in the
prisons.
MR. HUTCHISON reported on the changes for a victims' rights
advocate and the Alaska Native community member: to be
appointed by the governor, shall serve at the pleasure of the
governor, and may be reappointed. This was deemed necessary
because the proposed Alaska Sentencing Commission would be
established in the Office of the Governor; and the Office of the
Governor, rather than the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC), shall
provide staff and administrative support to the proposed
commission. He noted that there was still some debate whether
the AJC should instead be the entity that provided staff and
administrative support to the proposed commission.
9:58:19 AM
MR. HUTCHISON expressed agreement that the AJC already did
research analysis matching the intent of the proposed
commission. Moving on to slide 12, he listed the changes
recommended by various groups, which included a change of name
to "Alaska Criminal Justice Commission," which would broaden the
scope of the commission to more accurately reflect its mission.
He spoke of another suggested change that, instead of deputy
commissioners there be designees from the various departments.
9:59:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to the theory behind the
change from deputy commissioner to designee, and she expressed
her discomfort with this recommendation.
MR. HUTCHISON replied that this would broaden the scope of
experience for those who could serve on the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed her concern that this would
result in a lower level involvement.
10:00:09 AM
MR. HUTCHISON directed attention to the list of recommended
changes for membership on slide 13, "Section 2 - Potential
Policy Calls (Continued)," noting that it now included more
designees among its proposed 17 members. Moving on to slide 14,
he commented that AJC already had staff with comparable duties,
which would allow for a relatively smooth transition. He noted
the unresolved question on slide 15, whether an Executive
Director should have oversight for the commission. He pointed
out that, although there would be more accountability, there
could also be a potentially larger fiscal note.
CHAIR COGHILL shared that his staff had created a comparison
sheet for the various duties of other commissions.
10:02:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to slide 15 which stated
that the 21 similar commissions in the United States all had
Executive Directors, asked what these commissions did in order
to necessitate an Executive Director.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed his agreement with Representative
Gruenberg, and pointed out that some commissions had the
authority to make regulations, in contrast to this proposed
commission.
10:03:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, observing that the proposed commission
would primarily be making recommendations, asked if regulatory
power was only included with an executive function.
CHAIR COGHILL replied that the purpose of the proposed
commission was solely for recommendations.
CHAIR COGHILL, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, offered to share the authority granted to various
commissions.
10:05:31 AM
MR. HUTCHISON directed attention to slide 16, "Sunset?" and
reported that three, five, and seven year thresholds had been
discussed, noting that the previous commission had been for
three years.
10:05:58 AM
CHAIR COGHILL offered his belief that a commission needed enough
time to become effective, and to study the effects of current
practices.
10:06:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered her belief that the commission
needed independence, noting her concern with the commission
being housed within the AJC.
10:07:10 AM
MR. HUTCHISON referenced slide 17, which explained why the
commission was housed in the Office of the Governor. It listed
the potential problems of establishment by the court system, as
it could include a perception for potential bias with
recommendations coming from the court system.
MR. HUTCHISON moved on to slide 18, "Section 3," which discussed
the revocation of a license for a DUI or a refusal. He reported
that the intent of Section 3 was to get treatment for chronic
offenders, thereby lowering the cost to the state and the burden
to society, while allowing the offenders to return to a normal
operating mode. He explained that a license revocation could be
terminated by the courts upon successful completion of a court
ordered treatment program, good behavior, and successful driving
with a limited license for a minimum period of time. He listed
various times of revocation, depending on offense, slide 19.
Directing attention to slide 20, "OR...," he relayed that the
intent of the proposed bill was for a person, who had
successfully completed a court ordered treatment program with
good behavior, and had successfully driven under the limited
license for a minimum period of time, would expedite the return
of driver licenses after felony DUI's or refusals. Moving on to
slide 21, "What does that mean?", he offered an example for
Section 3 of the proposed bill, and described a third DUI
offense. He explained that this was "designed to incentivize
chronic DUI offenders to face their alcohol problems" and
offered a strong incentive for a person to stay clean and sober
and become a productive member of society, while reducing costs
to the state's criminal justice system.
10:11:07 AM
MR. HUTCHISON reported on the changes made to Section 3 of the
proposed bill by the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee
(SSTA), slide 22. He detailed that page 6, lines 13-17, changed
the conditions to terminate a license revocation for DUI or
refusal to clarify that a person needed to successfully complete
a court ordered treatment program, could not be charged or
convicted of a DUI or refusal since completion of the program,
and must have successfully driven with a limited license for the
minimum period.
10:11:42 AM
MR. HUTCHISON, addressing slide 23, "Section 4 - Limited
Licenses," detailed that a limited license could be granted
after a DUI or a refusal if the person participated in a court-
ordered treatment program, provided proof of insurance, and
agreed to be free from drugs and alcohol and pay the cost of
testing for these substances.
10:12:23 AM
CHAIR COGHILL shared that the conditional license program could
include wearing an ankle monitor or testing twice daily for drug
and alcohol, in order to increase individual accountability and
public safety.
10:13:32 AM
MR. HUTCHISON opined that there should be immediate consequences
for charge or conviction of DUI or refusal, or a positive test
for drugs or alcohol. He reported on slide 24, "Section 4,"
which listed other changes made to the proposed bill by the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee (SSTA). He pointed out
that page 6, lines 26-31, and page 7, lines 4-6 and 12-13,
changed the conditions for granting a limited license. He
explained the new timeframes, and the requirement to abstain
from alcohol and drug use while also paying for the cost of
testing for these substances. He declared that any positive
test for these substances would result in the limited license
being revoked.
10:14:21 AM
MR. HUTCHISON presented Section 5 of the proposed bill and
explained the procedure if a person needed to plead guilty or no
contest, slide 25, which included modification of the language
to include an ability by the court to reduce the fine,
imprisonment, or license revocation. Reviewing slide 26,
"Sections 6 & 7," he addressed the issue of dealing with DUI and
refusal for felons, noting that the court may restore the
driver's license if there was good behavior and social
responsibility for 10 years, and the court shall restore the
license if there has been good behavior and financially
responsibility while successfully driving with a limited license
for five years. He reported on the changes in Section 6 of the
proposed bill, slide 27. On page 8, lines 11-27 of the proposed
bill, the felony DUI was addressed, and he listed when the
department may restore and shall restore the driver's license,
clarifying that a person cannot have had a conviction for a
criminal offense since the license was revoked.
10:16:00 AM
CHAIR COGHILL offered his belief that the aim was to create a
high degree of accountability while offering tools for the court
to reward good behavior and increase public safety.
10:16:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if there was a requirement for
ignition interlock devices during the 5 year limited license
period.
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that this would be an option for the
courts.
MR. HUTCHISON, in response to Representative Millet, stated that
currently it was not included in the proposed bill.
10:17:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the proposed bill
included a provision for restitution to the victim.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed his agreement with the need for
restitution, and accountability for its collection.
10:18:40 AM
MR. HUTCHISON discussed slide 28, "Section 7 - Changes from
State Affairs," and detailed that these changes paralleled those
changes in Section 6 addressing Felony Refusal. Moving on to
slide 29, "Sections 8 & 9," he relayed that these sections
directed the Commissioner and the Parole Board to establish
programs for probationers and parolees which included random
drug testing, required a petition to revoke if there was
violation, and allowed the courts to receive prompt notice of a
violation and to take action as necessary.
MR. HUTCHISON explained slide 31, reporting that Sections 8 & 9
were modeled after the Probation Accountability and Certain
Enforcement (PACE) program in Anchorage. He quoted from Judge
Steven Alm in Hawaii, slide 30: "I thought about how I was
raised and how I raise my kids. Tell 'em what the rules are and
then if there's misbehavior you give them the consequences
immediately." He pointed out that this was the basic premise
for the PACE program, as it responded immediately to bad
behavior. The PACE program would identify probationers who were
likely to violate their conditions of probation, and notify them
that any violations had consequences. Frequent randomized drug
testing would be required, and there would be swift, certain
terms of incarceration for any violations.
MR. HUTCHISON noted that slide 32 addressed the changes in
Section 8. These changes clarified the language that a
probation officer would file a petition to revoke probation if a
probationer failed to appear for an appointment, tested positive
for controlled substances or alcohol, or failed to follow any
court ordered conditions of probation. Explaining slide 33,
"Changes in Section 9," he pointed out that this included
similar clarifying language for the parole board. He mentioned
that there were some potential policy calls for Sections 8 & 9,
slide 34, which could include a change of language from
"urinalysis" to "drug and/or alcohol testing."
MR. HUTCHISON referenced slide 35, "Sections 10 - 12," noting
that these discussed applicability and changes, and that there
were not any substantive changes to the proposed bill by the
SSTA. He shared that the act would take effect immediately, and
that the commission should meet for the first time no later than
September 30, 2014, and report no later than February 1, 2016.
10:24:00 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:24 a.m. to 10:37 a.m.
10:37:26 AM
CHAIR COGHILL brought the committee back to order.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to clarify that there would be a
discussion regarding concepts and issues.
CHAIR COGHILL explained that this would be a discussion of
reasons for the need of the proposed bill and pertinent issues
including recidivism, accountability, and monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the witnesses could reference
judicial decisions that also needed legislative evaluation and
review that could be included in the proposed bill.
10:39:56 AM
RONALD TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner -
Anchorage, Department of Corrections, responded to an earlier
question from Representative LeDoux regarding the over
representation of the Alaska Native population, 37 percent, in
the corrections system. He noted that the African American
population represented about 10 percent in the corrections
system. Directing attention to a three year study of the Alaska
recidivism rate, he reported that this study was the impetus for
making changes within the Department of Corrections. He
reported that there was a 48 percent recidivism rate during the
first year after release, either for a new crime or a technical
violation. After three years, there was a 66 percent recidivism
rate. He reported that only 15 inmates still remained in
custody outside of the state.
10:43:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the growth rate for inmate
populations was due to population increase or an increase to
sentences.
MR. TAYLOR declined to speculate, though he opined that it was a
combination of both.
10:44:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there were any Alaska
offenders still incarcerated in the federal system.
MR. TAYLOR replied that these offenders were included in the
aforementioned 15 offenders residing outside Alaska.
10:44:44 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked for the percentage of violent and non-
violent offenses within the recidivism rate.
MR. TAYLOR replied that only the overall recidivism rates were
addressed.
10:45:08 AM
SENATOR DYSON offered his understanding that 58-60 percent of
recidivism was for non-violent offenses.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed his agreement.
10:45:44 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE suggested that it would be helpful to identify
the returning offenders by gender, by race, and by crime, in
order to better invest for rehabilitation.
MR. TAYLOR, in response to Senator Dyson, pointed out that the
figures he referred to were for violent and non-violent
offenses, but overall recidivism rates were not distinguished.
In response to Senator McGuire, he said that these risk
assessment tools had previously been used for classification,
but were now being used as she had suggested.
10:48:02 AM
MR. TAYLOR, in response to Senator McGuire, said that these
tools were only used for classification and had not been used to
help anyone improve.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if the recidivism tools could now be used
for future analysis.
MR. TAYLOR expressed his agreement. In response to Chair
Coghill, he explained that LSI-R referenced the Level of Service
Inventory - Revised.
10:49:53 AM
MR. TAYLOR stated that the Department of Corrections total
budget for fiscal year 2014 (FY 14) was $334 million, of which
about $5 million was federal funds. He noted that the projected
inmate population was based on the housing use at the Goose
Creek Correctional Center.
10:50:44 AM
MR. TAYLOR, in response to Chair Coghill, stated that the inmate
housing at Goose Creek Correctional Center was more expensive
than it had been for housing in the Colorado facilities. He
went on to say that current inmate population was slightly
higher than had been projected and going forward, reflected
about 7.3 percent growth in general funding, with a 3 percent
population growth rate. He speculated that there would be a
shortage of 770 beds for the inmate population in FY 20,
equivalent to an additional facility about half the size of
Goose Creek Correctional Center.
10:51:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, speculating that the policy to return
prisoners to in-state was not a fiscal decision, asked if the
policy was to have the inmates closer to their families.
MR. TAYLOR expressed his agreement that this was part of the
decision making, and that keeping the jobs in Alaska was also
part of the decision.
CHIAR COGHILL reflected that it had not been an easy policy
call, and that given the projection for an increase to inmate
populations, it would be necessary to immediately begin planning
for another facility. He pointed out the importance of the
proposed bill in order "to figure out how to do it better."
10:53:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked about any plans to deal with the
increase in inmate population.
MR. TAYLOR replied that there were a combination of approaches,
which included expansion of community halfway houses, electronic
monitoring, and out of state contracts. He declared that the
priority was to meet the needs within Alaska.
10:54:42 AM
MR. TAYLOR noted that there had been a slight decrease to
recidivism rates from FY 06 to FY 10. He pointed out that
adjustments had been made in FY 07 with the addition of some
programming, and with technical assistance for the
classification of the inmate population. He directed attention
to an increase for successful completion of parole and the
continuing decrease in the recidivism rates between FY 10 and FY
13.
10:57:32 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the decrease in recidivism was due to
fewer technical violation issues or an increase to the
successful completion of programs.
MR. TAYLOR, in response, said that it was a combination and that
the community was providing support for those individuals
returning to the community. In response to Chair Coghill, he
said that the PACE project was part of the success, though it
was the prisoner re-entry initiative program and its task force
that had turned the focus to successful completion of probation
and parole. He lauded the community and legislative support for
out-patient participation in expanded programs, as well.
11:00:22 AM
MR. TAYLOR directed attention to the department's mission
statement and reported that securing confinement represented
approximately 79 percent of the budget. Only about 4 percent of
the DOC budget were reformative programs, while 15 percent of
the budget was directed to supervised release and the community
reintegration program. He reported that a departmental review
to reduce recidivism had focused on who, what, and how. The
"who" addressed to whom to devote time, energy, and resources;
"what" addressed the needs and the problems of offenders who
entered the system; and, "how" addressed the ways to deal with
the problem areas.
11:02:10 AM
MR. TAYLOR explained that the LSI-R was utilized as a risk-
assessment tool to identify the risk to re-offend, and to match
supervision and treatment levels with strategies to produce the
best correctional outcomes. He pointed out that the LSI-R was a
54 item risk assessment tool to review both static and dynamic
factors, and to offer ways to address these needs. He declared
that it was necessary to focus on the "essential 8" needs,
including attitudes, risky thinking, low self-control, anger
management, and anti-social behavior. He noted that almost 90
percent of those persons using electronic monitoring devices had
peers engaged in the same criminal activities. He pointed out
that, as most inmates had never had, and did not understand, a
healthy relationship, it was necessary to teach these. He
reported that DOC would develop an overall case plan for each
person which addressed at least four of the needs, in order to
increase the possibility for reducing recidivism. He declared a
need for each program to match each individual, with positive
reinforcement and the correct intensity in each program.
MR. TAYLOR noted that, as almost 60 percent of persons on
probation and parole were being over-classified, it was
necessary to more accurately utilize the information on the risk
assessments, and not simply use it for classification. He
stated that programming, including clinical assessments, had
been increased to better serve more individuals. He described
the Alaska Native substance abuse programs in Nome and Bethel.
11:07:37 AM
MR. TAYLOR, in response to Chair Coghill, said that population
shifts created a problem for fulfillment of programs. He
assured the committee that the DOC has been working hard to
minimize these movements before programs were completed.
11:09:31 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked who administered the clinical assessment.
MR. TAYLOR, in response, stated that there was a contract with
Akeela, and that an inmate was only evaluated if the risk
assessment tool suggested there was a problem with substance
abuse. He spoke about the aftercare programs in the
communities, and, in response to Representative Millett, he
explained that there was a small wait list, and that the program
was voluntary. He noted that DOC supported completion of the
program for those inmates leaving custody. He said that the
need for individual institutional counseling was determined by
the LSI-R, and that, as substance abuse counseling services were
not available for 60 -70 percent of the population, those with
the highest risk were identified for the program. He pointed
out that completion of the program, while incarcerated, was
voluntary unless there was a court order.
11:14:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether court orders requiring
completion of the substance abuse programs during incarceration
would reduce the rates of recidivism.
MR. TAYLOR reflected that court orders which had been ignored
resulted in further incarceration. He stated that an increase
to motivation for treatment was optimal, although a court order
could be appropriate. He questioned how it would be determined
who would require the court order. In response to
Representative Millett, he said that he did not have statistics
on the recidivism rate for court ordered versus voluntary
program participation.
MR. TAYLOR, returning to his presentation, explained that there
had been a 14 percent reduction in recidivism for those who
completed the programs, although, in agreement with a statement
by Chair Coghill, he acknowledged that there was still a greater
than 40 percent rate for recidivism. In response to an earlier
question by Chair Coghill regarding mental health services, he
reported that 42 percent of the inmate population had mental
disabilities, 27 percent experienced some severe mental illness,
and up to 60 percent had possibly suffered a brain injury prior
to custody. He referenced a new study regarding the impact of
the services for these mental health services. He explained
that the larger DOC facilities had supplied mental health
clinicians to provide assessments, crisis intervention,
treatment and relapse planning, and individual counseling. Upon
entry into the DOC facility, an inmate was medically screened,
and referral for mental health screening was offered if deemed
necessary.
11:18:40 AM
SENATOR DYSON questioned whether the earlier reference to brain
injury included autism and fetal alcohol syndrome.
MR. TAYLOR expressed his agreement. He stated that both
psychiatric and tele-psychiatry services were available in the
facilities. He described a program in the Anchorage area which
combined probation officers and mental health clinicians to
provide legal and clinical supervision for parolees with severe
mental disorders of delusions or hallucinations. He discussed
the mental health courts, which involved mental health
clinicians and probation officers, as a voluntary post-charge
program for those both in and out of custody, and an alternative
to jail. It was required that an individual agree to the
sentencing and follow all the treatment recommendations by the
court. Eligibility for the mental health court and
participation in this program required psychotic disorder,
serious mental illness, or organic impairment.
MR. TAYLOR, in response to Chair Coghill, said that this program
was for both behavior and medication management. He shared
that, as the capacity of each case coordinator was 20-30 cases,
the program service was currently at its capacity.
MR. TAYLOR spoke about the Assess, Plan, Identify, and
Coordinate (APIC) program, with its goal to quickly link
offenders to community treatment centers, medication management,
and housing to help ensure access to benefits and jobs. This
program also offered help with child care, food, clothing, and
transportation. To qualify, the person had to be incarcerated
at the time of the referral, and have access to the services for
90 days prior to release and 60 days after release from custody.
In response to Representative Millett, he said there was
coordination for access to benefits with Indian Health Services
and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.
11:24:17 AM
MR. TAYLOR mentioned that electronic monitoring allowed inmates
to serve time outside the facilities.
11:24:58 AM
BILLY HOUSER, Programs Administrator, Division of Probation and
Parole, Department of Corrections, stated that he was a programs
administrator and a supervisor for the community jails, halfway
houses, and electronic monitoring programs. He stated that all
individuals having electronic monitoring were continually
monitored for alcohol, with random weekly testing. He declared
that individuals were responsible for compliance with the
program demands, and that the recidivism rate after three years
was only 18 percent. He said that, although there was a
supervision fee, much of it was often waived, as it was based on
ability to pay. He declared that required payment for
restitution created a habit for budgeting.
11:27:55 AM
MR. HOUSER explained that the electronic monitors measured
alcohol levels in the skin perspiration. He declared that 90
percent of inmates had substance abuse or alcohol related
issues. From a risk standpoint, DOC would rather know what the
participants were doing, more than where they were located. He
stated that the response time for a probation staff to be on
site in the Anchorage area was about two hours. In response to
Chair Coghill, he stated that these currently could only monitor
for alcohol, not drugs. He then provided information regarding
the function of various forms of technology, declaring that the
limiting factor for advanced function was battery size. The
electronic monitor used cellular technology from a home based
unit, and would work in any community with cellular service.
During regular work hours there was constant monitoring. In
Alaska, there were currently 362 individuals being monitored.
The difficulty with remote locations was for response time to
bring an individual back in control.
11:34:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked where the device was attached and
who put it on and removed it.
MR. HOUSER explained that there was a fiber-optic strap attached
to the leg, applied by DOC staff, and its unauthorized removal
was a felony.
11:35:58 AM
MR. HOUSER, in response to Representative LeDoux, said that the
electronic monitor was only removed upon completion of the
sentence. The battery was changed every three to six months,
and it could be submerged in three feet of water.
11:37:26 AM
MR. HOUSER, in response to Chair Coghill, stated that the daily
cost was about $12.00 per day. He demonstrated a new device,
the Silver Lite 2, a portable breathe unit that took the
person's picture, conducted a portable breathe test, and logged
a GPS location for about $9.00 per day.
11:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked about the daily cost to house an
inmate.
MR. TAYLOR replied that it was about $147 per day.
11:38:40 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked when the breath unit was used in place of an
ankle bracelet.
MR. HOUSER explained that a participant with a "no alcohol"
probation could be required to use the breath unit, and blow
into it upon command. It could also be used in conjunction with
the leg monitor if there had been alerts triggered by alcohol
other than through consumption.
11:39:57 AM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there were a specific schedule.
MR. HOUSER replied that it could either be a specific schedule
or a random request.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that, as domestic violence was often in
conjunction with alcohol consumption, it could help resolve some
problems. He asked if DOC had the discretion for use, or was a
court order necessary.
MR. HOUSER replied that these monitors could be used entirely at
the discretion of DOC during management of one of its programs.
If a person was on probation, without an alcohol condition, then
a court order would be necessary. He declared that the
technology was rapidly changing.
11:43:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked what were the limitations to its
use, and what could its future role become, in lieu of
incarceration.
MR. HOUSER reported that, in 2007, there had been about 68
people statewide using the electronic monitoring program daily,
while today, there were about 362 people using the program. He
noted that there was now a trend for more inmates who had
completed a treatment program from halfway houses to be released
with electronic monitoring. He explained that it was necessary
for the person to have a stable place to live and to have a job
or the potential for a job in order for a positive outcome.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked about the limitations for expansion
of the program.
11:47:18 AM
MR. HOUSER listed funding, technology, lack of monitors, and
lack of eligible individuals, as possible limiting factors. He
reported that some people were denied for various reasons, and
that a positive behavior and trust was a necessity. He
explained that for many inmates, it was necessary to learn
appropriate life skills to model.
MR. TAYLOR said that the halfway house placements had increased
by 33 percent, and that the new technology had allowed more
inmates to be released with electronic monitoring and more
inmates to move into halfway houses.
11:51:34 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE addressed the shortage of continuing care in
residential substance abuse treatment programs, and stated that
behavioral treatment for addictions was the only way to stop the
cycle. She offered her belief that it was smart justice to know
the right places to put funding. She suggested the use of web
based communication technology with residential treatment
providers for rural Alaska, so that post release could include
both monitoring and interactive communication for support in
behavior modification. She opined that this would allow for a
more productive reintegration into society.
11:54:08 AM
MR. TAYLOR expressed his agreement, and noted that there was an
increased need for substance abuse services, both in the
community and inside the correctional institutions.
11:55:12 AM
CHAIR COGHILL offered his belief that the proposed bill intended
to offer recommendations for sentencing structure, and allow for
accountability with a maximum amount of freedom, while
maintaining the necessary security.
11:56:37 AM
SENATOR DYSON asked if there was pretrial electronic monitoring.
MR. HOUSER explained that there would be a pilot project for
pre-trial monitoring of domestic violence offenders, although a
court order would be necessary as part of the bail release.
11:58:10 AM
CHAIR COGHILL, directing attention to the technology tools that
were available and the policy questions for use in both urban
and rural area, expressed his concern for any inequity in
application of the tools. He declared his desire for statewide
use of the PACE program, although it would require monitoring,
and asked if the PACE program was expandable.
MR. TAYLOR replied that the program had currently been expanded
into Palmer, and that Anchorage was also looking to expand. He
stated that it was now in three locations.
MR. HOUSER, in response to Representative Millet, said that his
monitoring program was currently a little bit below capacity,
noting that there were about 45 clients per staff officer, and
that more staff would be necessary if there were 400
participants. He explained that spot checks, which would log
the monitor serial number at any location, could be conducted on
a drive by basis without actual contact.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there would be a use for
drones.
MR. HOUSER replied, "I hope not."
12:03:46 PM
The committee took a recess from 12:03 p.m. to 1:29 p.m.
1:29:20 PM
CHAIR COGHILL brought the committee back to order, and stated
that the panel would discuss re-entry issues.
1:30:55 PM
PAT VENTAGEN, Chief Clinical Officer, Akeela, provided
background information about Akeela, explaining that the
organization had started 40 years ago as a substance abuse
disorder treatment program, and currently offered 44 substance
abuse and mental health programs throughout the state along with
18 contracts with DOC for substance abuse treatment services.
Referring to the two maps he had provided to the committee, he
indicated that these reflected Akeela's involvement statewide.
He pointed out that Akeela had substance abuse programs with all
but one prison facility, Ketchikan Correctional Center. He
reported that Akeela had contracts with the community based
services in Anchorage, Palmer, Juneau, Kenai, and Fairbanks.
CHAIR COGHILL asked to clarify that these were both voluntary
and court ordered prescriptive services. He commented about the
budgetary and statutory requirements affecting programmatic
delivery.
1:34:52 PM
MR. VENTAGEN, in response to Chair Coghill, said that DOC had
established capacity numbers for the programs which were based
on an average length of stay with fully staffed programs. He
spoke about the difficulties with fully staffing the programs in
rural areas. He pointed out that, as these were fee for service
programs, there was not a charge if a service was not provided.
He reported that the staffing ratio was 1 to 12.5, for the 90
day programs, and 1 to 48 for the continuing care programs,
which was based on individual need for three to six months. He
noted that there was not a waiting list, except in Anchorage,
for the continuing care programs.
1:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked about the effect on program success
for released prisoners of wait time before being admitted to an
outpatient program.
MR. VENTAGEN replied that currently there was not any data
available. Referencing those inmates who had completed
treatment programs in the institutions and then attended the
community aftercare programs, he clarified that there was not
any wait time except in the Anchorage program. He offered to
supply the wait time for the Anchorage aftercare program,
opining that it was only about a week. He pointed out that the
wait time for the Anchorage treatment program was about four
weeks. He expressed his agreement with Representative Millett
that these wait times were crucial. In response to Chair
Coghill, he stated that Akeela also worked with reentry people
who were electronically monitored.
MR. TAYLOR, in response to Chair Coghill, explained that
institutional programs occurred inside the facilities, whereas
the community care component included after care in the
community for those out of custody, but on probation and parole.
In response to an earlier question by Representative Millett
regarding the wait time for programs during re-entry, he
explained that the other individual needs were being met even
during the interim for substance abuse services.
1:42:37 PM
MR. VENTAGEN cited an August, 2012, McDowell Group report,
"Economic Costs of Alcohol and other Drug Abuse in Alaska,
2012," which reported $518.7 million in direct costs in FY2010
from alcohol and drug abuse, with an additional $673.2 million
in productivity costs. He pointed out that only $40 million of
the direct cost was spent for substance abuse services. He
declared that Akeela believed that, as treatment was effective,
any additional resources for treatment and its follow up would
reduce the direct costs. He noted that this had already been
demonstrated in Texas.
MR. VENTAGEN offered his understanding that the need by DOC of
community based substance abuse treatment in Anchorage far
outweighed the support available from Akeela given the existing
contracts. He declared that, as there was already an overload
on the community programs, Anchorage could use more treatment
resources for those on probation and parole.
1:44:41 PM
MR. VENTAGEN pointed out that, as the highest rate of recidivism
occurred in the first year, Akeela focused on that first year
with substance abuse treatment, case management for vocational
and educational training services, and housing. He declared
these services to be essential, specifically in the first year.
MR. VENTAGEN, in response to Representative Millett, explained
that there was not any evidence to show a decrease in the 92
percent rate for substance abuse in offenders; although
substance abuse treatment will reduce recidivism, these need to
be done in conjunction with the other reentry services, in order
to reduce costs. In response to a further question, he
expressed his agreement that the cost for offender health care
would also significantly decrease when there was not substance
abuse.
1:49:38 PM
KELVIN LEE, President, New Life Development Inc. (NLDI),
explained that NLDI was a non-profit organization which had
offered reentry transitional housing with supportive services to
people returning to the community after incarceration since
2008. He reported that NLDI currently had housing for both men
and women, with a total of 48 beds. He declared that stable
housing and a structured environment was the key for community
reentry.
MR. LEE explained that, with help from NLDI, each person
developed their own transitional plan, and that NLDI helped
maintain this structure, especially for the requirements of
probation and parole. He spoke about an upcoming program that
would help inmates prepare a plan six months prior to release.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if this was done in conjunction with a risk
assessment tool, and if it was voluntary.
MR. LEE explained that the program had been designed on
information obtained from probation officers so that "we're not
operating in error with anybody. We know what DOC wants, and
we're doing the same thing to make sure those needs are getting
taken care of." In response to a question from Representative
Millett, he explained that the application process began in the
correctional facilities, aided by the probation officers'
suggestions for inmates who were ready to transition. He
relayed that the average stay with NLDI was 120 days, that the
"drop-out" rate was highest in the first 90 days, and that the
high structure and demand for accountability forced a commitment
from the inmates. He declared that NLDI created a healthy
environment for these transitions to the new processes outside
incarceration. He reported that, as the program was voluntary,
the inmates would have to report to their probation officer if
they decided to leave the program.
2:00:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Akeela or NLDI was a faith-
based organization.
MR. LEE said that NLDI was not faith based although it endorsed
many of the principles. He declared that, as behaviors had to
change, it was necessary to embrace whatever means would support
those changes.
MR. VENTAGEN replied that Akeela was not faith based, and used
cognitive behavioral therapy and evidence based treatments,
instead.
2:01:18 PM
MR. LEE, in response to Senator Dyson, explained that the NLDI
program was designed to assist and teach people how to live in a
community outside the correctional facility.
2:03:06 PM
SENATOR DYSON inquired as to the impact of a felony record on
re-entry to the community and its effect on recidivism.
MR. TAYLOR replied that there were more than 1,600 collateral
consequences, or federal, state, and local barriers, to jobs,
housing, and employment faced when leaving incarceration. He
noted that although there were work groups studying ways to
reduce these barriers, there were many layers to each.
2:05:17 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked what the legislature could do in support,
such as reduce the levels of certain crimes, or expunge criminal
records to public access after a specific time.
MR. TAYLOR expressed his agreement with these suggestions. He
declared that support for re-entry had to be embraced by
business employers, as well as the state agencies.
CHAIR COGHILL said that Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
would review this area.
2:07:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referenced three things Mr. Houser had
mentioned for making a difference to those getting out of
prison: stable housing, treatment, and employment. She offered
her agreement to the need for more funding for treatment, and
asked what incentives could be offered to employers and
landlords to give an opportunity to those released from
incarceration.
MR. TAYLOR replied that DOC offered fidelity bonding to
employers, though he was not aware of any housing incentives.
MR. LEE stated that NLDI encouraged job development agreements
with employers, which were more successful when a stable housing
situation had been taken arranged.
2:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked about follow up housing
opportunities after leaving NLDI, and if there were any
incentives.
MR. LEE reported that transitional housing was being extended,
and that NLDI had agreements with Cook Inlet Housing and Alaska
Housing to create a housing history which could be relayed to
the next housing provider.
MR. VENTAGEN shared that Akeela had transitional housing for up
to two years in Ketchikan and Anchorage for those who had
completed treatment and substance abuse programs. He noted that
Akeela worked closely with prospective landlords to show the
ability of those transitioning out to pay rent.
2:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for an explanation to fidelity
bonding.
MR. TAYLOR explained that the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD) offered bonds, similar to a guaranteed
assurity, for ex-felons. He allowed that the state assumed some
responsibility, and he offered to send more information. In
response to Chair Coghill, he expressed his agreement that a
transitional housing program based on the Delancey Street
Foundation model was being offered by Cook Inlet Region,
Incorporated (CIRI), as well as other supportive services.
2:14:52 PM
MR. LEE stated that NLDI was working toward its next component,
permanent re-entry supportive housing.
2:16:16 PM
JANET MCCABE said that Partners for Progress had been working
for the past 14 years with both the therapeutic courts and
housing and re-entry assistance. She directed attention to its
suggested amendment provided to the committee on July 25, 2013,
which proposed a change to AS 28.35.030(k) and the potential
impact on electronic monitoring [Included in members' packets].
This would allow first time DUI offenders to use electronic
monitoring in lieu of a mandatory three day incarceration. She
explained that legislation currently required on site
supervision. She declared support for the effective development
of electronic monitoring. She listed an estimated annual cost
savings to the state of $860,000, though she surmised that this
was a conservative estimate. She stated that the recidivism
rate after use of electronic monitoring was only 18 percent
after three years. She suggested that first time DUI offenders
should not be housed with higher level offenders. She
referenced research articles which stated that electronic
monitoring was the wave of the future. She expressed her
agreement with electronic monitoring being combined with
personal contact. She summarized by declaring that DOC
maintained up to date equipment, and strove to meet individual
needs.
2:22:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed her concern that elimination of
incarceration would send the wrong message with regard to the
severity of the crime. She questioned the responses from
victim's rights groups and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD),
as they had strongly advocated for a "big hammer" for a first
time DUI. She opined that a first DUI offense should be a "wake
up call." She acknowledged all of the reasons listed by Ms.
McCabe, but expressed her concern for changing the sentencing
guidelines for DUI offenses. She declared her preference for
funding to be directed toward a treatment program.
MS. MCCABE offered her agreement with the concerns for DUI, but,
noting that second and third DUI offenders were allowed to be
placed with electronic monitoring, she questioned the lack of
consistency for not allowing the same for a first time offender.
She declared that this would continue to send the aforementioned
shock value message.
2:27:23 PM
MR. HOUSER advised that research had indicated that "shock
incarceration" was not a good idea, as the shock was the initial
arrest, booking, and court appearance. He said that the three
day DUI arrest was a waste of money. He emphasized the
necessity for the DOC staff to explain the judicial and legal
process, and the expectations after completion of the program,
as offenders only heard the sentencing, and nothing else. He
reported that much of the 18 percent rate of recidivism after
use of electronic monitors was due to non-completion of the
conditions of probation. He reiterated that the DOC staff,
during the briefing prior to use of electronic monitors, worked
to ensure that offenders understood the judicial process.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for any evidence based statistics.
MR. HOUSER referenced a 2008 study by the University of Utah
which addressed the lack of value for shock incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if Partners for Progress had
discussed its proposed amendment with MADD or other groups with
a vested interest in the DUI laws.
MS. MCCABE replied that she would make those contacts.
CHAIR COGHILL said that he would invite testimony from a
representative of MADD.
2:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed an interest in receiving the
statistics addressing drunk driving arrests in states that did
and did not have mandatory jail sentences. She offered her
belief that anecdotal evidence indicated that jail sentences
were instrumental in decision making.
2:32:44 PM
MS. MCCABE stated that many other states choose not to
incarcerate for misdemeanors.
CHAIR COGHILL, declaring the importance for reviewing the
aforementioned University of Utah study, listed accountability,
a change of behavior, and maintenance of public safety as the
prime concerns before making policy changes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that jail time could act as a
deterrent to those new to the criminal justice system.
MS. MCCABE reflected that the University of Utah study would be
very instructive. Referring to the aforementioned bonding for
employment, she stated that there had never been a request for a
bond payout. She opined that the hirees became very good
employees.
2:38:16 PM
BILL MICKELSON reported that he had been in law enforcement for
42 years with an emphasis on development and implementation of
special programs, including sobriety programs. He reported
that, in 2004, he began research on driving felonies related to
alcohol and drugs, as they accounted for almost 33 percent of
the state felonies. He declared the need to develop a new
criminal justice model to address this, which resulted in the
development of a 24/7 drug and alcohol monitoring program.
Since its inception, there had been 31,000 people placed in the
twice daily alcohol monitoring program, with a resulting 99.2
percent compliance. He explained that 85 percent of the alcohol
testing was this twice daily testing at a testing site, which
offered immediate results. He declared that this immediacy had
changed behavior and cognitive skills with a long term positive
approach to the criminal justice system. He said that the cost
savings had been significant, about $248 million, and that there
was more than a 50 percent reduction in repeat offenders for
DUI. He noted that, as there had also been a significant
reduction in domestic violence, judges were now using the 24/7
sobriety program for a variety of offenses as a condition of
bond, sentence, and probation. He reported that, as South
Dakota had DUI sentencing guidelines which required extended
times for driver's license suspension, the 24/7 sobriety program
had allowed for license reinstatement while successfully
participating.
MR. MICKELSON declared that the protocols and treatment
facilities liked the program as a means for changing behavior
and lowering the recidivism rates.
2:43:11 PM
TOM BUTLER, Colonel, Montana Highway Patrol, explained that he
had been in Montana law enforcement for 22 years. He detailed
that two Montana troopers were killed in drunken driving related
events in 2010, and this had lead the agency to review its DUI
policy. They studied the successful 24/7 sobriety program in
South Dakota and first initiated it as a pilot program in select
counties. In 2011, the program was fully implemented statewide,
which presented a significant shift in law enforcement approach.
He declared that budgetary shortfalls necessitated a nationwide
change for treatment within the criminal justice system. He
stated that alcohol and/or drugs were at the cause of almost
every entry into the criminal justice system. He declared that
control of alcohol in the equation would allow much greater
success. In a study by the Rand Corporation, the results of the
24/7 Sobriety program in South Dakota had indicated that repeat
DUI arrests were reduced by 12 percent, and domestic violence
arrests were reduced by 9 percent. He shared that Montana was
working with the Rand Corporation for a pilot study of twice
daily testing in Yellowstone County. He declared that the 24/7
program created structure in a person's life, with swift and
certain consequences for failure to the test, whereas, this
benefit was lost with electronic monitoring. He anticipated
that the Yellowstone County pilot study would be implemented in
the next two or three months.
2:47:46 PM
MR. BUTLER relayed that 65 percent of Montana's population was
covered by the 24/7 program, with almost 350,000 breath tests
being administered. He said that the percent of failure was
very similar to that of South Dakota, although there was not yet
enough data to analyze recidivism and its effects. He opined
that the results would be the same in both Montana and South
Dakota as there were similarities to both geography and
population base.
2:49:14 PM
DENNIS JOHNSON, Program Director, Alaska Pre-Trial Services,
explained that his service was a non-profit agency which
provided pre-trial electronic monitoring, as well as drug and
alcohol testing. He noted that the court had recently stated
its recognition of the need for a 24/7 [accountability] program.
He reported that Alaska Pre-Trial Services had initiated a
similar program a year prior to this, in which they had reviewed
the South Dakota program and its use of the company,
Intoximeters, Inc., which provided the assigning agency with the
reporting data for the twice daily testing. He offered his
belief that proposed SB 64, through a review of the data and
programs in other states, was an incredible opportunity to
address the issue in statute. He reported that his company had
176 people statewide on its pre-trial program. He noted that,
generally, first time DUI offenders were not referred to the
Alaska Pre-Trial Services program, as it focused on is role as
the court appointed third party custodians for more serious
offenses. He offered his belief that, although his company had
not had more than 50 offenders enrolled in the 24/7 program at
any given time, the 24/7 program was a response to the high
number of violations committed by offenders while out on bail.
He emphasized the need for "swift, immediate, sure consequences"
to any violation of the parole, which could include a return to
DOC custody, and an appearance before the judge who originally
sent the offender to the third party custodian program. He
expressed his strong support for the 24/7 program, and explained
its use for child custody determinations by the Office of
Children's Services (OCS).
2:55:35 PM
MR. JOHNSON, in response to Chair Coghill, explained that the
Intoximeters, Inc. data master and data base provided the
evidence in DUI cases. He explained that the billing for $5
each day per offender included payment of $1 each day to
Intoximeters, Inc. to allow use of its database. He noted that
there was an opportunity for the State of Alaska to purchase the
data base for use with its departments. He reported on his
staffing around Alaska, which included 10 officers and 4 support
staff in the Anchorage area. He noted that the case load was
about 40 offenders per officer. He clarified that the 24/7
program was voluntary, and would allow for approximately 300-350
offenders to be kept out of correctional facilities. In
response to Chair Coghill, he explained that the recidivism rate
for those who had been in the program was about 16.5 percent, as
this program included higher risk participants. He relayed
that, as the third party custodians, they had developed
protocols with the local authorities for custody and
transportation.
3:01:44 PM
DOUGLAS MOODY, Deputy Public Defender, Criminal Division,
Central Office, Department of Administration, noted that there
had been a low technology system similar to 24/7 with Village
Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) in Bethel more than 25 years
prior. He expressed concern for the cost to the offender, and
he suggested there be a sliding scale of cost.
3:04:39 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked whether any states had moved from a voluntary
system, and if there was any effect on the cost and the success
of the monitoring program if the state paid for the program.
3:05:12 PM
MR. BUTLER replied that, in Montana, the cost was $2 per test,
of which $1 was designated for the jurisdiction administering
the test, and $1 was paid to Intoximeters, Inc. for use of its
software. The average blood alcohol level with a DUI arrest in
Montana equated to 15-16 drinks, which would cost $12-$25. He
declared that the payment of the 24/7 monitoring program was not
an issue for those offenders. He shared that South Dakota had
warned against providing the testing on credit, opining that
offenders provided the funds in order to keep themselves out of
jail. He noted that Montana had previously spent millions of
dollars of software. He emphatically stated that the
Intoximeters, Inc. software had been excellent, with no state
money invested in the system.
3:08:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that Mr. Moody address any
constitutional problems with the proposed legislation and the
aforementioned proposed amendment from Partners for Progress
[Included in members' packets].
3:09:15 PM
SHIRLEY LEE, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), explained that
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) was a non-profit consortium of 42
Interior tribes and member organizations with a mission to
improve the health of Alaska Natives through medical and
behavioral health services. She reported that she was also an
Episcopal priest, active in prison ministry and prison advocacy.
She shared that TCC was interested in the proposed bill, as
there was a disproportionate number of incarcerated Alaska
Natives, most of whom for substance abuse. She declared the
need of incentives for change in order to succeed in recovery,
or recidivism among native populations would continue. She
stated that sentencing reform was necessary, as statistics
indicated that the punishment for substance related crime did
not deter the offender, and a better approach would be to
address the underlying problem of substance abuse. She declared
that there was a great need for expanded treatment and behavior
health service. She applauded the creation of an expert
commission through the proposed bill, and she suggested that the
Alaska Native member be nominated through a tribal organization,
as the representative of a tribal entity would have more
expertise. She pointed out that each of the health programs
needed to consider substance abuse as an impacting factor. She
concurred with the suggestion by Senator Dyson that a member of
the commission be an individual who had been sentenced and
incarcerated in Alaska, in order to give voice to that
population. She suggested this include both an urban and a
rural nominee, as each had quite different experiences.
MS. LEE said that TCC was very supportive of the limited license
opportunity for those with successful adherence to therapeutic
court, as the program could provide incentive to offenders. She
emphasized that TCC was excited with proposed SB 64 and what it
represented as the first step on a large scale.
MS. LEE directed attention to the 24/7 program, and questioned
its effectiveness in rural villages. She expressed concern for
false positives, a lack of holding facilities, and the speed for
a response given the remoteness of many villages. She opined
that any the reforms needed to address the possibility of
partnerships with Native organizations for solutions. She
explained that many communities conducted sentencing circles
where community members and the offender met in a circle and the
individual was told how their conduct impacted the community.
She declared that this had proven to be a successful, low-cost
effective approach.
MS. LEE noted a concern for the lack of information regarding
undiagnosed Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) among offenders, and
questioned whether this should have any impact on the
sentencing. She pointed out that the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) had successfully implemented
telemedicine in rural villages, and she suggested this should be
considered in judicial decision making. She reported that the
Housing First program had been successful with providing
permanent housing for homeless, chronic inebriates, and this
same philosophy could be applied for offenders. The precept was
that the provision of permanent, stable housing created a stable
base for work on other issues.
3:17:22 PM
MS. LEE concluded by pointing out that TCC was constantly
reviewing approaches for creating meaningful change and
improvement to the way justice was served and lives were
improved, as this should be the end goal. She shared that
transformation for an individual could transform a family, a
village, and "perhaps even a state."
3:17:56 PM
CHAIR COGHILL expressed his agreement with her summary of the
issues. He relayed that, although he struggled with some tribal
authority issues, local accountability was the "highest premium
you can get." He declared his commitment to making this work,
and reiterated that accountability was the way to make the
programs succeed. He opined that the 24/7 program offered
accountability, which could lead to positive results for a
decrease in domestic violence, wellness in the community, and
greater family togetherness.
3:19:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to page 3, line 2, of the
proposed bill, asked for clarification to the suggested changes.
He asked Ms. Lee for her suggestions in order for the state to
avoid any "crossfire of various people in the various Native
communities." He asked that any suggestions be forwarded to the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that he was also searching for
language to this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his earlier question to Mr.
Moody, that Mr. Moody addresses any constitutional problems with
the proposed legislation and the aforementioned proposed
amendment from Partners for Progress. He declared his desire to
avoid any last minute adjustments.
CHAIR COGHILL shared that Legislative Legal Services had stated
that this content was within constitutional boundaries.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to see any legal memos addressing
this issue.
CHAIR COGHILL declared that constitutionality was a "touchstone"
for any draft to a bill.
3:21:51 PM
MR. MOODY replied that he did not see any constitutional
problems with the proposed bill or any of the proposed changes,
as currently written. He noted that PACE was a similar program
type, and it did not pose any problems.
3:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there was not language in
the bill that he, as an attorney, would like to have included.
He referred to the language on page 4, lines 8 - 9, and
suggested that the commission also consider any published
appellate decisions.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested that, as the Department of Law should
also be involved with this language, it would be best to work on
these details in committee. He declared that the proposed bill
would still have amendments, and that the budget for the 24/7
and the PACE program would still need to be discussed.
3:25:50 PM
MR. TAYLOR said that the DOC was excited about the reentry
efforts and the development of the partnerships, all working to
move "our system in a positive direction." He stated that he
was looking forward to building a strong re-entry program to
ensure that those people released from custody be successful
when leaving incarceration. He declared that the 24/7 and the
PACE programs were tools for staff to use to help ensure success
for people upon their release from custody.
3:27:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the suggestions for the proposed
bill were now on the table, and he intended to incorporate many
of these and introduce a committee substitute. He suggested
that the House Judiciary Standing Committee could either wait to
see the Senate version, or work on its own version.
3:28:15 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked that Chair Coghill consider another joint
meeting of the committees to evaluate any proposed committee
substitutes.
CHAIR COGHILL offered his belief that the 24/7 program "was one
of the best things that we can do to roll forward." He noted
that other tools could also be available, and other issues could
also be addressed in the proposed bill.
3:30:01 PM
MR. BUTLER offered to participate in future meetings and he
invited any members of the joint committee to come review the
program in person, offering his belief that this would be
beneficial.
MR. MICKELSON expressed his concurrence and he also extended the
same invitation.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed his desire for evidence based input, and
noted that he would accept both their offers for help.
3:31:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the joint meeting of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee and Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 64 PowerPoint Presentation 11 4 13.pptx |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| RecidivismRates.pdf |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| Joint Judiciary Agenda1.docx |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| DOC Usage of Electronic Monitoring.docx |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| SB 64 FINAL Sponsor Statement Revised 10 30 13 (3).docx |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| For Calendar Year 2012.docx |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| PACE vs Regular Probation.docx |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
|
| How DOC Allocates Resources.pdf |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| Prison Population vs. Prison Capacity.PNG |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| What Other States Are Doing.pdf |
SJUD 11/4/2013 9:30:00 AM |
SB 64 |