Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 211
02/18/2009 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview - Containment Model of Offender Management | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 18, 2009
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview: Containment Model of Offender Management
HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
ANTHONY M. MANDER, PhD
Statewide Clinical Consultant
Sex Offender Programming
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the Containment Model of Offender
Management.
ROSE MUNAFO, Coordinator
Criminal Justice Planner for Sex Offender Programming
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to the
Containment Model of Offender Management.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about polygraph use
for sex offenders.
BERNIE TROGLIO, Probation Officer
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to parole
revocation rates for sex offenders.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Elton, Wielechowski and French. Senators
McGuire and Therriault arrived soon thereafter.
^Overview - Containment Model of Offender Management
CHAIR FRENCH said the business before the committee is to hear
an overview of the containment model of offender management.
Hopefully this is just the first of what will be a series of
hearings on various aspects of the problems of sex abuse and sex
assault. Alaska leads the nation and we have to figure out where
we can improve the system so that the next generation of
Alaskans doesn't live under these high rates of sex assault and
sex abuse of a minor.
1:35:36 PM
ANTHONY M. MANDER, Ph.D., statewide consultant for sex offender
programming for the Department of Corrections introduced
himself, Commissioner Joe Schmidt, and Deputy Commissioner Sam
Edwards. He also introduced Rose Munafo who is the criminal
justice planner for sex offender programming, Bernie Troglio who
manages the supervision of sex offenders statewide, Laura Brooks
who is in charge of mental health programs, and Donna White who
is in charge of community corrections.
He noted that Commissioner Schmidt and Deputy Commissioner
Edwards were most helpful in getting a rural program and halfway
house started in Bethel and he is most appreciative.
1:37:55 PM
Senator McGuire and Senator Therriault joined the committee.
MR. MANDER described the containment model as a three-legged
stool. The first leg of the model is sex offender specific
treatment that is designed to teach offenders to recognize and
control high-risk behavior including deviant thinking and affect
that leads to sexual offending. The second leg of the model is
very specific monitoring of the sex offender. The treatment
providers supply information, when available, to the supervision
staff so they know what to look for in the field when offenders
have been released. The third leg of the containment model is
the polygraph examination; there are three types. First is the
specific issue polygraph on denial that helps offenders work
through denial issues related to their sexual offenses. He noted
that in one study, fully 50 percent of convicted sex offenders
completely denied having offended and another 48 percent had
some sort of partial denial of their behavior. For example, they
may have denied using force claiming the behavior was
consensual. In that particular study, just 2 percent of the
offenders admitted to all the behavior they were charged with.
MR. MANDER reported that a study he conducted in 1999 found that
some 90 percent of the offenders had some form of denial, which
is a problem. You can't help someone with a problem they don't
admit they have so one of the first things they do with the
polygraph assessment is to help the offender through their
denial. It's only then that they're able to look at the
underlying process and find out how they got into an offending
cycle.
The second type of polygraph is a sexual history polygraph to
find out what the offender has done over the course of their
life. The offender fills out a variety of sexual history forms
and then is given a polygraph to determine the truthfulness of
their admissions. Basically, what they learn up front is the tip
of the iceberg. The true nature of their offending doesn't
become clear until completion of the sexual history polygraph.
The third type of polygraph is a maintenance and monitoring
polygraph, which is designed to ensure that the offender is
following the conditions of probation and parole. These
polygraphs are very critical when an offender is placed in the
community to tell if they are falling into a relapse cycle.
1:44:09 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to clarify that all polygraphs take place
post release from prison.
MR. MANDER replied that's correct; no polygraph work is done in
the prison at this point. He noted that colleagues in Colorado
do polygraph assessments in the prison treatment program. The
benefit is that the offenders have gone through the denial phase
and had their sexual history polygraphs prior to release. That's
important because you'd know what the offender has done so you'd
know who to protect once they are released and back in the
community.
MR. MANDER explained that what happens in Alaska is that 84
percent of polygraphs done in the community are the third type -
the maintenance and monitoring polygraphs. With good reason,
probation officers are most concerned with what the offender is
doing today. If an offender is having unauthorized contact with
kids or is stalking a potential victim, probation officers need
to know about that immediately. The denial and sexual history
polygraphs aren't done because they're in that reactive
situation.
SENATOR ELTON noted that after the Governor signed the budget
last year and after she asked the departments for proposals on
potential savings, Department of Corrections sent the following
recommendation as part of a July 31, 2008 memo:
Third year fiscal note funding for sex offender
polygraphs - $752,500.
1. The sex offender polygraph program is under
performing. However, it has recently shown
improvements in our ability to hire qualified
polygraphists.
2. We propose to restrict the funding for 2 PFT
probation positions until the program is performing at
full levels.
He asked why there was a recommendation to not do what the
Legislature thought was happening.
1:48:20 PM
DWAYNE PEEPLES, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Department of Corrections,
explained that the money was a continuation of what had been
start-up money. DOC listed a series of options for the
Governor's office to select from and those were rejected. "We
were told to go back and manage some other way," he said.
SENATOR ELTON asked for clarification that the money was spent
for the program.
MR. PEEPLES confirmed that it was.
MR. MANDER described the polygraph as an information gathering
system. It provides information about an offender's offence
pattern that would be difficult to get otherwise, because sex
offenders naturally cover up their offending history. In FY08
DOC conducted polygraphs on 247 sex offenders released on
community supervision. Only 9 had passed their sexual history
polygraph examination. As previously mentioned, that was largely
due to the fact that examiners were doing maintenance polygraphs
and weren't able to get to the sexual history polygraph. Prior
to passing the sexual history polygraphs, those 9 men had 12
known victims between them; after the polygraph the number of
known victims increased to 42 victims - an average of 4.67 per
offender. Before the polygraph they had 4 known adult victims
and 7 known child victims; after passing the polygraph this
jumped to 9 known adult victims and 33 child victims. None of
the 9 offenders initially admitted to having male victims, but
after passing the polygraph there were 8 male victims. Mr.
Mander emphasized the importance of this information for two
reasons. Not only is it important to know what victim classes to
protect, but also because offenders with male victims recidivate
at much higher levels. He noted that Colorado data indicated
that at sentencing each offender had an average of 1 victim.
After passing the sexual history polygraphs, the average jumped
to 11 victims.
MR. MANDER said polygraphs also provide information on the issue
of crossover. That is when an offender assaults in multiple age,
gender, and relationship categories. Although offenders
frequently do have a preferred victim type, it's proven to be
false that they restrict themselves only to that victim type. In
a study of 411 sex offenders, 50.6 percent of the rapists also
admitted to molesting children. Another study of 127 rapists
found that 64 percent of the men admitted to having child
victims. Yet another study found 50 percent of child victims
among rapists and another 15 percent were deceptive on the
polygraph. Probably 50 percent to 65 percent of rapists also
have child victims.
1:52:47 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if the victims are identified and referred
to victim services.
MR. MANDER clarified that the victims he's talking about are
from the past; some are receiving services and some haven't been
identified. When information on the victims is available the
probation officers can facilitate getting victim services, but
they don't search them out.
SENATOR ELTON suggested that if they can identify a child victim
it seems that there may be a benefit to the state to offer
family services to that victim. Some of them will have difficult
times and that will lead to costs in the future.
MR. MANDER agreed completely. National statistics show that the
average cost per victim is about $86,500 because a variety of
agencies are impacted. In addition to family services and mental
health agencies, the education system also is impacted because
many of these students don't do well in school. They're 6 times
more likely to suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome, 3
times more likely to suffer from depression, and 13 times more
likely to attempt suicide. It's very important that there's
coordination between departments; some states actually have a
sex offender management board. Agency representatives sit on the
board and help provide objective oversight to sex offender
programs and assist in writing policy about procedures to
follow. In those systems it's easier to pass information about
victims back and forth and to get services to them.
1:56:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the state is doing today with respect to
specific treatment for sex offenders.
MR. MANDER explained that they do cognitive behavior treatment
working to get the offenders to recognize the thoughts, emotions
and behaviors that bring about relapse patterns. Currently, all
the programs are community-based; the last institutional program
was closed in 2003 by the previous administration. Recently a
20-bed halfway house program was opened in Bethel to serve the
Yukon Kuskoquim region. That along with the 10 or 12 community
slots in Bethel is the only institutional program at this point.
There are community-based out-of-treatment programs in Juneau,
Ketchikan, Kenai, Anchorage, Fairbanks and Palmer.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it's fair to say that a rapist or child
molester who is sent to state prison will be released without
having been forced to go to treatment or undergo a polygraph
examination while in prison.
MR. MANDER replied that's right. There's no treatment in prison
at this time, but they will have had a risk assessment. He does
about 50 of those every year and 2 other providers do another
40.
1:59:41 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the risk assessments are targeted at
offenders that may need that focus or if it's a random check on
who is released.
MR. MANDER explained that they focus on offenders who are close
to release and then on those who are the highest risk. Resources
are insufficient to assess everyone.
ROSE MUNAFO, Planner, Criminal Justice and Sex Offender
Programming, Department of Corrections, added that even when
there was institutional treatment, they didn't have the
authority to force a sex offender to go to treatment. "We could
recommend it, sometimes the court would order it, but we really
could not make anyone do treatment, which is unfortunate."
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the courts had some back and forth about
what it meant to fail treatment or to revoke probation for
failing to complete treatment, but he doesn't recall the
outcome.
MR. MANDER said HB 366 addressed offenders who were court
ordered to treatment and then removed unfavorably. They could
lose their mandatory good time.
2:01:25 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if they use biofeedback in the cognitive
assessments.
MR. MANDER said no.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if they've considered it.
MR. MANDER replied biofeedback is a stress management treatment
whereas a cognitive behavioral approach has proven to be more
successful with sex offenders. In any kind treatment certain
techniques might be used to deal with specific problems, but a
lot of the traditional techniques either don't work or
exacerbate the problem. Some studies actually show an increase
in recidivism when certain traditional methods are used while
current research indicates that the cognitive behavioral
approach actually is working to reduce recidivism. They focus on
a cognitive behavioral approach primarily because it's the best
practice at this time.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if they do any sort of exit assessment to
assess what each offender will look like in the community. One
of the questions ought to ask whether they're likely to
reoffend.
2:04:14 PM
MR. MANDER explained that the risk assessments they perform are
a form of exit interview. They use tools to come up with a best
guess of which people are the most dangerous with respect to the
kind of harm they might cause if they recidivate. For example,
one offender may expose himself and have thousands of offenses
but never touch anybody, whereas another offender may have fewer
offenses and be very dangerous when they do offend. They
evaluate that information, they a write report and make
recommendations to the probation officer, the offender, and the
safety nets in the community. Safety nets are people who are in
a position to observe the offender on a day-to-day basis and are
trained to observe and report any signs of pre-relapse. The
offenders that get risk assessments receive them pre-release.
Everyone doesn't get a risk assessment because of insufficient
resources.
MR. MANDER said he believes that institutional treatment is
needed, particularly for the most dangerous people. While some
offenders could be treated effectively in a half-way house and
some could do fine with just community treatment, there are
others who need intense institutional treatment prior to
release. Those offenders probably should go through all phases
of an institutional program, a half-way house program, community
treatment and intense post-release supervision. But there aren't
resources for that right now.
SENATOR MCGUIRE reminded him that when the Oregon project came
to Juneau and when the legislation was passed, the mindset was
one of acceptance that ratcheting up penalties for this group of
people doesn't work. This population needs to be contained to
prevent future harm to children and people in the community.
Although she's cognizant of the institutional treatment he's
discussing, she would be more interested in having baseline
assessments and exit interviews for all sex offenders. She asked
what the Legislature can do to help.
2:08:39 PM
MS. MUNAFO said the reality is that all sex offenders cannot be
supervised to the maximum so there has to be a way to focus on
the people that are the most high-risk and will do the most harm
if they reoffend.
2:10:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH commented that she and Senator McGuire are saying
the same thing. What we want you to do is to use the polygraph
to find out who is the most dangerous and focus on them, he
said.
MR. MANDER pointed out that in FY08 there were 157 petitions
filed to revoke probation on sex offenders and 127 of those were
for substance abuse or general non-compliance. 30 petitions were
filed for sexual breaches, which could be for possessing
pornography or having unauthorized contact with a child. That
information was obtained through polygraphs so the probation
officers were able to intervene before a new offense happened.
"That's the containment and that's what the polygraph allows us
to do," he said.
MS. MUNAFO added that the other piece is the treatment because
that's where you get the sex history. If it's a matter of record
that an offender has one or more adult female victims, it's when
treatment is supplemented by polygraph that you learn that he
also has small children victims and little boy victims.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that the polygraph examiners gather the
information, which is passed to the treatment providers. He
asked for a sense of the number of treatment providers statewide
who confront these sex offenders with the polygraph results.
2:13:06 PM
MR. MANDER replied there are multiple providers in most areas.
Historically, the community programs were set up and funded as
aftercare programs for the institutional programs. When the men
were in prison they were in group treatment every day for
several hours and had individual treatment several times a week.
Some had family sessions as well, but not often. The community
programs were funded for an hour and a half group session once a
week and an individual treatment session once a month. It takes
community program treatment providers longer to get to know
these men and figure out their risk signs.
MS. MUNAFO added that they're in the community and posing risk
while the treatment provider is figuring it out versus in a
secure environment. In several states the litmus test on whether
or not a person is ready to leave institutional treatment is if
they can pass the sex history polygraph. In this state we don't
find that out until the offender's back out on the street for
several months if not a couple of years.
CHAIR FRENCH said he's going to have buttons made that say,
"POLYGRAPHS IN PRISONS" and ask people in the capitol to wear
them.
MR. MANDER said they'd appreciate his following through on that.
2:15:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the 157 petitions to revoke parole
were based on polygraphs.
BERNIE TROGLIO, Probation Officer, Department of Corrections,
said not all, it's partially based on the polygraph and the
other part is based on technical violations.
MS. MUNAFO added that more than just polygraph evidence is
needed to go to court. For example, if you're testing an
offender about whether or not he's had inappropriate contact
with potential victims, you'd do a maintenance polygraph asking
about contact with children in preferred and other age ranges.
If he's failing the polygraph, then his probation officer can
confront him with the results. If he still denies, you take
steps to contain him by watching more closely and restrict his
movement. If he's still not responsive, you'd file a petition to
revoke probation based on the fact that he's not doing what his
conditions of probation or parole mandate.
MR. MANDER added that it begins with the polygraph. Another tool
to contain an offender is surveillance.
2:17:22 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced the "Summary Outcome
Information" in the data sheet from DOC and calculated that 67
percent of the people in community treatment reoffended, which
seems very high. He recalled that the recidivism report that
came out a year or so ago indicated that the recidivism rate for
sex offenders was 30 to 40 percent.
MR. MANDER said it's a fair question and they'd look at the data
more closely because recidivism for sex offenders is generally
lower than for generic offenders. Typically it's 20 to 30
percent over a long period of time. Looking just a year out of
prison will give a lower rate, which is why it's usually
expressed in terms of a survival curve.
2:20:27 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE said studies she's read report rates as high as
70 and 80 percent. The basic premise of the Oregon containment
project was that despite all types of treatment and stiff
penalties, this population continues to reoffend. She continued:
I think it's really important that Alaskans not
misunderstand, and have on the public record that it's
only a 20 percent recidivism rate for sex offenders in
this state. I don't think that's the number. And I
don't know how the data is being put together in this
particular compilation, but I would appreciate it if
you could go back and look at those numbers and make
an effort to see what are the true sex offenders and
what is that rate within Alaska. And then perhaps
compare it to the most current national average.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that one of the UAA Justice Center
researchers will talk to the committee about those data points
as well as case attrition. "It's a narrowing pool that you work
through until you get to a convicted sex offender that we're
focusing on today," he added.
MR. MANDER agreed to provide additional information.
2:22:32 PM
MR. MANDER highlighted the need to improve data collection and
analysis and said they will continue to work with UAA. It will
also be important to recreate community treatment programs in
rural areas like the one in Bethel. That program has gone well
and they hope to have polygraph examinations there sometime this
or next year.
CHAIR FRENCH referenced the table on page 2 of the handout and
asked how many polygraphs were administered to the 247 sex
offenders who in FY08 were on community release.
MR. MANDER clarified that the numbers in the table are
cumulative; 668 polygraphs were administered as of 12/31/08.
CHAIR FRENCH said he's trying to get a feel for how often those
247 individuals were given polygraph examinations.
MS. MUNAFO explained that it varies by individual but typically
someone would be given a polygraph examination about four times
a year.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what happens in Bethel, for example, if
polygraph examinations are a condition of parole and there isn't
an examiner in the community. "What do you do for those
individuals in the YK Delta?"
MS. MUNAFO replied it's not much different in the YK Delta than
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau or anywhere else. Post-conviction
sex offender polygraph examination is a specialized field that
requires additional schooling after becoming a polygraph
examiner. Currently only two of the seven qualified examiners
live in Alaska. The other five fly up from the Lower-48 so
flying to Bethel isn't much different than flying to Fairbanks,
for example. She surmised that Alaska someday will have a
contingent of polygraph examiners who have been trained to
assess sex offenders. Judging from the experience of other
states, it'll probably be five to ten years from now.
2:27:58 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE suggested there's room to consider volunteer
preventative polygraph examinations for incest and child
molestation. By the time someone is in the system for these
crimes, the souls of the people who have been left behind are,
for all intents and purposes, injured for life. We need to think
about things to do at the outset, before a child's life is taken
permanently, she said. If you haven't thought about it, would
you consider having that discussion in the future, she asked.
MS. MUNAFO said she's given it a lot of thought and she has
information to provide, but education is the key. It takes a
long time, but communities have to be educated such that they
don't tolerate sex abuse and they develop a way to deal with it.
Vermont started a program about 15 years ago that was voluntary
in the sense that offenders could call in anonymously and get
help for their victim and themselves. Mississippi has the "Stop
It Now" model. Early intervention and education in the school is
part of it and that's what the sex offender management model
does. We'd want to consider that here, she said. When you have
people looking at the sex offender programs who deal with the
victims day in and day out they start to become more aware of
what happens to victims and so you get the early prevention.
People are going into the schools to work with and help kids
beyond the "good touch bad touch" teaching. It's more than
cursory.
2:33:04 PM
MR. MANDER relayed that a provider started a safety-net program
in the community of Metlakatla. Over time he had trained about
50 people so that eight offenders in the community each had a
safety-net team that was knowledgeable about their relapse
cycles. Most of the offenders had been through institutional
treatment and were cooperative, but one refused to develop a
safety-net team so community leaders came forward to form a
community safety net. Ten or twelve community members met the
man when he returned and told him that he was welcome in
Metlakatla, but his behavior was not welcome. Community
education is very important and more needs to be done in that
area, he said.
2:35:14 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Munafo to send the information she has
his office and he'll distribute it to other members.
SENATOR ELTON asked what the end result is if DOC is compelled
to meet a court order that mandates a particular treatment
regime for a sex offender and it doesn't happen. He noted that
it had been an issue when a now retired Juneau superior court
judge ordered a certain treatment regime that wasn't done.
JOE SCHMIDT, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, explained
that DOC doesn't have sex offender treatment in prison right
now. They asked for a program last year and will ask for one
again this year, but they're expensive. If a judge were to order
treatment it's likely that DOC would be out of compliance and
would return to the Legislature to talk about a solution. "I
don't know how we could comply without funding," he said.
2:38:32 PM
MS. MUNAFO suggested it's important to analyze all the factors
and consider how expensive it is not to provide sex offender
treatment programs in prisons.
CHAIR FRENCH said it sounds as though the ball is in the
Legislature's court. We're in the budget sub-committee process
now and it's good we've had this conversation to highlight the
need to focus on that and other aspects, he said.
MR. MANDER highlighted the importance of considering victim
costs because the overall financial impact across departments is
enormous. If each victim costs $86,500 in the Lower-48, it's
probably $100,000 for each victim in Alaska. "We don't have to
prevent that many victims in order to pay for our programs," he
said.
COMMISSIONER SCHMIT added that those are good justifications to
do what we're trying to do and he could show the victim costs to
the Legislature. But the fact remains that without funding DOC
would be out of compliance in the meantime.
MS. MUNAFO said it's more than just a fiscal cost; there's a
societal and human cost to not addressing something that causes
such devastation in communities.
2:40:40 PM
CHAIR FRENCH thanked the participants and adjourned the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee at 2:40 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|