Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/27/2017 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Implementation Overview of Senate Bill 91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2017
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Kevin Meyer
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW OF SENATE BILL 91
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the implementation overview
of Senate Bill 91.
DIANE CASTO, Behavioral Health Policy Advisor
Commissioner's Office
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the implementation overview
of Senate Bill 91.
TONY PIPER, Statewide Program Manager
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Health and Social Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the implementation overview
of Senate Bill 91.
JEFF JESSEE, Trust Program Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the implementation overview
of Senate Bill 91.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:59 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kelly, Wielechowski and Chair Coghill.
^Implementation Overview of Senate Bill 91
Implementation Overview of Senate Bill 91
1:34:31 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the purpose of the meeting is to hear
about some of the implementation issues and timelines for SB 91.
He listed the people who would present and invited Ms. Meade to
come forward.
1:36:19 PMA
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Alaska Court
System, said she was asked to address the committee in three
general areas: 1) the implementation steps and process the court
went through after the passage of Senate Bill 91; 2)
implementation issues or areas of concern that the committee may
want to address; and 3) to respond to questions about the
statewide bail schedule.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Senator Hughes had joined the
committee.
MS. MEADE discussed what the Court System did to ensure that the
agency would use the new laws embodied in Senate Bill 91. She
explained that the role of the judges is to apply the laws the
legislature passes and her role is to ensure that the judges are
aware of those laws. Her first step was to write a memo to the
judges pointing out what had changed and what they might expect
to see. She also provided materials the judges would find
helpful. For example, she updated the penalty checklist and
summarized the applicability section of the bill so that people
would know what laws apply to what offenses depending on when
the offense took place.
MS. MEADE said the bill can be divided into three phases. Many
things went into effect on July 12, 2016; more changes went into
effect on January 1, 2017; and another set of changes, primarily
relating to pretrial, will go into effect in January, 2018.
She reviewed the outreach and educational process she followed
to familiarize people involved in the criminal justice system
with what the bill said and what the judges were told the bill
said. Initially, she gave three presentations in Anchorage to
any prosecutors and defense attorneys who wanted to attend.
Next, she spoke to 60 Alaska State Troopers at the crime lab in
Anchorage. Thereafter, she gave 1-2 hour presentations in
Juneau, Fairbanks, Palmer, Bethel, and Kenai. The public
defender office and prosecutor's office were always invited. She
responded to questions as best she could and shied away from any
support or criticism of the bill. The presentations were
absolutely neutral and factual.
MS. MEADE related that the administration office for the Court
System continues to hold weekly two hour meetings. In response
to the bill, the court rules attorney has amended or added usage
notes to four court rules, and the two court forms attorneys
have revised or added 74 forms. Each of those forms has to be
approved by the judges and involves quite a bit of work. She
cited the example of the process to receive a limited driver's
license for people in certain circumstances. The form has to
have simple, straightforward language that the public can
understand and follow. To arrive at consensus, the Court System
held several meetings with representatives from the Division of
Motor Vehicles and other agencies. "Getting agreement on
everything that had to be in those forms was quite a task."
1:43:31 PM
She said this is an ongoing process and the Court System is very
open to fixing things that aren't working as well as they
should. She provided examples and related that they also had to
amend CourtView input data instructions for the clerks, which
entailed several teleconference with clerks statewide. The bill
also requires the court to provide certain data to the Criminal
Justice Commission. That has been a task for a single person and
she's had a good number of meetings to make sure she is doing
that appropriately. She described the internal meetings as one
step and the external meetings with DPS, DMV, and DOC as
another.
1:45:32 PM
MS. MEADE addressed some of issues the Court System believes
might be appropriate for the legislature to look at. She said
these have been brought to the attention of the Criminal Justice
Commission so that they may make a recommendation to fix these
as well. The suggestions are not in the large policy or
substantive areas. She noted that she provided a packet of
selected sections of the statute that might make it a little
more straightforward.
CHAIR COGHILL said his intention is to go over the Commission
recommendations on Monday.
MS. MEADE clarified that she would be speaking to the words in
the bill and referring to the hand written numbers at the bottom
of the pages she provided.
Page 1 looks at Sec. 29 and Sec. 30 of Senate Bill 91. At the
Commission's recommendation, these sections made violation of
condition of release into a violation. Formerly it was a crime.
This recommendation was based on information that this was one
of the less serious offenses that people can commit and so a
violation was a more appropriate way to handle these offenses.
The legislature adopted the Commission's recommendation.
MS. MEADE this is an area the Commission will recommend a
change. This provision has proven to be quite difficult to
implement and quite difficult logistically and might be
something that does need some jail time. She said the crux of
the problem is that this is a violation and the maximum penalty
is $1,000. It is not a jailable offense. There is a specific
provision that says an officer can arrest a person for the
behavior but the jail doesn't want to keep them because it
doesn't make sense to keep somebody on bail pretrial if there is
no possibility of jail time later. She said the Criminal Justice
Commission has reviewed the problems that have been inherent in
this change and may be recommending some jail time. "That would
alleviate the logistical concerns the court had in deciding what
to do with these people when they are brought up for their
arraignment or their first hearing on this offense."
1:50:34 PM
MS. MEADE directed attention to page 2 that looks at Sec. 65 of
Senate Bill 91. She explained that this is a provision the
legislature inserted that says that at sentencing, the court
shall provide a form that tells the victim how to keep abreast
of what is happening with the offender. Victims are able to use
the Victim Identification and Notification Everyday (VINE)
system website or toll-free number to receive updates on an
inmate's status. This seems logical and straightforward, but the
court encountered a problem when it tried to implement the
requirement that "the court shall provide the victim with a
form," because the court doesn't have victim information. The
court has been complying with the requirement if the victim is
present at sentencing, and when the victim is on the phone the
judge directs the victim to the court website to access the
form. However, the court cannot give the form to victims who
aren't present or on the phone or decline to be involved in the
prosecution. It's not uncommon for this to happen.
She said the Criminal Justice Commission discussed this issue
and will probably recommend changing the wording to say, "The
court shall make available to the victim if practical". "The
court wants to comply and those are the steps it has taken so
far to do so," Ms. Meade said.
MS. MEADE directed attention to page 3 that looks at Sec. 77 of
Senate Bill 91. This is the suspended entry of judgement (SEJ).
This is an alternative means of resolving criminal cases, when
both the prosecution and defense agree. The court can give the
offender just probation time after they either plead guilty or
are found guilty. If the offender complies with the conditions
the entire time, the case will be dismissed at the end of
probation. The case will also come off CourtView so the person
won't suffer the negative consequences of having a conviction on
their record from that offense.
She explained that when the court tried to implement the
provision, there was a question of whether any jail time could
be imposed. The Commission discussed this earlier today and
agreed to make a yes or no recommendation. She said a
clarification would be helpful because AS 12.55.086 says the
court may impose a short period of incarceration in connection
with a suspended imposition of sentence. She noted that the same
provision does not apply to suspended entry of judgements (SEJs)
and some clarification might be in order to avoid a lot of
questions about that.
She pointed to the roster of violations on page 4 [Sec. 77. AS
12.55.078(f)] that are excluded from SEJs and advised that these
are basically copied from the Suspended Imposition of Sentence
(SIS) statute. However, there are also exclusions within
particular SIS statutes that are not excluded by the SEJ. She
said the main example that's causing questions is the DUI and
refusal statutes. Within Title 28 it says that an SIS is not
available but it does not say a SEJ is not available. It's open
to interpretation. She also questioned the language in
subsection (f), paragraphs (1)-(6), that refers to whether the
person is convicted of a violation of certain crimes. "I'm not
certain but I believe the legislature's intent was to have this
person not have the consequences of a conviction." She suggested
that perhaps the language should be "as charged with". Earlier
in the statute is says the person pleads guilty, and there is
law that says that if a person pleads guilty, then they are
guilty. Thus, it's unclear whether the person is convicted or
not during that time period even if their case gets dismissed.
She noted that a problem with SIS is people don't know
thereafter if they can say they've never been convicted.
Clarification would be helpful, she said.
1:56:53 PM
MS. MEADE turned to page 6 that looks at Sec. 80 of Senate Bill
91. This section amends AS 12.55.090(f), which is a statute that
talks about all things the court can do when there is a
conviction or anything when the court is imposing a sentence.
Paragraph (8) is a catchall instruction that says the court may
suspend imposition of sentence. She suggested it might be a good
idea to also include wording that says a can suspend entry of
judgement. She described this as perhaps a drafting error and
requested clarification.
MS. MEADE turned to page 7 that looks at Sec. 90 of Senate Bill
91. This section amends AS 12.55.125(e), which is a DUI penalty
provision that appears within the general penalty provisions.
She explained that this section discusses the presumptive ranges
for class C felonies, but felonies can have aggravating factors
that allow the court to go above the top of the range, or
mitigating factors that allow the court to impose a sentence
that is less than the range in the statute.
She said the legislature added certain felony DUI offenses in
subsection (e)(4) and that led to some confusion because DUI and
refusal crimes have their own penalty provision within their own
statutes. Title 28 says that for a first time felony DUI the
penalty is a minimum of 120 days, but subsection (e)(4)(B) says
the range is 120 days to 239 days. She suggested eliminating
subsection (e)(4)(B),(C) and (D) and instead adding a cap all in
one place so there aren't two different penalties for the same
conduct in two different spots in the statutes.
She noted that she included the DUI statute in the packets to
point out where that happens.
1:59:53 PM
MS. MEADE turned to page 15 that looks at Sec. 91 of Senate Bill
91. It amends AS 12.55.135(a), the class A misdemeanor
sentences. She said those are clear, but many statutes,
particularly in the Fish and Game Title and in Title 28 say
within the statute that this is an A misdemeanor with a
punishment up to 90 days in jail.
It's difficult to coordinate those two, but it would be
alleviated quite a bit if Sec 91, towards the beginning, said
"unless otherwise provided" in the provision defining the
offense. She noted that language does appear in Sec. 92 for
class B misdemeanors. This change would be clarifying. She
added, "From the Court System's point of view, anything the
legislature decides as long as it's clear will stop litigation
in that area."
2:01:17 PM
MS. MEADE turned to page 17 that looks at Sec. 104 and Sec. 105
of Senate Bill 91. These sections change the law regarding
driving with a license that is suspended (DWLS), cancelled, or
revoked. This change was done at the recommendation of the
Commission on the theory that these were nonviolent offenses and
perhaps these people didn't need to be in jail. DUI and refusal
is still a class A misdemeanor with specified penalties, but if
the license was suspended or revoked as the result of something
other than a DUI, points for example, the bill says it's an
infraction punishable by a fine of $300. That works for the
Court System, but the crime of driving without a valid
operator's license perhaps should have been addressed as well.
AS 28.15.011 prohibits that and AS 28.90.010 imposes a penalty
of no more that $500 or 90 days in jail. She relayed that judges
brought this to her attention as something the legislature might
consider addressing. It would not be a difficult fix.
MS. MEADE directed attention to pages 21 and 22 that look at
Sec. 113 of Senate Bill 91. This adds a new subsection (g) to AS
29.25.070. She said this was discussed at the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission meeting and a recommendation will likely be
forthcoming. She explained that this provision was included in
the bill to ensure that municipalities would not have penalties
that are more severe than state law. The idea sounded fine but
it raised two problems for the court. That is whether the
legislature intended to include both fines and jail time and if
the intention was to cover regulations. She said this most
obviously comes into play with traffic. For example, if a
municipality has a traffic ordinance that says it's a $200 fine
to go through a flashing red light and state regulation says the
penalty is $150, it's a problem for the Court System because
they process nearly all cities' default traffic tickets and they
have to figure out what amount to enter on a default judgement.
The Court System has asked for clarification.
The most obvious area where this comes into play is with
traffic. For example, the Municipality of Anchorage has a
traffic ordinance that might say it's a $200 fine to go through
a flashing red light, whereas under state regulations it says
the penalty for that is $150. So one reading is that the city
could not charge $200 anymore and this became problematic
because from the Court System point of view we process nearly
all cities' default traffic tickets. So when you get a ticket
within the Municipality of Anchorage, you can go down and pay it
or some people ignore it. When it's ignored and a certain number
of days pass they give it to the court and ask for a default
judgement so they can collect on it. She said she believes the
committee will hear more about this from the Commission.
2:06:15 PM
MS. MEADE turned to page 23 that looks at Sec. 170 of Senate
Bill 91. It amends AS 47.37.040, the duties of the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS). She said representatives from
the department will speak today, but a particular question
centers on page 25 in paragraph (21). It contains the
description of the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP).
At the recommendation of the Commission, the legislature limited
that program to take referrals only for DUIs and refusals. The
difficulty is that the courts have been sending people to ASAP
for alcohol-related incidents other than DUI and refusal.
Implementation of Senate Bill 165 brought this to the forefront.
That bill changed the treatment of minors consuming alcohol. It
formerly was a misdemeanor and as of October 2016 it became a
violation. Minors caught consuming or possessing alcohol get a
$500 ticket but no jail time. However, the court can reduce that
fine to $50 if the minor completes an alcohol safety action
program or a juvenile alcohol safety action program or a
community diversion panel. The disconnect is that is that while
the legislature recognized that juveniles could go to ASAP,
Senate Bill 91 provided no authority for ASAP to handle these
juveniles. She said it hasn't been a problem in practice because
ASAP has been handling juveniles just as it did before Senate
Bill 91 passed, but a technical fix is required.
2:08:58 PM
MS. MEADE addressed the questions about the statewide bail
schedule that were brought up during the previous meeting. She
explained that the Court System has always promulgated bail
schedules. That document tells law enforcement and jails that
certain misdemeanor offenses will have a standardized bail. If
somebody is arrested for one of those offenses and taken to the
jail, the jail can look at the bail schedule and know what to
do. The jail might collect the bail and the person would be
released or they might release the person on their own
recognizance (OR), whatever the bail schedule says.
She explained that until this past March, there were different
bail schedules in different districts, but the presiding judges
determined it would be better for state criminal justice to have
just one statewide bail schedule. She noted that she included a
copy of the bail schedule in the packet.
Paragraph 2 of the bail schedule clearly states it does not
apply to felonies. Paragraph 3 clearly states that a person
charged with domestic violence shall be held without bail.
Paragraph 5 says that for certain misdemeanors the person has to
be brought before a judicial officer for bail to be set or
reviewed. Paragraph 6 provides that all other defendants
arrested without a warrant, shall be released on their own
recognizance (OR), subject to certain basic conditions. "They
are told they must obey court orders, they can't leave Alaska,
they have to show up for their next hearing and they are given a
date for their first appearance in court." Paragraph 7 states
that the arresting officer may always call the on-call judicial
officer for a different bail if the officer believes OR release
would not be protective enough to the community. That happens
often, she said, and judges are on call for that purpose.
Paragraph 8 provides that if an officer has reasonable suspicion
that the defendant is under the influence of alcohol, a
condition of release can be that the defendant not possess or
consume alcohol.
She highlighted item 6 in the User Notes included in the
packets. It states that if an arrestee is particularly
dangerous, in part because of alcohol, or vulnerable because of
intoxication, the officer can note the special condition during
the arrest and ask the on-call judicial officer for something
other than OR release if that is what is called for under the
bail schedule.
MS. MEADE explained that the new bail schedule was an effort by
the presiding judges to bring bail releases more in keeping with
the current bail statute, AS 12.30.011. Subsection (a) says the
presumption is that a person is released on their own
recognizance. Subsection (b) provides that if that will not
reasonably assure the appearance of the person, or will pose a
danger to the victim, other persons, or the community,
additional bail conditions may be set. In recognition of some of
the research showing that the state's pretrial population had
grown 81 percent over the last 10 years, the presiding judges
thought they could do their part to ensure that fewer people
were kept in jail pretrial when there was not a good reason.
She said law enforcement officers voiced some discontent about
the bail schedule during the last Commission meeting and perhaps
they didn't realize they could call the on-call judicial officer
in any particular case. In any event, the judges have decided to
review the bail schedule, particularly for misdemeanor assaults.
The presiding judges will be reviewing whether people with
first-time misdemeanant assault charges should released on their
own recognizance
CHAIR COGHILL asked if she believes a bail schedule based on a
blood alcohol level may be considered.
MS. MEADE replied it probably will be considered, but there are
some concerns about holding people in jail when they have a
certain blood alcohol content. There is a question of whether a
jail can afford to hold people until their alcohol level drops,
and another question is whether it is constitutional to hold a
person based solely on their blood alcohol level.
CHAIR COGHILL commented on a case in Fairbanks that resulted in
a lot of community outcry. An intoxicated woman left jail and
was subsequently run over and killed. He said he would watch the
discussion and recommendations going forward.
MS. MEADE clarified that the bail schedule has nothing to do
with what is arrestable; it is just what happens after the
arrest.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Ms. Meade for the time and effort she put
into Senate Bill 91. He welcomed Diane Casto.
2:20:58 PM
DIANE CASTO, Behavioral Health Policy Advisor, Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), informed the committee that
DHSS has been looking at the integration of Senate Bill 91 and
Senate Bill 74, the Medicaid reform bill. Because these bills
are critically linked, DHSS has established a multiple
initiative work group with a variety of stakeholders. They meet
monthly to ensure everyone is up to date and knows how both
bills are impacting their work. The last meeting included
presentations on Medicaid assisted treatment and how some of the
new federal dollars coming in will impact their ability to do a
better job. The next meeting will have presentations on the use
of VIVITROL through the Partners Reentry Center, and how the
Department of Corrections (DOC) will use VIVITROL for people
that are exiting prison. She emphasized that both bills will
help DHSS do a better job of preparing people to reenter their
communities and make them healthier going forward.
MS. CASTO listed the areas Mr. Shilling asked her to discuss and
relayed that Tony Piper would talk about the ASAP program.
CHAIR COGHILL asked her to include updates on the timelines for
the regulation packages.
2:24:57 PM
MS. CASTO discussed the $1 million recidivism reduction grant
that DHSS received to enhance and expand its community-based
reentry efforts. She said the goal is to help people coming out
of institutions get the services they need so they can become
healthy and productive members of society and not recidivate.
She explained that in October DHSS put a request for proposal
out that had three categories. First, the four existing reentry
coalitions in Anchorage, Mat-Su, Juneau, and Fairbanks were
given the opportunity to apply for money to expand their
services and hire and/or coordinate case management services for
people getting out of prison in those four communities. The
primary focus was on case management services because this is a
critical factor for people getting out of prison.
The second category was for developing grant programs. This was
for communities whose reentry coalitions were developing but for
some reason hadn't really gotten off the ground. Kenai/Soldotna
was the only response in this category. They received a grant
and are going through the process of getting the coalition
working and doing a community assessment to identify the needs
in the Kenai community.
The third grant category focuses on emerging reentry coalitions.
She explained that the idea is to have a reentry coalition in
every community that has a DOC institution so that people being
released in those communities will have a case manager,
services, and a coordinated effort. The Nome community applied
for this grant and is just starting its work.
She explained that the $1 million was a one-year grant with
continuations for the next few years. An additional $2 million
will be available next year for those programs. The hope is to
add funding to the emerging coalition in Nome, in particular,
and to get responses from Bethel and Ketchikan that also have
DOC facilities. DHSS intends to provide training for these
grantees and provide opportunities to work together.
2:30:28 PM
MS. CASTO related that the DHSS budget last year included
additional money for new substance abuse disorder grant
programs. The department received $6 million over 3 years for
sobering centers, detoxification centers, and/or treatment
programs. The awards were announced just today: Fairbanks
received $500,000 for a sobering center, Central Peninsula
General Hospital received money for a 6-8 bed
detoxification/withdrawal management center, and Set Free Alaska
in the Mat-Su region received money for treatment programs that
serve pregnant women and women with children.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that in all three areas the need is
greater than the supply and the timing is too tight, but it's
moving in the right direction.
2:32:22 PM
MS. CASTO said the second matter she wanted to discuss is the
change in the Division of Public Assistance and the elimination
of the restriction that denied anyone with a felony drug
conviction access to public assistance or food stamps or the
SNAP program [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]. Senate
Bill 91 removed that barrier, with conditions. First, the felony
drug conviction had to occur on or after August 22, 1996. The
offender also has to complete one or more of the following: 1)
satisfactorily serve and complete a period of probation or
parole, 2) is serving or has successfully completed mandatory
participation in a drug or alcohol treatment program, and 3) has
taken action toward rehabilitation including participation in a
drug or alcohol treatment program or is successfully complying
with the requirements of their reentry plan.
She said the Division of Public Assistance has changed its
internal policies and protocols to meet the new requirements in
Senate Bill 91. A review of the data shows that since August 1,
as many as 250 of the 489 drug felons that had applied and were
previously denied food stamps are eligible and receiving
benefits. About 75 people had previously applied for and been
denied Alaska Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP) services.
Three of those people reapplied, were deemed eligible, and are
now receiving ATAP services.
MS. CASTO reminded the members that part of Senate Bill 91
addressed getting inmates signed up for Medicaid 90 days prior
to release so they would be covered immediately when they
reenter the community. This is important because it's often a
gap in access to mental health or substance abuse services that
leads to recidivism. Preliminary DOC data indicates that 445
inmates were given a Medicaid application while they were still
inside an institution; 131 inmates completed their applications
and mailed them to the Division of Public Assistance; and 36
inmates refused to take, complete, or submit an application. She
also reported that as of January 2017, 229 individuals were
enrolled in one of two incarceration subtypes. The first
includes inmates that need 24 hour or more hospitalization
outside the prison facility. Medicaid covers this population.
The second subtype is inmates that have signed up for Medicaid
and will be covered as soon as they are released. About 156
people are currently enrolled in regular Medicaid who previously
were in one of these subtypes. "We are making progress and we
are very hopeful that this is going to be a huge boon to those
individuals who need ongoing health care and behavioral health
services." She relayed that Mr. Piper will talk about the
regulations related to the ASAP program and some of the testing.
2:41:25 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Piper to discuss the problems that some
areas are having with the ASAP program.
2:42:38 PM
TONY PIPER, Program Manager, Alcohol Safety Action Program
(ASAP), Division of Behavioral Health, Department of Health and
Social Services, introduced himself and provided the following
data:
In the ASAP office for the first 6 months of this
year, we had 1,801 clients go through compared to last
year the first 6 months we had 3,218. So it decreased
about 40 percent or so from what we're used to seeing.
Out of those 1,801, 1,609 were within the guidelines
of what Senate Bill 91 has coming to ASAP. And then
there were another 192 which were outside of those
guidelines. Those included some assaults and domestic
violence assaults and alcohol import, shoplifting, and
various other activities that were outside of the
realm of Senate Bill 91. And so, we have been able to
handle the referrals to ASAP so far throughout the
state.
MR. PIPER explained that ASAP has a screening tool and a level
of service inventory. The latter is a risk needs assessment that
is the same as the one used by DOC and for DUI and drug courts.
ASAP uses a shorter screening form. All of the ASAP offices came
in for training in October and everyone learned how to use the
screening tool. All the offices statewide have been supplied
with the screening tool and while the regulations are in
process, they have come up with standard procedural processes to
use the tool and monitor people at different levels of risk.
Steps are taken to ensure the monitoring is sufficient so that
people are processing through the system as intended.
He said there have been follow up calls with the ASAP offices
around the state to make sure that people are following the
procedures. They also answer many questions about this
relatively new process. They are also working with their MIS
system to ensure that element is included in the system so they
have continued quality improvement and look at outcomes as the
data starts to come in. As of January, people coming through are
being screened and monitored. Changes are still being made and
work on the regulations is ongoing. Hopefully they will be in
good draft form in the next several months.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested he keep in mind that at the same time
the regulation packet is going out there will be questions about
whether that was the right thing to ask you to do. He extended
his thanks to everyone who works in the ASAP program. "I think
Alaska depends on you in so many ways."
2:47:26 PM
JEFF JESSEE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority ("Trust"), Department of Revenue, said he wanted to
talk about two things related to implementation. One is the
progress that's been made at the University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA) Justice Information Center ("Justice Center"). Last
session the Trust engaged the Justice Center to look at the
Results First initiative and partnered with the legislature to
get things started. He reviewed the following data: there are 52
criminal justice-related programs that deal with recidivism;
just 58 percent match with evidence-based practices in the
literature; 65 percent of those 52 programs are state funded
with $23 million; 89 percent of the state-funded programs match
evidence-based practices. Responding to a comment, he agreed
that is very good news. The task going forward will be to
monitor the fidelity of those programs and look at their
outcomes. "The point of this is [that] this entire justice
reinvestment and reform movement has to be data-driven." The
next step for the Justice Center is to start the cost-benefit
analysis for each of these programs. As resources become more
limited, it's important to identify the programs that give the
most bang for the buck.
He said the Trust has only recommended two small general fund
increments and has agreed to match funding for both. One is to
increase funding to the Justice Center so it can take the step
to become an integrated data platform for criminal justice data.
The idea is to gather data from the different parts of the
system and analyze it in order to provide feedback. He said he
likes working with the Justice Center because it is important to
maximize the utility of the university system. It has to be part
of helping to solve the fiscal and programmatic challenges.
MR. JESSEE said the second issue is reinvestment, but that term
isn't very accurate in the early years because the savings the
state will see from Senate Bill 91 are not happening today. They
are deferred. That means the state has to come up with resources
to front-load these efforts. If this isn't done, there won't be
any savings downstream. He noted that Senator MacKinnon was very
creative last year when she suggested using prospective
marijuana tax money to jump start some of this effort. He
emphasized the importance of building up resources to provide
people coming out of prison with the services they need. The
three basics are housing, employment, and treatment and support
for recovery.
He agreed with Ms. Casto that Senate Bill 74 and Medicaid reform
is critical to the criminal justice reform effort. He said it's
important to leverage federal funds, although he expects to see
less with the new administration. The positive side is there
will likely be less regulation.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Jessee and stated agreement with the
notion that justice reinvestment and reform movement has to be
data-driven
2:58:36 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACJC ASAP Recommendation.pdf |
SJUD 1/27/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| ACJC SNAP Recommendation.pdf |
SJUD 1/27/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Court System Implementation Backup.PDF |
SJUD 1/27/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 91 Fiscal Note Summary.pdf |
SJUD 1/27/2017 1:30:00 PM |