HB 325-PRISONER COMPUTER USE; REENTRY SERVICES  3:22:16 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 325, "An Act relating to computer use by prisoners; and relating to an exemption from the State Procurement Code for contracts for rehabilitation and reentry services."   3:22:54 PM DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC), explained that the community residential center (CRC) - or halfway house - model has been in existence for 20 years with no changes. The CRCs are where inmates go who are exiting the prison system; some are on furlough; some are on electronic monitoring; they are trying to find a job and a place to live. He stated that currently there is one option for where inmates can live while transitioning from prison to home or to wherever they will live; and that is within the CRC halfway house model. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the problem with the CRC model is that there has been a 60-65 percent recidivism rate in Alaska for the past 15-20 years despite changes in the prison system. He asserted that when people don't have a place to live or a job when they have finished their sentences, the chance of failure is high. He said that almost half of these failures occur within the first six months of release. This occurs because the process of transitioning from a "hard cell" environment to one in which the person is productive must have a strategic and stepdown plan; Alaska does not have that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that another reason the halfway house model is fundamentally "broken" is the "walk-away" rate, or escape rate. Every time someone escapes from the halfway facility, it could result in a felony charge. In 2016, there were 222 escapes from halfway houses; under his leadership and with the assistance of staff, that number was reduced to 83 in 2017; however, every one of those escapes represents a new potential felony charge against the person who walked away from the halfway house. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS related a third reason for a broken system: the cost of the CRC halfway house model is very expensive. He recommended that the committee members not look at the budgeted rate for a halfway house bed but look at the actual cost. He offered to share the breakout of the cost with the committee. He gave examples: at Cordova Center [in Anchorage], the bed rate is $117 per day per person; at Tundra Center in Bethel, the rate is $312 per day per person; at Northstar Center in Fairbanks, the rate is $176 per day per person; at Seaside Center in Nome, the rate is $145 per day per person; and at Glacier Manor Half-Way House in Juneau, the rate is $206 per day per person. He concluded that it is a costly model, which is the reason he is looking for innovations. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS continued by relating other problems with the model: the inmates don't want to go to the halfway houses; it is difficult to fill the beds due to problems at the facility such as drug trafficking; and there isn't enough for the residents to do. He maintained that without work to do or places to go, the temptation is to escape or use drugs. 3:27:48 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS gave a final cause contributing to the [halfway house] model being broken: the procurement requirements that DOC is currently under. He pointed out that the request for proposal (RFP) for DOC is 150 pages; it represents the boilerplate procurement procedures; and anything over $100,000 requires a very cumbersome and bureaucratic process. He maintained that the places where he wants inmates to go when exiting prison are smaller locations and smaller facilities. People do much better in those locations, and they are cheaper. He referred to testimony during the 2/13/18 House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting from operators of some of those small places. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS summarized by saying that it is his desire that the committee members understand the scope of the issue and why there are problems with the current halfway houses. He mentioned that he appreciated the discussion and concerns raised during the 2/13/18 committee meeting hearing. He maintained that he is requesting an exception to the procurement rules, not for the entire department but just for a small amount of money, $17-18 million, to allow him to pilot a different model. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the model in place has benefited the DOC contractor for 20 years, and millions of dollars are "on the line." He emphasized that this initiative in no way is meant to disrespect the DOC contractor: this is the contract DOC requested; it is the bid DOC awarded; and the contractor provided the service. He maintained that DOC could do better. He is requesting to be allowed an exception to the procurement rules - if not for $17-18 million, then for $5 million - to try a pilot project to demonstrate improved results. He said, "Put requirements on me if you must about where that money was spent and how that was put together." He reiterated that the current model is not working, and that is why he is making this request to the committee. 3:30:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to Commissioner Williams's testimony that there are drugs inside the halfway houses. She asked if there is legal action that could be taken against a contractor if drugs are allowed inside the halfway house. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that the contractors are as deeply concerned about this issue as is he. He maintained that the problem lies in the halfway house model: it houses 50 people with no common purpose; some are using drugs and bring them into the halfway house; some are recovering drug addicts that don't want to have drugs around. He asserted that the contractors are not allowing the presence of drugs but are fighting it like he is. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern regarding establishing a halfway house in a neighborhood without notice to the neighborhood and the possibility that the proposed legislation would allow the requirement of public notice to be circumvented. She added that halfway house residents are criminals and putting them into neighborhoods would understandably make residents unhappy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that the proposed legislation would not preclude any local ordinances, requirements, or controls regarding the locations of the halfway houses. There would be discussions at the municipal level, prospective providers would be heard, as well as objections, and it would be a community decision. He stated that another consideration is that the residents of the halfway houses are being released to the communities regardless. He offered that his proposal addresses a choice: either an inmate will spend the last six months of his/her sentence in a halfway house with a 65 percent recidivism rate upon release due to insecure employment and housing; or the inmate will live in a local, innovative housing unit that is smaller, under the control of local ordinances, but where escapes and drugs are less likely. He added that people in the smaller locations have problems, but there are fewer problems. There are many more problems in the large places with 50-100 men, who have nothing in common; some want to continue trafficking in drugs and some want to get well. 3:35:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his concern that if halfway houses are placed in communities with no economic opportunities, an inmate who was not productive before prison, would not be productive upon release even if he/she was in a smaller residential facility. He offered that if procurement is an issue, it could be addressed administratively. He referred to the communities - Bethel, Cordova, and Nome - and questioned what could be done in a halfway facility - whether it housed six or sixty men - that would result in the residents being productive. He maintained that there are drugs in prisons, hospitals, and schools; the size of the facility would not make a difference; if the residents are using drugs, then it is impossible to keep the drugs out of the facility. He concluded that he is unable to make the connections between procurement codes, smaller living facilities, and the type of rehabilitation that Commissioner Williams is seeking. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that research shows that for peer- oriented returning citizens, who have a common issue that they are working on together, a six-bed facility is better than a sixty-bed facility. He described the larger halfway houses: sixty people housed in one place; four to six people to a room; varied sleeping and employment schedules; and residents who are not working. He stated that they are a "hodge-podge" of individuals who don't have "a lot pulling together." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that the reason that smaller locations work better is because the residents support each other; they help each other find jobs; and they are held accountable by a house parent. He said that this model is used in Norway; the recidivism rate is 25 percent. He maintained that the success in that country is not just because of the money that is spent on prison treatment programs. Their prisons are not that much better that those of the U.S., although there are a few things they do better. He said, "What they are better at is how they step people down." The prisoners start out at a maximum-security facility; they work their way out; they go into a halfway house in downtown Oslo with a maximum of 15-20 beds; and they all have jobs. He continued by saying that finishing one's prison sentence in one of these halfway houses is a privilege; the residents all have a lot to lose. He reiterated that the research on the success of the small peer-oriented facilities is very clear; and the operators of these small facilities have testified that the results are good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS mentioned a facility in the Kenai area: it is a faith-based organization; there are three individuals just out of prison at the facility; the operator is helping them to secure jobs and "keep on track"; and the individuals go to Narcotics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous (NAAA) meetings. He maintained that the operator is barely able to keep the facility operating. He stated, "It's all on a shoestring. It's amazing the results." He asked to be given the opportunity and flexibility to pilot this initiative, because he sees already that it is working. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that he has put many of the men whom Commissioner Williams referenced to work and has seen very limited success. He said that the men worked for a while; they did very well; they were hard-working and smart; they were happier than they had ever been; and they were making more money than they had ever made. He stated that after about 30-60 days of good paychecks, they don't make it to work on Monday; then lose more days of work; then don't show up again; and Representative Knopp gets a phone call that they are incarcerated. He maintained that he is not as optimistic as the faith-based [organization] that is doing this work every day. He conceded that there have been a few successes with the men being actively involved with the church. 3:41:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to sixty men in a halfway house with ten units and six people to a unit. He conceded that a small housing unit offers a more normal lifestyle for the residents but suggested that there would be efficiencies in having 60 men under one roof; having the men in ten different properties would be very labor intensive and require additional oversight, administration, and management. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that the larger facility might be operationally efficient; however, it is not economical. He said that the larger facilities are very costly due to requirements regarding cameras, doors, staffing, and many other "hard" costs. He reiterated that he has broken out the costs and can demonstrate the actual cost of the beds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS relayed that the other consideration is that the failure rate is high [for the large facilities]. He maintained that the smaller nonprofits are better at transitioning inmates back into society: these facilities are in smaller peer-oriented communities; the facilities are run by well-intentioned and seasoned people who are in recovery and have been for five to ten years; the involvement of the operators in helping people reenter society is not only different, but better. He explained that inmates do not want to go to halfway houses, and their issues and concerns about going to halfway houses are "real." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS expressed his belief that the current halfway house model is the cornerstone of the failure to control the high recidivism rate; and his staff is convinced of this as well. He said that when asked why he is not putting more people in halfway houses, he responds that there is a problem with the model; the model was developed for relief for population control; it is no longer used for that purpose but as a step- down unit. He summarized that the easiest course of action for him is to do nothing; however, continuing to follow the same failed model after 20 years will not produce different results. He stated that his job is to bring problems to the forefront and attack them with new solutions. He asked the committee for its help and for any suggestions it might offer. 3:45:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that his principle objection to HB 325 is bypassing the procurement guidelines. He expressed his belief that there are administrative remedies, which the Department of Law (DOL) could provide. He offered that absent the procurement waiver proposed by HB 325, a competitive bid document could be drafted by DOC that defines exactly what is wanted. He expressed that Commissioner Williams appears to have a very clear idea of what he wants for DOC and that it is a model that Representative Birch supports. Representative Birch offered his belief that there are people willing to operate small halfway houses who could meet the standard established by DOC, and the competitive bid process would work. He maintained that the state gets into trouble when it waives procurement guidelines; it has at times had a poor track in that area. 3:47:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed that he understands being intimidated by a ream of paper with requirements. He commented that the halfway house model is broken, as evidenced by the recidivism rates, and the state should not allow "some old methodology of 100 pages of procurement" stop it from trying something new. He mentioned that he spoke to Kara Nelson [Director, Haven House Juneau] who testified during the hearing on HB 325 [during the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting of 2/13/18]. He referred to the public television [360 North] documentary, [entitled "Inside Out Leaving Prison Behind"]; he recommended that the committee members see the documentary. He repeated the question he asked Ms. Nelson after the meeting, which was: Haven House is operating well; therefore, what is the problem? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that the scope of the problem is expecting someone from Haven House to work through an RFP. He said that he appreciates the suggestion to shorten the RFP but maintained that he doesn't know how to do that. Even if the RFP is soliciting a proposal for a six-bed facility, if the bid is for over $100,000, the entire process must still be followed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that he is working on a "Plan B" if HB 325 doesn't pass. He maintained that there is a reason that the small facility operators don't apply and expend the great effort. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he learned [from Ms. Nelson] the state can't pay Haven House to house inmates transitioning to life outside, because the organization has not fulfilled the procurement obligation; Haven House is operating on a volunteer, nonprofit, donation basis; and it is not getting money from the state. He mentioned that the state is paying the Northstar Center in Fairbanks, $176 per day per person. He added that the center is across the street from his business; the center has "walk-aways", but that doesn't impact him because they don't stay in the area. He mentioned that in the neighborhood where he lives, there are a couple group homes for troubled youth, and he doesn't really notice them either. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained that he likes the Haven House model as a method of transitioning prisoners to functioning on the outside world. He asserted that he does not agree with the statement, "Because they're once prisoners, they're forever deemed unproductive, and you can never get them functioning in society." He stated that he knows people who have been incarcerated and are now out of prison and functioning well. There are different reasons for people to go to jail; not all are destined to a life of nonproductivity; people can be helped, as Norway has demonstrated. He said that he believes that downsizing and allowing for closer interactions is a good model. He said that he applauds Commissioner Williams for exploring a different model; and he supports circumventing the procurement codes to allow for a limited pilot project. He said, "What's the hurt in trying, because we're doing pretty poorly as it is?" He mentioned the expense of one person supervising six residents but maintained that there is a high cost associated with a 60-70 percent recidivism rate, that is, the added expense of public safety, court, and prison. 3:52:56 PM Vice Chair LeDoux stated that before supporting HB 325, she wants to hear someone from the Department of Administration (DOA) say that there is no way for smaller projects to have a fast track or "lighter" procurement policy. She maintained that if there is no way, then that is a problem. She offered that rather than address this problem on a department-by-department, project-by-project basis, there should be a mandate that the administration adopt realistic procurement codes. She maintained that she supports the model that Commissioner Williams has presented; however, she claimed that she wants to make sure there is no way the change could be made in the procurement code. She stated that she would rather spend her legislative time on something that resulted in a simpler procurement code so that the requests from departments didn't come in one by one and each need separate legislation. She offered that projects under a certain amount could have a streamlined procurement process. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded by saying that for under $100,000, there is a fast track; however, that amount is spread out between three to five years. He gave an explanation using a hypothetical situation: DOC signs a contract with Haven House; it awards Haven House $50 per night per individual; there are four to five people who are still serving sentences but are now housed at Haven House; the amount exceeds $100,000 over the course of three to five years - the length of the contracts. He suggested that perhaps there should be more flexibility on the fast track dollar amount. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that $17 million is spent on halfway houses. He asked that as an alternative to the proposed legislation, he be allowed to bypass the procurement rules for $5 million; institute a pilot project; track the results after three years; and try to improve the halfway house model. 3:56:05 PM VICE CHAIR LEDOUX maintained that if DOC has a problem with the fast track, there are probably other departments with that problem. She suggested that the procurement code should be revised not just for DOC, but for all departments; and without that, she cannot support the proposed legislation. 3:56:50 PM VICE CHAIR LEDOUX passed the gavel back to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged the high recidivism rate; he expressed that he is shocked by the escape rate at the halfway houses. He suggested that the contracts require the halfway houses not to allow escapes or to be penalized for them. He offered that DOC could do better with the escape rate. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he looked through the DOC halfway house RFP and was not able to identify anything that could be eliminated. He mentioned two provisions - facilities must pay utilities and they must be bonded - and offered that they are necessary. He asked what in the RFP specifications could be eliminated. He also asked why DOC couldn't write the RFP specifications to set a limit for the number of residents in a halfway house. He maintained that a large part of a prisoner's success upon leaving the corrections system is oversight by proper peers - parole officers and probation officers. He conceded that more focused attention on the inmates does lose "economies of scale"; however, the greater personal attention may help reduce the recidivism rate. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK summarized the reasons for the failures of the current system: the expense per inmate is high; the stepdown plan is inadequate stepdown; there is a high rate of escapees; people don't want to live there because of the atmosphere of drug trafficking; and there is nothing for the residents to do. 4:00:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited Section 3 of HB 325, [page 3, lines 19-23], which read in part: (b) In authorizing a contract for rehabilitation and reentry services made under AS 36.30.850 and (a) of this section, the commissioner or the commissioner's designee shall make a determination that the payment for rehabilitation and reentry services will promote the use of community-based and culturally relevant rehabilitative and reentry services most suited to provide support for the individual REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that at some point DOC needs to quantify what is being asked for in a contract: number of square feet for a room; smoke detectors; and supervision requirements. He maintained that DOC could describe what it wants in detail; however, he conceded that quantifying the qualifications of staff to provide rehabilitation and reentry services would be more difficult. He stated that he supports looking for options within the existing procurement code; he expressed his belief that those options exist. He mentioned that the commissioner's objective is meritorious; however, the "safest bet" is for DOC to decide what it wants, put out an RFP, and rely on a competitive bid process. 4:03:00 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 325 would be held over. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for the various ways that people are put into halfway houses. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that the walk-away rate decreased by about one-third from the prior year due to being "smarter" about who was allowed into a halfway house. He stated that he has been criticized for not releasing more inmates to halfway houses; however, he maintained that to avoid the escape rate of 2016, DOC has pared down who was eligible for halfway houses. He relayed that except for very few exceptions, halfway house residents are people still serving sentences with six months to a year remaining. The two main groups of halfway house residents are inmates who are furloughed, as determined by statute, and inmates on electronic monitoring. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she got involved in government because of someone trying to circumvent the procurement code and has reservations about allowing it to happen. She suggested that DOA staff provide information on the procurement code and the committee explore possible changes to the code. She also suggested that the committee hear testimony from the halfway house contractors and get their input on possible solutions to the halfway house problems. 4:06:42 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with the suggestions. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the phrase "culturally relevant rehabilitative and reentry services" and asked for the percentage of halfway house inmates who are from outside of Alaska's urban areas, who might receive a greater benefit by being in a place with people from their own cultural background and closer to home. He mentioned that there are a fair number of Alaska Natives incarcerated; someone from a rural area paroled in Anchorage must stay in Anchorage to be close to his/her parole officer; rural halfway houses could help this urban-rural divide, if there are such places willing to bid on halfway house contracts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that another reason why the current model is broken is that there are not smaller facilities in rural areas; people do not want to go to halfway houses in one location and try to get a job, knowing that eventually they will be leaving. He added that even the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") Valley does not have stepdown housing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS mentioned Unalakleet and similar rural communities and emphasized the benefits of financially supporting even one stable home in such a region to allow Alaska Natives to return to that location. An operator of a home that size would never be able to prepare a bid according to the current procurement code; the specification of square footage is much less important than the location of the home; and closeness to home and one's support system is more important. He stated that the commissioner of DOC still has full custody of halfway house inmates; in the smaller halfway houses, any problems can be immediately and appropriately addressed with a measured response. He agreed that the current halfway house model is not culturally relevant to many inmates, and there are very few options for finding a culturally relevant environment. 4:10:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP clarified his earlier question: For a person who was nonproductive before jail, what would make them productive upon release? He expressed his belief that smaller halfway houses would have no effect on encouraging an inmate to become productive. People who have had a lifetime of being productive are likely to be productive after incarceration. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that there are two reasons for his disagreement with the proposal in HB 325: one is waiving the procurement code; the other is that contracting with smaller facilities loses economies of scale. If the [hypothetical] house in Unalakleet is not full, the price per square foot or per bed would have to increase. He relayed that the discussions on Senate Bill 91, [passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature (2015-2016) and signed into law 7/11/16], and the discussions of HB 325 both noted the disproportionately higher incarcerations rates of rural Alaska Natives and a need for culturally relevant treatment. He maintained that if housing inmates in a small rural community to attain cultural relevance results in just one or two inmates, DOC has lost all economies of scale. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he does not support HB 325 for two reasons. He maintained that he does not support an exception to the procurement code, however, would support a review of the procurement code. He stated that secondly, he does not agree with the overall plan behind the proposed legislation. [HB 325 was held over.]