SB 195-PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS' CASELOADS  1:32:16 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 195. 1:32:22 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE, sponsor of SB 195, said the impetus for the bill was concern about burgeoning caseloads for probation and parole officers, and the possibility of establishing ratios. The bill is intended to start a dialog with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC). SB 195 would establish in statute a maximum of 60 cases for probation and parole officers at any given time. Parole officers in the Anchorage area are often responsible for more than 100 cases in prisons, jails, and community resident centers, leaving little time to improve the quality of the individual that is returned to civilian life. This legislation alone won't reduce recidivism, but it can be part of the solution along with other resources that provide evidence-based programing for offenders and training for officers. The PEW Center Public Safety Performance Project on States reported that in FY08 about nine of every ten dollars spent on corrections is devoted to state prisons, although nearly 70 percent of offenders are supervised in the community. The issues associated with large caseloads include: an inability to do field observations or home visits; an inability to attend court hearings; and high officer turnover rates due to burnout. SENATOR MCGUIRE reported that in the last five years, four other states limited caseloads by statute and three of those states set the limit of 60 parolees per officer. She concluded that SB 195 will start a conversation about the effectiveness and systemic costs of the corrections system in this state. 1:39:45 PM RONALD TAYLOR, Director, Division of Probation and Parole, Department of Corrections (DOC), stated that working with the sponsor and the committee will be a proactive opportunity. CHAIR FRENCH asked how he came to be in his current position. MR. TAYLOR related that he supervised the Alaska Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) for 18 years, and in September transferred to DOC as division director. He noted that he also served as executive director of the Board of Parole for three years. CHAIR FRENCH asked if he would be in charge of more than the probation and parole officers covered under the bill. MR. TAYLOR replied he was in charge of the field and electronic monitoring officers covered under the bill, and the community residential centers throughout the state. CHAIR FRENCH asked about the different categories of probationers. MR. TAYLOR explained that there are three categories of specialized field probation officer caseloads: sex offender, enhanced supervision, and mental health. The enhanced supervision caseloads include high-risk offenders. 1:42:56 PM SENATOR PASKVAN joined the committee. CHAIR FRENCH asked him to describe the duties of an institutional probation officer. MR. TAYLOR explained that they develop institutional programing, classify offenders and ensure that the offender management plan will help a person be successful when he or she is released from the institution into the field. Responding to a further question, he said that field officers definitely outnumber institutional officers, but he didn't know the ratio. He was in charge of field POs and the institution directors were in charge of institutional POs. CHAIR FRENCH asked where presentence report writers fit in. MR. TAYLOR explained that each probation office has a presentence writer. CHAIR FRENCH asked if those positions would be covered by the bill. MR. TAYLOR replied that was part of the dialog. CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Taylor to discuss what resources go into writing a presentence report, and how it follows an offender. MR. TAYLOR explained that the presentence report impacts how the offender will be sentenced by the court and governs how he or she will be supervised when released into the community. CHAIR FRENCH related that Texas Representative Jerry Madden opined that the vast majority of prisoners fall into one of two categories: "people we're mad at and people we're afraid of." He asked if the presentence report writer tries to sort these two categories out. MR. TAYLOR answered yes; the information in the presentence report is used to develop a realistic case plan for a person who is under institutional supervision and when he or she is released. 1:47:43 PM SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many more probation officers would be needed to accomplish the 60 caseload goal MR. TAYLOR replied the division was working on an estimate. SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many POs there were statewide, and if most had caseloads of about 100. MR. TAYLOR offered to follow up with specific numbers for institutional POs, electronic monitoring POs, and field POs. The division had 142 individuals assigned to it, but that included POs, criminal justice technicians and office support staff. 1:48:52 PM LINDA GERBER, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections, said she had worked for DOC for more than 20 years in both the institution and field, and had worked specialized caseloads in mental health, sex offender, and substance abuse. She was currently one of four POs who work the out-of-state unit covering more than 1,050 prisoners. She described POs as ground zero for implementing the plans for offenders, and observed that quality time and sometimes training were in short supply. CHAIR FRENCH asked what other tasks she would focus on if she had fewer probationers to supervise. MR. GERBER replied she would have more time to work with each prisoner to ensure successful reintegration. This would include discussions with the local field officer about available resources for housing, jobs, and treatment. 1:53:13 PM WARREN WATERS, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections (DOC), said he was an institutional PO, and had worked at the Anchorage Jail for the past six years. His duties included the supervision of about half of the 400 offenders that reside at the community residential centers or halfway houses. These offenders are a mixed bag of sentenced and un-sentenced misdemeanants and felons. They all require some form of supervision and work, but the heavy caseloads do not leave much time per offender. A caseload of 100 calculates to just 4.5 minutes per day for each offender, and that doesn't include administrative time. That isn't much time to make a difference when the goal is to help offenders successfully reintegrate and not recidivate. 1:56:01 PM SENATOR PASKVAN asked if other probation officers had similar caseloads. MR. WATERS said yes; the ten POs at the Anchorage jail supervise roughly 900 offenders at any given time, and are also responsible for the offenders at the halfway houses. 1:56:55 PM TRAVIS MORRIS, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections (DOC), said he had been a PO about four years and was currently assigned to the Anchorage field services office. His caseload was over 100. He offered his belief that reducing caseloads would give POs the ability to help an offender obtain employment, interact with a counselor who was providing treatment, and attend court hearings. Oftentimes the offender is left to fend for him or herself and that typically leads to recidivism. This affects POs and translates to high turnover rates. Burnout is common. Although field work is an integral part of field probation, it is typically done in a reactive state. Reducing caseloads to a manageable level will enhance community safety and rehabilitation of the offender. Long-term benefits will be reduced government spending, higher quality of life for the PO and offender, and a successful, proactive offender monitoring program. 2:02:45 PM LEILA SHEFFIELD, Probation Officer II, Department of Corrections (DOC), said she was a field probation officer assigned to the adult probation field office in Bethel. Her caseload was 109, two-thirds of which lived in the surrounding villages and reported by phone and mailed a report each month. She explained that DOC relies on Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) to help monitor offenders residing in villages, but not all villages are staffed with one. She said her workday is typically spent on the phone, although offenders who live in the Bethel area make office visits. These offenders are assessed using LSI-R (Level of Service Risk Assessment) tools, and this takes about 1.5 hours. If her caseload were smaller, she would spend the extra time in the villages developing relationships with treatment providers and the elders. She described a recent case where a probationer was not successful to illustrate the stress that POs are under. She described her broad work experience with DOC over the last 20 years and stated strong support for SB 195. 2:07:35 PM DONNA WHITE, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, said she was the previous director of the Division of Probation and Parole for DOC. She thanked the sponsor for introducing the bill and opening the dialog, because the higher the caseload in the field, the less proactive a PO can be with the offender. She opined that this was the place to look if the state was concerned about recidivism and interested in working toward reentry. When caseloads are over 90, the PO is reacting to violations as opposed to being proactive and identifying what may become a violation. The reaction is typically to file a violation report and return the person to jail, which does not help recidivism rates. She concluded by expressing appreciation that the Senate was willing to open the discussion. SENATOR PASKVAN asked what the caseload trend was the last 10 years and if it might give an idea of where it would be in 3-4 years. MS. WHITE related that in the 80s she worked in Kodiak as a field PO and had a caseload of about 60. She speculated that it may be between 75 and 90 today, and without a cap it could reach 140. She noted that specialized caseloads were already capped, causing the non-specialized caseloads to consistently go higher. And the more specialized caseloads, the fewer probation officers to handle the generic caseloads. She also pointed out that the type of offender had changed significantly since the 80s. They are more violent and have less respect for authority. SENATOR PASKVAN commented that it sounded as though the state was behind the curve and that the trend would get worse for probation officers. MS. WHITE agreed. 2:13:06 PM CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and remarked that the cost to put more POs in the field may be a topic of conversation in the budget subcommittee. CHAIR FRENCH held SB 195 in committee.