SB 137-EXTEND BOARD OF PAROLE  3:31:36 PM CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 137, "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Parole; and providing for an effective date." 3:32:05 PM SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 137, stated that he stepped forward to sponsor this board extension because he recognizes the importance of extending the Board of Parole. 3:32:55 PM MICHAEL WILLIS, Intern, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 137 paraphrasing the following sponsor statement: SB 137 extends the Board of Parole termination date of June 30, 2020 until June 30, 2025. Upon review of the recent Legislative Audit summary and the full audit report of the Alaska Board of Parole, it becomes apparent that in the opinion of our auditors, the Board of Parole is serving the public's interest by effectively evaluating prisoners' likelihood of recidivism and whether a prisoner poses a threat to the public. The Board of Parole serves an important role in guarding the safety of Alaskans by protecting the general public through the determination of parole- eligible prisoners' ability to become functioning members of society. The significance of the board has increased recently since the passage of HB 49 in 2019. Despite the repeal of SB 91, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of parole applicants due to a requirement that all eligible prisoners be given a hearing regardless of their own desire to apply for parole. This situation has strained the Board of Parole, but it has also revealed our state's reliance on the work of the Board. Auditors recommend the Legislature extend the board's termination date five years, which is three years less than the eight-year maximum allowed by statute. The reduced extension allows for review of recent changes to the board's statutes, impacts and responsibility revisions related to HB 49 and the need for continued oversight. We respectfully request your support for this important extension to the Alaska Board of Parole. He noted that Kris Curtis and Jeffrey Edwards were available to testify and answer questions. CHAIR REVAK asked Ms. Curtis to review the audit results. 3:35:22 PM KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reviewed the sunset audit for the Board of Parole. She directed attention to the May 8, 2019 sunset audit of the Department of Corrections, Board of Parole that may be found in members' packets. She noted that is the last date of any field work so any changes to statutes governing the board after that date are not included in this audit. She reminded the members that the purpose of a sunset audit is to determine whether a board or commission is serving the public's interest and should be extended. She directed attention to Exhibit 3 on page 2 that depicts a table of the Schedule of Expenditures and Funding Sources for FY 16 through January 31, 2019. It shows that the expenditures for this board were primarily for personal services, travel, and office rental costs. She pointed out the large increase in expenditures starting in FY 17 and explained that it reflects the increase in the board's workload that resulted when Senate Bill 91 passed and became effective in January 2017. Five new positions were authorized to address the increase in the workload. She noted that this is discussed in more detail in the Background Information section that begins on page 5. 3:36:33 PM MR. CURTIS advised that the first few pages of the Background Information discuss the basics of parole. She directed attention to the bottom of page 8 that discusses how Senate Bill 91 changed parole and how that impacted the Board of Parole. She summarized the changes as follows: Senate Bill 91 significantly changed the board's statutes effective January 2017. First, it expanded discretionary parole for all offenders except unclassified or class A sex offenders. Prior to SB 91, offenders who committed their first class B felony or up to their second class C felony were eligible for discretionary parole after serving 25 percent of their sentences. Post SB 91, generally offenders who committed any number of A, B, or C felonies were eligible for discretionary parole after serving a quarter of their sentences. Secondly, SB 91 removed the discretionary parole application requirement. Prior to SB 91, prisoners initiated the parole process by submitting an application for parole and not all eligible prisoners submitted applications. SB 91 removed the application requirement from state law, which changed how the board approached discretionary parole hearings. Thirdly, SB 91 shortened the technical revocation hearing timeline. 3:38:01 PM MS. CURTIS directed attention to the Report Conclusions on page 11. She paraphrased the following excerpts: The audit concluded that the board responded in an effective and efficient manner to significant changes in parole laws. During the audit period, the board conducted meetings, made parole decisions, set parole conditions, and held revocation hearings in accordance with state law. [In accordance with AS 44.66.010(a)(2), the board is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2020.] We recommend the legislature extend the board's termination date five years to June 30, 2025, which is three years less than the eight year maximum allowed for in statute. The reduced extension is mainly in acknowledgment of recent changes to the board's statutes as well as anticipated changes and the need for continued oversight. 3:38:37 PM MS. CURTIS directed attention to Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 starting on page 12. These tables show the significant increase in discretionary parole hearings in 2017 and 2018, the number of parole hearing no-shows from 2015 through 2018, and the revocation parole hearings for that same timeframe. She paraphrased the following Report Conclusions: The increase in discretionary parole hearings, as shown in Exhibit 5, included a significant number of hearings that prisoners did not attend (no-shows). No- shows were the result of SB 91 eliminating the discretionary parole application process and mandating that hearings be held for all eligible prisoners regardless of whether a prisoner wanted discretionary parole. According to the board's executive director, prisoners may not want discretionary parole for various reasons including not willing to sign parole conditions and/or wanting to complete a sentence and leave with no parole conditions. Initially, parole officers and the board compiled parole packets and held hearings for no-shows in the same manner as conducted for prisoners who attended the hearings. This was not an effective use of resources given that parole is not granted if a prisoner does not attend the parole hearing. The board recognized the inefficiency and changed the procedures in November 2017. The new procedures require institutional parole officers to complete condensed parole packets (does not include release plans or parole conditions) for offenders that do not want discretionary parole and the board holds an abbreviated hearing. As shown in Exhibit 6, no-shows represented 21 percent of discretionary parole hearings in 2017 and 29 percent in 2018. According to board staff, the increase in discretionary parole hearings in 2017 led to an increased number of revocation hearings in 2017 (see Exhibit 7). This increase in workload was offset in 2018 by the use of an administrative sanction and incentive program (AS 33.05.020(g)) that allowed probation officers to impose sanctions without a hearing for the most common technical violations based on a decision-making guide created by Department of Corrections management. The board effectively coped with the increase in parole and revocation hearings by traveling to each correctional facility four times per year instead of two. The board also hired five new staff positions to address the increase in workload. The positions included one criminal justice technician, one hearing officer IV, and three hearing officer IIIs. 3:41:21 PM MS. CURTIS turned to the recommendations for improvement, starting on page 18, that were part of the audit. She highlighted that the reason for the reduced extension is solely because the board statutes continue to change and she believes increased oversight is prudent during this period. She discussed the following recommendations: Recommendation No. 1: The board's executive director  should improve procedures to ensure final revocation  hearings are performed timely.    The audit found that 16 percent of the revocation hearings tested were not performed within 120 days of the parolee's arrest. The late hearings were between five and 12 days late. Recommendation No. 2: The board's executive director  should work with DOC's commissioner to improve the  quality of telephonic hearings.  The audit identified poor quality telephone systems at four of 13 correctional facilities, including Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Center, Wildwood Correctional Complex, Fairbanks Correctional Center, and Hiland Mountain Correctional Center. These facilities accounted for 495 (14 percent) of the parole and revocation hearings from calendar years 2015 through 11 2018. Recommendation No. 3: The board's executive director  should take steps to ensure regulations are properly  updated. The audit identified two sections of regulations were not properly updated [due to human error]. Recommendation No. 4: DOC's [Division of  Administrative Services] director should take steps to  ensure [the Alaska Correctional Management System]  complies with State information technology security  standards and national best practices. MS. CURTIS advised that the findings leading to Recommendation No. 4 were communicated to management in a separate, confidential letter. They were not included in the audit report to prevent the weaknesses from being exploited. 3:43:07 PM MS. CURTIS directed attention to the responses to the audit report, starting on page 33. The Department of Corrections commissioner agreed with the four findings and stated that the department was moving forward with corrective action within the constraints of its budget. Starting on page 35, the chair of the Parole Board concurred with the three recommendations directed at the board and described the planned corrective actions. CHAIR REVAK asked if there were committee questions. 3:43:47 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked about the timeline between Senate Bill 91, Senate Bill 54, and Senate Bill 49 and whether the rules and regulations for those pieces of legislation had been promulgated. He further asked if she anticipates revisiting these matters during the next audit in five years. MS. CURTIS responded that there were changes to the parole statutes the year after Senate Bill 91 passed. There were also significant statutory changes after May 2019 that this audit did not review. CHAIR REVAK noted who was available to answer questions. 3:45:12 PM SENATOR WILSON expressed interest in asking the Department of Law representative a question. 3:45:19 PM At ease 3:45:45 PM CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and discerned there were no further questions. He opened and closed public testimony on SB 137 and encouraged the public to submit written testimony to ssta@akleg.gov. He noted that the fiscal note attached to the bill was zero. CHAIR REVAK stated that he would hold SB 137 in committee for future consideration.