Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/14/2019 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Reentry's Role in Reducing Crime | |
| HB57 | |
| HB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2019
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Andi Story
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): REENTRY'S ROLE IN REDUCING CRIME
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to expanding the period in a day during which
an employed child under 16 years of age may perform work in the
summer; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 57(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to voting by electronic transmission in a state
election; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 83(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send sexual
assault examination kits for testing within six months after
collection; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: CHILD LABOR HOURS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, L&C
03/05/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT VOTING BY FACSIMILE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
03/06/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/19 (H) STA
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
LAURA BROOKS, Deputy Director
Division of Health & Rehabilitation Services (DHRS)
Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator
Juneau Reentry Coalition (JREC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
ALYSA WOODEN, Program Coordinator
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
JOSHUA SOPKO, Deputy Director
Partners Reentry Center (PRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
CHRISTINA SCHADURA, Support Services and Data Analysis
Coordinator
Partners Reentry Center (PRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a presentation, entitled
"Reentry Services: Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
57, as prime sponsor.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections (DOE)
Office of the Lieutenant Governor (OLG)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
83, Version M.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:15 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Representatives LeDoux,
Wool, Vance, Shaw, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Fields were present at
the call to order. Representative Story arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to authorize the Co-Chair of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee to draft a resolution
relating to Committee on Committees as a committee sponsored
resolution.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the resolution would be a
concurrent resolution relating to the Uniform Rules; if the
motion is passed, it would be introduced tomorrow as a House
State Affairs Standing Committee concurrent resolution.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:04 p.m.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, it was so ordered.
^PRESENTATION(S): Reentry's Role in Reducing Crime
PRESENTATION(S): Reentry's Role in Reducing Crime
3:05:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation lead by Steve Williams of the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority.
3:05:45 PM
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Operating Officer (COO), Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority (AMHTA), relayed that the purpose of the
presentation, entitled "Reentry Services: Promoting Safer &
Healthier Communities," is to inform the committee about the
importance of thoughtful and deliberate reentry planning
services as a mechanism for ensuring that offenders have the
highest opportunity for success when leaving incarceration and
returning to their communities, in order to re-integrate in a
positive fashion. He stated that his co-presenters represent
the continuum of what is needed in terms of partnerships and
services for successful reentry to occur. He mentioned the
agencies represented by his co-presenters: the Department of
Corrections (DOC), from which the offender is being released;
the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC), which assesses policies and
their effectiveness; the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), responsible for ensuring adequate services and
supports; and a non-profit organization that receives released
offenders and helps them navigate a complicated system for
accessing needed supports.
MR. WILLIAMS explained that the reason AMHTA ("the Trust") is
engaged in activities around reentry is because 40 percent of
Trust beneficiaries - adults experiencing mental health
disorders, substance use disorders, developmental disabilities,
Alzheimer's, dementia, other related cognitive impairments, and
traumatic brain injuries - make up a high percentage of annual
incarcerations under DOC. Trust staff want to ensure that they
can help the state devise effective and efficient methods of
diverting people away from the criminal justice system when
public safety is not at risk and there are opportunities to re-
engage them in the community. When people are entering
incarceration or are incarcerated, the symptoms of their mental
health issues and addictions can be exacerbated by periods of
incarceration. He offered another reason the Trust is
interested in the issue of reentry: Trust beneficiaries tend to
recidivate at a higher rate than non-Trust beneficiaries when
returning to the community, largely due to the inability to
access appropriate services and supports. They also spend
longer periods of time incarcerated than non-Trust
beneficiaries: for felony offenders it is double the amount of
time; for misdemeanor offenders the time is 150 percent greater.
3:09:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for the definition of [Trust]
beneficiary and how a beneficiary is distinguished from a non-
beneficiary.
MR. WILLIAMS relayed that a Trust beneficiary is an Alaskan who
experiences a mental health disorder, a substance use disorder,
Alzheimer's, dementia, related cognitive impairments,
developmental disabilities, or traumatic brain injuries. He
added that for many individuals, there may be co-occurring
disorders, such as a mental health disorder and substance abuse.
He stated that as a result of these disorders, they are at high
risk for institutionalization - unable to meet their needs and
care for themselves in the community. He said that historically
- in the 60s and 70s - they might have been placed in a
psychiatric institution or hospital.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL restated his question: How does someone
with those types of conditions become a beneficiary as opposed
to someone with those conditions who is arrested and not a
beneficiary?
MR. WILLIAMS explained that there is no list of Trust
beneficiaries. Community providers and DHSS identify people
that experience these conditions and disorders. It is in this
way that they come to the attention of the Trust and the Trust
then advocates for them.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that the reason for the presentation is
as follows: incredible work has been performed in the state to
improve reentry; there is evidence that the reentry work has
helped significantly to reduce the recidivism rate; and it is
his desire to explore what has been done and what could be done.
He maintained that there are opportunities for the committee to
strengthen language in statutes as it reviews criminal justice
proposals. He said that it is under the committee's
jurisdiction to look for ways to strengthen reentry and continue
to bring down crime rates by reducing recidivism.
3:12:50 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Deputy Director, Division of Health &
Rehabilitation Services (DHRS), Alaska Department of Corrections
(DOC), referred to slide 2, entitled "Recidivism," to discuss
how Alaska defines recidivism. She stated that it is important
to recognize recidivism as it is defined in statute; it does not
just include new crimes. She relayed that DOC's recidivism data
also includes technical violations - the variety of events that
may happen while a person is on probation and parole. She
relayed the definition of recidivism from slide 2, which read:
A felony offender who is re-incarcerated within three
years of release for any offense conviction:
? Parole or probation violation
? New felony crime
? New misdemeanor crime
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 3, entitled "Alaska Recidivism
Rates," and pointed out that the most recent data in the chart
is from 2015. She explained that recidivism numbers are based
on three years post release; the data was calculated in 2018
based on the 2015 cohort (CY2015). She maintained that the data
is not old data, but very current data with a 3-year-old cohort.
The conclusion from the chart is that after consistently being
in the mid to upper 60th percentile, Alaska has begun to see a
steady decline in recidivism. She stated that there are many
contributing factors for the decline. The DOC has made an
aggressive shift over the past five to six years toward
evidence-based practices in programming; it uses assessment
tools to identify criminogenic risk factors, which helps DOC
focus resources on moderate to high risk offenders. She offered
that reentry planning must begin as soon as the offender enters
prison; it must be a fluid process throughout his/her
incarceration; and it must then help the offender to transition
back into the community. She added that community partnerships
are a contributing factor, as well. She maintained that all
these efforts together, when done right, will affect a decline
in recidivism rates.
MS. BROOKS pointed out the 61 percent recidivism rate on the
chart [slide 3] for CY2015. She reported that the U.S.
Department of Justice (USDOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
did a 30-state study of over 400,000 offenders, and 67.8 percent
of them were re-incarcerated within three years of release. She
reported that compared to national statistics, Alaska is doing
well.
3:15:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS referred to testimony that reentry programs must
begin as soon as offenders are incarcerated. He expressed his
belief that statute specifies a 90-day reentry period after
release; he asked what the variation was from institution to
institution in terms of the length of reentry programming with
offender management plans (OMPs).
MS. BROOKS said that the first part of the OMP is prepared
within 30 days of arrival at a sentence facility; it continues
with the offender throughout his/her sentence. During the
period of incarceration, the plan is reviewed regularly; it is a
fluid working document that is updated when the offender makes
progress or has setbacks. When the offender completes a
treatment program, the plan is updated. Something may be added
to the plan due to behavior. For example, an offender's
original assessment may not have called for anger management,
but as a result of behavior, the plan is changed to include
anger management. She stated that the plan follows the offender
through incarceration. Ninety days before release, the
institutional probation officers (POs) update the OMP - which is
then referred to as the "Phase 2 OMP - with a focus on that
individual returning to the community. The Phase 2 OMP
summarizes the work that the offenders have completed in the
institutions and the programs and services they still need; it
has a community release plan that includes their strengths and
progress, as well as their risks and the needs yet to be
addressed, such as housing, employment, or transportation. Also
included is the court-ordered or parole board requirements that
must be met when the offender returns to the community. She
added that the OMP travels with the offender "out into the
field."
MS. BROOKS, in answer to Co-Chair Fields question, explained
that there is a great deal of variability between facilities.
She said that DOC tries to standardize the OMPs; it has policies
about OMPs; there are requirements and standard operating
procedures (SOPs) that direct how they are to be managed. She
maintained that [the OMP] depends on many factors, and one of
the factors is the offender's willingness to participate in
development of the plan. The DOC cannot require the offender to
participate in an OMP. DOC tries very hard to convince the
offender that it is needed and there are benefits, but because
it is not required, there is much variability in the OMPs that
DOC produces.
3:19:11 PM
MS. BROOKS moved on to slide 4, entitled "Recidivism - by
Offense Type," to discuss the reasons offenders return to
incarceration - a new misdemeanor crime, a new felony, or a
probation violation. She reported that the majority of those
returning to custody return on technical probation or parole
violations; fifty-eight percent of them return to custody within
six months due to technical violations. She explained that
these are individuals who are new to probation and parole and,
therefore, may fail to report, which is a technical violation.
Some may have not completed substance abuse treatment and,
therefore, may get a technical violation for alcohol or drug
use. She stated that these constitute some of the confounding
factors that may be involved. She said that part of the
probation and parole process is trying to intercede early in the
criminal cycle - before there is a new crime or a new victim -
and the violations reflect that effort.
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 5, entitled "Recidivism - new
crimes," and relayed that probation violations are down 15
percent in the past four years [CY2011 to CY2015]; however, even
after excluding technical violations, there is still a downward
trend in recidivism in Alaska. She said that 32 percent of
recidivism is due to new crimes, which includes both felony and
misdemeanor charges, and the recidivism rate for new crimes is
down 8 percent over the past four years.
MS. BROOKS moved on to slide 6, entitled "Felony Recidivism,"
which reports on those who served time for a felony and returned
to incarceration because of a new felony. She stated that there
has been a decline in felony recidivism. Twenty percent of
offenders released from DOC facilities returned on new felony
charges within three years of release, which is down 5 percent
in the past five years.
3:21:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that eliminating probation and
parole violations from the recidivism rates makes a big
difference - 61 percent compared with 20 percent. He asked
whether there are ways to reduce the [number of] conditions for
violating probation and parole. He mentioned that anecdotally
he has heard some unrealistic and ridiculous conditions. He
offered his understanding that returning to jail for violating a
probation and parole condition works best when it is swift and
short, such as three days for the first violation and ten days
for the second violation. He asked whether that three days
would constitute recidivism for that individual.
MS. BROOKS responded that reducing the number of technical
violations has been a focus of DOC for the past couple years;
the Division of Probation & Parole (DPP) is actively working to
structure such a reduction. She said, "There's a lot of
variance with that, depending ... on the offenders, the type of
technical violations, the frequency that somebody has had of
technical violations, ... and even sometimes it comes down ...
to PO preference and style." She offered that DOC is trying to
figure out how to reach these individuals without returning them
to incarceration. She asserted that the downward trend in
probation and parole violations likely reflects that effort.
MS. BROOKS, in response to Representative Wool's question about
offenders going back to jail for short periods of time, stated
that there are evidence-based programs demonstrating that short
returns to incarceration are very effective. Alaska has the
Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE)
program, modeled after Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with
Enforcement (HOPE) program, in which individuals return to jail
for a short time as a reminder of where they could be if they
continue that path.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the declining rate of
recidivism from CV2011 to CY2015 and mentioned that [the
decline] predates the criminal justice reform enacted under
House Bill 91 [Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018].
He stated that decreasing recidivism was a strong focus of
criminal justice reform. He suggested that there is a factor
independent of substantial changes in law causing the decline in
recidivism and asked Ms. Brooks to comment.
MS. BROOKS replied that she can't identify for certain the
causal factors; however, DOC changed the way it did business in
terms of treatment programs at the time of the decline. She
maintained that DOC looked for and implemented evidence-based
programs; that is, programs already proven to be successful in
reducing recidivism. She added that there is an ongoing effort
to only employ programs that show evidence of being beneficial
in terms of recidivism as the end goal.
3:26:59 PM
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 7, entitled "Recidivism by Offense
Class," to show a breakdown of recidivism rates by offense class
and year [2013, 2014, 2015]. She stated that there is a
reduction in recidivism rates over all and in all classes of
offense except offense against a person and weapons offense.
She added that the category, entitled "public order and
administration," consists of offenses that didn't fit into
another category, such as refusing a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
test, filing a false report, or hindering a prosecution.
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 8, entitled "Recidivism Release
Offense Class & New Offense Class," which shows the original
offense against the offense causing the return to jail. The
chart demonstrates that someone who recidivates tends to do so
within the same offense class. For example, someone arrested
for driving under the influence (DUI) is far more likely to
return to jail for an alcohol offense than another class of
offense; it is the same with drug offenses and property
offenses. She mentioned that weapons and driving offenses do
not trend that same way.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to her example regarding a DUI and
an alcohol offense and asked for clarification of an "alcohol
alone" offense.
MS. BROOKS offered to do further research on the question and
provide more information.
3:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if people on probation are allowed
any amount of alcohol.
MS. BROOKS responded that it depends on their conditions of
probation and parole. She said that the parole board sets
conditions, and the probation and parole officers enforce them.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he has become aware of
several people having the condition of not being allowed alcohol
who didn't have an alcohol crime; he suggested that it is a
blanket condition. He asked whether the judge gives the
conditions of parole or if they come from the parole board.
MS. BROOKS answered that both the court and the parole board can
set conditions of parole. She maintained that she is not
familiar with the differences in the conditions each set. She
agreed that an alcohol restriction is a very common requirement
for someone on probations parole. She is also unfamiliar with
any possible appeal process for the condition.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that often a crime is plea
bargained, a condition is set as part of the agreement, and the
person forgets those conditions and violates a condition some
time later.
3:32:33 PM
MS. BROOKS moved on to slide 9, entitled "Recidivism by Risk
Level," and stated that DOC does offender assessments focused on
risk levels in order to focus resources. Those found to be at
highest risk, tend to recidivate at the highest rates.
Recidivism rates include probation and parole violations;
tighter controls are placed on those at higher risk; the intent
is to catch people earlier with lesser behaviors before a new
crime happens or there is a new victim. She said that the
recidivism rate for the higher risk offender is higher, not only
because tighter controls have been placed on them, but because,
by definition, they are at higher risk to recidivate.
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 10, entitled "When are people most
likely to return?" and stated that the highest risk for
recidivism is within the first six months of release. She said
that 25 percent of people who return to their community are
reincarcerated within six months; many are new to parole, are
unfamiliar with the process, and become involved with a
technical violation or minor issue. A person who recidivates is
far more likely to do so within twelve months of release, and
more than 40 percent of those who recidivate return within the
first year. She maintained that the statistics reveal the
importance of a comprehensive release plan and strong community
supports for reentry.
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 11, entitled "Long-term Results,"
to point out the recidivism rates for up to 10 years of release.
She stated that over time and as expected, the likelihood of
returning to jail decreases: people stabilize; they receive
treatment; the intensity and frequency of anti-social behavior
tends to decrease over time. She said that there is a
significant decline in recidivism as the years pass. She
reported that less than 6 percent of offenders return to jail
between years six and ten.
3:35:34 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council
(AJC), Alaska Court System (ACS), referred to the statistics on
slides 10 and 11 indicating the high risk of released inmates
reentering jail within the first six months to one year. She
put forth the question asked by DOC and the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission (ACJC): What can we do for the high and
medium risk offenders in that critical first six months to a
year to break the pattern of rapid return to jail? She referred
to slide 12, entitled "Reentry Background," which read:
? 95% of all prisoners will eventually return to 'the
streets,' if not their home community, then another
Alaskan community
? Reentering persons often have substance abuse and
mental health diagnoses which interfere with
functionality
? Reentering persons are often without housing and
employment
? Family ties may have been diminished by non-contact
or by their relocation
? But when support services are frontloaded for medium
to high risk individuals they are more likely to stay
out rather than return to prison
MS. DIPIETRO added that releasing people with these problems
into the community constitutes a very vulnerable time for them;
inviting these people into services in the community is the
foundation of reentry.
MS. DIPIETRO turned to slide 13, entitled "What do we mean by
'reentry'?" and reviewed the following bullet points:
? Person leaves correctional facility where they have
been incarcerated
? After completing a sentence of imprisonment
? He or she may be under supervision (probation,
parole) but not always, and especially not if the
sentence was for misdemeanor crime(s)
? Their return is to a community, but not necessarily
their home community
MS. DIPIETRO added that people who are not in their home
communities while working through reentry are especially in need
of the support of reentry services.
3:39:09 PM
MR. WILLIAMS went on to slide 14, entitled "Sequential Intercept
Model (SIM)," which demonstrates the criminal justice system by
way of a flow chart with five "intercepts." On either end of
the chart is noted "community." On the front end - or left side
of the chart - is Intercept 0, which consists of prevention and
early intervention to intervene early to decrease the likelihood
that people will enter the criminal justice system either at the
juvenile or adult levels. The chart moves through the criminal
justice system to Intercept 4, which is "Reentry," and Intercept
5, which is "Community Corrections." He stated that these two
intercepts are the focus of the presentation - answering the
question of what is being done to prepare people for release
from DOC and reentering the community. He added that the
services and supports that people need to remain healthy and
positively integrated in the community at the front end are the
same ones as needed when released. He emphasized that community
supports are important as both preventative measures and as
measures helping people reintegrate back into the community. He
credited the Policy Research Associates (PRA) for the model; it
is used to examine the intersection of criminal justice and
behavioral health and to identify intercept points to employ
appropriate diversions for an individual when mental health, not
public safety, is the overriding issue.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the quote on slide 15, which read:
Successful reentry begins on admission and continues
through incarceration, release, community supervision
and ultimately the unsupervised and successful
reintegration [of the individual] into the community.
3:41:50 PM
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 16, entitled "Reentry & Public
Safety," which read:
Recidivism reduction is an important part of the
state's public safety mission.
Reentry planning helps offenders successfully resume
family and community responsibilities.
The Department of Corrections has programs in place to
address the criminogenic risk factors associated with
recidivism.
MS. BROOKS added that helping individuals successfully re-
integrate into the community means less crime and fewer victims,
which defines a successful reentry plan. She stated that there
are three guiding principles for effective intervention for the
offender population: 1) identifying who is at greatest risk of
re-offending and focusing resources on moderate to high risk
offenders; 2) targeting the criminogenic needs of those
offenders; and 3) tailoring plans to fit the offenders.
Tailoring the plan is done through risk assessments, OMPs, and
focused evidence-based programming.
MS. BROOKS moved on to slide 17, entitled "A Plan to Address
Needs," and stated that the assessment tools used by DOC look at
dynamic risk factors that when addressed successfully, change
the probability of an offender's recidivism. She reviewed the
criminogenic needs listed on slide 17, which read:
Assessing criminogenic needs
? Anti-social values/beliefs/cognition
? Anti-social companions
? Anti-social personality or temperament
? Family and/or marital
? Substance abuse
? Employment
? Education
? Leisure and/or recreation
Offender Management Plan (OMP)
? A roadmap to determine what programs are needed
while in custody.
? A means of measuring a prisoner's readiness for
reentry.
MS. BROOKS relayed that DOC helps offenders build positive
associations, positive pro-social activities and behaviors,
support networks, problem-solving skills, and anger management.
It helps offenders recognize criminal thinking errors. It helps
offenders recognize positive healthy relationships and build
positive communications. It helps offenders develop coping
skills to reduce and enhance alternatives to substance abuse.
It helps offenders to engage with employment and education. She
said that once the key issues for an individual are identified
through the assessment, the OMP can be developed. The OMP is
tailored to the specific needs of the offender. It considers
the learning style, abilities, motivation, strengths, and
barriers of the offender. The plan starts when the offender
arrives at the facility and serves as a roadmap to address the
needs of that individual. The OMP is fluid and changes with the
offender's progress and with his/her readiness for reentry.
MS. BROOKS referred to slide 18, entitled "Reentry &
Rehabilitation Programs," and said that DOC has aligned its
programs to follow the basic premise of using evidence-based
practices that have been proven to reduce recidivism. She
mentioned that the programs listed on the slide are a small
sampling of the programs that DOC provides. She highlighted
reentry classes, which address matters such as getting an
identification (ID), transportation, housing, resume writing,
securing benefits and entitlements, and money management. She
relayed that reentry classes are offered at all DOC facilities;
attendance is optional but quite good.
3:46:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether DOC brings DHSS personnel into the
facility to help enroll the returning offenders in Medicaid as
they approach the 90-day period.
MS. BROOKS replied that DOC has integrated several options for
Medicaid into the system: In some communities there are local
Medicaid offices that teach classes for DOC that are open to
anyone who thinks they might be eligible for Medicaid. The
class explains the application process. The reentry class
[teachers] and the institutional POs all have been trained and
have the information on how the DOC population can access
Medicaid upon release. She said that DOC does what it can to
help them fill out the applications while in custody and get
them in the mail. She offered that the field POs will also work
with the offenders to help them submit Medicaid applications.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether all the programs listed on the
slide are available at all institutions or whether there is
significant variation between institutions.
MS. BROOKS responded that the programs offered does vary
significantly between facilities. In a facility like Goose
Creek Correctional Center [Wasilla], with 1500 inmates, there is
much more in-depth programming than in a facility like Ketchikan
Correctional Center, with 55 inmates. She maintained that all
facilities have some core options, and DOC is constantly trying
to expand them.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked to see a listing of reentry services by
institution.
MS. BROOKS offered to provide that information.
MS. BROOKS stated that DOC's mental health population
recidivates at nearly twice the rate of the non-mentally ill
population. She said that DOC has a wide variety of mental
health treatment programs in the facilities: 24-hour acute care
psychiatric hospital level care; sub-acute units; 306
psychiatric beds, which makes DOC the largest provider of direct
mental health services in the state; several specialized release
programs; the Assess, Plan, Identify, Coordinate (APIC) program
funded by the Trust, which assists individuals returning to any
community in the state to get connected to resources and even
pay for resources until benefits or entitlements begin; and the
felony release plan through the therapeutic court. She
concluded that DOC has many programs in place to support the
very vulnerable mental health population. She added that there
are sex offender treatment programs in custody and in the
community. The DOC has a medical social work program that
serves medically fragile individuals with needs like securing
nursing care, wheelchairs, or connecting with a doctor.
MS. BROOKS pointed out the range of services listed on slide 18
for substance abuse treatment, which are: assessment;
psychoeducation; intensive outpatient; residential; dual
diagnosis programs; and Community Residential Center (CRC)
programming. She continued by describing the medication
assisted treatment (MAT) programs. The department uses the
medication, Vivitrol, which it has been fortunate to receive
from the pharmaceutical company at no cost. The department
offers it to individuals who are returning to the community, if
there are no medical contraindications and if the individual is
willing to use it. The treatment consists of an injection prior
to release from jail and efforts to connect the released inmate
to a provider in the community for the next injection. She
stated that the second part of the MAT program involves
"Methadone bridging." She explained that when someone addicted
to Methadone is incarcerated, instead of taking the person off
Methadone - causing withdrawal - DOC works with the community
Methadone clinic to continue to administer Methadone to the
inmate if he/she is in custody for a short time - 30 days or
less. She added that doing so ensures that the inmate is not
withdrawing unnecessarily and, when released, can continue with
the Methadone program.
3:52:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked to what extent medication assisted
treatment in DOC facilitates mirrors the kind of medication
assisted treatment in a non-prison treatment setting that is
only focused on addressing addiction.
MS. BROOKS answered that the primary difference between a DOC
medication assisted treatment program and a medication assisted
treatment program anywhere else is the types of medications that
are offered. She said that DOC does not continue Methadone
treatment for an inmate who will be incarcerated a long time.
She relayed that DOC does not treat inmates with Suboxone or
Buprenorphine, because there is an incredibly high potential for
abuse and diversion. She stated that even though Alaska DOC
does not use those treatment medications, other state
departments of correction are looking at those models and some
have started some pilot projects. She said that Alaska DOC has
not ruled out use of these medications entirely; however, the
DOC medical staff would need to have special Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) designations to prescribe such medications
and currently it does not. She offered that DOC is exploring
the use medications that would be safe and reasonable for
expansion in the correctional system.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Brooks to tell the committee what
Vivitrol and Suboxone are, and he asked if one was medication to
treat opioid overdoses.
MS. BROOKS answered that naltrexone - another name for Vivitrol
- is a medication primarily used to manage opioid dependence.
She explained that Narcan, or naloxone, is administered to
someone who appears to be overdosing from opioid use. She said
that all these medications work to block various receptors;
there is a great deal of discussion surrounding which medication
is best for an individual. She offered that DOC is expanding
the MAT program to have a "buffet" of medications, so that the
inmates have more options and can choose the best option. She
added that best practice is trending toward more options, and
these are safe options.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY mentioned that she has heard that the
programs are underutilized, and inmates are not taking advantage
of them - particularly the substance abuse treatment programs.
She asked whether that information was accurate.
MS. BROOKS responded, "You are correct." She said that DOC
provides the programs, but the programs are optional. The
department tries to provide incentives, but it finds that some
inmates do not want to participate in a substance abuse
treatment program even when it is court-ordered. She added that
some of these inmates are getting probation violations because
of refusing treatment; some would rather spend the time in jail
and get out with no probations or parole, than be in treatment.
She stated that this is a huge challenge for DOC. The
department has heard from inmates that availability is an issue;
treatment may be available at one facility but not the facility
to which an inmate has been transferred; or the inmate cannot
start into a program at the point he/she was in the previous
facility. She offered that the facilities are trying to align
their treatment programs so that an inmate can transfer from
facility to facility as DOC population management demands
without interruption to his/her treatment program. She
reiterated that Representative Story's assessment was correct;
there was a substance abuse program in Lemon Creek Correctional
Center that was difficult to staff and then underutilized.
3:58:17 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred to slide 19, entitled "History - Statewide
Reentry Efforts," to point out that there have been reentry
efforts in Alaska for several years. He cited the declining
recidivism rates and suggested that the focus on how people are
being released and their needs is a contributing factor to that
decline.
MR. WILLIAMS moved on to slide 20, entitled "Local Reentry
Coalitions," and said that in 2016 communities were discussing
how they could help address the issues around recidivism.
Coalitions of concerned citizens popped up around the state; the
first four [shown on the map on the left side of the slide] were
in Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su), Fairbanks, and Juneau;
they were funded by the Trust. He referred to the map on the
right side of the slide to point out the expansion of coalitions
to Nome, Dillingham, Ketchikan, and Kenai; these coalitions are
funded by DHSS.
MR. WILLIAMS turned to the left side of slide 21, entitled
"Roles of a Reentry Coalition," and reviewed the coalition
functions, which read:
Roles of a Reentry Coalition
Educate the community about the justice system and the
reentry program,
Identify local challenges facing reentrants,
Identify local gaps in reentry services and identify
collaborative solutions to build capacity in the
community, and
Serve as the local point of contact for the DOC and
its partners in reducing recidivism.
MR. WILLIAMS directed the committee's attention to the right
side of slide 21, entitled "From Incarceration to Communities,"
which illustrates the pathway after reentry: the people
involved; and the services that are needed to be successful -
transportation, access to healthcare, education, and employment.
4:02:04 PM
DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator, Juneau Reentry Coalition
(JREC), presented slides 22-25, entitled "Juneau Reentry
Coalition." He stated the coalition's mission shown on slide
22, which read:
The Juneau Reentry Coalition's (JREC) mission is to,
'promote public safety by identifying and implementing
strategies that increase a former prisoner's well-
being within the community and reduces the likelihood
of their return to prison through recidivating.'
MR. HABEGER relayed that this has been their mission statement
since inception in 2013. He continued by saying that from 2012
to 2016, an average of 502 individuals were released into the
community of Juneau annually. He said that in 2017, Juneau had
335 [high school] graduates; therefore, there are 50 percent
more people returning to the community from jail than graduated.
MR. HABEGER stated that JREC serves as the interface between the
institution and the community. He goes into the Lemon Creek
Correctional Center once a month to meet with the POs and some
of the inmates; he meets with released inmates in the community
throughout the day.
MR. HABEGER relayed that JREC is a collaboration of individuals,
community stakeholders, public and not-for-profit agencies, and
faith-based and business partners who are united and committed
to the goal of a safer community. He added that anyone who
comes to JREC meetings can be considered a member if providing
an email address.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Habeger whether he was a
private citizen volunteer or whether he has an official liaison
with the State of Alaska or DOC.
MR. HABEGER answered that he has a contract with JREC, which is
funded through a Trust grant to Juneau; some coalitions hire
staff; for JREC, contracts were a better option.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the reentry work of JREC
and the interface with DOC has changed with the new [Governor
Michael J. Dunleavy] administration in terms of policy,
practice, and procedures.
MR. HABEGER responded, "Really, no." He said that from his
perspective, JREC's relations with DOC is much the same. He
offered that in one respect there has been improvement. He gave
an example: There was a staffing shortage in the local
probation office. More people were hired, and when Mr. Habeger
asked them what JREC could do as a reentry coalition to improve
the process, they specified having incentives to give successful
reentry people. He secured meal cards from the local Subway
[restaurant] as a special treat to incentivize success. He
maintained that it was an example of the community working
together.
4:07:52 PM
MR. HABEGER turned to slide 23 to review the JREC focus areas.
The first is quick access to behavioral health treatment and
support, especially substance misuse treatment. He reported
that progress has been made on that focus area through clinics
with "drop-in" time slots for people wanting immediate access.
The second focus area involves reentry housing: someone coming
out of incarceration has limited resources; finding affordable
housing, particularly in Juneau, is a real challenge; however,
some progress has been made. He mentioned that Gastineau Human
Services (GHS) is the local community resident center (CRC) - or
halfway house. He said that GHS will offer housing at times
even for people who have been released and out of DOC
jurisdiction. He mentioned Haven House in Juneau, which is an
8-bed facility for women, is about three years old. He
maintained that one of the challenges in Juneau is the lack of
such a place for men. He said that Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes of Alaska ("Tlingit & Haida") is working on a 16-bed
transitional housing program for men, planned to be completed
this summer [2019]. He relayed that beginning on January 1
[2019], JREC offered two classes in which those with
demonstrated years of successful reentry assisted recently
released individuals in achieving reentry success.
MR. HABEGER moved on to slide 24 to discuss JREC's structure.
He relayed that community members are "first and foremost" and
welcomed to be involved. There is a governance body, which is a
15-member volunteer organization representing all areas of
expertise across the community - law enforcement, behavioral
health, "family support victims," and the legal profession. He
continued by explaining JREC's "co-chair system": DOC has a
chair on the coalition leadership; it is currently filled by
someone from the DOC facility, but in the past has been filled
by someone from DOC's Pretrial Enforcement Division (PED) and by
someone from a Division of Probation and Parole (DPP) field
office. He offered that on an annual basis a community member
is elected to be on the coalition leadership team. He explained
that the leadership team uses a workgroup format focused on
eight areas to solve problems for the community. He mentioned
that he serves as staff to the work as coordinator. He stated
that a fiscal agent is employed to perform fiscal oversight and
reporting.
MR. HABEGER referred to slide 25 to summarize: he mentioned
JREC's role in the reentry process, its role as the interface
between the institution and the community, and functions JREC's
performs. He emphasized the importance of case management
services: since inception, 63 individuals have volunteered for
the JREC program; out of those, 11 were non-compliant with the
program, or about 17 percent.
4:12:53 PM
ALYSA WOODEN, Program Coordinator, Division of Behavioral Health
(DBH), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), relayed
that she manages and implements grants and contracts for DBH to
serve individuals involved with the criminal justice system.
She stated that her presentation would be a high-level overview
of some of the programs that DBH manages in terms of its
community reentry support. She referred to slides 26-29,
entitled "Division of Behavioral Health & Community Reentry
Supports." She described DBH's support services as falling
within three groups. The first group is "Direct Service," which
consists of reentry case management, reentry centers, Alaska
Medicaid Coordinated Care Initiative (AMCCI), and Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) Returning Home Program vouchers. She
stated that DBH helps to fund, manage, and implement the reentry
centers and case managers across the state. It works with
coalitions in Anchorage, Mat-Su, Juneau, and Fairbanks, and
assists with grants that give those locations a case manager
position to coordinate services for individuals coming out of
DOC. She said the DBH also provides grant funding for the AHFC
Returning Home Program. She offered that this program is
intended to provide the individuals coming out of institutions
with housing support. The program is not just in Anchorage but
serves other locations across the state; it is not just focused
on individuals, but also supports families. She said that about
23 percent of the households served have children. She relayed
that DBH is trying to ensure it is using its resources statewide
in a variety of programs to reduce recidivism.
MS. WOODEN related that DBH also works with AMCCI, which affords
the division the opportunity to partner with DOC and community-
based providers to connect individuals to healthcare; DBH
recognizes that the reentry population may be high-users of the
emergency care system, and connecting these individuals with
primary care could reduce emergency department (ED) utilization
rates.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS referred to a Legislative Research Services
study which showed that the state saved general fund (GF) money
through Medicaid expansion and some of those savings were in DOC
reentry programs.
MS. WOODEN responded that the reentry population "touches on"
many different categories - from housing and homelessness to
treatment.
4:16:40 PM
MS. WOODEN continued by addressing the second group, "Prevention
and Early Intervention," and said that prevention can be
categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary. She offered
that ensuring that there are community supports in place for
individuals at risk for committing crimes and who have committed
crimes is a very important piece of reducing recidivism. One of
the focus areas consists of building support statewide for
people coming out of DOC, and not just in Anchorage; with [USDOJ
Justice Reinvestment Initiative] program funds, DBH is working
with other communities who have DOC releases - Juneau,
Fairbanks, and Mat-Su - to develop the resources locally.
MS. WOODEN moved on to discuss the third group, "Program
Infrastructure," which addresses increased collaboration and
communication at the state level and between the state and
communities. She emphasized that DOC has very thorough
information on people released from DOC; the OMPs are very
detailed and can provide useful information for community
providers; however, community providers are unable to access
those plans. She maintained that through the utilization of
resources and work with communities, vetted individuals now can
access the plans and the referrals and base the community
transition plans off the work that DOC has done. She concluded
by saying that the programs DBH funds are targeted toward
individuals who are medium- to high-risk felony, misdemeanor,
and sex offenders; these are the groups that are hard to place
in community services.
MS. WOODEN skipped ahead to slide 29 to highlight areas that DBH
wishes to pursue; these include addressing systematic barriers,
increasing training to providers on evidence-based practices;
and partnering with an independent evaluator to assess program
outcomes. She stated that DBH has developed a partnership with
the University of Alaska (UA), which will be assessing the
programs starting with the fiscal year 2020 (FY 20).
4:20:09 PM
JOSHUA SOPKO, Deputy Director, Partners Reentry Center (PRC),
addressed slides 30-31, entitled "Partners Reentry Center," and
stated that the PRC is in downtown Anchorage within a 10-minute
walk from the Anchorage Correctional Complex. He relayed that
PRC accepts applications pre-release to secure housing for
people who are releasing homeless, as well as, from walk-ins; it
helps people with their immediate needs, such as finding
employment; it offers help in behavioral modification and sober
support. He stated that most of the people PRC helps are
medium- to high-risk people according to their Level of Service
Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) results and their criminal history.
He added that PRC uses motivational interviewing and goal
setting to establish a plan for each person, along with his/her
buy-in, since the program is voluntary. He said that PRC
encourages its clients to continue to work with PRC and
incentivizes them with additional housing support. He added
that ideally PRC works with its clients for three months to
assist them with transitional housing; if employed and secure,
PRC helps them move into their own places. He said that PRC
provides the following: frequent visits to
PRC; getting them to appointments; ensuring they are following
probation conditions; and helping them do what they need to do
to stay out of trouble, avoid technical violations, change
behavior for the better, and not commit new crimes.
MR. SOPKO turned to slide 31 to review the three main pillars of
the work done by PRC. He relayed that PRC sees about 69 people
per day; staff prioritize clients as they enter; clients use the
computer lab; staff provide case management and follow up on the
goals that the clients set. He said that the stable housing
that PRC initially provides really helps the released offenders;
one of their greatest concerns - having a safe place to sleep
for the night - is met; it allows them to focus on the hard work
of changing themselves for the better. He imparted that PRC
partners with many, many agencies to accomplish what it does; it
offers Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) training and sober support
groups; it refers people to other agencies for long-term case
management and behavioral change; it works with providers for
substance abuse and medically assisted treatment; it refers
people directly to Alaska Regional Hospital myHealth Clinic for
Vivitrol and to other providers offering medically assisted
treatment. He offered that most of the people assisted by PRC
are Trust beneficiaries; staff provide them with outreach
services to sign up for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), food stamps, and Medicaid; staff help them with
budgeting; staff try to help the clients overcome barriers while
"doing things right for the first time or overcoming shame at
their past decisions."
4:25:14 PM
CHRISTINA SCHADURA, Support Services and Data Analysis
Coordinator, Partners Reentry Center (PRC), referred to slide
32, entitled "Partners Reentry Center," and stated that through
her presentation, she would submit a data sample to an internal
program study for PRC. She relayed that the purpose behind the
study was: an attempt to determine if a community-based program
model, like the reentry center, could have any measurable
outcomes for reducing recidivism by quantifying whether full
engagement versus non-engagement in a reentry program made a
difference in an individual's recidivism rate immediately
following incarceration. She added that the study tracked new
charges within a specific date range for both identified profile
groups.
MS. SCHADURA said that for the purpose of the study, recidivism
was defined as any combination of one or more new misdemeanor or
felony charges resulting in the re-arrest, re-conviction, and
remand into custody. For the study, the researchers utilized
the in-house client tracking access database, as well as two of
the programs available to them, CourtView and VINElink. The
time frame for the study was FY 17 to FY 18. The study included
two groups: one was the control group - the non-program
engagement group - of approximately 150 individuals; the second
was the program group of 150 individuals who actively engaged in
the services PRC offered. She said that every one of the 300
study subjects were pre-assigned with an LSI-R Risk-Needs-
Responsivity (RNR) assessment score, administered and provided
to PRC by a DOC probation officer who had referred each of the
individuals to PRC through the First Week Out (FWO) program.
She explained that FWO refers to a referral designed to act as
both a pre-release and discharge plan with a focus on immediate
stabilization post incarceration for needs such as coordinating
transitional housing, accessing referrals in the community
treatment programs, and starting reentry on a path to self-
sustainability the first week back into the community.
MS. SCHADURA stated that for the purpose of the data study,
"engagement" was defined as follows: attending and utilizing
the reentry center a minimum of seven or more times; being
offered case management services; having a change in emergency,
transitional, or permanent housing; being offered referrals for
mental health and substance abuse treatment options; being
offered benefit outreach for enrollment in Medicaid and SNAP;
and being offered money management counseling and participation
in peer support groups. She emphasized that everyone in the
program group met each of the engagement criteria. She added
that everyone in the program group began the job laboratory
(lab) employment process by attending workshops, creating a
resume, and performing mandatory job searches. She reviewed the
results of the study from the slide, which read in part as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
65%.....Applied for Medicaid/SNAP
31%.....referred to & utilized Treatment providers
61%..... Gained Full-Time Employment
An average of $597.63 was spent per participant on
Housing costs for the FY18 Date Range.
91%..... Assessed as Med-Max Risk/Needs
MS. SCHADURA offered that referrals and collaborations in the
communities is critical for PRC as it can assist the reentry
population better when able to work in coordination with other
social service agencies, state departments, treatment programs,
and housing providers; it reduces the chance for duplication of
services from individual to individual and allows all
organizations involved to better track a community's available
resources.
MS. SCHADURA moved on to slide 33 and asked, "Are we making a
difference?" She reiterated that for the purpose of the study
data, recidivism was defined as any combination of one or more
new misdemeanor and/or felony charges resulting in the re-
arrest, re-conviction, and remand into custody; it does not
capture Petitions to Revoke Probation (PTRPs) or violation of
conditions of release or parole. She stated that researchers
were able to track each of the 300 study subjects based on a
guilty conviction of a new misdemeanor, felony, or felony and
misdemeanor charged together occurring after the program entry
date at the reentry center. She reported the results: 41 of
the 150 people who engaged in the program recidivated, resulting
in a re-arrest, re-conviction, and return to custody - a 27
percent recidivism rate; 72 of the 150 people in the control
group recidivated, resulting in re-arrest, re-conviction, and
return to custody - a 48 percent recidivism rate. She reminded
the committee that the sample size of the data is a mere
fraction of the population the center has served since
inception; however, it does suggest a positive correlation
between meaningful engagement into a community-based program
that provides the accountability, the referral, and the
(indisc.) services based on need contributing to a decreased
likelihood of recidivating. She added that PRC currently is
expanding the number of participants tracked in these two groups
to cast a wider net on its participant base to reaffirm that
these trends are accurate. She expressed the desire to quantify
the belief that reentry and transitional services provide
necessary assistance in destabilized criminal justice-involved
members of the community while promoting public safety for
Alaskans.
4:30:24 PM
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the study results on slide 33 - a
comparison of the recidivism percentages of the program group
versus those of the control group. He reiterated that there was
a 27 percent recidivism rate for those who engaged and
participated in the program. He referred to the decline in
recidivism rates for Alaska discussed by Ms. Brooks and
maintained that engagement with the reentry populations help
them and the community be safer. He pointed out that the 48
percent recidivism rate of the control group was still below the
61 percent for CY2015 shown on slide 3. He added, "You may not
get someone to fully engage with you, but just the fact that
you're helping them access and navigate a complex service system
in our communities, in and of itself, will help to reduce the
likelihood that they will commit a new crime." He concluded
that partnerships, communication, and access to the services in
the community is what really will help drive down recidivism
rates, increase public safety, and create healthier communities.
4:32:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed his interest in following up with
several issues brought forward by the presentation that could
possibly lead to statutory updates. He mentioned them as
follows: moving the 90-day OMP to start right after sentencing;
amending statutory language regarding coordination between DOC
and non-profit reentry service providers; and identifying key
elements of OMPs to ensure they are as robust as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE mentioned that in the [2/20/19] speech to
the Joint Session of the Alaska State Legislature by [Alaska
Supreme Court Chief Justice Joel H. Bolger], he highlighted a
project to create easier access to legal services. She asked if
that would be implemented for released offenders to assist them
with accessing services.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that he would put that initiative on the
list of tools to be employed to connect people to the right
services in the community.
4:33:49 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:34 p.m.
HB 57-CHILD LABOR HOURS
4:34:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to expanding the period
in a day during which an employed child under 16 years of age
may perform work in the summer; and providing for an effective
date."
4:34:26 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31-
LS0271\M.3, Wayne, 3/13/19], which read:
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "5:00 a.m."
Insert "4:00 a.m."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 1 would change
the summer working hours by replacing the beginning time, 5
a.m., with 4 a.m. He expressed that in sport fishing and
charter lodges in coastal Alaska, youth often bus tables or
provide services during a "pre-fishing" shift, which could be as
early as 4 a.m.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection.
4:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his belief that sleep is very
important for youth, thus, objected to the proposed amendment.
He asked for confirmation that the proposed legislation cannot
pass into law without Alaska getting a federal waiver [to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)].
4:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
responded that Alaska does need a waiver. She said that staff
in U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan's office are pursuing this matter.
She expressed that Alaska would need a waiver whether or not HB
57 passes, because currently Alaska hours, 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., do
not correspond with the federally mandated hours of 7 a.m. to 9
p.m. She pointed out that regarding the proposed amendment,
parents do not have to let their children work; for alternate
lifestyles, sleep hours can be adjusted accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that parents would have to
consent; however, he offered that if working in a remote area,
such as at a lodge, youth may respond to other than parental
guidance. He offered that with the proposed legislation, Alaska
is already "pushing the envelope," and there has not been public
testimony. He maintained his objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that in summer it is light out [at
night]; kids don't go to bed anyway; therefore, they might as
well be doing something productive. She said that because it is
summer, there is plenty of time for sleep.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the federal waiver, if
granted, would specify the hours for the extension, or only the
hours stated in HB 57.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that she has no idea. She
expressed her understanding that Alaska would insert the hours
it desired into the waiver with justification, and the federal
government would make its determination. She maintained that
Legislative Legal Services informed her office of the waiver
application, but she has yet to see one. She confirmed that HB
57 cannot pass without the waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that she does not oppose the
proposed amendment but would like public input. She relayed
that she recalls being a young worker in her coastal community
and offered that if 14- and 15-year-olds are willing to get up
that early in the morning or stay working that late at night, it
should not be discouraged.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW expressed that if Alaska can extend bar
hours in the summer, then it should be able to extend hours for
youth wanting to work at 4 a.m. during the summer.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that whether HB 57
passes or doesn't pass, Alaska is not currently in compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied, "You are correct." She added
that many people throughout the state do not realize that there
is a federal law that is different from Alaska law [regarding
work hours for youth]. She said that HB 57 attempts to put
young workers in compliance [with federal and state law] and
allow them to work in the job in which they anticipated working.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether pursuing the proposed
legislation puts Alaska in danger of revealing [Alaska's non-
compliance] to the federal government and ending up with
enforcement activity.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded, "Too late." She relayed that
Senator Sullivan put a formal request in today and added that
the federal government probably is already aware of the issue.
She stated that the [federal] law has been in existence for a
very long time; she does not know if other extensions have been
granted; every state is different, and situations change.
4:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the difficulty of getting kids
up early and maintained that they would not go to bed at 7 p.m.
to get eight hours of sleep before having to get up at 3 a.m.
He offered the possibility that starting work at 4 a.m. may, in
some cases, be coerced by a supervisor and not voluntary. He
suggested that extending an hour at each end of the work day may
make it more likely that the waiver is not granted.
4:44:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:44 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
4:45:13 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed that the most significant
issue regarding the proposed legislation is that the reality of
what is happening in Alaska right now is incongruent with
federal law.
4:45:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS took a brief at-ease at 4:46 p.m.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Vance, Shaw,
LeDoux, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Wool and Fields voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 passed by a vote of 5-2.
4:47:15 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:47 p.m.
4:47:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reiterated that a U.S. Department of Labor
(USDOL) waiver would be needed for HB 57 to pass.
4:48:12 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 57, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
57(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
4:48:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:48 to 4:50 p.m.
HB 83-PROHIBIT VOTING BY FACSIMILE
4:50:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 83, "An Act relating to voting by electronic
transmission in a state election; and providing for an effective
date."
[Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 3/12/19, was
the committee substitute (CS) for HB 83, Version 31-LS0635\M,
Bullard, 3/11/19.]
4:50:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on HB 83. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
4:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Division of Elections
(DOE) supports the proposed legislation.
4:51:26 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of
the Lieutenant Governor (OLG), responded that DOE is always
supportive of maintaining high levels of security and instilling
public trust in the election process. Its position is that the
proposed legislation would support that effort.
4:53:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW moved to report CSHB 83, Version 31-
LS0635\M, Bullard, 3/11/19, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 83(STA) was reported from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
4:53:35 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:53
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Recidivism Reduction and Reentry House State Affairs Presentation 3.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Additional Document - Partners Reentry Center 3.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB57 Amendment v M.3 3.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB57 Amendment #1 3.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| Committee on Committees Resolution - 31-LS0673_U 3.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB083 Supporting Document-Report NIST 3.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/14/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |