Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/24/2015 08:00 AM 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 | |
| HB56 | |
| HB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 22-PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS' CASELOADS
8:13:04 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 22, "An Act establishing a maximum caseload for
probation and parole officers."
8:13:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 22. He paraphrased the first two
paragraphs of the sponsor statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In Alaska, two-thirds of offenders return to prison
within three years. Legislators and communities have
been dedicated to reducing the high rate of
recidivism, but we have missed the important piece of
supporting our probation officers. Probation and
parole officers provide key services than can help
recently-released offenders re-enter society smoothly
and reduce recidivism. However, many probation
officers are seeing an increase in caseloads which
diminishes the amount of time spent with each
individual.
According to a study by The PEW Center on the States,
success rates among offenders are not high. More than
40% of probationers and more than half of parolees do
not complete their supervision terms successfully. In
fact, parole violations account for almost 35% of
admissions in state prisons, and nearly half of local
jail inmates were on probation or parole when they
were arrested.
8:14:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK relayed that 64 percent of inmates with the
Department of Corrections in Alaska are non-violent offenders
and probation violators. He indicated that returning parole
violators cost the state approximately $158.67 per day for "hard
prison bed," and almost $58,000 a year, per inmate. He stated
that about 40 percent of the inmates are pre-trial offenders
awaiting bail, who have not been convicted of a criminal
offense. He indicated that of those, the highest rate of
recidivism occurs among youthful males, minorities, and property
offenders. He said the department reported that the current
average caseload of parole officers is 85.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK paraphrased the next two paragraphs of the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In recent years, the number of duties for probation
officers has grown to include the taking of DNA
samples, ensuring the offender's compliance with the
Sex Offender Registry and conducting home visits and
address confirmation checks. Corrections populations
have also experienced tremendous growth for the past
two decades. In an attempt to alleviate jail and
prison crowding, probation caseloads are being
populated with offenders that potentially pose greater
community safety threats. These offenders may be gang
members, sex offenders, or domestic violence
offenders, and require more officer time to provide
adequate supervision, treatment, and enforcement of
conditions in order to effectively modify their
behavior.
A number of studies have examined practices of
probation officers and have demonstrated that medium
and high-risk offenders garner the most benefit from
intensive correctional interventions. Pro-social
modeling and reinforcement, problem solving, and
cognitive techniques are core skills for reducing
recidivism in probation supervision. If probation
officers are spending less time with each individual
due to high caseloads, their ability to help offenders
develop these skills is severely hampered.
8:16:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said probation and parole officers provide
key services that can help recently released offenders reenter
society smoothly and can reduce recidivism. He indicated that
under the proposed legislation, the number of caseloads for
parole officers would be diminished. He relayed that currently
there are 11 states that limit probation officer caseloads. He
said right now DOC is running at "101 percent" of its general
capacity, despite opening its Goose Creek Prison Facility in
2002, at a cost of $250 million. He stated that if unabated,
Alaska's annual 3 percent prison population growth would result
shortly in the need for a new prison. He reported that Alaska's
prison population was growing at a rate four times that of the
state's population. One way to ensure that rate does not
continue its growth is to ensure the success of people coming
out of prison and entering society. He relayed that as of
January 23, 2015, Alaska's incarceration rate was 5,216
offenders in prison.
8:18:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK indicated that the State of Texas has
statutes to limit the number of caseloads from 11 to 60, with
the higher number being allowed for lighter cases. He named
eleven states [that have adult probation and parole officer
caseload statutes]: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho,
Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Texas, and Vermont. He said HB 22 would set the maximum
caseload at 60, but noted that most of the other states have a
limit of 50 or less, dependent upon the level of crime that has
been committed.
8:20:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in response to Chair Lynn, reiterated that
currently the average caseload for probation officers is 85, and
he confirmed that the caseloads vary depending on the severity
of the crime for which a person was incarcerated. He said the
Department of Corrections ensures that officers are specialized
in the areas in which they work with parolees and people on
probation.
CHAIR LYNN said he agrees with the intent of HB 22, that the
number of caseloads should be reduced; however, he remarked on
the serious financial trouble Alaska is having, and he
questioned whether the state could afford the proposed
legislation. He asked how much it would cost the state to bring
the number of caseloads down.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said at this point the cost was
indeterminate. He indicated that the State of Texas closed down
one of its prisons in 2012, as result of addressing the issue of
recidivism, and limiting the caseloads of parole officers was a
big part of that. He said Texas saw a savings of approximately
$440 million annually. He said the State of Alaska's prison
system is the fifth largest expenditure in its budget. He
stated that the goal is to invest wisely in order to reduce the
cost down the road. Limiting the caseload of probation officers
would be one way to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that probation officers are the front
line to those individuals exiting the prison system. As a
matter of public safety and success, those officers hold
released prisoners accountable. They also coach them and
partner them with resources necessary for their success. When
the caseloads becomes too heavy, it is often the exiting
prisoner that is not guided, and he/she often commits another
crime or makes a technical error that requires a return to
prison. He said the jobs of probation officer and parole
officer cannot be done by a computer; they require face to face
time with parolees and probationers.
8:23:59 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the sponsor was saying
that the State of Alaska would save the cost associated with
parolees going back to prison because of reduced recidivism
under HB 22.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that is correct. He mentioned a
2015 Recidivism Reduction Plan and the Pew Research Center, and
he said there was a recommendation in a report to invite the Pew
Public Safety Project to provide Alaska with free technical
assistance to help identify factors in driving down Alaska's
prison population growth. He said there are a lot of studies
directly related to probation officers. He stated that the
second-highest reason for felony admission is probationary
failure, and he reiterated that limiting caseloads would allow
focus on probationers and parolees and "give them the proper
attention for their successes."
8:25:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO observed that there are 207 probation
officers that work for the state and 6,258 people on probation
and parole, which comes out to an average of 30.3 per caseload.
He ventured that the problem exists mostly in Anchorage, where
the caseload is about 85 people per officer. He asked if that
is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that there is a problem in
Anchorage and higher rates in Nome and Barrow; the numbers vary
by study and the overall average is about 85 - 85 statewide."
He relayed the lowest [caseloads] in the past have been in
Bethel and Fairbanks. He indicated that the numbers fluctuate
depending on the nature of crimes and availability of services.
8:28:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how the system works with parolees from
villages.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to representatives from DOC.
8:28:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that the sponsor had portrayed the
ratio between inmates and probation officers as one that can be
adjusted in order to reduce recidivism. He mentioned Senate
Bill 64, passed in 2014, which was focused on this very problem.
Part of that legislation would expand Probationer Accountability
with Certain Enforcement (PACE) statewide, and there was funding
involved that would reform the [Division of Probation and
Parole]. He also mentioned electronic monitoring, risk
assessment tools to determine whether an inmate is violent, and
treatment programs across the state focused on recidivism.
Further, he said the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) is involved. He expressed he was having difficulty
understanding why the sponsor thinks that "just putting ... a
cap on this ratio will do much." He said his impression is that
DOC is committed to reducing recidivism and has no aversion to
spending money to that end. He mentioned the fiscal note and
said there is a big range of imprisoned. He offered his
understanding that in an administrative probation situation,
"they say 200 isn't unreasonable." He opined that a statutory
cap on the number of cases ignores what's going on and "what we
just did." He asked Representative Tuck to explain the critical
nature of the ratio in the context with all the other
aforementioned recidivism reduction efforts already going on.
8:31:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK read the bill language and clarified that
[HB 22] would not be the whole answer, but a part of it. He
said PACE started in 2010 and allows quick action to get a
parole violator back in to a program. He said the second
highest reason for recidivism is probation violation, and other
states have shown a reduction in recidivism as a result of
putting a cap on caseloads. He offered more details regarding
the State of Texas, which has a limit of 60 caseloads for low-
risk inmates, 35 for those in a special needs offender program
or a substance abuse program, 24 for those in a sex offender
program, 20 for those who are electronically monitored, and 11
for those in a super-intensive supervision program. He said
Alaska's electronic monitoring program is under the supervision
of its parole and probation officers. He talked about the job
of the officers to provide coaching, counseling, and to bring
resources to the probationer that could help keep him/her from
returning to prison.
8:34:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the prime sponsor believes
that DOC has resources currently to accomplish this without
legislation, and would do so. He said it sounded like the prime
sponsor was assuming that the department would overwork the
officers. He said he thinks the department has the resources
now and would not overwork the officers.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that if DOC has the resources now,
then implementing the bill should be easy. He said this should
be something that is implemented beyond the current
administration. He acknowledged that the department has worked
over the years to bring the number of caseloads down from 120 to
85, and the goal is to reduce that number to 60.
8:36:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked whether currently there are enough parole
officers available to bring that number down to 60 or less,
without hiring additional officers.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that there are
quite a few positions unfilled; however, he deferred to DOC to
answer the question.
8:36:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether any thought had been
given to including language in HB 22 that creates different
caseload caps based on the risk level of the parolee.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the department currently has
three levels it works with: minimum, medium, and maximum
[risk]. He offered his understanding that the department
attempts to distribute the spectrum to each officer rather than
giving any one officer all maximum level risk parolees, for
example. He explained that he wanted to allow the department
the flexibility to define how it wants to function, but just
wanted to limit the caseloads to 60.
8:38:15 AM
CHARLES STEWART, Probation Officer, Anchorage Correctional
Complex, Division of Institutions, Department of Corrections,
opined that HB 22 is important legislation for probation
officere whose job it is to work with offenders to help them
change their thinking behavior, which will help them stay out of
jail. He said the goal of the department is to reduce
recidivism, but it is not possible to do that now because
officers are doing so much paperwork and have little time to
work hands on with offenders. He said caseloads run from 80 to
100 or more. He stated that on February 18, 2015, a hearing was
held by the House Finance Committee to address the 2015
Recidivism Reduction Plan presented by the Recidivism Work
Group. He said "we" believe it is a great plan; however, there
is one large problem, the number of caseloads of probation
officers. He said currently officers are spending time putting
out fires started by a handful of individuals, while a majority
are left without face-to-face guidance at a critical time in
their lives. He said, "While we support the evidence-based
approach in handling offenders, we must have more face-to-face
time with each offender in our caseloads for the evidence-based
program to work." He emphasized the importance of working with
each individual on their program plan. The programs require
more paperwork in careful documentation and more time spent with
individuals. He said failure to reduce caseloads would result
in a failure to reduce recidivism. He noted that during a House
Finance Committee hearing information was relayed that the
current recidivism rate was 63.19 percent as of fiscal year 2011
(FY 11), and that the Department of Corrections is currently at
"101 percent" of general capacity and increasing at a growth
rate of 3 percent each year.
8:41:54 AM
MR. STEWART said a report from North Carolina, dated March 2013,
shows that a caseload of 60 is ideal. He indicated that most of
the Department of Correction's officers are assigned a caseload
of 66; however, because of vacant positions, job injury, medical
leave, or military leave, the caseloads "in real life" exceed 70
percent. He indicated that a 2011 report showed that South
Carolina had special caseloads of approximately 30 individuals,
which covered the categories of mental health and sex offenders.
8:43:14 AM
MR. STEWART said when the Recidivism Reduction Plan was given to
the House Finance Committee, it was stated that there were about
5,100 inmates at a cost of $158 a hard bed per day. He said
"our" goal is to cut recidivism by at least 15 percent, which
would be a cost savings of roughly $27 million a year. He said
it is necessary to spend money in order to save money, but
evidence from other states show that money will be saved in the
future. If the problem is not fixed now, he said, the cost of
incarceration will continue to climb. He stated, "Keeping
offenders out of jail by providing active probation officers'
supervision is the answer to reduce recidivism." He asked the
committee to support HB 22, because he said the officers are
trying as hard as they can but need the legislature's help.
8:44:55 AM
WARREN WATERS, Probation Officer, Anchorage Correctional
Complex, Division of Institutions, Department of Corrections,
relayed that as a worker for the State of Alaska, he is allotted
37.5 hours a week. He said divided by a caseload of 85, that
comes out to 26.5 minutes per parolee per week, and that does
not include driving to court or doing home visits or completing
all the data entry. He said a child cannot be raised on 26
hours a week, and officers are dealing with people who have a
lot of needs. He said the attempt is made to meet those needs
in order to keep those people from returning to prison.
Further, he stated that officers have many assessment tools with
which to determine a parolee's needs and custody level. He said
the level of service inventory (LSI) is the current assessment
tool used, and it takes over an hour to complete an LSI for each
offender. In response to Chair Lynn, he explained that the LSI
is the tool used to figure out the minimum, medium, maximum
custody level in order to determine programing and treatment
needs.
MR. WATERS recollected that someone had asked why caps are
necessary if the department already has a system in place. He
said the short answer is that the department is run by people,
and when there is crisis or budget shortfall, those people make
cuts and don't fill positions, which means everyone else has to
pick up the slack. He stated that on paper, it may appear there
are enough officers to do the job, but human error plays a part
in management. He said having a cap establishes a limit for
officers. Mr. Waters gave examples of how problems surface that
result in overloading of probation/parole officers. He said
many parole officers cringe when they open a newspaper and read
that someone has committed a heinous crime, and they are hoping
that that person was not on their caseload. He said it happens
more often than not that the people reported as having committed
a crime are those who are on probation or parole. He said
officers wonder if crimes could have been prevented if only they
had had a few more minutes with the parolee and found them a
better job or better housing.
8:49:56 AM
MR. WATERS said he knows everything costs money and this is not
the year to be asking for it. He stated that the officers are
dealing with bad people, trying to keep the community safe, and
trying to help people change their lives. He said, "That's all
we're asking for is the time to spend with these individuals to
change their lives to make Alaska a better place."
CHAIR LYNN asked why there are vacant positions.
MR. WATERS said he only can speculate that some offices have
high turnaround rates, partly because of management issues and
partly because of the issue of caseloads. He indicated that the
department had understood that under Senate Bill 64, it would be
getting 10 more positions, but those positions have not been
filled in the nine months since that legislative session ended.
8:51:44 AM
[Due to technical difficulties, the following question was
reconstructed from the committee secretary's log notes.]
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether Mr. Waters was required to
see each parolee weekly.
MR. WATERS answered no. He added, "Not even monthly; it just
depends on the type of caseload."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what Mr. Waters' own caseload was at
present.
MR. WATERS answered over 100. He said the Anchorage
Correctional Complex supervises approximately 1,100 inmates,
because it is also responsible for the four halfway houses in
the Anchorage area. He related that there are ten probation
officers at the complex.
8:53:02 AM
RONALD TAYLOR, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, thanked
the committee for hearing HB 22. He indicated that it is in
talking to probation officers that a person gets the sense of
what those officers face daily. In response to Chair Lynn, he
explained that on the probation and parole side, the department
has a required vacancy factor that it must meet, which is
approximately $1 million; therefore, there would be at least ten
vacant positions. He said, the other two would be because of
transfers, or it could be because someone left one of the
offices.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, regarding Representative Talerico's
previous calculations, said it is incorrect to "look at the 207"
and, based on the current caseload activity, conclude that the
caseload is about 34. He expressed his desire for everyone
considering caseloads addressed under HB 22 to realize that the
intent is to help probation officers be more successful by
giving them more time with each case. He offered his
understanding that the number 6,200 had been highlighted in
regard to caseload activity and indicated that that number
includes only the field caseloads; it does not include caseload
activity of the institutional fields, the electronic monitoring
fields, the parole board, or classification. He said the 207
probation officers also include supervisors, some of whom do not
carry a caseload. He indicated he wanted everyone to share the
same understanding regarding the entire scope of caseloads, so
that no one would question the need for the proposed
legislation.
8:55:59 AM
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR noted that Representative Keller had asked
whether the department currently has sufficient resources. He
said the answer is "absolutely not." He said the department had
asked for 25 new positions to be able to do the things that were
required under the aforementioned Senate Bill 64. He said the
10 parole officer positions that are assigned for the
institution were not scheduled to come on line until the next
fiscal year. The department needed time to train probation
officers and work with them in relation to the "risk needs
assessment" to help them transition from where they were.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR said caseloads have dropped as a result of
the bills previously brought forth over the last four or five
years by Representative Tuck and Senator McGuire. He emphasized
that although the caseloads have dropped from 120 to 85, they
are still not at the number they should be. He said the
department is able to work within its system to find
efficiencies, but unfortunately it has not done that on the
institutional side. He said the department needs to consider
all the cases that the institutions are dealing with and all the
paperwork requirements. He said the department needs to focus
on that which the previous testifiers relayed to get a truer
picture of what the caseloads really are versus what we have
right now. He said the department is working toward being as
efficient and effective as possible.
8:58:02 AM
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR recollected that Chair Lynn had asked about
working in rural areas. He said the department does not have
the resources to work in those areas; therefore, it utilizes the
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) that live in the rural
communities to do checks, such as breathalyzers, to ensure that
the parolee is abiding by his/her conditions of parole.
CHAIR LYNN asked what percentage of parolees are living in
remote villages.
MR. TAYLOR said he does not know. He offered his understanding
that Chair Lynn was talking about villages, not caseloads. He
explained, "We could have a person that's supervised by
Anchorage probation that's out in a rural area." He said he
would have to research those numbers.
CHAIR LYNN said the question did not pertain too much to HB 22.
He explained that he was curious because the parolee cannot
afford to go the city and the parole officer cannot afford to
fly out to the village. He opined that the use of the VPSO was
a good fill-in for that position.
8:59:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered Commissioner Taylor the
statistical information he had previously referenced and asked
whether, with that information, Commissioner Taylor could then
return with more accurate information.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR confirmed he would provide the institutional
and electronic monitoring caseload numbers that Representative
Talerico was missing.
9:00:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining no one further wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 22.
CHAIR LYNN stated he was in favor of reducing the caseloads. He
said likewise he is in favor of having a smaller student to
teacher ratio, but ventured that both that and the reduced
caseload for parole and probation officers could cost money. He
remarked, "In some degree, trying to figure out how much that
would lower the recidivism rate is like trying to nail Jell-O to
the wall, because you really don't know - nobody knows." He
reiterated that he was in favor of reducing the caseloads.
9:01:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that anything with a fiscal note is
a concern because the State of Alaska is in dire straits and
cannot spend money; however, he said the cost for reducing
recidivism does not compare to Medicaid growth costs. He said
the legislature passed Senate Bill 64, and "as we speak," a
Justice Reform Commission is reviewing the issue in detail. He
said it was difficult for him to consider that the cap [proposed
under HB 22] would have any effect on the effectiveness of
probation officers or the recidivism rate.
9:03:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that in 2007, the State of Texas
introduced four bills, and one was a standalone bill regarding
the limitation [on caseloads] of parole and probation officers.
He said Texas was faced with spending $500 million on new
prisons or investing $240 million, and the latter choice
resulted in an average savings of $443 million in two years. By
2012, the State of Texas was actually able to close a prison.
He said a 2012 report entitled, "Reduced Caseloads Improve
Probation Outcome," published in the Journal of Crime and
Justice, stated that the effect of officers fully trained in
implementing evidence-based practices was an approximate 30
percent reduction in the recidivism rate. Another study
conducted in 2011, by the Crime and Justice Institute, suggested
that the reduction in caseloads could reduce criminal recidivism
among medium- to high-risk offenders, and Representative Tuck
said that was desirable in order to keep the public safe. He
reported that in one county in Florida, researchers found that
intensive supervision with small caseloads reduced the
likelihood of criminal recidivism by 26 percent for violent,
property, and drug offenses, and that percentage increased to 45
percent when the drug category was removed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said in looking at opportunities for the
state to save money the legislature must ask what the cost would
be of "not doing something like this." He said the high
turnover rate within the Office of Children's Services has to do
with the workload. He said people want to help others and when
they are not able to do that they get discouraged and leave. He
said the situation is the same with parole and probation
officers who want to see the offenders successfully
[rehabilitated]. Without allocated resources, the turnover rate
for parole and probation officers will continue to be high or
even increase. He said, "We want to ... see people receiving
the services they need ... to be successful once they leave our
prison system." He related that at first, the State of Texas
had expected the fiscal note to be $30.3 million; however, the
revised fiscal note indicated that there would be no significant
cost to the state because of the reduction in recidivism and,
thus, in the number of prisoners. The change to the bill
required the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to submit a
report each year explaining why the department failed to meet
the guidelines and stating the amount of money needed to meet
those guidelines.
9:08:26 AM
CHAIR LYNN expressed appreciation for parole and probation
officers, whom he opined have a tough job no matter what their
caseload. He offered his understanding that there was an
indeterminate fiscal note for HB 22, and he inquired if there
was any way to make it a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that he would like to use Texas'
plan as a model and work with Alaska's DOC to determine how to
bring the fiscal note "down to where we can start making ...
these necessary investments to get us money."
CHAIR LYNN said he would like to see that happen.
9:09:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she did not think there was any
question that "maybe we need a little help in that direction"
and need to reduce the caseload of probation officers. She
opined that if the Justice Reform Committee is reviewing the
issue, then HB 22 may be a step ahead of its time. She said it
seemed that there were commissioners overseeing many
departments, but none of the departments were working together.
She ventured that it may be possible to have a zero fiscal note
if all the departments, as well as the Justice Reform Committee,
worked together. She concluded, "I'm a proponent of the idea,
but I just think it's a little premature currently for this."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Representative Stutes to clarify
whether she meant premature because other people are looking at
things, or because the results are unknown.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES suggested that the committee wait for the
findings and recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee
before approaching them with "this." She added, that should
they not address the probation officer situation, then put it in
the mix - let them address it with the whole problem.
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 22 was held over.