Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
02/20/2025 09:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| HB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 35-PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE
9:15:16 AM
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 35, "An Act relating to the use and possession
of electronic devices by prisoners."
9:16:18 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT, as prime sponsor, presented HB 35. She
paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 35 recognizes the functionality of 21st
century technology and the role it can play in
reforming Alaska's correctional system. Current Alaska
statute does not include guidelines on prisoner use of
electronic devices, making it difficult for the
Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide devices to
prisoners. HB 35 specifies the access a prisoner is
allowed under DOC supervision in an effort to improve
rehabilitation and assist with reentry.
Tablets and computers are not a luxury. Instead, they
are tools that are extremely helpful with the
rehabilitation process. They allow prisoners to access
educational materials, gain experience with workplace
technology, and improve connectivity to telehealth.
Electronic devices also offer supplemental online
visitation as a solution to Alaska's geographic
vastness. Perhaps most importantly, HB 35 will
introduce prisoners to common electronic devices and
programs that are now ubiquitous within our society.
Alaska is one of the last states in the nation to
introduce devices into prisons. Many other states have
implemented similar legislation in an effort to
enhance prison conditions and reduce contraband
brought into correctional facilities. These programs
have resulted in improvements in prisoner behavior and
initiative and have successfully decreased the
disparity between prison and reentry exposure to
everyday technology.
Device access has the capability of reducing
recidivism. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's current
incarcerated population will eventually be released.
Incarcerated individuals who are released without any
support or plan in place are all-too often hit with
the harsh conditions that they were living I when they
were initially arrested, and it is common for those
individuals to relapse back into substance abuse or
reoffend. Unfortunately, the support programs that are
currently in place to assist with reentry (such as
those facilitated through DOC, the Department of
Health (DOH), and non-profit organizations) do not
have the capacity to reach every single inmate before
they are released, and electronic devices can
supplement in-person "inreach" [sic] to prisoners
while they plan for reentry.
Allowing prisoners to use specific programs and have
limited access to information and services on
electronic devices will
enhance public safety and help ensure that Alaska's
incarcerated population is better prepared for
reentry.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT emphasized that the tablets are not a luxury
and would serve as critical access to the bill's four
objectives: increased opportunity for education, telehealth,
visitation, and preparation for reentry. She added that the
tablets' internet access is restricted through the vendor.
9:19:40 AM
ELLA LUBIN, Staff, Representative Rebecca Himschoot, on behalf
of Co-Chair Himschoot, prime sponsor, presented the sectional
analysis for HB 35 [included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1:
Adds an exemption (I) to the prohibition against
electronic devices for prisoners. It also adds
television show ratings to the list of banned movie
ratings.
Subparagraph (I) adds additional accepted uses for
electronic devices including use for rehabilitative
and case plan purposes, legal material access, health
care access, or another purpose identified by the
commissioner in regulation.
Subparagraph (4) adds language that prohibits
correctional centers from charging fees for electronic
device use.
Section 2:
States that electronic device services are meant to
supplement existing services, not replace them, to the
extent practicable. Electronic devices may not be used
to replace in-person visitation.
Section 3:
Adds clarifying language regarding the applicability
of the effective date.
9:21:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND sought clarification on the change in
subparagraph (A) that, by his understanding, would allow
telephone use in a prisoner's cell. He asked how the telephone
use would be monitored.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT clarified that subparagraph (A) [on page 2,
line 8] lists prohibited items.
9:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX inquired about the fiscal note for HB 35.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT stated that the bill is policy only and the
cost and deployment of the devices would be addressed separately
in the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 26) or FY 27 budget.
9:24:06 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:24 a.m.
9:24:29 AM
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT clarified that the forthcoming fiscal note is
a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX opined that bill is a good idea, but the
benefit of the bill should be measurable.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT asked the Department of Corrections (DOC) to
speak to the pilot program.
9:26:17 AM
APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), said the department's intent is to issue a zero fiscal
note, finish the pilot program, and make any necessary financial
changes through the budget process. With the changes in the
legislation, the goal is to identify efficiencies that would
help offset the cost of implementation. Currently, there is a
cost of $249,000 specific to the Highland Mountain Correctional
Center (HMCC) project that is associated with existing
legislative restrictions in statute. With passage of HB 35 and
the expansion of the pilot program, the goal is to offset the
future cost of full implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on perceived skepticism about the
legislation and said it would be helpful to quantify the
expected results.
MS. WILKERSON said the department sees the program as a public
safety measure and reentry support for the population as it
would expand the use of telehealth resulting in fewer
individuals being transported outside the facilities into the
community. It would also reduce the cost of transportation if
more individuals were serviced in custody. Utilizing the
tablets for commissary and visitation could produce measurable
outcomes, she said.
9:29:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked for the cost of one tablet.
MS. WILKERSON stated that the monthly fee is $50 per account.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE sought to verify that one company would
provide the service and charge a monthly fee for its use and
security features.
MS. WILKERSON answered yes, the state entered into an agreement
with a corrections grade tablet on which the vendor deployed its
own network. She added that the vendor operates the security
and the infrastructure within that closed network.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether the vendor charges a fee
for setup in addition to the monthly cost.
MS. WILKERSON said the department paid the vendor for the
infrastructure of the initial pilot program. With passage of HB
35, the state would issue a request for proposal (RFP) to expand
the program, the cost of which would be negotiated through the
contract.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE inquired as to the initial cost of the
pilot program.
MS. WILKERSON responded that the cost of setting up the
infrastructure for the pilot program in FY 24 was $300,000.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether HMCC allows tablet use
inside the cells.
MS. WILKERSON explained that currently, tablet use is limited to
outside the cells. However, she shared her understanding that
current language would accommodate their use within the cells if
it were for a DOC approved item.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether a written case plan would
be required to use the tablet.
MS. WILKERSON said the tablets would be available to all
incarcerated individuals, not only those with a case plan.
9:34:50 AM
BRANDON JONES, Superintendent, Highland Mountain Detention
Center (HMCC), reiterated that the vendor limits network access
to common areas throughout the facility. However, the network
could be adjusted with a change in language.
CO-CHAIR MEARS asked whether broadening the bill language would
provide the department with more flexibility as things evolve.
MR. JONES responded yes, it would allow DOC to work with
individual offenders and meet them where they're at, as not all
of them have access to common areas and community centers.
9:36:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, restated his question, asking whether
compliance with a case plan is required to use the tablets.
MR. JONES reiterated that the tablets are not linked to a case
plan.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE cited subparagraph (I) [on page 3,
lines 10-17] line, and stated that [the reference to a reentry
or case plan] seems clear.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT pointed out that the Constitution of the
State of Alaska includes a right to rehabilitation.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE agreed; however, he pointed out that
the reference to AS 33.30.011 in the subparagraph ties it to
specific language regarding reentry plans and case plans.
9:39:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked how the bill would affect pre-
sentenced individuals and whether they would have access to the
tablets.
MS. WILKERSON said the current pilot program is available to the
unsentenced population. In response to Representative
Ruffridge, she explained that individuals would be eligible to
use the tablets for any of the areas identified within the
section in question, regardless of whether they are sentenced or
unsentenced.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether there is objective data
from the pilot program that "undergirds" the aspirational goals
of the bill.
MS. WILKERSON explained that tablets were deployed in March of
2024 for limited use, including access to the digital law
library and the handbook, and professional attorney client
visits. Since then, the grievance process was deployed on the
tablets and DOC continues to work with the vendor on deploying
the request for information (RFP) process. She said the actual
data on achieved efficiencies is not available to present to the
committee today, but it would be available at a later date as
the program expands.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the current vendor is an
Alaska provider.
MS. WILKERSON answered no; however, they have an Alaska business
and are on the National Association of State Procurement
Officials (NASPO) contract. She added that the department would
pursue an RFP to expand the program into other facilities with
preference given to Alaska businesses.
9:44:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked how many tablets were deployed at
HMCC.
MS. WILKERSON said between 350-400 were requested based on the
facility's population capacity. As many as 390 accounts were
created with a low of 318 since July [2024].
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE sought to confirm that each
incarcerated individual would receive their own tablet.
MS. WILKERSON deferred to Mr. Jones.
9:45:46 AM
MR. JONES responded yes; each individual is issued a tablet upon
arrival with a unique identifier.
CO-CHAIR HIMSCHOOT stated that the bill would allow the
department to set the guidelines and regulations on how the
tablets are used.
CO-CHAIR MEARS opened invited testimony.
9:47:38 AM
TERI TIBBETT, Coordinator, Alaska Reentry Partnership; Co-Chair,
Juneau Reentry Coalition, gave background information on the
Alaska Reentry Partnership and expressed its support for HB 35.
She stated that the tablets would expand rehabilitative
programming, such as vocational training, education, treatment
and recovery, reentry planning, access to housing, employment
assistance, telehealth, peer support, faith-based, Tribal
visitation, and more, all of which have been shown to improve
the likelihood of success after leaving incarceration and
reducing recidivism. She noted the importance of digital
literacy in today's world and expressed support for improving
DOC's digital infrastructure within the facilities.
9:51:01 AM
MARSHA OSS, Coordinator, Fairbanks Reentry Coalition, shared her
personal story and professional background. She focused on two
items related to HB 35: creating a plan before reentry and the
effects of access to educational material on inmates. Another
benefit of digital technology is the ability to develop skills
to address complications related to learning disabilities and
traumatic brain injuries (TBI). She said the bill would ease
the impact on corrections staff and create safter facilities.
She shared her understanding that DOC staff supports increased
access to digital technology.
9:57:14 AM
DON HABEGER, Coalition Coordinator, Juneau Reentry Coalition,
spoke to the risk, need, response (RNR) principle, which is one
of the founding principles of the coalition. He explained that
"beginning before release" is an important tailored intervention
to the delivery of reentry case management. He mentioned two
recent challenges that access to digital technology could
improve: firstly, incidents of visitation prohibitions due to
DOC security needs; secondly, calls from incarcerated
individuals to a reentry unit. He detailed the success of the
Last Mile program in California and shared his belief that
access to digital technology would improve reentry success and
continue the state's efforts of reducing overall recidivism.
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced that HB 35 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 35 - Version N 1.5.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Sponsor Statement - Version N 2.9.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Sectional Analysis - Version N 2.12.25.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Research - Technology to Support Reentry 2022.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Research - Technology Protects Inmate Mental Health 12.12.23.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Research - Technology Education Programs in Prisons 3.4.24.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 2/25/2025 9:00:00 AM HCRA 3/13/2025 8:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Support - Alaska Reentry Partnership.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Hearing Packet.pdf |
HCRA 2/20/2025 9:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |