Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/18/2021 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 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB103 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 118-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
3:04:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to state
identifications and driver's licenses for persons in the custody
of the Department of Corrections; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to living conditions for
prisoners; and providing for an effective date."
3:05:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, as prime sponsor, provided introductory
remarks on HB 118. He recalled that last year, a number of
hearings in the House State Affairs Standing Committee pertained
to rehabilitation, improving Alaska's correctional facilities,
and reducing recidivism. Subsequently, a committee bill was put
forth that included statutory recommendations by the Department
of Corrections (DOC) and stakeholders but "died" in the House
Rules Standing Committee at the end of the Thirty-First Alaska
State Legislature. He noted that HB 118 is a continuation of
that legislation.
3:07:09 PM
LINDSAY BIRK, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor, presented HB 118. She paraphrased the
sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The intent of this bill is to remove the restriction
prohibiting a prisoner from possessing a computer in
their cell, expanding access to safe and secure
internet for purposes of rehabilitation and
reintegration, and provide prisoners with easier
access to state identification upon release.
HB 118 creates an easier process of reentry and
rehabilitation for inmates and lessens the risk of
reoffending. By allowing access to safe and secure
internet, inmates are better able to prepare
themselves for reentry into the outside world.
According to a study released by the Department of
Justice, 68% of prisoners are arrested again within
three years, 83% during the following nine years. One
of the key reasons for reoffending is the difficulty
prisoners face securing employment post incarceration.
Access to online job training, therapy and visitation
helps to alleviate the risk of reoffending.
Another important element of this bill is it provides
easier access to identification for prisoners upon
release, allowing them an important tool for
reintegration. Both expanding internet access for
prisoners and providing prisoners with easier access
to state identification help ease the difficulties of
reentry and will help to lower the risk of recidivism.
3:09:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony on HB 118.
3:10:00 PM
DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator, Juneau Reentry Coalition,
informed the committee that a reentry coalition is a local
organization that engages community partners, local businesses,
and individuals to support those transitioning from corrections
back into the community. The purpose, he said, is to ensure
that local resources are available to support successful reentry
and reduce the incidence of reincarceration. He added that when
burdens to successful reentry manifest themselves, reentry
coalitions work to alleviate those barriers. He explained that
reentry coalitions base their work on evidence-based principles
and rely on the risk-need responsivity model, which is also used
by DOC through its level of service inventory revised
assessment, which is given to inmates incarcerated for more than
90 days. The model teaches that treatment benefits increase
when interventions begin early in the corrections process. He
relayed that reentry coalitions believe that Alaska has erected
an artificial statutory barrier, which adds difficulty to
treatment delivery during incarceration. He stated that HB 118
would address this issue by allowing access to technology to
increase rehabilitative treatment, training, reentry case
management, pro-social development, and related programing
during incarceration. He reported that utilizing safe and
secure modern technology as a delivery medium improves community
public safety outcomes, as individuals are better prepared for
life on the outside. Additionally, he said the importance of
having valid state ID [identification] upon release [from
incarceration] cannot be overstated. He pointed out that simple
things, such as accepting a job and filling out the I-9, cannot
be accomplished without one. He said the bill would require the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and DOC to work together to
ensure a state identification (ID) card is on hand upon release,
which would improve the reentry process. He emphasized that the
[Juneau] Reentry Coalition supports the state ID provision in HB 118.
3:14:24 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
expressed that the department supports this legislation. She
addressed the state ID provision, explaining that currently, 12
percent of inmates released do not have a valid ID. Those
released from DOC without a valid ID receive a voucher, which
allows them to start the process at DMV. Further, she reported
that of the 12 percent, or 300 individuals, who are released
without an ID, about 100 use the voucher system. She said DOC
is working with DMV to find a way to close that gap so that
every inmate released will have an ID on hand. She continued by
noting that DOC supports changing the statutory requirement that
does not allow inmates to have a computer device in their cell.
She added that the change would allow the department to provide
education and communication opportunities for inmates.
3:16:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said her understanding was that the
computers would be in a controlled environment. She inquired
about the need to have computer access in individual cells.
MS. GOODE noted that despite the terminology, tablets are often
used to provide this education and communication link. She
explained that current state statute prohibits the use of a
tablet from inside an inmate's cell even for reasons such as a
family phone call or [educational] course. She offered her
belief that should the bill pass, the department would write
policy to ensure that this technology is used in a secure
manner.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about protecting the department
against liability. She offered the example of an individual who
claimed it was a civil right for every inmate to have a tablet.
She acknowledged that [the legislature] does not "necessarily"
want to limit access; however, she said, it's a matter of money
and security. She questioned how to legally protect [DOC].
MS. GOODE suggested that DOC work with the Department of Law
(DOL) while building policy on this matter. Further, she
addressed the issue of security, noting that the tablets would
not provide broad or "free-flowing" access to the Internet. She
assured the committee that DOC has a constitutional obligation
to protect victims' rights; therefore, the tablets would allow
access only in a controlled environment. She reiterated that
the department would work with DOL to ensure that the policy is
legal and fair for everyone.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether regulations during [the
COVID-19 pandemic] have been relaxed to allow the tablets to be
used for visitation and telehealth. She asked how the
experience has been for DOC and what the department has learned
"during the time of this new period of access through the
Internet."
MS. GOODE replied that the department would have liked to [allow
the use of tablets] but current state law prohibits it. She
noted that telehealth was utilized via (indisc.) through
medical, but not with tablets or individual offenders.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for verification that the proposed
statutory change would allow the department to utilize
telehealth for [inmates] and visitation with loved ones.
MS. GOODE explained that it would provide "what the department
looks at," such as education, social programs, and visitation
with family. She offered to follow up with the general
telehealth programs that are available for the inmate
population.
3:21:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 6, line 26, of HB 118 and
asked why the term "healthcare" not "telehealth" is used.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that the language was incorporated
in partnership with DOC. He acknowledged that if healthcare is
proscriptive to the possibility of telehealth, that's not the
intent. He said amending that to be explicitly clear could be
an easy fix.
3:22:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referenced page 6, subsection (i) and
asked if, without the proposed change, that subsection would
prohibit the department from providing tablets or computers to
prisoners under any circumstance.
MS. GOODE said that is the section of statute that is being
revised to offer as much as possible through the tablets. She
surmised that when [the original statute was written] in the
1990s, the idea that prisoners could use tablets in a secure
manner did not exist. She conveyed that the intent was to be
more expansive so that when telehealth and healthcare options
became available, DOC would be allowed to offer them.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how the department plans on
preventing prisoners from using the tablets for inappropriate
purposes.
MS. GOODE said DOC would work with vendors that offer secure
networks to ensure that the proper security is in place.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the "healthcare" language on
page 6, line 26, and pointed out that healthcare is broad enough
to include telehealth, but telehealth may not be broad enough to
include all healthcare. Therefore, he opined that the term
"healthcare" is appropriate. He directed attention to lines 22-
24 and asked if the facilitating case plan would limit the
ability for a sick prisoner to use a tablet to speak with a
doctor. He questioned whether the case plan includes staying
healthy while in prison.
MS. GOODE opined that the language that pertains to what's
accessible from the tablet is broader rather than prohibitive.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for confirmation that the language
would allow for a prisoner in his/her cell to use a tablet to
communicate with a medical provider via telehealth.
MS. GOODE said she is unsure whether direct access to a provider
would be available. She offered to follow up on that.
3:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reasoned that it raises the question of
what an individual would be doing for his/her own health care in
terms of communicating directly with a provider.
MS. GOODE noted that many inmates may have special diets, which
is something in a case plan that could be viewed on a tablet.
Another possibility could be using the tablet to fill out
Medicaid forms. She opined that addressing healthcare in the
bill allows for growth. She reiterated that the intent was to
be expansive so that as technology changes, DOC could offer
options to inmates in a safe and secure manner.
3:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the tablets could be a
hazard in terms of glass, which could be turned into a weapon.
MS. GOODE said DOC would work with providers and vendors that
have developed safe and secure protection for the tablets, which
has been proven in facilities nationwide.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN referenced a Washington Post articled
[included in the committee packet] that mentions devices that
had been used to coordinate rebellion in various facilities. He
asked if the system would enable "cross-communication
coordination" between inmates that could be used against the
guards.
MS. GOODE reiterated that this would not provide free-flowing
Internet access. She assured Representative Kaufman that DOC
would work with vendors to ensure that the institutions' needs
are met, as well as the public's safety. She emphasized that
the department has a constitutional obligation to protect
victims.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether monitored access to
tablets in the library, for example, would be better than in-
cell use.
MS. GOODE acknowledged that Representative Kaufman may be right,
adding that in some institutions, tablets could be checked out
for use in a general area. She cautioned against saying that
[the tablets] would never be used in a single cell depending on
the individual and the circumstance.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN reiterated his belief that there is a
control issue [to address].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that DOC is full of
professionals that do this work every day of every year. He
imagined that as Ms. Goode had testified, the parameters would
be narrow. He added that the department is looking for the
statutory discretion to do what is currently prohibited.
3:33:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Section 3, paragraph (11),
of the bill language specifies that the commissioner shall
assist a prisoner with obtaining a valid state identification
card before release. He asked why the new language in paragraph
(11) [page 4, lines 17-21] repeats that instruction with an
emphasis on 120 days.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. Good could remember the
particular origin of the added language.
MS. GOODE said she did not remember. She suggested that it
could have been a drafting determination.
MS. BIRK said she was also uncertain.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested that Ms. Birk follow up with the
requested information.
MS. GOODE offered her understanding that the existing language
[in paragraph (11)] indicates that DOC could continue using the
voucher system for an individual who has been in prison fewer
than 120 days; however, after 120 days, the legislature
recommends that DOC work with the Department of Administration
(DOA) to provide the prisoner with an identification card.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the legislature instruct
the commissioner to ensure that all inmates have an
identification card upon release rather than emphasizing those
serving a term that exceeds 120 days. He sought to clarify why
those prisoners would need an identification card more than any
other prisoner.
MS. GOODE replied it's about timing. She pointed out that it
takes several weeks to receive an official identification card
from the DMV; therefore, DOC wouldn't have the time to obtain a
new ID for a prisoner who is only serving a five-day term.
3:36:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why instruction on obtaining state
identification is being removed from Section 5 [page 7, lines 1-
2].
MS. GOODE offered her belief that the deletion in Section 5 was
a drafting determination.
3:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled that legislators were given the
opportunity to experience the reentry assimilation. She
reflected on the barriers to getting an identification card upon
release. Additionally, she pointed out that 90 percent of
incarcerated individuals reenter the system. She directed
attention to Section 4, subparagraph (I), on page 6 and asked
whether [prisoners] could take classes and participate in
behavioral health sessions, as the equipment allows, and whether
the department has adequate resources to facilitate that.
Further, she asked what it would cost and expressed concern
about the zero fiscal note.
MS. GOODE stated that the bill is primarily an authorization
bill that grants the authority to provide this technology as a
means to deliver education. She conveyed that DOC is confidant
that the fiscal note is accurate, adding that it could be built
upon later.
3:39:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that in
subparagraph (I) [page 6, lines 20-27], the department is asking
for statutory approval to allow an inmate to use a computer for
any purpose. He inquired about the thought process behind that
broad authority.
MS. GOODE explained that the language "and may not be used for
any other purpose" was removed because it could be confining as
technology advances and more services become available via
tablet. She said the department was attempting to avoid boxing
itself in; however, she added that DOC would understand if the
legislature chose to include sidebars, as it's a policy call.
3:41:31 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 118 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 103 Hearing Request.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Version 32-GH1675 A.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Transmittal Letter 2.17.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Sectional Analysis Version GH 1675 A.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB0103 Fiscal Note 1-2-021821-DHS-N.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Additional Information - HCBS Transition Plan (DHSS).pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Additional Information - Final Rule 42 CFR 441.301c.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Letter of Support - All Ways Caring.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 118 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Supporting Document - ARJP Technology in Alaska Corrections 2.5.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Additional Info - The Case for Internet in Prisons 2.9.15.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Fiscal Note - DOC 3.17.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Letter of Support - Kenai Reentry - Cowgill 3.14.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Letter of Support - SOLO Group - Cook 2.22.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Letter of Support - SOLO Group - Hall 2.22.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB 118 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| 09 HB 103 Letter of Support - LTCO 3.16.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Additional Information - Final Rule 42 CFR 441.301c.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 103 Additional Information - One Page Summary by SDS.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 103 |
| HB 118 Letter of Support - ANC Reentry Coalition - Pistotnik 3.17.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/18/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |