Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/28/2016 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
1:07:03 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted in the 3/14/16 meeting.]
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that the focus of this meeting will be on
reinvestment policies.
1:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT reminded the members that the
reinvestment portion is the crucial lynchpin in the bill by
reinvesting the savings back into programs to stop recidivism.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, and she again stressed that the bill will
not move without the reinvestment component because it is
absolutely critical to the bill.
1:08:27 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, said her PowerPoint presentation,
"Reinvestment, House Judiciary Committee - HB 205, March 28,
2016" focuses on the reinvestment portion of the commission's
recommendations regarding reinvestment. Ms. Abbott turned to
page 1, "Justice Reinvestment Concept," and said the bill frees
up funds by focusing prison beds on the serious and violent
offenders, and it reinvests a portion of the savings into the
services needed to reduce recidivism and protect the public.
She explained that the reinvestment portion of the savings is at
the discretion of the committee as policy makers, and that many
of the changes in thinking, sentencing, and community
supervision are contingent upon the savings being reinvested.
1:10:09 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to page 2, "Reinvestment Directive to the
Commission." Initially, she said, the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission's was directed through the enabling statutes within
SB 64. Subsequent to that directive, it received a letter from
the Finance co-Chairs, Senate President, and Speaker of the
House, which read: "In this budget climate, investments that
expand treatment and services only become possible with a reform
package that results in substantial, real net savings to the
state." The presiding officers leading the Finance Committees
understood and requested investment into treatment and other
services be looked into through the commission process, she
noted.
MS. ABBOTT turned to page 3, "Language provided to committee"
and asked the committee to turn to the packet previously handed
out, and the section of proposed language. She explained that
this is the reinvestment language that many different parties
have been looking into in trying to build and fortify. She
further explained that this recycles the Recidivism Reduction
Program introduced in 2014 within SB 64, and turns this into a
capitalized fund that would provide reentry grants, and the
specifics are described within the language. It offers
rehabilitation treatment and guiding the released individuals
back into communities, and builds upon the work the legislation
asks the Department of Corrections (DOC) to perform while people
are still incarcerated, which includes emphasizing assistance in
helping people back on their feet and helping people to become
contributing members of the community.
1:12:27 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to page 4, "Oversight," and said that many of
the policies require oversight by evaluating effectiveness, and
to ensure that the oversight takes place by both the state
agencies and the legislature. The intent, she related, is to be
certain there is a focused team of experts that at this point
have been assembled through the commission and the commission
continues to monitor the different policies to be certain the
successes shown through the data that is likely to happen, are
in fact happening. The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission would
also oversee savings and reinvestment to be certain the state's
dollars are being saved, and that those saved dollars are put
toward the best use possible, she said.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened invited testimony.
1:14:01 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, Policy Analyst, Office of Management & Budget
(OMB), turned to "How Would Reinvestment in House Bill 205
Work?," and said the concept of justice reinvestment is based
upon the recommendations put forward by the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission and is reflected in this bill as part of the
reform package. She explained that the idea behind justice
reinvestment is to take the reforms that will yield a reduction
in prison beds and use a portion of those savings for
reinvestment into programs that will lead to reduced recidivism
and will address victimization. As HB 205 currently stands,
there is an anticipated saving of approximately $51 million in
savings over the course of the next five years, even after the
reinvestments are made. She turned to the graph at the top of
page 1 - describing how reinvestment will work, and emphasized
that the numbers in the graph are purely to make reinvestment
easy to follow so there would be a straight line between the
savings from one year to the next because the FY17 numbers won't
match up exactly with an FY17 budget figure the committee might
find on OMB's website. Additionally, she noted, the
reinvestment numbers are numbers used in the general scope and
since the fiscal notes are still coming together, the committee
can't back into them exactly from a fiscal note at this point.
1:16:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to the budget currently being worked on,
which is next year's budget, and asked whether it will be a net
savings or a net spending.
MS. ROBB responded that OMB came up with a net savings, although
it included the $8 million reduction that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) was assigned in Governor Bill Walker's budget
as part of that. Therefore, the savings from the anticipated
307 bed reductions is approximately $4.5 million of savings.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned that even next year putting the
reinvestment component into it there will still be actual
savings.
MS. ROBB answered that there will be savings provided the
committee counts the reduction DOC has already incurred within
the governor's budget.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that DOC incurred that in the governor's
budget because it is assumed there will be less people in the
jails because of this bill.
1:17:19 PM
MS. ROBB explained that a portion of those savings come from
that, there is also a savings related to Medicaid reform in that
Medicaid pays for prisoners when they are in the hospital for 24
hours.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether it is a net savings or a net spending
if the committee does not include that portion.
MS. ROBB replied that the short answer is no. They are asking
for more reinvestment in FY17, and then the savings OMB expects
from bed reductions, absent the governor's reduction.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how much is that.
MS. ROBB responded that the savings expected is $4.7 million.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she thought Ms. Robb said that there will be a
net expense if the bed reduction is not counted, which appears
to be as a result of Medicaid savings in the governor's budget.
MS. ROBB apologized because she misunderstood the question, and
answered that a savings is anticipated of $4.7 million, absent
the governor's reduction. The cost for the first year would be
$12.3 million, and $1.5 of that is a one-time investment in
upgrades to the victim notification and time entry. She said
the remainder would go toward reinvestment programs provided to
inmates through DOC, community based programs through the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and the Alaska
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA).
1:18:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the savings in DOC costs
will be approximately $4.7 million, and asked whether he was
incorrect.
MS. ROBB answered no, there is an expected savings in FY17 of
$4.7 million based upon a reduction in marginal costs from the
reduction in prison beds.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the amount of the additional
reinvestment cost in FY17.
MS. ROBB responded that $12.3 million would be the investment
for the first year.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that net is around $7.6 million
invested in the reinvestment that the state won't see the
savings until future years.
MS. ROBB agreed, and said that the large decrease in bed
reduction comes in the second year, in FY18, because it takes a
while to get the program ramped up and the reinvestments kick
in, certainly some of the reforms will take a while to be seen
downstream.
1:20:20 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to the chart and noted that it showed a
total savings of $150.5 million, and asked whether that amount
was net.
MS. ROBB answered no, and explained that is the total savings
over the five years and it is the gross savings.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked, if money is put into the reinvestment
whether it comes out about equal over a five year period.
MS. ROBB responded that $51 million net is expected in savings
over the five years so the investment would be $99.5 million,
which are rough numbers as things come together.
1:21:04 PM
MS. ROBB advised there are three large pieces that OMB expects
the reinvestment to be spent on. The largest piece of
reinvestment would go to the Department of Corrections (DOC) to
begin a pretrial program and money would go for additional
treatment for inmates. She advised that the two remaining
pieces of reinvestment are the community reinvestment portion,
and one piece would go to the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault for prevention programs and to work with victims.
The third piece would be used primarily for reentry programs and
counseling for inmates once they are in the community. She said
they are hopeful the reinvestment will be overseen by the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission and will receive reports each year
tracking the data to be certain the plan is working as expected,
and to also recommend adjustments as needed.
1:22:50 PM
MS. ROBB turned to the question of whether reinvestment will
happen just once or every year, and said that both the savings
and reinvestment money will be ongoing. She put forth that the
savings will carry forward in the bed reduction and the
reinvestment will be an ongoing investment to reduce recidivism
and help people get into the community and be productive
citizens after release.
MS. ROBB referred to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's
report and noted a few small differences between that report and
OMB. She said the commission had a ten year horizon and OMB
looked at a five year horizon for savings because it felt more
realistic and reasonable in the scope of where things stand now.
The other difference is that when the commission talked about
the savings and reduction in the number of prisoners, it was
working from a model that shows the projected increase in the
future of prisoners, and OMB felt it was important to go from
the baseline where the state is now. Therefore, OMB did not
include any reduction in future inmates and went from actual
people currently incarcerated or awaiting trial and took
reductions from there.
1:24:17 PM
MS. ROBB turned to page 3, and advised that it lays out the way
the savings and costs play out. She asked the committee to look
at the top table where the savings is shown and noted that all
of these savings in the bed reduction are achieved through
marginal cost savings. Each rows represents one of the five
fiscal years included here, and in moving across it depicts the
reduction in prison beds by fiscal year. Again, she said that
reflects the fact that the very large decrease in beds comes in
the second year, in FY18. The next column shows the cumulative
prison bed change and it reflects how many beds the state will
have saved as the years go on, she said.
1:25:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she sees a reduction in prison beds in FY17
through FY19, and then an increase in FY20 and FY21.
MS. ROBB agreed, and noted it was because the report by the
commission shows the projected increase in prisoners, and DOC
can speak to the increases seen in prisoners over the past
decade. She remarked that by FY20 and FY21 the impact of the
reforms is outpaced by the increase in the prison population
they would expect to see. She pointed out that the state will
still have those 1,600 reduction in prisoners, "but at that
point the population will start to increase again as we outpace
the reforms."
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that it then appears the reforms are
not working. She related that the whole purpose of this was so
the state would end up with less prisoners, and she asked why
she is seeing more prisoners in here.
MS. ROBB advised that she is from OMB and not the person from
the commission, but the state is still down a great deal from
where the state would have been in the absence of the reforms.
Although, the impact of the reforms does wind up being
overwhelmed by the projected growth. Therefore, this puts the
state in a lower place that it would have been, but the reforms
don't prevent the state from ever having another increase in the
prison population, she explained.
1:27:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she understands that Ms. Robb is the numbers
person, and possibly someone in the audience could assist.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether part of it is that the
expectation with the reforms that, although the sentences are
shorter for non-violent offenders, the sentences have gotten
longer for violent offenders. Therefore, at some point as the
state changes the prison population with fewer non-violent
offenders, the state is not letting out violent offenders and
the violent offender sentences will eventually start appearing
as the growth in prison bed use.
1:27:49 PM
MS. ROBB opined that he was on the right track, coupled with the
fact that the population in the state is likely to continue to
increase as well. Certainly, she said, there are people who
know all the ins and outs of the model and can provide all of
the details.
MS. ROBB returned to the table at the top of page 3, pointed to
the savings for FY17, and said it includes the cut to the DOC
budget that was in the governor's budget. Thereby, bringing the
total savings for FY17 in the DOC budget to $12.7, with a
savings for the reform package at that point because it is the
first year of $12.7 million.
1:28:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she is baffled as to why figures are included
that are already in the governor's budget, when this bill has
not passed.
MS. ROBB responded that she is not certain why the decision was
made to include that except that it does represent the decrease
in DOC's budget, and while it doesn't come from these reforms it
is a decrease in their budget in FY17 relative to FY16.
CHAIR LEDOUX argued that it has nothing to do with this bill.
MS. ROBB agreed.
1:29:22 PM
MS. ROBB turned to the projected savings in FY18 and said they
are $20.8 million because in FY18 is when all of the reforms
will have kicked in, and the largest decrease, approximately
1,400 beds, is seen that year. In FY19, most of the reforms
will be implemented at that point and a reduction of 103 beds is
expected, yielding a savings of $3.1 million. Thereafter, the
number of beds start to increase beginning in FY20 which leads
to an increase of $1.7 million, with a slightly larger bed
increase in FY21 leading to a $2.1 million increase. She
pointed out that it gives the state a total gross savings of
$150.5 million over the five year period.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the governor's cuts or savings
built into this chart and asked whether OMB can get back to the
committee with an analysis depicting just the savings related to
this bill.
MS. ROBB said absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that it be before the end of the
week when amendments are due.
MS. ROBB said OMB will get the analysis to the committee right
away.
1:31:04 PM
MS. ROBB turned to the second table on page 3, and said the rows
represent the fiscal years and reiterated there is an additional
cost in FY17 related to computer related costs the Department of
Corrections (DOC) can speak to.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether those computer issues are directly
related to HB 205, or something in the governor's budget that
would have to happen even if this bill did not pass.
MS. ROBB opined that they are directly related to this bill as
it is an improvement in the time accounting due to time being
accounted for differently, and it is also an improvement in the
victim notification system.
1:31:58 PM
MS. ROBB explained that in subsequent years the cost incurred
from this year would be $10.8 million, and the reinvestment cost
in FY18 would be $11 million. She noted the expectation is that
$10 million would go to the Department of Corrections to be used
for the pretrial program, expanding treatment options for
inmates, and an additional $1 million in FY18 for the community
reinvestment for reentry and through CDVSA. She reiterated that
in general terms for reinvestment the net savings over five
years is $51 million.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the $51 million is including the $8
million that is part of the governor's current budget.
MS. ROBB answered that it does.
CHAIR LEDOUX confirmed that Ms. Robb will give the committee an
analysis relating solely to HB 205.
MS. ROBB answered in the affirmative.
1:33:47 PM
APRIL WILKERSON, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Corrections, said the fiscal note in FY17 does
reflect an increase to the Department of Corrections (DOC)
budget of just over $1.5 million, which is primarily associated
with reinvestment items such as the pretrial services. In FY18,
DOC anticipates an overall reduction of just over $7.1 million
being the largest year of savings associated with the fiscal
note, and in FY19 there is a $10.2 million reduction. She
explained that the reductions to the department are primarily
associated with the reduction in the prison population. Based
upon the population projection anticipated through the
sentencing changes and the earned good time credits, DOC does
anticipate reducing overall population by just over 1,400
offenders, she said.
MS. WILKERSON referred to page 2 of the fiscal note and said
that probation and parole also have incentive reductions
allowable to the population and the legislation allows for
incentive reductions and for individuals to be released early
from probation and parole. Ms. Wilkerson pointed the committee
to the middle of page 2, pretrial services, and said it has the
largest impact. The department anticipates the following:
assessments of approximately 32,000 individuals on an annual
basis spread throughout the entire year; approximately 70
percent of those individuals would be placed into the pretrial
program; and of those individuals 66 percent would be required
to have some sort of supervision while released into the
pretrial services program. She said that following the
legislation in the bill, it would mimic the department's general
probation caseload it currently experiences.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what she meant by "mimic" the department's
general probation caseload that it is doing right now.
MS. WILKERSON answered that the legislation allows for home
visits, UA testing, searches of not only the person themselves,
their home, their vehicles; and continual supervision while
those individuals are released to pretrial services.
1:38:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that Ms. Wilkerson said it mimics what the
department is doing.
MS. WILKERSON explained that currently on the felony probation,
that is part of what the DOC probation and parole officers do
because they supervise individuals post-sentence in the
community. Therefore, when the department identified pretrial
and looked at the legislation and the authority to arrest,
authority to carry a gun, authority to remand immediately, the
searches, and the home visits, the department based its pretrial
assumptions on what the department's officers are doing post-
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said they are modeling pretrial after
what the department does for probation.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that currently most people are unable to
post bail, and under this bill there is a system that will not
pay much attention to the bail amount. Although, depending upon
the crime and background of the person charge almost everyone
will end up with pretrial oversight. She asked whether she was
correct.
MS. WILKERSON answered that that is the assumption the
department used.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there will be bail at all.
MS. WILKERSON opined that there are some crimes that would
continue to require a bail, but she deferred to the Department
of Law and the Alaska Court System.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted there was a representative of one of the
above entities in the audience.
1:41:06 PM
MS. WILKERSON advised that the pretrial services is spread out
over two years. The department is asking for one-third of the
pretrial to get ramped up and established, and then the
department would be asking for the full amount of the pretrial
funding and positions in the second year. Overall, she said,
the total is 125 positions and just over $15 million combined
for the two years. The department, as it starts the pretrial
services, would be looking for efficiencies and effective ways
to reduce the second year anticipated amount.
MS. WILKERSON turned to the bottom of page 3, Board of Parole,
and said the department is requesting funding for the Board of
Parole in that the legislation allows for an administrative
parole that does not require a hearing so individuals meeting
the conditions and criteria would be automatically released to
administrative parole which would definitely increase the number
of individuals released out on parole into the community. In
addition, she pointed out, the legislation also sets limitations
on how long a person on parole who violates can spend in jail
and, currently, there are 120 days before they are required to
have a hearing and this legislation reduces that to 30 days.
The department does anticipates an increased number of hearings
that would be necessary. The overall with the Board of Parole
is an increase to their budget of $775 thousand, and five
positions along with that, she said.
1:43:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether she said $775 thousand because the
fiscal note read $750 thousand.
MS. WILKERSON pointed to page 3 under Board of Parole, and
explained that $750 thousand represents the changes in the
Victim Information Notification System (VINE), and on page 4 of
the fiscal note it completes the rest of the necessary items
needed for the Board of Parole. She turned to the bottom of
page 4, and noted there is also language for the community
residential centers (CRC) to require cognitive substance abuse
and behavioral disorder treatment programs to individuals held
in CRCs. The department anticipates that approximately $2
million is delayed until 2018, she explained.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why it is delayed until 2018.
MS. WILKERSON responded that within the language that section
has an effective date of July 1, 2017, which would be for FY18.
1:44:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to prior testimony that one of
the costs of the $1.5 million investment is for computers, and
asked how much of that is related to pretrial services and
evaluating people, and how much is caused by an increasingly
complicated time accounting system.
MS. WILKERSON replied that the funding is specific and only
toward the adjustments needed in the time accounting system, and
VINE. There is $1.5 million set aside to rewrite to accommodate
those changes associated with this legislation, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Ms. Wilkerson to differentiate
between the time accounting costs versus VINE because with the
state's increasingly complicated time accounting it causes him
to believe this legislature should try to make it simpler.
MS. WILKERSON responded that currently the department budgeted,
in the fiscal note, $750 thousand for each system and the
department will do its best in-house because it has analysts and
programmers to help rewrite, and opined that the time accounting
would require outsourcing to a contractor. She reiterated that
the department has that set aside, equivalent amounts, with the
intent to ensure within those parameters.
1:46:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that the $1.5 million is for
programming because the system is being changed for calculating
time served, but the corrections officers that are calculating
time are still the same people and it is simply modifying the
computer to account for time differently.
MS. WILKERSON agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that other states have done this
recalculation and there are computer programs out there that DOC
is looking at of which it may be able to model after, but DOC
would still need contractors to implement.
MS. WILKERSON agreed.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered concern as to whether the legislature may
have underestimated the amounts spent for computer services
because both the state and the Municipality of Anchorage have
had some horrible problems with doing things that would seem
relatively simple.
1:48:28 PM
LAUREE MORTON, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), experienced difficulty with the
operation of the presentation.
1:49:34 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
1:50:03 PM
MS. MORTON discussed prevention and how people can change their
behavior. With regard to primary prevention, an effective way
is to not solely look at the individual or the community but to
try to provide a comprehensive message across several different
groups of folks, which is call the "Social Ecology." She then
discussed having things to address the individual, influencers,
community and society to better prevent violence. She said in
2003, Alaska was awarded a Domestic Violence Prevention
Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) grant from
the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Four communities deployed
that particular way of preventing violence. Subsequently, the
CDC performed a study that indicated there is a tipping point in
Alaska, page 2. The first year the communities are getting
started, building awareness, and when entering years 3-5 more
than one program is implemented and people are taking action and
things are moving. She then pointed to year eight regarding
comprehensive prevention programming and noted that an impact is
beginning and a difference is being made. Ms. Morton advised
that the CDVSA does not yet have a fiscal note, but the Office
of Management & Budget (OMB) testified that $5 million may be
available to the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), and to CDVSA for reinvestment. She commented that if
CDVSA was to receive $2.5 million (page 3) it would look like
the figures on page 3. Ms. Morton [turned to page 4, "Expanding
Existing Programs] and advised that the four programs were
Anchorage, Homer, Juneau, and Sitka communities where over the
last five years the CDVSA specifically focused and intentionally
provided expanded service where they looked at all of the
different elements of the social ecology [page 1].
1:56:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her explain what they looked at.
MS. MORTON responded that the four communities looked at the
social ecology, such as the individual, community, and society,
and how they can all work together, rather than choosing only
one thing. For example, Anchorage has declared itself to be a
"Green Dot" community and that affects not only the individual's
decision but family, community, and social media. Ms. Morton
said that what they would like to do with that kind of focused
community prevention would be to expand into communities as they
are ready for the more focused attention (page 5). A statewide
program is Green Dot, and the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (CDVSA) would like to strengthen training bureaus
and add five regional training centers or communities each year.
The left side of the slide depicts existing communities that
have Green Dot programs currently available, she said.
[Ms. Morton played a Green Dot public service announcement that
is played for middle schools, 1:57 through 1.58.]
1:58:36 PM
MS. MORTON related there are Green Dot programs for middle
schools, communities, and in other organizations, and said they
provide different ways to bring it together and expand programs.
She noted that the money is well spent in that the communities
are conscientious about how they deploy the materials and
advantages, (page 6). She said that CDVSA would want to expand
the prevention program with "Girls on the Run," "Coaching Boys
Into Men," and "COMPASS: [A Guide for Men]" because these
programs currently have a stronghold in Alaska wherein the
effectiveness has been noted with increasing resiliency and
protective factors in young people. These programs help them
build ways to decrease tolerance for violence and increase their
appreciation and understanding of what it means to be non-
violent in relationships, and how to work peacefully together.
She explained that CDVSA does not directly fund the 4th R Class
program for 9th graders in schools around the nation, but it has
been shown to be an effective method for reducing tolerance to
violence, increasing awareness of abusive behaviors, and
decreasing acceptance of sexual violence in Alaska. A study
showed that children with more adverse experiences better
profited by going through the 4th R Class program and is one of
the tools that will better equipment them as they move into
adulthood, she said.
2:01:58 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to her testimony that programs have
reduced tolerance to violence, increased resilience, and so
forth, and asked her to explain how these programs have actually
reduced violence.
2:02:18 PM
MS. MORTON responded that the example of a reduced tolerance for
violence is teens in dating situations making choices not to
carry forward on threats of violence, coercive sexual activity,
and actually hitting their partner. She related that it is
difficult to prove a negative but those are the actions that
have been diminished as a result of going through this program.
Another way of seeing a difference is through the Youth Risk
Behavioral Survey (YRBS) which goes directly to students, young
men and women, who are asked questions about violent behavior or
sexual violence they have experienced and being able to look at
that and at the 4th R Class evaluation to see those reductions
and tie that in. She asked Chair LeDoux if that answered her
question.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the expanding existing programs in the
four communities previously mentioned, and asked whether the
CDVSA has seen a reduction in domestic or dating violence.
MS. MORTON answered that CDVSA performed a peer reviewed
evaluation on the 4th R Class program, and the results are
statistically significant. She referred to the Alaska
Victimization Survey, discussed in a previous meeting, which is
definitely an institutionally reviewed board approved instrument
that showed an overall decrease in both sexual and intimate
partner violence over the past five years. A possibility behind
the results is that the respondents being 18 years and older and
coming of age may have been able to build on those protective
factors and their resiliencies. She put forth that there are
good indicators and with funding of a 2020 survey it is hopeful
there will be a definitive answer for Chair LeDoux's question.
2:05:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there are any statistics showing
that. For example, she offered a small community such as Sitka,
[statistics showing] that domestic or sexual violence has
decreased in the past five years, or increased.
MS. MORTON explained that the 2011 statewide Victimization
Survey included Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, and in 2016
they would like to survey those three regions again to look back
and hopefully see the similar difference that was seen at the
state level. There are indicators, she related, but nothing
that shows it works.
2:07:20 PM
MS. MORTON advised that in expanding existing [prevention]
programs, much of the work in prevention has to with reaching
young people, as young as possible. Reaching them in ways where
they are able to build resiliency factors to form their
normative way of behaving that is separate from the violence
that seems to permeate everywhere (page 7), she explained.
Methods they would like to expand are within programs such as,
"Talk Now, Talk Often," wherein parents can have a
question/answer conversation time with teens about these
difficult subjects. She referred to the current set of "Talk
Now, Talk Often" and offered that CDVSA would like to move into
a second set beginning with some general questions and moving on
into deeper and deeper questions. She referred to "When I am an
Elder" and explained that there are public service announcements
with younger people from K-8th grade in outlying communities
talking about how they want their world to be a world without
violence when they are elders so as they grow up they can change
their world. "Lead On for Peace and Equality" is a statewide
conference that is led by students and adult supported wherein
over 100 high schoolers a year apply to attend and talk for
three days on what it means to be a leader in their community
for peace, ending domestic violence and sexual assault. When
they return to their communities they apply for mini-grants of
$2,500 - $5,000 to carry on efforts that they put together
during that time to work on their community and develop methods
wherein the community stands up together and says no to domestic
violence and sexual assault. The Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) would like to increase the mini-
grants, increasing "When I am an Elder" opportunities, and
develop the subsequent set of cards to which she previously
referred, she offered.
[Ms. Morton played a public service announcement 2:10 through
2:11.]
2:11:00 PM
MS. MORTON explained that CDVSA would like to continue peer-to-
peer support from community to community and, currently, 19
communities have put together teams for prevention specifically
for all different walks of life in their community. The CDVSA
provides technical assistance and follow up support as they
implement their plans, looking at different strategies such as
what makes sense for them in their own communities within
different organizations, and how to put that together to end
domestic violence and sexual assault, she explained.
2:12:18 PM
MS. MORTON discussed the importance of investing money into
evaluation and research to determine whether something is
working (page 9). This would include the following: engaging
evaluators to assist communities in strengthening their own
efforts; the Alaska Victimization Survey a Knowledge, Attitude
and Belief Survey, and then resurvey to determine whether the
attitudes have changed. She then listed and explained CDVSA's
victims' services and creating and expanding further
partnerships (page 10). She referred to the Victim Services
Report, prepared from the roundtables and interviews as part of
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission report. The report
suggested providing services for victims in rural and remote
areas, and how to provide forensic exams locally rather than
victims flying to a regional hub for their exam, she said.
2:16:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the expectation of the
reinvestment is that the CVDSA will have some increased
programmatic presence in these efforts, and yet the current
budget proposal is cutting one position from the CDVSA staff.
He asked whether the reinvestment is helping the state if the
legislature takes away a position this year with the expectation
that the reinvestment money will be there to keep that position.
MS. MORTON clarified that the CDVSA budget and operating budget
in both bodies reduces the CDVSA staffing by three positions.
She explained that one position was left vacant this year, a
person is retiring in another position, and one position would
be an actual person released July 1. She explained that
including the reinvestment dollars, and with the focus on
prevention and expanding victims' services she could put a
position back because it is necessary to have one more person to
fully implement everything.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether that is the person being
released on July 1, or whether it is a different position with a
different job description.
MS. MORTON responded that it would be someone in the place of
the person retiring in June.
2:19:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how much of the reinvestment money will go to
prevention, and how much toward victims' services.
MS. MORTON responded that it depends upon how the legislature
and the governor divide the $5 million. She said she had
provided a scenario to the committee that the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) would receive $2.5
million, but she does not know whether that has been decided.
She estimated that CDVSA would likely put more money toward
prevention than victims' services. Even if CDVSA put the entire
$2.5 million toward prevention it would not get the state to
where it was in 2015; therefore, CDVSA would more heavily focus
on prevention. She opined that is the intention of
reinvestment, to make a concerted effort to help communities
change lives, change norms, and CDSVA does not want to reduce
victims' service efforts because it is just as critical to keep
people safe now as it is to prevent new victims.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that victims' services seems separate,
actually, than what HB 205 is all about.
MS. MORTON responded there was a specific reinvestment priority
from the commission, and the victims' services report had to do
with victims' services in terms of safe homes, engaging elders,
and the forensic exams. She said CDVSA followed the
recommendations in that part of the report.
2:21:57 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Commissioner, Alaska Justice Commission, said
that in working for many years with victims and not seeing
progress she was excited when the Victimization Survey came out
specifying that between 2010 and 2015 of every 100 women 12 were
victimized in 2010; in 2015 for every 100 women only 8 were
victimized. She opined that the change was due to prevention
and being out in the communities talking about it. She referred
to reinvestment and related that the state grew the offenders in
communities and that the state has to own that because people
are not born [offenders]. She referred to pretrial and noted
that in performing risk assessments, the state can determine
whether it is letting safe people out of jail or scary people.
Another part of reinvestment is community treatment because if a
person is stealing for drugs, they are an offender and a victim
of drugs and are marginalized. Currently, if someone wants
treatment they have to go on a waiting list and treatment must
be available for them. She referred to the word "savings" and
said she is hopeful that at some point all of the reinvestment
savings will be reinvested.
2:26:39 PM
MS. STANFILL said she is also hopeful that next year the
legislature will look at batterer's intervention programs and
what to do with people being violent. The legislature has been
tremendously underfunding, such that $200,000 going to
batterer's intervention programs is going away this year. She
offered that next year research could be undertaken to bring
back evidence based data, continuing to focus on sexual offender
treatment or containment, and looking at way ways to possibly
keep communities safe.
2:27:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked her to explain the process of the
commission, who participated, who was invited, and how victims
are being served because there has been testimony from
organizations unhappy with this legislation and that some of
their reasons are valid.
MS. STANFILL responded that the commission's first meeting was
approximately two years ago and it set out a process to move
forward. She noted that it was made clear at the beginning of
the process is that while there were 13 commissioners it would
be an interactive process with many people. For instance, she
related, the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) was
not a commission member and it is a large piece and the
commission invited DHSS and as many people as it could find. A
comprehensive list was created to send emails to the people each
commissioner represented, to get their names on the list, and to
be certain they were noticed. Information was listed on the
commission's web page, a tremendous amount of information was
listed in newspapers. During each meeting there were
approximately 30-35 participants and observers and often there
was dialogue between the commission and the audience members
with questions being thrown out to the audience. She said there
was always a public comment time but usually by the time the
commission got to the public comment segment, the public had
commented numerous times because it wasn't that kind of meeting.
In terms of participation she said she has heard some groups say
they were not invited or at the table. She pointed out that
this committee would have to ask the groups why they weren't
there because the commission was transparent with its process.
2:30:38 PM
MS. STANFILL advised that the PEW Charitable Trust data was
shared in open meetings and the information is also on the
commission's web page. She discussed the emotional impact upon
a victim when this legislation reduces penalties and opined that
the commission tried to reduce penalties in the areas of
secondary issues being the catalyst for the crime. The intent
here is not to say that crimes against persons will be a slap on
the wrist, but rather if the reason a person is breaking windows
is to get warm, or the offense is due to an addiction, or
another issue, that it can be addressed through treatment. She
discussed the roundtable discussions regarding victims, and said
there was no intent to leave anyone out or that voices were not
heard.
2:33:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said the bill is not about cost savings,
it is about changing a growing pattern that is driving
communities to a place where people feel unsafe in their homes,
or are having their property stolen from them. The intent is to
invest in Alaskans who, ultimately, will get out of jail
someday, and she noted her struggle in weighing the human
expense against people that are victims of horrible crimes.
There are recent instances that cause her to question whether
this legislation is the right thing to do in that she can look
at statistics and data, but the human element to this bill is
something the legislature and public will struggle with. She
asked Ms. Stanfill to explain how she communicates to the people
distrusting of the bill to bring them comfort and put their
minds at ease that the legislation will lead to better outcomes
for Alaskans.
2:36:02 PM
MS. STANFILL responded that she does not know that she has been
fully effective in making sure everyone felt comfortable while
speaking with them. She opined there are definitely folks who
say the legislation is not the right thing to do, the human
element of it. A question she has continued to ask people is,
if the state keeps someone in jail 30 or 45 days, the 15 days is
really expensive, what exactly is the state getting for the 15
days. She said she learned through the commission that there is
not that much difference between penalizing someone this amount
of time versus that amount of time, it's about what happens in
between that makes a difference. Therefore, if the state is
keeping someone in jail 45 days and doing nothing to address the
issue while inmates take naps, read magazines, lift weights,
what the state is getting for the 35 days, she asked, and what
could the state receive if offenders were on electronic
monitoring with a requirement to stay sober within their
community and attend outpatient treatment. Currently, while in
jail there is no requirement to do any kind of programming or
treatment so it could be that 45 days later they get out exactly
the same way they went in. She then discussed her prior view
and experiences as a victims' advocate. She said she tries to
think logically as to what the state gets out of the jail time,
and to her they get public safety and that the reason they are
in jail should be because the public is afraid of them. She
pointed out that inmates will be released at some point in time
and if there is someone who safely cannot be in a community
without doing further damage, those are the people that should
be in jail with long sentences. She described property crime as
a routine crime and she questioned whether the public wants the
person in jail for 45 days or rather to receive $550 back for
whatever was stolen. She suggested looking into how to get
restitution back to victims which is money well spent, and also
restorative justice with the person being involved in community
services rather than just sitting in jail with their meals
cooked and watching television. Although, she related, from a
victims' advocate the change is scary.
2:40:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to whether there is anything in the
bill that strengthens restitution.
MS. STANFILL answered no; however, laws are currently written
that strengthens restitution and the state just hasn't done it
yet. In terms of the PFD garnishment and child support, victim
restitution is second on the list of priority. Although,
currently the PFD is deferred to the Department of Corrections
(DOC) and possibly with the commission's work next year it could
figure out a way to shift a portion to the victim.
2:41:09 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether a portion of the offender's salary
could go directly to the person they've harmed.
MS. STANFILL advised that when a person has a parole officer
there is a requirement that their actions include paying
restitution and fines. She pointed out that it is not as easy
with a civil judgment to obtain the money from an employee's
workplace.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that that forces the victim to obtain the
civil judgment. She suggested that on the part of business to
include a provision wherein the victim receives what they lost.
She noted that they might not be so convinced that the state
needs to keep the felony level at $750 because if a person has
been ripped off it is hard to forgive until they are whole
again.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested that is something this
committee could review when it comes to the PFD reimbursement
because, currently, the state is the first priority and possibly
it could be shared with victims in a 50-50 percent manner.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she agrees, and asked Ms. Stanfill how she
responds to people such as Ms. Dusenbury who lost a loved one.
She further asked that shouldn't someone who has killed someone,
even if it is not premeditated, shouldn't there be some jail
time, isn't there something to be said about community
opprobrium.
2:44:11 PM
MS. STANFILL deferred to the judges in determining their
recommendation as to how to balance the community condemnation
with the rehabilitation of the offender. She opined that the
area of the bill Chair LeDoux referred to is involuntary
manslaughter, and related that there was an accident in
Fairbanks wherein a young woman died. The family said they did
not believe the person needed to go to jail because they were a
member of the community who made a terrible mistake and going to
jail would change everything for this person's life. Although,
she stated, there have been other situations where the family
absolutely wanted this person to go to jail so it depends upon
the circumstance and the family. Consideration must be made for
what happened and whether that is the right thing to do. She
said she has been thinking about Ms. Dusenbury and the right
response in that situation, and that there will always be the
one case where they question whether they did the right thing or
not, and on this case she doesn't know.
2:46:18 PM
MS. STANFILL, in response to Representative Claman, confirmed
that she was selected for the commission as an advocate for
victims' rights.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the list of victims' rights
advocates attending the two roundtables and he listed the names
of some of the advocates. He opined that within of all the
victims' rights groups, only one has objected to this
legislation and asked whether more groups are in opposition.
MS. STANFILL advised that she was only aware of the Office of
Victims' Rights.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT interjected that Victims for Justice are
opposed unless the reinvestment piece is included within the
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reiterated that only the Office of
Victims' Rights out of 15-20 groups participating in the process
all but one supports what the commission and legislature is
trying to do.
MS. STANFILL stated that is her understanding; however, all of
the groups have indicated they support the bill with
reinvestment, and do not support the bill if reinvestment isn't
included. She related that she heard the testifier for the
Office of Victims' Right state that if reinvestment is
introduced to revisit them as they may have a different opinion.
She then reiterated what other members of the committee have
stated, that the reinvestment piece is coming.
2:49:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that J.D. Alex flew to Juneau to testify
and asked him to come forward.
2:50:06 PM
JOSHUA "J.D." ALEX, said he is 36 years old, an Athabascan, he
is currently being groomed to be on the Eklutna Board in
Anchorage, and he is representing himself. He said he is
president of a non-profit corporation that is in the process of
determining its goals. Mr. Alex offered his testimony as
follow:
In the past, to where I am now, it starts off I've
spent 25 months in prison. I have five DUIs. I'm a
two-time felon. My driver's license is lost for life,
there's no set way of getting it back. Right now,
after ten years which is life in Alaska, I just ask a
lawyer or a judge, "Can I get my license back?" And
it's either a yes or no, there's no hoops to jump
through right now. So, I could just be drive-less for
the remainder of my life. I've never harmed anybody
in all my time, I've never had any accidents, thank
God, you know. So, currently, I am a carpenter and a
millwright with the union, Local #1281, I've been
sober for six years - right after I got out of prison.
I've built and assembled gas turbines for the Chugiak
Power Plant in Anchorage. I've worked in Sitka with
the Blue Lake Dam of hydro-turbines and I've worked at
Eklutna, built diesel engines for providing power to
communities. And up to now I've also worked really
hard and I am a landlord, I own a four-plex. I have -
- I also provide homes for low income people for, you
know, a place to live. And I pay my property taxes,
of course. ... So the only way I could get to this
point was networking. I would have to talk, be face-
to-face with individuals and show them my genuism
[sic] of how I've come this far and what I want to do
with my life, you know. And it's really hard, what
I've done to get here, especially because I'm a
bicycler, I use public transportation, you know. I --
I use family and friends, I -- I try to grab any help
I can get, you know. And it's getting harder as you
get older, you know, your body wears down, so.
2:53:31 PM
Now, what helped me get to this point is while I was
in prison there was this treatment program called RSAT
CTC, Residential Substance Abuse Treatment/Cognitive
Therapeutic Community. It was for a year and what it
was is you had 30 or so inmates and they were your
peers and they held you accountable for every behavior
that they seen. Also I've listened to David Stern
Show and I've heard more of the RSAT brothers, I call
them, from prior years before my generation. So, I
know that there are more out there doing good besides
the handful of brothers that I know.
My belief is, on this HB 205, it is a step in the
right direction, it really is. We need structure, we
do. ... And some of the examples I can think in my
head to do is, maybe in the halfway house like
aptitude testing, see what people in the halfway house
are -- like to do and stuff, kind of like a re-
schooling of sorts. Incentive programs of some sorts,
you know, encourages, you know, more hoops to jump
through and if you can jump through these hoops you
get rewarded, or something, you know. ... I believe
length of time in jail encourages only more criminal
thinking without treatment. And believe me, the
punishment should fit the crime, especially for
Madison and she's been a victim of the whole
situation. I do believe that she should have gotten
more time, you know, but. So, and also in early March
I listened to a hearing that we -- was with the
Judiciary Committee, I think or Finance. ... It was
how to reduce the criminal process recidivism, you
know, and there was a state or study outside in the
lower 48's that were doing something that would
drastically reduce the burdens upon society that
criminals would, you know, affect, right? I think a -
- we should really follow up on this because there's
all --- there's -- there's got to be a way to fix
this. ... I mean, and if all the burdens could be
gone and become -- and we become successful pro-social
members of society is possible, it is. ... In my
particular situation of this house bill because it is
so complex and I did try to read through it all, which
is immense. ... My personal situation there's an
amendment I would like to see, you know, it's -- of
course it's for the driver's license. It's -- the
driver's license revocation. I would like to see it
made retroactive because even if this bill passes it
still doesn't affect me. I'm here just for future
people right now. ... Like I said, after ten years I
-- all I do is ask the questions, it's either yea or
nay. There's no hoops to jump through, there's
nothing I can do to, you know, get -- I can pay more
money into society or whatever, just you know, there's
nothing I could do, so. And my last thoughts, it's
going to be tough, it is, I mean we are groomed to be
how we are and we can't change how we are after a
lifetime, like 10-15 years of being brought up, in 30-
45 days. I'm sorry to say, but it's true, you know.
We need our leaders, our legislation to work hard to
continue just to be -- have a lot of tenacity, you
know. I fought my way to get here after seven years,
you know. I just -- invest in it, you know. We just
need our legislation to provide resources for the
structure. ... You know, many tumble and we lose our
way but it doesn't mean that we -- we're lost forever,
it doesn't, it really doesn't. Sometimes we all need
a little help. In the Christian sense of the way, on
Easter, help us resurrect ourselves back to life, you
know. And, if you're not a Christian think of the
phoenix, you know, and if I can turn my life around
I'm sure anybody else can. And if there's any more --
if there's any question I would be happy to answer
them.
2:59:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to RSAT and asked whether it is a
residential program for substance abuse.
MR. ALEX responded that it is Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment/Cognitive Therapeutic Community.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the program is Alaska based.
MR. ALEX opined no, although there were other models in the
states. He added that the RSAT program stopped one or two years
after his release.
3:00:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that he asked the question
because the legislature has difficulty in determining how to
spend money and the problem is that it doesn't know how to
measure success on reinvestment. He opined that RSAT is based
on standards put out by the U.S. Justice Commission, but he
wasn't sure. He pointed out that the committee has a lot of
work to do with the people responsible for developing and
adopting risk assessment tools, what kind of treatment programs
will bring real results, and decide how to measure the results.
In general terms, he said he wanted to say a positive about the
commission's willingness and effort to go there and vouched for
its sincere effort to make reinvestment. He then remarked that
the legislature will not be able to answer all of the
reinvestment questions on the frontend.
3:02:06 PM
MR. ALEX referred to previous testimony wherein it was stated
that after three years there would be an increase in the
[prison] population because more people would be going in than
being released, even after the reduction. He opined that if the
state does reinvest and works hard to find the right tools to
help, it may take a little longer but those numbers will go down
because the more structure the state can offer people the better
they will be. Treatment for [this generation could be the
foundation for the next generation, thereby, allowing healthy]
peers growing up and in the long run society, as a whole, will
get better. He acknowledged that initially it will be a
struggle, it will probably take longer than projected, and it
will turn out for the better.
3:03:33 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she appreciated Mr. Alex's appearance
because it is one thing to hear statistics, and another thing to
hear someone's personal story. She expressed admiration for Mr.
Alex in getting his life together.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that he would like more
information regarding the current restitution statute and how it
is enforced.
3:04:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that restitution is an important
question to him and he asked that the committee dedicate time to
this issue beyond this meeting rather than doing it off the
cuff.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed.
[HB 205 was held over.]