Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB197 | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to transfers from the dividend fund;
creating the restorative justice account; relating to
appropriations from the restorative justice account
for payments for and services to crime victims,
operating costs of the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board, operation of domestic violence and sexual
assault programs, mental health services and substance
abuse treatment for offenders, and incarceration
costs; and providing for an effective date."
2:45:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 216, Work Draft 30-LS0572\M (Martin,
2/12/18).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP,
read the changes in a prepared statement (copy on file):
• Section 3 - Clarified that the Attorney General's
office can commence assisting a crime victim with
collecting restitution when the victim accepts
assistance or at the end of the 90-day opt-out
period, whichever is earlier.
• Section 4 - Clarified language regarding the
priorities for the Office of Victims' Rights when
helping crime victims with restitution payments
through the Restorative Justice Account.
• Section 6 - Switched priorities 3 and 4, making
"organizations to provide grants for services for
crime victims and domestic violence and sexual
assault programs" the higher priority over
"nonprofit organizations to provide grants for
mental health services and substance abuse treatment
for offenders". The blank CS adds percentage ranges
for appropriations to each priority.
• Sections 8, 9, & 10 - Added the ability for Alaskans
to donate to the crime victim compensation fund that
resides within the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Representative Wilson requested to hear additional detail
from bill sponsor about the changes. She wondered if he
supported or opposed the changes and why.
Representative Kopp explained that the changes were all
policy calls. He believed all of the changes advanced the
intent of the bill.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 30-LS0572\M was ADOPTED.
2:49:19 PM
Representative Kopp thanked the committee for hearing the
legislation. He believed many thousands of Alaskans in an
unrestored condition after being the victim of a crime were
tracking the bill. He reported that currently more than 70
percent of all court ordered restitution for crime victims
remained unpaid since 1980. He added that in 2017 the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission had found the number to
be closer to 76 percent. A 2013 Legislative Research
Services report was included in members' packets (copy on
file) that had been written in response to a question
asking why the state's restitution collection system was
broken. The report determined the system was broken due to
broken communication. He elaborated there were so many
entities involved with restitution, the state had drifted
from the fund that had been implemented to address
restitution and it had not insisted in the criminal justice
process that restitution be paid.
Representative Kopp continued that HB 216 sought to improve
the percentage of restitution and compensation paid to
victims in two ways. First, it prioritized compensation and
restitution for victims from the Restorative Justice
Account, which was part of the original Crime Victim
Compensation Fund established by the legislature in 1988.
Members' packets included a background document of HB 245
passed by the legislature in 1988 to get restitution for
victims. Second, the bill would increase opportunities for
victim restitution from the fund. The original HB 245 was
important because the legislature had declared people who
were incarcerated or convicted during the qualifying year
as ineligible for a Permanent Fund Dividend and the money
was deposited into a Crime Victim Compensation Fund. He
remarked on how memory could fade and explained he had been
speaking with members of the current executive and judicial
branches and they had told him it had never been the Crime
Victim Compensation Fund. He had directed the individuals
to HB 245.
Representative Kopp explained that since the passage of HB
245 the legislature had added worthy recipients such as the
Office of Victims' Rights (OVR), domestic violence and
sexual assault shelters, other crime victim service
agencies, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) for the
costs of incarceration and probation. He did not believe
the legislature had ever envisioned that by adding certain
eligible recipients, that the intent of the fund would be
decimated and would turn into something that it would turn
into something it was never intended to be. He explained
that HB 216 was about process and getting back to helping
to restore victims to a pre-offense condition.
2:53:26 PM
Representative Kop introduced a presentation titled "House
Bill 216: Establishing the Restorative Justice Account and
Prioritizing Help for Victims of Crimes." He began with
slide 1:
Restoring crime victims to a pre-offense condition
through the Criminal Fund established in 1988.
Representative Kopp moved to slide 2:
• 59% of adult women in Alaska have experienced domestic
violence or sexual violence throughout their lifetime.
(CDVSA Report)
• Compensation claims continue to increase yearly. (VCCB
Report) and in 2017, the majority of victims were
women and children.
• The outstanding balance of restitution orders is over
$129 million.
Representative Kopp pointed out that members' packets
included a court system breakdown starting at 1980 going
forward ["Restitution Data - Including both State and
Municipal prosecutions as of 12/31/2017" (copy on file)].
The document showed the amount collected and still owed;
the collection rate was 27.9 percent or over 70 percent
uncollected. He added if the Alyeska Pipeline shooting
incident was removed, which had resulted in a claim of
about $20 million, the amount owed was still about $100
million. He addressed the difference between compensation
and restitution. He detailed that compensation included
bridging/emergency funds. For example, the funds helped a
person pay medical bills and recover lost wages from work
immediately after a DUI accident or serious assault. The
Violent Crimes Compensation Board could award up to $40,000
for a person, but it may not help a person with a property
loss. Whereas, restitution was a court ordered payment that
went to victims, post-conviction. He detailed that
sometimes it took five to six years to get a felony
prosecution through the system and get the court order for
restitution issued. He stated the funds were very
different. He explained that HB 216 would help with both
measures [compensation and restitution].
2:55:26 PM
Representative Kopp continued to a bar graph showing the
criminal fund over the years and how funds had been
distributed (slide 4). The left side of the graph showed a
parallel distribution between DOC for cost of incarceration
and probation (shown in red) and crime victim services
(shown in green). In FY 12 the lines diverged dramatically
and even more sharply in FY 15 - the fund completely became
oriented toward the cost of inmate healthcare and victim
services remained at the very bottom.
Representative Kopp moved to a bar graph on slide 5 that
showed how the funds had previously been shared more
equally [up to FY 11] between DOC and victims' services
(shown in yellow and blue respectively). More recently, 94
percent of the funds went to inmate healthcare and 6
percent went to victims' services.
Representative Kopp explained that the bill would return to
a priority in a way that would not unfairly impact
financially other agencies eligible for the funds. He was
sensitive to the fact that inmate healthcare needed to be
paid for; however, the bill focused on improving the
process of getting restitution to victims of crime in a
timely way. He believed that by introducing some key pieces
into the bill, one being OVR, which had never taken an
active role in helping victims get restitution orders
filled, would improve the service dramatically.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana highlighted that compensation was an
emergency bridging fund that could be obtained immediately
by crime victims. He turned to slide 6 and reported that
the number of new claims had increased steadily from 2000
to 2017 - the number usually correlated with how much money
was available to the Violent Crimes Compensation Board. He
turned to slide 7 and reported the majority of claims were
for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child
abuse. He detailed that child abuse was one of the highest
percentages at 34 percent, the majority of which involved
some type of sexual assault.
2:58:20 PM
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana moved to slide 8 and addressed annual
outstanding restitution balances. He explained that
restitution was ordered by the court and could take a long
time for someone to receive. The annual outstanding balance
had steadily increased; a major spike in the balance in FY
14 was related to the Alyeska Pipeline shooting.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana turned to slide 9 and specified that
approximately 40 to 50 percent of restitution orders were
for individuals. He detailed that about 50 percent of the
individuals were owed less than $1,000. The average
restitution payment to a person ranged between $500 and
$700. The remaining 50 percent of the individuals were
usually owed less than $10,000. The bill would put a
$10,000 cap on the amount OVR could assist victims with. He
added that the sponsor had reviewed what other states were
doing and Vermont's system was close to the same as the
bill proposal.
Representative Kopp noted that the $10,000 applied on a per
restitution order basis.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana turned to slide 11 and provided
highlights of the bill compared to current law. The bill
created a mechanism for the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division to set aside an amount calculated annually for the
Restorative Justice Account. The legislature would have the
ability to appropriate money to entities and state
agencies, which would be prioritized with a percentage. He
explained that OVR would have the ability to assist victims
with restitution payments. He clarified that compensation
would remain paramount because victims needed immediate
help with bridging funds. The bill would allow direct
appropriations to nonprofit agencies to assist victims of
crimes including domestic violence and sexual assault. The
sponsor realized that compensation and restitution would
not make a victim whole; therefore, some nonprofits
provided other services a victim may need. The bill also
authorized funds for mental health and substance abuse
treatment for offenders.
3:01:31 PM
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana moved to slide 12 and continued to
address highlights of current law and changes under HB 216.
The bill would require the court system to share
restitution orders with OVR. Currently DOL received the
orders and notified victims about their rights and that
they may qualify for restitution. Currently a victim could
notify DOL if they want assistance or assistance was
automatic unless they opted out within 30 days. He noted it
was rare for a person to opt-out; opt-out reasons could be
that a person did not want to deal with it, they moved and
could not be located by the state, or they wanted to hire a
private company to assist with financial collection. For
many years the DOL Restitution Unit had been the entity
helping victims with collecting restitution; however, it
had lost funding. He furthered that DOL had never helped
victims of crimes through a criminal fund established 30
years back; it only assisted victims with restitution,
things that could be garnishable, volunteer payments by the
offender, or prepayments. The bill would allow use of the
funds through OVR as well.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana reported the bill would expand the
opt-out period from 30 to 90 days to give victims more time
to make a decision. He detailed that crime could be
traumatizing and individuals could need more time to make a
decision on the assistance. Lastly, the bill allowed
Alaskans to donate to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund
though the Pick.Click.Give program when filing for their
Permanent Fund Dividend.
3:03:41 PM
Representative Kopp expounded that under current law and
the bill, the offenders were liable to pay back any payout
made from the Restorative Justice Account for restitution
and any payout made by the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board for compensation. He specified that offenders would
not be off the hook just because a bridging fund had
offered compensation or restitution.
Representative Guttenberg asked about language on the
bottom left of slide 11 [under current law] that addressed
appropriation of funds without priority. He referenced a
bullet point designating the use of funds by percentages
[under HB 216, lower right side of slide 11]. He asked for
further detail.
Representative Kopp answered there was currently no
priority or law designating what the legislature wanted the
state to look at first when distributing funds. Currently,
there was nothing to guide OMB, when establishing the
governor's budget, on determining the highest priority. He
reported there had been years the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board had fallen off dramatically and when the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and OVR had
not been entirely funded. The bill made a policy call that
would direct OMB to prioritize inmate healthcare and look
at what may be left over for the other victims' service
agencies.
3:06:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked what the bill would change
the priority to.
Representative Kopp answered that the priority order was in
the bill.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana directed attention to Section 6, page
6 of the bill [version M].
Representative Kopp continued the bill established the
Crime Victim Compensation Fund as the highest priority,
then OVR for payments to crime victims and operating costs
of the program, then nonprofit organizations to provide
grants for services for crime victims and domestic violence
and sexual assault programs, then nonprofits for mental
health and substance abuse treatment, and then DOC. He
pointed out the priority order included a percentage range,
which was based on historical needs drawn from the fund.
The numbers were all policy calls. He highlighted that in
review of the bill draft, he realized DOC should have been
65 to 78 percent to accommodate the scenario of all four of
the higher agencies either getting the low end of the range
or the high end of the range. A substantial majority of the
funds would still go to inmate healthcare. The bill would
give victims services agencies - that had been [previously]
removed entirely - more budget certainty out of the fund.
Most importantly, the bill introduced OVR as a recipient.
He explained that OVR was the most aggressive advocate in
state government for victims. He believed the state would
start turning the curve of getting victims back on their
feet if OVR followed up with restitution orders and saw
that they received the money.
3:09:08 PM
Representative Grenn thanked Representative Kopp for
introducing the bill. He believed prioritizing for victims
was a great thing for the fund. He asked about Sections 8
through 10, which he believed had come from the House
Judiciary Committee. He remarked that the Pick.Click.Give
program was a new mechanism for giving to the fund. He
noted that the provisions would mean new duties for the
Department of Revenue (DOR) as the administrator and he
wondered if the sponsor had spoken with the department
about the new work the provisions would entail.
Representative Kopp replied in the affirmative. He reported
that DOR "loved" the idea. He detailed that the House
Judiciary Committee had exempted the normal 7 percent
administrative fee that would be deducted. He elaborated
that the only other exempt fund was the Peace Officer and
Firefighter Survivor's Fund.
Representative Kawasaki spoke the historical restitution
data handout. He asked why the restitution percentage had
dropped significantly after 2008.
Representative Kopp replied that the 2013 report from
Legislative Research Services did the best job summarizing
that information. The report specified the breakdown was
occurring because there was not a good mechanism between
the courts and DOC. He elaborated that when the court
issued an order for restitution it was sent to DOC where
probation officers were supposed to make the restitution
order part of successfully completing probation and parole,
which was often not happening. In some cases there was not
a high level of insistence that it happen for successful
completion and in other cases the money was collected but
not passed on to the victim. He explained that perhaps the
victim could not be located to give the money to. He
addressed restitution orders on people who were not
incarcerated and conjectured that it could be more
difficult to locate people. He believed the biggest reason
was the absence of a recovery unit - a team of attorneys at
DOL, which had existed in the past. He did not claim the
recovery unit had ever done a fantastic job - the DOL unit
had recently been defunded in 2016.
Representative Kopp continued that for various reasons
there had been a lack of communication between state
agencies and a lack of follow through, which had made it
very difficult for victims to get compensation. He
underscored that victim compensation was a constitutional
right under Article I, Section 24. He remarked that
legislators had all seen the lack of follow through on
other things such as Medicaid issues and justice issues.
The bill aimed to put a process in the law reestablishing
the highest priority and introducing OVR to help facilitate
the restitution payments. He elaborated that OVR was made
up of a skilled team of attorneys who attended sentencing
hearings and advocated for victims. He added that Taylor
Winston [OVR director] had been extraordinarily helpful and
ready to engage in helping victims access restitution
orders from the court and working with DOR.
3:13:46 PM
Representative Kopp continued to answer the question. He
had worked with aforementioned agencies on the bill to
refine the process and prevent another breakdown from
occurring.
Representative Kawasaki referenced the restitution data and
observed that prior to 2008 it appeared an average of 40 to
50 percent up to 60 percent had been recovered. He observed
that beginning in 2008 going forward the restitution
percentage dropped to single digits. He wondered if a
systemic issue had occurred after 2008.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana answered that the decline in
[restitution] recovery rates was a national trend - all
states were challenged in finding new ways to increase
recovery rates. Some states created independent collection
units to recover the money.
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the intent of the
legislation. He asked how to ensure the department and OMB
adhere to the legislation and appropriate money the way
intended.
Representative Kopp answered that the question struck at
the heart of the bill. He believed the answer was to
establish a priority order in statute. He pointed to
language on page 6, lines 1 and 2 of the bill:
The legislature may appropriate amounts from the
account to the following recipients in the priority
order and percentages listed
Representative Kopp believed the departments would have to
be knowingly circumventing the legislative will [if they
did not comply with the bill's intent]. He detailed that
the legislature had never spelled out the information so
clearly in terms of a priority order. Legislative Legal
Services had specified that the bill did not unduly tie the
administration's hands or violate dedicated funds.
Legislative Legal Services had stated there could be no
successful claim that perhaps a lower priority was filled
and maybe not every higher priority need was. He explained
there was still some discretion built in, but the
legislation made it very clear the legislature wanted the
top priority to be considered first. He elaborated that it
would involve calling the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
to enquire about outstanding claims for the coming year.
Second, OVR would be called to determine the number of
restitution orders ready to go. The average restitution
order was between $500 and $700. He added he was not
talking about large numbers, but about immediately moving
the needle on helping victims get back on their feet.
3:17:42 PM
Representative Kawasaki believed in the importance of
restitution. He found fiscal note 5 was troubling. He
pointed to the last sentence on page 2 [OMB Component
Number 2952]: "As such, the fund change in the Department
of Corrections may shift to the "Restorative Justice
Account" rather than the general fund." He stated that the
note talked about that in practice in FY 11, funding had
been used that was either in crime victim compensation or
DOC. He was trying to determine ways to ensure restitution
was the top priority. He surmised it was for the
legislature to dedicate itself to during the budget process
as well.
Representative Kopp answered that new fiscal notes would
accompany the CS. He added that the fiscal notes had
evolved. He appreciated the comments and relayed
[restitution] was a constitutional right and should be a
priority. He believed the legislative body had not followed
through and insisted on the law. He noted the bill would
not remove the liability of the offender to pay the money
back. He concluded the legislature was in a position to
improve it, which was the goal of the legislation.
Representative Wilson stated that Permanent Fund Dividends
would go to a person if they had not committed a crime. She
wondered if the state was paid back if it paid restitution
on behalf of a person.
Representative Kopp answered that when restitution was paid
on behalf on an incarcerated individual, the individual
would be liable to pay the money back. The individual would
be eligible for a PFD once released, which could be
garnished directly. He noted PFD garnishment was the
highest return on any recovery effort.
3:20:45 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it included personal injury
on behalf of or restitution only.
Representative Kopp answered that individuals were also
liable to pay violent crimes compensation claims to the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board. Restitution was also
repaid to the General Fund - the legislature would have to
reappropriate the funds. The liability for compensation and
restitution did not go away merely because a claim had been
paid.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana added that currently if a victim
received compensation funds, the court took it into
consideration and sent any restitution to the Violent
Crimes Compensation Board. The offender was liable to pay
the money back through the violent crime compensation fund.
Representative Wilson provided a scenario where a person
was incarcerated for several weeks, meaning they were
ineligible for a PFD. She asked if an individual's duty to
pay back DOC was tracked and by whom.
Representative Kopp replied that the duty to return the
restitution orders was always with the person, even if
incarcerated for a short time. He stated that current law
specified if a person was incarcerated and became
ineligible. He elaborated it was a policy call (e.g. law
could be changed where a person would become ineligible if
they were incarcerated more than 30 days). The pros would
be that more people were eligible to receive their PFD,
which was the fastest way to get recoveries back.
Additionally, the criminal fund was growing because under
SB 54 [crime reform legislation passed in 2017] the state
was putting many more people back in prison. He remarked
that the state's jails were filling up again. The criminal
fund was replenished annually with new people incarcerated.
If the goal was to have the dividend be more accessible,
the legislature could look at the length of stay [in jail]
versus taking a person's PFD if they were incarcerated for
any length of time.
3:23:41 PM
Representative Wilson countered that jails were not
growing. On the contrary, she believed prison populations
were decreasing. She remarked that the populations would go
down even more if halfway houses and electronic monitoring
were utilized more. She was trying to understand when a
person went to jail and had hurt someone or took property,
whether the state was utilizing a large fund with pooled
money where no one got credited or if the state tried to
recoup as much cost as possible when people left prison.
She understood much of the money could not be recouped
because two out of three individuals released from prison
went back to prison. She stated the bill was telling the
administration and the legislature the priorities. She
remarked that the bill did not require the legislature to
appropriate funds. She stated that corrections was one of
the fastest growing costs in the state. She wanted to have
a better understanding of how the fund worked to start
with. She furthered that if someone paid restitution on
their own it went to the General Fund, not the Restorative
Justice Account. She wanted to know how it all worked
together. She was fine with the bill, but she wanted to
know how the state was tracking all of the components
involved.
Mr. Cordero-Giorgana answered that currently the court
system tracked the information. When the court worked with
DOL they would track whether an offender paid restitution.
He detailed that DOC had a priority on the type of fines
and costs that an incarcerated offender had to pay. He
relayed that child support restitution, cost of
incarceration, and other fines was typically the priority.
When an individual was released from jail they still owed
the money to the state through DOC. The bill allowed for
the legislature to appropriate back any repayment of
restitution funds from one account into the Restorative
Justice Account to continue helping victims. He deferred to
DOC for further detail.
3:26:32 PM
Representative Wilson was hoping to receive something in
writing. She believed the things could all be done without
the bill. She clarified her support for the bill. She
stated that as the appropriator, the legislature could use
designated general funds, undesignated, or make up its own
funds to decide where to put or pay out money. She asked
why the funds were not put back into the Restorative
Justice Account versus the General Fund when recouped. She
believed it would be helpful in order to have an
understanding on how much money got paid back. She thought
putting the money into the General Fund meant it got bogged
up with all the other funds. She reasoned the state did not
know whether people released from jail were not being held
responsible to pay restitution to people or property they
damaged.
Representative Kopp responded there was a precise
accounting of every restitution order paid back. The money
returned each year came to the attention of the budget
director, so they knew what was available for
reappropriation. He explained that Legislative Legal
Services had advised that if the funds went automatically
to the Restorative Justice Account it would be a violation
of dedicated funds and would be subject to challenge.
Therefore, the bill specified the funds would go to the
General Fund for reappropriation by the legislature.
3:28:13 PM
Co-Chair Foster remarked that many policy calls needed to
be made. Additionally, the committee needed to hear from
the departments and have an in-depth conversation about the
fiscal notes.
Representative Kopp shared that the effective date of the
bill should be amended to 2019. He explained there were
processes involved that needed time to implement. He
furthered that a 2019 effective date (January or July)
would allow time for the departments to forecast the amount
of money available for distribution associated with persons
deemed ineligible.
HB 216 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.