Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/13/2018 03:15 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 | |
| HB325 | |
| HB319 | |
| HJR21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 325-PRISONER COMPUTER USE; REENTRY SERVICES
3:18:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 325, "An Act relating to computer use by
prisoners; and relating to an exemption from the State
Procurement Code for contracts for rehabilitation and reentry
services."
3:18:32 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC), on
behalf of the House Rules Committee by request of the governor,
stated that HB 325 is important legislation for the state and
DOC in terms of reentry. He explained that the proposed
legislation has two pieces. The first would expand the use of
an inmate's ability to use a computer for reentry services and
for legal services during incarceration. One example of the
importance of that provision is that it would allow an inmate to
use a computer to apply for Medicaid before he/she was released.
The current statutes don't consider that use of the computer.
He added that it would also allow an inmate to apply for reentry
services, such as housing. The proposed legislation would
clarify that these are approved uses of a computer for an inmate
who is due to return to the community.
3:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL inquired as to the current computer policy
for inmates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that the current policy is more
restrictive; in current statute, approved use is strictly for
employment and does not include reentry services.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the second part of HB 325
would offer the most important means for DOC to change the
system and the way reentry is done in the state. He maintained
that it is not the intent of the proposed legislation to target
any business or sector of reentry services. He relayed that
Alaska has had the same reentry housing Community Residential
Center (CRC) model for over 20 years; this section of the
proposed legislation would allow the opportunity for the
commissioner of DOC to have more flexibility in entering into
contract with smaller halfway house entities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that under the proposed
legislation, DOC would provide a menu of options for released
prisoners returning to their communities. He said that under
the current model, there are very specific rules about how CRCs
are structured and what is required, such as the requirements
for cameras and staffing. The proposed legislation would allow
DOC to bypass procurement rules when entering into contracts
with CRCs. This would "open the doors" for DOC to place people
nearing the end of their sentences in smaller locations in the
community with like individuals; these would be houses for five
to ten people. He reiterated that HB 325 would allow DOC the
opportunity to expand what it does in terms of reentry and
halfway houses.
3:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed that he is uncomfortable with
diminishing the procurement process and granting someone the
sole authority to enter into contracts; for any government
entity, there is a procurement process for a reason. He said if
state procurement requires cameras or other monitoring security
devices to be used, he has a problem with someone deciding that
it is not applicable. He inquired as to why, if there is a
problem with procurement - such as no need for cameras or a
specified number of places - it is not addressed through the
procurement code. He added that he is "big fan" of the
procurement process and due diligence.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that he understands the concern.
He maintained that it would be difficult to address the
procurement rules for this one specific purpose without
disrupting the process for all other situations in which it
makes sense. He said that one of the reasons for the
procurement process is to get the best value for the dollar and
to have a fair, competitive process. He offered that the
problem is that procurement rules and the entire request for
proposal (RFP) process has excluded small operators by virtue of
the process; it is cumbersome and difficult. He stated that the
halfway houses currently operating are more expensive than would
be residential facilities. He emphasized that this is no fault
of the current contractors, but of the system. He said that the
reason for the greater expense is that putting 40-50 men into a
halfway house is a model that is full of problems and trouble.
There is drug trafficking, and inmates don't want to go to
halfway houses because they are too large. He relayed that he
understands the nervousness about exceptions to procurement
rules but suggested that HB 325 would allow DOC to enter into
contracts with smaller locations that are successful. He
offered that putting people into halfway houses six months
before release would save the state money. The proposed
legislation would allow smaller non-profits, tribes, and small
for-profit companies to build smaller locations that are not
constricted by the CRC model.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked why DOC couldn't just redefine the
purchasing code for the department, that is, change the
procurement requirements when soliciting bids. He suggested
that DOC could develop criteria for large facilities and for
small facilities, but still have procurement put out an RFP and
do its due diligence.
3:28:27 PM
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that it is difficult to find
operators of small facilities who are willing to go through the
RFP process. He said that even if he changes some of the
conditions of the RFPs, he is still asking a very small entity
to go through the process. He gave as an example Kara Nelson of
Haven House Juneau, who has been operating the home for a long
time with tremendous success. He said that as the commissioner,
he is looking to support those smaller halfway houses around the
state in many locations. He stated that the workload for
preparing an RFP is extremely cumbersome and would require
multiple staff. He reiterated that the proposed legislation
offers a better alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that DOC is requesting sole source
authority to enter into a reasonable contract. He asked how
zoning issues would be handled for the houses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied, "That's not going to change." He
confirmed that DOC would have to abide by zoning policies.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether there would be public notice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that he assumes that would
occur.
3:30:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed that he is absolutely opposed to
bypassing a procurement process. He compared the difference
between the two procedures to the distinction between a
democracy and a dictatorship: dictatorships are incredibly
efficient in getting a job done; democracies are "messy." He
stated that the procurement process is messy sometimes, but it
protects the public and the state in assuring that funds are
expended responsibly. He added that "things can go sideways"
with sole source and no competitive engagement. He challenged
DOC to consider new models. He gave as example all the options
today for lodging besides hotels - Airbnb and Vacation Rentals
by Owner (VRBO). He offered that he commends the commissioner
for the initiative but maintained that there needs to be
competition. He suggested there may be a means to achieve the
Commissioner's objective in a manner that is competitive and
protects the public. He said he supported out-of-state
incarceration, especially if it involves significant cost
savings and public benefit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS relayed that he is imploring committee
members to consider the following: the cost to the state
because of the competitive process, although well-intentioned
when designed 20 years ago, is greater than the cost of keeping
an inmate in prison. He stated that he appreciates the
recommendation for developing a new model and new system; it is
easy to say but difficult to do, because there is no way to fund
smaller operations that have been established out of good will.
He relayed that the proposed legislation is an attempt to
clearly and transparently develop multiple other bed spaces in
the system. He reiterated that he appreciates the desire for
competition to protect the state and avoid unilateral decisions;
however, he is looking for flexibility to put people in places
for much less cost.
3:35:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for a brief description of the spaces
for which DOC would be soliciting, and an explanation of why
they would be good for the state.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that he needs the proposed
legislation because he needs places like Haven House, MyHouse
Mat-Su Homeless Youth Center (MyHouse) in Wasilla, Alaska,
operated by Michelle Overstreet, and other small operations that
do not have the capacity to "go through an involved RFP process"
so that DOC can pilot some of those efforts. He said that he
needs places where inmates have connections and relationships
with people in that local community before they are released.
He maintained that does not happen within the current, large
halfway house structure. He offered that developing a smaller
halfway house structure is one solution that avoids rewriting
the statutory (indisc.) around the CRC model.
3:36:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she is uncomfortable with the
proposed provision; if a small organization cannot fulfill the
RFP requirements, then DOC should consider revising its RFP.
She suggested an RFP for big projects and an RFP for small
projects. She maintained that there is a reason the state
developed the procurement laws and she is not convinced "we need
to throw out the baby with the bath water with respect to those
laws."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS asked how he could convince the committee
that DOC is looking for pilot opportunities to improve the
model. He opined that the provision under the proposed
legislation "does not throw the baby out with the bath water."
He asked to be allowed to demonstrate a changed model and
reduced cost.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she does not see why DOC could
not accomplish what the commissioner has suggested with a
revised procurement policy. She reiterated that there could be
one procurement policy for a large facility, and another for a
small one. She asserted that a procurement policy shouldn't be
written so that a regular person cannot use it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that procurement statutes are very
firm; the reason he is asking for exceptions is to avoid
rewriting the procurement statutes to exempt the smaller
operations from all the requirements of an RFP process. He said
that he views the exception in the proposed legislation as way
to pilot DOC's effort.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained that Commissioner Williams is
asking the legislature to change a law; committee members are
uncomfortable with the proposed change; therefore, perhaps he
should ask for a change that committee members can accept.
3:39:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK relayed that he is aware that every
department wants to "get out from underneath" the procurement
codes; the legislature has battled that desire for many years.
He said that the one that bothers him the most is the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) procurement policy. He relayed that the
corporation attempted to write its own policy; it got into a
great deal of trouble; the 2009 report pointed out how bad that
policy was; and instead of being the "best practices," it was
the "worst practices." He expressed his hesitancy with any
department being excluded from the procurement code. He
maintained that the procurement code was well written and gives
a wide variety of conditions for a wide variety of scenarios.
He mentioned that the state's policy includes veterans hiring
preferences, best value contracting, and many methods proven to
be effective. He recalled that the state has centralized
procurement to be performed by one department, which is the
Department of Administration (DOA). He added that there are
checks and balances and an appeal process. He reiterated that
the state has a good procurement process; if DOC want to have a
trial project, then it should change the specifications on the
contract and choose a length of time for the trial period. He
offered that the legislature could work with DOC to identify a
model in the procurement code that would work best for the
department.
3:41:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to portions of Section 2, as
follows: page 3, lines 15-16, which read, "Procurement Code
applicable to contracts. Except as provided in AS 36.30.850 and
(b) of this section"; page 3, line 20-23, which read,
"commissioner or the commissioner's designee shall make a
determination that the payment for rehabilitation and reentry
services will promote the use of community-based and culturally
relevant rehabilitative and reentry services most suited to
provide support"; and page 3, line 27, which read, "will assist
the individual to remain in the individual's chosen community."
He maintained that these are two very important provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that he watched a public television
[360 North] documentary, [entitled "Inside Out Leaving Prison
Behind"], that followed three people who were released from the
Lemon Creek Correctional Center (LCCC) in Juneau. He stated
that the documentary highlights Haven House and declared, "I
thought it was remarkable." He explained that Haven House is
not a barred prison, but a house, with just a few residents. He
maintained that it appeared to be the right approach; if you
want to return someone to society it should be with support. He
conceded that the old system is not working and expressed that
the state needs to take a fresh look. He offered that he is not
familiar with the technical aspects of the procurement process
but assumes that like most processes associated with state
government, it is cumbersome. He said that an easy-to-fill-out
form can turn into 8-12 pages of "junk."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asserted that for someone living in an
isolated, remote community, he/she might not want to be in an
Anchorage halfway house but be closer to his/her family and
support system. The smaller community might be preferable. He
said that he doubts that there are many people who want to
operate halfway houses, but for those that do, there should be a
process to enable that. That process may mean rewriting the
procurement code entirely or allowing for an exemption, as
proposed under HB 325. The type of facility that the proposed
legislation would apply to is not a million-dollar facility for
400 residents, but a scaled back "VRBO" approach. He offered
that one might think people would want to be incarcerated in
Arizona, but for someone to visit an incarcerated family member,
he/she would not want to travel to Arizona every weekend. He
opined that the proposed legislation is a step in the right
direction.
3:44:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered that anyone that has been
involved with government knows that procurement is a cumbersome
process. She said that she initially got involved with
government because of people "running rampant" on procurement
codes. She maintained that everyone wants government to operate
like a business until they realize that the cost of abiding by
the procurement process is worth the return.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered that local governments need to
weigh in on the possibility of reentry facilities located in
neighborhoods. She said that DOC may support reentry homes in
neighborhoods, but the residents are not always pleased to have
certain types of facilities in their neighborhoods. She
mentioned financial reasons for that attitude - property values
and property crimes. She added that the smaller the home, the
higher the cost; there are savings associated with larger
facilities. She said that in Palmer, the police were called to
a hotel that was a group home for criminals; she emphasized the
importance of getting input from police and municipal
governments. She concluded by saying that the proposed
legislation may sound good from DOC's perspective but may not be
as good of an idea for the residents of the neighborhood.
3:47:28 PM
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS described what currently happens, as
follows: the DOC could release many prisoners on electronic
monitoring; if they have no place to go, they end up in places
like the hotel Representative Johnson mentioned. If DOC can
contract with smaller facilities, someone is there to offer
"adult babysitting." He said that DOC does not need all the
cameras and bars; it needs adult supervision for the released
prisoners; and that requires much less money. He emphasized
that with small operations, there would be substantial savings.
He asserted that reentry homes in Soldotna, Wasilla, Anchorage,
and many other places have been successful; once the prisoners
have completed their sentences, they do very well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that he understands the committee's
reluctance to allow the procurement exemptions; but emphasized
that there is a need for opportunity and flexibility for DOC.
He said that the neighbors of these facilities become very
friendly; they are not worried about the facility being in their
neighborhood, but about no adult supervision for people on
electronic monitoring with no place to live or a terrible place
to live. He asserted that is why the recidivism rate is 65
percent and has been 65 percent for 20 years. He insisted that
DOC cannot release 50-100 men to one location and expect it "to
go well"; there is drug trafficking inside these large halfway
houses. He insisted that he means no disrespect to the
contractors by his testimony; they have made improvements; and
it is not their problem but the problem of the state. He
maintained that DOC needs other opportunities and another way
forward to bring down the recidivism rate.
3:50:19 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 325.
3:51:01 PM
TALIA EAMES, Program Coordinator, Central Council of the Tlingit
and Haida Tribes of Alaska (Tlingit & Haida), paraphrased from
written testimony, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
My name is Talia Eames and I am here as the
coordinator for Tlingit & Haida's Second Chance
Reentry Program. I am also a 10-year, decorated
veteran of the United States Air Force. Gunalchesh
for allowing me the opportunity to testify in support
of House Bill 325.
When I worked as a caseworker for the reentry program,
I met with over 300 men and women returning from
incarceration. Although the program was open to
tribal and non-tribal members, Alaska natives were
overwhelmingly represented in my office. One of the
most significant hurdles for individuals released from
incarceration is access to services. The services they
can access may not be culturally appropriate or broad
enough to give them the tools they need to lower their
risks of recidivating. From lack of transportation the
moment they are released, to finding housing, medical
care, employment, identification cards, or substance
use treatment, returning citizens face huge hurdles to
their own well-being. There are no comprehensive
reentry services in Southeast Alaska and of the
services that do exist, cultural components
incorporated into these approaches are either non-
existent or underdeveloped.
In addition to the need for strong sober support and
guidance to services, many tribal members have lost
touch with their tribal identity while incarcerated
and experience broken ties with their Native families
due to addictions and violations in trust.
Participants in the Second Chance Program regularly
cited the need for cultural identity but had to be
self-taught due to these circumstances, limited
resources, and being paroled away from their home
communities where the knowledge lives. The healing
associated with practicing cultural traditions,
learning clan identity and having pride in where you
come from is something long respected by Native
American people and can assist in reducing recidivism.
Due to the uniqueness of Alaska tribes having only one
reservation and no criminal jurisdiction in the state,
our tribes have limited established infrastructure
when it comes to creating reentry and rehabilitative
programs. This often results in tribal entities that
are unable to compete under current procurement codes.
This also means that many programs are being
established without the invaluable resources that our
tribes hold. Allowing the State of Alaska an exemption
in current procurement rules would open many
possibilities in empowering tribes to care for our own
in the reentry process. A cheaper bid is just that
when it cannot reduce recidivism and keeps open the
proverbial "revolving door." The future of public
safety and healthy communities relies in promoting
programs that truly help the formerly incarcerated to
keep them from returning to prison; in my work I
recognize these programs to be where we strengthen our
broken tribal members by incorporating traditional
sources of healing and knowledge in the reentry and
rehabilitative support systems. Therefore, I support
House Bill 325 and ask that you consider the same.
MS. EAMES added to her testimony that reentry is not one size
fits all, and the current model is too large and does not work
well. Smaller models can build relationships and build
successful returning citizens.
3:54:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what, in Alaska's procurement codes,
makes local establishments trying to provide services unable to
compete.
MS. EAMES answered that Tlingit & Haida has not established re-
entry and rehabilitation services, because its focus has been
other aspects of being a tribal organization. She offered that
it is hard to be competitive with agencies that have been
offering these services for a long time. She stated that Alaska
has been providing services the same way for a long time;
recidivism rates are very high; perhaps it is time to try
something new, smaller, and that can build people up.
3:56:00 PM
KARA NELSON, Director, Haven House Juneau, testified that Haven
House Juneau is a peer-led, faith-based recovery residence for
women coming home after incarceration. She added that it also
provides non-residential services for anyone who requests them.
She explained that her organization has had to develop some
personal relationships to create change, because it doesn't fit
into many of the funding streams. She relayed that Haven House
Juneau is a small non-profit; staff can access the prison to
provide peer support, do pre-release work with inmates, and
"build community." She added that her organization does work
with men at times.
MS. NELSON stated that she is in full support of HB 325. She
mentioned that people wanted to see changes in the criminal
justice system, she supported that effort, and now her
organization is unable to take advantage of the funding streams
and expand. She said that she is not well educated on state
procurement but knows that Haven House Juneau does not fit into
that procurement model; it cannot take advantage of RFPs for
reinvestment, nor can it receive any support through DOC, the
State of Alaska, and other state funding sources.
MS. NELSON relayed that she has been in contact with many of the
operators of houses across the state and can answer questions on
how the houses are set up and "not in my back yard" (NIMBY)
issues. She maintained that the proposed legislation is very
important for developing community and moving forward.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there are ways the RFP could
be written differently so that her organization could fit into
that process.
MS. NELSON responded that the only RFPs that she has reviewed
are the ones resulting from Senate Bill 91 [passed during the
Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature, 2015-2016]. She stated
that her facility houses up to eight women; it has developed
professional training for recovery coaching and for peer support
and for forensic support inside and outside. She pointed out
that because she does not have a professional degree, these
training programs are not considered clinical. She said that
for sober houses, clinical staff and a more institutional type
structure is required.
4:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for a description of Haven House
Juneau and what it offers. He stated that procurement is merely
a matter of describing what it is one is offering, what services
are provided, and how much it costs.
MS. NELSON responded that her facility is considered a Level 2
recovery residence - a designation determined by the National
Association of Recovery Residences (NARR) accreditation process;
therefore, it uses that standard. Under that standard, Haven
House Juneau provides a bed, peer support 24/7, reentry and
recovery coaches, and a program that residents must follow. The
program includes attending meetings, securing a sponsor for
mentoring, and abiding by a curfew. There is a person who lives
in the house to oversee curfew and provide a safe, stable
presence in the evening. She added that she has one staff
person and about five volunteers to surround the released women,
their families, and anyone else that the organization is working
with in the community.
MS. NELSON stated that on a larger scale, the organization has
developed relationships across the state with other people who
have open homes. She maintained that the operators of these
homes are all in contact to have the best practices and policies
in place. She asserted that these homes must be good neighbors;
and by being good neighbors, the operators have shifted hearts
and minds and demonstrated what recovery actually looks like.
She said that Haven House Juneau doesn't only have residents
with addictions; currently in the home there is a woman without
additions, who came out of prison with difficult charges and who
needed the support. She added that she works closely with DOC
and the Division of Probation and Parole (DPP).
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered that Ms. Nelson could describe the
operation and bid it. He asked for the duration of time for a
resident to stay in the home.
MS. NELSON replied that she can have someone live at the home
for up to two years. She added that there is a 30-day
probationary period for residents and living there is voluntary.
She works with DOC and the City and Borough of Juneau codes.
She stated that in Juneau, the ordinance was changed to allow
the home to be in a residential neighborhood; it was a 2-year
battle. She mentioned that there are different permits for
different locations in Alaska.
4:03:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that he thinks of a halfway house
as transitional living; the purpose is to transition someone
back into society. He offered that with that transition comes
coaching, guidance, counseling, and other opportunities. He
asked if that is still being done. He said that anyone still
interested in drugs could use them in or out of a small or large
facility; it is apparent from the news that there is still a
drug problem in major facilities. He suggested that
susceptibility to drug use occurs regardless of who surrounds
the resident. He asked whether the two-year maximum stay is a
requirement of release and if it is variable.
MS. NELSON answered that the length of time is dependent on the
person and her situation. She stated that in her program, staff
use individual action plans (IAPs) and work on long-term
employment goals with residents. She said the home offers a
"culture" of recovery; regardless of substance use or mental
health disorders, recovery is the focus. She relayed that 99
percent of the time, residents are dealing with substance use
and mental health disorders. She offered that the smaller
environments have a culture in which residents can see others
successfully reenter society. She said that Haven House Juneau
has a very strict program: it is not just a place to live; the
resident meets with someone once a week to review her goals;
staff are there to give rides and help with peer support to
guide residents through the process; there are urinary analyses
(UAs) and breathalyzer tests as well.
4:06:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Nelson whether it was necessary
for her to follow the conventional procurement process
procedures.
MS. NELSON responded that she is not familiar with the
procurement process.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether she has a contract for
operation of Haven House Juneau and if it required a lengthy
process.
MS. NELSON replied that Haven House Juneau cannot be considered
a halfway house due to the current procurement policies. She
said that the organization works very closely with institutional
and field probation officers, and with DOC. She said that
sometimes DOC will release someone who is not technically still
incarcerated. She maintained that HB 325 would allow Haven
House Juneau to take in people still serving their sentences.
She added that currently the home can have people with ankle
monitors who are still serving their sentences, but it is not
like a CRC to which prisoners are furloughed. She maintained
that this is the change that needs to occur for the small home
to work and be utilized. She mentioned other places around the
state that are piloting this model.
4:08:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL summarized by saying that under HB 325,
small facilities like Haven House Juneau could take people, who
are not technically released from prison, into halfway house
situations. He clarified that currently Haven House Juneau is a
voluntary program.
MS. NELSON responded yes.
4:09:34 PM
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), testified that AFN is
excited about the potential that HB 325 presents; she commended
Commissioner Williams for devising a creative solution. She
relayed that AFN is not so much focused on procurement rules but
on what is right and in the best interest of the state. She
stated that currently Alaska has a broken process. She
maintained that the probation and parole system is incredibly
expensive; it doesn't work; and it leads to rural offenders
being permanently stranded in the larger cities - Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. She said that AFN has been
working with Commissioner Williams and his staff to find a
creative solution to return these offenders back to their homes
and do it in a fiscally responsible manner.
MS. BORROMEO relayed that she encourages the committee to be
open to the proposal under HB 325. She said that change can be
scary; she asked them not to let "perfect be the enemy of good,"
because what is proposed under the legislation is a good idea in
concept. She stated that she would like to provide education to
committee members on the benefits of private programs to the
Native community.
4:12:08 PM
TERRIA WALTERS testified that she is the founder of Fallen Up
Ministries, a faith-based organization. She stated that she
supports HB 325, because her organization works with people who
are currently incarcerated and are coming out of incarceration.
She relayed that she was formerly incarcerated, has been in a
halfway house, and is now with almost 13 years of sobriety from
methamphetamine and opioid addiction. She stated that from her
experience and from what people who have been in halfway houses
report, there are massive amounts of drugs there. When people
who have been through drug addiction treatment are released from
prison and are trying to stay in recovery, then are put into a
place with a great deal of drugs, it is an issue. She stated
that her son passed away two and a half years ago; her son's
father is currently incarcerated for a federal offense; he is in
recovery for the first time, but his roommates are getting high.
MS. WALTERS relayed that small houses are more personal; there
are peer support specialists who can help individuals transition
back into the community by giving rides, help with resumes and
job applications, help with clothing, and help them build
relationships with family members. She maintained that the old
system does not work and has not worked for a long time. She
urged the committee to reconsider the transition process of
prisoners. She said that Fallen Up Ministries is looking into
opening transitional housing; the organization is in Palmer,
which has no such facility for released prisoners to live hear
their families. She maintained that the proposed legislation
would open many doors for individuals needing this type of
housing.
4:15:44 PM
BILLY CHRISTENSEN testified that he is on the board of directors
of Fallen Up Ministries. He commended Commissioner Williams for
introducing HB 325; Alaska obviously needs change, and it must
start somewhere. He relayed that the current procurement policy
prevents people like Kara Nelson, who has a successful business
model, from getting the type of funding she needs to continue
being successful and have her organization grow to its full
potential. He commended Ms. Nelson for her work.
MR. CHRISTENSEN offered that cost is currently one of the
biggest issues for the State of Alaska and changing the current
procurement process is key. He referred to testimony that
Alaska Natives are getting trapped in the cities with halfway
houses. He maintained that there is a homeless problem in
Anchorage, and many people are being released from halfway
houses with nowhere to go, no skills, and no money. He
maintained that HB 325 would help set people up for success and
allow for smaller reentry homes.
4:18:32 PM
MICHELLE OVERSTREET, Executive Director, MyHouse Matsu Homeless
Youth Center (MyHouse), testified that MyHouse is a (indisc.-
coughing) that is a stop-in center for homeless youth, which
offers food, clothing, showers, and laundry. She said that its
job training program has a 90 percent success rate in helping
youth remain housed; of the youth that complete the job training
internship, 98 percent are still housed two years later, and 80
percent are working at a job at or above the level at which they
were trained.
MS. OVERSTREET stated that she is in support of HB 325. She
mentioned that MyHouse has two transitional housing units that
can house five to seven young people - one for male residents
and one for female residents. She stated that in 2016, 60
percent of its young men reentered society, and that occurred
without [public] funding for the services that MyHouse provided.
She said that although she has not calculated the recidivism
rate, she is certain that it is not the 75 percent that is
normal for that age range. She offered that MyHouse can provide
wrap-around services that include mental health and peer support
on-site for recovery services through networking. She
maintained that the recovery statistics for the organization is
"mind-blowing"; however, it does not qualify for funding for the
services it provides. She said that the local prisoner reentry
program has funding, but MyHouse does not qualify because its
age range is only to age 24. She said that the question
becomes: "Do you want to do recidivism prevention between the
ages of 18 and 24, or do you want to leave it until they are 25
and older?" She maintained that the answer is: "We want to do
it when they're younger." She asserted that MyHouse has not
experienced any police issues with housing or complaints from
neighbors. It has live-in peer support staff.
MS. OVERSTREET summarized by saying that she believes Alaska can
do a better job. She mentioned that some people at Cordova
Center [halfway house] in Anchorage relapse the day they arrive,
and MyHouse receives a request to take them. She asked that the
committee support HB 325 and help her be able to serve the
prisoner population more effectively.
4:21:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 325 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB325 Sponsor Statement 2.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Sectional Analysis ver A 2.5.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 ver A 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Fiscal Note DOC 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document-Letter DHSS 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB319 Sponsor Statement 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB325 Supporting Document-Letter DHSS 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document testimony, T Eames CCTHITA 2.15.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB319 Ver. A 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document - AMIA Letter of Support 2.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document - NCSL Report 2.8.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document - Marijuana Control Board Minutes 2.8.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Fiscal Note DCCED 2.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Fiscal Note DPS 2.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HJR21-Sponsor Statement 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21 ver D 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21 Fiscal Note-LEG-SESS-02-09-18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21 Supporting Documents - Letters of Support 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21- Additional Document- Sessions Memo 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21- Additional Document- Walker Letter to Sessions 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21- Additional Document-Governor's Letter to Attorney General 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21 Additional Documents - FinCen on Marijuana Regulation Department of Treasury 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |
| HJR21 Additional Documents - Murkowski and Warren Letter to Sessions 2.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 21 |