Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/09/1997 08:06 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 224 - EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would consider HB 224, "An Act relating to the employment of prisoners." Number 090 DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Administrative Assistant to, Representative Ogan, came forward to testify on HB 224. He stated that this legislation was borne out of Representative Ogan's constituent concern that the state of Alaska was not providing enough meaningful activity for their prisoners in the correction system. The language of this legislation in its present form was provided by the Commissioner of Corrections. This codifies in law the authority that the Commissioner already has to make prisoners available to communities for work service projects. Contained therein are minimum criteria the Commissioner felt was necessary to assure public safety. MR. STANCLIFF added that Representative Ogan, by using this vehicle as a starting point, wanted to make clear that the legislature supports work programs and the philosophy that when someone commits a crime, repayment to society is a good principal for both the prisoner and communities. Half-way houses who now supervise many of the current work programs met with Representative Ogan's staff and the Corrections Commissioner. These half-way house providers are in the process of making alterations to the present language which Representative Ogan is not opposed to. Number 308 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked what community custody meant. MR. STANCLIFF responded that it was his understanding this term meant while the prisoner is engaged in a work program the community of which they are assigned has custody of him/her. They are still under the authority of the Department, but the community establishes a set of custody rules for this prisoner. Number 389 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if all incarcerated prisoners were under community custody. MR. STANCLIFF responded that all incarcerated prisoners who work in a program such as through a half-way house are part of community custody. Some of the interested parties want to change this term which has not been used in recent years. If individuals are in a work detail program, they are under community custody. Number 435 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if this legislation only applied to prisoners in half-way houses. MR. STANCLIFF responded that at this point the answer is yes. This does not change the current program in effect. This legislation is to increase what's happening presently. The Commissioner suggested this language to set out as a minimum standard what the public should expect in terms of minimum, medium custody prisoners and how they would be treated if they were working within the community work program. Number 492 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to line 14, page 1, of HB 224 and noted that the term "correctional facility" connotated prison to him but asked if this term included half-way houses. MR. STANCLIFF responded that prisoners who are released to a half- way house from a correctional facility and then put on a work detail is typically how the system works. Number 529 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that this legislation did not affect main stream prisoners but those individuals in half-way houses. CHAIRMAN IVAN commented that in his own community of Akiak they sometimes receive the court ordered community service prisoners who are released to the community and they are required to report periodically to the court system. He thought this program ran parallel to what's proposed in this legislation. MR. STANCLIFF noted that this legislation would give the Commissioner the authority and the flexibility to exercise either option, the option which Representative Ivan detailed, and it does not tie the Commissioner into working with just half-way house individuals. Number 669 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that if indeed the criteria is followed here to provide an armed guard for every five medium or close custody prisoners it seemed to him that this would take additional personnel with a cost incurred. He didn't understand the zero fiscal note. He wondered who would bear the cost of this and whether the organization who gets the labor done for them is going to be required to pay these extra costs. MR. STANCLIFF noted that this was a good point. Presently there are discussions between the department and the half-way house providers where this system is already established. They're concerned that this would establish a criteria that may incur additional costs. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, if there are additional costs, these will be reflected in a future fiscal note. This is another reason why there is continued discussion regarding this legislation. Number 772 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked what the difference between community custody and furlough was. MARGO KNUTH, Department of Law, Criminal Division, came forward to testify on HB 224. Community custody is when someone has been released to a half-way house and unsupervised employment or community work service is contemplated in (e)(1). The Department of Corrections worked with the sponsor to help craft this legislation. This bill represents their current policies and procedures. Part (2) of this legislation applies to people who are in prisons and jails. All prisoners are suppose to be productive at least 40 hours a week. When this productivity is outside of the institution, they already use one staff member to supervise minimum custody details and noted that there was one armed officer for every five medium custody prisoners. This is why there is a zero fiscal note from the Department of Corrections. MS. KNUTH continued that this legislation codifies the Department of Corrections' current practices. There is no new fiscal impact for the department. The half-way houses think that it might cost some money to find jobs and make sure that the people in their custody are either assigned to work detail or community work for 35 hours a week. There are discussions now about whether this represents a change for them or not. "We had thought that that's what the policy was and that's what they're doing already. So, we're just getting some information that maybe that's not so." Number 958 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if this community custody made the assumption that these individuals engaged in this community work are currently unemployed and if they are employed will they do community work in addition to paid work. MS. KNUTH responded that they must do one or the other and be productive at least 35 hours a week. If they're employed, this counts. If they're not employed and they can't find a paying job, this legislation gives the individual the option of conducting community work service as a supplement to any paid employment to work a total of 35 hours or work community service instead if they can't find a job. Number 1016 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if this would apply to those individuals who are not in state correctional institutions, i.e. community prison facilities. MS. KNUTH responded that this legislation applies to those who are serving a term of imprisonment which could be in a half-way house, a community correctional center, as opposed to someone who is on parole, probation or furlough. "If you're not getting credit for time served, so to speak, this bill would not apply to you." It's only for those individuals who get credit for time served be it through a half-way house or any of their other institutions. Number 1080 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that it was his understanding that the people in the medium security prisons or half-way houses are individuals encouraged to continue present employment, to find something on their own and or/do community service. MS. KNUTH responded that this was correct. Number 1105 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN continued that it seemed the half-way houses "are looking as though there's a cost implied." It appeared to him that they are looking for another source of funding. If this is something that's already being done there's no reasonable assumption...we're not asking them to run an employment agency, are we? MS. KNUTH noted that they were not. Number 1124 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN added that his questions were about the medium and the close supervision people. He said he would like to see this legislation enacted. He wasn't sure if they wanted a "chain- gang" in Alaska, but at the same time he asked what kind of employment they envisioned for these individuals. MS. KNUTH responded that they have them working on trail maintenance and there are places where they need fire breaks, so basically it's labor like this where it's easier to supervise the workers, usually in an outdoor environment. Number 1174 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if these individuals were normally confined in a penal institution doing nothing? MS. KNUTH stated that the only time they have individuals sitting around not doing anything is if they are in a particularly segregated lock down situation for some problem, basically in the hold. Otherwise, all prisoners in the custody of the state is doing something productive, 40 hours a week. This assumes there is enough funding for supervision. She also noted that this applied to both male and female prisoners. Number 1273 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he was skeptical that prisoners are productive 40 hours a week, but he didn't understand the zero fiscal note for prisoners working outside of the correctional facilities for medium and close custody folks. MS. KNUTH responded that the fiscal note would reflect what increase and cost this bill creates. The bill doesn't create an increase in costs because they're performing these tasks already. She encouraged any member of the legislature to come to their institutions to see what these prisoners are doing and assured the committee that prisoners were kept productive. Number 1344 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he inquired of the Department of Transportation (DOT) if it was practical to use prisoners for clearing right-of-ways. There is almost none of this going on because of budget constraints and noted problems with overgrown brush on highways. The DOT has been trying to work with corrections to do these types of projects and ran into very practical problems. The net result was that it wasn't worth their trouble. He asked for suggestions to address these problems. MS. KNUTH responded that these problems did exist but they needed to do the work to make it work. In regards to many of these work service situations it would be easier of the departments to do these types of things themselves than to get these individuals to do it but the benefits in the long run are worth it. The problem will probably always exist of not knowing who is going to be available for this work. She thought that government to government coordination is necessary and something that can be achieved. The Department of Corrections works successfully with Natural Resources with their trail blazing program and the fire break projects. Number 1524 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON applauded these efforts, but his sense is from overcrowding a classification system of prisoners has been lost which is something that makes this project difficult to accomplish. He suggested that the Department of Corrections is in a better position to make the logistics work such as providing transportation and making the prisoners lunches. MS. KNUTH stated that the mixed population issue brought up was particularly accurate and insightful for many of the facilities acting partially or almost exclusively as a jail. These types of programs might work better with facilities that have a more homogenous population by classification. She used Ketchikan as an example where they have 65 prisoners that span from maximum custody pretrial to a three day DWI individual. This could be a problem. Number 1654 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if she meant to infer that they cannot require prisoners to do this type of work. MS. KNUTH responded, "not at all." Number 1712 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked why they can't know how many people would be available to work on any given day? MS. KNUTH responded because of the turnover of the population. She stated that they cycle 40,000 prisoners a year but on any given day they only have 4,000 in custody. She outlined the intricate procedure of moving someone through the system. Out of the 4,000, she noted that the longer term pool of individuals are those that they should use for these projects. Number 1720 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the 4,000 individuals noted were from just half-way houses. MS. KNUTH responded, "both." The bill actually goes to both. Number 1740 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked for clarification about the department "doing" this already and wondered if they do so under regulation. MS. KNUTH responded that this was in policies and procedures. This legislation now before the committee would become a codification that would keep these standards in place regardless of administration change overs. Number 1776 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked about groups that are supervised away from a facility. He wondered if they would need an extra staff person. He asked if they had enough staff to do this in light of the budget cuts. MS. KNUTH noted that this was a good question. She said she didn't know the answer to it because the Corrections budget this year is extremely large. It's going to impact the ability to have programs with the amount of supervision necessary. Number 1840 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the fiscal note and stated that while they already do this in policy, in fact, this will probably cost the department money. MS. KNUTH stated that this program cost money and it's money that's currently spent this way. If this money is taken away from them this is what makes it difficult but it still isn't a new expense. It's just a new debt. Number 1865 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "I'm getting to feel like I'm in one of those medieval discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." He said he didn't understand what the confusion was about. He said they have administrative practice, the people to set up an administrative program which is what the department does, they transport prisoners, they feed them, etc. The department has guards for the prisoners and if a certain portion of the population is gone the people who normally guard them can go along too without an undue hardship. MS. KNUTH stated that this was where the difference came in. It takes more guarding to leave the institution with these prisoners than to keep them in the institutions. An individual is needed to drive and someone from the department could give numbers on what the staff/prisoner ratio is within the institution and what it is outside. Right now they do not have two guards for every five prisoners for those in closed custody but one guard for every five. "If you're going to take them out, you're actually doubling the amount of personnel involved there." Number 1945 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "it would seem to me that if we were going to do some work that might be done normally by a department that they have a portion in their budget to pay for that work to be done, however they do it previously and if we were to use prison labor that charges could be made for that labor." This would help compensate and off-set the cost of using this labor. Just because someone is incarcerated doesn't mean that the fruits of their labor is not worth compensation. He noted a letter to Representative Dyson from Commissioner Perkins outlining the logistics of using prison labor for the department's projects and compared this situation to swatting a mosquito, like something annoying that needs to be taken care of. It's a good idea but nobody wants to take the upper hand to make it work. He thought it was a good bill and on it's face had value. CHAIRMAN IVAN commended this legislation and noted that there were five levels of custody which must be considered in light of this proposal. He added that levels of custody are determined through classification hearings and scoring to decide the amount of supervision which is needed for these folks. He also noted that there was a lot of work to be done by all the departments involved, along with fiscal note considerations. Number 2108 LEO LAND came forward to testify on HB 224. He stated that he has been a prisoner and a guard. He noted that they didn't need two or three guards for five prisoners. During his time of incarceration, for an army infraction, he was guarded by someone with a bayonet who followed him around. He added that he had no intention of trying to escape and didn't think that most prisoners wanted to do so either. As to the fiscal note, he thought that the work done on roads, for the Forest Service, etc., done by contractors would be more expensive than paying someone to guard these individuals in a work program. Number 2222 GREG PEASE, Executive Director, Gastineau Human Services (GHS), came forward to testify on HB 224. He stated that this organization runs the Community Residential Center (CRC) for the Department of Corrections. He also noted that he was the Regional Vice-President of the International Community Corrections Association representing half-way house operations (private, for profit, and non-profit) in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. MR. PEASE applauded the efforts and the intent of this legislation to take advantage of prison labor in the form of community work service to benefit projects that might go undone in the community settings. Most of the questions deal with the higher security levels needed. GHS already does what's in this legislation with over 40,000 hours of community work service around the Juneau area with prisoners in community custody. He noted how prisoners pick up recycled paper in the capitol almost every day. He said this was just one of the minor projects they were engaged in. MR. PEASE stated that they were trying to craft language in this present legislation which would benefit organizations such as GHS. For furloughs right now, prisoners are required to conduct a minimum of five days of community work service and they have a maximum of 30 days before they have to find gainful employment. This legislation is in addition to this already existing situation, as well as substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, anger management, vocational rehabilitation, etc. Number 2330 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if his organization dealt with close supervision or medium custody individuals? MR. PEASE responded that their organization dealt with community custody level individuals. Lemon Creek individuals will come to their facilities once they've been reclassified to community custody level. Number 2349 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if Mr. Pease thought that extra officers would be needed to deal with medium to close custody individuals. MR. PEASE responded that this was a risk level. If prisoners are taken out of the institutions and out in the community with higher risk levels on their classifications then this is a decision that will need to be made. The reason why there is a standard set for so many guards to so many prisoners is for public safety since these different classifications need to be considered. Number 2382 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if prisoners were not classified according to the sentence they receive. He asked if there wasn't a criteria used to identify these individuals. MR. PEASE responded that the classification in addition to the offense was based on how the prisoner has acted inside the institution and accordingly their risk level may be changed. He didn't think there was an inherent problem to this classification system and how it's conducted. Number 2437 CHAIRMAN IVAN stated that he would hold bill House Bill 224 over in committee since there was coordination work to be done by all the parties involved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|