Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519

04/26/2019 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:45:24 PM Start
01:46:04 PM HB20
02:13:50 PM Presentation: Rearrest within 7 Days
02:46:58 PM Presentation: Criminal Justice Reform in Alaska
03:36:24 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 1:45 pm --
Scheduled but Not Heard
<Pending Referral>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+ Presentation: Criminal Justice Reform in Alaska TELECONFERENCED
- Susanne DiPietro, Exec. Dir., Alaska Judicial
- Troy Payne, Ph. D. Assoc. Prof., Justice
Center, Assoc. Dir. Alaska Justice Information
Center, University of Alaska Anchorage
Heard & Held
Uniform Rule 23 Waived
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      April 26, 2019                                                                                            
                         1:45 p.m.                                                                                              
1:45:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Wilson  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:45 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair                                                                                    
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Ben Carpenter                                                                                                    
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Representative Gary Knopp                                                                                                       
Representative Bart LeBon                                                                                                       
Representative Kelly Merrick                                                                                                    
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard                                                                                         
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Representative Geran  Tarr, Bill Sponsor;  Stephanie Andrew,                                                                    
Staff,  Representative Geran  Tarr; Carmen  Lowry, Director,                                                                    
Alaska  network on  Domestic  Violence  and Sexual  Assault;                                                                    
Susanne  DiPietro,   Executive  Director,   Alaska  Judicial                                                                    
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Carly  Wells,  Sexual   Assault  Advocate,  Fairbanks;  Troy                                                                    
Payne, Ph.D. Associate  Professor, Justice Center, Associate                                                                    
Director, Alaska  Justice Information Center,  University of                                                                    
Alaska Anchorage.                                                                                                               
HB 20     SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS                                                                                       
          HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
HB 145    PROPERTY CRIME; MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT TOOLS                                                                             
          HB 145 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.                                                                                   
PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN ALASKA                                                                                 
PRESENTATION: REARREST WITHIN 7 DAYS                                                                                            
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the agenda for the day.                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 20                                                                                                             
     "An  Act requiring  law  enforcement  agencies to  send                                                                    
     sexual assault examination kits  for testing within six                                                                    
     months   after  collection;   and   providing  for   an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
1:46:04 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GERAN  TARR,  BILL SPONSOR,  introduced  the                                                                    
PowerPoint  Presentation: "HB  20" and  drew attention  to a                                                                    
handout, Standing  Together Against Rape (STAR)  2019 Policy                                                                    
Priorities, to help with context.                                                                                               
Representative  Tarr  provided some  background  information                                                                    
beginning on slide 2. She  explained there were two parts to                                                                    
the  bill.  The   first  dealt  with  one   of  STAR's  2019                                                                    
priorities. The second part of  the bill was related to what                                                                    
she referred  to as the next  phase of the rape  kit reform.                                                                    
She had  started working on rape  kit reform in the  fall of                                                                    
2014. At the  time, she did not know the  number of untested                                                                    
rape kits  there were in  the state.  The first step  was to                                                                    
complete  an audit.  She  was  able to  get  the audit  into                                                                    
another crime bill  which was how she learned  the state had                                                                    
3400 untested rape kits. At the  same time there was a crime                                                                    
lab audit that  that went into the bill. She  had found some                                                                    
problems with  the way  rape kits  were handled  through the                                                                    
crime  lab. For  example,  prior  to the  audit  a chain  of                                                                    
custody  system  was  not  in  place.  The  rape  kits  were                                                                    
prepared  in Anchorage  and sent  out  to the  over 200  law                                                                    
enforcement  agencies  statewide  but without  any  tracking                                                                    
information.  There  was  no  way  to  know,  once  it  left                                                                    
Anchorage  whether  it was  used,  misused,  or lost.  As  a                                                                    
result of  the crime lab  audit, there  was a new  system in                                                                    
place that  had unique identifiers  for each kit as  it left                                                                    
the  crime  lab in  Anchorage,  as  it  went  out to  a  law                                                                    
enforcement  agency, and  as it  returned to  Anchorage. The                                                                    
kits would all be stored in Anchorage.                                                                                          
Representative  Tarr continued  that  some other  provisions                                                                    
were part of HB 31. She  explained that she had been working                                                                    
with  a  national  organization   called  the  Joyful  Heart                                                                    
Foundation. They  had what they  called, "The  Survivor Bill                                                                    
of Rights." Some  of the ideas had come  from the foundation                                                                    
and were ideas  Alaska took into consideration. In  HB 31 in                                                                    
the  prior year  she included  the victim-centered  approach                                                                    
which  allowed an  individual, after  a sexual  assault, two                                                                    
options for submitting the kit.  One was called an anonymous                                                                    
report allowing  the person to  have the  evidence collected                                                                    
because  of time  sensitivity (the  kit had  to administered                                                                    
within  72  hours  of  the event).  She  spoke  of  recently                                                                    
hearing about  a case that  was thrown out of  court because                                                                    
they stated  that it  was not collected  in a  timely enough                                                                    
fashion. Sometimes  a person  did not  want to  decide about                                                                    
moving forward  with the criminal  portion, such  as working                                                                    
with law  enforcement and going through  the courts, because                                                                    
of  the  trauma  associated  with the  sexual  assault.  The                                                                    
anonymous  report   allowed  them   to  have   the  evidence                                                                    
collected but be able to  decide later. The other option was                                                                    
the  law  enforcement  report  for  an  individual  who  was                                                                    
deciding   whether  they   wanted  to   move  forward   with                                                                    
prosecution at the time the kit was collected.                                                                                  
Representative  Tarr conveyed  that the  bill also  required                                                                    
training  for all  law enforcement  professionals in  sexual                                                                    
assault response. Prior  to HB 31 the  statute only required                                                                    
training on domestic violence. She  wanted to make sure that                                                                    
Alaska's  law  enforcement  professionals  had  training  on                                                                    
both. The pieces  that were not included and were  a part of                                                                    
HB 20  were a  timeline established  for testing  and victim                                                                    
notification  once  the  testing  occurred.  She  wanted  to                                                                    
provide the  committee with  context of  all the  pieces she                                                                    
had been  trying to  incorporate. She was  proud of  all the                                                                    
work  on   the  issues  over   the  past  few   years.  Some                                                                    
significant  improvements  had  been made  to  how  Alaska's                                                                    
system worked.                                                                                                                  
Representative  Tarr   stated  that  she  would   skip  over                                                                    
sections  1, 2  and 3  and  move to  section 4  on slide  6:                                                                    
"Section 4: Sexual Assault  Examination Kits." She explained                                                                    
that she wanted to establish  the timeline for when the kits                                                                    
had to be tested and  a victim notification requirement. One                                                                    
of the  things she learned  when she started working  on the                                                                    
issue  was that  some  of the  untested  kits were  multiple                                                                    
years  old. There  were some  that were  more than  a decade                                                                    
old. She  reported that in  the court system  sometimes kits                                                                    
would  not be  tested until  the  cases went  to court.  The                                                                    
delay  could be  a couple  of years  from the  incident. She                                                                    
conveyed  how difficult  it was  for the  victim to  have to                                                                    
wait.  The   bill  established   that  the   sexual  assault                                                                    
examination kits had  to be sent to the crime  lab within 30                                                                    
days of collection.  She had reached out  to law enforcement                                                                    
to  make  sure  the  timeline was  not  overburdensome.  She                                                                    
talked  to  the  Alaska  State Troopers  and  the  Anchorage                                                                    
Police Department  and everyone confirmed that  the timeline                                                                    
was a good standard.                                                                                                            
Representative Tarr reported that  sexual assault kits would                                                                    
also have  to be  tested within one  year. When  she started                                                                    
looking into the issue, she  discovered that the process was                                                                    
taking an  average of  18 months.  Currently, the  state has                                                                    
reduced the  timeframe to 10  months. She would like  to get                                                                    
to  the place  where 1  year became  6 months  and 6  months                                                                    
became 30  days. However, the  state needed to  work through                                                                    
the process  to build  capacity first.  She worked  with the                                                                    
crime lab  and established that  1 year was  more reasonable                                                                    
than 6  months which was why  she changed it. She  wanted to                                                                    
have some  certainty. She furthered that  when an individual                                                                    
experienced  sexual  assault  they  knew when  the  kit  was                                                                    
collected, when it would go to  the crime lab, when it would                                                                    
be  tested, and  that the  victim would  be notified  by law                                                                    
enforcement that  the testing was  complete. With  a process                                                                    
and  timeline in  place it  would help  avoid retraumatizing                                                                    
the victim. One  of the unfortunate things  that happened in                                                                    
sexual assault  cases was  that if  an individual  wanted to                                                                    
know what was  going on with their case, they  would have to                                                                    
retell  the story  over-and-over  which further  traumatized                                                                    
the victim.                                                                                                                     
1:53:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Knopp clarified  that  the  victim would  be                                                                    
notified within 2 weeks of testing  which could take up to 1                                                                    
year to  be processed. Representative Tarr  responded in the                                                                    
affirmative.  She   added  that   currently  there   was  no                                                                    
timeline.  She had  confirmed with  law enforcement  2 weeks                                                                    
was  a reasonable  amount of  time for  them to  receive the                                                                    
test results and report back to the victim.                                                                                     
Representative Knopp asked  how long it took  to receive the                                                                    
results  once the  kit  was  processed. Representative  Tarr                                                                    
replied that  currently, the kits  that were  backlogged had                                                                    
been  sent  out   of  state.  She  reported   that  part  of                                                                    
strengthening  the capacity  of the  crime lab  was to  make                                                                    
sure everything  was happening  in-state. Recent  cases were                                                                    
being processed  in-state, and  she wanted  to keep  it that                                                                    
way. She  wanted to make  sure the timelines worked  for the                                                                    
current level of state staffing.                                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson  asked, for those  anonymous kits,  if there                                                                    
was a  data base that would  show whether a person  had been                                                                    
involved  in another  potential  crime. Representative  Tarr                                                                    
conveyed  that it  was her  understanding that  if a  victim                                                                    
chose  to do  an  anonymous  report, the  kit  would not  be                                                                    
tested  until such  time as  they chose  to have  it tested.                                                                    
There were  circumstances in which a  state prosecutor would                                                                    
want  to  move  forward  with  the  victim  in  a  Jane  Doe                                                                    
capacity. Under  such a circumstance, if  there was evidence                                                                    
of a  perpetrator of  more than one  crime, they  might move                                                                    
forward without requiring participation from the victim.                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson suggested there  was not a current mechanism                                                                    
that would allow  evidence to be used  without involving the                                                                    
victim.   Representative   Tarr   suggested  that   in   the                                                                    
circumstance  presented  by  Co-Chair  Wilson  the  survivor                                                                    
could give  permission to test  their kit. She  thought that                                                                    
someone  from  the  Department of  Law  could  provide  more                                                                    
detail  on the  issue. She  thought the  circumstances could                                                                    
move toward  testing. It  was different  in that  the victim                                                                    
was granting their permission.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson indicated  that  the  Department of  Public                                                                    
Safety  (DPS) would  be  present at  the  meetings over  the                                                                    
weekend and, the topic could be revisited.                                                                                      
1:57:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Tarr  turned to slides  7 and 8  dealing with                                                                    
sexual  examination   kits.  She  referred  to   the  Justin                                                                    
Schneider case. One of the  things that made it difficult to                                                                    
move the  case forward was  losing contact with  the victim.                                                                    
When the  case went into the  court room it was  a "He said,                                                                    
she  said" scenario,  and there  was  no one  to defend  the                                                                    
victim's  side of  the story.  She indicated  that when  she                                                                    
first started  to address  the issue,  she wanted  every kit                                                                    
tested no  matter the circumstances  because of  not wanting                                                                    
to miss an opportunity to  find evidence against a dangerous                                                                    
person. However,  the U.S. Department  of Justice put  out a                                                                    
white  paper  about  the  importance  of  having  a  victim-                                                                    
centered  approach  when doing  the  reforms  which was  the                                                                    
reason for  an anonymous  report. Much of  the time  when an                                                                    
individual chose  an anonymous report initially,  they later                                                                    
chose to go  forward. If an assault occurred  in a community                                                                    
with a Sexual  Assault Response Team (SART),  the team would                                                                    
have a sexual assault nurse  examiner, a police officer, and                                                                    
an  advocate present  to  avoid the  victim  having to  tell                                                                    
their  story multiple  times. Alaska  had a  very fragmented                                                                    
system for the SART, only  6 communities in Alaska had them.                                                                    
She  reemphasized that  depending on  where a  person lived,                                                                    
the overall experience could be  very overwhelming and could                                                                    
result in a person choosing to remain anonymous.                                                                                
Representative  Tarr  continued  to  slide  9:  "Section  7:                                                                    
Sexual  Assault Examination  Kits." She  explained that  the                                                                    
audit  report   was  included  in  members'   handouts.  The                                                                    
information  helped to  understand what  was happening  with                                                                    
the backlog and prosecutions  and to further improvements to                                                                    
the  system.  In  working with  some  advocates,  there  was                                                                    
interest  in understanding  why some  of the  kits were  not                                                                    
tested. The  sections added  language that  identified three                                                                    
categories needed. She read the slide:                                                                                          
     Title 44: State Government                                                                                                 
          Chapter 41: Department of Public Safety                                                                               
               Section 70: Report on Untested Sexual                                                                            
               Assault Examination Kits                                                                                         
     Amends 44.41.070 to add a new subsection (e) to read                                                                       
     A  sexual assault  examination  kit  is ineligible  for                                                                    
     testing  if   the  law  enforcement  agency   or  state                                                                    
     department  finds that  the sexual  assault examination                                                                    
          (1) was collected improperly                                                                                          
          (2) is not necessary to identify the perpetrator                                                                      
          of the crime; or                                                                                                      
          (3) was collected from a person who does not wish                                                                     
          to proceed with criminal charges.                                                                                     
Representative  Tarr  highlighted  the second  item  on  the                                                                    
list. She  indicated it was important  because sometimes the                                                                    
kits weren't tested. In some  instances, the identity of the                                                                    
individuals  involved   were  known,  but  consent   was  in                                                                    
question.  She  furthered  that in  states  where  they  had                                                                    
conducted  the testing,  they  found  more serial  offenders                                                                    
than expected. For  example, in Detroit, they  found hits in                                                                    
the DNA database in 39 other  states. She had been told that                                                                    
it would not be difficult  to integrate the additional items                                                                    
into the audit reports that were already being prepared.                                                                        
2:01:59 PM                                                                                                                    
STEPHANIE  ANDREW, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE GERAN  TARR, noted                                                                    
that the  language had changed  slightly in the  most recent                                                                    
version  of the  bill.  The criteria  included  the kit  was                                                                    
scientifically   unviable,   did    not   meet   eligibility                                                                    
requirements for  the inclusion  in the CODIS  [Combined DNA                                                                    
Index System] database, and was  collected from a person who                                                                    
wished  to remain  anonymous. The  concept was  the same  as                                                                    
what  Representative  Tarr  had  discussed  from  the  first                                                                    
draft. However,  the language was  the same as  the language                                                                    
used by DPS in their report to the legislature.                                                                                 
Representative Tarr  asked members  to pull up  the document                                                                    
listing the Star priorities. She  relayed that the committee                                                                    
would be  hearing public  testimony from  representatives of                                                                    
STAR and the Alaska Network  on Domestic Violence and Sexual                                                                    
Assault.  She drew  attention to  the first  policy priority                                                                    
which was  to rename "Sexual  Assault in the  Second Degree"                                                                    
to "Sexual  Contact with or Penetration  of an Incapacitated                                                                    
Person."  The  first  priority was  related  to  the  second                                                                    
priority,  rewriting  the  consent definition.  The  current                                                                    
consent definition in Alaska's  statute suggested that force                                                                    
had to be used.                                                                                                                 
Representative    Tarr    elaborated   that    there    were                                                                    
circumstances where  a person was  incapacitated. Therefore,                                                                    
there were no  visible signs of force. When  such cases went                                                                    
before a jury, the jury  was often left thinking an incident                                                                    
was  not sexual  assault because  they did  not see  visible                                                                    
signs  of force.  STAR wanted  to strengthen  the definition                                                                    
for  sexual assault  in  the second  degree  to address  the                                                                    
issue.  The  suggestion  on  STAR's  list  was  rejected  by                                                                    
Legislative  Legal Services  because sexual  assault in  the                                                                    
second   degree  contained   more  than   the  piece   about                                                                    
interaction with an incapacitated  person. They did not want                                                                    
to redefine  the entire  category of  sexual assault  in the                                                                    
second degree. Instead, they wanted to update the language.                                                                     
Representative Tarr  asked members  to look  in the  bill in                                                                    
the sections regarding sexual assault  in the first, second,                                                                    
and third degrees.  She drew attention to page  1, lines 13-                                                                    
14 of  the bill which she  read. By removing the  words "the                                                                    
offender  knows" the  default was  what a  reasonable person                                                                    
should know. The grey area of  how much a person knew or did                                                                    
not  know  was  removed.  The issue  was  addressed  in  the                                                                    
current bill and in the  Senate's version, SB 35. There were                                                                    
3  or  4  iterations  of the  language.  She  suggested  the                                                                    
language  was  what  everyone  had landed  on  and  was  the                                                                    
cleanest  version to  tighten things  up.  The language  was                                                                    
repeated in Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3.                                                                                
Representative Tarr  mentioned that there were  folks online                                                                    
that could answer questions. She  noted working with Senator                                                                    
Hughes on the definition of consent.                                                                                            
Co-Chair Wilson  indicated there was invited  testimony. She                                                                    
also  indicated  the  committee   would  be  hearing  public                                                                    
testimony the following day at 3:30 P.M.                                                                                        
2:07:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CARMEN LOWRY, DIRECTOR, ALASKA  NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE                                                                    
and  SEXUAL  ASSAULT,  reported that  the  entity  had  been                                                                    
talking  about   the  bill  extensively  for   a  long  time                                                                    
particularly because  Representative Tarr had  been involved                                                                    
in  the Sexual  Assault  Kit Initiative  (SAKI).  It was  an                                                                    
initiative supported by the state  to address the backlog of                                                                    
sexual  assault kits.  She  highlighted how  victim-centered                                                                    
the bill  was. It allowed  for victims  to be very  clear on                                                                    
what would  happen. She indicated that  the sections clearly                                                                    
outlined  the timeframes.  The  kit went  to  the crime  lab                                                                    
allowing  a  certain  amount of  time  for  processing.  Law                                                                    
enforcement  had  a  certain  amount  of  time  to  get  the                                                                    
information back. Knowing the  time perimeters were critical                                                                    
to  allow  a  victim  to understand  that  they  were  being                                                                    
treated with  respect and their  kit was being  treated with                                                                    
respect.  She returned  to what  had been  discussed earlier                                                                    
about anonymous testing.  She relayed that for  a person who                                                                    
went to  a hospital  to get  a sexual  assault exam,  it was                                                                    
sometimes  difficult to  make a  life  altering decision  to                                                                    
move forward  with reporting. She was  thrilled that victims                                                                    
could get  health care and  have a trained  medical provider                                                                    
to  explain  the forensic  exam.  They  could also  have  an                                                                    
advocate  present.  A  victim  could  hold  off  making  any                                                                    
decisions until  later. She thanked Representative  Tarr and                                                                    
the committee for the opportunity to speak on the bill.                                                                         
2:10:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CARLY  WELLS,   SEXUAL  ASSAULT  ADVOCATE,   FAIRBANKS  (via                                                                    
teleconference), spoke  in support of  HB 20. She  could not                                                                    
stress enough  the importance of  passing HB 20.  Alaska was                                                                    
the highest in  the nation for sexual assault  in the middle                                                                    
of an  epidemic. She reported  that the healing  journey for                                                                    
victims  was  long,  painful,  and  difficult.  Passing  the                                                                    
legislation would  give a level  of dignity back  to someone                                                                    
by knowing  a timeframe  when their  kit would  be processed                                                                    
rather than  it sitting  on a shelf  for an  unknown period.                                                                    
She argued  that having a  year would provide some  peace of                                                                    
mind.  A  victim would  know  they  would not  be  receiving                                                                    
multiple  calls years  later with  the  results, a  frequent                                                                    
occurrence to many victims nationwide.  Passing the bill did                                                                    
not bring extra costs in  getting the kits tested and showed                                                                    
how  much the  state  cared about  getting  justice for  the                                                                    
victims  in   a  reasonable  timeframe.  She   stressed  the                                                                    
importance  of  passing  the  bill  to  avoid  revictimizing                                                                    
individuals and  causing them undue trauma.  She thanked the                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson asked members if  they had questions for the                                                                    
folks  online.  Seeing  none, she  indicated  the  committee                                                                    
would set the bill aside.                                                                                                       
HB  20  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
^PRESENTATION: REARREST WITHIN 7 DAYS                                                                                         
2:13:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that Mr. Payne was online.                                                                            
2:14:03 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
2:14:50 PM                                                                                                                    
TROY  PAYNE,  PH.D.  ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR,  JUSTICE  CENTER,                                                                    
ASSOCIATE  DIRECTOR,  ALASKA   JUSTICE  INFORMATION  CENTER,                                                                    
UNIVERSITY OF  ALASKA ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), would                                                                    
discuss an  analysis that  the folks  at the  Alaska Justice                                                                    
Center  had been  doing on  arrest data  they received  from                                                                    
DPS. He  provided a brief  background of the  Alaska Justice                                                                    
Information Center  and the  University of  Alaska Anchorage                                                                    
Justice Center.  He introduced the  PowerPoint Presentation:                                                                    
"Rearrest within 7 days."                                                                                                       
Mr. Payne  turned to  slide 2:  "Data Source."  He indicated                                                                    
that  the analysis  he  was presenting  used  data that  was                                                                    
required  by   AS  44.19.645.  The  statute   required  that                                                                    
agencies  reported certain  individually identified  data to                                                                    
the Alaska Criminal Justice  Commission. The Alaska Judicial                                                                    
Council would  provide additional  information later  in the                                                                    
presentation. Among the data required  to be reported to the                                                                    
commission  were arrest  and citation  data as  collected by                                                                    
DPS and  recorded in the  arrest history repository  for the                                                                    
Mr.  Payne  moved  to  slide 3:  "DPS  arrest  and  citation                                                                    
Charge-level  data." The  Department of  Public Safety  data                                                                    
had charge-level  information on all felony  arrests, felony                                                                    
citations,  misdemeanor arrests,  and misdemeanor  citations                                                                    
covering a period beginning in  July of 2014 through the end                                                                    
of the  calendar year of  2018. He  noted that the  data did                                                                    
not  include infractions,  violations, and  charges with  no                                                                    
arrest tracking numbers.                                                                                                        
2:18:00 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Payne advanced  to slide 4: "Methods."  He reported that                                                                    
what he  received from  DPS was a  large table  with several                                                                    
columns. There was  one record or row per  charge. The table                                                                    
contained  222,313  charges  between July  1,  2014  through                                                                    
December 31,  2018. Only  a handful of  fields were  used to                                                                    
collect   data    including   an   Alaska    Public   Safety                                                                    
Identification  Number  (ASPIN)   ID  -  the  identification                                                                    
number  that uniquely  identified a  person. It  was like  a                                                                    
Social  Security  Number  but   for  interactions  with  the                                                                    
criminal justice  system. Other field uses  for the analysis                                                                    
included  the  arrest  date, the  arrest  statute,  and  the                                                                    
arrest tracking  number which was  a unique  tracking number                                                                    
attached to each arrest.                                                                                                        
Co-Chair Wilson asked how  many individuals were responsible                                                                    
for committing  the 222,313 charges. Mr.  Payne would follow                                                                    
up with the committee.                                                                                                          
Representative LeBon  asked him  to include  multiple repeat                                                                    
offenders.  Mr.  Payne  replied   that  the  Alaska  Justice                                                                    
Information  Center  was  actively   working  the  data.  He                                                                    
encouraged members  to make information requests  related to                                                                    
the analyses.                                                                                                                   
Mr. Payne continued to slide  5: "Methods: Calculate days to                                                                    
next arrest."  He explained that  what his  organization was                                                                    
looking  at was  how many  people were  rearrested within  a                                                                    
short  period  of  time.  If someone  was  arrested  in  the                                                                    
present  day,  he would  be  looking  at whether  they  were                                                                    
arrested within the following 7  days. That was the analysis                                                                    
he was presenting  in the committing meeting.  He wanted the                                                                    
broadest  picture possible  of individuals  who were  having                                                                    
multiple engagements  with the criminal justice  system in a                                                                    
very short period. He calculated  the number of days between                                                                    
an  arrest  and   the  next  arrest  for   that  person.  He                                                                    
determined whether  it was  7 days or  less and  counted the                                                                    
number  of people  who were  rearrested for  every week.  He                                                                    
would  show  the  information  plotted on  a  chart  on  the                                                                    
following slide.                                                                                                                
Mr. Payne turned to the chart  on slide 6: "Number of people                                                                    
rearrested  within  7 days."  He  explained  that the  slide                                                                    
started  with  the chart  construction.  He  noted that  the                                                                    
chart started with  only one dot representing  the number of                                                                    
people  that   were  arrested  in   a  specific   week  then                                                                    
rearrested within 7 days.                                                                                                       
Mr. Payne advanced to slide  7: "Number of people rearrested                                                                    
within  7  days."  The  number of  arrests  each  week  were                                                                    
plotted on  the chart.  Moving forward in  time there  was a                                                                    
scatter  of  dots  over  time. He  reiterated  that  he  was                                                                    
looking at the  number of people who  were rearrested within                                                                    
7  days of  an initial  arrest overtime."  He indicated  the                                                                    
chart did  not show  much difference in  the period  that he                                                                    
had on the data prior  to criminal justice reform (from July                                                                    
2014  through  July  2016),   the  period  between  criminal                                                                    
justice reform  SB 91 [The omnibus  crime legislation passed                                                                    
in  2016] and  SB 54 [Legislation  passed in  2017 regarding                                                                    
crimes, sentencing,  probation, and parole], and  the period                                                                    
after SB  54. There was a  variation but there was  not that                                                                    
much  difference in  the period  prior  to criminal  justice                                                                    
reform  compared  to  the   period  after  criminal  justice                                                                    
2:23:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Payne reviewed  slide 8:  "Number of  people rearrested                                                                    
within 7  days." The  slide showed  the same  information as                                                                    
the previous  slide, but  instead of using  dots a  line was                                                                    
used.  It  helped   to  reinforce  that  there   was  not  a                                                                    
significant amount of movement of  the line. The line was at                                                                    
the same  point prior to  criminal justice reform as  it was                                                                    
after criminal justice reform.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Wilson   asked  if  the  issue   was  people  were                                                                    
reoffending with  7 days of  release. Mr.  Payne interpreted                                                                    
the data such  that the phenomenon of  people being arrested                                                                    
and arrested  again in  a relatively  short period  of time,                                                                    
was very  real. He indicated  that when he heard  reports of                                                                    
the phenomenon from law enforcement  and prosecutors, it was                                                                    
clear  that the  phenomenon  occurred. The  question he  was                                                                    
seeking to answer was whether  there was a difference in the                                                                    
number  of folks  for whom  it  was true  prior to  criminal                                                                    
justice reform  compared to  after. He  was seeing  from the                                                                    
analysis  that there  was not  a  difference after  criminal                                                                    
justice reform  compared to before.  To the extent it  was a                                                                    
problem, it had not worsened after criminal justice reform.                                                                     
2:25:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston referred  to page  4 showing  more than                                                                    
22,000 arrests.  She asked if  the public safety  number was                                                                    
an individual number. Mr. Payne replied in the affirmative.                                                                     
Vice-Cahir  Johnston asked  if  the  arrest tracking  number                                                                    
went  with the  Alaska public  safety ID  number. Mr.  Payne                                                                    
responded affirmatively.                                                                                                        
Vice-Chair  Johnston wondered  if the  public safety  number                                                                    
was the way in which  he tracked whether they reoffended and                                                                    
in how  many days. Mr.  Payne responded in  the affirmative.                                                                    
He could identify  that a particular person  was arrested on                                                                    
a certain  date and that  another arrest record  existed for                                                                    
the  individual on  another date.  He was  able to  take the                                                                    
difference between the two dates.                                                                                               
Vice-Chair  Johnston suggested  that  it was  easy to  track                                                                    
individuals because  of the i.d. number  they were assigned.                                                                    
Mr. Payne responded, "That is correct."                                                                                         
Co-Chair  Wilson  thought he  was  saying  that people  were                                                                    
reoffending  with  the new  tool,  but  people were  already                                                                    
reoffending prior to  the tool being in place.  She asked if                                                                    
her analysis was accurate.                                                                                                      
Mr. Payne would not necessarily  agree with her analysis. He                                                                    
thought her  analysis extended outside  of the data  he had.                                                                    
He  was looking  at  a  narrow slice.  He  offered that  the                                                                    
number  of  people that  were  arrested  and arrested  again                                                                    
within the  following 7  days had  stayed constant  over the                                                                    
period in which he had data.                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Wilson asked  where on the chart  the Department of                                                                    
Corrections (DOC)  started using the tool  that allowed more                                                                    
people to stay  out of jail. She thought the  tool was first                                                                    
applied in January 2018.                                                                                                        
Mr. Payne  responded that her question  was very complicated                                                                    
to  answer.  He  relayed  that January  2018  was  when  DOC                                                                    
started  using  the  pretrial   risk  assessment  tool.  The                                                                    
pretrial risk  assessment tool began  being used  in January                                                                    
of  2018. He  thought there  were some  reforms to  pretrial                                                                    
detention practices  that occurred  in 2016, and  there were                                                                    
changes made around  the same time to the  bail schedule set                                                                    
within the court  system. He was evaluating  the accuracy of                                                                    
the tool.  There were several changes  to pretrial detention                                                                    
that occurred  around the same  time. It was  very difficult                                                                    
to attribute causation to any of them.                                                                                          
Co-Chair  Wilson indicated  that the  committee was  getting                                                                    
ready  to do  a  crime  bill. She  was  frustrated with  not                                                                    
having the right kind of  data. Based on the data presented,                                                                    
the state  still had an  issue with people  reoffending. She                                                                    
had  hoped the  number would  have gone  down. She  wondered                                                                    
what she was not understanding.                                                                                                 
Mr.  Payne  indicated  his  analysis  was  very  narrow.  He                                                                    
expounded  that  if there  were  more  folks being  released                                                                    
pretrial, he might  expect there to be more  people who were                                                                    
rearrested.  There  were  a  couple  of  different  ways  of                                                                    
interpreting the  data. He suggested  that if the  state was                                                                    
releasing  more people  pretrial, it  was not  impacting the                                                                    
measure  he  was looking  at.  It  was a  complicated  issue                                                                    
because of the  number of changes that  had been implemented                                                                    
in a  short period  of time. He  reported that  the pretrial                                                                    
enforcement division  did not  really start  operating until                                                                    
2018. It was a large  difference from prior practice. It had                                                                    
not  significantly impacted  the number  of people  that had                                                                    
been rearrested.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Payne  why he showed the committee                                                                    
the graph  if no information  could be gleaned from  it, and                                                                    
it was too complicated to understand.                                                                                           
Mr. Payne  responded that  he would  not characterize  it as                                                                    
being too  complicated. He thought that  trying to attribute                                                                    
cause was  difficult. The reason  he would be  interested in                                                                    
sharing results from  an analysis was to  ensure that policy                                                                    
makers  had  the relevant  information  to  make policy.  He                                                                    
continued that  to the extent  that the State of  Alaska was                                                                    
releasing  more people  pretrial,  the claim  was that  more                                                                    
folks  were  being  arrested in  a  short  time  afterwards.                                                                    
However, he was not seeing the claim in the available data.                                                                     
Co-Chair  Wilson remarked  that  the  legislature could  not                                                                    
make good policy without understanding the cost.                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Johnston   asked  about  whether  there   was  a                                                                    
concentration of  arrests during any  one of the  periods of                                                                    
time  [denoted  on  slide  7]. Mr.  Payne  replied  that  in                                                                    
general, the analysis  did not look at the  number of people                                                                    
arrested  over time.  The  analysis  specifically looked  at                                                                    
folks who were  arrested within a period of 7  days on slide                                                                    
7. However, he  could look at the number  of people arrested                                                                    
per  week over  time. He  had the  data to  do so  and could                                                                    
follow up with her.                                                                                                             
Vice-Chair  Johnston would  appreciate the  information. She                                                                    
thought it might help.                                                                                                          
2:34:23 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative LeBon  asked how  the study would  capture an                                                                    
individual who  was rearrested  on the  same day.  Mr. Payne                                                                    
responded that someone  rearrested on the same  day would be                                                                    
counted as having been rearrested.  If they were arrested on                                                                    
a new  arrest tracking number on  the same day, it  would be                                                                    
counted as a rearrest.                                                                                                          
Representative  LeBon  asked  if  the  ATN  was  tied  to  a                                                                    
particular  arrest event.  He wondered  if the  number would                                                                    
change on a rearrest the  same day. Mr. Payne responded that                                                                    
his understanding was  that the ATN should be  unique to the                                                                    
arrest event.                                                                                                                   
Representative  LeBon  reported   that  Anchorage  or  South                                                                    
Central  Alaska was  suffering  from  several rearrests.  He                                                                    
asked if the data  showed geographic distribution. Mr. Payne                                                                    
suggested looking at the arresting  agency which would be as                                                                    
close as  he could  get to  geographic distribution.  He had                                                                    
not  done  so  for  the  analysis  that  he  was  discussing                                                                    
Mr. Payne skipped to slide  11: "Number of people rearrested                                                                    
within  7  days." So  far  what  he had  discussed  excluded                                                                    
violations  of  conditions  of   release  (VCOR).  Slide  11                                                                    
included  VCOR.  He  explained  that  the  reason  VCOR  was                                                                    
excluded  in  the  prior  slides was  that,  in  the  period                                                                    
between SB  91 and  SB 54,  violating conditions  of release                                                                    
was not  a crime. Rather,  they were simply  violations. The                                                                    
data he had only included  felonies and misdemeanors. It did                                                                    
not include violations.  In the period when VCOR  were not a                                                                    
misdemeanor  or a  felony, they  disappeared  from the  data                                                                    
set. Without  subtracting them from the  entire data series,                                                                    
the  line  dropped  during  the period  from  July  2016  to                                                                    
November  2017. In  the interest  of completeness,  he added                                                                    
VCOR.  The overall  picture  was similar.  There  was a  gap                                                                    
between  criminal  justice  reform  and  SB  54  where  VCOR                                                                    
disappeared from  his data source. Otherwise,  the story was                                                                    
the  same  - there  was  not  a  large difference  prior  to                                                                    
criminal justice reform and afterwards.                                                                                         
2:38:40 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Payne continued  to slide  12:  "Summary." The  overall                                                                    
summary  indicated  that  each week  statewide,  there  were                                                                    
about  26 people  who were  rearrested within  7 days  of an                                                                    
initial arrest. He  did not see any evidence of  a change in                                                                    
the  number  before  criminal  justice  reform  compared  to                                                                    
afterwards which  was relatively constant across  the entire                                                                    
data series.  He indicated that  in members'  briefing books                                                                    
there  were additional  slides in  which he  looked at  time                                                                    
periods shorter  and longer than  7 days. He  had considered                                                                    
3,  7, 10,  14, 30,  60,  90, and  180 days.  The number  of                                                                    
arrests changed, but  the overall story did  not. The number                                                                    
of people  who were  rearrested in  whatever time  window he                                                                    
was looking  at was constant before  criminal justice reform                                                                    
and  afterwards. He  concluded  that,  overall, the  numbers                                                                    
stayed  relatively the  same which  was  very consistent  no                                                                    
matter the period.  One of the concerns at  the beginning of                                                                    
the analysis  was that  7 days  was too long  or short  of a                                                                    
period to consider.  However, it looked the  same before and                                                                    
after criminal justice reform.                                                                                                  
Co-Chair Wilson  thought that, based  on the  summary, there                                                                    
would be 1,352  crimes in a year that  were rearrests within                                                                    
a 7-day  window. She  wondered how  to mitigate  the problem                                                                    
with rearrests based  on the data he had  seen, as rearrests                                                                    
appeared to be a large issue.                                                                                                   
Mr. Payne offered that he  could provide the total number of                                                                    
arrests. His  role was  to provide an  analysis of  data. He                                                                    
was  not looking  at  policy solutions.  He  thought it  was                                                                    
notable,  to the  extent  that there  were  changes made  by                                                                    
SB 91 and the associated reform  bills since, that there was                                                                    
not  much   movement  in  the  particular   measure  he  was                                                                    
currently looking  at. While the  data had not  improved, it                                                                    
had not  worsened. He  suggested that  there might  be other                                                                    
benefits  from the  policies that  had been  pursued in  the                                                                    
period since. He reiterated that  he was looking at a narrow                                                                    
measure  trying to  determine the  extent to  which rearrest                                                                    
was a problem  and the extent to which it  had changed since                                                                    
2:42:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  spoke of the changes  to the provisions                                                                    
of VCOR.  She thought  there were some  changes to  the data                                                                    
that reflected  a slight increase. She  suggested that there                                                                    
was a ramping  up reflected in all the graphs.  She asked if                                                                    
he had any thoughts on the matter.                                                                                              
Mr.  Payne  could  only   offer  speculation  regarding  her                                                                    
questions. He thought  it was possible that  the standing up                                                                    
of  the pretrial  enforcement division  had some  impact. He                                                                    
reported  that the  VCOR numbers  tended  to stabilize  over                                                                    
time.  They  increased slightly  post  SB  54 and  found  an                                                                    
equilibrium roughly  the same as pretrial  reform. There was                                                                    
a much shorter period after SB  54. He did not know how much                                                                    
he would read into it.                                                                                                          
Representative Knopp  spoke of not being  very familiar with                                                                    
SB 91.  He thought  Mr. Payne's  material clearly  showed no                                                                    
change  before  or  after   [criminal  justice  reform].  He                                                                    
thought Mr. Payne  was correct that it did not  lead to more                                                                    
or less rearrests. He suggested  that part of the reason the                                                                    
state embraced criminal justice reform  was due to the costs                                                                    
of incarceration, particularly the  cost of incarceration of                                                                    
people who had yet to stand  trial. He wondered what to take                                                                    
away from the data. He asked  if the state reduced any costs                                                                    
of incarceration. He asked if he was accurate.                                                                                  
Mr. Payne  relayed that the topic  of Representative Knopp's                                                                    
question was  not part of  his analysis. He was  not looking                                                                    
at  the extent  to which  any of  the individuals  that were                                                                    
arrested  had been  detained.  That  analysis would  require                                                                    
linking DOC's  data to arrest  data which was  a technically                                                                    
complicated task.                                                                                                               
Representative  Knopp  was  looking for  anything  that  the                                                                    
state had made  gains in since the implementation  of SB 91.                                                                    
Mr. Payne  relied, "Not  in this  analysis." He  deferred to                                                                    
the Judicial  Council who was  better suited to  address his                                                                    
^PRESENTATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN ALASKA                                                                              
2:46:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SUSANNE  DIPIETRO,   EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,   ALASKA  JUDICIAL                                                                    
COUNCIL, provided  a brief  introduction and  explained that                                                                    
the  chair had  asked her  to  discuss a  couple of  things.                                                                    
First,   she  was   asked  to   remind  members   about  the                                                                    
commission, why they  had the data, and  what the commission                                                                    
was doing  with it. She hoped  she would be able  to address                                                                    
some of  Representative Knopp's concerns and  questions. The                                                                    
representative also  asked her to  review what the  data was                                                                    
showing, how  things were  going after  reform, and  how the                                                                    
situation compared to pre-reform.                                                                                               
Ms.  Di  Pietro   introduced  the  PowerPoint  Presentation:                                                                    
"Criminal Justice  Reform in Alaska."  She began  with slide                                                                    
3: "Members  of the criminal justice  Commission." The slide                                                                    
listed  the members  of the  commission.  She reported  that                                                                    
membership  was  set  in statute  by  the  legislature.  The                                                                    
commission had  membership from the  executive, legislative,                                                                    
and judicial  branches. She elaborated that  the idea behind                                                                    
the   membership  was   to  have   the  most   broad-ranging                                                                    
perspective  from  the  criminal   justice  system  and  the                                                                    
Department  of Health  and Social  Services,  which was  not                                                                    
always  thought  of as  being  a  part  of the  system.  The                                                                    
commissioners  directed the  staff to  conduct the  analysis                                                                    
and   provide   the   data   they   needed   to   make   any                                                                    
Ms.  Di   Pietro  continued  to  slide   4:  "Oversight  and                                                                    
reporting duties." She  reminded members of a part  of SB 91                                                                    
that  had  been very  helpful  to  the commission  and,  she                                                                    
hoped,  to  the  legislature  with   respect  to  data.  the                                                                    
commission was commanded to look  at what was happening with                                                                    
the recommendations that were made  in 2015 and enacted into                                                                    
law with the  various reform bills. The  commission had been                                                                    
tracking  the  information  since   the  reform  passed  and                                                                    
submitted  a  report  to  the   legislature  every  year  on                                                                    
November  1st.  The reports  were  sent  to legislators  via                                                                    
email but could  also be found on  the commission's website.                                                                    
The  commission's   website  was  linked  to   the  Judicial                                                                    
Council's website. There was a  lot of information available                                                                    
Ms.  Di  Pietro  continued  to  slide  5:  "Data  Collection                                                                    
AS 44.19.645(e)-(g)." She  wanted to tell members  about the                                                                    
data the  commission received to  answer the  question, "How                                                                    
are we  doing?" The court system  provided information about                                                                    
all   charges  that   were  disposed   every  quarter.   The                                                                    
Department   of  Public   Safety  provided   the  citations,                                                                    
arrests,  and  charges  every  quarter.  The  Department  of                                                                    
Corrections provided  several pieces of  information related                                                                    
to pretrial outcomes, related to  the prison population, and                                                                    
related to  probation and parole  data. The  commission also                                                                    
received  data from  the parole  board. The  information was                                                                    
given quarterly.                                                                                                                
2:50:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Di  Pietro turned  to  slide  6: "Data  Analysis."  The                                                                    
commission  staff  worked  in partnership  with  the  Alaska                                                                    
Justice  Information   Center  to  analyze  the   data.  The                                                                    
commission analyzed  the data with  an eye to  answering the                                                                    
questions  that  were  in  statute. One  of  the  things  in                                                                    
statute  was  recidivism  data.  She  thought  the  question                                                                    
underlying some of the discussion  she had heard earlier was                                                                    
what was happening  with recidivism. There were  a couple of                                                                    
definitions  of recidivism  in statute  that the  commission                                                                    
would  be   using.  The   commission  would   be  collecting                                                                    
additional data  because of the importance  of policy makers                                                                    
understanding  the  topic.  She  reported  that  the  normal                                                                    
window for  looking at  recidivism was  3 years.  The reform                                                                    
was passed  so recently that  3 years  had not gone  by yet.                                                                    
The  commission was  keeping track  of the  information. She                                                                    
noted that members might have  seen some recidivism from DOC                                                                    
which  was excellent  data. However,  it  was slightly  more                                                                    
limited than what the commission would be reporting.                                                                            
Ms. Di  Pietro continued that  the commission would  also be                                                                    
attempting  to  report  recidivism data  from  misdemeanants                                                                    
such as  property offenders and  felons. The  commission was                                                                    
not only  looking at the people  who went to prison,  it was                                                                    
also looking  at individuals charged and  convicted but whom                                                                    
might not  have had a  prison sentence or served  their time                                                                    
pretrial.  The   commission  wanted  to  provide   the  most                                                                    
comprehensive information that it could.                                                                                        
Ms.  Di   Pietro  pointed  out  that   the  information  the                                                                    
commission had was unique in  the sense that the information                                                                    
was  from 3  different  agencies, and  it  could be  knitted                                                                    
together in the way Dr.  Paine had mentioned. The commission                                                                    
had data  that could offer  a broader perspective  than from                                                                    
an individual  agency. The commission was  happy, ready, and                                                                    
excited to do  analyses for members of  the legislature. She                                                                    
wanted to  provide the  data members needed  as much  as was                                                                    
Ms.  Di Pietro  highlighted  a couple  of  reports that  the                                                                    
legislature told the commission to  publish, which it had. A                                                                    
report  on  restitution,  a  report  on  Title  28  offences                                                                    
(driving   under  the   influence  offences),   and  a   new                                                                    
publication  on   sex  offenses  were  all   posted  on  the                                                                    
commission's website.                                                                                                           
Ms. Di Pietro indicated she  would be discussing the results                                                                    
of  the data  analysis.  She would  go  quickly through  the                                                                    
first slides in the section.                                                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro advanced  to slide  8: "Reasons  for reform."                                                                    
She reported that  the slide listed the  issues the Criminal                                                                    
Justice Commission uncovered when  it conducted the criminal                                                                    
justice  assessment.  She   clarified  that  the  assessment                                                                    
spanned  information  up to  about  2014.  One of  the  main                                                                    
problems identified  was that  Alaska was  experiencing some                                                                    
unsustainable prison  growth. The recidivism rate,  the rate                                                                    
at  which  people  went  back  to  prison  after  they  were                                                                    
released, was fairly high. She  thought the most interesting                                                                    
information and  studies the commission did  were studies on                                                                    
pretrial detention.  The commission  found that  the ability                                                                    
to be  released pretrial was  related to a  person's ability                                                                    
to pay  bail. It also uncovered  racial disproportionalities                                                                    
in pretrial detention.                                                                                                          
Ms.  Di Pietro  moved  to  slide 9:  "Reasons  for reform                                                                       
prison  growth."  The  slide  contained  the  chart  showing                                                                    
prison growth over time.                                                                                                        
2:55:21 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro advanced to  slide 10: "Reasons for  reform                                                                      
prison growth."  The slide showed  the expected  increase in                                                                    
the cost of  corrections. She relayed that  the numbers were                                                                    
inflation adjusted.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair Wilson  asked about  slide 10.  She noted  that DOC                                                                    
increased by  1100 people,  but the  cost increased  by $200                                                                    
million. She wondered  why there was such  a large increase.                                                                    
She was looking at the growth  in the number of inmates from                                                                    
4133 to  5267 [Slide 9].  She opined  that there was  a much                                                                    
larger increase  [in costs] than  the number of  people. She                                                                    
asked  if  Ms.   Di  Pietro  knew  why  there   was  such  a                                                                    
substantial increase as opposed to the increase in people.                                                                      
Ms. Di  Pietro did  not know  off the top  of her  head. She                                                                    
speculated that it  might have had something to  do with new                                                                    
prison that  was built which would  have increased operating                                                                    
expenses. The  chart did  not include  capital expenditures.                                                                    
She suggested directing the question to DOC.                                                                                    
Ms.  Di  Pietro  explained  slide  11:  "What  reforms  were                                                                    
enacted?"  The slide  showed  the evidence-based  principles                                                                    
that the  commission used when it  made recommendations that                                                                    
later  became  a  part  of   criminal  justice  reform.  The                                                                    
foundational principles  were built  on hundreds  of studies                                                                    
that  had been  done  nationally and  in  Alaska about  what                                                                    
worked  and  what  did  not work  for  people  arrested  and                                                                    
charged  with  crimes.  The first  principle  was  to  focus                                                                    
prison beds on serious and violent offenders.                                                                                   
Ms.  Di Pietro  continued  that  the commission  recommended                                                                    
strengthening supervision  practices at DOC.  The commission                                                                    
did a  series of  crime victim  round tables  throughout the                                                                    
state and amassed  a list of crime  victim priorities posted                                                                    
on the commission's website.  There were several recommended                                                                    
priorities from the reports that  went into the reform bill.                                                                    
The commission  was very clear  about the need  to implement                                                                    
evidence-based pretrial  practices which began in  2018. The                                                                    
commission   also   strongly  recommended   reinvesting   in                                                                    
treatment,  which the  legislature did.  The commission  was                                                                    
also  keeping   track  of  what  the   reinvestment  was  in                                                                    
treatment and  prevention programs every year.  It also kept                                                                    
track of  what the State  of Alaska received in  exchange of                                                                    
its  investment. In  other  words,  the commission  followed                                                                    
what  programs were  invested in  and how  many people  went                                                                    
through them.                                                                                                                   
Representative  Josephson thought  it would  be valuable  to                                                                    
have a list of savings  and a list of expenditures resulting                                                                    
from SB 91. He would appreciate seeing the information.                                                                         
Ms. Di  Pietro indicated that  every year on November  1 the                                                                    
commission was  required to produce  an annual  report which                                                                    
contained  the  information   Representative  Josephson  was                                                                    
looking  for. She  did not  have  the numbers  with her  but                                                                    
could look into  it. She was unclear about  his reference to                                                                    
the reappropriation issue.                                                                                                      
3:00:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  LeBon referred  to slide  11 and  pointed to                                                                    
the fourth bullet regarding  the implementation of evidence-                                                                    
based pretrial practices. He wondered what it meant.                                                                            
Ms.  Di Pietro  indicated the  answer was  on the  following                                                                    
slide.  She   turned  to  slide  13:   "Pretrial  Reforms                                                                       
Risk-Based   Decision-Making."   She  explained   that   the                                                                    
evidence-based phrase  referred to  the use of  an actuarial                                                                    
risk assessment  tool. The bottom  line regarding  the tools                                                                    
was that  studies showed that more  accurate decisions about                                                                    
pretrial detention  were made when information  was included                                                                    
from a  risk assessment tool  as opposed to relying  only on                                                                    
professional  judgement. It  was the  reason the  commission                                                                    
recommended enhancing the pretrial  decision making by using                                                                    
the tool.                                                                                                                       
Ms. Di  Pietro continued  that the other  piece of  the pre-                                                                    
reform was to create  the pretrial enforcement division. She                                                                    
highlighted the left-hand side of  the chart in the "Before"                                                                    
category. She emphasized  that most people had  a money bail                                                                    
imposed on them  which created a situation  where people who                                                                    
had access  to cash could  get out,  and people who  did not                                                                    
have access to  cash could not. She thought it  did not seem                                                                    
fair. More importantly, how much  money a person had did not                                                                    
appear to be related to  their risk of pretrial failure. She                                                                    
wondered why money was being  used. She also highlighted the                                                                    
second-to-last  bullet point  which was  that 37  percent of                                                                    
defendants released  pretrial before reform  were rearrested                                                                    
for a new  offense. She personally looked at  the number and                                                                    
wanted  to do  better than  37 percent.  It was  one of  the                                                                    
statistics  the commission  was trying  to address.  Another                                                                    
key  piece in  the prior  practice was  that judges  imposed                                                                    
third  party  custodian  requirements on  several  different                                                                    
defendants. The  commission's research showed that  being in                                                                    
the  position  of  a  third  party  custodian  was  strongly                                                                    
associated with the inability to be released pretrial.                                                                          
3:03:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Di Pietro  skipped  to slide  15:  "Pretrial reforms                                                                       
risk-based  decision   making."  The  slide   addressed  the                                                                    
question  of   whether  more  people  were   being  released                                                                    
pretrial  after  reform  compared   to  before  reform.  She                                                                    
reported that the  Alaska Judicial Council had  been doing a                                                                    
study of  defendants who  were released  a few  months after                                                                    
the   pretrial   reform   provisions,   and   the   Pretrial                                                                    
Enforcement Division  (PED) went into effect  even before HB
312.  The council  gathered a  bunch of  case files  and had                                                                    
been studying  and following the defendants.  The commission                                                                    
wanted  to figure  out who  got released,  who did  not, and                                                                    
what bail conditions were imposed  on them. She did not have                                                                    
complete answers  to the questions  because not  enough time                                                                    
had passed  for the cases  to be resolved. There  were still                                                                    
quite a few  people from the file sample of  about 400 files                                                                    
who  were still  in the  pretrial  phase. She  wanted to  be                                                                    
cautious about  providing the data. However,  because of the                                                                    
importance  of  the  issue,  she   wanted  to  provide  some                                                                    
information about what the council knew thus far.                                                                               
Ms. Di Pietro  pointed to the right-hand side  of the chart.                                                                    
It appeared that more defendants  were being released during                                                                    
the pretrial  period after reform,  than before.  The figure                                                                    
from before  was about half.  In other words,  before reform                                                                    
about half of the defendants  were not released before their                                                                    
case  was resolved.  Presently, about  69 or  70 percent  of                                                                    
defendants were  released by judges. She  also reported that                                                                    
fewer money bonds were being  used. Before, about 69 percent                                                                    
of defendants had a money  bond imposed. About 41 percent of                                                                    
defendants had the  condition in the sample  the council was                                                                    
studying.   Also,  there   were  much   fewer  third   party                                                                    
custodians which was related to  the fact that if there were                                                                    
PED officers available to supervise  a person, a third party                                                                    
custodian  was  not authorized.  The  council  was seeing  a                                                                    
large increase in  the use of unsecured  bonds. An unsecured                                                                    
bond was  when a person promised  to pay money in  the event                                                                    
they  messed  up  during  pretrial.  A  secured  money  bond                                                                    
required money upfront. Whereas,  an unsecured bond required                                                                    
payment if a person failed.  All the research showed secured                                                                    
money  bonds   were  equally   effective  at   ensuring  the                                                                    
appearance of  the defendant as compared  to unsecured money                                                                    
bonds. She  added that with  an unsecured bond  people could                                                                    
get out more easily.                                                                                                            
Ms.  Di  Pietro continued  that  another  study showed  that                                                                    
about half of  the defendants in the study  were assigned to                                                                    
PED  supervision suggesting  that  the  courts were  heavily                                                                    
using PED to supervise people being released pretrial.                                                                          
3:07:09 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro reported  that the  commission was  trying to                                                                    
get at the issue of  ethnic disparities. The Alaska Judicial                                                                    
Council  had  conducted  a  couple  of  studies  documenting                                                                    
ethnic  disparities  in  pretrial detention  situation.  She                                                                    
reported  that  an  Alaska  Native was  more  likely  to  be                                                                    
detained then  if they  were Caucasian.  The first  time the                                                                    
judicial council  documented that in  a robust study  was in                                                                    
2004.  The council  did another  study in  2015, pre-reform,                                                                    
and found  similar ethnic disparities with  about 26 percent                                                                    
of  Alaska  Natives  being  released  in  comparison  to  55                                                                    
percent of Caucasians. She reminded  members that about half                                                                    
of all people were being released pretrial.                                                                                     
Ms.  Di  Pietro  drew  attention to  the  2018  sample.  she                                                                    
cautioned  members that  the  study was  not  final yet.  It                                                                    
looked as though the disparities  between Alaska Natives and                                                                    
Caucasians  had  decreased  significantly.  She  highlighted                                                                    
that  the   percentages  of   people  being   released  were                                                                    
different on  the current slide.  She had been  reporting 50                                                                    
percent.  There was  a problem  with the  comparison because                                                                    
another thing that  changed that was not a  part of criminal                                                                    
justice reform but has complicated  the council's ability to                                                                    
analyze  the  pretrial  situation,  was  the  bail  schedule                                                                    
changed.  People  were  also  being  released  on  the  bail                                                                    
schedule. The  council could not compare  people released on                                                                    
the bail schedule  currently to people released  on the bail                                                                    
schedule  before because  of not  having the  right kind  of                                                                    
Ms. Di Pietro continued that  if a person looked at everyone                                                                    
released  after  arrest,  whether  by bail  schedule  or  by                                                                    
appearing in  front of a  judge, the number was  higher than                                                                    
the figure  she provided to  the committee earlier.  She was                                                                    
happy  to   follow  up  with   anyone  who   wanted  further                                                                    
clarification regarding her explanation.                                                                                        
Ms.  Di Pietro  advanced to  slide 16:  "Pretrial reforms                                                                       
pretrial outcomes being studied."  Although more people were                                                                    
being released,  she thought the  question was  whether they                                                                    
were being  arrested more. She thought  Dr. Payne's analysis                                                                    
was an important data point  regarding the question. She did                                                                    
not believe  the question had  been fully answered  yet. She                                                                    
reported that  the judicial council was  tracking some cases                                                                    
and  Dr. Payne,  who  was under  contract  with the  justice                                                                    
center and  DOC, was asked  to reevaluate the  pretrial risk                                                                    
assessment  tool. Part  of the  revalidation analysis  would                                                                    
include rates of rearrest.  The information was forthcoming.                                                                    
She reiterated  that in the  scheme of the  criminal justice                                                                    
system and  how it operated,  there had not  been sufficient                                                                    
time between the  effective date of the reform  and 6 months                                                                    
later  (when HB  312 went  into  effect) for  the system  to                                                                    
stabilize  and to  generate sufficient  data to  provide the                                                                    
type  of  analysis  that  everyone   wished  they  had.  The                                                                    
information  was   a  start.  She  hoped   to  provide  more                                                                    
definitive answers going forward.                                                                                               
Ms. Di  Pietro continued  to slide 18:  "Sentencing Reform."                                                                    
She reported  that sentencing reform was  the next category.                                                                    
They  would be  looking  at people  who  were convicted  and                                                                    
sentenced. Under  sentencing reform,  the focus had  been on                                                                    
prison beds  for serious  and violent  offenders. For  a low                                                                    
risk  offender, time  in  prison could  make  a person  more                                                                    
likely  to recidivate.  For some  of  the violent  high-risk                                                                    
offenders, prison was the place  they needed to be. For some                                                                    
of  the lower  risk offenders,  such as  property offenders,                                                                    
prison  might  not  have  the  desired  effect  of  reducing                                                                    
recidivism. Rather,  it might have the  opposite effect. The                                                                    
idea  was  to  be  more  targeted  in  how  the  state  used                                                                    
incarceration. Incarceration was  a very expensive resource,                                                                    
and the state  wanted to use it in the  best way possible to                                                                    
get the best  results. The last point on the  slide was that                                                                    
prison  should be  used for  individuals that  citizens were                                                                    
afraid of, rather than angry at,  if the goal was to achieve                                                                    
recidivism reduction.                                                                                                           
3:12:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Carpenter  referred to the  bullet indicating                                                                    
time  in  prison could  make  some  low-risk offenders  more                                                                    
likely to  recidivate. He wondered  if the statement  was an                                                                    
opinion  or  a  statement  based on  facts.  Ms.  Di  Pietro                                                                    
responded that it was  a fact-based, data-based observation.                                                                    
The  council had  the R-2015  report with  footnotes showing                                                                    
all  the relevant  studies available  on their  website. She                                                                    
added  that she  would welcome  information from  people who                                                                    
disagreed with  their findings. She thought  the finding was                                                                    
a bit surprising. She would  send the committee the specific                                                                    
information she was referring to.                                                                                               
Ms.  Di Pietro  moved to  slide 19  "Violent vs  Non-violent                                                                    
Prisoners." The  chart on the  slide showed that  changes in                                                                    
the  law caused  the  state  to slowly  begin  to focus  its                                                                    
prison beds more on violent  offenders. She thought it was a                                                                    
great example of  the analysis the state was  doing based on                                                                    
the statutes.                                                                                                                   
Representative LeBon asked for  the definition of a low-risk                                                                    
offender.  Ms.  Di  Pietro  responded  that  the  study  the                                                                    
council relied  on was looking at  the risk-assessments such                                                                    
as  the LSI  [Level  of  Service] and  the  LSI-R [Level  of                                                                    
Service  Inventory -  Revised] that  DOC had  talked to  the                                                                    
committee about  recently. She indicated some  good examples                                                                    
were  the  misdemeanant  offenders, although  some  of  them                                                                    
could also be high-risk.                                                                                                        
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard  asked  Ms.  Di  Pietro  to                                                                    
provide a list of  violent versus non-violent offenders. Ms.                                                                    
Di  Pietro   responded  that   the  commission   used  DOC's                                                                    
definitions of violent versus non-violent,  the same list of                                                                    
statutes.  She did  not  have  the list  on  hand but  could                                                                    
provide it.                                                                                                                     
Representative  Sullivan-Leonard  asked for  some  examples.                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro replied that any  offense in 1141 would  be a                                                                    
violent  offense.  She  also  noted  that  as  a  rule  1146                                                                    
offenses  were  not   included  as  violent.  Representative                                                                    
Sullivan-Leonard requested the list.                                                                                            
3:16:56 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson clarified  that the  1161 offenses                                                                    
were not put in the  violent category which was troubling to                                                                    
him,  because  it  included  firing a  weapon  in  a  moving                                                                    
vehicle. He  hoped the commission would  consider it violent                                                                    
and  treat it  accordingly in  the data.  Ms. Di  Pietro was                                                                    
uncertain.  The  commission relied  on  DOC  for a  list  of                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro advanced  to slide  20: "Admissions  for Drug                                                                    
Crimes". She  pointed out that  the slide  showed admissions                                                                    
to prison  for drug crimes.  The chart indicated  that prior                                                                    
to  reform, when  possession of  a small  amount of  heroin,                                                                    
opioids, and  methamphetamines was  a Class C  felony, there                                                                    
were  several admissions  in a  fiscal  year. After  reform,                                                                    
when the  crime of  possession became a  misdemeanor, felony                                                                    
admissions  went down.  However, the  number of  misdemeanor                                                                    
offenses  went up  but not  as large  as the  Class C felony                                                                    
offenses  were originally.  She thought  it was  interesting                                                                    
that  the   Class  B   felony  offenses,   the  distribution                                                                    
offenses,  were   not  going   down.  She  thought   it  was                                                                    
encouraging  because the  research  showed there  was not  a                                                                    
great way  to deal with  drug crimes. The idea  of arresting                                                                    
and  prosecuting  the  commercial distributors  and  dealers                                                                    
vigorously was to get them  out of the system disrupting the                                                                    
chain, at least for a  while. It was not necessarily helpful                                                                    
to  convict  the people  of  a  felony who  possessed  small                                                                    
amounts or  sold small  quantities to  friends. It  was also                                                                    
not necessarily  helpful to give  them a  significant amount                                                                    
of  prison time  unless they  received treatment.  The slide                                                                    
showed how things were working under the new scheme.                                                                            
3:20:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson expressed  concern that  above the                                                                    
FY 17  and FY 18  bars there was  untold drug usage.  It was                                                                    
not  plausible that  there was  a marked  decline during  an                                                                    
opioid  epidemic. The  people  in the  void  were not  being                                                                    
treated. He wondered if the commission was looking into it.                                                                     
Ms. Di  Pietro thought  Representative Josephson had  a very                                                                    
good  point. One  of the  questions  was whether  possessors                                                                    
were  being  arrested   post-reform.  Another  question  was                                                                    
whether they  were seeing treatment.  She conveyed  that the                                                                    
commission was  very concerned about the  current heroin use                                                                    
and other  drugs. She noted that  the law did not  change an                                                                    
officer's ability  to arrest a  person for  drug possession.                                                                    
However,  there   might  be  unintended   consequences  with                                                                    
arrests going down.                                                                                                             
Representative Carpenter  asked what  the slide  depicted in                                                                    
terms of success  given the state's statutory  goals. Ms. Di                                                                    
Pietro answered  that part  of the goal  was to  not convict                                                                    
single possessors  of a  Class C  felony which  would impede                                                                    
their ability  to get a job,  to secure housing, or  to seek                                                                    
rehabilitation.  The  chart  showed that  fewer  people  who                                                                    
possessed smaller  amounts of drugs were  convicted of Class                                                                    
C  felonies. She  thought  the chart  also  showed that  the                                                                    
total number  of admissions for  drug crimes had  gone down.                                                                    
She agreed that it needed to be investigated further.                                                                           
Representative Carpenter  suggested that  perhaps employment                                                                    
was not necessary based on  the following slide which showed                                                                    
a disturbing  increase in theft  crimes. He  speculated that                                                                    
the state  had reduced the  numbers of low-level  drug users                                                                    
in jail only to increase  the number of thefts. He commented                                                                    
that it did not pass the  common sense test. He did not care                                                                    
that less  people were in  prison if there were  more thefts                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro pointed out  that slide 21  showed admissions                                                                    
to prisons  for theft  crimes, although  she would  speak to                                                                    
larceny  theft  in  another slide.  The  graph  showed  that                                                                    
people were still being arrested  and admitted to prison for                                                                    
misdemeanor and felony  theft crimes. One of  the things the                                                                    
council  would  want  to review  since  the  penalties  were                                                                    
lessened, was  whether there was  a significant  decrease in                                                                    
people being admitted (which was not the case).                                                                                 
3:25:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter  noted  there was  a  decrease  in                                                                    
admissions  for low-level  drug  crimes and  an increase  in                                                                    
admissions for theft crimes. He  asked about the net. Ms. Di                                                                    
Pietro  requested the  representative restate  his question.                                                                    
She  wondered if  he  was  asking about  the  net change  in                                                                    
admissions.  Representative   Carpenter  responded   in  the                                                                    
Ms. Di  Pietro moved  to slide 22  and continued  to discuss                                                                    
prison  admissions.  The  slide   reflected  the  number  of                                                                    
admissions. Since SB 54 passed,  there had been an uptick in                                                                    
prison admissions for non-violent crimes.                                                                                       
Ms.  Di Pietro  continued  to slide  23: "Prison  Population                                                                    
Down." She  reported that earlier in  the presentation there                                                                    
had been  a question  about prison population.  She reported                                                                    
that  the prison  population had  reduced since  reform. She                                                                    
noted  the  difficulty  of generating  a  prison  population                                                                    
because  it  fluctuated   substantially.  The  prior  slides                                                                    
reflected  admissions which  were  counting  people as  they                                                                    
went into  prison. The current  slide showed a  snapshot day                                                                    
of how many people were sitting  in beds in DOC. Care needed                                                                    
to be  taken as  to which  day to look  at. The  council had                                                                    
chosen  the same  day each  year to  make things  consistent                                                                    
from year-to-year to properly track changes.                                                                                    
3:27:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Carpenter  noted  that the  state  had  seen                                                                    
admissions for  drug crimes from  FY 15  to FY 18  of around                                                                    
1200 in  FY 15 to 700  in FY 18.  He noted a decline  of 500                                                                    
admissions. He  noted about the  same amount of  increase in                                                                    
theft  crimes.  He  was  unsure   the  state  succeeded.  He                                                                    
surmised  that the  state  might have  added  to the  prison                                                                    
Ms.  Di  Pietro  mentioned  that  the  prior  slides  showed                                                                    
admissions.  For  example,  a  person  who  was  counted  in                                                                    
slide 21  for  an  admission  for   theft  might  have  been                                                                    
admitted, served  their sentence, and been  released without                                                                    
being  counted  on  the  day   that  the  prison  population                                                                    
snapshot was taken  [shown on slide 23].  She explained that                                                                    
the  reason the  council looked  at admission  and a  static                                                                    
population  snapshot was  because it  wanted to  measure the                                                                    
churn. Admissions might appear to  be up with people cycling                                                                    
in and  leaving. However, the  prison population  on average                                                                    
might not  be increasing as fast  or at all. She  thought it                                                                    
would be misleading  not to show both. She  indicated that a                                                                    
person could not add the numbers  on slides 21 and 22 to get                                                                    
to the numbers on slide 23.                                                                                                     
Representative  Carpenter was  not  suggesting  that he  was                                                                    
adding  the numbers  on  slides  21 and  22  to  get to  the                                                                    
numbers on  slide 23. He was  pointing out that there  was a                                                                    
decline in  prison population "success" for  drug crimes and                                                                    
an increase  in population  for thefts on  slide 21.  He was                                                                    
wondering  about the  effect the  legislature was  trying to                                                                    
get  with the  policies that  were enacted.  He thought  the                                                                    
state had incarcerated more people.                                                                                             
Ms. Di Pietro offered that one  of things that she had heard                                                                    
was  that  there   were  some  people  who   were  using  or                                                                    
possessing substances who were  not committing crimes. Those                                                                    
people  were not  necessarily being  arrested. However,  the                                                                    
people  who were  using, possessing,  and committing  crimes                                                                    
were being  arrested -  it was a  higher priority  to arrest                                                                    
them  and get  them  into  the system.  She  did  not see  a                                                                    
contradiction between  20 and  21. It  was only  her theory.                                                                    
She understood where the representative was coming from.                                                                        
3:31:36 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Johnston  asked a  global question.  She wondered                                                                    
if  the data  was  from ACOMS  [Alaska Corrections  Offender                                                                    
Management  System].   Ms.  Di   Pietro  responded   in  the                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Johnston  suggested  that   the  people  on  the                                                                    
Criminal  Justice Commission  were the  right people  at the                                                                    
table. She  wondered how many  times the commission  met and                                                                    
what the statutory requirement was.                                                                                             
Ms.  Di Pietro  noted that  the commission  met about  every                                                                    
other  month, although  they were  only required  to meet  4                                                                    
times  per  year.  The  commission   had  work  groups  that                                                                    
typically met in  the off months. The commission  has had at                                                                    
least one meeting since the  new administration took office.                                                                    
The was another meeting scheduled  in the current month. The                                                                    
new   commissioners   either   came   themselves   or   sent                                                                    
representatives.  The commission  had not  stabilized around                                                                    
the  new members  yet. She  noted that  the public  defender                                                                    
membership was currently up in the air.                                                                                         
Vice-Chair Johnson  noted that  the committee had  bumped up                                                                    
against the end of meeting time.                                                                                                
Representative LeBon referred to  slide 23. The slide showed                                                                    
a  period from  2010 to  2018. He  noted that  slide 21  and                                                                    
slide 22  went back to  2015. He  wondered if it  would help                                                                    
the committee  to understand trends  by looking at  the same                                                                    
8-year period  on slides 21, 22,  and 23. Ms. Di  Pietro was                                                                    
happy to make a change to slide 23.                                                                                             
Co-Chair   Foster  indicated   that   Co-Chair  Wilson   was                                                                    
presenting a  bill in another  committee but  wanted members                                                                    
to review the  remainder of the slide  presentation on their                                                                    
Ms. Di Pietro  thanked the committee for  the opportunity to                                                                    
present.  She drew  attention  to slide  28  had some  great                                                                    
feedback  about how  DOC was  working on  its probation  and                                                                    
parole discharges.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair  Foster thanked  Ms. Di  Pietro for  her work.  The                                                                    
committee would adjourn until 10:00  A.M. the following day,                                                                    
Saturday, April  27, 2019, at  which time  discussions would                                                                    
continue on HB 20.                                                                                                              
3:36:24 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 3:36 p.m.