Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/30/2001 01:43 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2001
1:43 PM
TAPE HFC 01 - 68, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 68, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:43 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Jim Whitaker
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter; Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Doug
Wooliver, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System;
Loren Jones, Community Mental Health/API Replacement Project
Director, Department of Health and Social Services.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Janet McCabe, Partners for Downtown Progress; Kac'e
McDowell, Cabaret Hotel and Restaurant Retail Association;
Blair McCune, Deputy Director, Alaska Public Defenders
Agency.
SUMMARY
HB 172 "An Act relating to therapeutic courts for
offenders and to the authorized number of superior
court judges."
HB 172 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to therapeutic courts for offenders
and to the authorized number of superior court judges."
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, SPONSOR spoke in support of HB
172. The legislation aims, through a specialized court and a
specialized process, to deal with the most dangerous of
alcohol cases: DWI's and specifically multiple DWI
offenders. The Legislature recognizing the seriousness of
the offense has balanced crimes with treatment and jails.
Four of five first time offenders do not re-offend. Serious
sanctions for first time offenses are successful as
deterrents. The bill is aimed at the one of five that does
re-offend. Seventy-five percent of those arrested on felony
DWI's re-offend. The thesis of the legislation is that the
missing ingredient is the acknowledgment that treatment is
necessary to change an addiction behavior. He noted that
recent alcohol related traffic fatalities have focused the
fact that a treatment approach is necessary. Therapeutic
court has been successful in Anchorage at the district court
level. He pointed out that an additional pharmaceutical
approach is now available to counter addictive behavior. He
acknowledged that the legislation has significant fiscal
notes attached, but emphasized that a serious problem needs
serious resources.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the program exists in
Anchorage. Representative Porter noted that there is a
Wellness Court in the District Court that deals with
multiple offenders and some felonies. The legislation would
direct the therapeutic court at felonies and would reside in
the Superior Court. There is also a drug court in the
Superior Court that is aimed at narcotics and dangerous drug
offenders. The Anchorage court is funded through a federal
grant.
Representative John Davies expressed support for the
legislation and questioned if it is a pilot program and if
it would be available in other places in the state in the
future.
Representative Porter responded that the legislation would
establish a court in Anchorage. A court would be established
in Bethel after six months. The delay is designed to allow
Bethel to benefit from the establishment of the Anchorage
court and give time to involve the local community.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that there is a 75 percent recidivism
rate among felony offenders. He asked if the therapeutic
courts reduce the recidivism rate. Representative Porter did
not have statistics, but emphasized that studies have shown
them to be successful in reducing the recidivism rate of
those treated.
Representative Lancaster questioned if there would be future
evaluations on the program. Representative Porter noted that
there is a provision to evaluate the success of the program.
Representative Hudson noted that the fiscal cost is $2
million general fund dollars and questioned if participants
would be required to partially pay. Representative Porter
affirmed that participants would share in the cost. He
observed that the program would allow participants to stay
out of jail and remain working. The goal of the legislation
is to not only pay for the cost treatment, but to also setup
a program to compensate victims for the original offense.
The defense, prosecution and court would evaluate each DWI
offender. All parties have to agree to participation in the
program. The participating defendants would plead guilty.
The court would then suspend sentencing until the end of the
treatment program. The legislation currently includes
timelines from arrest to sentencing. He observed that the
timelines restrict the courts flexibility and noted that he
would offer an amendment to delete them.
Representative Lancaster questioned if "drug" is broad
enough to encompass prescription drugs. Representative
Porter thought that prescription drugs would be covered. He
emphasized that he did not want to limit the inclusion of
drugs.
Representative John Davies spoke to the fiscal impact. He
asked if there would be reductions in other places in the
budget to compensate for the fiscal notes. Representative
Porter noted that it would be more appropriate for the
agencies to respond to the question.
DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
spoke in support of the legislation. He noted that a felony
Drug Court in Anchorage, supported by federal grants, would
begin operations in a month. A Mental Health Court has
operated for the last two years. The Wellness Court is aimed
at municipal alcohol abusers, especially misdemeanor
multiple DWI offenders. The Wellness Court is successful but
suffers from the fact that it operates through the will of a
single judge. He stressed that therapeutic courts, which
utilize naltrexone are very successful. He emphasized the
need for studies. The Alaska Court System fiscal note calls
for two new Superior Court Justices. The legislation focus
on felony DWI's which are heard in Superior Court. The
Superior Court already has more cases than it can hear.
Therapeutic courts take more effort per defendant.
Defendants return to the court for multiple hearings. The
increase in workload triggers the need for an extra judge in
Anchorage. The felony caseload has doubled since the last
superior court judge was added in 1985.
Mr. Wooliver discussed the need for a superior court judge
in Bethel. The Bethel court has twice the workload as other
areas. A new district court judge was funded in the previous
fiscal year. The legislation would turn this position into a
superior court judge. The fiscal note reflects the
difference.
Co-Chair Williams referred to suspended sentencing. Mr.
Wooliver explained that when the court, prosecution and
defense agree that a person is a candidate for the program
the candidate would plead guilty. Defendants are apprised of
the sentencing benefit from their participation in the
program. If the candidate is successful in completing the
program they would receive the agreed upon reduction in
sentencing. If they drop out of the program the judge would
sentence them under whatever terms are appropriate at that
time. He acknowledged that relapses occur. The program
generally lasts a year or more. The legislation anticipates
80 participants a year in Anchorage. The Bethel program
anticipates serving 15 people in the first half-year and 45
per year in the following full year.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned if the new judges would have
duties in addition to their work with the therapeutic court.
Mr. Wooliver affirmed that judges would have other duties.
He explained that other felony DWI cases, which are being
handled in District Court, would be transferred to the
Superior Court where they belong. The additional judges
would also handle increases in workload, which would be
generated by the passage of HB 4. The Alaska Court System
cannot do more without an additional judge, however, once a
judge is added more can be done. Additional court
proceedings would offset reductions in recidivism. The exact
amount of savings is unknown.
Vice-Chair Bunde stressed the benefit of keeping people off
the road and emphasized that if the fiscal cost is
comparable that the program would be a win/win situation.
In response to a question by Representative Hudson, Mr.
Wooliver noted that there are an average of 100 DWI felonies
a year in Anchorage. The number could increase if
legislation before the Legislature is adopted.
LOREN JONES, COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH/API REPLACEMENT PROJECT
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES testified
in support of the legislation. He noted that the department
has submitted an additional $55 thousand dollar fiscal note
in response to an amendment in the House Judiciary
Committee. The amendment added a responsibility to establish
infrastructure to support advancements to defendants for the
cost of treatment.
Mr. Jones observed that 56 percent of the individuals in out
patient treatment were abstinent for a year; 47 percent of
residential patients were abstinent after a year. He pointed
out that residential patients have a higher level of
impairment. Those that received the greatest number of
contact hours in treatment did better than the group as a
whole. An independent group conducted the study on rural and
urban areas for out patients and residential patients
several years ago. The fiscal note does not anticipate the
use of residential treatment. The Division would provide
grant funds to local nonprofit organizations in Anchorage
and Bethel. The fiscal note would assure that treatment is
immediately available. There are wait lists for services in
Anchorage and Fairbanks. Treatment must be immediately
available when they enter the therapeutic court. He noted
that up to 10 hours of direct services a week are received
in the first 6 - 8 weeks. By the end of the program they
receive services once a month. They would also get
naltrexone services if appropriate. The judge would check on
progress and receive reports from counselors.
Co-Chair Williams questioned if the grants would be
available each year. Mr. Jones noted that the department's
fiscal note for grants is $501 thousand dollars: $409
thousand dollars for Anchorage and $92 thousand dollars for
Bethel during the first year. The second year cost in Bethel
would be $276 thousand dollars. This is 75 percent of the
total costs; defendants are expected to pay at least 25
percent of the cost in Anchorage and 10 percent in Bethel.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned how naltrexone affects people.
Mr. Jones explained that naltrexone is an alcohol antagonist
that reduces the cravings to take the first drink.
Naltrexone does not make people sick. The only counter
indication is severe liver disease. Chronic alcoholics that
take naltrexone tend to stay in treatment longer and report
significant reductions in cravings. It is an expensive drug.
Co-Chair Mulder referred to the pool of eligibility. He
noted that the legislation states that the court may accept
a defendant that is not charged with an unclassified felony,
a class A felony, or an offense under AS 11.41.410 -
11.41.470 and will focus on defendants charged with multiple
driving while intoxicated offenses.
Mr. Jones observed that there are 100 felony DWI offenders
in Anchorage. There are defendants with multiple offenses
that could still be misdemeanors due to the length between
offenses. The decision was made to limit the court to 80 in
Anchorage, 15 for the first half-year in Bethel and 45 in
Bethel the next full year. The pool of people that could
self-select would be larger. The Division's fiscal note is
$400 thousand dollars. The court would be established for a
three-year period.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that there would be an annual $2
million dollar fiscal note. Representative Croft observed
that the fiscal cost in the year 2003 would be $2.5 million
dollars (the cost per defendant would be $20,000). He
stressed that 100 people in jail would cost $2.5 million
dollars. If 100 people were kept out of prison the fiscal
cost would be even. He pointed out that 75 percent of felony
DWI offenders re-offend. He suggested that the recidivism
rate would be lowered from 75 to 50. He stressed that there
would be collateral benefits from reducing DWI offences.
TAPE HFC 01 - 68, Side B
Mr. Jones explained that after arrest a person enters the
court. If they are found guilty the court places felony
offenders in jail. Misdemeanor offenders may be placed in
jail or referred to alcohol safety action programs for
assessment and treatment. Treatment providers try to engage
the person. In therapeutic courts the judge, prosecutor,
public defender, probation officer and the treatment
counselor come together as a team. The team puts more focus
on the individual in order to keep them out of jail, prevent
them from driving while intoxicated and encourage sobriety
and long-term recovery so that they can be productive and
not repeat their offense. The legislation provides funding
specifically for repeat offenders, which desperately need to
be targeted, without impacting scarce resources, for which
there are wait lists. The ultimate goal is to stop the
behavior and reduce deaths from drunk drivers.
Representative Hudson agreed that it is not just a matter of
reducing expenses. He emphasized the value of prevention
versus incarceration.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW spoke in support of the
legislation. He noted that the Legislature's attention over
the last 7 years has focused on increasing jail sentencing
for alcohol related offenses. He questioned if longer
sentencing is working. He acknowledged that defendants are
not driving while in jail, but noted that recidivism rates
are high. He stressed that the therapeutic court program
seems to be working and is worth a try. The pilot program
allows judges flexibility. Suspension of sentencing provides
an incentive. He maintained that the program should be done
on a limited and controlled basis to see if it works. There
is a requirement for a follow-up evaluation. The department
feels that the legislation contains sufficient safe guards.
Mr. Guaneli acknowledged the fiscal cost, but stressed that
the cost of incarceration is also expensive. He observed
that the average time served by repeat DWI offenders is 9 -
10 months. Third time offenses receive 6 - 8 months. Fourth
time offenders receive 10 - 13 and 5th time offenders
receive up to 18 months. There is a population of hard-core
drinkers that are difficult to crack. He acknowledged that
there would be relapses. He stressed that there are
economies of scale. He thought that in comparison to the
cost of incarceration the program would break even.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the number of potential
applicants is accurate. Mr. Guaneli noted that the
unclassified felony, class A offenses and sex offenders that
are being excluded make a relatively small percentage of the
felony offenders. There are approximately 100 cases a year
in Anchorage. In Bethel, some drug-addicted offenders would
also benefit. There are over 1,000 cases of serious offenses
as the result of alcohol that could benefit from a similar
program.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if the assumption is that 80
cases would plead guilty to take advantage of the program.
Mr. Guaneli stressed that there are sufficient incentives to
encourage people to enter the program. The target of 80 was
chosen to limit the program.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned the measurement of success and
asked what is being used as a baseline comparison. He
maintained that without a baseline the department is going
to come back and claim that the program was an unqualified
success. Mr. Guaneli noted that the rate of success is based
on recidivism. Mr. Jones noted that the Alaska Judicial
Council would evaluate the program.
Co-Chair Mulder recommended a letter of intent, to outline
baseline criteria.
Representative Croft observed that the recidivism rate and
sobriety over consecutive periods such as 6 months and a
year would be a baseline.
Mr. Guaneli spoke in support of a long-term follow-up and
acknowledged the need for baseline information.
Representative John Davies noted that page 3, line 19 calls
for collection of data about and evaluation of the
effectiveness of the program and maintained that a letter of
intent to clarify would be out of order. He stressed that
the baseline needs to be the total population.
Representative Foster noted that jail is not a deterrent. He
felt that the program would be beneficial.
JANET MCCABE, PARTNERS FOR DOWNTOWN PROGRESS testified via
teleconference in support of the legislation. Partners for
Downtown Progress is the local nonprofit organization that
worked with Judge Wanamaker to developed and implement the
Wellness Court. Federal funding supports treatment and case
coordination. She pointed to the success of the Wellness
Court. She spoke in support of allowing flexible timelines.
She noted that the Wellness Court is funded by a one-time
federal grant that will be depleted January 1, 2002. She
spoke in support of continuing the District Court program.
The majority of DWI cases are on the municipal level in
Anchorage. She stated that they have language that they
would like to recommend for the criteria of selection. She
observed that defendants have nominated themselves after
seeing video footage on naltrexone. She stressed the need to
choose persons that are going to succeed. She observed that
the pilot programs would be in accordance with a mutually
agreed-upon plan. She suggested that there be a leader and
recommended that "under the leadership of the therapeutic
court judges" be added. She reiterated that funding for the
Wellness Court would end.
Representative John Davies asked the amount of the federal
grant for the Wellness Court. Ms. McCabe responded that the
federal grant is $150 thousand dollars. Treatment for 40
people was covered with the grant. The goal is to get the
defendant started. The program pays for the first month or 2
of naltrexone, and funds a case coordinator hired by the
municipality to work with the defendants and help identify
candidates. There is also a community liaison. The
administration of the program is on a volunteer basis.
Representative John Davies questioned if the clientele of
the Wellness Court is different from the clientele that
would be served by the legislation. Ms. McCabe noted that
the Wellness Court serves municipal cases that are
predominately misdemeanants.
Representative John Davies asked if it is the same form of
treatment and how often they are back before the court. Ms.
McCabe noted that clients are brought back to court once a
month and sent back to jail if they have relapsed. Out
patient treatment is used. Naltrexone is also used.
Offenders are supervised for a year to 18 months.
BLAIR MCCUNE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
AGENCY testified via teleconference in support of the
legislation. He noted that the Alaska Public Defenders
Agency's inability to follow up on their clients. They
participate with Anchorage in the Mental Health court, which
has been successful. He acknowledged that the Mental Health
Court is more resource intensive, but emphasized their
success rate. He spoke in support of allowing credit for
time served.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that a defendant referred to a court
shall enter a plea of guilty or no contest within 45 days
after the defendant's first appearance before the
therapeutic court. Representative Porter interjected that he
would not propose an amendment to address this section.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned the need for 5 more public
defenders if the clients are pleading guilty. Mr. McCune
noted that the success of the court is based on a team
approach. He observed that defendants will discuss things
with the public defenders under attorney/client privileges
and emphasized that the defense attorney has a strong role
to play in assisting counselors and determining the
direction of treatment. He observed that there would be an
added superior court judge. It takes four lawyers to handle
the work before each superior court judge. Cases before the
therapeutic courts require additional work and take more
time than other cases. He felt that he fiscal note was
justified.
Representative Porter pointed out that there would be a
diminishment of the superior court judge's activity since he
would be involved with therapeutic courts, which require
more time per case. He maintained that there would not be
additional DWI arrests as the result of the legislation. If
anything there would be less.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that the superior court judges would
not be 100 percent focused on therapeutic court cases. He
questioned if the public defenders added would be also
working on other cases. Mr. McCune acknowledged that the
additional public defenders would also be working on other
cases.
HB 172 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|