Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| 2015 Recidivism Reduction Plan: Cost Effective Solutions to Slow Prison Population Growth & Reduce Recidvism | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 18, 2015
1:37 p.m.
1:37:56 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jeff Jessee, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority; Carmen Gutierrez, Consultant, Justice
Improvement Solutions; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska
Court System; Ron Taylor, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Valerie Davidson, Commissioner, Department of
Health and Social Services; Bryan Butcher, Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Director, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, Department Of Revenue; Joe Thomas, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development;
SUMMARY
2015 RECIDIVISM REDUCTION PLAN: COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO
SLOW PRISON POPULATION GROWTH & REDUCE RECIDVISM
Co-Chair Neuman provided background details about the
recidivism working group. He explained that the group was
born out of an idea that a set of legislators had to
examine ways to reduce costs associated with inmates within
the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of
Public Safety (DPS), and the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS). He spoke of his positive experience
in bringing the group together over the previous summer.
The presentation that would be heard reflected the
recommendations resulting from the collaborative effort of
the group. The focus of the recommendations was how to
reduce and maintain costs within the state's operating
budget. He relayed that the state's correction facilities
were at 101 percent capacity.
1:39:37 PM
^2015 RECIDIVISM REDUCTION PLAN: COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS
TO SLOW PRISON POPULATION GROWTH & REDUCE RECIDVISM
1:39:44 PM
JEFF JESSEE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY, pointed out that DOC Commissioner, Ron
Taylor, co-chaired the recidivism workgroup. He explained
that the purpose of the group was to look at what could be
done to contain the state's DOC budget over time. He
introduced the Power Point presentation, "2015 Recidivism
Reduction Plan: Cost Effective Solutions To Slow Prison
Population Growth & Reduce Recidivism."
Mr. Jessee turned to slide 2, "Right on Crime":
"We want to reduce crimes as rapidly and as seriously
as possible. But the real cost in doing this wrong is
broken families, destroyed neighborhoods and lives
that didn't need to be stunted." --Grover Norquist,
San Diego Pew Public Safety Conference, November 19,
2014
Mr. Jessee highlighted that looking at recidivism and
minimizing the amount of time people spent in prison was
not some sort of left-winged agenda. It was about trying to
do things the right way in order to achieve the desired
results. He mentioned that, based on the quote from Grover
Norquist, people started to realize that the federal and
state governments were spending significant amounts of
money on correctional systems without correcting the
problem. The country was still facing ever-increasing
numbers of people in the correctional systems with ever-
increasing budgets. Alaska legislators realized two years
prior that periodic multi-million dollar capital projects,
prisons with operating costs, were necessary.
Mr. Jessee turned to slide 3, "HB266 Legislative Intent
Language."
· Goal is to collaboratively reduce recidivism by:
· Gather/analyze data on:
· substance abuse
· mental health
· employment
· housing services needed
· current services provided to returning
citizens
· Propose effectiveness/efficiency measures
· Develop and implement plan for those who are
released from correctional institutions.
· Use the plan to:
· Assist the ADOC, DHSS, DOLWD, AMHTA, AHFC, & ACS
to improve treatment & outcomes for recently
released inmates.
Mr. Jessee reported that the group was charged to analyze
data on all of the various issues having to do with
substance abuse, mental health, employment, and housing
services. The purpose was to figure out a way to turn the
curve on recidivism. The good news was that state agencies
were already addressing the issues surrounding recidivism.
The results of the group's efforts far exceeded past
collaboration.
He turned the presentation over to Carmen Gutierrez. He
described her experience working in the criminal justice
arena for twenty years as an attorney and as the deputy
commissioner of DOC under Commissioner Joseph Schmidt. She
had a tremendous amount of experience that she brought with
her. The Trust contracted with her to work with the group
to develop a plan. He relayed that the committee would be
hearing presentations from all of the members of the
workgroup.
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, CONSULTANT, JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT
SOLUTIONS, thanked committee members for the opportunity to
speak on a subject she felt was important to all Alaskans;
promoting public safety. She turned to slide 4, "AK's
Prison Population is the 3rd Fastest Growing in the U.S.":
· Even with GCCC, DOC operates at101% of general
capacity
· GCCC cost $250,000,000 to build
· GCCC added $50,000,000/year to Alaska budget
· AK's prison population growing 3% per year
· Prison growth rate exceeds AK population growth rate 4
fold
· Increases while crime rate decreases
· 32 other states facing budget deficits, have cut the
rate of prison growth & crime rates
She reported that even with the opening of the recently
completed Goose Creek Correctional Facility, Alaska was
operating at 101 percent of its general capacity as of
January 2015. The state spent $250 million to build a new
prison that housed over 1500 inmates. The cost of the
prison added $50 million per year to the state's annual
operating budget. She highlighted that Alaska had the third
fastest-growing prison population in the U.S. only falling
behind Wyoming and Iowa. The prison population was
consistently growing in Alaska at 3 percent per year.
Alaska's prison growth rate exceeded the population growth
rate 4-fold. It continued to increase while Alaska's crime
rates decreased. She illuminated that 32 other states,
beginning in 2007 with the nation-wide fiscal crisis, had
to start looking at how they were running their corrections
and criminal justice systems because they had reached the
point where they could no longer afford to continue with
the failed practices of the past. She pronounced that the
U.S., of all the countries in the world, incarcerated the
highest number of people. Every state had a high recidivism
rate. If asked whether policies produced a good value for
criminal justice dollars spent, most legislators would say,
"No!" She summarized that Alaska incarcerated many people,
its prison population continued to grow at 3 percent, and
former inmates were Alaskans' neighbors.
1:45:12 PM
Ms. Gutierrez advanced to slide 5, "Former Inmates Are Our
Neighbors."
· Today ADOC incarcerates > 6300 offenders
· 95% of inmates are released
· 377 convicted felons released into AK communities
every month
· 63% recidivism rate as of 2011
· Public safety requires a continued reduction of this
rate
Ms. Gutierrez relayed that people in halfway houses and on
electronic monitoring made up a portion of Alaska's 6300
offenders. Department of Corrections estimated that on
average 95 percent of the people incarcerated were
eventually released. In 2014, Alaska released 377 convicted
felons into its communities every month. She added that an
Alaska Judicial Council study showed that since 1980, 255
thousand Alaskans had been convicted of a crime in Alaska.
In reviewing the state's population many people had been
convicted of crimes, yet Alaska's recidivism rate was 66
percent in 2009 [2007] and continued to drop to 63 percent
by 2011. She opined that Alaskans deserved better and posed
the question about what to do.
1:46:36 PM
Ms. Gutierrez continued to slide 6, "Have Alaskans Been
Receiving Good Value For The Criminal Justice Dollars
Spent?"
· In 2007, AJC reported 2 out 3 former offenders return
within the first 3 years of release. The majority,
within 6 months.
· This comes at a high price. In FY14, it cost $158 per
day per inmate to incarcerate in a hard-prison bed.
· In 2009, DOC began to implement previously eliminated
reformative programs.
· Recidivism declined from a high in 2007 of 66%,
to63.54% in FY 2010 and to 63.19% in FY 2011.
Ms. Gutierrez explained that the price to incarcerate an
inmate was substantially more than it would cost to put
someone in a half-way house, have them on electronic
monitoring, or have them on supervised probation.
Ms. Gutierrez reported that in 2009 the commissioner
recognized that DOC was not doing any correcting, thus, not
promoting public safety. A reformative program began being
re-implemented within DOC with the support of the
legislature. The good news was that the recidivism rate
started to decrease. In 2007 the recidivism rate was 66
percent, dropped to 63.5 percent in 2010, and descended to
63.19 percent in 2011. She was unable to provide numbers in
2012 and 2013 because it reflected a look-back of three
years.
1:48:33 PM
Ms. Gutierrez advanced to slide 7, "Alaska At A
Crossroads." She reviewed that Alaska was operating at
about 100 percent capacity with the prison population
growing at about 3 percent per year. She wondered whether
the state was planning to build a new prison, recommit to
incarcerating out of state, or invest in cost-effective
strategies that targeted the factors driving Alaska's
prison population. She believed that the third option would
provide more value for the dollars spent in promoting
better public safety.
1:49:05 PM
Ms. Gutierrez explained slide 8, "Do We Wish To Spend $300
Million to Build A New Prison?"
· Or, invest in cost-effective strategies proven to
reduce recidivism, produce better public safety
outcomes & cost less money?
· Should the State choose cost-effective strategies, how
does it determine those strategies?
· Identify factors driving Alaska's prison
population growth
· Identify who is recidivating & why.
Ms. Gutierrez intimated that the state would have to decide
how to identify cost effective strategies and better
understand the factors driving the annual 3 percent growth
rate in the prison population. She remarked that other
states were doing work with the Pew Public Safety
Performance Project (PSPP) and the Council of State
Governments. Next, she would be talking about the Pew PSPP.
1:49:48 PM
Ms. Gutierrez advanced to slide 9, "Invite The Pew Public
Safety Performance Project To Alaska."
· Mission: The PSPP helps states advance fiscally sound,
data-driven sentencing & corrections policies that
protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and
control corrections costs.
· Goal: Help states get a better return on their public
safety dollars.
· Strategies:
· Research on national trends & on what works.
· Provide FREE technical assistance to state.
Ms. Gutierrez offered that the Pew PSPP was interested in
helping Alaska deal with the unsustainable prison
population growth that the state was experiencing
currently. The Pew PSPP typically brought in a team of
about five data experts to look at criminal justice data
from DOC, DPS, and the Alaska Court System. The goal of the
Pew PSPP was to identify, in a systemic fashion, the
factors driving Alaska's prison population growth. She
stressed that the project's approach was not a soft-on-
crime approach. She pointed out that the project's primary
goal was to ensure states received a better return on their
investment of public safety dollars. Technical assistance
from PSPP was free. The only burden on the state was that
departments needed to supply data to the Pew data divers.
Ms. Gutierrez advanced to slide 10, "Pew Would Guide AK In
A Justice Reinvestment Process."
· Skilled data analysts perform criminal justice
overview
· Examine drivers of AK's prison population growth
· Outline lessons learned from other States
· Policy Development
· Make Final Findings & Recommendations
Ms. Gutierrez outlined that the Pew team would do the data
analysis on Alaska's criminal justice system, examine
drivers causing the growth in prison populations, and then
share with Alaska the lessons learned in 32 other states.
Many states had very different systems. That Pew PSPP had
assimilated an array of evidence-based practices to attack
identified drivers and made policy recommendations. She
emphasized that states were not obligated to implement any
of the strategies recommended by Pew.
1:52:15 PM
Ms. Gutierrez thought it would be helpful for the committee
to hear what other policy makers had to say about the Pew
experience in a video.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized that Representative Pruitt and
Representative Munoz had joined the meeting.
Ms. Gutierrez played a video for the committee entitled,
"PEW."
1:57:38 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, joined
the presentation and continued to slide 13, "Known Factors
Driving AK's Prison Growth."
1. Increased Number of Pretrial & Unsentenced Inmates
2. Increased % of Non-violent Offenders
3. Increased Average Length of Stay
4. Increased Probation Violations
Ms. Mead pointed out that it was complex to identify the
factors that were causing an increase in the prison growth.
She suggested that there were a few conclusions that could
be made based on DOC's data. Slide 13 listed what the data
showed. First, there were more people in Alaska's prisons
who were pre-trial and sentenced. Second, there was an
increase in the number of non-violent offenders. Most
people wondered if filling the state's prison beds with
non-violent offenders who likely did not pose a threat to
public safety was the best use of state resources. Third,
she reported an increased length of stay in which prison
terms were getting longer after people were sentenced.
Fourth, there were more probation violations.
Ms. Mead scrolled to slide 14, "Increased Number Of
Pretrial and Unsentenced Inmates." She posed the question
of why there was an increase in people sitting in prisons
pre-trial. The problem was that the questions were fairly
complex. The Pew organization would be able to help answer
such questions.
Ms. Mead wanted to discuss the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission, a very high-level, blue-ribbon panel which
included judges, the attorney general, district attorneys,
and Mr. Jessee. She expounded that there were 18
commissioners on the panel. They had been working since the
summer on identifying some of the problems Alaska had,
hopefully coming up with solutions, and trying to implement
them. The commission was a three-year commission with an
established deadline, and therefore, not a bureaucratic
beast. She relayed that each year the commission was
supposed to come back to the legislature with
recommendations. She claimed that the questions were so
complex that they were being studied by one of the
subgroups of the Criminal Justice Commission. There was a
subgroup called "Pretrial Practices and Procedures." The
focus of the subgroup was to evaluate the numbers and
determine a course of action. They were evaluating whether
the state's dollars were being put to good use. They were
trying to answer such questions about whether the results
of the dollars spent were good for society; whether they
were helping to prevent crimes or victims of crimes from
suffering additional offenses.
Ms. Mead discussed a few obvious things about pre-trial
inmates. The most obvious was that if someone was in
custody prior to their trial it was because they did not
make bail. A person had a constitutional right to bail and
to see a judicial officer in order to set bail within 24
hours of being arrested. She reported that more and more
people could not make their bail. The Criminal Justice
Commission was specifically studying the current bail
statute which defined the criteria considered when setting
bail. For example, the judicial officer had to weigh
whether the person was going to appear for their following
court appearance and whether releasing the person on bail
would threaten the public safety of victims or others in a
community. The bail statute provided for 18 possible
conditions that could be placed on a person released on
bail. The conditions were determined at a bail hearing and
often included a financial component, a third party
custodian assignment (someone to keep eyes and ears on the
defendant at all times), and an option to order 24/7
(sobriety testing twice a day to ensure a person was not
returning to drug and alcohol use). These were 3 of 18
possible conditions a judge could impose on a defendant.
The Criminal Justice Commission subgroup was looking at
what conditions were appropriate in light of the current
knowledge, whether the conditions were based on evidence
that worked. She added that an important part of the bail
statute was that in 2010 a presumption was added that for a
large category of crimes no conditions could protect the
public. In a bail hearing the presumption was that if a
person was charged with an unclassified crime, a Class A
felony, a sex crime, a domestic violence crime, a
misdemeanor, a felony, or any crime against a person
(crimes in 1141) the presumption was that no conditions
could adequately protect the public. This presented a
burden in bail hearings. It was a rebuttable presumption in
which the defense could say in a particular case that a
specific condition would protect the public. She indicated
that she had presented an outline within which people had
worked to determine the appropriate bail, if any, in a
particular case.
Ms. Mead discussed slide 15, "Increased Percent of Non-
Violent Offenders." She explained that most non-violent
offenders committed Class C felonies, such as drug offenses
rather than crimes against people. Class C felonies
included drug offenses such as selling or being in
possession of a controlled substance, writing bad checks,
or thefts of $750 or more. She suggested that a
consideration was whether to fill Alaska's prisons with
non-violent offenders, who currently made up 64 percent of
the prison population, or whether there was a better way to
deal with them.
2:04:32 PM
Ms. Gutierrez turned to slide 16, "Public Opinion on
Jailing Non-violent Offenders in Expensive Prison Beds."
She spoke of the Pew PSPP conducting a nation-wide public
polling that asked citizens their opinion about using
expensive prison beds for non-violent offenders. Pew
retained Public Opinion Strategies and The Mellman Group,
entities of which were the gold standard of public polling.
Ms. Gutierrez scrolled to slide 17, "Reformation Trumps
Incarceration For Non-Violent Offenders." She relayed that
pollsters found that the overwhelming public opinion was
that reformation trumped incarceration for non-violent
offenders.
Ms. Gutierrez advanced to slide 18, "Prison Is For the
Violent." The pollsters also found that the public opinion
was that prison was for violent offenders.
Ms. Gutierrez revealed slide 19, "Key Public Opinion
Takeaways:"
A national public opinion survey conducted in January
2012, along with similar surveys in Georgia, Missouri,
and Oregon, found those attitudes persist and revealed
opinions on specific policy solutions.
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
1. American voters believe too many people are in
prison and the nation spends too much on
imprisonment.
2. Voters overwhelmingly support a variety of policy
changes that shift non-violent offenders from
prison to more effective, less expensive
alternatives.
3. Support for sentencing and corrections reform
(including reduced prison terms) is strong across
political parties, regions, age, gender, and
racial/ethnic groups.
Ms. Gutierrez found it interesting to know the thoughts of
the public. She turned the presentation back over to Ms.
Mead.
Ms. Mead turned to slide 20, "Increased Average Length of
Stay." She reported that another factor driving the prison
growth was an increased length of stay, also being studied
by a subgroup of the Criminal Justice Commission. One of
the obvious circumstances was that the sentences were too
long explaining why people stayed in prison for longer
periods of time. One of the precise charges given to that
subgroup was to look at the statutory presumptive sentences
that accompanied each crime. Judges were provided with a
range in which they must order the sentence for a certain
crime. However, for example, if someone was charged with a
Class C felony misconduct involving drugs in the fourth
degree the sentencing ranged from 1 to 3 years. She
suggested that there should be some evidence showing that 3
years was more effective than 1 year or that 1 year was
just as effective. Pew would help the state delve into such
questions as well as the commission that was working on the
same issues.
2:06:53 PM
Ms. Mead displayed slide 21, "Increased Probation
Violations."
· In 2003, 1,602 jail admissions for probation
violations.
· By 2013, that number had grown to 2,995.
· More than 54% of the 8000 probationers had a PTRP
filled against them
· 72% of PTRPs alleged technical violations
· 28% of PTRPs alleged commission of a new crime
Ms. Mead discussed increased probation violations. She
reported that the court system had seen that it was
difficult for people to get on probation without bumping
into problems. She highlighted that more than 54 percent of
people on probation had a petition to revoke probation
(PTR) filed against them and 72 percent of those were
technical violations. She elaborated that an offender had
to file several conditions and that probation could vary
from 3 years or 5 years or more. A person might have to
report somewhere several times a week to do a urinalysis
test and follow the instructions of one's probation
officer. She conveyed that 72 percent of the people had
something filed against them. She provided examples of
probation mistakes such as not showing up for an
appointment or having a positive drug test result. She
reasoned that these sort of mistakes might be better
handled with something other than additional prison time.
She made clear that it was different for someone
reoffending while on probation versus making a technical
violation. She reiterated that the ramifications of a
technical violation were being studied as well as the
alternatives to additional prison time.
2:08:09 PM
Ms. Gutierrez discussed slide 22, "What We Know About
Alaskans Who Recidivate."
· The more serious the underlying offense, the lower the
recidivism rate.
· Misdemeanants had significantly higher recidivism
rates than felons
· Class C felons had higher rates than other felons
· High rates among offenders who are youthful, male,
have lengthy or more serious prior criminal histories,
and are Native and African American.
· Offenders convicted of violent & property crimes most
likely to be reconvicted of a new offense of the same
type.
Ms. Gutierrez purported that having information about
recidivated Alaskans would allow the state to target
particular subgroups of individuals who recidivated at
higher rates than others. However, the state needed to know
more about what drove recidivism. She believed that an
entity like the Pew PSPP could help to discover more
information.
Ms. Gutierrez turned to slide 23, "The Texas Experience."
· 2007: Texas DOC projected 17,000 prison bed shortfall
over five years.
· Recommended construction of 4,000 new beds at >
$900,000,000.
· Senate President: "No more prisons. We can't afford
them."
· Solution: Reformative programs as alternatives to
incarceration.
· Decision: Invest $241,000,000 in evidence-based
strategies to reduce recidivism.
Ms. Gutierrez indicated that Texas was reputed to be the
most notoriously tough state on criminals. She reported
that in 2007 Texas' DOC was projecting a 17 thousand prison
bed shortfall over a period of 5 years. The department
recommended constructing 4 thousand new prison beds which
the senate president refused to support. Instead, the
governor announced that Texas would commit to investing
$241 million on alternatives to incarceration, a gamble
which turned out to be a good investment.
2:11:00 PM
Ms. Gutierrez continued with slide 24, "Evidence-Based
Investment Strategy."
· Drug courts
· Intermediate sanction facilities for probationers who
violate conditions of probation
· Residential treatment programs for probationers who
can't stay clean & sober
· In prison residential treatment programs (like our
RSSAT)
Ms. Gutierrez reviewed the list of different areas in which
Texas invested.
2:11:39 PM
Ms. Gutierrez read the list on slide 25, "Evidence-Based
Strategies For Probationers."
· Community-based Substance Abuse Treatment
· Incentives to Encourage Probation Compliance
· PACE type, Swift Certain & Proportionate Sanctions for
certain Probation Violations
Ms. Gutierrez reviewed slide 26, "Texas Results."
· Since Texas enacted these new approaches:
· Recidivism rates dropped 25%
· Crime rate dropped 18%, lowest since 1968
· Imprisonment rate dropped 10%
· Avoided nearly $3 billion in prison costs
Ms. Gutierrez stated that Texas had actually closed
prisons.
2:12:36 PM
Ms. Gutierrez looked at another state that was worth noting
in slide 27, "South Dakota."
· 2013, prison population had grown dramatically to 3600
· Imprisonment rate growing faster than national
average and crime rate falling slowly.
· Majority of incarcerated offenders were
nonviolent
· High number of parole/probation revocations
· High recidivism rate: 4 in 10 returned within in
3 years of release
· Projected to grow 25 percent through 2022
· This growth would require 2 new prisons and a total
expenditure of $224,000,000
Ms. Gutierrez explained that she was bringing South Dakota
to the committee's attention because it was a state unlike
Texas that had a very small prison population. She reported
that in 2013 the prison population grew to 3600, about half
the number of prisoners in Alaska. South Dakota was
incarcerating predominantly non-violent offenders and
probation violators, and had a high rate of recidivism. The
state's prison population was expected to grow 25 percent
by the end of 2022 requiring the construction of additional
prisons costing $224 million. South Dakota could not afford
the expenditure.
2:12:57 PM
Ms. Gutierrez continued with slide 28, "PSPP SO. Dakota
Findings."
· In 2012, 61 percent in prison for nonviolent offenses.
· 81% of newly admitted prisoners were nonviolent
· 53% were drug and alcohol offenders,
· Planned investment strategy over 10 years will save
$207 million of which $53 million will be invested in
new evidence-based strategies.
2:13:06 PM
Ms. Gutierrez moved on to slide 29, "What Leaders In So.
Dakota Said."
"Our state faces a clear choice. Down one path, we can
continue to build prisons and allow corrections to
consume an ever-increasing proportion of taxpayers'
dollars. The alternative is to follow the path blazed
by almost two dozen states across the country. A path
that makes us safer and one that will save our state
millions of dollars." -Gov. Dennis Daugaard, State of
the State address, Jan. 8, 2013
Ms. Gutierrez reported that the state enacted an omnibus
bill that when the governor signed it he discussed how it
would make citizens safer and save the state millions of
dollars.
2:13:12 PM
Ms. Gutierrez read slide 30, "What Leaders In So. Dakota
Said."
"We have been putting a lot of people in prison … but
we have now recognized that we haven't changed
behaviors of those prisoners. Most of them get out of
prison eventually and a very high proportion goes
back, because the main change that took place in
prison is that they became better criminals."
--Sen. Craig Tieszen, floor testimony, Jan. 24, 2013
Ms. Gutierrez read Senator Craig Tieszen's statement.
2:13:37 PM
Ms. Gutierrez read slide 31, "South Dakota Solutions."
· Passed SB 70 to reduce growth by 716 beds and slow
corrections budget growth by:
· averting construction of two prisons, saving
state taxpayers $207 million in construction and
operating costs through 2022; and
· redirects $8 million from current budget to
programs and policies proven to reduce recidivism
and improve offender accountability.
· An ongoing annual investment of 4.9 million in these
programs is expected.
2:14:05 PM
Ms. Gutierrez turned to slide 32, "Reformative Programs In
Alaska."
· 2007: the Commissioner inherited an ADOC with NO
programs
· With legislative support, reinstatement of programs
began
· Substance Abuse Treatment
· Educational/Vocational Programs
· Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
· FY 2014: ONLY 2.9% of DOC's operating budget goes to
reformative programs
Ms. Gutierrez steered the conversation back to Alaska after
examining solutions from other states. In 2007, the
commissioner of DOC inherited a department with no reform
programs other than one federally funded substance abuse
treatment program. The department was able to reinstate
programs with legislative support some of which were
substance abuse, educational and vocational programs, and
cognitive behavioral treatment. She talked briefly about
cognitive behavioral treatment because, when looking at the
research, it provided more value per dollar than any other
reformative program. Cognitive behavioral treatment changed
the mindset of the individual who committed the criminal
behavior. She relayed that many young people were not
learning what they needed to learn and had criminal
thinking attitudes. She concluded that without changing the
criminal thinking attitude, the offender would not change.
In FY 14 2.9 percent of DOC's budget went to reformative
programs which proved to be a positive investment with
positive outcomes.
2:15:31 PM
Ms. Gutierrez reviewed the chart on slide 33, "Outcome From
Investment: Recidivism Reduction." She pointed out that in
FY 07 recidivism was at its highest at 66.03 percent and
dropped to 63.19 percent in FY 11. She believed Alaska was
moving in the right direction.
2:15:42 PM
Ms. Gutierrez read slide 34, "ADOC Runs Quality Programs."
· 2.9% of ADOC operating budget for reformative programs
is low compared to American Correctional Association
finding that, on average, other state prisons devote
4.4% of budgets to programming.
· Dec. 2014, Leg. Audit very complementary of the ADOC
programs in terms quality, array & motivating inmates
to attend.
2:15:57 PM
Ms. Gutierrez reviewed slide 35, "WA State Institute Of
Public Policy Finds."
· The cost-benefit of custodial substance abuse
treatment programs have a 100% chance of the benefits
exceeding the costs.
· The cost-benefit of both educational and vocational
custodial programs have a 100% chance of the benefits
exceeding the costs.
Ms. Gutierrez turned the spotlight to Commissioner Taylor
for review of DOC.
RON TAYLOR, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, talked
about slide 36, "AK Department Of Corrections."
· Alaska Prisoner Reentry Framework
Commissioner Taylor informed the committee that the
department had been working on a prisoner reentry
initiative for the past several years. The initiative was
based on three phases developed through the National
Institute of Corrections by a former colleague that had
worked in the department 20 years previously. He explained
that the program would help transition a person from prison
back into the community. The three phases included an
institutional phase, a transition phase, and a community
phase.
Commissioner Taylor explained the institutional phase. He
pointed out that a risk needs assessment was critical to
identifying problems that persons presented when coming
into Alaska's institutions. He relayed that SB 64 [Omnibus
Crime-Corrections-Recidivism bill introduced in 2013] would
require that anyone who was sentenced to 30 days or more
would have a risk needs assessment done by DOC. The risk
needs assessments would be used to develop programing and
also to help with transition. He offered that it was a
critical part of the release preparation. He claimed that
the department released over 13 thousand people from
Alaska's institutions throughout the course of a year.
Commissioner Taylor moved on to discuss the transition
phase of Alaska's prisoner reentry framework. He reported
that 75 percent of prisoners would be released without any
kind of probation or parole supervision. In other words,
prisoners would be returning to communities where they
would likely have some support. However, many of the
communities were ill-equipped to take care of them or to
understand their needs. Department of Corrections was
working with community stake holders to identify ways to
develop in-reach into the institutions in order to connect
those persons being released prior to their release. The
department was also making sure that it was sharing
information on programing needs and on areas of concern
with prisoners being released. In addition, the department
was restructuring the way that people were released as part
of the transitional phase whether through halfway houses,
electronic monitoring, or the parole board. In each case,
the release process needed simplification to ensure that
employees in the department were not spending an inordinate
amount of time processing paperwork. Rather, he wanted to
see staff spending more of their time meeting with inmates
and understanding their true needs.
Commissioner Taylor moved on to discuss the third phase of
prisoner reentry, the community phase. He elaborated that
the third phase dealt with community supervision and
looking at probation and parole violations. He expressed
the importance of better understanding why prisoners were
violating their probation and whether they should return to
a hard bed or whether other alternatives should be
considered. He suggested that alternatives included helping
released prisoners maintain housing, stay employed, and
other things that have proven to help in making them
successful in their community.
Commissioner Taylor spoke of a discharge phase that would
make communities understand that they had a role in
citizens returning to their communities. He stressed proper
follow-up and providing aftercare to prisoners once they
were released into communities. He summarized that the
department had been working on getting a comprehensive
strategic plan in place and would continue to work with
other departments listed in the recidivism reduction
workgroup as well as with community stakeholders.
2:20:57 PM
VALERIE DAVIDSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, expressed her support and advanced to
slide 37, "Div Of Health & Social Services."
· Division of Juvenile Justice
· Community Services
· New Directions
· Sobriety 24/7
· Therapeutic Courts
· Community Based Treatment Programs
Commissioner Davidson expressed the department's excitement
about being a part of the multi-department effort to invest
in the health of Alaskans; building the health of Alaskans
rather than building additional prisons. She highlighted
some of the opportunities that DHSS had undertaken to
highlight some programs to reduce recidivism. She spoke of
the Division of Juvenile Justice and its reliance on
community-based services. She stressed the importance of
working with everyone in the community including the local
government, the tribe, and the school district to ensure
that when young people returned to their community they had
the support needed to be successful.
Commissioner Davidson explained that there were 8 different
categories of evidence-based practices of intervention to
reduce juvenile crime. She stated that she would only be
highlighting 4 or 5 of them. She began with access to
mental health services and recognized that trauma-informed
care was critical to ensuring that youth made good
decisions and changed their behavior. Next, she mentioned
substance abuse screening, education, and intervention,
mental health services, and aggression replacement therapy
or training. She acknowledged that there were other
opportunities that could be implemented.
Commissioner Davidson relayed that one of the new
directions of the Division of Justice was to implement a
program called "Seven Challenges." The program was a new
evidence-based treatment program in a secure institutional
treatment facility for youth with substance abuse
disorders. She pointed out that the department was also in
the process of converting the Ketchikan Juvenile facility
to a state-wide treatment facility. She argued that being
able to dedicate a facility that provided state-wide
service would make a significant improvement. She went on
to identify other programs the department had undertaken
including Sobriety 24-7 in response to SB 64. She
elaborated that the 24-7 sobriety monitoring program was a
smart justice evidence-based program that allowed
participants to be able to remain in their community,
continue working, live with their families, and continue
their education while ensuring public safety. If a person's
crime was alcohol-related they would be required to
participate in alcohol testing twice a day and random drug
testing 2-3 times per week. The goal was to ensure that
individuals could remain a part of their community while
ensuring public safety. The program began in the previous
summer in July 2014. As of December, 31, 2014 the 218
participants had almost 12 thousand successful alcohol
breath tests administered. Of the tests administered there
were only 26 failed tests, less than 1 percent. She
continued to provide statistics. She relayed that of the
approximately 1400 successful drug tests that were
administered there were only 16 failed drug tests, only 1
percent. She furthered that 64 of the participants had
completed the program without violations. The program
showed tremendous promise.
Commissioner Davidson mentioned therapeutic courts and that
the alternative justice model worked very well. There was a
collaborative court team made up of a judge, district
attorney, defense council, probation officers, substance
abuse and mental health treatment providers who worked with
participants to get what they needed. She reported that
there were currently 14 therapeutic courts in Alaska; six
in Anchorage, one in Bethel, two in Juneau, one in
Ketchikan, two in Palmer, and two in Fairbanks.
Commissioner Davidson moved on to talk about community-
based treatment programs. She credited the department
through the Division of Behavioral Health for providing
funding for community-based substance abuse programs
through grants. In 2014, 25 million was provided for
treatments including detox, opioid treatment, residential
treatment, and outpatient services. She added that many of
the grants were provided because the individuals did not
currently qualify for Medicaid. She emphasized that
Medicaid expansion for childless adults within the
applicable income categories would address substance abuse
and alcohol treatment needs. For people on existing
Medicaid the department administered an additional 12
million for substance treatment through Medicaid. She
concluded that DHSS was excited to be a part of the team
and felt that it was a tremendous opportunity to build the
health of Alaskans rather than building more prisons.
Ms. Gutierrez commented about the Division of Juvenile
Justice. She pointed out that finance members had a nicely
bound recidivism reduction plan in front of them. The work
that had been conducted by the Division of Juvenile Justice
was addressed in the plan. She explained that she included
it in the plan because she felt it served as a significant
example and model for the adult criminal justice system.
She noted the number one strategic approach the division
made with juvenile justice. The division realized that its
data collections system was terrible. The division was able
to receive federal grant money and other money to implement
a very effective data collection system. The collected data
allowed the division to perform the data analysis required
to help it better understand the needs of its population.
Ms. Gutierrez continued by elaborating that following
analysis, the division developed strategic plans that were
discussed by the commissioner to address the needs. As a
result, the number of juvenile detentions was reduced
dramatically. She opined that the Division of Juvenile
Justice served as a model for the criminal justice system
concerning adults. She added that Jeff Jessee would be
talking more about the state's need for better data
collection in the adult system.
BRYAN BUTCHER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, began his portion of the presentation by turning
to slide 38, "Alaska Housing Finance Corp."
· Tenant Based Assistance Program -Partnership with DOC
· Reduces 66% re-incarceration rate to 33%
· Reduces prison population growth rate at $7.5k
cost per person. Prison costs $58k / year /
person
· Fund Prisoner Re-entry Services through HAP and SNHG
capital programs
· Partners for Progress Re-Entry Center, New Life
Development Supportive Housing
Mr. Butcher suggested that at first blush it might be
difficult to see the correlation between Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) and DOC. He relayed that AHFC
chaired the governor's Alaska Council on the Homeless. Most
of the agencies in the committee room sat on the council. A
few other agencies and some public members sat on it as
well. He told of speaking with DOC five years prior about a
problem. The problem was that when a person came out of the
correctional system they did not have any family, money, or
a place to go upon release. They were essentially homeless.
He suggested that someone that was released yet homeless
was far more likely to recidivate ending up back in the
system than someone that had a place to live; a base to
transition into the following stage of their life. He
reported that AHFC had been able to find $660 thousand in
federal funds per year to put together a tenant-based
assistance program working with DOC to determine candidates
to receive a voucher similar to the state's public housing
voucher. The public housing voucher worked such that
candidates found a private apartment funded through the
voucher program up to a maximum of two years. It was meant
to transition people out of the system and into the rest of
their lives. He reported a remarkable reduction in re-
incarceration over the previous five-year period. The
average, nationally and in Alaska, had bounced between the
low 60's to the mid 60's in terms of recidivism. Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) had seen a 33 percent
recidivism rate amongst the approximately 250 people that
participated in the program thus far. The cost to AHFC with
federal funds equaled about $7500 per year. The average
prison cost per person was about $58 thousand per year. He
concluded that it made more sense to reduce recidivism
rates at a lower cost than for criminals to return to the
state prison system at a higher cost.
Mr. Butcher continued to discuss the awards that AHFC
received for the program, national housing awards for
innovation. He told the committee that he had been
approached by other states that conveyed their surprise in
AHFC being able to work with DOC. He emphasized the benefit
of Alaska's DOC looking long-term and helping to reduce
recidivism rates. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation also
helped to fund prisoner reentry services through its
Homeless Assistance Program and its Special Needs Housing
Grant capital programs. The Partners for Progress Re-entry
Center and the New Life Development Supportive Housing
worked with Alaskans transitioning from the correctional
system into housing and the workplace. A criminal who
experienced a successful transition would be less likely to
re-offend and be placed back into the correctional system.
2:33:12 PM
JOE THOMAS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (DOLWD), advanced to slide 39, "Labor
& Workforce Development Collaborations."
· WorkKeys & NCRC certification in GCCC & Hiland
Mountain women's prison
· Pre-Release program at various facilities
· Employment after Incarceration Workshops at AK Job
Centers
· Operating Engineers and Ironworkers Pre-Apprenticeship
pilot program at Hiland and Palmer
· Minimum custody inmates working in fishing processing
plants
· Job Centers working directly with field probation
officers
Deputy Commissioner Thomas noted that although there were
differing situations for each prisoner transitioning out of
prison he believed they would be well-served by having some
sort of certification or training that would put them to
work. He added that ideally prisoners would have a job
secured before leaving jail. He pointed out that prisoners,
particularly felons, were somewhat difficult to employ.
Some industries did not employ convicted felons. He spoke
of the challenge of providing prisoners with training in a
particular skill or in searching for a job. Acquiring
proper training in prison was necessary for prisoners to
successfully transition out of jail and to avoid returning
to drug addiction and old occupations once released.
Commissioner Thomas discussed key elements. The department
evaluated prisoners before sending them into the workforce.
It was the department's role to make sure it did not send
people out that would steal or rob from patrons or
businesses. In the case of those prisoners being released
early, there had been an opportunity for them to take
introductory programs for various crafts and trades. He
reported that at Hiland Correctional Institute for Women
[Hiland Mountain Correctional Center], several women had
been put to work within the iron workers' union. These
women increased their job skills and were given the
opportunity to learn something that could be used in the
future. Through the WorkKeys program participants earned
their national career readiness certification preparing
people for work and giving them a better feel for their
work interests. He claimed that most trades required some
basic knowledge in trigonometry or geometry. Many employers
typically required aptitude in a certain areas. The first
few months after being released were extremely important to
the success of reintegration to society. Otherwise
recidivism was likely. He wanted the state to be relieved
of the cost of $55 thousand per year for incarceration
costs and having an employer gain an employee.
Commissioner Thomas discussed a variety of barriers that
needed addressing. He mentioned issues around traveling to
work, the stigmatism of coming out of prison, employers
being informed about a prisoner's training. He mentioned
Adult Basic Education and assisting prisoners prior to
their release in taking their GED [General Education
Development] test, a prerequisite for employment. He noted
pre-apprenticeship training and the availability of help at
the job centers. He highlighted the challenge of getting
into the workforce with a stigma that follows someone
released from jail. He also spoke about the importance of
learning about soft skills such as grooming, dressing, and
communications when applying for a job. He reiterated that
not having a driver's license, a GED, or a skill set were
all challenges. He stressed the importance of addressing
these challenges prior to prisoner release. The department
had been able to transition folks into jobs out of the
prison system. He noted conversations with the Southeast
seafood processors. He asked for any questions.
Mr. Jessee advanced to slide 40, "DOLWD Employer
Incentives."
· Work Opportunity Tax Credit (for employers)
· Fidelity Bonding Program to address employee bonding
to overcome barriers for the former offender
population
Mr. Jessee revealed slide 41, "What We Are Doing That
Works."
· ADOC institutional & community based reformative
programs
· The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's work
· The Partner's Reentry Center
· PACE, Sobriety 24/7, Therapeutic Courts
· ADOC partnership with AHFC & DOLWD
Mr. Jesse reported that the state was doing several things
to reduce recidivism that worked thanks to the efforts of
DOC, the Criminal Justice Commission, and the Partners
Reentry Center. He noted that the reentry center combined
and tailored housing, employment, and support for recovery
to fit each returning citizen. He mentioned Probation
Accountability and Certain Enforcement (PACE), Sobriety 24-
7, Therapeutic Courts, and DOC's partnership with AHFC and
DOLWD.
2:40:59 PM
Mr. Jessee continued to slide 42, "Next Steps With Fiscal
Component."
· Maintain current funding on ADOC reformative programs
· Support ADOC Alaska Prisoner Reentry Initiative
· Create a new ADOC position --Reentry Coordinator
· Support the ADOC efforts to work collaboratively with
the community Reentry Coalitions
· Support the Partner's Reentry Center in Anchorage
· Expand community based substance abuse treatment
· Development community based cognitive behavioral
treatment
Mr. Jessee stated that there would be a fiscal component
involved in maintaining DOC's reformative programs such as
the department's reentry initiative. He suggested creating
a position for a reentry coordinator to keep a focus on
reentry. He also favored supporting the department's
efforts in working with the reentry coalitions, especially
the Partners Reentry Center in Anchorage. The Partners
Reentry Center had been supported with capital
appropriations the previous two years. He stated the state
needed to find a way to expand community-based substance
abuse treatment. He suggested that if people could not get
sober and maintain sobriety, their chances of staying out
of prison declined significantly. He encouraged the
development of more cognitive behavioral treatment in a
community. He added, "If you don't change their criminal
thinking, you are not going to change the criminal." He
also mentioned the importance of making sure to spend the
base funding on data collection and analysis through the
justice center at the university. He opined that if the
state did not collect data and assess the results of the
strategies it invested in, then it would not be worth
making the investment. He stressed the significance of
being able to measure the success of a strategy and to
determine whether a strategy needed to be adapted or
changed. He emphatically stated that the data piece was
critical.
2:44:43 PM
Mr. Jessee scrolled to slide 43, "Next Steps With No Fiscal
Component."
· AK Criminal Justice Commission currently working on:
· current bail conditions
· deferred sentencing & pretrial diversion
· limited licenses for committed therapeutic court
participants & others who have demonstrated long-
term sobriety & lawfulness
· study barrier crimes
· Enact legislation to provide "good time" credits to
motivated probationers complying with probation
conditions
· Enact legislation providing "good time" credit to
people on Electronic Monitoring
Mr. Jessee reported that there were steps that could be
implemented in the short-run with no fiscal impacts. He
commented that the Criminal Justice Commission was doing
its work. He spoke of legislation that could be passed to
incentivize people to do the right thing such as motivating
probationers to comply with probation conditions by giving
them good time or providing good time credit to people with
electronic monitoring.
Ms. Gutierrez interjected that there was also one aspect
that the Criminal Justice Commission had been working on;
the issue of differed sentencing and pre-trial diversion.
She relayed that 40 percent of DOC's current population was
comprised of pre-trial offenders, people who had not been
convicted of a crime. She continued that under the notion
of differed sentencing an offender was basically being told
that if they did A, B, C, and D including drug and alcohol
treatment, then they would appear in front of a judge that
would take into account that person's sincere, demonstrated
efforts at achieving rehabilitation. She noted that pre-
trial diversion was another avenue that many other states
were investigating. She clarified that she was discussing
strategies that could potentially help to address the 40
percent population that otherwise occupied a prison bed at
the cost of $158 per day.
Mr. Jessee discussed the final slide 44, "Plan
Implementation."
· Identify strategies needed to match the # of hard
prison beds with appropriate offender population
· Develop an implementation plan that identifies:
· strategy & timeline for implementation
· cost
· number served
· estimated impact on recidivism
· Greatly postpone construction of new costly prison
Mr. Jesse concluded that the group had done what it had
been asked to do. The group got together, collaborated, and
developed a plan. He added that the group had completed the
legislative intent assigned by the legislature in the
previous session. He purported that the state was at a
crossroads. The ball was in the legislature's court. It was
up to the body to decide the next step forward. If the
state wanted to continue on the path that it had been on of
not addressing the issues, then the state would have to
deal with the prison population by building additional
prisons or sending criminals outside. He suggested that
maybe the legislature wanted the group to continue to work
at matching the prison bed population to the people that
needed incarceration. He asked the legislature for
direction concerning the next step which he believed was to
develop an implementation plan that laid out the specifics
about how to get to where the state wanted to go.
2:45:56 PM
Co-Chair Neuman relayed his experience in working with the
group over the previous summer. One of the things he
learned that was not included in the presentation was how
the system worked; how real life worked with many of the
people the state had to deal with. He talked about bail
being a hurdle for prisoners. Prisoners that were unable to
make bail set by a judge remained in jail at the cost of
$158 per day, $58 thousand per year. He reiterated that 40
percent of the 6300 inmates currently in corrections,
equaling approximately 2400 inmates, awaited sentencing. He
pointed out that 2.9 percent of the money that went into
corrections actually was designated for treatment programs.
He continued that 80 to 90 percent of the people in
corrections were there with drug and alcohol-related
problems. He expressed his frustration with the disparity
of funding set aside for treatment. He reported that he had
asked about treatment in corrections. Many of the treatment
programs lasted for 90 days, yet many of the people that
went into jail were not sentenced as long as 90 days,
therefore ineligible for treatment. He did not want to
elaborate on all of the repercussions of being intoxicated
on drugs and alcohol. He mentioned drug testing. He
reported that there were programs or hardware available
that the state could invest in for testing. He recalled
Representative Gattis trying to help community members with
getting to and from their urine or breathalyzer test
appointments twice daily. He suggested that there was
technology which allowed people to breathe into a cell
phone or any device with visual capabilities and the
chemical markers would be read. Such technology was
inexpensive, more convenient, and allowed people to remain
at work making compliance attainable.
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned serious problems with the state
budget and emphasized that the plan could not have happened
at a better time. He restated that the correction system
was at 101 percent capacity currently. He wondered if the
state was going to continue doing the same thing it was
currently doing. He maintained that there was a plan in
front of the committee on how to deal with capacity. He
conveyed that the cost of treatment programs were $12
hundred to $16 hundred per person, yet the state was paying
$158 per day. He asserted that the drug and alcohol
problems needed to be resolved. He wanted to complete the
implementation of the plan before the committee. He stated
that he had challenged the group to do a cost-benefit
analysis. The state would have to prove that the money it
invested in the plan would save the state money in the
long-run. It would also make the lives of Alaskans, family,
friends, and neighbors much better. He offered that with
the reductions in the budget many jobs would be lost in the
current year. Drugs and alcohol problems were epidemic
particularly in rural Alaska. He mentioned suicide. He
wanted to reemphasize the goal of reducing the state budget
overall.
2:50:46 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked Deputy Commissioner Thomas if he
had looked at the positive results and positive stories
from youths that had been through youth courts of their own
peers. He wondered if he had heard stories about youths
turning their lives around avoiding the juvenile justice
system.
Ms. Gutierrez responded that when she worked on the
recidivism reduction plan she had a number of conversations
with Director Forest, the director of the Division of
Juvenile Justice. However, she had not talked to
individuals who worked at the youth court. The youth court
was a great example of peer incentivized change. She was
aware of many adult treatment programs that used the same
sort of peer supported incentivized change approach. She
indicated she would be happy to do research on whether the
youth court model was effective in working with adults,
particularly some of the younger adults re-offending at
significantly high rates.
2:52:15 PM
Representative Wilson asked if Ms. Gutierrez had looked at
Alaska's prisons and how Alaska's prisoners were treated
versus those in the Lower 48. She had heard from inmates
that had been brought back to the state from other states.
The inmates claimed that conditions were much worse outside
of Alaska and did not want to return to the Lower 48.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if Alaska's prisons were too soft.
Commissioner Taylor responded that he did not think they
had examined how soft Alaska's prisons were compared to
other States. He suggested that when people were thousands
of miles away from home they would likely be motivated to
remain in state in order to have access to people. He did
not believe that Colorado and Arizona were egregious places
for people to serve time. Colorado's facility was virtually
new on par with Alaska's Goose Creek facility. He felt that
distance was a greater issue than the treatment of inmates.
2:53:58 PM
Representative Wilson asked if a savings would result from
the state closing its Goose Creek facility, sending long-
term offenders south, and using part of the savings for the
group the commissioner was talking about. She wanted to
make sure the state was investigating all potential savings
options.
Commissioner Taylor assured Representative Wilson that
everything was on the table. He added that with the charge
of the governor to reduce the department's budget 25
percent, all facilities would be looked at. Programming,
probation, and medical coverage were areas that would also
be examined.
2:55:20 PM
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the report indicated that
Goose Creek Correctional Center was currently the most
efficient in the state. One of the main reasons for
building the facility was to reduce recidivism because of
inmates having access to their families, an important part
of returning to society. He mentioned Representative
Munoz's comments on the availability of telecommunications
and video teleconferencing with family members.
2:55:58 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler appreciated the legislators who directed
the creation of the plan and the people that put the plan
together. He referred to slide 26 and mentioned the smart
justice efforts in Texas that reduced recidivism rates by
25 percent. He wanted to know Texas' recidivism rate after
the reduction of 25 percent.
Ms. Gutierrez was not sure what Texas' recidivism rate was
in 2007. According to the material provided by Pew PSPP the
drop was 25 percent. She stated she would provide him with
Texas' recidivism rate in 2007 and in the current year for
comparison.
Vice-Chair Saddler posed the question, "The implication
being, are they low-hanging fruit or real tough nuts to
crack?"
Ms. Gutierrez added that the strategy that produced the
best results was creating therapeutic alternatives for drug
and alcohol offenders. They created a Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) prison, community-based treatment programs
for people on probation, prison residential treatment
programs similar to the Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment (RSAT) program. The therapeutic alternatives were
all treatment-based targeting the treatment needs of the
individual.
2:57:55 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered about the scientific evidence-
based results of the effectiveness of treatment programs.
He also asked if there were any limitations on how many
times a prisoner could participate in a treatment program.
2:58:24 PM
Mr. Jessee responded that there was information about the
effectiveness of programs. For example, the State of
Washington had conducted a thorough examination of
evidence-based practices not only to determine their
effectiveness but also to track the return on investment.
He relayed that programs that targeted youth had a better
lifetime return on investment because every youth that was
deterred from a criminal career had many years to be a
productive citizen. There was informative evidence
available that was useful because there were programs that
were liked by participants but not very effective such as
Scared Straight. Youths were taken into prisons to observe
the horrors of incarceration, but the program proved itself
to be less effective. He reported that the fear of the
unknown contributed to program success. Once people saw
that prisoners were not hanging by chains from the wall it
was not the deterrent that it was thought it would be.
Mr. Jessee continued that as far as the number of times a
person could seek treatment depended on the individual. In
looking at the chronic homeless inebriate population, many
of the Housing First people at Karluk Manor had been
through treatment up to 14 times. He suggested that it was
a myth that chronic homeless chose to drink, because a
person did not go through treatment 14 times
unsuccessfully. In answer to Representative Saddler's
question, he responded that there was no limit on the
number of times a person could go to treatment. The state's
goal was to improve the approach for each individual. He
also pointed out that although people asked the question
about the number of times the state would pay for substance
abuse treatment, people did not ask the same question about
diabetics who routinely relapsed by going off their diet,
not exercising, or not following their doctor's orders.
3:00:53 PM
Co-Chair Neuman added that when he was the chairman of the
Department of Health and Social Services finance
subcommittee in the budget the behavioral health grants
cost approximately $200 million per year for 2 to 3 year
grants. He saw that individuals had been through treatment
a number of times before staying sober; 12 to 13 times for
some individuals. He opined that the problem in Alaska was
that all of the available treatment programs differed.
There was no systematic methodology in the treatment of
behavioral health problems. He claimed that the state was
primarily dealing with a transient clientele that took
advantage of family, friends, and neighbors moving to other
places and taking advantage of more people over time. He
argued that there was no systematic program and that the
state was spending the people's money without any say in
the treatment approach. He explained that he asked the
health commission to provide the legislature with
information about successful treatments. He wanted to know
what treatment programs worked for cocaine, heroin,
methamphetamines, and alcohol so that the state could
invest in those programs.
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that the providers that received
grant monies reported that there was a tremendous amount of
paperwork. He furthered that the largest Fairbanks
treatment facility reported that 70 percent of the funds
received were spent on administrative fees. He opined that
the state spent more time making sure money was spent
appropriately rather than getting the money on the street.
He believed in accountability, but wondered what to do
about high administrative costs. In the previous session he
reported talking with Mr. Jessee about turning grants into
contracts and having the state dictate what programs were
used with the help of the health commission.
3:03:32 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler acknowledged the general principle that
the earlier a younger person was treated the better chance
that person had to live a longer life. He asked to be
directed to the supporting data. He also suggested asking
both diabetics and substance abusers the reasons they did
not follow their treatment programs, as the information
would be helpful in a cost-benefit analysis. He added it
would be more beneficial than not to ask the question. He
furthered it was a fair question to ask whether the state
should treat one person 15 times or treat 15 people one
time. He wanted to know about the current cost-benefit
analysis.
Mr. Jessee remarked that he would look into the answer to
Representative Saddler's question and report back. He was
aware of being able to provide a reference to the cost-
benefit analyses from the State of Washington.
3:04:28 PM
Representative Gattis wanted to know the court costs
associated with a prisoner. She understood that the cost of
a bed per day for an inmate in prison was $158. However,
the state did not have costs for court, law enforcement, or
damages incurred by citizens related to the inmate's crime.
She thought the state incurred a larger cost than $158 per
day.
Mr. Jessee informed the committee that the McDowell group
was hired to look at the cost of alcohol abuse in Alaska.
He shared that it was a cost of $1.2 billion to the state,
approximately $560 million of that accounted for lost
productivity. He continued that about $650 million of the
state's money was being spent on the issues of excessive
alcohol consumption. He added that the state generated
about $40 million in taxes.
3:05:28 PM
Ms. Gutierrez added to Mr. Jesse's answer. She indicated
that when she started with a plan the first thing she
wanted to do was to determine how much of the court's
budget was devoted to criminal cases encompassing the
Department of Law (LAW), The Office of Public Advocacy, the
Public Defender's Office, Police departments, and others.
She realized that she did not have the ability or authority
to collect the information. She thought it would be very
beneficial to policy makers to know the sum total cost of
the criminal justice system. She agreed with Representative
Gattis that it did not equal $158 per day per bed.
3:06:12 PM
Representative Edgmon appreciated the work product on
behalf of the workgroup. He made a comparative fish
reference. He suggested that the state was potentially at
the edge of a paradigm shift; if done right and given the
proper amount of resources Alaska could see results similar
to Texas or some other states. He commented that of the
major policy initiatives the House Finance Committee could
undertake, the plan could produce an incredible amount of
savings, something on par with Medicaid reform. He spoke of
having some authority because he had been working on the
DOC budget for several years and Department of Public
Safety's budget for the previous two years. He witnessed
the ping-ponging of the dollar that traveled through the
criminal justice institutions in the state. He speculated
that if there was a part two to the plan he recommended
that there be an emphasis on the tribal side. He reviewed
some statistics including the figure of 40 percent of the
prison population being young Alaska Native males. These
prisoners return to their communities after a minor offence
likely involving alcohol they reoffend, reoffend again, and
become felons. He supported working with Alaska's villages,
tribal courts, circle sentencing, and incorporating
cultural sensitivity into the reentry process and prior to
offending.
Representative Edgmon recalled a kid in Togiak two years
prior who encountered a stray dog eating at the fish rack
and shot the dog. He reported that the kid had received a
call from the child's mom claiming she did not know where
her son was at. The young man was brought to McLaughlin
Youth Center where he sat for six weeks in the summer
months. As a legislator, Representative Edgmon had tried to
contact agencies but did not get any response. He finally
figured out the kid's location and established that he was
okay. HE offered that it took over six weeks to get him
back to the village of Togiak. Luckily the kid, an honor
student at Mount Edgecombe, returned to graduate. The other
9 of 10 kids that offended would have potentially
reoffended and returned to the correctional system. He
pointed out that it was a circular pattern that the
legislature was attempting to address with the efforts that
had been made. He reiterated his appreciation of the
presentation and reemphasized a part two that would include
a tribal element in order to target young Alaska Native
males who were reoffending (probably the steepest number on
a per capita basis in the US) and returning to the system
without getting needed treatment.
Commissioner Taylor responded thanking Representative
Edgmon for bringing up a tribal emphasis. He spoke about
reentry efforts in the rural areas. He noted the efforts on
behalf of the department to reach out to tribal entities
and would continue to reach out. He highlighted doing a
better job of insuring that the partnerships had access to
DOC. He reported that the department was working on its
partnerships with the prisoner re-entry initiative by
including the tribes and giving them a voice. He surmised
that without a voice at the table the department would
continue to see failure that it had already seen. He made
it clear that the department had been actively working with
Alaska Native Justice Center in Bristol Bay to improve
accessibility and assured the committee he would continue
his efforts whole-heartedly.
Representative Edgmon thanked Commissioner Taylor for his
comments and expressed his appreciation to the committee
for designating an entire meeting to hear the presentation.
He was aware that the subject did not directly involve
dollars and a budget. However, he highlighted that it did
involve setting the state in a policy direction that would
save what he thought would be a significant amount of money
down the road.
3:11:21 PM
Representative Pruitt told of an experience in college in
which his friend had a job that he disagreed with then and
continued to agree with currently. He asked his friend why
he did it. His friend responded by informing him that he
made $1000 per night. His friend ended up a felon serving
time in a federal prison in Seattle. He had always
remembered his friend and his conversation with him. He
relayed that his friend had found something that he could
not get away from. He conveyed that it did not take much
time for his friend to return to prison once he was
released. He opined that part of the barriers that were
placed on criminals were, in some cases, instituted by
legislators. He continued to explain that legislators felt
that if they were not hard enough on crime they were not
doing their job correctly. He did not like the hard and
soft discourse. He expounded that it was time to be smart
on crime rather than hard or soft on crime. One of the
things he was interested in knowing about was the
recidivism aspect. He continued to explain that the fact
that legislators placed barriers on offenders reentering
their communities such as not being allowed to work in
certain positions or limiting the number of years a person
could work in a position. He surmised that legislators had
randomly imposed certain restrictions that did not
necessarily match the crime committed. Therefore, there was
a cost associated with recidivism and a potential cost
associated with some sort of social program they might have
to participate in because they could not achieve
employment. He had not heard in the day's presentation
about what the state could do to change and place in
statute the correct mechanisms for those people who had
come out of prison to ensure that the legislature was not
placing undue barriers for them.
3:14:26 PM
Ms. Gutierrez credited Representative Pruitt for bringing
up a significant and valid point; collateral consequences
to crime. The good news was that prior to 2013, Alaska was
unaware how many collateral consequences or barriers the
state had erected as a result of criminal conviction. She
reported that the American Bar Association recognized the
problem existed in every state. The association received a
grant that funded hard-working young lawyers to identify
the collateral consequence statutes in regulations in every
state. Alaska's statutes and regulations were reviewed
early in the process due to the legislative support for
looking at the state's practices. They were able to
identify 1625 statutes and regulations that provided for
some kind of barrier or collateral consequence as a result
of criminal conviction. She highlighted that 746 of the
barriers pertained to employment, many of which were
rationally related to the promotion of public safety.
However, she emphasized that many of them were not and
referred to page 22 of the Recidivism Reduction Plan (slide
26 - or the spiral bond document in file - the report). She
offered that many people thought it was in order to have a
committee made up of prosecutors, policy makers, and others
evaluate every one of the provisions and decide whether
they were rationally related to the promotion of public
safety. She stressed that without looking at the provisions
carefully to avoid making it impossible for prisoners being
released that did want to work and support their families
to obtain employment.
Mr. Jessee added that the other possibility the commission
and the Criminal Justice working group were going to look
at was using individualized waivers in certain
circumstances. The problem with the current system was that
an employer had to offer a person a position, hold it open
while that person applied for a waiver, and wait to find
out whether the waiver was approved. He surmised that an
employer would have to be pretty committed, firstly to take
a chance on hiring someone with a criminal record, and
secondly to wait on a waiver. He argued that employment was
critical to lowering recidivism.
3:17:27 PM
Representative Pruitt appreciated Mr. Jesse's comments. He
asked if there was something more the state needed to do,
for example, setting up an additional group to look at the
issues. He wondered if the commission was handling things
moving forward.
3:18:25 PM
Ms. Mead informed the committee that it was a specific
charge to the Criminal Justice Commission and there was a
specific workgroup, a subgroup, called, "the Barriers to
Reentry and Collateral Consequences of Crimes Subgroup."
The subgroup was currently meeting once per month and had
the study that Ms. Gutierrez referenced listing 746 crimes.
They were working on the study and intended to make
recommendations potentially within a year, although she was
unclear about the timeframe.
3:18:59 PM
Representative Pruitt suggested there were different
subgroups charged with the completion of a task within
three years. He wondered if the commission would be
reporting back intermittently to the legislature or if it
would wait to come back at the end of three years. He
suggested that because of the fiscal crisis it would be
better to hear back sooner rather than later so that issues
could be addressed quickly.
Ms. Mead indicated that their plan was to come back
annually with recommendations. She thought the last set
would be the largest.
3:19:45 PM
Representative Guttenberg relayed a personal experience
shadowing a judge in Fairbanks in the therapeutic courts.
He reported that predominately middle-aged women attended
and were happy to have gone through the program. He
wondered about a baseline of the entire picture. There were
many different components including housing, employment,
and collateral consequences.
3:21:40 PM
Ms. Gutierrez responded that if the PEW was invited to
Alaska it would perform a comprehensive data analysis on
the factors driving Alaska's prison population growth. She
remarked that four factors had been outlined in the current
meeting. There would likely be additional factors that the
state simply did not know about due to the comprehensive
collection of data that was really required. She continued
to explain that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission was
anxious to have PEW come in to advance the state light
years ahead on the work that was required to be completed.
She opined that it was a huge advantage for the state to
have PEW's people come do the work, as the state did not
have the proper manpower. The PEW offered to do the work at
no cost to the state. Department of Corrections and other
departments would likely give up man hours to work with
PEW. She suggested that in regards to some of the issues
that were brought up such as housing, therapeutic courts,
and community-based approaches for reducing recidivism, the
next step would be to design an implementation plan. She
wanted to be able to inform the legislature about its
choices including timeframes, cost estimates, numbers of
people going to be served, expected outcomes, and potential
savings for the state. She explained that the state had not
taken this next step because it was not the mandate and
because it was the finance committee's prerogative to
decide on the next step.
3:24:35 PM
Representative Guttenberg suggested sending them [PEW's
people] to communities he had previously represented and
communities in Representative Edgmon's district to see what
Alaska was like.
3:25:06 PM
Representative Gara expressed a lack of hope that the state
would avoid building another prison. He suggested that
trying to prevent people who had committed crimes from
committing additional crimes could be compared to bailing
water out of a boat that was taking on water at the same
time. He had not heard much in the presentation about the
people who had never committed a crime who would commit a
crime. He relayed that there was a huge waiting list of
people unable to get into affordable housing. He voiced
that the state had a pile-up program for prisoners to get
into housing, but the innocent people who had never
committed a crime before and could not get into affordable
housing could be expected to become part of the prison
population. He spoke of a large population of neglected and
abused children who had never committed a crime in their
lives. He shared that 23 percent of Alaska's foster youth
would end up in jail. These were people who never committed
a crime that were not being addressed because they had not
yet committed a crime. He posed the question about what the
state has done to address the foster youth group. He
answered that five years previously the governor had called
for a study to determine how short on resources the state
was for the particular group. He noted that the state had
not implemented that study and in five years the number of
foster youth had grown from 1700 to 2400. He continued that
on a per-person basis the state was providing fewer and
fewer resources to the group of kids of which 24 percent
would end up in jail. He concluded by saying that water
could be bailed out of a boat by reducing recidivism which
he supported, but water was also being taken on the boat
with the innocent who have yet to commit a crime. He added
that very little other than substance abuse treatment would
help. He wanted to hear more about what the state was going
to do for those individuals who have never committed a
crime. He indicated he was speaking out of frustration.
Co-Chair Neuman understood Representative Gara's concerns,
but emphasized that the charge of the group was to focus on
people that were already in the correctional system. He
commented that the state had added additional funding and
done what it could to address the many needs of the state.
He suggested Representative Gara speak to the Commissioners
to help individuals. He was unclear what the group could do
about addressing those who had not yet committed a crime.
He acknowledged that the group would take his concern into
account.
Representative Gara restated that the bulk of the funds
that went into the foster care system were court ordered
which included an increase in the daily reimbursement rate.
In his opinion, it was not the best use of money. In terms
of staff for foster youth on a per-child basis, he observed
had shrunk according to a study that said the state did not
have the resources for the kids in the first place. He saw
the plan as a sinking boat unless both sides were
addressed.
3:28:58 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to give voice to the people of
Alaska that did not commit crimes but paid the cost for
crimes who might be asking themselves why they had to pay
for people who said they would reoffend or return to jail
without job training, a second or fifteenth chance at
treatment, or educational assistance. He wanted to know at
what point personal responsibility for crimes came into
play. He hoped the work that the group did provided an
answer to those people who did not commit crimes. He
relayed that he heard the question from his constituents
and hoped to get an answer.
Co-Chair Neuman thanked all the people involved in the
program. He acknowledged attendees including the
commissioners of DOC and DHSS, the deputy commissioner of
DOLWD, and the CEO of the Alaska Mental Health and Trust
Authority. He relayed that Mr. Jesses had gone to his board
with a request for $82 thousand to hire Ms. Gutierrez to
write the report. The report did not cost the State of
Alaska any money. He also acknowledged other participants
including the CEO and the executive director of AHFC. He
commended the entity to secure housing for 266 people per-
year for housing for up to two months. He acknowledged the
Alaska Court System, the Alaska State Troopers, DPS, and
the University of Alaska. He expounded that outreach to the
University proved helpful. It was asked to implement
programs in behavioral health to cultivate professional
providers that could work in the correctional system. He
provided additional outreach information. He really
appreciated the efforts of the combined group. He concluded
that the answer to the question of whether to move forward
with the plan was, "yes." He did not believe there was
another choice. He briefly spoke of budget reductions and
the challenges of the fiscal crisis. He talked about a
discussion he had had with Commissioner Taylor about what
DOC and DHSS were going to do. He thanked everyone for
their time and attention.
ADJOURNMENT
3:33:04 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Recidivism Reduction Plan-2015.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Recidivism Reduction Plan Overview |
| HFIN RRP Presentation FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |