Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
10/30/2017 01:00 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 | |
| SB54 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION
October 30, 2017
1:08 p.m.
1:08:05 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson (Via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Suzanne Di Pietro, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial
Council; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System;
Quinlan Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; John Skidmore, Director,
Criminal Division, Department of Law; Dean Williams,
Commissioner, Department of Corrections; Walt Monegan,
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety; Representative
Gabrielle LeDoux; Representative Andy Josephson;
Representative Louise Stutes; Speaker Bryce Edgmon;
Representative Dan Saddler; Representative Dave Talerico;
Representative Harriet Drummond; Representative Lora
Reinbold.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Greg Razo, Chair, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
SUMMARY
SB 54 CRIME AND SENTENCING
Sb 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(FIN)
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
imprisonment; relating to parole; relating to
probation; relating to driving without a license;
relating to the pretrial services program; and
providing for an effective date."
1:09:13 PM
SUZANNE DI PIETRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUDICIAL
COUNCIL, introduced herself. She detailed that the council
staffed the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) and
she was in charge of conducting the research and study the
commission relied on.
GREG RAZO, CHAIR, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION,
introduced himself.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Bryce Edgmon,
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Representative Andy
Josephson, Representative Dave Talerico, Representative Dan
Saddler, and Representative Louise Stutes.
1:10:36 PM
Ms. Di Pietro noted that Mr. Razo had explained in a
committee hearing the previous Saturday that the ACJC had
prepared a presentation for the House Finance Committee
that focused more on the financial implications of criminal
justice reform. She referenced a PowerPoint presentation
[titled "Alaska Criminal Justice Commission" dated October
26, 2017] in members' bill packets. She detailed that the
commission was charged under SB 91 [2016 criminal justice
system reform legislation] with monitoring the outcomes of
criminal justice reform, a responsibility the commission
took very seriously. The outcomes of criminal justice
reform included studying whether recidivism was reduced.
She specified that the reduction in recidivism was a public
safety issue and was the highest and most important aspect
of reform. She elaborated that recidivism was when a person
who had been charged and convicted of a crime and had been
through the criminal justice system - the hope was they had
been reformed - but in Alaska most of the people that went
through the system were not reformed. Approximately 64 to
66 percent of individuals went on to return to prison for a
new offense or for a violation of their conditions of
supervision.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that to the extent that criminal
justice reform could reduce the statistic, future
victimization would be reduced. She stressed that it was an
extremely important public safety function. She furthered
that reforms made to get off the wrong path and on the
right path would reduce recidivism and protect public
safety. When individuals came out of prison had a probation
officer and were encouraged to comply with supervision
conditions, public safety was enhanced. She stressed the
importance of the recidivism reduction component. The
commission was required to report back to the legislature
within three years on whether there had been a change in
the recidivism rate. She noted it had only been about one
year and the numbers were not ready. She explained that
only looking at a one-year view could be premature as it
could potentially show an artificially lower recidivism
rate. She reiterated that recidivism reduction was about
public safety and reducing victimization.
Ms. Di Pietro relayed that recidivism reduction was also
about saving costs; the fewer people that went through the
system, the less cost there was to the system. She reminded
the committee of presentation slides pertaining to
supervision violations. The commission was excited to
report on the changes that went into effect in January 2017
regarding how people released from prison were being
supervised by probation and parole officers. The data was
preliminary - the changes had only been going on for 9 or
10 months. She continued that things appeared to be
trending in the correct direction because it looked as
though probation and parole officers were continuing to
catch violations. She was referring to mostly technical
violations. She elaborated that a person on probation or
parole may have a condition prohibiting them from drinking;
it would be a technical violation if the person failed a
test for alcohol or drugs and the officer would have the
authority to remand the person to prison. The system did
not like to see that; however, if it was occurring, the
system liked to see the person remanded to prison because
it wanted the response to be swift, certain, and
proportional.
Ms. Di Pietro relayed that revocations were increasing a
bit. She explained that probation and parole officers were
catching people violating their conditions and returning
them to prison for a sanction that was swift and certain.
However, the presentation showed that the percentage of
supervision violators taking up beds in prison had
decreased. She explained that the individuals were spending
less time in prison - they were going for three to ten days
(enough time to get their attention, but not necessarily
enough time for them to lose their job, apartment, or
relationship). She stressed the importance of getting
people to create prosocial activities and friend groups,
which probation officers were helping individuals to do.
She acknowledged that some individuals committed new
crimes, but they were being remanded to prison swiftly and
certainly [slide 11].
Ms. Di Pietro addressed the criminal justice reform goal to
reserve prison beds for more violent offenders; and to
sanction more minor offenders in the community and offer
them services to help them get on the right path. She
detailed there had been a small increase in the percentage
of violent offenders in prison beds and a small decrease in
the number of nonviolent and low-level offenders. She
underscored that the information was preliminary. The
commission would be monitoring the issue and bringing back
outcomes to the legislature. There was substantial research
showing that low-level, low-risk offenders could actually
be made worse by spending too much time in prison. She
detailed that low-risk individuals who may have been able
to get on the right path on their own without much
intervention, went to prison and were damaged. The
prosocial things they had going for them in their lives
outside of prison were disrupted and they may meet people
in prison who were higher risk individuals. Mixing high-
risk people and low-risk people in prison resulted in low-
risk people getting worse. She explained the phenomenon was
an important reason behind the commission's recommendation
to limit the use of incarceration (eliminating the reliance
on incarceration for low-level, low-risk, nonviolent
offenders).
Ms. Di Pietro continued that the issue was about savings
and public safety. She emphasized that the state did not
want to be causing people to recidivate at higher levels
than they already did.
Co-Chair Foster noted that questions would be held until
the end of the presentation.
Ms. Di Pietro addressed the context in which the state was
attempting criminal justice reform. She spoke to the
current recession in Alaska combined with the increased use
of opioids and heroin. Additionally, there were fewer law
enforcement officers on the ground and fewer prosecutors
employed by the Department of Law (DOL). There were studies
showing that a visible police presence suppressed crime. It
was necessary to think about other things going on in
society while criminal justice reform was occurring. The
commission spent significant time on the issue and included
it in a section in the annual report.
Ms. Di Pietro recognized that numerous people had been
throwing around myriad charts, graphs, and conclusions
about crime rates in Alaska. She detailed that some people
who commit crimes had already been through the system
(recidivists), but some individuals committing crimes had
never been in the system. She explained that it was not
really possible to draw a direct link between crime rates
and criminal justice reform. The state expected the
recidivism rate to decline, which would affect the crime
rate to some extent. However, there were many other things
occurring that may be affecting the crime rate - that were
in some ways, outside the control of criminal justice. She
elucidated that crime rates were extremely complex - there
were academics who spent their careers on what drives crime
rates. There was also much disagreement in academia about
the issue. She elaborated that it varied over time,
geography, to the neighborhood level, and other. She
relayed that although the commission was monitoring crime
rates and information was included in its annual report,
she believed the discussion needed to be a bit broader.
1:24:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized other individuals available from
the administration in the room and online.
1:26:26 PM
Vice-Chair Gara directed his question to Ms. Di Pietro. He
remarked that unless an inmate was a murderer or rapist,
they were probably coming out of jail within "our
lifetimes." He referred to Ms. Di Pietro's point that the
state wanted the individuals to leave jail not as criminals
who would do damage, but as people who were not criminals.
He recalled that the commission had addressed that
legislators had introduced new crime bills, which had
resulted in the decade prior to SB 91, an increase in jail
sentences by roughly 33 percent. He asked for the accuracy
of his recollection.
Ms. Di Pietro responded that he may be referring to a
finding the commission made about presumptive sentences and
presumptive sentencing ranges. She detailed that in 2005
(because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision) the legislature
changed Alaska's sentencing laws from a presumptive
numbered sentence (e.g. 8 years) to a range (e.g. 8 to 10
years) for a particular crime. When the change was made,
the legislature specified in statute that it did not intend
to increase sentences. After the change had gone into
effect, the commission had found that sentences had been
going up. The commission had recognized that if the
legislature had not intended for sentences to increase, but
they had been rising, that perhaps it made sense to go back
to the 2005 numbers; those were the recommendations to
change the felony presumptive sentencing ranges enacted in
SB 91.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he did not need follow up on
the question unless someone had the amount the sentences
had increased. He reiterated Ms. Di Pietro's statements
that part of SB 91 was to return to 2005 intent. He noted
the exception was an increase in sentencing for murder. He
believed the bill had not rolled back to the 2005 level for
sex crimes.
Ms. Di Pietro responded that he was correct.
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, added that there had been an
additional justification the commission had considered when
reverting to the old presumptive range. He elaborated that
the commission had considered data indicating that longer
jail sentences were not reducing recidivism; the longer
sentences did not have the impact that some policy makers
had anticipated.
Vice-Chair Gara surmised that longer sentences were not
necessarily decreasing recidivism.
Mr. Steiner responded that there was data showing that
longer sentences did not reduce recidivism; it appeared the
longer sentences were simply costing money and not
contributing to a reduction in recidivism.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked that sentences for the most
serious crimes were largely left unchanged or increased. He
addressed the least serious crimes for first-time
offenders. He provided an example of a young person who was
a first-time offender and was put in jail for one month. He
detailed there was an increased chance the person would
learn how to be a better criminal from others in jail and
when released they would associate with those individuals.
He asked about the veracity of his statements.
Ms. Di Pietro agreed that it was the theory behind why
sending low-risk offenders to prison can make them
recidivate more. Another thought that criminologists
advance is that taking people away from prosocial things
(e.g. housing and employment) increased recidivism. She
noted that if a person was in prison for one month, their
boss would probably not hold their job. Once the
individuals came out of prison, not only had they learned
things and met people in prison, they had also been
destabilized in a prosocial way. She gave further examples.
The goal was to help preserve things that helped
individuals stay on the right path.
1:33:40 PM
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that in the previous year he saw
the proposed additional $8 million cut to revenue sharing
as money that would be taken away from police. The
legislature had decided to avoid a further cut to revenue
sharing and the $8 million had been maintained. He noted
that Anchorage had used the money for police training. He
agreed that a police presence on the streets helped and
when there was no police presence it would be dangerous to
police and communities. He recognized it was up to the
legislature to determine how to deal with the issue. He
referenced a point made by Ms. Di Pietro on probation
revocations. He detailed that SB 54 included violations -
there was a difference between a violation (i.e. a person
was not supposed to drink alcohol and they were caught
drinking) and a probation revocation (i.e. a person was not
supposed to commit a crime, but they did). Under the law
adopted the previous year there were some classes of crimes
where a person committed a noncriminal probational
revocation (i.e. drinking a beer or smoking marijuana);
under the law a person could be arrested but not remanded.
He believed that SB 54 eliminated the rule that a person
could not be remanded for some lower level crimes.
Alternatively, he asked if it only applied to violations of
conditions of release prior to sentencing. He expressed
confusion about the issue.
Ms. Di Pietro explained they were talking about two
different things. First, when a person was arrested and
charged with a crime, but was still innocent, the judge
could release the person with conditions of release (e.g.
no drinking, no contacting the victim). Currently there was
no one to monitor those conditions. She furthered that SB
91 had specified that the violation was no longer a crime,
but it was an arrestable violation. The arrest statute
included violations of conditions of release as one of the
statutory authorities for an officer to arrest a person.
She explained that it was very misunderstood part of
criminal justice reform. She elaborated that even up to
several weeks back there had been people who believed a
person could not be arrested for violation of conditions of
release - it had been a misunderstanding.
Ms. Di Pietro continued to answer Vice-Chair Gara's
question. She spoke about the portion of the process after
a person had been charged, convicted, served time in jail,
and been given conditions of probation. Some of the
conditions may be the same, such as not drinking or
contacting the victim, getting a job, and paying
restitution. The probation officer was responsible for
encouraging or coercing the person to follow through on the
conditions. The officer's authority did not change; an
officer could always remand an individual for failing to
comply with probation conditions. However, what did change
was that the officers were given tools to sanction people,
but also to incentivize good behavior. She underscored
there was so much research that showed people responded to
incentives even more strongly than they did to sanctions.
She furthered that probation officers had been provided
with ways to incentivize supervisees to do the right things
to get their lives on track. The officers still had ways to
sanction the individuals; the sanctioning regime had
changed to be more swift, certain, and proportional.
1:38:22 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, thought
Vice-Chair Gara had been asking about violation of
conditions of release at the beginning of the process. She
believed Ms. Di Pietro had explained that under SB 91 there
had been confusion on how to handle that portion of the
process.
Vice-Chair Gara asked how the process had become swifter
under SB 91.
Ms. Di Pietro replied that prior to criminal justice
reform, the process of getting a probation technical
violation adjudicated took almost a month to get resolved
in court. She furthered that even though a person had been
convicted and conditions were supposed to be met, the
person could still challenge the sanction in court. She
elaborated that a person may have been out on bail while
waiting for the adjudication to occur and sometimes
individuals would accumulate several violations of
conditions of release. She furthered that it had resulted
in a hearing where all the items were adjudicated, and the
individual would end up spending - with a sanction - months
in jail. The swiftness was about getting the individual in
jail for the three, five, or ten days.
1:40:01 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the current recidivism
rate. Ms. Di Pietro answered it was around 64 percent.
Representative Wilson referenced testimony that one of the
reasons to keep lower level offenders in jail for shorter
periods of time was to keep them from mixing with higher
level, violent offenders. She asked if the commission had
considered what would happen if that did not occur. She
wondered if it would make a substantial difference versus
not having the individuals in jail at all.
Ms. Di Pietro asked for clarification. She wondered if
Representative Wilson was asking about segregating prisons
by dividing low-risk offenders and high-risk offenders.
1:40:49 PM
Representative Wilson thought Ms. Di Pietro had suggested
that first-time offenders may do better outside because in
prison they were mixed in with high-risk offenders;
individuals were learning things from the high-risk
individuals that were not desirable. She asked if the
commission had looked at other states as examples and had
considered segregating prisoners in groups to prevent the
issue from occurring.
Ms. Di Pietro replied that she could not speak to how the
Department of Corrections (DOC) housed low-risk and high-
risk prisoners. The commission had considered the concept
in the context of halfway houses. The criminal justice
reform effort was to encourage halfway houses not to mix
low-risk and high-risk people.
1:41:41 PM
Representative Wilson hoped Alaska would look at other
states to determine whether they had been able to solve the
problem versus no jail time. She remarked that in June 2015
there had been approximately 5,032 in the system. The
number had dropped to 4,251 in June 2017. She observed that
the number had gone up again and was currently about 4,385.
She pointed to the increase of 140 individuals and asked if
the commission knew whether the individuals had not gone to
prison and were reoffending quickly. She wondered why the
number was increasing.
Ms. Di Pietro replied that the commission's latest data was
that pretrial population numbers had increased. She
detailed that the pretrial population was individuals
charged with a crime who had not been able to get out of
prison on bail. She suspected that many the 142 individuals
were pretrial (if the trend was continuing).
Representative Wilson did not think the explanation made
sense. She referenced another chart pertaining to prison
population based on offense, showing there had been a
decline in inmates in for drug offenses. She detailed there
had been a decline from 390 to 190. Similarly, there had
been a decline in alcohol offenses from 240 to 169.
However, there had been an increase in inmates. She
reasoned that it would be difficult to know the problem was
being rectified unless the state really understood who was
committing crimes and what it was trying to stop. She
remarked that constituents were feeling very unsafe, but
she did not know what statistics to refer them to, to show
what crime was increasing. She wondered whether they were
offenses the state was saying did not receive jailtime. She
wondered if anyone was studying why the increase was taking
place to determine what changes may be necessary.
Ms. Di Pietro responded that the commission was studying
inmate admissions and releases and was reporting them to
the legislature in its annual report. The Department of
Corrections provided the information to the commission. The
commission could present the information in any way the
legislature found to be helpful. She was not surprised
there had been a decrease of inmates in for drug offenses
because drug possession had previously been a Class C
felony and had been changed to a misdemeanor. She furthered
that misdemeanants typically did not serve jailtime until
they committed a second offense.
1:45:04 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the individuals were
receiving treatment. She wondered if they were not
receiving jailtime merely because they were first-time
offenders.
Mr. Steiner explained that part of the reason for the
decrease for drug cases was the offenses were not being
prosecuted to the degree they had been in the past - it was
not merely that they had been reduced to misdemeanors. He
stated that testimony in the past had indicated the
decisions had been resource-based. The issue was not only
about the change in a Class C felony to misdemeanor.
1:46:01 PM
Mr. Skidmore added that they were not getting referrals for
low-level misdemeanor possession cases. He agreed with Mr.
Steiner that referrals did not receive as high a priority
when looking at increases in other felony cases. He would
not say that it was strictly an issue of resources on the
Public Defender Agency's part. Though, resources may be
part of the answer as to why the decrease in referrals had
occurred. He did not know the answer to that.
Representative Wilson shared that recently an individual
had come to her office who they thought was in trouble and
needed to use the phone - they had not known it, but she
may have been on meth. The individual had ended up throwing
things around the office in a violent way. She had been
surprised to read in the police report that no crime had
been committed. However, she certainly felt a crime had
been committed. She relayed that the police had found a
knife on the person - it had not been used and no one had
been hurt, but she wondered how the incident could not have
been a crime. She explained that the police report would
not have been forwarded on because it designated that no
crime had been committed. She wondered how many others
dealt with similar situations.
Representative Wilson was uncertain what the bill was
trying to change. She wondered if the whole system was not
working because the state did not know how to measure what
was taking place or whether it was the way reports were
being written. She questioned whether the particular report
[of the incident in her office] was written differently
because it was not longer a crime under SB 91. She
referenced Appendix F in the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC) report from October 22, 2017. She
observed that it talked about recommendations backed by
data and evidence; however, further on, the report
specified that recommendations were based on feedback from
members of law enforcement, prosecutors, and the public.
She thought it would be helpful for the public and
legislature to understand the ACJC discussion on the
issues. She remarked that many of the recommendations had
not been unanimous. She was concerned about how to know
whether the changes made in SB 54 were right. She wondered
how to measure the results of SB 54 differently than SB 91.
Co-Chair Foster would be happy to have a conversation after
the meeting. He indicated there were other people in the
room available for questions.
1:49:59 PM
Representative Grenn indicated he had a couple of questions
for Commissioner Williams.
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
relayed that he was available for any questions.
Representative Grenn asked to hear detail about
opportunities for private partnerships with workers. He
referenced HB 171 that had been proposed by Representative
Dean Westlake regarding expansion to the department's
ability to connect on private partnerships.
1:51:26 PM
Commissioner Williams agreed with Ms. Di Pietro's earlier
statement that the importance of recidivism could not be
overstated. He elaborated that Alaska's recidivism rate had
been between 65 and 70 percent for the past 20 years. He
addressed the importance of programming inside prisons. One
of the things that was fundamentally different in other
states and countries was what occurred behind prison walls.
He spoke to the importance of reducing recidivism even by 5
percent. In 2016 DOC had released 10,000 to 11,000
individuals from prison. The prison population was only
4,300; the numbers were an indication of the people who
moved through the system. He noted that in 2015 the number
of individuals released had been 12,000 or 13,000 and the
year prior had been about 14,000. He emphasized that almost
half of the numbers returned to prison for a new criminal
offense within the first six months to one year. He
referred to a saying that prison was not much of a
consequence if a person did not think they had much to lose
in the first place. When individuals continued to end up in
jail repeatedly, the state was losing.
Commissioner Williams spoke to the importance of public
private partnership opportunities. He reported that the
department had been working with a fish plant in Kenai
where 30 inmates worked on the fish line during the day and
went back to jail at night. The department had experienced
very few problems with the setup because the inmates had a
function and were being paid. He elaborated that an inmate
had recently been released from prison with $20,000 - the
individual paid restitution, child support, and other owed
items. He underscored that it put an individual in a
completely different situation. He explained it was the way
to reduce recidivism (reoffence rate).
Commissioner Williams stressed that driving recidivism down
reduced the reoffence rate and improved public safety. He
used Wyoming as an example and shared that its programs
were not more sophisticated than Alaska's. He detailed that
Wyoming focused on ensuring prisoners were safe and that
they had productive activities. He wanted to bring prison
industries back in a different way - he had to deal with
the bad history of some of it and help get people over it.
There were opportunities to meet two needs - the private
sector need for workers and the prison's workforce
availability. He stressed that it was all about public
safety; getting a handle on reoffence rates was key.
Representative Grenn asked about SB 91 changes to parole.
He mentioned shorter sentences, earning credit,
administrative parole, and reduced periods of probation. He
asked if first-time felons could get all those items. He
asked for detail.
Commissioner Williams responded that parole was its own
system that a person could apply for; it did not mean a
person would get out of jail, but it provided an
opportunity for an inmate to make their case. He detailed
that applications were thoroughly vetted by the Parole
Board. He believed on some occasions the entity was too
risk adverse, but he acknowledged it was easy for him to
say. He explained that he was not involved in the process -
the board was appointed by the governor. He pointed to the
board's long history of successful operation. He shared
that administrative parole had been removed in SB 54 - it
was a small number of cases (three or four cases since the
SB 91 had been implemented). Administrative parole allowed
a person to get out without a hearing, but it was very
restrictive and only applied to low-level, first-time
felons. He believed it was a good tool despite its limited
use.
Commissioner Williams continued that some of the changes in
probation were well considered and targeted. He believed it
put the deputy commissioner and director of probation in a
spot where they had to think about where the resource would
be utilized. He explained that when a person was put back
in prison the state assumed the cost for their food,
medical, and other. He emphasized that he would never
advise the probation department against putting a person
back in jail for committing a new crime. He elucidated that
technical violations consisted of missing appointments. He
agreed individuals should be held accountable, but
technical violations had been part of the increase in the
prison system. He thought things [probation and parole]
were going the right direction.
2:00:07 PM
Representative Grenn used an example of an individual
arrested for a first-time heroin use misdemeanor. He
wondered how the state was helping the individual. He
remarked that the person was not going to jail or getting
treatment.
Mr. Steiner replied that considering what SB 91 had been
trying to do, it was clear that sentences for individuals
addicted to drugs were not helping. The individuals needed
drug treatment. Part of the reductions were to allow
funding to be diverted to drug treatment. The sentencing
scheme of shorter sentences for first-time offenders was in
part to separate people who were in jail for the first time
and may be diverted by the prosecution and did not
necessarily need drug treatment. He elaborated that each
individual arrested with possession did not necessarily
constitute a real drug problem that needed inpatient
treatment. The issue could have been diverted with the
charge itself or some outpatient service. All the things
needed to be immediately available in order to work,
especially in light of the increasing heroin addiction. He
emphasized that treatment could not be delayed.
Ms. Di Pietro added that one thing the barriers to reentry
workgroup of the ACJC had considered was what happened to
people who have certain convictions on their records and
how it may hamper them from going forward and becoming
productive citizens. She detailed that possession of drugs
had been a Class C felony in the past, meaning that an
individual would have a felony on their record when
convicted. A felony was a more serious crime than a
misdemeanor and a felony record could close a number of
doors for people trying to find work, housing, and other
things. One way criminal justice reform helped drug
possessors was that it did not convict them of a felony; it
convicted them with a misdemeanor instead. She pointed to a
recent increase in voluntary admissions for heroin
treatment. She acknowledged there was probably much more
need than had been identified, but she believed the trend
was promising. She relayed that the Department of Health
and Social Services had recently secured federal drug
treatment funds to increase detox and treatment of heroin
addiction (including Medicaid assisted treatment). Heroin
possession was a problem, which the commission was
monitoring; however, she believed there were a couple of
hopeful trends.
2:04:08 PM
Representative Grenn observed that the heroin problem in
Alaska was awful and opioid use was 50 percent higher than
the rest of the country. He continued that opioid deaths
were increasing, and the governor had declared a disaster
over the summer. He acknowledged that state was not able to
force treatment on anyone. However, he did not believe
first-time offenders were going to jail or getting
treatment.
Mr. Steiner replied that it was not necessarily true. It
was possible to divert someone into a therapeutic program
where they could be hooked up with services; the individual
may go voluntarily as a way of dealing with their issues.
He explained it was not fair to say that it was necessary
to force everyone into treatment; there were many people
asking for treatment. Once a person was confronted it
brought an opportunity. For a first-time offender it could
mean they need treatment, but they may not be at a level of
addiction requiring significant residential treatment - it
could be done at a much lower level. Being caught early on
for some individuals was enough of a diversion. He
furthered that all the levels of treatment needed to be
available and needed to be assessed appropriately to
determine the person's needs.
Ms. Di Pietro indicated that Juneau Police Officer Chris
Sell had previously been on the ACJC and had spoken about
encountering and arresting drug possessors on her patrols.
Officer Sell had communicated it was not uncommon to hear a
person say they were sick of the life they were living and
wanted treatment. Officer Sell had explained to the
commission that she had nothing to offer those individuals;
she had further detailed that arresting an individual on a
Friday night and telling them they could go to treatment on
the following Monday was not a viable solution. The
commission was looking at some other models. For example,
Seattle, Washington had a police street level drug
diversion program where the officer provided an individual
with the option of arrest or immediate treatment. She
stated it would be difficult to pull off having the
treatment beds available, but it was worth looking into.
The Seattle program had received a preliminary evaluation,
which appeared positive. She explained there were ways to
address drug problems and the state needed to look around,
get creative, and come up with some solutions because she
believed the will was there.
2:07:00 PM
Representative Ortiz referenced testimony there were fewer
police officers on the ground. He asked if the situation
was statewide or specific to Anchorage. He wondered if the
situation was a result of cuts to troopers or funding for
community police.
Ms. Di Pietro deferred to the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) Commissioner Walt Monegan.
2:07:49 PM
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
responded that there were a number of factors. He detailed
that budget cuts had resulted in reduced positions in the
department. Additionally, the country was experiencing the
challenge of finding officers nationwide. Some locations
were getting creative in ways of stealing from other
departments. He furthered that the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) had taken a few DPS state troopers. He
continued that officers were being drawn to King County in
Washington because they had a comprehensive retirement
package. He stated that part of the situation was a sign of
the times. There were a number of challenges in finding the
right men and women to begin with. He elaborated that
tragic situations in Ferguson, Missouri and Dallas, Texas
had discouraged people from thinking about police/trooper
work. He mentioned the capacity for personal and pointed
scrutiny of officers. He referenced Rodney King and
detailed that the horrific video footage had shocked the
nation. He explained that the repeated attempts for
officers to get the individual under control had not been
included in the video that had become public. He
underscored that it did not explain or justify the police
actions. However, those incidents put law enforcement under
bright focus, which had a tendency to make people shy away
from law enforcement as a career.
2:11:14 PM
Representative Ortiz asked if there were fewer boots on the
ground in Anchorage, Ketchikan, or statewide.
Alternatively, he wondered if it was in a specific urban
area and if the issue pertained to city and state police.
Commissioner Monegan answered that the issue was statewide.
He believed all departments were struggling. He detailed
that the past administration only hired three academies in
Anchorage. He elaborated that normally the APD attrition
rate was about 20 per year - if there were only three
academies in a five or six-year period, many individuals
would be lost. He furthered that the attrition rate
included retirement, injury, disillusionment, and getting
fired. Fairbanks was struggling with recruiting qualified
individuals. The wildlife and state troopers had 42
vacancies presently (they were authorized at slightly under
400 positions).
Commissioner Monegan elaborated that the academy currently
had five troopers and the rest were municipal and Village
Public Safety Officers (VPSO). He specified the department
was anticipating an academy with about 15 troopers due to a
pay raise the legislature had helped with the preceding
year; it was a step in the right direction that would help
the department be more competitive. He shared that when the
department had looked at the studies, an APD officer would
achieve the highest payrate they could in about eight
years; however, for a trooper it took about 22 years. He
mentioned challenges that came with being a state trooper
including being transferred, which was not appealing to
everyone.
2:14:18 PM
Representative Ortiz asked why the state was having a
problem with the number of district attorneys and
prosecutors.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, responded that the answer was twofold. First, there
had been a decrease in the number of positions authorized
in the budget. The Criminal Division's budget had been
significantly reduced by upwards of 20 positions. Even
though the division had lost positions it still had
attrition and attempted to recruit. He relayed that there
had been times when people had applied for a job and during
the interview process they had expressed concern about the
fiscal position of the state and had ultimately decided
against working for the DOL. The elaborated that there had
been experienced individuals from outside the state who had
taken a closer look and decided not to come.
2:16:01 PM
Representative Ortiz asked if there was no funding of
prosecutors at a city level.
Mr. Skidmore responded in the negative. There were two
municipalities with significant prosecutor offices - Juneau
and Anchorage. In both communities the city prosecutor
offices handled greater than 80 to 85 percent of all
misdemeanors. He could not speak for the municipalities in
terms of recruiting or the number of positions, but the two
offices had a significant number of prosecutors. There were
a few communities that may have an attorney who helped with
minor things, but by-in-large for the rest of the state DOL
handled both felonies and misdemeanors.
Representative Kawasaki needed clarification about people
coming in for drug possession. He asked for verification
that simple possession had changed to a lower level
offense, but nothing had changed for dealers in terms of
higher sentencing.
Mr. Skidmore responded that changes to drug laws had been
made through criminal justice reform. One of the first
significant changes had been to break laws dealing with
[drug] distribution into two parts. Previously the law had
specified one level for any distribution of cocaine. The
law had been changed so lower levels of distribution
resulted in a lower-level felony, while a higher amount
resulted in a higher-level felony. The other significant
change had been to decrease possession down to a
misdemeanor. There were other smaller nuances to the
framework pertaining to drugs.
Representative Kawasaki remarked that the problem of
addiction was translating into other problems like low-
level thefts throughout the state including Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Mat-Su. There were constituents across the
state who believed jail was the best place for the
offenders if treatment was not available, rather than
letting the individuals off with a Class A misdemeanor.
2:19:50 PM
Mr. Steiner relayed that possession had been changed to a
misdemeanor, while the distribution offenses remained
felonies. The penalties for violent offenses still included
jail time. He furthered that even when the alternative
methods of getting people into treatment (deferred
prosecutions or therapeutic courts) were unavailable or not
negotiated, there were still jail penalties and potential
treatment in jail. The scheme was designed through the
commission to create a range, so the appropriate level of
intervention was available based upon the charge.
2:20:46 PM
Ms. Di Pietro suggested that a person arrested for
possession of drugs received a misdemeanor charge; however,
if a person was arrested for possession of drugs and
committing felony property offenses, they could still be
handled by the criminal justice system through the felony
sentencing and probation process. She believed it was
important to remember that not every drug possessor was
committing crimes. She acknowledged that many were. The law
still contained that criminal justice system tool. She
continued that those individuals could and were going to
therapeutic court - many of the individuals currently in
therapeutic court had felony property offenses as their
charges of referral. She reiterated the importance of
distinguishing between possession and further criminal
behavior.
2:21:51 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to slide 10 of the
presentation pertaining to Ms. Di Pietro's comments about
the focus on most violent offenders being in prison. He
observed that numbers on the slide showed a couple hundred
fewer individuals in prison for nonviolent misdemeanors and
a couple hundred fewer for nonviolent felonies. He asked
for the characteristic of those individuals in prison in
the past three years.
Commissioner Williams answered that in general because of
some of the law changes the prisons were seeing less people
coming in on misdemeanor offenses. He elaborated that the
trend was sort of what they expected to see, which was
positive. He continued that the system was lacking
immediate referral to drug treatment programs for
individuals such as heroin addicts who decide to quit.
There were costs associated with developing that type of
system. He believed the next step was about what else the
state was going to do; the problem was complex and had
myriad moving pieces. He thought things were heading the
right way, but it still did not address the need for an
avenue for addicts with a criminal charge (the prison
system was detoxing many of the individuals inside prisons,
which was hazardous and difficult) to receive immediate
treatment.
Commissioner Williams stressed that addicts did not have
the ability to think like nonaddicts. He emphasized that
the individuals were otherwise normal people. He stressed
the importance of determine whether the state would invest
in an automatic referral system and whether it had the
capacity to get individuals in immediate, humane detox. The
point was not about being "so nice" to addicts, but about
acknowledging the service could be a better road than
prison. He spoke to parents constantly whose kids were
dying of heroin addiction. He underscored that the children
were normal kids prior to getting into the drug. He relayed
there were numerous moving pieces he was hoping for
stability on because the next bite was a very important
place the system needed to go.
2:25:38 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about a scenario when a
heroin addict stole a car and ended up in FCC [Fairbanks
Correctional Center]. He asked if jail or the Community
Restitution Center was the right place for the individual.
He detailed there was a growing number of the individuals
who were increasing the pretrial population. He wanted to
know where the individuals would go.
Commissioner Williams answered that the correctional system
did not have the scenario down yet. He stated it was where
the greatest need resided. He furthered that he and the
attorney general [Jahna Lindemuth, Department of Law] had
discussed what the next bite of the apple was in terms of a
diversion program for heroin addicts - a program was
offered elsewhere and by the federal government. He was
looking for some stability in terms of getting through the
first cycle - there were a limited number of minutes in a
day. He furthered that he, the attorney general, and
Commissioner Monegan were focused on the need to have
someplace else for individuals to go.
Commissioner Williams elaborated that currently an addict
entering FCC was detoxing at that facility. Hopefully they
got out of prison quickly, so they avoid contact with other
[more serious] prisoners - but in a remand, pretrial
facility there were all types of people. The population
ranged from individuals who made a mistake because they
were addicts to people awaiting to go to trial for murder.
From the perspective of a parent of a child with a drug
addiction, the quickest option to address the problem was
of the utmost importance. Sending the individual to jail
addressed the problem in the short-term but presented other
hazards along the way. Other states and counties had
determined other alternatives, which gave him hope. Alaska
was behind the curve, but not so far behind that it could
not catch up.
2:27:54 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted that pretrial services was
one of the biggest centerpieces to criminal justice reform
- getting a person who was accused of a crime but not
adjudicated to continue until they got called back for
trial. He had become more uncomfortable about pretrial
services because the legislature had not seen the pretrial
risk assessment tools and other related things. He asked
when the tool would be implemented and what it looked like.
He believed for a heroin addict in a detox situation, it
appeared to be a substantial risk in someone who could
potentially reoffend - not necessarily in a violent way,
but in a nonviolent way such as theft. He believed
individuals concerned with property crime were concerned
with the issue.
2:29:02 PM
Commissioner Williams responded that many pretrial
components including the risk assessment tool had been
completed. The department's pretrial director had held many
stakeholder meetings developing the tool. He noted that Ms.
Di Pietro could elaborate on how the tool had been created.
He added that the tool was comprehensive, and he was
confident in its ability to help the court assess the risk
of a person coming in and to provide valuable information
in order for a judge to determine whether a person should
stay in jail pretrial or get out as quickly as possible. He
spoke to the importance of making the decision early on to
avoid moving people around and ensuring the right people
were in prison pretrial.
Commissioner Williams continued that there were 50 to 60
officers who would be in pretrial status (most were armed)
to keep track of individuals in pretrial status. Currently,
when a person went out on conditions of release during
pretrial, there was no one responsible (except the local
police department when an officer ran into a person who was
violating their conditions of release). Part of the effort
was providing an assessment piece first and enforcement for
individuals out pretrial. He reiterated that currently
there was no enforcement. He furthered that some
individuals were getting out of prison pretrial, while
others were not. He relayed that Mr. Skidmore could speak
to disparate decisions that had been made.
Commissioner Williams responded to the second part of
Representative Kawasaki's question related to concern about
heroin addicts caught in the pretrial phase. He stressed
that unless a person was cured of a heroin addiction, they
would find heroin to use again - every time a person
obtained, touched, bought, or sold heroin it was illegal,
which represented risk. He would prefer to get farther down
the road with the pretrial effort and to work with the
Department of Law on a diversion plan. A person would be
charged with a felony, but for a first time felony heroin
addict there would be two options - they could continue
down the same route or could develop diversion
opportunities including requiring a person to get clean, go
on Vivitrol, and do everything the state required for two
years and in some jurisdictions the case was either
mitigated substantially or removed entirely. The key was to
get individuals off heroin because if the remained addicted
they would be guaranteed to commit multiple additional
crimes; therefore, it was a key public safety strategy. He
explained it was in the best interest of public safety and
was a case of pay now or later - early investment was much
better.
2:32:55 PM
Representative Kawasaki stated there had been criticism at
the last meeting directed toward the commission related to
comments that the reason for criminal justice reform was
due to the expense of putting people in jail. He heard the
comments again when Ms. Di Pietro had testified about costs
associated with the issue. He recognized that from the
perspective of a finance committee, it was an important
factor. He wanted to give departments an opportunity to
comment on the public safety aspect of criminal justice
reform, which was the focus. He asked for comment on the
legislature's attempt to add the item to the commission's
mandate.
2:34:14 PM
Commissioner Williams stressed that criminal justice reform
was all about public safety from his perspective. He
underscored that a recidivism rate of 65 to 70 percent
guaranteed that those individuals would lead to more
victims in the future. He acknowledged that nothing could
be done about the horrific victimization and crimes from
the past, but he could help develop approaches to reduce
recidivism and the number of victims going forward. He
stated that if he thought putting people in prison would
make everyone safer he would do it; however, he questioned
a time when that had occurred. He stressed that the
recidivism rate had been 65 to 70 percent for 20 years.
There was always a risk in doing something different and
having something blamed for it. He had been in state
government a long time and understood that one of the best
things to do was keep your head down, but as the
commissioner of DOC he had come back because he believed it
was possible to do something about public safety. He wanted
to work on 5 to 10 percent recidivism rates resulting from
employment, and not mixing different types of criminals. He
believed there were huge opportunities, but it meant
staying the course. He concluded the reform was entirely
about public safety to him and he would not be in his
current role if that was not the case.
2:36:18 PM
Commissioner Monegan spoke about "boots on the ground" in
terms of police officers. He shared that he had worked
approximately 27 years with APD on patrol before being
selected as chief. He continued that in that timeframe he
was faced with arresting individuals who had been small
children early on in his tenure. He detailed that crime was
generational. He furthered that police officers were the
ones who got to talk to the victims, saw the raw emotion,
the violence, and the high in individuals they arrested.
Police officers tended to identify with the victims, but
they also had a job to do impartially. He characterized
officers as the shield not the sword.
Commissioner Monegan explained that because crime and other
associated things were generational, police had long
recognized that the system was not really working and there
had to be a better way. When he had retired from the police
department and the first time he left DPS, there had been
an opportunity to discuss various other ways. He believed
past legislation, SB 64, had formed the commission. He had
supported the idea because there were many social factors
with ACES [Adverse Childhood Experiences Study], childhood
development, and other things. He supported trying to
address the problem from a different direction and point of
view. He discussed looking at offenders not as despicable
individuals, but as people who got into trouble and were
still responsible for their actions. He shared that
whenever he had spoken to a high school class he asked how
many students want to grow up to be burglars or embezzlers
- almost no one responded affirmatively; however, prisons
were full.
Commissioner Monegan believed criminal justice reform was
overdue and that criminal justice was never a product, but
a process. He thought there were things that changed, laws,
case laws, technology and other things that had an impact.
He stated that criminal justice was a moving target. The
state was trying to do something it had never done before
and was trying to work with data. He referenced questions
about SB 54 not being as data driven as other portions of
SB 91. He underscored that the situation involved
individuals who had been victimized - the information could
not be ignored and was data. The commission had debated and
had collectively decided that changes were needed, which
had resulted in SB 54.
Co-Chair Foster relayed other testifiers available online.
2:41:01 PM
Representative Guttenberg commented that he had appreciated
Ms. Di Pietro's testimony that sentencing changes were only
a part of criminal justice reform and did not fix many
things; there were many societal issues the legislature
could not address. He referenced many statistics about part
of the problem - one was the average reading age in prison,
which he believed was either second or fourth grade.
Outside of the heroin and drug issue in prison, the reading
age was something that needed to be addressed. He
considered questions asked by legislators. He detailed that
many times the state did not have answers for questions
asked by legislators - he considered that the information
funneled through the commission to the departments. He was
concerned that there was something wrong with the data
management process - that it was not formulated enough to
answer questions. He wondered if the concern was valid. He
wondered if a graph could be generated to answer questions
from legislators.
Ms. Di Pietro responded that the legislature had wisely
ensured oversight and accountability pertaining to criminal
justice reform. She detailed that the commission received
data from DPS, DOC, and the Court System on a quarterly
basis to help the commission measure what was happening,
changing, or not changing with respect to prison
populations, things people were convicted of, and things
people were arrested for. She did not believe anyone could
sit at the table and tell the committee that they could
answer any question asked based on the data. The commission
had much good information and after about a year of working
through the data with agencies she felt positive about the
structure presented to the legislature in terms of what it
wanted to monitor and report back.
Ms. Di Pietro continued that there would be times the raw
statistical data coming into the commission did not answer
the entire question. She shared that in the past, more
detailed studies had been done, such as going into
individual court files to look at things that were not
captured electronically. She elaborated that the commission
had done research in Alaska that had never been done
before; the state's criminal justice system had been
assessed in detail and some of the outcomes had been
surprising. She believed they were well on the way to
becoming evidence-based and data driven. She also was
beginning to be more and more confident that the data could
answer many of the important questions. She would never
claim the data would answer every question. She relayed
that she had been working in research of the civil and
criminal justice system for 25 years and she had not seen
the system be as data driven with such quality information
in the past.
2:46:19 PM
Representative Guttenberg spoke about recidivism and
savings. He stated that the recidivism rate was the crime
rate of people who had already committed a crime. He
considered where to go to stop crime. He surmised that when
1,100 individuals were released from prison, 600 of the
individuals would return to prison fairly quickly. Once
that number decreased and people understood what drove
individuals to recidivate, it would be a considerable
benefit to public safety. The recidivism rate was driving
down the repeated crime rate, which he believed was very
important. His district was not located in the City of
Fairbanks jurisdiction.
Representative Guttenberg detailed that if a trooper was in
a shooting in his district, backup was coming from 35 miles
away. He found it troubling. He spoke about salary and
wondered if there was optimum salary and benefits package
to recruit more highly qualified troopers. He had heard
that officers did not bother doing a report or arresting
individuals in his district because prosecutors would not
prosecute. He was trying to determine how to break that
cycle. He stated that at the end of the day it was about
public safety. He wanted the public to know that when there
were crimes against them that there would be action and
recourse to prevent further crime.
2:49:07 PM
Commissioner Monegan remarked on the complexity of the
question. He replied that the pay was a good step. The
number one issue for job satisfaction was for employees to
be appreciated - pay was the second or third on the list.
He elaborated that the department was down numerous
positions and the workload had increased due to increases
in population and crime; troopers were being worked to
exhaustion. For example, in Mat-Su most troopers were on-
standby when they were not on duty. He explained that if a
person was on standby they were very limited in downtime
and in the social activities they could do. Part of the
issue was related to being down 42 positions. He had been
working with the wildlife and state trooper colonels to
come up with more robust recruitment and retention, which
was key. The colonels were working up a detailed plan with
numerous options - some that had been tried in the past and
needed to be reworked and others that were new. He provided
an ROTC model as an example - an individual could apply for
a loan and the department would help with tuition. He was
willing to look at the idea to flush it out. He elaborated
that participants could have an obligation of time to the
state for a set number of years (e.g. four or five years).
Commissioner Monegan continued that the department was
looking at bringing back the trooper cadet program in hub
areas - individuals from 18 to 21 years of age could work
and do paper work and other items that meant a trooper
would not be tied up with the activities. He stated that
cadets could also be trained to go into classrooms, which
he believed a presence was needed. He continued that all
sectors of the criminal justice system were perpetually
chasing a problem and were never getting ahead. He believed
the system had been missing the involvement of the
Department of Education and Early Development, which was
now involved. He stated that the schools were the one area
the state could make a difference. He talked about
providing educational programs in schools to teach students
about "good touch, bad touch" and other. He explained that
troopers would love to provide that service; however, they
were needed in other areas.
Commissioner Monegan relayed the cadet program would give
students an opportunity to test drive with troopers. He
stated it would help communities to feel more comfortable
with troopers. The ability to blend more with the community
would offer the opportunity of people who did not believe
they could but were capable of fulfilling the role. The
department had a big master plan to look at recruiting and
retention. The department would not hesitate to receive
input once the plan had been completed and vetted.
2:54:50 PM
Mr. Skidmore made clarifying remarks about his earlier
comments pertaining to not receiving referrals. He
explained that he did not want to give anyone the
impression DOL was not receiving referrals on felonies such
as robbery. He elaborated that referrals for felonies such
as robbery, assault, homicide, and theft were up. There had
been a decrease in prosecuted misdemeanors, but there had
not been a decrease in prosecuted felonies - they were
staying at the same level. He expounded that with reduction
in the department's capacity to provide services, the
department prioritized services to provide. The department
was putting first priority on the felony crimes. He
explained if the department had to make difficult
decisions, because a misdemeanor was a lower level crime,
DOL focused on crimes deemed more serious based on the
statutory structure.
Ms. Di Pietro referenced a chart in the annual report
showing that theft admissions to DOC were up.
Representative Guttenberg referred to previous
conversations with former judge [Raymond] Funk regarding
therapeutic courts. He observed there was a difference
between people who decide they have to get off drugs and
people who do it because they have to due to circumstances
such as jail. He asked if there was a way to separate
individuals by those who wanted to get off drugs on their
own accord versus others who continued using.
2:57:44 PM
Mr. Steiner answered that the specific scenario had not
been considered by ACJC. He had seen data showing that
providing treatment for people who were coerced into it via
the threat of prosecution, also worked. He did not know if
the success rates were the same, but both worked;
therefore, he believed distinguishing between the two would
not necessarily be productive. Treatment, especially in
therapeutic courts (which had great success), was the
model. Therapeutic courts were also called problem solving
courts for individuals with problems that need addressing.
Representative Thompson pointed out that there were many
public calls asking the legislature to increase the budget
to add more state troopers. He remarked that Commissioner
Monegan had testified that the department had 42 vacant
(funded) positions. He was supportive of the innovative
ideas posed by Commissioner Monegan. He encouraged
individuals to help the department recruit.
Mr. Steiner followed up on his earlier response to
Representative Guttenberg. He referenced earlier discussion
about whether the commission was focusing on public safety
or saving money. He thought therapeutic courts was a good
example of the department's line of thinking. He elaborated
that the thinking had been that at all times public safety
was at the beginning and end of every discussion, but it
was a diversion strategy, not a money saving strategy. He
elaborated that it was a diversion from strategies that did
not work to those that did (e.g. therapeutic courts and
other rehabilitative programs). He explained that the
effort had not been about saving money, but about figuring
out what worked.
3:00:25 PM
Co-Chair Seaton expressed appreciation for public safety
goals outlined on slide 4 of the commission's presentation.
He noted the importance of the items listed and recognized
that the legislature had put the goals of the commission in
statute. He believed the commission had focused on the
statutory obligation to fulfill the public safety goals,
which he did not want to see missed. He appreciated the
swift, certain, and proportionate response highlighted in
the justice reform process. He believed the goal was a
perception of fairness in the system. He highlighted the
increase in SB 54 from a 24-hour hold to a 5-day hold noted
on slide 19. He detailed that one of the problems facing
the Alaska judicial system was disparate sentencing based
on demographics across the state. He was concerned that
with going to a 5-day hold for disorderly conduct - even
thought there was a smaller number of individuals in the
category (271 the past year) - if sentencing became
disparate, the fairness of the system would be challenged.
Co-Chair Seaton understood that there might be a desire to
increase the timeframe to five days, but he wanted to see a
report to the legislature annually during session looking
at the previous year's associated demographics. He wanted
to how many people in which demographics received a 24-hour
hold versus a 5-day hold. He continued that a 5-day hold
could result in a person losing their job. He wanted to
avoid separating people from positive social networks in
their lives. He understood that the 5-day hold could be
requested by prosecutors, but he wanted to circumvent
disparate sentencing and requests. He was afraid he would
not have the data without an annual report to the
legislature.
Ms. Di Pietro reported that statute in SB 91 requiring
agencies to submit the data to ACJC, required the receipt
of information on demographic characteristics such as race
and gender. She elaborated that they could keep track of
demographic characteristics of individuals admitted to DOC
facilities for disorderly conduct compared to the rest of
the prison population or whatever was of interest to the
legislature. She believed it was possible to obtain good
information about whether the concern came to fruition.
3:05:50 PM
Commissioner Williams thought he had seen some recent data
that would answer Co-Chair Seaton's question. He thought
there was a disparity as it related to Alaska Natives; it
was almost double for Alaska Natives. He would provide the
most recent DOC data on disorderly conduct and the
historical and current racial profile.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to know the number of people charged
with disorderly conduct and length of hold time. He wanted
to ensure there was no discretion built into the system
that could result in discrimination. He stressed the
importance of ensuring everyone perceived the system as
fair.
Mr. Steiner reported that the hold time increase was not a
recommendation of the commission; the commission's original
recommendation had been to reduce disorderly conduct down
to 24 hours. He elaborated there were policy and strategy
reasons behind the recommendation. He was available to
answer questions during the committee's discussion on the
details and merits of the bill. He could provide
information on the commission's discussion.
3:08:26 PM
Representative Pruitt asked if there had been increases in
low level crimes in the past year (since the passage of SB
91).
Mr. Steiner indicated there was a recent publication of
data through the University of Alaska Anchorage by Brad
Myrstol showing crime rates in categories across the board
for the two years preceding the passage of SB 91 had
dropped within six months following the passage of SB 91 in
all categories except for vehicle theft. The overall trend
prior to the passage of the bill had been increasing. Some
of the immediate decrease had been seasonal and it was not
possible to draw conclusions from it other than there had
been an immediate decline in the upwards trend following
the passage of the bill.
Representative Pruitt surmised that the departments felt
confident they had data on everything he was hearing from
his constituents. He had heard much more in the past year
from constituents. He elaborated in his experience the
current data compared to past communication did not
compare. He continued that there had been a press
conference earlier in the day and he believed the
conversation was veering away from SB 91 into a financial
discussion instead of focusing on whether SB 91 had
challenges that needed to be addressed (not only what was
in SB 54, but beyond). He referenced department testimony
that the existing data was the better than any past
available data. However, in his experience the information
he had received represented a steep incline.
Ms. Di Pietro relayed that data referenced by Mr. Steiner
was UCR [Uniform Crime Reporting] - data of crimes known to
police. She furthered that UCR included data taken from
local police agencies compiling all crime reports - the
data was then published by DPS. She indicated that it was
the best quantifiable crime data. She addressed how to
measure crime. One way to measure crime was to ask the
police whether people were calling about crime, which was
the data Mr. Steiner had referred to. She understood the
answer was not satisfactory because she had also heard
people complaining about crime in ways that were different.
She was not discounting Representative Pruitt's data. She
welcomed suggestions on how to count crimes.
Representative Pruitt stated that people were no longer
calling cops, which did a substantial disservice to people
on the front lines. He detailed that officers were being
blamed for failing doing their jobs; when in the end it
came down to their ability to do their job. He suggested
that if the state was going to continue in utilizing and
touting the evidence basis needed to make the decisions,
the state needed to recognize that if its data was flawed -
he believed the data was flawed because people had given up
reporting crimes - it was necessary to take more than the
state's data and to consider the reality facing residents.
Ms. Di Pietro referenced her earlier testimony about crime
rates. She reiterated that the state had the UCR data,
which was the best data available; however, she did not
think it should be the beginning and end of the discussion
about criminal justice reform. She continued that the
policies the commission recommended that had become part of
criminal justice reform were evidence-based policies shown
in other places to reduce recidivism. She did not believe
it was possible to draw a direct connection between the
crime rate and the policies recommended in criminal justice
reform. The departments anticipated that the recidivism
rate would decrease.
Ms. Di Pietro thanked Representative Guttenberg for his
explanation of how recidivism was connected to public
safety. She detailed that a decline in recidivism mean
fewer victims. There could still be other crime and a
response to that crime was needed, but in terms of
arresting people, there was nothing in criminal justice
reform that hampered an officer's authority to arrest
people. There were other factors that residents had
legitimate complaints about. She stressed that she was not
challenging the heartfelt testimony from Alaskans.
Likewise, she did not believe the commission was
discounting the concerns. She elaborated that the
commission had heard people's concerns at its January
meeting and made the recommendations that became SB 54.
3:16:56 PM
Commissioner Monegan responded that he understood the
aspect about not calling the police. For example, in Mat-Su
there may be six to eight troopers on patrol responsible
for responding to a population of approximately 85,000 and
a geographic region approximately the size of West
Virginia. He listed various crimes including accidents,
DUIs, domestic violence situations, and explained that
people crimes would always trump property crimes in terms
of response. He spoke about the troopers' inability to
respond to a broken-in shed or car theft; he sympathized,
but explained that at times when the troopers did not
respond, it was due to higher priority calls. He
underscored that it was not a situation where troopers or
anyone did not respond because they did not feel like it.
He furthered that the issue was just as frustrating to
troopers as it was to everyone else.
Commissioner Monegan elaborated that the department
continued to battle the issue in rural areas. He
highlighted Bethel and detailed there was a hub of state
troopers in Bethel, but there were 56 surrounding villages.
He elaborated that the Bethel police department handled the
City of Bethel, while state troopers responded to different
situations in the surrounding area when weather allowed.
Unfortunately, there were times a call would come in, but
troopers were tied up with something else such as a search
and rescue. He agreed it was human nature to decide not to
call law enforcement if someone determined there would be
no response, which was unfortunate. He stated the route to
addressing the problem was to increase staffing with the 40
available positions and more at some point. He would be
happy to be in a position where all 40 positions were
filled, and he needed to request funding for more. He
reiterated that response was based on priority.
3:19:58 PM
Mr. Skidmore compared it to building a house in terms of
needing the people and the tools. He agreed there were some
issues with people, but that was not what the bill was
about. The bill was not about getting more people and
workers, but about ensuring the proper tools were in place.
There were several tools included in SB 54, which was the
reason the bill was developed and why the initial
recommendations came from the commission for things like
discretion for judges to impose up to a year on a first
time Class C felony. Additionally, the bill included
discretion for how to respond to certain repeat theft
offenses under $250, violation of conditions of release,
and mandatory probation for sex offenders. He underscored
the importance of the tools. He hoped the committee did not
take the testimony to mean the departments were shifting
away from SB 54 - SB 54 still played a critical role and he
believed department staff were merely trying to respond to
the questions asked by committee members; the departments
were happy to answer specific questions about the bill.
Representative Pruitt was concerned about the reinvestment
component. He believed the past August the commission had
voiced its concern there was not a plan for the
reinvestment. He referenced Ms. Di Pietro's testimony that
of the programs that had been reinvested in so far, the
reentry coalition was not necessarily evidence-based. He
continued that if he were to go forward with the desire of
his district he would be fighting to repeal SB 91. He
explained he was trying to stay away from the political
side and meet the departments; therefore, he needed the
departments' help. He was concerned with the commission
asking for reinvestment without evidence to make the case
to his constituents.
3:23:48 PM
Ms. Di Pietro clarified that she had misspoken about the
reentry coalitions and had been corrected. She detailed
that the reentry coalitions' case management function
(described in the commission's report) was evidence-based.
She apologized for the misstatement and noted it had been
in August. At that time, the commission had been discussing
reinvestment. She elaborated that SB 91 required the
commission to provide an annual report to the legislature
on November 1 - the report had been provided early for the
current year to help the legislature during special
session. The legislature had directed the commission to
include reinvestment recommendations in the report. She
believed the commission had a great discussion in August
pertaining to strategic reinvestment. She furthered that
the last chapter of the report contained recommendations
for how to think about future reinvestment money. She noted
the commission laid out a number of different principles
including reinvestment and treatment as being paramount.
She believed the commission had done a great job devising a
good approach to offer to the legislature.
3:25:31 PM
Representative Pruitt spoke to a concern that had come from
the report. He stated that one of the commissioners had
mentioned what appeared to be bias towards nonprofit
organizations over for-profit organizations. He was
concerned the state was picking and choosing based on
certain preferences versus finding the best people to
deliver the most effective services.
Commissioner Williams emphasized he was focused on results.
He spoke to his perspective on reentry. He meant no
disrespect to any of the contractors who worked for DOC,
but the department had been very profit-driven in terms of
who it contracted with. He wanted a variety of options of
how people reenter. He believed some nonprofits, tribes,
and local entities that could do the job as well as, if not
better than some of the large contractors the department
had. He was trying to open the gate and was not trying to
discriminate against one versus another.
Commissioner Williams had received criticism from his own
department that the state had put all its eggs in one
basket on certain issues including reentry and halfway
houses. He acknowledged it was a problem. He elaborated
that part of the reason he wanted to explore fish
processing plants was they housed and fed people in their
custody. He was biased on the profits side and wanted fish
processing plants to make money. He reiterated the
importance of having a variety of options. He was looking
at a host of changes not because he cared about one versus
another more philosophically; the results had not been what
was wanted. He furthered the department had used the same
halfway house for a long time. He underscored that a 65
percent recidivism rate was unacceptable; therefore, he was
rocking the boat because he believed a number of options
were necessary, which was the reason he had worked so hard
with tribes and nonprofits. He had also encouraged for-
profit contractors to work on results - he credited them
for their response. Ultimately, the issue was about
developing multiple options; it was not philosophical about
one or the other.
3:28:42 PM
Representative Pruitt read a past comment that had been
made: "There are for-profits competing with nonprofits,
which has been challenging." He appreciated Commissioner
Williams's response to his question. He hoped the state was
not steering in certain directions based on biases of
particular individuals and instead was looking at the best
option. He also asked how many commission members had been
victims of car theft or home invasion in the past year. He
wanted to know the experiences of the commission.
Ms. Di Pietro replied that she was not on the commission,
she was staff to the commission. She reported that her car
had been broken into.
Commissioner Williams responded that he had not had his car
broken into. He shared that a family member had been the
victim of a serious crime in the past. He explained that
the issue was personal because the person was very close to
him - it had occurred before recent reform efforts. He
added that "many of us have had those kinds of
experiences."
Commissioner Monegan shared that he lived in Chugiak in a
remote area and had some items taken from his property.
Additionally, he had helped identify a suspicious person
who had committed two burglaries because the individual had
also knocked on his door. He had also recently had prowlers
around his house and his youngest daughter had been home
and contacted APD.
Co-Chair Seaton expressed that the questioning was veering
from the topic of evidence-based decision making. He asked
to return to SB 54.
Representative Pruitt explained the importance of decision
makers understanding the experiences of the people who were
being affected the most. He stressed that the people coming
to him about the issues were being affected. He purported
that the impact of a vehicle break-in probably had a larger
impact on those individuals than it would on him or others
in the committee room. He reasoned that the individuals may
not have the means and resources that others may have. He
wanted to be able to say that the people making the
decisions were not without personal experience around the
issue. He was trying to be able to return to his community
and argue for whatever the legislature decided upon.
3:33:03 PM
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to clarify that burglary from a
person's home or robbery (stealing something off a person)
were not "no jail" crimes. He explained those crimes were
different than theft that did not involve breaking into
someone's house or stealing off a person. He asked for the
range of jail time for burglary under current law and SB
54.
Mr. Skidmore responded that burglary was broken out into
two different degrees. Burglary in the first degree was a
Class B felony and a first-time felon for burglary was
subject to jailtime of zero to two years. Burglary in the
second degree (burglary of a business) was a Class C felony
- jailtime had been adjusted in SB 54. He asked if Vice-
Chair Gara wanted the information for robbery as well.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that robbery was a
Class B felony with jailtime of zero to two years for first
time offenses and zero to five years for repeat offenders.
Mr. Skidmore answered that robbery in the first degree was
a Class A felony and robbery in the second degree was a
Class B felony. He verified that Vice-Chair Gara was
correct about presumptive ranges for a Class B felony. He
could look up the information for a Class A felony.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that none of those
crimes had become zero jailtime crimes for a first-time
offense under SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the sentencing range was zero up
to two years. He stated "it's not the situation that you
find Class C felonies for a first-time offense, in which
it's only probation." He detailed it was the court's
discretion about how much time to impose and it certainly
had the discretion to impose jail time.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that prior to SB 91,
the top range may have been a bit higher for burglary or
robbery, but the range was zero to a certain number of
years.
3:36:03 PM
Mr. Skidmore answered that prior to criminal justice reform
the range had been higher. For a Class A felony, the
presumptive range had been 5 to 8 years, which had been
changed to 5 to 6 years for first-time offenses. For a
Class B felony, the presumptive range had been 1 to 3
years, which had been changed to 0 to 2 years for a first-
time offense.
Vice-Chair Gara addressed aggravators. He detailed there
was a discussion that dangerous crime was somehow not
prosecuted or charged with jailtime in Alaska. There were
roughly 30 aggravators in statute - if a person committed
especially bad acts including causing injury to a person,
using a dangerous weapon, or did something to a vulnerable
person. He furthered that if the crime was among the most
serious of those particular crimes, an aggravator applied.
He asked for a detail on how an aggravator worked and how
it impacted a jail sentence.
Mr. Steiner used a Class B felony with a sentencing range
of zero to two years as an example. He detailed that if the
state could prove an aggravating factor it would raise the
penalty to the maximum end of the range. He added it was
something the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
before a jury as a result of the Blakely decision. He noted
that aggravators were also applied in the negotiation
process and there were cases were sentences were aggravated
by agreement.
Mr. Skidmore indicated that in order for an aggravator to
apply, the circumstance in the aggravator could not have
been an element of the original offense. There were 35
aggravators and they had to be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. They could be used to enhance the penalty, but it
could not be that the circumstance in the aggravator was
one of the elements of the underlying offense.
3:39:04 PM
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to be clear about the range
modification. He provided a scenario where a person
burglarized a house with a dangerous weapon - the weapon
could be an aggravator.
Mr. Skidmore agreed.
Vice-Chair Gara continued that if a burglar hurt someone in
the process of breaking into a home it could also be an
aggravator. He asked for the range of sentences for Class
A, B, and C felonies with and without an aggravator.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the maximum sentence for a Class
A felony was 20 years. When an aggravator was found it gave
the court discretion to impose a sentence up to 20 years.
The range for a first-time Class A felony would be 3 to 6
years and special circumstances could make it five to nine
years. The sentencing range for a second offense was 8 to
12 years and a third offense was 13 to 20 years. An
aggravator in any of those circumstances would give the
court discretion to impose up to 20 years. The sentencing
range for a first-time Class B felony was 0 to 2 years. The
range for a second offense was 2 to 5 years and a third was
4 to 10. An aggravator would allow the court the discretion
to impose a 10-year sentence in any of those circumstances.
Mr. Skidmore continued that a Class C felony began at 18
months' probation. A second offense carried a sentence of 0
to 2 years, and a third offense carried a sentence of 3 to
5 years. An aggravator gave the court discretion to impose
a 5-year sentence in any of those circumstances.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that if SB 54 did not pass, under
current law for a Class C felony there was no jail time. He
asked for verification that with an aggravator a person
could receive up to five years in prison under current law.
Mr. Skidmore responded in the affirmative.
3:41:45 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not want to pretend that the world
would be changed if the bill passed. He elaborated that if
statute was passed but there was a lack of police on the
streets and a lack of prosecutors meaning criminals were
not prosecuted, he could not tell his constituents
everything would be better. He discussed that police levels
had gone down in Anchorage - they were now increasing - to
the point where community policing had not been taking
place. He described community policing as having police in
the neighborhood who people got to know and it made the
neighborhood safer. He asked if he was accurate that the
state did not have the number of police in most communities
to do community policing.
Commissioner Monegan responded that there were two types of
things police departments tried to do - they tried to stop
crime and the fear of crime. Community policing could do
both; it was where the officers developed the relationship
of trust with the community they were serving so there was
a willingness for the public to report crimes or make
complaints versus not calling because they did not think
the police would respond. He was trying to avoid an
atmosphere where people did not make reports because the
department wanted to know everything going on pertaining to
crime. Community policing helped the department achieve the
goal of a special relationship with the community that the
department and officers were sworn to serve. The lack of
officers or troopers inhibited that goal because it meant
they could only respond to the highest priority calls.
There was very little time for getting out and talking to
the community to address the fear of crime. He believed
officers needed to spend more time within the community in
the redevelopment or reinforcement of that concept
pertaining to trust and demonstrating their willingness to
be a part of it.
Commissioner Monegan continued that the entire concept of
police was never meant to be taking care of all the
community. He explained that when it had first been built,
Sir Robert Peel had stated that the community was the
police and the police were the community. He, as a police
officer, was there to help the community to police itself.
Having community policing was near and dear to every
department. He furthered that it was expensive and the
recent downturn in the economy and budget cuts meant the
department had loss and was faced with scrambling to handle
the highest priority and was not able to get out to do the
other things it needed to do.
3:45:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Harriet Drummond
in the audience.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that "many of us" had said that
budget cuts in public safety did not do the public any
good. There had been legislative efforts to add some
prosecutors, but the department was still lacking in that
area. He elaborated that in the past Mr. Skidmore had
presented that the percentage of cases DOL could not
prosecute had continued to increase as prosecutor positions
were lost during budget cuts. He asked for explanation of
the trend of cases DOL had to decline. He had heard
anecdotally that because the department did not have the
staff it sometimes took a felony it could not prosecute,
but sometimes there was a felony it referred to a
municipality that could only prosecute the crime as a
misdemeanor. He offered an aside that municipalities could
only prosecute misdemeanors, not felonies. He asked Mr.
Skidmore for comment.
Mr. Skidmore responded that he did not know of cases the
department had declined (that could be charged as a felony)
and had given to municipalities. He was not asserting the
situation had not occurred, but he was not aware of any
examples. In terms of the department's ability provide
prosecution services based on the number of prosecutors and
the type of tools available to the department. He relayed
that without any additional resources, the passage of SB 54
would provide the department with more tools; it would help
the department in its ability to prosecute. However, the
bill alone would not solve the problem. He detailed that
the need for additional positions was another component. He
noted that the attorney general and DOL would be seeking
funds for additional positions in the next regular session.
Mr. Skidmore spoke to the department's ability to
prosecute. He referenced a presentation he had given the
previous year that looked at the number of felonies and
misdemeanors filed by DOL statewide over several years. The
number of felonies filed had gone down by 187 out of
approximately 5,000; there had been a decrease, but not a
significant one. The number of misdemeanors had been around
20,000 and had dropped to around 13,000 or 14,000. The
reason for the reduction in the number of misdemeanors
filed was multilayered. One of the reasons for the decrease
in misdemeanor filings was that the Municipality of
Anchorage had taken on a greater portion of misdemeanor
filings during that time.
Mr. Skidmore continued that there had also been changes in
the law during that time. When the department screened its
cases, there was a complex list of codes showing the reason
behind the department's decisions on cases. One of the
reasons was disproportionate resources - not having
sufficient resources to do the cases. Even with the fewer
number of cases and decrease in referrals, the department
had still been declining a significant portion of the
misdemeanors due to a lack in resources. He furthered that
felonies had dropped by 3 percent, whereas misdemeanors
dropped by around 33 percent. He explained the description
helped to illustrate his earlier point - the department
prioritized what it deemed to be the most important cases
based on violent crimes versus property crimes and felonies
versus misdemeanors.
3:51:03 PM
Commissioner Monegan believed Vice-Chair Gara had asked an
earlier question about whether the passage or failure to
pass SB 54 would be helpful to departments.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that he did not believe that had
been his question.
Commissioner Monegan communicated that the bill was needed
by DPS; it would give the department tools the department
lacked to help address the issues under discussion. He
furthered that the department was also responsible for
satisfying and listening to public condemnation. The more
the department was able to respond to the community, the
better the relationship it had with the community.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Reinbold in the
audience.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified his support for SB 54. He asked
for verification there were a number of felonies and
misdemeanors DOL did not have the staff to prosecute.
Mr. Steiner replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Foster reminded members that public testimony
would be heard at 5:00 p.m.
Representative Ortiz shared that he had not voted for SB
91, which he had struggled with. He detailed that during
discussions on SB 91 the arguments brought forward by
departments regarding evidence-based [reform] were
compelling. He had voted against the bill because of the
feedback he received from law enforcement in his district.
He thought there were ACJC members who had traveled to
Europe to study crime and punishment in other parts of the
world. He wondered if the committee would hear about
takeaways from that trip.
3:54:12 PM
Commissioner Williams replied that he would love to talk
about the takeaways from the trip during the upcoming
session. One of the commission's goals that he shared was
doing something about a 20-year consistent pattern of
reoffence of the 11,000 prisoners released annually. Within
the first six months to a year approximately 5,000 to 6,000
of the individuals had been arrested again for a criminal
offense. He underscored the recidivism rate in Norway was
approximately 20 to 25 percent. Sweden, which had a
population of 5.5 million [this statement was later
corrected - see 3:57 p.m. below] and significantly less
money, had fewer people in prison than Alaska with a 30
percent recidivism rate. He stressed that the systems were
focused on getting results - in many cases individuals
leaving prison were better, had gained skills, and were
able to get a job. He elaborated that the director of the
Ireland prison system had been at the meeting and had
shared that its recidivism rate had been decreased by 15 to
20 percent in the past few years.
Commissioner Williams continued that the State of Wyoming
was the only state with a smaller prison system than Alaska
- the population of Wyoming was smaller than Alaska's.
Wyoming did not have a comprehensive system (Alaska was
only one of five states with a unified system, meaning DOC
received everyone from remand through the end of their
sentence) and had a recidivism rate of about half of
Alaska's. There were similarities between European models
and models in the U.S. - there were lessons to be learned
from these other locations. He hoped there was an
opportunity to consider those options during session. He
furthered it would mean changing the conditions behind
prison walls.
3:57:22 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that
Commissioner Williams had been comparing Sweden's
population of 5.5 million with Alaska's population.
Commissioner Williams corrected his earlier statement that
Norway [not Sweden] had a population of about 5.5 million
with fewer people in prison than Alaska.
Representative Ortiz understood that SB 54 was recommended
by the commission; however, the bill had been amended. He
wondered if the commission supported SB 54 in its amended
form.
Mr. Steiner thought that SB 54 needed to be reviewed policy
by policy. He was not prepared to take a position on the
entire bill at the current stage. He continued that the
commission had put out recommendations and as a
commissioner he supported a bill that adhered as close to
the recommendations as possible. There were specific
reasons SB 91 made the policy recommendations it did, and
SB 54 was a measured response to concerns that were raised
about SB 91. There were concerns with some of the
amendments that had been incorporated in the latest
version. He reiterated his belief that walking through
provisions in SB 54 one-by-one was necessary for
understanding the bill's value.
3:59:24 PM
GREG RAZO, CHAIR, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION (via
teleconference), had a concern about an issue raised
earlier in the meeting by Representative Guttenberg
regarding disorderly conduct. He remarked there had been
much discussion about opiates, heroin, and drugs, but there
had been no conversation about alcoholism and treatment for
alcohol. He elucidated that disorderly conduct was
generally used as a tool to diffuse situations such as
removing an intoxicated individual out of a bar or out of a
fight. There were other forms of disorderly conduct, but
the scenario he highlighted pertaining to alcohol was the
primary use. He was worried the provision would
disproportionately affect Alaska Natives.
Representative Grenn addressed reducing recidivism and the
impacts - whether it was eliminating crime in general or
fear of crime and what it did for the community. He asked
how diving into the recommendations from the annual report
would help recidivism more than a repeal of SB 91. He was
interested in focusing on how the recommendations would
help lower recidivism. He noted his question could be
considered at a later time.
Ms. Di Pietro offered to focus the committee's
recommendations about reinvestment, which she believed was
the key to reducing recidivism. She directed attention to
slides 5 and 6 that laid out the ten-thousand-foot strategy
of reinvestment in FY 17 and FY 18 and then FY 19 and
onward. She underscored it was a critical piece of reducing
recidivism - reinvesting in programs that would get people
on the right track. She added that the commission's more
specific recommendations about a coordinated approach to
reinvestment were contained in the most recent report.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the commission planned to provide
the committee with its estimation of the amendments to SB
54 and how much the reduction in savings would be. He
reasoned that without savings there would not be
reinvestment; at that point it would be investment instead.
He clarified that he was not opposed to investment, but the
conversation was about reinvestment; therefore, it was
necessary to have the money to redirect towards services.
He asked the commission to provide an analysis on the
current bill version.
Ms. Di Pietro responded that the she would provide the
information.
4:03:54 PM
Representative Wilson referenced a slide presented to the
committee a couple of weeks back pertaining to electronic
monitoring and halfway houses. She understood some concerns
about how the halfway houses had been utilized. She
discussed that the state had been writing new contracts,
which meant changes could be made. She reported that in
2015 there had been approximately 440 individuals on
electronic monitoring and 691 in halfway houses. As of
October 27, 2017, there were 220 individuals on electronic
monitoring and 319 in halfway houses. She reasoned if the
number of individuals on electronic monitoring was
increased to 440 it would mean a $12 million savings. She
had derived at the figure using the cost of $150 per day
[to house a prisoner in jail]. She continued that an
additional 372 in halfway houses [for a total of 691] was
an additional savings of $20 million.
Representative Wilson furthered that Medicaid expansion
worked for individuals in halfway houses or on electronic
monitoring - the state was not responsible for paying those
medical costs, but it did pay the costs currently [for
individuals in prison]. She shared that she had sent about
40 names to DOC from some of the private electronic
monitoring groups that had been approached by people
requesting to be on electronic monitoring, but the
individuals had been denied. She requested information in
writing showing the department's plan regarding the issue.
She mentioned testimony earlier that there had been a
decrease in the prison population, but it was beginning to
rise again. She stated that having the individuals on an
ankle monitor meant the state would know where they were
and whether they were committing another crime. She was
concerned that the state was not using the tools it had.
She thought the state could potentially be saving $32
million.
Representative Wilson expounded that she had been looking
at the halfway house contracts and could not find the
penalties pertaining to drugs in the halfway houses or
running away from the halfway houses. She underscored that
if halfway houses were going to be used as treatment it was
important to ensure drugs were kept out and inmates were
kept in. She reiterated her request for a written response
pertaining to why the numbers of individuals on electronic
monitoring and in halfway houses had decreased
significantly.
4:06:20 PM
Commissioner Williams replied that he appreciated the topic
a great deal. Part of the problem was people had been
running away from halfway houses at an unacceptable rate.
He continued that the Anchorage chief of police had been
rightfully upset by the number of individuals running away.
He furthered that each of the individuals had the potential
to be charged with a felony and many of them had been
addicted to drugs. He had inherited a significant problem
with how the state was using halfway houses. He was trying
to fix the problem. He noted he was not trying to make
excuses. He had recently been in Nome and was working hard
to determine what the community wanted to do about the
halfway house there. He agreed that electronic monitoring
was underutilized in Alaska; however, he wanted to avoid
placing someone on electronic monitoring and have it go
bad. He took all the decisions very seriously. He agreed to
provide detail in writing. He reiterated his belief that
electronic monitoring and halfway houses were valuable
tools that had been underutilized.
Representative Wilson reasoned that contracts being
rewritten at present, which meant the time to act was now.
She stressed that people should not be running away from
halfway houses and if they were the specific halfway house
contract needed to be penalized. She could not find the
information in the new contracts. She meant no disrespect,
but she had heard countless times from other individuals
who agreed that something needed to be done, but nothing
ever changed. She underscored that the numbers spoke for
themselves. She reasoned that if the conversation was about
rehabilitation, recidivism, and people losing their jobs
and not being able to get back on the right track, it was
necessary to use the available tools; otherwise it was $30
million wasted. She stated the issue had been frustrating
for years and she continued to hear the same thing. She
hoped it would be different in the current year.
SB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the next meeting.
He asked members to submit any amendments by the following
day at 1:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
4:12:45 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 alaska_criminal_justice_commission_annual_report_2017.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Public Testimony 1 10.27.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Recommendations to Commission 1-9-17.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Support Letter NFIB.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54_Chair Razo - sb91 response to inaccuracy_sent to Anchorage Assembly.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 SB 91 |
| SB 54_Letter from Diane Schneker_Repeal SB 91.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 SB 91 |
| SB 54 Statutes AS 12.55.155 Aggravating Mitigating Factors.pdf |
HFIN 10/30/2017 1:00:00 PM |
SB 54 |