Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/06/2019 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Presentation: Ak Criminal Justice Commission | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2019
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: AK CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SEAN CASE, Captain
Anchorage Police Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council; Staff
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation on the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission.
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Alaska Public Defender Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:28 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Representatives LeDoux, Kopp,
Stutes, Wool, Shaw, Eastman, and Claman were present at the call
to order.
^Presentation: AK Criminal Justice Commission
Presentation: AK Criminal Justice Commission
1:32:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation and invited testimony from speakers who work with
or serve on the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC).
1:33:10 PM
SEAN CASE, Captain, Anchorage Police Department, introduced
three "directions" he intended to cover in his presentation:
Increasing present resources, adding new resources, and
partnering with outside resources.
1:33:43 PM
CAPTAIN CASE discussed the Anchorage Police Department's (APD)
approach of concentrating resources to combat vehicle theft. He
reported a 66 percent decrease from 340 to approximately 116 -
in the number of stolen vehicles from February 2018 to February
2019. He said APD's effort consisted of around-the-clock
investigations with its Detective Division involved in 553 field
interviews. This, he said, resulted in 1,263 total charges.
Captain Case cited this effort as an example of APD expanding
the number of employees to investigate those types of crimes.
1:35:06 PM
CAPTAIN CASE said APD recently began utilizing an on-staff
clinical social worker in patrol, specifically to respond to
mental health calls. He reported that in February 2019 APD
transported 157 people to hospitals for mental health-related
problems. He said further analysis revealed only about 15 of
those calls required hospitalization. He said 137 of the calls
could have been dealt with "in the field" with a social worker.
He noted APD's social worker goes into the field three days per
week, three to four hours per day. He mentioned that the social
worker spends the rest of her time reading through relevant
police reports.
1:36:18 PM
CAPTAIN CASE shared that 65 of the 137 calls would have been
best served with "some sort of a stabilization center" rather
than a costly trip to an emergency room. He said the rest of
the calls "could have been field contacts ... and follow up with
our social worker." He relayed that services involving the
social worker are eligible for the Section 1115 Medicaid
Expansion Waiver.
CAPTAIN CASE called working with a social worker a cost-saving
method that results in a better service provided to "this
particular population." He added that "this population"
frequently uses emergency rooms and is involved in a significant
number of arrests resulting in a greater financial burden for
Department of Corrections (DOC). He called this approach to
policing an example of APD partnering with a new resource to
achieve better results with "that population."
1:37:41 PM
CAPTAIN CASE introduced the idea of field level diversion
programs that divert people out of the criminal justice system.
He said over the past six weeks, APD has diverted four
individuals arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors by partnering
with "outside pre-existing agencies" that serve as re-entry
resources. He explained that the four individuals have been
housed, given access to Medicaid and transportation, and
assisted in finding employment. He reported the four
individuals placed in the diversion program remain in it and
continue to be successful. He noted that the diversion model,
though not a significant factor in reducing crime in the long
term, allows APD to be more efficient as it provides a better
method of responding to repeat offenders who require "a lot of
attention from the criminal justice system."
1:39:25 PM
CAPTAIN CASE summarized that his objective was not to endorse
any specific legislation, but rather to communicate "alternate
options" to improve the current system. He reiterated that the
system could work more efficiently with increased resources and
more effectively by using outside resources not often thought of
in a law enforcement context.
1:40:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Captain Case's availability was limited.
He asked for questions from the committee.
1:40:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL shared that he was pleased by Captain Case's
report. He asked whether the 56 percent decrease in vehicle
thefts can be attributed to anything in particular.
1:40:32 PM
CAPTAIN CASE answered that there are multiple factors. He said
increased enforcement and investigation contributed to the
decrease. He also recognized the roles of the Anchorage
District Attorney's Office and changes in legislation.
1:41:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Captain Case's point about
social workers helping to reduce emergency room trips. He
considered that many individuals responded to by APD do not
require a police solution and would be best served by some other
kind of medical facility. He asked if such a facility would
"fill a bigger role in the future.
1:42:16 PM
CAPTAIN CASE answered yes. He said this model can be used not
only for mental health issues but drug addiction as well. He
clarified that a social worker's services and contacts would
qualify under the Section 1115 Medicaid Expansion Waiver. He
said that the clinical social worker model would also be
effective and accessible in rural areas because contact with a
social worker can occur over a telephone. He said expanding
this model "would help pay for itself" by lowering the cost of
service and through reduced usage of jails and hospitals. He
noted that this model has been effective in other states. He
opined that its expansion would work in Alaska.
1:43:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to what sort of calls the social
worker responds. She also asked where an individual [for whom a
call has been made] would have been taken previously.
1:44:04 PM
CAPTAIN CASE said he would give an example that occurs on "a
very regular basis." He created a hypothetical scenario in
which a sister calls the police because her brother is
threatening suicide. The police talk to the brother, who has
been drinking alcohol but assures the police that he is fine.
The sister is in tears because she fears for her brother. She
wants some sort of intervention. The only intervention
immediately available to her is a police officer.
CAPTAIN CASE noted that an individual like the hypothetical
brother does not meet the welfare requirements under [Alaska
Statutes Title 47]. He clarified that the only actions the
police can take in this scenario are to arrest the individual if
he has committed a crime or to admit the individual to an
emergency room on a police officer committal. He opined that
these options expend resources that are not necessary for the
situation.
CAPTAIN CASE remarked that a social worker in the field can
engage with the individual and deal with the immediate acute
situation. He added that the individual can be left in place
rather than taken away. The social worker then provides
resources to the individual and follows up with him/her later.
Captain Case stated that this is the best quality of care the
police can give an individual in that situation, and far better
than taking him/her to the emergency room.
1:46:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW mused that a new focus on crime prevention
is benefitting the entire policing program. He requested
details regarding the release of Alaska Natives. He also asked
if there are "fewer people in jail for the crimes we stopped
incarcerating."
1:47:11 PM
CAPTAIN CASE deferred to a later testifier who might be better
able to answer that question. He expressed concern regarding
any minority population and any population that is living in
poverty. He said there have been historical disparities with
those populations within the criminal justice system. He
stressed the importance of tailoring the criminal justice system
to meet the needs of the population because different
individuals within the system require different responses. He
shared that APD is moving in that direction.
1:48:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN mentioned that Representative Shaw's question would
be addressed in the next presentation.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if APD had observed any other criminal
offense category that has dropped like vehicle theft since the
passage of Senate Bill 54 [passed in the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature].
1:48:53 PM
CAPTAIN CASE answered no. He mentioned that APD has
concentrated resources on the one specific area of vehicle
theft. He reported APD has not seen a decline in any other area
like that of vehicle theft. He added APD has not dedicated
resources to any other area of crime prevention.
1:49:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked Captain Case for his testimony.
1:50:06 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
explained that the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) staffs the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC). She introduced her
PowerPoint presentation [hard copy included in the committee
packet] as an overview of the reasons for criminal justice
reform and data tracking its progress.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 2, titled "Reasons for Reform."
She explained that the 2015 Criminal Justice System Assessment
determined that criminal justice reform was necessary due to
unsustainable prison growth, the need to reduce recidivism, and
the need for a fairer justice system.
MS. DIPIETRO highlighted that Alaska had been nearing prison
capacity in 2015. She added that Alaska's recidivism rate was
around 66 percent in 2015. She also pointed to the unfairness
of pretrial detention being linked to one's ability to pay bail,
as one's ability to pay is unassociated with his/her risk to the
community. She said there were also well-documented racial
disproportionalities in incarceration and pretrial detention
rates.
1:53:09 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 3, which featured a line graph
demonstrating a 27 percent growth in prison population from 2005
to 2014.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 4, which featured a line graph
demonstrating a 60 percent increase in corrections spending from
1995 to 2014.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 5, titled "Reasons for Reform -
Poor Public Safety Outcomes." She explained that the slide
displayed the results of studies done by AJC on the issue of
recidivism. She said ACJC examined the data and realized
misdemeanants have a higher recidivism rate than felons. She
noted that felons have a high recidivism rate as well. She said
ACJC also found that recidivism rates were "highest among
youthful offenders, those with length or more serious prior
criminal histories, and Alaska Native and Black offenders." She
opined that this reflected a poor return on the State of
Alaska's criminal justice dollar.
1:54:39 PM
MS. DIPETRO addressed slide 6, titled "Reasons for Reform -
Pretrial Problems." She detailed a 2015 ACJC study of pretrial
defendants that found only half the individuals arrested and
charged were released before their cases were disposed. She
said the study also found that 37 percent of those released were
rearrested during the pretrial period. She cited a 2004 AJC
report that documented racial disparities in predisposition
incarceration. She said the findings indicated an Alaska Native
person was more likely to be detained pretrial.
1:56:19 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 7, titled "Reasons for Reform
Main Takeaways." She reiterated the reasons for criminal
justice reform: Poor return on investment, high recidivism
rate, large numbers of defendants sitting in jail waiting for
their cases to be concluded, and high rearrests among those
released during the pretrial period.
MS. DIPIETRO said over half of inmates in 2014 were serving
sentences for nonviolent crimes. Many, she added, were
supervision violators. She defined "supervision violator" as an
individual who has been reincarcerated for breaking a rule of
his/her probation. She noted that ACJC found supervision
practices used by probation officers across the state to be
inconsistent in different locations. She cited opportunities
for improvement regarding probation officer practices and
caseloads.
1:58:00 PM
MS. DIPIETRO moved to slide 9, titled "Pretrial Reforms - Risk-
Based Decision Making." She addressed significant changes to
the pretrial bail system. She said laws were changed to make it
easier for a person to be released pretrial provided that the
judge found him/her not a risk to the community and that there
was not a risk he/she would fail to appear for a hearing.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed the creation of DOC's Pretrial
Enforcement Division (PED). She said the division has
correctional officers across the state who are available to
supervise people on release. She said if a judge wants to
release a person pretrial but thinks the person would benefit
from oversight, the judge can assign a PED officer to oversee
the released person.
MS. DIPIETRO said ACJC is measuring the ethnic disparities in
pretrial detention before and after criminal justice reform.
She noted that multiple factors are in play so causality cannot
be determined, but preliminary results of an AJC study show
decreased disparities in pretrial release by ethnicity for
Alaska Natives.
2:00:20 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 10, titled "Pretrial Reforms -
Pretrial Supervision." She said about half the arrestees
studied by AJC in 2018 were given a PED supervision order by a
judge. She called the provisional results of the AJC study
encouraging but advised they should not be treated as final
results, as pretrial reforms only went into effect in January
2018. She said she wanted to share ACJC's early confidence in
the provisional results because pretrial reforms are important.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 11, titled "Pretrial Reforms
Pretrial Outcomes Being Studied." She informed the committee
that the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Justice Center is
under contract with DOC to revalidate the pretrial risk
assessment tool, which was part of the pretrial reform package.
She defined the tool as an actuarial instrument designed by
researchers specifically for Alaska to help judges and lawyers
identify the relative risk level of arrestees considered for
pretrial release. She noted that the tool is statistical and
requires examination and revalidation after a certain amount of
usage. She said a status update on this process is expected in
early summer 2019.
2:03:07 PM
MS. DIPIETRO moved to slide 13, titled "Sentencing Reforms."
She said ACJC had recommended prioritizing prison beds for
serious and violent offenders. She said studies show that
longer stays in prisons do not produce better outcomes than
shorter stays. She explained that low-risk offenders who serve
long sentences are more likely to reoffend upon release. She
added that custodial sanctions do not give better outcomes than
noncustodial sanctions, which means that probation supervision
can be more helpful for an individual's rehabilitation than
incarceration. She said it is better to focus prison beds not
on people "who we're mad at" but on those "who we're afraid of."
2:04:48 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 14, titled "Violent vs Nonviolent
prisoners." The slide displayed a bar graph measuring the ratio
of violent to nonviolent offenders in the prison population from
fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) to FY 18. Ms. DiPietro said the
percentage of violent offenders is increasing compared to the
nonviolent, which is to be expected. She noted as well that the
total prison population has decreased during this time period.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 15, titled "Admissions for Drug
Crimes." The slide displayed a bar graph measuring admissions
into DOC from FY 15 to FY 18 by class of drug-related crime.
She noted that "simple drug possession" used to be a Class C
felony but is now a misdemeanor. She said this is because
individuals arrested for drug possession are better addressed
with treatment in the community than incarceration. She said
that, as expected, the number of people charged for drug-related
crime with misdemeanors has risen while the number of people
charged with Class C felonies has fallen. She clarified that
those charged with misdemeanors are drug possessors while those
charged with felonies are dealers.
2:06:36 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 16, titled "Admissions." The slide
featured a line graph measuring quarterly violent and nonviolent
admissions to DOC from FY 15 to FY 18. The graph highlighted
trends resulting in the wake of the passage of Senate Bill 91
[passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature] and Senate
Bill 54. She summarized that prison admissions for violent
offenders have remained steady while admissions for nonviolent
offenders has risen steadily since Senate Bill 91 and Senate
Bill 54.
2:08:00 PM
MS. DIPIETRO moved to slide 18, titled "Supervision Reforms."
She explained that criminal justice reform sought to reduce
recidivism rates by strengthening supervision and interventions.
She said ACJC found that most instances of recidivism occurred
within the first year of release, many within the first three
months. She said the reform intended to frontload supervision
resources for the period of time immediately after release. She
said this included re-entry resources as well as increased
supervision and assistance from officers. She mentioned new
tools available to probation officers to impose swift, certain,
and proportionate sanctions as well as rewards and incentives.
She shared that ACJC studies show rewards and incentives produce
better results for individuals on probation than sanctions
alone. She noted that these individuals are accustomed to being
sanctioned so being rewarded and verbally praised can be very
powerful for them.
2:10:23 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 19, titled "Supervision Reforms."
She described the new system of administrative sanctions and
rewards available to probation officers for use on an informal
basis. She said these sanctions and rewards intend to quickly
reward positive behavior and correct negative behavior. She
explained that a probation officer can seek to address recurring
poor behavior by filing a petition to the court for an
incarceration sanction that results in a three-day
incarceration. Ms. DiPietro described the previous system of
sanctions in which a probation officer might wait until minor
violations stacked up before reporting them to the court,
resulting in "significant terms of incarceration." She opined
that the previous system did not respond immediately to bad
behavior and only levied big sanctions. She called the previous
system "not the right way to change a person's behavior." She
asserted that the new sanctions are designed to be swift,
certain, and proportionate.
MS. DIPIETRO described an additional key piece of the reform,
Earned Compliance Credit (ECC), a system through which compliant
probationers earn credit off the length of their probation. She
said DOC had recently reported that half of probationers have
availed themselves of ECC. She said the goal of ECC is to
identify low-risk, compliant probationers and quickly remove
them from a probation officer's caseload. This, she added,
allows the probation officer to focus on medium- and high-risk
probationers who require more attention. She asserted that this
shift in probation officers' focus was what criminal justice
reform sought to accomplish and results indicate the goal is
being met.
2:13:59 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 20, titled "Successful Discharges
from Supervision." The slide featured a bar graph measuring
successful probation and parole discharges from FY 14 to FY 18.
Ms. DiPietro said the percentage of successful discharges has
been increasing.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 21, titled "Prison Population &
Legal Status of Inmates." The slide featured two pie graphs
comparing the inmate population from April 1, 2015, and April 1,
2018. Ms. DiPietro said the percentage of prison beds occupied
by supervision violators is shrinking.
2:15:03 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 22, titled "Victim Reforms." She
said criminal justice reform included a requirement that a
prosecuting attorney, at the victim's request, must confer with
the victim of a felony or domestic violence crime before
entering into a plea agreement with the offender. She added
that a court, at the time of sentencing, must inform the victim
about the sentence or release of the offender as well as the
potential for release on furlough, probation, or parole. She
said the Parole Board now notifies victims more often and allows
them the opportunity to provide input. She noted that criminal
justice reform also including clarification about enforcing
protective orders from other jurisdictions. Finally, she said,
probation officers must create restitution payment schedules for
supervisees required to compensate victims. She said ACJC is
waiting on data about the restitution payment schedules. She
added that restitution not only helps the victim but can assist
in rehabilitating the offender.
2:16:36 PM
MS. DIPIETRO moved to slide 24, titled "Long-Term Violent Crime
Rate Trend." The slide featured a line graph measuring violent
crime rates in Alaska from 1976 to 2017. Ms. DiPietro clarified
that "violent crime" includes homicide, rape, robbery and
aggravated assault. She remarked that, despite occasional rises
and dips, the trendline over the past four decades indicates a
steady increase in violent crime rates. She noted that the
increase is driven by aggravated assaults.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 25, titled "Long-Term Rape Crime
Rate." The slide featured a line graph measuring rape crime
rates in Alaska from 1976 to 2017. Ms. DiPietro clarified that
the graph measures rape crime using the federal definition,
noting that the State of Alaska would call these crimes "sexual
assault." She remarked that the trend line for rape in Alaska
has also increased over the past four decades. She said it is
difficult to explain various rises and dips over time. She
suggested they could be attributed to shifts in crime reporting.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed a vertical line on the graph between 2013
and 2014. She explained that the line represents the federal
government's revision of the definition of rape to make it more
inclusive. She said the State of Alaska also revised its
definition. She said the steep increase shown in the graph
after that point is most likely a result of that revision.
2:18:45 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 26, titled "Long-Term Property
Crime Rate Trend." The slide featured a line graph measuring
property crime rates in Alaska from 1976 to 2017. Ms. DiPietro
clarified that "property crime" included burglary, larceny-
theft, and motor vehicle theft. She said property crime rates
have been decreasing. She said the all-time low was in 2011.
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 27, titled "Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission." The slide featured a list of current and former
members of ACJC. Ms. DiPietro praised ACJC members for their
hard work.
2:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP thanked Ms. DiPietro for her presentation
and for the work done by ACJC. He cited the increased rate of
successful release from supervision, noting a 23 percent
improvement from FY 16 to FY 17. He asked to what Ms. DiPietro
attributes that success.
2:20:24 PM
MS. DIPIETRO said she could not say for sure but suggested that
ECC is a key component. She also credited the revamped system
of sanctions and incentives. She said probation officers will
soon become more comfortable and effective using those tools.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referenced Ms. DiPietro's discussion of
PED's effectiveness based on provisional results of data. He
asked if the full data not just provisional results should
be expected sometime in summer 2019.
MS. DIPIETRO answered yes.
2:21:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for more detail on the pretrial risk
assessment tool.
MS. DIPIETRO compared the pretrial risk assessment tool to the
methodology used by a car insurance company to determine an
applicant's policy cost. She said the car insurance company
attempts to predict the applicant's risk of getting into an
accident. She noted that an actuarial pretrial risk assessment
tool takes into account research-based factors that are
predictive of pretrial failure. The information generated by
the tool is given to the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney
for use during discussion about bail.
2:23:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if other states use a pretrial risk
assessment tool.
MS. DIPIETRO answered yes. She noted that no one else uses
Alaska's pretrial risk assessment tool as it was developed
specifically for Alaska. She said Washington, D.C., has used
its own tools for decades. She said there are a number of other
municipal and state systems that use them. She said research
has shown combining the professional judgement of those in a
courtroom with the tool provides a better, more accurate risk
assessment than without.
2:25:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced prison population data
presented on slide 7. He asked how ACJC classified inmates who
were convicted of multiple offenses.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that ACJC analysts classified each inmate
by the most serious charge for which he or she was convicted.
She referenced a rubric for determining the relative seriousness
of crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that ACJC's recidivism data
measured rates over a three-year timespan. He asked what the
change would be if the rates were measured over a five-year
span.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the three-year span is the standard.
She said she did not know off the top of her head what the rate
would be. She noted that recidivism rates tend to increase with
additional years added to the timespan, although they drop off
after "five or six or seven years.
2:27:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the Department of Corrections would
bring its recidivism data before the committee in the coming
weeks.
2:27:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the pretrial risk assessment
tool takes into consideration the charged crime.
MS. DIPIETRO said she could not answer that question
definitively. She said multiple factors were measured to
determine what was most predictive of pretrial failure. She
said charged crime was determined to not be predictive enough to
include in the tool. She said, "You have to take the factors
that are the most predictive, and that just did not ... rise to
the top." She remarked that AJC will likely look at current
charge and reassess its potential as a predictive factor for
the purpose of the tool's revalidation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the line graph measuring
violent and nonviolent DOC admissions beginning in FY 15. He
asked how far back that data goes and when in the past there
were an equal number of violent admissions as there is today.
MS. DIPIETRO said she could not answer that at present but would
get back to the committee with that information.
2:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN paraphrased from slide 19: "Rewarding
probationers who comply with their conditions by allowing them
the extra 30-day credit." He asked what consequences were in
place for noncompliant probationers. He also asked what other
rewards are at probation officers' disposal.
MS. DIPIETRO said DOC's most frequent sanction is arrest. With
regard to incentives, Ms. DiPietro stated that verbal praise has
proven to be the most effective reward. She listed additional
examples of incentives: curfew adjustment, association with
people the supervisee was previously forbidden to see, and
decreased frequency of drug and alcohol tests. She said the
idea was to incentize decreased supervision if the supervisee
can establish a pattern of not violating. She remarked that
supervision can be onerous, and probationers are "really
responding" to the new incentives.
2:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked if PED is only able to issue
recommendations, not mandates, to a judge.
MS. DIPIETRO said a PED officer makes recommendations to a
judge, but the judge does not have to take those
recommendations. She added that the results of the pretrial
risk assessment tool come into play when a judge imposes money
bail, for example. She said the judge works with two variables
to determine conditions of release: The type of crime with
which the defendant is charged and whether the risk assessment
tool determines them to be low, medium, or high risk. She said
judges have "a laundry list" of things monetary bail,
supervision by PED, requirement for drug or alcohol tests - that
they require of the arrestee.
2:34:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN mentioned that Senate Bill 91 took away some of a
judge's discretion. He added that House Bill 312 [passed in the
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature] allowed judges the
discretion to reject the recommendation and set bail as they see
fit.
2:35:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Ms. DiPietro to define "pretrial
failure
MS. DIPIETRO defined it as failure to appear for a court hearing
or the violation of one's conditions of release or arrest for a
newly committed crime.
2:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said one concern before the passage of
Senate Bill 91 was how many people were in jail simply because
they could not make bail. She asked what percentage of those
people turned out to be found not guilty.
MS. DIPIETRO asked for clarification. She wanted to know if
Representative LeDoux was asking about dropped charges or
acquittals.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reframed her question. She established a
hypothetical situation in which an individual, prior to Senate
Bill 91, is unable to make bail and sits in jail pretrial. The
individual is subsequently convicted or submits a plea of guilty
or no contest. Representative LeDoux asked if the time this
individual served in jail pretrial would be credited toward his
or her sentence.
2:37:40 PM
MS. DIPIETRO answered yes, pretrial incarceration time gets
credited against the sentence. She said managing pretrial
defendants is difficult for DOC. She described the considerable
effort that goes into moving pretrial defendants between
facilities and ensuring they are present for court hearings.
Ms. DiPietro said it is preferable to get these individuals into
a sentence status so they can be managed better and given
programming such as substance abuse treatment - to the extent
that the programs are available and necessary.
2:39:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referenced the chart titled "Admissions,
Violent and Nonviolent" on slide 16. He noted that nonviolent
admissions were going down from FY 15 to FY 17 and have risen
after the implementations of Senate Bill 91 and Senate Bill 54.
He asked if those results are contrary to the goals of those
pieces of legislation.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that is probably right. She noted that
the graph measures admissions which means "people coming in."
She said people could be coming in, serving short terms, and
then going out and coming in again. She said this scenario
means increased admissions but fewer DOC beds occupied.
2:40:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. DiPietro to clarify whether
"admissions" includes pretrial.
MS. DIPIETRO said "admissions" encompasses all bookings.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that admissions do not include citations
or detainment not resulting in a trip to jail.
MS. DIPIETRO said she believes the data in the graph covers all
admissions including pretrial admissions.
2:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the 66 percent recidivism figure
included violations of conditions of parole. He asked if there
have been efforts to reduce the number of people who violate
their parole.
2:42:42 PM
MS. DIPIETRO posited that Representative Wool was referring to
probation violators rather than parole violators. She said she
did not recall any change to the conditions imposed by a judge
at sentencing. She clarified that judges impose only conditions
they believe will further the rehabilitation of the convicted
person.
2:43:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that individuals who negotiate
plea bargains in order to avoid a trial sometimes find it
difficult to adhere to the conditions of the agreement. He
expressed regret that ACJC has not been able to effect change on
that matter.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL assessed the data that indicated decreased
rates of property crime and increased rates of violent crime in
Alaska. He asked if violent crime rates are down nationally and
Alaska is going against that trend.
2:44:54 PM
MS. DIPIETRO said the big trend nationally is that all crime is
down. She confirmed that Alaska's violent crime rate is
trending in the opposite direction of national trends.
2:45:32 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency,
introduced himself as a member of ACJC from its inception. He
explained he was asked to present on what public defenders and
defense attorneys have seen during the implementation of
criminal justice reform. He said he has canvassed the state to
get "a picture of what's going on."
MR. STEINER addressed the topic of bail. He said pretrial
defendants are getting out of jail at larger rates. He added
that these individuals are succeeding" because of a combination
of their release and PED involvement. He said there is data
suggesting and indicating that assessment.
MR. STEINER addressed the topic of "catch and release." He
reported that rearrest numbers have remained consistent in the
time periods before and after criminal justice reform. He said
he found it compelling that clients are being released at higher
rates but incidents of rearrest are not increasing. He proposed
that this may indicate the rearrest rate is declining, or at
least that release decisions are not leading to a high rearrest
rate that "people have been concerned about."
2:47:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN notified the committee that the research Mr.
Steiner was referencing would be part of a presentation on
Friday, March 8.
2:47:56 PM
MR. STEINER said there in data indicating that "[re-]arrests for
new criminal offenses may be declining," though he stressed the
promising data is incomplete. He said this data reflects other
anecdotal reports.
MR. STEINER expressed concern that defendants who remain in jail
prior to sentencing end up with longer sentences than those who
are released pretrial. He suggested that released individuals
are granted an opportunity to be successful in the interim and
to present that success to the judge prior to sentencing. He
remarked that this scenario is tied to success and recidivism.
MR. STEINER said there has been a radical shift in how parole
and probation officers collaborate with supervisees. He
described how, when a supervisee enters violation status, the
focus turns to problem-solving and collaboration. He credited
ECC and administrative sanctions and rewards. He said the
process of sanctions and rewards establishes a definable goal
that is short, measurable, and guaranteed. He said lawyers have
reported that this system inspires their clients to be
compliant. He added that the short-term nature of sanctions
requires very little litigation. He referenced Ms. DiPietro's
description of the previous system in which violations were
collected and then filed together in a single petition resulting
in substantial penalties. He said the new system is built on
immediate responses to both positive and negative conduct. He
reiterated that the new system is showing success.
2:51:22 PM
MR. STEINER said improvements in recidivism rates are the most
encouraging data. He noted that recidivism rates were
decreasing prior to reform, but they continue to decrease. He
explained that recidivism data is measured in three-year time
periods and the most recent release cohort analysis covers
individuals released in 2015, so the years measured include ones
after criminal justice reform. He restated that one goal of
reform was to reduce recidivism rates and it appears that goal
is being accomplished.
MR. STEINER said there are challenges with the way criminal
justice reform has been implemented, but it has elicited
positive responses and indicators.
2:52:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the system of sanctions for technical
violations. He noted that these come with jail term limits of
three, five, and ten days. He asked how those sanctions are
playing out with petitions to revoke probation. He asked how
this compares with before the three-, five-, and ten-day
sanctions.
2:53:18 PM
MR. STEINER answered that there was more litigation prior to
reform because there was more at stake. He said the current
penalties are so short that there is not much of a defense to
these technical violations. He said the response to something
like failure to make an appointment or a positive urinalysis is
short-term admission and then collaboration toward "moving
forward." He emphasized that the focus is not on the violation
that has occurred but rather working toward preventing future
violations. He noted that by the fourth sanction it becomes
clear that an individual may be unable to be successful under
the system.
2:54:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if it can be determined that Senate
Bill 91 contributed to a decline in recidivism given that
recidivism rates were already in decline before its passage.
2:54:57 PM
MR. STEINER answered that it is difficult to say. He said one
cannot draw concrete conclusions using present data. He added
that causation is difficult to establish, and all one can see is
correlation. He said the important trend to watch is the rate
of decline.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX concluded that one cannot attribute the
decline in recidivism rates to Senate Bill 91.
MR. STEINER said not at this time.
2:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Steiner to clarify what he
meant by pretrial defendants experiencing "success."
MR. STEINER said he meant defendants are being released and not
getting rearrested, they may be progressing in a treatment or
rehabilitative program, and they may be obtaining or maintaining
employment. He added that released clients stay in their homes
and maintain contact with their families. Mr. Steiner said one
major concern about pretrial incarceration is that defendants
often lose their jobs, which triggers a cascading effect of
potential loss of housing and separation from family. He said
maintaining those contacts and that network is associated with
increased success.
2:57:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he appreciated that answer. He
reflected on the crime data presented earlier by Ms. DiPietro.
He noted that violent crime, property crime, and rape rates are
up in Alaska. He asked Mr. Steiner how he reconciles lower
recidivism and increased defendant success with increasing crime
rates and the public's perspective of that data.
MR. STEINER answered that the crime rate started to trend up
years before reform. He restated that rearrest numbers have
been unchanged during that time period. He said one plausible
and probable explanation for the increased crime rates is that
new people as opposed to recidivists are committing crimes.
He acknowledged this does not address the question of what
caused the rates to increase in the first place. He suggested
that the cause could be increased opioid addiction layered onto
the existing problem of methamphetamines and alcohol, as well as
issues regarding individuals with behavioral health needs. [A
solution], he said, would require addressing all those issues.
2:59:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if Mr. Steiner could determine if
new arrestees are mostly from Alaska or if they are individuals
from out of state who have elected to come to Alaska to commit
crimes.
MR. STEINER said, "We don't track that." He added that he has
not heard anecdotal stories to suggest it. He said public
defendants are limited in their ability to collect and track
data about their clients.
3:00:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about data measuring recent rearrest
rates for pretrial defendants. He asked for confirmation that
the data will be released in June.
MR. STEINER said the [Alaska Justice Information Center] (AJiC)
has produced rearrest data measuring if an individual was
rearrested within seven days. He said rates remain unchanged
from before criminal justice reform to the present. He noted
that AJiC extended the time range for rearrests to 180 days and
still found no change in rearrest rates.
MR. STEINER called it encouraging that changes in the bail
system have not resulted in increased rearrests, even though it
appears more people are being released. He said this indicates
that reforms and the pretrial risk assessment tool are
accomplishing the goal of permitting greater release
opportunities without creating any enhanced public safety risk.
He said the deemphasis on monetary bail has benefitted low-risk
individuals unable to afford bail. He said monetary bail is
supposed to take into account the defendant's ability to pay,
but the previous system was not allowing for that.
3:03:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if individuals who "skip bail" are
accounted for in the rearrest metric.
MR. STEINER answered yes, it is in the metric. He said skipping
bail could be on the rise, but noted the data is incomplete. He
said the rates and reasons for skipping bail are being looked
at.
3:05:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referenced the line graphs in Ms. DiPietro's
presentation. He clarified the difference between admissions -
actual arrests and crime rate, which accounts for all crimes
reported. He said there are many examples of police responding
to a reported assault and finding nobody there willing to talk
when they arrive, so no arrest is made.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that the important hard data for
analyzing the criminal justice system comes from the courts. He
noted that Senate Bill 54 increased accountability for
nonviolent offenses. He said this is understandably reflected
in the nonviolent admissions graph.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said it is difficult to explain why a crime
rate might have gone up. He referenced the "scourge of opioid
that began in 2015 and remarked that it was unrelated to any
legislation. He said opioid-related crime will continue to
produce a surge of people entering the criminal justice system
regardless of criminal law reforms.
3:07:33 PM
MR. STEINER agreed that it is difficult to determine causation
but there does appear to be an increase in opioid cases. He
added that methamphetamine, alcohol, and behavioral health
problems never went away.
3:08:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed invited testimony.
3:08:40 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACJC Presentation to House Judiciary Committee 3.6.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |