Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/03/2019 01:00 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: Status of the Second Chance Grant by the Department of Corrections | |
| Presentation: Reentry's Role in Reducing Crime | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2019
1:51 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
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: STATUS OF THE SECOND CHANCE GRANT BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: REENTRY'S ROLE IN REDUCING CRIME
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JANICE WEISS, Reentry Program Manager
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on the status of the Second
Chance Act Grant.
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Operating Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on reentry services.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on reentry services.
DON HABEGER, Coordinator
Juneau Reentry Coalition
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on reentry services.
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the presentation
on reentry services.
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Director
Partners Reentry Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on reentry services.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:51:23 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:51 p.m. Representatives Eastman, Wool,
Shaw, LeDoux, and Claman were present at the call to order.
Representatives Stutes and Kopp arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^Presentation: Status of the Second Chance Grant by the
Department of Corrections
Presentation: Status of the Second Chance Grant by the
Department of Corrections
1:52:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
an update and overview from the Department of Corrections (DOC)
on the status of the Second Chance [Act] (SCA) Grant. He opened
invited testimony. He drew attention to a document included in
the committee packet that provided information about the grant.
He noted that DOC had announced earlier in the year that it was
"not going to go forward with this particular grant."
1:53:09 PM
JANICE WEISS, Reentry Program Manager, Department of
Corrections, explained that the State of Alaska (SOA) has
received two SCA grants. The first, she said, was a planning
grant worth $100,000 that was awarded a few years ago. That
grant, she explained, allowed SOA to apply for a second grant
worth $1 million. She described confusion surrounding the $1
million grant that has since been dispelled. She addressed the
document included in the committee packet and explained that it
contains the grant's goals and implementation plan for the next
two years. She said the plan will allow DOC to work with its
various partners to provide comprehensive reentry services to
those being released from DOC institutions.
1:54:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for additional information about the
administration's decision to change course and move forward with
the grant. He also asked how the grant will help reentry
efforts.
MS. WEISS stated that DOC was able to better understand the
grant when information about it became more available. She said
this additional information allowed the department to identify
changes it wanted to make to the grant's scope and budget. She
explained that she previously served as Coalition Coordinator of
the Mat-Su Re-entry Coalition, so she understands how important
it is for DOC to work with coalitions to address reentry. She
said the grant has changed to the point that, rather than having
to hire multiple new employees to implement it, DOC will only
need to hire a grant manager. She said DOC will make use of its
probation officers to implement the grant and sustain a
comprehensive reentry program that includes DOC institutions,
field offices, and community partners.
1:56:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the grant will enable reentry programs -
such as the ones to be presented on later in the meeting to be
strengthened in support by DOC.
MS. WEISS said that is correct. She mentioned a conversation
she had earlier in the day with new probation officers about how
the grant will allow DOC to set up an infrastructure for working
with reentry service providers that will continue beyond the
life of the grant. She noted that DOC Commissioner-Designee
Nancy Dahlstrom feels sustainability with regard to the grant is
very important.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the level of federal funding coming to
SOA as a result of keeping the grant instead of turning it down.
MS. WEISS said the level of funding from the federal government
is $1 million. She said the Bureau of Justice Assistance has
been giving these grants for a number of years and realized that
most recipients were unable to spend the money in one year. As
a result, she explained, the bureau extended the grant to two
years, meaning DOC will have until the end of fiscal year 2020
to spend the money. She said SOA will then be invited to apply
for a second grant.
1:58:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, seeing no additional questions, thanked Ms. Weiss
for her presentation and for participating in the decision to
move forward with the grant.
^Presentation: Reentry's Role in Reducing Crime
Presentation: Reentry's Role in Reducing Crime
1:58:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation on reentry services.
1:59:34 PM
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Operating Officer, Alaska Mental Health
Trust (AMHT), said this presentation would build on information
previously presented to the committee. He added that it would
also illustrate what is required to help the incarcerated
reenter the community. He said reentry requires partnerships
between DOC and community organizations. He remarked that 40
percent of AMHT beneficiaries are incarcerated on an annual
basis. He defined "beneficiaries" as adults and youths
experiencing a mental health disorder, a substance use disorder,
a developmental disability, a traumatic brain injury, and/or
Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, or a related disorder. He noted
that AMHT does not keep a list of beneficiaries. He added that
beneficiaries are individuals whose disorders are so acute that
they impact their quality of life and their ability to function
at an independent level in the community. He said these
disorders also place beneficiaries at a high risk for
institutionalization, whether that be through a correctional
facility, juvenile justice facility, or psychiatric institution.
He stated that reentry is an important issue for AMHT because
its beneficiaries are often housed and released by DOC. He
remarked that reentry services must be conducted thoughtfully
and with deliberate planning, or else this particular population
will cycle through the emergency and correctional systems at an
above-average rate. He noted that felony offenders who are
beneficiaries are incarcerated twice as long as non-
beneficiaries, while misdemeanor offenders who are beneficiaries
spend up to 150 times as long in DOC facilities as non-
beneficiaries. He said this explains why AMHT has partnered
with DOC and other organizations.
2:03:30 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
began a PowerPoint presentation titled "Reentry Services:
Promoting Safer & Healthier Communities" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. She addressed slide 2, titled "Reentry
Background." She remarked that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC) and various other criminal justice
stakeholders have been grappling with the fact that 95 percent
of prisoners will eventually be released. She noted that many
of these prisoners entered DOC facilities with a mental health
or substance abuse disorder, and that many of them will exit DOC
with the same problems with which they entered. She ran through
a list of additional problems that releasees could face,
including loss of employment, loss of housing, and disruption of
family ties. She explained that these individuals are at risk
for re-offense or violation of a condition of probation,
especially within the first weeks and months of release. She
said research shows that the likelihood of recidivism decreases
when reentry support services are frontloaded and focused on
medium- to higher-risk individuals.
2:05:14 PM
MS. DIPIETRO addressed slide 3, titled "What do we mean by
'reentry'?" She said the focus of reentry is on a specific
group of people who have left a correction facility after having
completed their sentence and who may be under active supervision
by a probation or parole officer, though some typically
misdemeanor offenders are instead under passive court
supervision. She remarked that these individuals are being
returned to the community, though not necessarily to their home
communities. She said some people are unable to return to their
home communities due to supervision or treatment requirements.
She said reentry programs attempt to help those people.
MR. WILLIAMS noted that releasees are not always released to
their home communities because treatment programs are often
unavailable or inaccessible in their home communities. This, he
explained, means some individuals are released in communities
such as Fairbanks or Anchorage for the purpose of accessing
those services. She said this presents a challenge to reentry
planning, as the goal is to allow people to return to their home
communities.
2:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that it is important for releasees to
not be stranded in a strange city without family support. On
the topic of treatment, he asked whether the programs described
by Mr. Williams are mandatory to comply with the conditions of
one's release. He mused that having to stay in a place like
Anchorage in order abide by those conditions, resulting in being
away from one's home and family, could exacerbate a releasee's
problems, and that perhaps it should be a priority to release
those individuals to their home communities where they have a
better support system.
MR. WILLIAMS noted that the conditions by which an individual is
ordered to abide are made by the court and are often connected
to the crime itself. He said some communities have access to
residential substance abuse programming, but the programming is
not always suitable to meet the needs of a particular
individual.
2:09:32 PM
MR. WILLIAMS addressed slide 4, titled "Sequential Intercept
Model (SIM)," which featured a flow chart depicting the model
developed to address the needs of adults in contact with the
criminal justice system. He walked through the model and
discussed the path an offender takes from leaving the community,
entering the criminal justice and correctional system, and then
returning to the community upon reentry. He repeated the
statistic that 95 percent of people in the system will be
released into the community. He said the same things necessary
to prevent individuals from violating in the first place are
also necessary on the back end to help releasees reintegrate and
prevent recidivism.
MR. WILLIAMS addressed slide 5, which displayed only a quote:
Successful reentry begins on admission and continues through
incarceration, release, community supervision and ultimately the
unsupervised and successful reintegration [of the individual]
onto the community." He emphasized the goal of achieving
unsupervised reintegration.
2:11:42 PM
MR. WILLIAMS addressed slide 6, titled "History - Statewide
Reentry Efforts." He explained that reentry has been a focused
effort by DOC, AMHT, and other organizations prior to 2010, but
noted that the statewide Prisoner Reentry Task Force was formed
in that year. He said the new task force, which included newly-
formed grassroots reentry coalitions as well as municipal and
state officials, sought to address high recidivism rates. He
discussed the formation and growth of local grassroots reentry
coalitions across the state, including the Juneau Reentry
Coalition. He said a statewide Recidivism Reduction Plan was
developed in 2015. He remarked that AMHT helped fund positions
for four reentry coalitions across the state in fiscal year
2016. He said additional reentry coalitions formed in 2017
around the same time that DOC, the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), and AMHT partnered to implement a
structured release process for releasees.
MR. WILLIAMS addressed slide 7, titled "Roles of a Reentry
Coalition." He summarized the four major objectives of a
reentry coalition: to educate the community about recidivism,
the criminal justice system, and reentry; to identify local
challenges facing reentrants such as housing and employment; to
identify and rectify local gaps in reentry services; and to
serve as a local point of contact for DOC and its partners. He
characterized the various coalitions as diverse and
representative of their respective communities. He noted that
the coalitions are comprised of DOC officials, HSS officials,
private citizens, local businesses, and reentrants themselves.
MR. WILLIAMS drew attention to a diagram on slide 7, subtitled
From Incarceration to Communities." He explained that the
diagram attempts to illustrate what it takes to successfully
reenter the community post-incarceration. He walked through the
diagram and listed the various people who assist reentrants,
including probation officers and case managers. He explained
that reentrants require a variety of things to successfully
reenter the community, including transportation, safe and sober
housing, vocational training, and access to healthcare.
2:17:24 PM
MR. WILLIAMS addressed slide 8, titled "Local Reentry
Coalitions." He explained that AMHT funds coalition coordinator
positions in Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley. He said DHSS funds coalitions in Nome,
Dillingham, Kenai, and Ketchikan.
MR. WILLIAMS addressed slides 9 through 11, titled "Division of
Behavioral Health & Community Reentry Supports." He said there
are three operational focuses funded by DHSS: direct service,
prevention and early intervention, and program Infrastructure.
He said examples of "direct service" include reentry case
management, reentry centers, healthcare access, and housing
vouchers. He explained that DHSS funding under the category
"prevention and early intervention" helps grassroots coalitions
in rural communities. He said "program infrastructure" includes
the facilitation of data sharing between DHSS and DOC, as well
as data collection and monitoring. He described how data helps
grow and improve reentry services. He noted that case managers
currently funded by DHSS are located in Anchorage, Matanuska-
Susitna, Fairbanks, and Juneau, and that their caseloads are 40
persons each. He said each caseload is small because the target
population overseen by the case managers is composed of higher-
risk reentrants. He mentioned that an overwhelming caseload
would not generate positive results. He discussed DHSS efforts
to facilitate data sharing between different departments and
other entities that have contact with reentrants. He explained
that DHSS wants to make information available to reentrants and
those groups that support them. He added that DHSS has an
independent evaluation in place to track the outcomes of reentry
case managers.
2:23:52 PM
DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator, Juneau Reentry Coalition
(JREC), said his role during this presentation is to discuss the
local reentry coalitions and how they operate. He remarked that
coalitions are unique to their localities but are all working on
the same issue across the state.
MR. HABEGER addressed slide 12, titled "Juneau Reentry
Coalition." He said the mission of JREC is to "promote public
safety by identifying and implementing strategies that increase
a former prisoner's well-being within the community and reduces
the likelihood of their return to prison through recidivating."
He noted that an average of 502 individuals are released
annually in the Juneau community. He compared that to Juneau's
314 high school graduates in 2017. He characterized a reentry
coalition as the interface between the community and
institutions. He relayed the topics discussed at a recent
meeting at Lemon Creek Correctional Center. He described the
assistance provided by JREC in transporting an individual from
Juneau to the individual's home community in Ketchikan. He
listed the various community stakeholders that are part of the
coalition and that work toward a safer community. He discussed
how the Subway restaurant in Juneau has donated meal cards to
the local field probation office for use as incentives for
supervised reentrants.
2:28:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked how many of the 502 average annual reentrants
JREC is able to assist.
MR. HABEGER explained that releasees who are determined to be
medium- or high-risk are eligible for JREC's case management
program. He said approximately 160 annual reentrants meet that
criteria. He explained that JREC has one case manager funded by
DHSS who is able to serve only 40 of those individuals.
2:29:50 PM
MR. HABEGER addressed slide 13, also titled "Juneau Reentry
Coalition." He said JREC's focus is on behavioral health
treatment, reentry housing, and peer support. He noted the
importance of helping reentrants access mental health and
substance abuse services. He called reentry housing a
significant issue for the Juneau community. He mentioned JREC's
partnerships with the halfway house Gastineau Human Services,
the women's facility Haven House Juneau, and the Central Council
of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, which operates
its own reentry transitional housing program for men. He spoke
to the help provided to recent releasees from individuals who
have successfully reentered the community via peer support.
2:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL spoke to issues that places like Haven House
have with receiving SOA money, noting that organizations like
that must rely on donations. He asked if more group homes would
be available to people for reentry purposes if different
facilities were able to be funded by SOA dollars.
MR. HABEGER said the Tlingit & Haida program was not able to
complete an agreement with SOA, so JREC recently wrote a letter
of support in pursuit of federal funding.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked to what degree a criminal record can
impede reentrants from obtaining housing.
MR. HABEGER answered that it is a significant challenge. He
noted that sex offenders are ineligible to participate in
programs through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).
He said JREC is trying to find a system to address that
situation. He added that individuals incarcerated for
manufacturing drugs are another group of people who are often
prohibited from accessing programs that use state and federal
housing dollars. This, he explained, results in their
homelessness.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed frustration that someone who has
served his/her time in jail and has entered a reentry program
can be denied housing. He noted that those individuals are also
unlikely to find employment, which further contributes to them
becoming "a liability to the state and a public safety risk."
He called that "short-sighted." He asked how organizations like
JREC can alleviate that.
MR. HABEGER noted that federal rules regarding money for states
are partly responsible for this scenario. He expressed that
there is currently not enough interest on the national level to
effect change.
2:36:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there are state laws or
regulations that prohibit the use of money for housing for those
released after committing drug crimes.
MR. HABEGER said it is his understanding that United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dollars
received by SOA are what drives that particular issue. He said
those federal monies have strings attached and SOA must honor
that.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there is any way to
segregate the money" so that SOA can address the problem
without using federal dollars.
MR. HABEGER said he does not have an answer to that question.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that there seems to be a lot of
people in Juneau who live in doorways. She asked if those
people are eligible for reentry services.
MR. HABEGER said it is important to keep in mind that reentry is
a voluntary program, so a person released from Lemon Creek
Correctional Center is not required to access the service. He
said if an individual chooses to return to the local shelter and
live "a more-homeless lifestyle," he/she is free to do so. He
stated that there is not much JREC can do about that.
2:39:28 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
addressed Representative LeDoux's question about segregating the
money and said she would find out the answer and report back to
the committee.
2:39:47 PM
MR. HABEGER addressed slide 14, also titled "Juneau Reentry
Coalition." He said JREC is a community group and not formally
a nonprofit organization, and that it invites any and all
community members to be part of the group. He said JREC's
governance team is led by a co-chair from the community and a
co-chair from a DOC institution. He added that JREC 15-member
steering team consists of representatives with various areas of
expertise. He said JREC work is sometimes done through
workgroups. He noted that he is JREC's one paid staff member.
MR. HABEGER addressed slide 15, also titled "Juneau Reentry
Coalition." He said JREC's program is voluntary and can be
accessed through a reentrant's probation officer. He described
the process through which one may sign up for the program. He
detailed the work of a case manager to develop a written reentry
plan to help guide the reentrant toward success six months after
release. He said that, in the time since its case management
inception, JREC has had 63 individuals that have entered into
its program. He said 16 of those individuals have graduated.
He referenced a statistic on the slide 11 Noncompliant and
said it refers to those who "did not make it" because they got
in trouble for some reason. He noted that 11 noncompliant
individuals out of 63 total individuals is 17 percent.
2:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if she has it correct that, out of
63 individuals referred to JREC, only 17 "made it out."
MR. HABEGER said that is incorrect. He explained a list of
statistics on slide 15. He said, out of 63 individuals
referred, 15 graduated with 100 percent completion, 20 opted out
before completion, 11 were noncompliant, and 17 are currently
enrolled are just starting the process. He mentioned that
anyone released from Lemon Creek Correctional Center in the past
six months can seek help and join the program.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, of the 63 individuals, how many
have been successful. She said she realizes JREC is not dealing
with an easy population.
MR. HABEGER said that the numbers he presented span from May
2017 through February 2019. He said 15 individuals have
successfully completed program and 20 have opted out. Of those
that opted out, he said, JREC is not aware that any of them have
recidivated. He said JREC believes 35 individuals are
successful to the current date.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for verification that none of the 15
graduates have recidivated.
MR. HABEGER said that, to JREC's knowledge, the 15 graduates and
20 opt-outs have not recidivated.
2:47:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if JREC has a 40-case limit for its caseload.
MR. HABEGER answered that JREC's reentry case management
capacity is 40 at any single time, and that the limit is a
stipulation of an agreement with the Division of Behavioral
Health (DBH).
2:48:17 PM
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Director, Partners Reentry Center (PRC),
addressed slide 16, titled "Partners Reentry Center." She also
referenced a document [included in the committee packet] titled
"Partners Reentry Center (PRC) Statistics." She said PRC was
established in Anchorage about five years ago and, with over
7,000 reentrants served in that time, has learned how to deliver
timely reentry services. She said timely services are key in
reentry programs. If we don't touch somebody immediately upon
release," she explained, "[and] they are [released] into
homeless, we have already lost them.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN stated that PRC houses people immediately upon
release regardless of charges. She said PRC is a voluntary
program and the understanding is that the staff works with
reentrants, not for them. She remarked that PRC attempts to
help reentrants get back to being healthy members of the
community. She said PRC was established in August 2013 with
some legislative funding. She noted that PRC has blended funds,
including a contract with DHSS for $800,000 "for a wide range of
reentry services" such as case management, bus passes,
supportive services, and housing. She said PRC also receives
Special Needs Housing (SNHG) and Homeless Assistance Program
(HAP) funds from AHFC that it uses "to blend" for housing. She
explained this means PRC is not limited in whom it can house.
She mentioned "the head in the bed rule," which she explained is
an agreement that PRC will pay the first 30-60 days of a
reentrant's housing as long as he/she works with PRC.
2:51:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how PRC has managed to find a way
around the issues brought up earlier by Mr. Habeger regarding
JREC's inability to house certain reentrants.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said the SNHG and HAP funds received by PRC are
"to the program, not the person." She explained, for example,
that if PRC is attempting to house a sex offender who must
remain in Anchorage due to sex offender treatment, PRC is able
to use transitional funding through HAP, SNHG, or a contract
through a specific housing provider. She noted that PRC pays
housing providers directly so the funds do not go through the
individual to be housed. She stated that, since PRC's
inception, it has housed over 3,700 people and never once denied
a reentrant a bed. She said PRC has 400 beds available to it in
Anchorage through 16 housing providers plus 127 private
landlords. She described the system of accountability to which
it holds reentrants, in particular those who are housed by
private landlords. She said the private landlords are able to
call PRC if issues arise with a housed reentrant. She
referenced a figure on the statistics document that showed PRC
funded housing for 155 reentrants during the month of February
2019.
2:53:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked her to clarify how she avoids the
problem regarding restrictions on spending state funds to
service certain individuals.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said the contract PRC has with DBH and the
funding it receives from AHFC are focused on the program, not
the individuals.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that HUD funds assist individuals to
apply for housing so that the individual is the entity paying
rent, and that these funds come with restrictions, whereas in
PRC's case the rent-paying entity is the program itself.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said that is correct. She said AHFC has tenant-
based rental assistance (TBRA) vouchers which are specifically
for an individual and are thus restricted, so sex offenders on
the lifetime registry and convicted drug manufacturers cannot
use them.
2:55:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked whether PRC is under the
administration of DOC or if it is a nonprofit organization.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered that PRC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization under Partners for Progress.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said that could explain why it is able to
move funds easier.
2:55:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked on behalf of Representative LeDoux why JREC
cannot do the same thing as PRC.
MR. HABEGER noted that JREC is also "nonprofit" and said its
current model is to continue working with its existing nonprofit
partners and to accomplish certain housing projects. He said
JREC looks to move in that direction but is challenged by the
fact that it has not yet "caught up with the community of
Anchorage."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said Partners for Progress is also a
nonprofit organization. She asked what is keeping JREC from
accomplishing what PRC is accomplishing.
MR. HABEGER clarified that JREC is a community coalition and not
officially a nonprofit organization. He said JREC's model is to
rely on and work with Juneau's existing nonprofit organizations.
He said JREC has not "taken that step to form a 501(c)(3)
organization.
2:57:40 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said PRC is a walk-in center. She explained that
PRC sees people "in real-time" and does not have waitlists, so
an individual who enters the center is served the day he/she
arrives. She noted that PRC is unique in how its service-
delivery model involves bringing providers into the center
rather than sending individuals out to wherever the providers
are located. For example, she said, various organizations come
to PRC every Monday through Friday to deliver services. She
explained this means people who have been displaced into
Anchorage do not have to travel around town to receive services
and treatment. She emphasized that this is a unique delivery
model not used nationally and that it is being considered for
replication. She said PRC is community-based and thus has no
authority over the people it serves. She said PRC sees the
people it serves as community members. She noted, "When you
don't have authority over someone, you can treat them
differently." She said community-based reentry services are key
to PRC's success.
2:59:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if PRC is located "right across from
the jail
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said PRC is located across the street from the
fire station on Barrow Street in Anchorage. She said the center
is eight blocks from the jail. She noted the location is
strategic because it is within walking distance of various
services necessary for those individuals who are being released
into homelessness.
3:00:28 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN addressed slide 17, which featured a cartoon
illustration. She mentioned a study that showed that formerly
incarcerated individuals are almost 10 times more likely to be
homeless than the general public. She said that when PRC
addresses reentry and recidivism, it is also addressing the
homeless population.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN addressed slide 18, titled "3 Phases of
Community-Based Reentry." She said PRC's programming is
tailored to address the specific needs of each reentrant. She
said the programming consists of three phases: stabilize,
incentivize, and restore. She spoke to the importance of
stabilizing a reentrant with mental health services, housing,
and/or addiction treatment. She said PRC's first 7 to 10 days
with an individual are focused on providing stability and
shelter. She explained that the "incentivize" phase is about
giving people purpose and keeping them busy, which reduces
interest in criminal behavior. She addressed the "restore"
phase by noting that 38 percent of the people served by PRC are
Alaska Native, almost all of whom do not live in Anchorage by
choice, but rather because they are required to participate in
treatment that is only offered in select parts of the state.
She said those individuals need to go home, so PRC has a
restorative justice model for when treatment has been completed.
She described how an individual who wishes to return to his/her
village must have a restorative plan, a safety net, and must ask
permission to return from elders or those in charge of the
village. She discussed a commitment she made to DOC that the
people she returns to villages would not reviolate. She noted
that PRC has sent 22 people back to their home communities and
none have recidivated.
3:03:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if she has seen any graduates
return to the program.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said "absolutely." She noted that PRC has done
an internal audit to determine its recidivism rate, which she
will share later. She said there are some people who have
entered the program several times. She noted that PRC does not
give monied services to people who feel they are entitled and
will not house people who have already disrespected its housing
within the past six months. She emphasized that PRC is
voluntary for both the reentrant and for those employed at PRC.
3:04:53 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN addressed slide 19, titled "Partners Reentry
Center." She detailed the different types of services provided
by PRC broken down into three categories: housing, self-
sufficiency, and behavioral modification & community support.
She described the accommodations PRC will make to help an
individual get housing to provide a sustainable path forward
toward him/her becoming a functioning member of the community.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN addressed slide 20, also titled "Partners Reentry
Center." She said PRC serves up to 1,500 to 1,800 people per
year. She said PRC surveyed 300 individuals with high [Level of
Supervision/Service Inventory Revised] LSIR scores.
3:06:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked her to verify that LSIR is "the risk-
assessment index for release from jail."
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said that is correct. She explained that anyone
with an LSIR score over 28 has the highest likelihood of
recidivating and committing new crimes.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the committee discussed the LSIR form
with DOC during a previous meeting.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said 65 percent of people who entered the program
were signed up for Medicaid and/or the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) within the first week of release. She
said 31 percent were referred to and/or utilized PRC's
treatment-providing partners. She said 61 percent gained full
time employment. She mentioned that PRC spent an average of
about $600 per participant on housing costs during fiscal year
2018. She added that PRC does not pay for housing when the
participant is able to pay his/her own way. She posed a
question: "Do we make a difference." She said the answer is
yes.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN addressed slide 21, which featured a bar graph
measuring recidivism resulting in a re-arrest and re-conviction.
She said PRC's recidivism rate is 27 percent against a 48
percent recidivism rate for a control group of individuals who
elected not to participate in PRC programming. She noted that
this is a small sampling, but PRC would provide additional
details should the committee want to see them.
3:08:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about PRC's success rate.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said PRC has a 27 percent recidivism rate of
people who were "meaningfully" in its program, so 73 percent of
people did not recidivate.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for verification that the people in
the program are those with the highest risk of recidivating.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered "yes." She said people with support and
safety nets do not need to come to PRC. She stated that the
center is for those being released into homelessness. She said
100 percent of PRC's population "are those that are the highest
recidivists."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that it sounds like PRC has "a
pretty good track record.
3:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referenced the statistic that 65 percent of
participants signed up for Medicaid or SNAP. He asked for
confirmation that this is "a [recently] available function." He
said it is his understanding that recently-released convicts
could not obtain SNAP.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said that is correct. She explained that, when
Medicaid was expanded, PRC was able to bring in partners to sign
up participants for Medicaid and food stamps. She said those
who are still incarcerated can sign up for Medicaid "in a
halfway house setting." She said an individual cannot apply for
food stamps until release.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if this was the result of a recent
changed. He asked if it had anything to do with Senate Bill 91
[passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature].
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said the availability of SNAP and Medicaid is due
to Medicaid expansion, which is entirely separate from Senate
Bill 91.
3:10:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commended Ms. McLaughlin and PRC. He
recognized PRC's achievement in reducing recidivism among high-
risk reentrants. He characterized PRC's efforts as "the hard
work of redeeming peoples' lives." She said those efforts
protect the whole of society. He commented that the data
presented is "remarkable."
MS. MCLAUGHLIN noted that, with respect to the recidivism
statistics, PRC only looks at rearrests and reconvictions. She
stated that PRC sees promising results.
3:11:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that the 27 percent recidivism
rate relates to new crimes as opposed to violations of
conditions or probation/parole. He asked whether Ms. McLaughlin
feels that some probation/parole restrictions are burdensome and
at times set people up to fail. He asked if those restrictions
should be reformed.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said that is a good question. She remarked that
DOC has been willing to work with PRC with regard to individuals
who are "holding themselves accountable." She said that, when
that is the case, probation officers should not be so quick to
reincarcerate in response to a mistake. She remarked that there
has been a shift in probation officer culture over the past five
years, and that the shift is for the better.
3:13:52 PM
MR. WILLIAMS said the committee's discussion of reentry is
valuable and remarked that it illustrates the complexity of
supporting and guiding people so that they do not recidivate.
He summarized the topics discussed and noted that all of them
are important for a reentrant to be successful. He remarked
that increased public safety and decreased recidivism rates
depend on all those elements working well together.
MR. WILLIAMS returned to slide 7 and reemphasized that the role
of a coalition is not to provide services, but to identify
barriers and advocate for change. She said "the case management
piece" operates in collaboration with the coalition, which
identifies what services are available and assists in accessing
them.
3:16:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked, "Has the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Fund turned a corner and realized what their true mission is
other than a real estate holding company
MR. WILLIAMS stated that AMHT has always had a mission of
looking out for its beneficiaries. He said that has never
changed.
3:17:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Reentry Presentation to House Judiciary Committee 4.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Partners Reentry Center Statistics February 2019 4.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| DOC Second Chance Grant Information 4.3.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |