Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/13/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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: Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2020
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Steve Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Gary Knopp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA REHABILITATION & REENTRY REPORT OVERVIEW
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation, entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report
Overview."
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator
Division of Health and Rehabilitation Services
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented "Alaska Rehabilitation and
Reentry A Report to the Legislature" with the use of a
PowerPoint presentation.
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation,
entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report Overview."
TERI TIBBETT, Co-Chair
Juneau Reentry Coalition
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation, entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report
Overview."
JANET MCCABE, Chair
Board of Directors
Partners for Progress
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation, entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report
Overview."
JOSHUA SOPKO, Director
Partners Reentry Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation, entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report
Overview."
BARBARA MONGAR, Coordinator
MatSu Reentry Coalition
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation, entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report
Overview."
BOBBY DORTON
Fairbanks Native Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation, entitled "Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report
Overview."
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:02:26 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. Representatives
Thompson, Hopkins, Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins were
present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report Overview
PRESENTATION: Alaska Rehabilitation & Reentry Report Overview
3:02:46 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System (ACS), relayed that all therapeutic courts have one thing
in common - they try to resolve the underlying problem that
brought the person into the criminal justice system or into the
Child in Need of Aid (CINA) system. Alaska's therapeutic court
was started in the late 1990's by two Anchorage judges with the
Alaska District Court - Judge Jim Wanamaker and Judge Stephanie
Rhoades. Judge Wanamaker started Alaska's first substance abuse
court - a "driving under the influence (DUI)" court in
Anchorage. Judge Rhoades started one of the nation's very first
mental health courts. They started the courts out of personal
frustration with seeing the same people come back before them
repeatedly for crimes that they saw as clearly related to their
underlying substance abuse and mental health problems, and the
whole system knew that that was why these people were back again
and again. He offered that it made no sense to continue to send
them to jail, which not only didn't address the problem and
didn't stop them from committing crimes, but frequently made
things worse; therefore, the judges started the two courts. He
stated that currently Alaska has a total of 12 therapeutic
courts around the state. Although the courts mostly engage with
criminal cases - both misdemeanor and felony cases - they also
engage with - to a lesser degree - people involved with the CINA
system.
MR. WOOLIVER explained how the criminal courts function: They
are all "post plea." "You plead guilty to the crime that you
have been charged with or whatever the plea agreement is, with
the understanding that if you complete therapeutic court ... you
then withdraw your plea and you get the benefit of whatever the
underlying agreement was." The benefits might be a significant
reduction in the sentence, a reduced crime, or maybe even a
dismissal of the case. He maintained that this constitutes the
legal incentive to participate. The courts run generally about
18 months; and they are difficult to complete. He offered that
one of the challenges of all therapeutic courts is getting
offenders to participate. For a person who has been in jail
many times for minor crimes, jail is not that difficult. For a
60-day, 90-day, or 120-day sentence, the offender may elect to
serve the sentence rather than spend 18 months in an intensive
program to address his/her underlying problems. He added that a
therapeutic court is also difficult because many of these
offenders are addressing lifetime addiction problems, substance
abuse problems, and mental health problems, and these are hard
problems to overcome. He said, "Even in the best of times and
the best circumstances, these are still very difficult programs
to get through."
MR. WOOLIVER relayed that there are substance abuse courts in
Anchorage, Bethel, Fairbanks, Kenai, Palmer, and other
communities. The [Anchorage Veterans Court] is a therapeutic
court for veterans; since veterans have similar experiences and
a comradery, participating in the court together is helpful to
them. He continued by saying there are mental health courts in
Anchorage, Juneau, and Palmer. For substance abuse courts, ACS
has contracted with local providers for therapy, counseling, and
treatment in all the communities with the courts; the providers
must offer services within five workdays of a referral. He
offered that the advantage of a substance abuse court is that
due to the contract, the needs of the participant are attended
to promptly. He acknowledged that there is a lengthier delay
for treatment in connection with mental health courts because of
the lack of availability of treatment providers. He mentioned
that many of the offenders have a combination of issues -
alcohol, drug, and mental health; the more issues compiled
together, the more difficult they are to treat and the fewer the
qualified providers available to treat them.
3:09:05 PM
MR. WOOLIVER said that another challenge is finding "safe and
sober" housing for the participants. When someone leaves jail,
it is not good for that person to return to the environment that
facilitated the problem. It is difficult to overcome a
significant substance abuse problem - "particularly when that's
your whole life, those are all your friends, and your neighbors,
and your roommates, and maybe your family members."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether staff at the reentry centers, such
as Partners Reentry Center, are assisting therapeutic court
participants with housing, or whether a different group of
people are helping them.
MR. WOOLIVER emphasized the significant role that Partners for
Progress has had since the beginning of the therapeutic courts.
He relayed that Janet McCabe [Chair, Board of Directors,
Partners for Progress] has been a pioneer in the field and
incredibly helpful to the courts.
MR. WOOLIVER continued by saying that there are currently 12
courts. The goal is to reduce recidivism: research by the
Alaska Judicial Council found that within a year of being
released for a misdemeanor, 9 percent of graduates of
therapeutic courts were reconvicted compared with 25 percent of
those who were not in the program; for felons, the statistics
were 12 percent versus 23 percent. He offered that although
therapeutic courts reduced recidivism, they are not a "panacea";
the offenders are still trying to overcome some significant
hurdles in their lives; and many have other issues to contend
with as well. He maintained that therapeutic courts offer a
better system; and ACS would like to have more of them; however,
there are many requirements - treatment providers in the
community who are trained to work with offenders, a judge who
has been trained in therapeutic courts, a prosecutor who has
been trained in therapeutic courts, and a defense attorney who
have been trained in therapeutic courts. Because there is
constant turnover of personnel, maintaining a trained staff and
continuity with clients is challenging. He mentioned budget
increment requests to facilitate the system.
3:12:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that there is interest in starting
a veterans' court in Fairbanks; there is a judge who is a former
marine who is very interested. He asked whether one therapeutic
court in a community facilitates starting another.
MR. WOOLIVER answered affirmatively. He said that an
enthusiastic judge in Fairbanks would make it easier to start
another court in the community. He contended that there are
other pieces to establishing a therapeutic court; the Alaska
Supreme Court must approve each new therapeutic court because it
is resource intensive and it impacts how cases move through the
court system. A probation officer (PO) who can handle the
additional cases is needed. He maintained that the ACS
therapeutic courts coordinator - Michelle Bartley - is working
with the group in Fairbanks that wishes to establish a veterans'
court.
3:14:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the therapeutic court
encompasses "Youth Court."
MR. WOOLIVER responded that Youth Court is separate.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her support for therapeutic courts.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his appreciation for the
therapeutic court program. He asserted that evidence bears out
that therapeutic courts are cost effective. He maintained that
there must be a "financial mechanism that can be engineered that
proves up in a dollars and cents way via bonding or something
that accounts for the (indisc.) associated with reduced
recidivism that literally makes institutions like therapeutic
courts pay for themselves." He added that the Pay for Success
(PFS) Social Impact Bond is an attempt to do so. He said, "It
would be really wonderful if there was a way to make the dollars
and cents really speak for themselves and create a self-
perpetuating revenue stream that ideally could encompass or
annex a greater portion of criminal justice workflow."
3:16:37 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator, Division of Health and
Rehabilitation Services, Department of Corrections (DOC),
relayed that as a provision of HB 49 [signed into law 7/8/19],
DOC was required to submit to the legislature a comprehensive
review of DOC's rehabilitative efforts to address recidivism.
The report is a multi-agency effort which includes the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), the
Department of Education & Early Development (DEED), the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA), the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), local governments, and community providers. She
maintained that for effective reentry, it takes efforts from
everyone. The report reviews current practices, up-and-coming
practices, and the gaps.
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 2 and stated that Alaska's
correctional system is a unified system, and there are only
seven unified systems in the country. Alaska DOC serves both
sentenced and unsentenced prisoners, for both felonies and
misdemeanors, in one combined system; its jails house
unsentenced inmates, and its prisons house sentenced inmates.
She relayed the information on slide 2: During fiscal year 2019
(FY19) Alaska had 33,813 arrests involving 21,661 individuals;
there were 33,834 releases involving 19,148 individuals. She
related that "someone is coming and going in DOC every eight
minutes of every day all year long." She emphasized the
importance of these statistics as they relate to reentry; there
is a quick turnover in the incarcerated population; the
unsentenced population plays a critical part in affecting DOC's
ability to develop reentry plans; some of the unsentenced
inmates are out in a few days or even one hour. She maintained
that for reentry planning, DOC asks the questions: Who do we
need to focus on? For whom do we have the best chance of
developing a plan that will really affect the person's
recidivism and likelihood to return? She noted that while 95
percent of the DOC population return to the community, only
about 25 percent of those are released on supervision. That
means that only about 25 percent of the individuals who are
released have a PO who can continue to help them with their
reentry plans and help them access the resources they need in
the community. She said that the other 75 percent do not have
POs to assist them.
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 3, to give the statutory definition
of recidivism, which read:
Recidivism
AS 44.19.647
All felons released within a given year who return to
incarceration within three years for any offense
conviction (felony or misdemeanor) or probation/parole
violation.
3:21:47 PM
MS. BROOKS explained that the most current recidivism statistics
are for [calendar year (CY)] 2016, because that was the last
cohort that left DOC for whom there is a three-year timeframe.
She reviewed the chart on slide 4 and pointed out that after
being in the upper 60th percentile for decades, Alaska is now
experiencing a downward trend in recidivism; and for the first
time since data collection began in 2002, Alaska is under 60
percent recidivism - 59.96 percent. That represents about a 10
percent reduction in ten years. She maintained that the success
is most likely due to a combination of factors: an aggressive
shift toward evidence-based programming; assessment tools that
help staff focus on specific criminogenic risk factors of an
individual; focused reentry planning; a shift toward
administrative sanctions through the Division of Probation &
Parole; and the community partnerships that have developed to
extend safety nets and supports for individuals exiting the
criminal justice system.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what one would expect to see in
states with the lowest recidivism rates.
MS. BROOKS responded that in looking at reentry efforts around
the country, there is an emphasis on evidence-based practices.
The rehabilitative programs that are being developed are
supported by good research that demonstrates they are effective
for the incarcerated population. She said Alaska's DOC has made
a concerted effort toward these practices in the past three to
five years; it is continuing to evaluate the programs to ensure
it is meeting the best practice standards.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what recidivism rates other states
have achieved that have pursued the best practices programs
longer than Alaska.
MS. BROOKS answered that it is difficult to compare states.
Alaska has a unified system, but other states include different
segments of the corrections population in their recidivism
numbers. She maintained that DOC is looking for states
comparable to Alaska as the department moves into other reentry
practices. She mentioned the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) study that reviewed 30 states and 400,000 offenders; the
overall recidivism rate was 68 percent.
MS. BROOKS moved to slide 5, entitled "Rehabilitation," and
stated that rehabilitation occurs from the time the inmate comes
into the correctional system to the time of release and even
beyond into the community. She maintained that DOC struggles
with offender participation: DOC cannot require or force
offenders to participate in programs; DOC puts programs in place
and tries to offer incentives; however, ultimately it is up to
the inmate to participate. She said that DOC ensures that the
programs are evidence-based, meet industry standards, and are
supported by research. She emphasized three important aspects
of program delivery: the right programs to the right people at
the right time.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there are examples of
programs that were transitioned out because they weren't
evidence-based; and conversely, whether there have been new
programs introduced that are evidence-based that were not
previously administered.
MR. BROOKS said yes. She offered that over the years there
have been several programs from different sources; however,
because of the concerted effort to demonstrate that programs are
evidence-based, DOC now has supporting data. She relayed that
DOC has eliminated certain programs and brought in new programs.
The department is currently implementing a couple of programs
that address offender thinking, criminal thinking errors, and
general criminal attitudes. She maintained that one issue for
DOC is making sure that the program being offered is true to the
fidelity of the model; DOC must ensure that the providers are
properly trained. She gave the example of administering General
Educational Development (GED) tests: DOC knows that it is a
good program; however, DOC must ensure that staff and
contractors are providing the service according to the evidence-
based requirements of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether DOC contracts with trainers
to train staff in administering programs.
MS. BROOKS answered that it depends on the program: some
programs that DOC has purchased come with a training module; for
some, trainers will come to Alaska to train DOC staff; for other
programs, DOC sends staff to training; some programs offer
online options for training. She added that an important piece
of an evidence-based model is auditing the program to ensure
that it is being delivered as the training dictates.
3:28:35 PM
MS. BROOKS continued with slide 6 to review the dynamic risk
factors that when changed or addressed, alter the probability
that someone will re-offend. The DOC chooses evidence-based
programs to address the "Central Eight" criminogenic risk
factors. She listed the following factors: criminal thinking;
antisocial peer groups; educational background; employment and
employability; substance use; mental health; and healthy
relationships.
MS. BROOKS reiterated that rehabilitation starts during the pre-
trial phase and continues throughout incarceration and into
post-release supervision. The offender management plan (OMP) is
put in place once an individual is sentenced to 90 days or more;
it is developed from the risk assessment, and it focuses on the
individual's criminogenic risk factors. Those individuals can
then be referred to rehabilitative programs in the DOC system
that address the identified risk factors. She stated that the
OMP is updated throughout incarceration due to changes in
programming. She said that 90 days prior to release, the OMP is
again updated; it is a fluid document that moves with the
offender out into the field; it is available to the community
case managers through the coalitions and to the field POs to
ensure that everyone is "on the same page" and knows where to
focus the rehabilitative efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether DOC tracked statistics for
recidivism based on new crimes versus probation violations and
whether that data allows DOC to understand how probation could
be adjusted to reduce recidivism.
MS. BROOKS answered, "Yes we do." She explained that DOC has
information on new crime recidivism as well as the portion of
recidivism that is attributable to either probation violations
or petitions to revoke probation.
3:31:35 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections (DOC), relayed that she oversees the Probation &
Parole and Pretrial Enforcement Divisions. She responded that
DOC tracks what the violations are and how often they are being
committed by the same offenders or different offenders. She
referred to the administrative sanctions implemented under
Senate Bill 91 [passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature (2015-2016) and signed into law 7/11/16], through
which POs respond to violations through alternative means - ones
that are internal to DOC and avoid bringing the offender back
into custody or in front of the court. She maintained that the
practice resulted in a reduction in petitions being filed and
offenders returning to jail. She offered that with the method
of tracking the recidivism rate and the significant shifts in
the criminal justice system, the outcome [data] is slightly
skewed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS suggested that DOC is responding to the
data on violations to make adjustments that would avoid putting
offenders in jail for minor probations violations.
MS. WINKELMAN concurred.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the percentage of inmates,
incarcerated for more than 90 days, who participate in a
rehabilitation program through an OMP.
MS. BROOKS answered that it varies significantly depending on
the type of program. She said that for men, the residential
substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program is full and there is
always a wait list; for women, it is at about 60 percent
capacity and there is no wait list.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for confirmation that DOC tracks
availability by program. He expressed his interest in finding
out where additional [program] capacity would be helpful.
MS. BROOKS replied that DOC does track [program] capacity and
waitlist information and can provide that to the committee.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the percentage of inmates,
incarcerated for more than 90 days, who are actively
participating in an OMP.
MS. BROOKS responded that last year 3,000 offenders had an OMP
either initiated or updated more than 4,200 times. That number
has grown significantly over last year and the year before last.
She said that the longer the OMP has been in place, the more
active participation becomes. In terms of individual
participation in the OMP, it is the offender's choice to
cooperate, and some do not want to cooperate even with taking
the risk assessment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS restated his question: Of the 21,661
individuals who went through DOC's system, how many were in for
more than 90 days.
MS. BROOKS answered that she did not know but could provide that
statistic.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS clarified his request for information: the
percentage of inmates who were incarcerated for more than 90
days, and of those, the number who participated in meaningful
OMPs.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the reentry simulation and
mentioned the issue of identification (ID) for people reentering
society. He asked how DOC helps those people get IDs so that
they can become functioning citizens.
MS. BROOKS responded that getting an ID would not be associated
with the OMP because the plans are for individuals who have been
sentenced for 90 days or more. She stated that DOC provides to
any offender exiting the system a one-page document that
verifies that person's identity; it is from DOC and is accepted
by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as appropriate
documentation to obtain a state ID from DMV. She added that DOC
recognizes the importance of an ID and is trying to increase
awareness that the document is available.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there has been
communication between DOC and DMV about having a means within
DOC for an inmate to obtain an ID before release.
MS. BROOKS answered that such communication has occurred just in
the last several months. She relayed that the practice has
occurred in other states at their larger facilities. She said
that implementing this practice in Alaska's rural communities is
more challenging. She added that DOC hopes to address the need
for REAL ID [Act of 2005] compliant IDs as well.
3:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked to know the caseloads for personnel
managing the OMPs.
MS. BROOKS responded that the caseload depends on the size of
the facility. She doesn't have that information but will
provide it to the committee.
3:40:09 PM
MS. BROOKS referred to slides 8-15, which offer overviews of the
rehabilitative services currently available within DOC. She
reviewed the services listed on slide 8, entitled "Substance Use
Disorder Services": "Screening" consists of a quick review to
identify a possible substance use disorder (SUD). "Assessment"
is more thorough and determines a recommendation for the level
of treatment for the inmate. "Intensive outpatient substance
abuse treatment (IOPSAT)" refers to a service within the DOC
facility that the inmate visits to engage in the treatment;
there is an 82-slot capacity for IOPSAT; and it is in three
facilities - Hiland Mountain Correctional Center (HMCC) [Eagle
River], Goose Creek Correctional Center (GCCC) [Wasilla], and
Anvil Mountain Correctional Center (AMCC) [Nome] - and all the
Community Residential Centers (CRCs) except for the one in
Bethel. She suggested that the halfway house in Bethel may have
an alternate means of delivering the service.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked where DOC would like more SUD treatment
programs.
MS. BROOKS relayed that currently the RSAT program has a 64-bed
capacity; it is available at HMCC for women and at Wildwood
Correctional Center (WCC) [Kenai] for men. The RSAT in Seward
[Spring Creek Correctional Center (SCCC)] was closed due to a
lack of substance abuse treatment providers. The department
struggles with finding providers in the community for all the
substance abuse treatment programs. She mentioned that DOC has
issued a request for proposal (RFP) to re-establish the RSAT
program at SCCC. She stated that there is a waitlist for IOPSAT
at GCCC partially due to provider turnover at that facility.
She maintained that all the facilities would like to have
programs available for each level of treatment; there have been
programs at some facilities that were not at capacity.
MS. BROOKS continued with the chart on slide 8 to explain that
"Psychological Education ("PsychEd")" is a six-week educational
program that speaks to the biological effects of [substance]
use, the effects of long-term use, and relapse; it is provided
through contract or by DOC mental health clinicians. She
mentioned that DOC is evaluating its programs through its Second
Chance [Act] grant to determine gaps in programming.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether these programs would be available
at Palmer Correctional Facility (PCC), if reopened.
MS. BROOKS answered that PCC would be an appropriate facility
for these programs, as the inmates would be sentenced offenders.
She added that one of the challenges for DOC is the large number
of pretrial offenders who "cycle through" the facility too
quickly to participate in a six-month RSAT program. In the
sentenced facilities, long-term treatment programs make sense.
3:45:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for information on the medication assisted
treatment (MAT) programs: the medications used; the facilities
that utilize them; and the transition back to the community
ensuring continuity with the treatment.
MS. BROOKS answered that the MAT for DOC started with Vivitrol.
Vivitrol is an extended release injectable naltrexone; it blocks
the opioid receptors in the brain; and it has been shown to be
an effective treatment. She said that Vivitrol is available at
all DOC facilities. The other two medications used are
buprenorphine and methadone. About a year and a half ago, DOC
began offering "methadone bridging" for people coming into DOC's
system who were engaged in methadone treatment in the community.
Without methadone these individuals would experience withdrawal
symptoms in the facilities. Currently DOC offers "bridging" to
short-term offenders; the outpatient providers provide the
methadone for DOC to administer to the offenders. She added
that increasingly, offenders are coming into the system engaged
in buprenorphine treatment; therefore, DOC is starting to bridge
that medication for inmates as well.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether DOC coordinates with community
organizations to continue treatment for the reentrant.
MS. BROOKS relayed that DOC employs the "screening, brief
intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT)" model. Inmates
are given an injection before being released; however, a very
important element of MAT is the cognitive behavioral component;
therefore, the substance abuse counselors provide offenders with
a list of places at which therapy treatment is available.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how long the Vivitrol injections last.
MS. BROOKS responded, about 28 days.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked what DOC's coordination is with community
providers for those released offenders [to continue treatment].
MS. BROOKS replied that DOC makes every effort to try to connect
offenders to providers upon release so they can start cognitive
therapy as soon as they are released.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked what organizations in the community give
Vivitrol injections.
MS. BROOKS answered that it depends on the community; there are
clinics and health practitioners in private practice that
provide that service. She offered that services need to be
expanded in more rural communities; currently many of the
outpatient treatment clinics are only available in urban areas.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there are any urban areas
with gaps in Vivitrol and other post-incarceration treatments.
MS. BROOKS answered, "There are." She said that the DOC
population comes from every community in the state, but there
are relatively few communities with complete MAT programs. She
offered that one of goals of DHSS is to expand MAT availability
in rural communities and other communities.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether DOC utilizes Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) within facilities
and assists inmates to transition to those programs in the
community upon release.
MS. BROOKS replied that DOC has AA and NA programs in every
facility; they are available to all inmates; and inmates are
encouraged to participate.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked who pays for the programs and what can the
state do to expand the programs.
MR. BROOKS answered that she does not know but would request
that information from DHSS.
3:51:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked why substance abuse treatment
programs are not at capacity and if the programs are
discontinued if not full. She also asked about incentives for
inmates to participation in treatment programs, such as reduced
sentences.
MS. BROOKS, in response to the first question, answered that it
depends on the location. She offered that it has been
incredibly challenging to incentivize inmates to participate in
programs that the department believes are beneficial, but
inmates do not. She said that there was an IOPSAT program at
Lemon Creek Correctional Center (LCCC) [Juneau]; the number of
participants was very low; the contract provider could not staff
the program; and DOC could not continue to pay for a program
that only served two or three people. She emphasized that the
reentry process is critical for ensuring that the offender has
that option for treatment in the community if he/she is not
engaging in the treatment at the facility.
MS. BROOKS addressed the question of incentives by saying that
she was not aware of a process whereby inmates can receive
reduced sentences if they participate in treatment. She
acknowledged that offering that option would help participation.
MS. BROOKS continued with slide 8 to discuss "Narcan
distribution." Through a federal grant, DOC receives Narcan
kits, which protect against overdosing. She relayed that DOC
has started to make Narcan kits available to offenders exiting
the facilities. Narcan is administered through nasal spray to
someone showing signs of overdosing. The department does not
track the kits and cannot gauge the impact, but national
statistics demonstrate a positive effect on mortality rates.
She mentioned that "video-based substance abuse education" is
offered to the segregation population; "CRC direct access to
treatment" is provided through contracts with providers in the
community, and there are dedicated slots in the treatment
programs for the inmates released to halfway houses. She added
that DOC is working on some new projects for "reentry
coordination" so that individuals who are exiting the DOC system
have more intensive case management to ensure they are connected
with treatment upon release; an RFP has been issued to locate a
provider for that service.
MS. BROOKS mentioned the increasing utilization of "peer
supports"; there is a growing body of evidence showing that peer
supports have a positive effect on offender learning and changes
in behavior; it involves using a mentor with a similar life
experience to work with the offender.
3:56:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked to what extent DOC is operating the peer
support programs versus programs being supported by DHSS or
nonprofit organizations. He expressed his belief that the
administration of peer support across the state is uneven.
MS. BROOKS stated that DOC has peer mentors in the mental health
units; they have taken mental health first aid training to
recognize the symptoms of mental illness; they combat the stigma
associated with seeking mental health treatment. She added that
the substance abuse units also have peer support mentors. There
are community providers who, in collaboration with the reentry
coalitions, bring peer supports into the DOC system. She offered
that DHSS is developing a peer support certification - a 40-hour
training that teaches how to best safely support the offenders.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether all the facilities have some form
of peer support.
MS. BROOKS said not all do, but it is growing.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked, "What more do we need to be doing?"
She acknowledged the workforce issue - the need for more
substance abuse treatment providers - and asked whether DOC
staff training is adequate to ensure that released inmates are
connected to the supports they need.
MS. BROOKS responded that DHSS is aware of the problem and is
drafting a workforce development plan. A large percentage of
the DOC population are impacted when they cannot access the
services because of workforce shortages. She relayed that the
institutional POs receive training on reentry issues. She
maintained that offenders get reentry information from a wide
variety of sources - mental health clinicians, correctional
officers (COs), and reentry classes.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested that being a parole officer is a
demanding profession and expressed the importance of support and
training.
MR. BROOKS responded that a parole officer attends a training
academy, and there are required training hours annually. She
offered to provide more information.
4:01:56 PM
MS. BROOKS turned to slide 9, entitled "Institutional behavioral
Health Care," and relayed that overall 65 percent of DOC's
population has a diagnosable mental health disorder; about 22
percent of those have a serious and persistent mental illness,
like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. She declared, "We have
a very, very sick population." She said that there are mental
health clinicians in each DOC facility - either by contract or
on staff. Psychiatrists and psychiatric nurse practitioners
provide medication management and other types of treatment
planning either onsite or through telehealth systems.
Psychiatric nurses are also part of the DOC behavioral health
team. There are several dedicated modules just for the mentally
ill population: two acute care 24-hour hospital level
psychiatric treatment units - one for men and one for women; and
five sub-acute units throughout the DOC system. She stated that
all together, DOC has over 300 dedicated treatment beds just for
the mentally ill population in specialized housing.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the beds are fully occupied.
MS. BROOKS answered that DOC's acute care psychiatric units are
always full and they have wait lists. Most of the sub-acute
units are also full; the one at GCCC is a 128-bed unit and not
full; there is a unit at SCCC and two at HMCC for women. Most
are at capacity.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether reopening PCC would result in an
increase in dedicated beds.
MS. BROOKS answered that the best utilization of those beds
would have to be determined.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether there is a subset of COs who
supervise inmates in the dedicated [mental health] beds or
whether it is a general duty of all COs.
MS. BROOKS replied that it is a little of both: with 65 percent
of the population having a diagnosable mental illness, all COs
will be working with people with mental illness. She said there
are officers who work on the acute care mental health units and
sub-acute units. Over the past several years, DOC has
implemented several trainings to help COs be better prepared to
deal with the mentally ill population - mental health first aid,
trauma informed care, and crisis intervention team training.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA) supports the trainings.
MS. BROOKS replied that AMHTA does provide funding to DOC for
mental health specific training each year; although it doesn't
cover all the costs, such as for overtime.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested looking to the AMHTA budget to provide
needed support for DOC staff.
4:06:29 PM
MS. BROOKS continued with slide 10, entitled "Education
Services," and advised the committee that lack of education is a
major criminogenic factor contributing to recidivism. She said
that all DOC institutions offer education supports to the
offender population - placement testing, GED testing, tutoring,
New Path [alternative] High School, and secondary education -
both onsite and through correspondence. She added that DOC
education coordinators also assist offenders in correspondence
college courses. She said that the education coordinators play
a critical role in other rehabilitative efforts, such as
parenting classes, cognitive skills classes, computer skills
classes, and job training. They work in tandem with the
institutional POs.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned the GED testing program now being
completely online and asked whether that presented any
technology issues for DOC.
MS. BROOKS replied that there were technology issues; DOC
developed some temporary workarounds; DOC is considering making
[electronic] tablets available to offenders, which would
streamline the GED process as well as other processes.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS recollected that due to the technology issues,
the GED completion rates decreased dramatically. He asked
whether the completion rates have recovered among sentenced
offenders.
MS. BROOKS responded that there has been some recovery, but the
rate is not as high as DOC would like it to be. She committed
to providing historical data on the rates.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is anything that
prevents procuring tablets for inmates.
MS. WINKELMAN responded, "It was something that we wanted to put
forward this year and we are hoping that we can get into
discussions about that possibility."
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is currently a
blanket embargo on digital devices among the inmate population
that prevents inmates form using tablets or other [electronic]
devices to complete the GED.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that she is not aware of that; it is
something that DOC is interested in pursuing.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his desire to facilitate that
effort.
4:11:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned consistency of program availability
across institutions - gaps in terms of equipment, capacity of
the education coordinators, and demand for programs at the
institutions. He asked that she discuss the differences by
institution and how DOC ensures educational services are
available at each institution.
MS. BROOKS responded that the delivery of programs vary
depending on the size of the facility; there are multiple
education coordinators in some locations. She stated that the
GED function is one of the primary functions of the education
coordinators; therefore, DOC is making a concerted effort to
ensure that as a priority. She said that DOC has had several
hurdles slowing progress in that area; however, the education
coordinators recognize [lack of education] being a key
criminogenic factor and the importance of increasing
participation. She maintained that DOC has the resources to
increase the numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether DOC considers caseloads and
whether there are recommendations for the number of inmates a
coordinator should serve.
MS. BROOKS answered that her understanding is that there are no
waitlists for people wanting to take the GED test; therefore,
that function is appropriately resourced. She offered that in
contrast, vocational programs vary dramatically across the DOC
system; they depend on inmate interest and the availability of
specialized instructors.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the other services on slide 10
- "English as a second language (ESL)" and "job readiness
skills."
MS. BROOKS mentioned that in the area of job readiness skills,
DOC works with DOLWD; DOLWD provides DOC with job readiness
specialists; DOLWD job centers provide "in reach" to many of the
facilities around the state; every community with a correctional
facility also has an [Alaska job center]. The education
coordinators coordinate with community agencies, contractors,
and volunteer organizations for many of the education services
listed on slide 10.
4:15:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS mentioned that Ms. Brooks has not
referred to the Fairbanks Correctional Center (FCC). He asked
whether that was because many of the services are missing at FCC
or whether inmates move through the facility quickly.
MS. BROOKS answered that many services are available at AMCC,
FCC, Ketchikan Correctional Center (KCC), LCCC, WCC, SCCC, HMCC,
and Anchorage Correctional Complex (ACC), but services vary -
particularly in facilities that are pre-trial facilities, like
FCC and LCCC. It is more difficult to install more sustainable
programs like a mental health unit, but that doesn't mean the
facilities don't offer mental health services. A program that
requires a unit - such as RSAT - will generally be in the
sentenced facilities.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned businesses that employ returning
offenders; many of them offer high skilled jobs that don't
require a college degree. He asked whether DOC could ask those
employers what kind of training programs the state could
support. He maintained that there are significant state and
federal resources that could support those programs and
suggested the department be proactive in reaching out to those
employers to ensure they have the resources they need. He added
that when a returning citizen completes an apprenticeship with
an employer, he/she ends up with a credential. He maintained
that there are so few jobs that are living wage jobs that offer
a pathway for returning citizens; the state should maximize
those opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered that the fields of health care and
computer programming are both growing and suggested training in
those areas.
MS. BROOKS, in response to Representative Fields, stated that
DOC does collaborate with DOLWD to connect individuals to
employers in the community. Employment specialists coming into
the facilities have been incredibly successful; one at HMCC
connected 130-plus inmates to jobs in the community. She said
that often DOC's apprenticeships and training programs are
connected to community employers who are willing to accept an
inmate returning to the community. She said that the effort
could be expanded; it is on DOC's "radar."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS reiterated that since DOC and the reentry
coalitions most likely are aware of the employers who hire
returning inmates, they could ask the employers how the state
could support the training programs. He suggested that DOLWD
may not be maximizing investment in those training programs and
the state should support those employers.
MS. BROOKS, in response to Representative Story, agreed that
there are many health care shortages. She offered that DOC has
explored several programs. She acknowledged that there are
barrier crimes that prevent many of the offenders from working
in the health care field. She said that DOC has identified a
couple of areas for a pilot project. She offered that there are
several computer training programs available to inmates, and
such training could be expanded.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that the presentation by Ms. Brooks would
be continued during a later hearing and at this time the
committee would hear other testifiers.
4:21:26 PM
TERI TIBBETT, Co-Chair, Juneau Reentry Coalition, relayed that
she is also the Chair of the Community Education and Outreach
Workgroup. She stated that Juneau has a very active reentry
coalition; it includes partners from nonprofit agencies and
state agencies; it was involved with conducting the recent
reentry simulation offered to legislators [1/30/20]. She said
that JAMHI Health & Wellness, Inc. (JAMHI) serves as the fiscal
agent for the coalition to receive funding from AMHTA for a
community coordinator to serve as administrator. Funding also
comes from DHSS for a case manager, who works with institutional
POs to identify inmates who are interested and want to volunteer
for case management. The reentry case manager helps inmates to
find housing, get access to services in the community, sign up
for health care, and engage in all the other activities needed
for reentering society. She maintained that the effort
represents a collaboration between DOC, AMHTA, DHSS, and the
coalition.
MS. TIBBETT explained that there are two co-chairs: one is a
community member, which is the seat she holds, and the other is
a representative from LCCC. Reentry coalitions operate under
the guidelines of the Alaska Community Reentry Plan; there are
coalitions throughout Alaska.
MS. TIBBETT continued by mentioning other partners of the
coalition: Gastineau Human Services (GHS), a halfway house in
Juneau; National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Juneau, a
nonprofit mental health agency working with families with mental
illness; Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of
Alaska; Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC); Juneau
Opioid Work Group; Juneau Job Center; City and Borough of
Juneau; Rotary Club of Juneau; Juneau Chamber of Commerce; and
the Juneau Community Foundation. She maintained that the
coalition invites the community to its community meetings every
other month to provide education on various topics and discuss
the efforts of the coalition. She mentioned a statewide reentry
and justice workgroup - a partnership of reentry coalitions -
that meets monthly to share activities and goals and listen to
testimony from reentrants.
4:26:28 PM
MS. TIBBETT stated that the coalition recently supported the
therapeutic courts' request for positions that would make wrap-
around support available to its clients; it supported the
reentry unit proposal in the DOC budget, which would expand
reentry efforts within DOC; and it supported safe and sober
housing, which is the number one barrier for reentrants.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked about the expression, "safe and
sober housing."
MS. TIBBETT explained that it refers to a safe place to live
with an emphasis on being sober.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what safe and sober housing means
programmatically or from a policy standpoint.
MS. TIBBETT explained that GHS has a treatment wing that
represents a safe and sober housing program; it is a place for
the reentrants to live while they work and go about their lives
but still get treatment in the form of programs or groups. It
is a safe place to live where the residents don't need to worry
about people using substances, which might present a temptation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the reentry simulation and
asked what bureaucratic hurdles reentrants found most
challenging. He specifically mentioned obtaining IDs.
MS. TIBBETT expressed that she is not qualified to answer that
question. She offered that finding housing, getting access to
treatment, and qualifying for Medicaid are the challenges of
which she is aware.
MS. TIBBETT concluded by saying that the coalition supports
better access to substance abuse and mental health treatment.
She maintained that they are constant issues because the demand
is greater than the supply. She offered that the primary reason
for the lack of substance use and mental health treatment is the
workforce issue. Alaska needs more trained individuals; there
are multiple efforts around the state by different agencies and
by the University of Alaska; it is a difficult profession with
burnout and often inadequate pay. She said that it is not
always the fault of the agencies when they are unable to provide
services but the difficulty with finding qualified people to
take the jobs.
4:32:09 PM
JANET MCCABE, Chair, Board of Directors, Partners for Progress,
relayed that the data demonstrates the significant role that the
Partners Reentry Center has played in reducing recidivism. She
said that it serves 60 people per day and has served almost
10,000 people since inception. She offered that 45 percent of
the state's prisoners reenter in Anchorage, and the center sees
most of the difficult-to-serve people. She stated that this
week her agency has been working with DOC on a small
supplemental federal grant - the Second Chance grant - in which
the emphasis is on combining behind-the-walls services with case
management and treatment upon release, with the goal being a
smooth transition. She maintained that people who are released
from prison need a "complex and humanly balanced" range of
services.
4:34:56 PM
JOSHUA SOPKO, Director, Partners Reentry Center, relayed that he
has been working for Partners for Progress since 2014; he was a
case manager and then the deputy director; he has been the
director since July 2019. He reiterated that Partners Reentry
Center is a high-volume reentry center in Anchorage located a
few blocks from the Anchorage jail. He said that the center is
located near the Anchorage Probation Field Office and the
agencies offering many of the critical services that reentrants
use, including the Public Assistance Office [Division of Public
Assistance, DHSS] and the Social Security Administration office.
MR. SOPKO continued by saying reentry center staff see about 60
people per day, house 120-130 people per month, and work with
300 people per month in job searches, case management, and other
services. He stated that the center serves walk-ins the same
day and can house them the same day. Center staff work with DOC
institutional POs to get referrals of those being released. The
center offers per-arranged housing for those wishing to
participate - who enter into an agreement to not recidivate and
to address the underlying causes resulting in incarceration. In
this way offenders have an expectation of what is required of
them in exchange for the assistance provided by the center. In
the first two weeks the center assists the reentrant with
establishing a schedule, building a resume, engaging in job
readiness activities, obtaining an ID, checking in with the PO,
and following up on referrals for substance abuse assessment for
treatment or sober support groups. He mentioned that the center
offers Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) which is a cognitive
behavioral approach to group therapy that helps offenders break
down criminal thinking errors and develop pro-social thinking.
He related that the center also assists with transportation,
clothes, and hygiene. He maintained that by handling the small
barriers, the center frees the individual up to focus on
addressing criminogenic needs and the challenges of becoming a
stable, better person who desists from further criminal
behavior. He added that the center stresses finding mentorship
and finding comradery and fellowship in groups outside of the
person's established social circles; peer associations are very
important. One way that the center encourages this is by
offering food with group meetings. He relayed that offering a
chicken dinner for those completing the GED test proved to be a
very successful incentive in getting people to take the test.
He expressed the value of small incentives, motivational
interviewing, working with the offender as a team offering
support and motivation.
MR. SOPKO continued by saying that in the five years he has
worked in the reentry field, he has seen a [positive] change in
DOC; among the field POs, the thinking has evolved to greater
focus on rehabilitation, addressing needs, giving support, and
pointing the people on probation and supervision toward better
directions.
4:42:11 PM
BARBARA MONGAR, Coordinator, MatSu Reentry Coalition,
paraphrased from her written testimony [original punctuation
provided], which read:
The Mat-Su Reentry Coalition consists of a
collaboration of individuals, community stakeholders,
public and none-profit [sic] agencies, faith based and
business partners who are united and committed to
reducing recidivism among returning citizens to the
Mat-Su community.
Our Reentry Coalition is led by a Steering Team that
currently consists of 10 members and includes
substance abuse treatment providers, behavioral health
providers, the Mat-Su job center manager, the Mat-Su
Housing & Homelessness Coordinator, an Institutional
Probation Officer, a Field Probation Office, a Veteran
Administration representative, a Reentrant, who is
also working as a Peer mentor, and a community member.
The Steering Team meets monthly to go over strategies
and progress towards the Coalitions Goals to help
increase reentrants well-being within the community.
The Reentry Coalition also holds Quarterly Community
Reentry Meetings to help educate community members on
the barriers and difficulties reentrance [sic] face
and how reentry services help to promote public safety
and reduce recidivism.
Some of the Reentry Activities we have been doing in
the Mat-Su include a Reentry Simulation, which is an
activity that simulates some of the challenges that
Reentrants go through once they are released from
prison. After attending several Reentry Simulations in
Anchorage, I was able to gather the material and tweak
it to fit our community. I want to thank Senator
Showers for participating the Reentry Simulation we
held in the Mat-Su last November, all of the people
that participated in the simulation had positive
comments to say about reentry simulation and how they
didn't realize some of the difficulties reentrants
faced when they were released from prison.
Our Reentry Coalition also just held a Reentry Summit
in January, we brought in Dr. Latessa, who is the
Director and Professor of the School of Criminal
Justice at the University of Cincinnati and a
nationally sought-after expert in the criminal Justice
Field to do the community training. The Reentry Summit
was a training that was centered on improving and
supporting skills shown to be effective at changing
criminal behavior, developing program action planning,
and reducing recidivism. The attendees of the Reentry
Summit were a mixture of DOC personnel, including
Education Coordinators and both Institutional and
Field Probation Officers, and community service
providers.
We also have a Reentry Case Manager that conducts in-
reaches into the different Correctional Institutions
to work with the reentrants before they are released.
The Reentry Case Manager offers intensive Case
Management Services that include parole and probation
supports, housing assistance, employment assistance,
resource navigation and comprehensive goal and
transition planning.
One of the success stories I wanted to share is about
a reentrant our reentry case manager assisted who was
a senior citizen that was being released after a long-
term incarceration. This individual had a substance
abuse issues and severe mental health problems. He was
going to be releasing without any services set-up.
Before his release our case manager helped him
identify services and supports so he wouldn't release
and have to go to a shelter in Anchorage away from his
community. The Case manager helped him get his Social
Security Disability Benefits going and get into
supportive housing and long-term mental health care.
After the reentrant was stable he was able to
reconnect with his family out-of-state and we are now
12 months out from when he graduated the Mat-Su
Reentry Management Program and he has not recidivated
and is doing well. That is my testimony, thank you.
4:46:30 PM
BOBBY DORTON, Fairbanks Native Association, testified that he is
from Northway and grew up in the Alaska Native traditions and
culture. He related his experience using and selling drugs. He
relayed that he went to prison in 2013, and in prison he
realized he did not want to be there or continue in the criminal
life. He said that at FCC and PCC he participated in prison
programs including RSAT; he was able to work through issues that
he had even before using drugs; he became an RSAT mentor and was
in the program almost two years. He said that he was released
from prison in July 2018 and placed on electronic monitoring
(EM); however, he suffered panic attacks. He described a moment
of decision for him when he was frustrated with finding help.
Marsha Oss from the Fairbanks Reentry Center had visited the
prison many times while he was there and had urged him to see
her when he was released. He made the decision to see her. He
said, "That was probably the best move I made."
4:50:29 PM
MR. DORTON relayed that Ms. Oss talked him through his anxieties
and enrolled him in several reentry programs; she respected his
desire to be a substance abuse counselor and helped him achieve
that goal. He cited the many programs and people who assisted
him along the way. Today he teaches groups, volunteers at
nonprofit organizations, and mentors recovering addicts. He
makes good money. He has replaced bad habits with healthy
habits. He has a very good relationship with his family now.
He concluded, "This is what recovery has brought me; this is
what reentry has brought me."
4:56:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS noted the questions that arose during the
presentation:
Who are you missing now in terms of folks reentering
the community who don't come through the reentry
centers and why? How can we reach people who aren't
being reached now?
Do you see gaps or breaks in Medicaid assisted
treatment as people leave incarceration?
Has DHSS looked at the [Section] 1115 [Medicaid
demonstration] waiver and/or state plan amendments
from the perspective of "How can the state best
support reentry and leverage Medicaid to the full
extent possible to support reentry?"
Partners [Reentry Center] can find housing [for
reentrants] on the same day. How do they do that? Is
that something other reentry coalitions can do?
4:57:27 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:57
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOC HSTA Presentation - Rehab and Reentry Report 02.13.2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2020 3:00:00 PM |
DOC Rehab Reentry Presentaiton |
| DOC Rehabilitation Report 01-30-2020.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2020 3:00:00 PM |
DOC Rehabilitation Report |
| Rehabilitaition Reentry comments, Anglea Hall.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2020 3:00:00 PM |
Rehabilitiation reentry |