Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/07/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview – Therapeutic Justice | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2007
1:43 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Lindsey Holmes
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Therapeutic Courts
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHELLE BARTLEY, Program Coordinator
Therapeutic Court Program
Alaska Court System
POSITION STATEMENT: Described Alaska's existing therapeutic
courts.
LARRY COHN, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Evaluated recidivism in Alaska's felony
therapeutic courts.
JANET MCCABE, Chair/CEO
Partners for Progress
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented benefits of the therapeutic court
system.
DOREEN SCHENKENBERGER
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Relayed her successful participation in the
therapeutic court system.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 1:43:07 PM.
Present at the call to order were Senator Wielechowski,
Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn, Chair French and Chair
Ramras. Senator Ellis was also present.
^Overview - Therapeutic Justice
CHAIR FRENCH called the meeting to order, and announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to have an overview of the
therapeutic court program in Alaska.
1:43:15 PM
MICHELLE BARTLEY, Therapeutic Court Program Coordinator for the
Alaska Court System, introduced the other presenters. She said
she'd given the committee a printed overview of the therapeutic
court system. Currently there are 11 therapeutic courts in
Alaska, some with eligibility criteria. They deal with drug
convictions, family matters, mental health, and veterans. Four
additional courts are being planned. Substance abuse is a
prevailing issue, but participants receive treatment with a
demonstrated measure of success.
1:47:19 PM
LARRY COHN, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council (AJC),
said that the AJC is a separate entity that conducts studies to
improve the administration of justice. The AJC isn't part of the
system, but rather it is an advocate agency.
MR. COHN said that in 2001 the state required that therapeutic
courts be evaluated by the AJC; these evaluations were to be
completed by July, 2005. The courts took longer to start up than
anticipated and so there was insufficient time to track
recidivism. Now that there has been sufficient time to track
this, the AJC has done so and published a report on recidivism
rates several weeks ago.
1:50:00 PM
MR. COHN explained that the report compared recidivism rates of
117 offenders in the three felony-level therapeutic courts with
other recidivism rates for 97 matched offenders based on age,
gender, ethnicity, substance abuse, and drug problems. They had
similar problems as the people who were actually participating
in the therapeutic courts.
1:50:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he controlled for criminal histories.
MR. COHN said yes; prior records of participants in therapeutic
court were worse than comparison offenders. Matches were made as
best as possible. In the end, if participants did better, they
overcame an even worse history than comparison offenders.
CHAIR FRENCH said that was all the more reason to be happy with
those results.
MR. COHN agreed. He said that recidivism rates were also
compared to baseline rates of general Alaskan felony offenders,
including the frequency and affecting factors of the recidivism.
Court participants and comparison offenders were followed for
one year after program completion or sentence completion,
respectively. Department of Public Safety records were used to
track offense rates. The findings showed that the longer the
participants stayed in the program, the less likely they were to
recidivate, even if they didn't graduate. The most useful
finding was that 13 percent of graduates were re-arrested within
a year, whereas 32 percent of comparison offenders were re-
arrested. Compared with the baseline rate for felony offenders,
the results were even more dramatic.
1:55:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what happened to the people who did
not complete the program, and why they did not do so.
MR. COHN replied that a variety of reasons were found for non-
completion. People may withdraw because they did not cooperate
or the program was too hard. In that case, they ended up serving
their sentences.
MR. COHN explained how different therapeutic courts' results
compared and said that no participants who were reconvicted
after program completion had committed an offense more serious
than the original offense. No drug offenders were reconvicted
within the first year. Native participants responded as well to
the program as Caucasians, which isn't generally the case in
other programs.
1:57:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that blacks and other ethnicities did
not do as well in the programs and asked the reason for this.
MR. COHN said he didn't know why and that the AJC is trying to
identify why different ethnicities have different success rates.
1:58:38 PM
MR. COHN said that the AJC evaluated the benefits of the program
and not its costs; however, national studies show a positive
cost-benefit relationship. The AJC is presently partnering in a
four-year study with the University of Alaska and the Urban
Institute in Washington DC, which includes analysis of the
Anchorage Wellness Court.
2:00:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the AJC is equipped to perform a cost-
benefit analysis, or if that should be done by a more
economically-oriented group.
MR. COHN said the AJC could provide useful information; such
analyses can be imprecise, and benefits are hard to quantify.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if AJC has staff economists and accountants.
MR. COHN replied that it does not; when sophisticated analysis
is needed it is contracted out to other organizations.
2:03:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the savings were detailed in the
packet before the committee. He said he attended a therapeutic
court in Anchorage where he received information that had more
detail, and he thought it might be more useful to the
legislators. He was impressed with some of the overall cost
savings in those documents.
MR. COHN said he can supply that. He said that Janet McCabe
cited a study in Washington on the efficacy of therapeutic
courts. The bottom line of that study is that therapeutic courts
are very effective. He has found that drug abuse is a major
factor in impacting recidivism of criminal offenders.
2:05:52 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said therapeutic courts in Anchorage have helped
just a narrow group of serial offenders. There may be benefits
to the program, but it's not necessarily the best option.
MR. COHN responded that it is appropriate to be skeptical of
statistics. The AJC's role is to provide information, and it
doesn't have an agenda. The payoff is down the road and it is
hard not to get caught up in the details of the cost now. The
programs are expensive and it is appropriate for the legislature
to question the costs.
2:12:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he had a different perspective. He's
impressed with the data. The United States Government
Accountability Office report indicates that therapeutic courts
result in lower re-arrest and recidivism rates and positive cost
benefits. Cost-benefit analysis is critical, but the cost of
running prisons must be taken into account as well.
2:15:07 PM
JANET MCCABE, Chair and CEO, Partners for Progress, introduced
herself and said her company is a nonprofit that supports
therapeutic courts. She reviewed the history of the
legislature's funding of therapeutic courts and said that the
courts have saved lives and money.
2:17:37 PM
She further explained that financing isn't the key aspect of the
therapeutic court system. There are two ways to evaluate costs
and benefits: through the social and budgetary aspects. Social
benefits are represented by occurrences not happening, like
drunk driving, death, et al. Graduates of the courts are re-
arrested far less frequently. There is a cost dimension as well.
She gave examples of how the programs have prevented occurrences
of fetal alcohol syndrome.
2:21:10 PM
She said that cost efficiency is important; the therapeutic
courts place resources where they see the most potential for
future benefit. She referenced the information before committee
to show how different courts make efforts in the areas with the
most potential for return. The threat of repeated jail time
doesn't affect people who are severely addicted. The cost of
repeat offenders serving time in prison is inestimable.
2:25:15 PM
She said that national data on therapeutic courts has shown,
through credible evidence-based evaluations, that adult drug
courts paired with treatment and therapy reduced crime to save
taxpayers money.
2:26:27 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said he wonders why the national corrections system
has become a place where mentally ill people are kept. He added
that the program has had excellent results, but he didn't see
why a judge necessarily had to be the overseeing entity.
MS. MCCABE explained that people are already in the court system
and the key to success is the power of the judge. Also, the
judge has the authority to return the person to jail.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he disagreed; crime victims don't have access
to judges right now and that troubles him. He needs a better
reason to feel positive about the program.
MS. MCCABE replied that the therapeutic court is designed to
address repeat offenders that are already tying up resources in
the judicial system.
2:33:23 PM
MS. MCCABE said she wanted to suggest some action items. The
legislature should maintain the existing budgets for the courts,
as well as lay groundwork for putting existing and planned
courts on a sustainable basis. Another need is growth of volume;
the more volume in the court, the quicker the process will be.
She said that a Washington state study contained some cost-
effective elements that could be adopted in Alaska.
2:38:33 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said that the courts are an exceptional precursor
to something that will be better; they are a path to wellness
but not a hallmark of efficiency. He wants to see an indication
of what the therapeutic court may evolve into because it can't
stay the way it is now.
MS. MCCABE suggested looking at other states' programs such as
Georgia and Oregon for a program forecast. Face-time with a
judge is key to involving people in the program.
MR. COHN added that the AJC's role in the study is to examine
the transferability of wellness court policies to other
therapeutic courts. It has interviewed about 150 people,
including legislators, about what is working and what is not
working in the system; there are supporters and detractors of
the court system. When the report is published, it should answer
a lot of questions about efficiency.
CHAIR RAMRAS commented that, on paper, the people going through
the therapeutic court system are only names; he is impressed
that another state could go through one thousand names. Judges
are needed anyway without considering the needs of the
therapeutic court system; there's an overload of work. He asked
how the volume of the therapeutic courts could be raised.
2:47:53 PM
MS. MCCABE said most people in the court system go to jail; they
get out and they reoffend and go back through the court system
again. Sometimes they hurt someone in the process. The focus
should really be on how to stop "repeat addicted offense" and
there are opportunities to introduce therapeutic programs in
prison or as people are getting out of prison.
She said that is why she wanted them to see the Washington study
with a couple of straight-forward good ideas. The one that has
most cost effectiveness was co-created by the person that does
some of the training for the cognitive behavioral therapy groups
for the wellness court. It would not be all that complex to tell
the Department of Corrections (DOC) about it.
2:49:25 PM
MR. COHN said that the availability of treatment is important;
some communities don't have effective treatment options. It's a
good idea to look at incentives to participate in these
programs. For instance, if people are convicted of misdemeanors,
they measure the regimen of the therapeutic court that may
extend over 18 months against a relatively short prison term.
Perhaps some treatment regimen could be designed that wouldn't
be as protracted that people would opt to do.
2:51:14 PM
DOREEN SCHENKENBERGER, an Anchorage Wellness Court graduate,
relayed her successful participation in 2005. Without the
wellness court she believes that she would not be here. She was
a practicing alcoholic for many years, and she knew she would
either be committed, incarcerated, "or I would end up killing
someone or die." Four years ago she had another DWI. "I knew it
was the end. I knew something had to happen." She was going to
have to send her children away and go to jail for a long time,
until she heard about the wellness program.
MS. SCHENKENBERGER relayed that she has been sober for 10 years
in the past following a 60-day inpatient program, but drinking
then escalated to the point of needing serious intervention. Her
jail time would have been shorter than the program, but in order
to keep her children and to get well, "I knew I had to do this."
Because of the program with its stringent rules and its
personnel, "I'm still sober today, four years later." She said
she used to be ashamed to be a Native Alaskan because she used
to equate that with being a drunk. "I'm not ashamed anymore. For
the first time in my life I am proud of who I am."
MS. SCHENKENBERGER said her sobriety has positive rippling
effects, and now a family member and three friends are sober
because of her. She now takes care of her kids and is involved
in her community. Her children are healthier, happier and do
better in school. "I don't know how you put a value on that."
2:56:54 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said she is remarkable and he asked if she believes
her success is typical of program graduates. Does the system
generate dozens or hundreds of success stories?
MS. SCHENKENBERGER replied that she is probably in the top
percentile, and she attributes that to the support system around
her in the community of Anchorage. There is huge potential for
success when people such as her are helped.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 3:00:34 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|