Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
02/02/2009 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Iser Research Summary | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2009
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Institute of Social & Economic Research: "The Cost of Crime:
Could the State Reduce Crime & Save Money by Expanding Education
& Treatment Programs?"
HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE COLT, Associate Professor of Economics and
Director of ISER
University of Alaska, Anchorage
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered the ISER research summary on
expanding education and treatment programs and reducing the cost
of crime.
STEPHANIE MARTIN, Assistant Professor
Economics & Public Policy and
ISER Faculty Member
University of Alaska, Anchorage
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered the ISER research summary on
expanding education and treatment programs and reducing the cost
of crime.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:28 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Elton, Therriault and French. Senators
Wielechowski and McGuire joined the meeting soon thereafter.
^ISER Research Summary
1:33:52 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced that Steve Colt and Stephanie Martin from
the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) will
present a study that came out of the 2008 Crime Summit. Last
year Mr. Steve Aos from Washington state was invited to talk
about his efforts to use an economist's perspective to get an
idea of the payback to society for having invested a dollar in a
rehabilitation program. His work was an eye opener; my
colleagues and I were able to get $50,000 and we asked ISER to
conduct a "Steve Aos style" evidence-based research inquiry into
the Alaska rehabilitation program.
1:35:18 PM
STEVE COLT, Associate Professor of Economics and Interim
Director of ISER, University of Alaska, Anchorage, introduced
himself. He said that he received his doctorate in economics
from MIT and has been working in Alaska for about 25 years.
Stephanie Martin, Assistant Professor of Economics & Public
Policy, and ISER faculty, University of Alaska, Anchorage, also
introduced herself.
MR. COLT presented the research report titled: "The Cost of
Crime: Could the State Reduce Future Crime and Save Money by
Expanding Education and Treatment Programs?" and restated that
it stems from Mr. Aos' visit about a year ago. The report is
also available on the ISER web site at www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu.
CHAIR FRENCH held up a sign showing the address and added that
it can also be found by "Googling" ISER.
MR. COLT said the goal of the analysis was to see if expanding
effective intervention programs might reduce crime and save
money. The study was based on work done in Washington state and
pioneered by Mr. Aos. He will summarize the study process and
the major conclusions. He thanked the Alaska Criminal Justice
Working Group for its work and cooperation. It is chaired by
Lieutenant Governor Parnell and Supreme Justice Carpeneti and
includes members from departments that deal with criminal
justice. They would particularly like to thank staff from the
Department of Corrections, the Department of Health and Social
Services, Juvenile Justice, and the Alaska Mental Health Trust.
1:38:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senator McGuire had joined the
committee.
MR. COLT explained that evidence-based policy analysis was used
to perform the study. It is roughly similar to clinical trials
in medicine and means that they generally used only the results
of studies where there was a random assignment of people to a
program or control group. Some studies were used where the
control group was created by carefully matching program
participants with non-participants after the fact. That method
is used in medical epidemiology, but it isn't quite as good as a
randomized clinical trial. For the most part they used studies
that mimicked the medical clinical trial approach of randomly
assigning people.
He next outlined the step-by-step approach taken to conduct the
study.
1. They made a base-line projection of prison inmates from now
thru 2030.
2. They worked closely with the Alaska Criminal Justice
Working Group to identify programs that are currently
offered in Alaska.
3. They screened the list of programs and eliminated a few
because adequate rigorous analysis wasn't available upon
which to make a judgment. "We're trying to remain true to
the ideals of this idea of evidenced based analysis."
4. They applied the Steve Aos model-and the empirical results
he gathered from a review of hundreds of studies
nationwide-to the Alaska data on the eligible populations
and inmate populations.
5. They shared the results with the Criminal Justice Working
Group, listened to their feedback and made adjustments to
the analysis accordingly.
1:41:49 PM
MR. COLT set forth the findings and conclusions from page 1 of
the report as follows:
· With no change in policies, the number of Alaska inmates
likely will double by 2030-from 5,300 to 10,500.
· If the state spent an additional $4 million a
year to expand programs it already has, ISER
estimates that the prison population in 2030
might be 10 percent smaller than projected-about
1,050 fewer inmates.
· Finding three extends the analysis through time
and tallies the costs and benefits in dollar
terms. That finding is that the state would spend
about $124 million for expanded programs through
2030. By doing so it could avoid $445 million for
a net savings of $321 million. It would save
money by incarcerating fewer people and by
delaying prison construction costs. Fewer people
would be incarcerated because fewer people
because they would be committing fewer crimes.
· The fourth major finding is that education and
substance-abuse treatment programs in prison,
after prison, and instead of prison would save
the state two to five times what they cost and
would reach the most people. They also found that
programs for teenagers are effective at reducing
crime and saving money, but they reach fewer
people.
1:43:49 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senator Wielechowski had joined the
committee. He summarized what had been covered and noted that
today this report was released to the public for the first time.
MR. COATS agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH added that this is the first opportunity to see
that investing a few dollars today can save thousands a few
years out.
MR. COATS agreed that the analysis does show that.
SENATOR ELTON noted the report focuses on the state and asked if
there had been any analysis to suggest that municipalities would
see comparable reductions.
MS. MARTIN clarified that the study specifically looked at state
spending, but just as trooper costs would go down she believes
that police costs also would go down.
SENATOR ELTON said that in addition to saving $321 million, he
would assume that additional cost savings would accrue to
municipalities, which are a taxing authority in the state.
MS. MARTIN nodded.
SENATOR ELTON asked how they settled on $4 million and did they
run numbers on whether or not spending more would bring
additional benefits.
MS. MARTIN explained that cost was not the first thing they
looked at. Initially they looked at the number of people the
programs could serve and the amount by which each program could
be expanded. After that they tallied the numbers and arrived at
$4 million.
SENATOR ELTON characterized the $4 million as a policy
suggestion to the Legislature.
MR. COLT said he would strongly hesitate to call it a policy
suggestion, but that does anticipate several points he intended
to make. One point is whether $4 million is a high or a low
number. For several reasons it could be either high or low, but
he believes the estimates are on the low side of what would
accrue. First, they did not do an exhaustive catalog of
downstream savings to other law enforcement agencies or
governmental entities. The second reason relates to how they
arrived at the $4 million figure and the program expansions that
drive that number. "You'll have to make your own judgment, but
after you hear a little bit more about how that number was
arrived at you'd probably conclude that yes there is room for
additional expansion beyond what we've plugged in to get the $4
million." Diminishing returns is one reason they used the
relatively conservative number for the scope of program
expansion. Although it's not in the report, the third thing he
wants to emphasize is that no attempt was made to quantify the
cost savings to the victims themselves. In part that is because
it is very difficult to monetize those costs, but in any event
that cost is zero in this analysis. "We believe that lends an
additional element of conservatism to the analysis," he said.
1:49:40 PM
MR. COLT asked Ms. Martin to expand on the list of programs.
MS. MARTIN explained that they looked at education programs,
substance abuse programs and transition programs. The latter are
for people who are leaving an institution and reentering the
community. The various programs serve different populations.
Prison-based education programs include: adult basic education,
GED, vocational, and job training. Prison-based substance abuse
programs in Alaska include residential programs within
institutions as well as out-patient programs. They also looked
at sex-offender treatment and found that it is effective but
it's necessary to have both a community component, which there
is, and a prison component, which does not exist in Alaska. That
was added to the list of programs. As an aside she noted that
sex offender programs reduce recidivism but they are not cost
effective. That is clearly demonstrated in Figure 6 chart that
ranks programs in terms of how much money they save and how much
they reduce crime. Sex offender programs show up just above the
bottom axis indicating there is no savings.
1:51:45 PM
MS. MARTIN said that the education programs they looked at
included Head Start preschool programs, which serve three and
four-year-olds. Those have an unbelievable effect on future
crime, but the effects are not apparent until years later. "In
general the programs that are directed at young people are way
more effective than [those that are] directed at adults."
CHAIR FRENCH said he assumes that they build in the time-cost of
money and the delay in the reduced crime rate.
MS. MARTIN said that's correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if they used data from Head Start
research since it's probably the oldest early-intervention
program.
MS. MARTIN replied they used Mr. Aos's evaluation of the Head
Start Program to determine how effective it is in reducing
crime. His data came from about a dozen nationwide random
assignment studies of Head Start. She added that a lot of early
education programs do not look at crime as an outcome. Most look
at outcomes like high school graduation and teen pregnancy.
Under transition programs they looked at the Institutional
Discharge Project Plus (IDP Plus). It has a very good recidivism
reduction rate but it only serves about 70 people statewide.
Alaska has a prison population of about 5,000 and approximately
40 percent are mental health trustees. We did not put a large
expansion in their model simply because it's so small, she said.
MS. MARTIN said they looked at alternatives to incarceration
including therapeutic courts, mental health courts and drug
courts. Those are very effective and have an immediate benefit.
Rather than adding to the cost of being in prison, they're a
dramatically less costly alternative than the $44,000/year cost
of incarcerating a person. "With those programs you get an
immediate payoff." They also looked at electronic monitoring. It
does not affect crime rates, but it is cost-effective because
people aren't put in prison. "The most expensive way to treat
people is to incarcerate them." It costs about $44,000 to
incarcerate an adult and nearly $90,000 for a juvenile.
For juvenile offenders they looked at aggression replacement
training, which has been implemented in the institutions and is
starting in schools. Also, they looked at family therapy
programs and transition programs. For young children they looked
at Head Start.
1:55:22 PM
MS. MARTIN directed attention to Figure 6 and said you really
can't say which program is best because each one has a cost
dimension, an eligible pool dimension and a time dimension.
CHAIR FRENCH focused on adult education and said that as a lay
person he wouldn't generally associate getting a GED with
reducing the crime rate. He asked her to walk through how much
crime might be reduced and why that produces a savings to the
state.
MS. MARTIN explained that without any programs about 68 percent
of people who are incarcerated will return to prison within
three years of their release. Typically they return soon.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the average education level is
in the correction system.
MS. MARTIN said she didn't know, but most inmates do not have
high school diplomas or GEDs. Continuing, she said that
recidivism is reduced by about 70 percent, which is about 5
percent lower. "These are small small effects but over time they
become big numbers."
CHAIR FRENCH mused that when you spend $44,000 per person per
year on 5,000 inmates, a 4 or 5 percent reduction can produce
dramatic results over time. "You can't look for a 'Hail Mary
touchdown pass;' you've got to just get a few yards on each
program and it adds up."
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if they considered what reinstituting some
community-based mental health programs could do to address
issues prior to an event that leads to incarceration.
MS. MARTIN said no; they talked about that around the table but
that's all.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked why.
MS. MARTIN explained that the Criminal Justice Working Group
developed the list and she believes that they were programs that
were coming off of federal grant funding onto state funding or
they were programs that departments were thinking about asking
for more money for. There had to be a limit and the first thing
was to look at transition programs and evaluate how effective
they were. The next step would be to look at community programs.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for more information about the transition
program they looked at and whether they were targeted at mental
health trust beneficiaries or all inmates including the mentally
ill.
MS. MARTIN said it was trust beneficiaries but Mr. Jessee could
probably provide a more thorough answer.
1:59:47 PM
JEFF JESSEE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority, said the IDP Plus program is for people coming out of
corrections who have a serious mental illness. Everyone coming
out of corrections isn't eligible, but a sizeable percentage
are.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that although they didn't look at
treatment for the mentally ill, they did focus on transition
programs for that population.
MR. JESSEE said yes; the working group's direction was to
identify a discrete number of programs for expansion. His view
is that it wasn't a comprehensive view of what might be put
together as a coordinated strategic effort over time. It was to
build a basic understanding of the connection between recidivism
and having or not having some of these alternative programs.
SENATOR MCGUIRE observed that there seems to be a direct
correlation between budget cuts in community-based mental health
treatment programs and a rising prison population of the
mentally ill. She encouraged continuing focus on that connection
and what the Legislature can do to address that issue. "I
certainly don't think it's the intention of Alaskans to house
our mentally ill in our prisons," she said.
MR. JESSEE replied there are efforts underway that are
independent of this. For example, there's been discussion about
a housing trust because it's critical to connect support
services to housing. The governor's budget has a $10 million set
of increments that are directed toward implementing year one of
the Council on the Homeless ten-year plan. He believes that this
study presents a baseline understanding that you can impact
recidivism and the corrections population over time if there is
a strategic action plan that is monitored and managed. "Any
initiative like this has to be actively managed," he said. That
became clear in the Bring the Kids Home initiative. A particular
group has to oversee implementation of the strategy, constantly
reevaluate the data and make adjustments over time.
2:03:57 PM
SENATOR ELTON said the challenge goes beyond just identifying
the exact amount of money that's put into the programs. Part of
the challenge also is to coordinate who will prioritize the
programs and decide what entity can best deliver the service.
For example, if you look at transitional housing he can see a
role for the Mental Health Trust, tribes and community groups.
He asked Mr. Jessee if he could discuss whether the Criminal
Justice Working Group or some other structure would be the
coordinator. "If you buy in to the notion that some of these
programs are effective, how do you create the structure to make
sure that you have the right people delivering the services and
you have the right kind of mileposts to make sure that the money
is being spent as best it can be?"
MR. JESSEE referenced the successful Bring the Kids Home
initiative and said the key stakeholders have to be at the table
and take responsibility for the outcomes. Tribal entities,
providers, family members and others have to be part of
developing the strategies and monitoring implementation. With
respect to implementing, monitoring and revising the initiative
he noted that the Criminal Justice Working Group is weighted in
the criminal justice area yet many of the programs come from
health and social services and education. Some modification of
the working group certainly could provide oversight but the main
point is that funding a one time $4 million increment and doing
nothing to manage a strategic plan could be disappointing and
not translate into expected savings. "Again, if you set those
outcomes and you manage towards them, I think you can get
there." Understand that the charge was only to establish what
works. "Translated into a specific strategic plan and vision for
Alaska and implementing it…is taking the next step."
2:07:50 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he appreciates the answer because one of the
challenges is the "silo effect," which is that corrections does
this, education does this and health and social services does
this. He suggested that the next step might be to charge the
working group or some other entity with figuring out who will
make things work across those boundaries.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Martin to discuss the line graph in
Figure 1.
MS. MARTIN explained that Figure 1 has three pieces of
information. The top line represents the inmate population in
Alaska; it shows a 500 percent increase between 1981 and 2007.
The second line shows the inflation-adjusted state operations
spending for criminal justice, which includes corrections, the
courts, the troopers and juvenile justice. Those numbers are up
[192 percent]. Line three shows a 30 percent decrease in crime
rates. The graph demonstrates that there is crime reduction with
increased spending but you have to spend a lot of money. Over
time as more bad guys are put in jail it becomes more difficult
to show reduced crime numbers by increased spending, she said.
Figure 2 is a pie chart of 2002-2007 release data. During that
six-year period about 82,000 people were released from prison or
jail; 78 percent had been incarcerated for misdemeanor offenses.
Alaska has a strict sentencing system and the most serious
violent offenders are incarcerated for a long time.
CHAIR FRENCH added that those crimes include murder, rape and
kidnapping.
MS. MARTIN agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senator Davis had joined the
meeting.
2:11:32 PM
MS. MARTIN continued. Figure 3 is titled Potential Effects,
Costs of, and Savings from Expanded Prevention or Intervention
Programs. Information on the left side of the chart shows that
the state is currently spending $17 million on programs. To get
the results that we estimated the state must spend $4 million
[every year to expand programs].
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the state is spending about $17
million now and your study assumed a $4 million increase, which
is approximately a 25 percent increase.
MS. MARTIN agreed. She continued to explain that the middle
figure shows that for every ten people who return to prison one
will not be re-incarcerated if these programs are expanded.
"These are not big numbers, but over time they add up." The
figures on the right show that inflation proofing the expanded
programs would cost $124 million between 2009 and 2030. Avoided
inmate costs would amount to about $45 million for a net savings
of over $300 million. Most of the savings come from delayed
prison construction.
SENATOR ELTON said he assumes that most of the savings accrue in
later years.
MS. MARTIN agreed; in the early years you spend more than you
save. There's about a two-year lag between the time the program
starts and when you'd see recidivism.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that if you spend the $4 million it's not
as though there won't be any more crime. "You're just not going
to see that except for the slow accumulation of the savings and
the reduced crime from that one out of ten."
MS. MARTIN agreed.
2:13:32 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senator Thomas had joined the
meeting.
MS. MARTIN said that Figure 4 on page 2 shows annual state
spending per inmate from 1981 to 2008. Currently it costs
$44,000 per inmate per year. Adjusting for inflation the
spending was higher in the 1980s when the state had more money.
MR. COLT clarified that they aren't certain that all of the
capital costs for the prison system are included in that number.
$44,000 might be a little low; it's somewhat dependent on when
prisons were built, how they were paid for and how it's being
done now.
MS. MARTIN continued. Figure 5 is a pie chart that shows that 60
percent of Alaska inmates have substance abuse issues, 6 percent
have mental health disorders, 30 percent have both substance
abuse issues and mental health disorders and 4 percent have
neither. Clearly, a lot of people could benefit from these
programs, she said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if she has a further breakdown on the
percentage of people who have alcohol abuse issues versus the
percentage that have drug, narcotic or prescription abuse
issues.
MS. MARTIN suggested Mr. Jessee might have that information in
his head.
MR. JESSEE said he doesn't have the breakdown, but the vast
majority substance abuse issues relate to alcohol.
2:15:59 PM
MS. MARTIN continued. Table 1 lists the programs they reviewed
and shows the population currently being served, reasonable
expansion of the programs and the eligible pool.
CHAIR FRENCH said that for example the education programs
include adult basic education and vocational. About 1,000
inmates are currently taking advantage of one or both of those
and the suggested expansion would be 500 inmates.
MS. MARTIN said yes; they put those numbers into the model to
generate the estimates.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would guess that education isn't the most
expensive program.
MS. MARTIN said that's right; the most expensive programs are
residential treatment but they're less expensive than
incarceration. "They save more money even though the up-front
costs are higher."
Figure 6 is a chart that demonstrates how effective the various
programs are at saving money and reducing crime. The vertical
axis shows a multiple of how much the state could expect to save
for each dollar it spends and the horizontal axis shows the
percentage points that the programs reduce crime. For example,
electronic monitoring yields a huge 22 to 1 payoff, but there is
no associated crime reduction.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that electronic monitoring saves the state
money because someone who is wearing an ankle bracelet at home
isn't in a $44,000/year prison cell, but no study says that they
don't go out and reoffend once their sentence is up.
MS. MARTIN clarified that there is a study that tests that and
it has no effect on crime.
CHAIR FRENCH said so there is no difference in the recidivism
rate between a person who is home and wearing an ankle monitor
and a person who is in a prison cell. There is no difference in
later behavior based on their previous experience.
MR. COLT clarified that is based on the evidence and he would
defer to anyone who knows more. It could be that the evidence
base in inadequate and that the conclusion is more of an unknown
than zero.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that needs further testing because you
could reach the conclusion that everyone should be on an ankle
monitor.
MS. MARTIN responded "unless you wanted to reduce future crime."
2:19:05 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senator Ellis had joined the
meeting.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if there have been any studies that look
at the population that doesn't reoffend and ask what the
significant events were that kept them from reoffending. Was it
treatment, ankle monitoring, transitional housing, family or
church support or something else?
MS. MARTIN said she doesn't know the answer to that question.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said that's something to keep in mind because it
might be a way to get at that question.
SENATOR ELTON said he was surprised to see electronic monitoring
lumped in with education treatments because he's always
considered it to be another form of incarceration. Lumping it in
with treatment would assume that they're incarcerated in a
different way, but those individuals aren't receiving any
treatment at all to help reduce recidivism.
MS. MARTIN explained that they tried to make the groups as
concise as possible. Ankle monitoring was placed in that group
because it doesn't incur the cost of incarceration, but it could
have been split out differently because it's not a treatment.
"But it is a way to save the state money," she added.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to Figure 6 and observed that Head Start
is the most effective program they looked at. It saves six times
more than it costs and reduces future crime among participants
by about 16 percentage points.
MS. MARTIN said that's correct.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI calculated that the actual drop would be 40
some percent.
MS. MARTIN agreed it's about 42 percent.
2:22:11 PM
MS. MARTIN explained that Figure 6 shows that the farther you
are to the right on the bottom axis the more effective the
programs are at reducing crime. The higher on the vertical axis
the larger the cost savings "so there's a lot of trade offs."
Figure 7 is a bar graph that projects how expansion of each
program type contributes to reduced growth in numbers of
inmates. The entire triangle shows that by 2030 1,049 fewer
inmates are projected. Each bar is color-coded and shows the
reduction that is expected from each program type. The programs
don't all have the same effect on the prison population; it
depends on the number of people served and the effect on
recidivism. The cost benefit of each program type is described.
For example, pre-school programs cost about $1,000 per child and
saves about six times that much, but the effects of that program
aren't seen until about 2025 when those pre-schoolers are about
18 years old.
For comparison, the bottom segments include programs like
therapeutic courts. Those divert people from the prison system
so they show an immediate reduction in the number of inmates.
CHAIR FRENCH asked her to describe the largest, red segments.
MS. MARTIN explained that those represent education and job
training programs in the prisons. They have a big impact because
they reach the most people. ["Education and job training
programs in prison add about $1,000 to inmate costs, but they
reach the most people and save about four times more than they
cost."] She added that they're not most effective programs but
they're the easiest to expand.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recalled that Mr. Aos had statistics that
showed that one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing
crime is to fund foster care. "I think it was $73 for every $1
spent." He asked if ISER looked at that.
MS. MARTIN said that program wasn't on the list; she believes
there are some impediments to implementing it here in Alaska.
Another program that has an unbelievable effect is the nurse-
family partnership. Nurses go into houses of low-income
expectant or new mothers. "The group decided that it's not
practical or possible to implement it in Alaska." She doesn't
know what the constraint was.
2:25:41 PM
Figure 8 is a line graph showing the average number of Alaska
Inmates from 1971 to 2007 and the projected number from 2008 to
2030. In 2007 there were 5,327 inmates in prisons, jails and
halfway houses. The dotted blue line projects 10,513 inmates by
2030 at the current program level. The dotted red line projects
9,464 inmates in 2030 if the programs are expanded as proposed,
which is a 10 percent fewer inmates. The financial benefit comes
from delaying prison construction. Currently a new prison is
built every six or seven years and that can be stretched to
every nine or 10 years if these programs are expanded. "At $300
million per facility that's a lot of money," she said.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that he just received an email invitation to
the signing of the contract to build the new Point McKinsey
Correctional Facility so it's timely to hear about some
alternatives.
MS. MARTIN added that the MatSu prison is scheduled to open in
2012 and part of the program there is to bring home the inmates
who are incarcerated in Arizona. Those 900 inmates combined with
the expected increase of 600 inmates will fill that prison as
soon as it opens so we're already behind the curve, she said.
MR. JESSEE referred to the visiting nurses program for at-risk
families and explained that Alaska had a similar program called
Healthy Families. The Mental Health Trust invested about
$500,000 over five years to have John Hopkins University
evaluate the outcomes and the data demonstrated that it didn't
work. Again he emphasized that investing money in a strategy
that is effective on paper and expecting it to get intended
results doesn't necessarily get you there. He recalled telling
the Legislature it either needed to fix the program or stop
funding it and the decision was to stop funding it. But it
doesn't mean that the model wasn't good, he said. "It's just if
you're going to invest in it you have to have somebody paying
attention to whether it's being implemented with fidelity to the
model and whether it's getting the results that you intended."
Another failed program was called the Alaska Youth initiative.
It provided wraparound services to kids to keep them instate and
in their homes, but over time it degenerated. The Bring the Kids
Home initiative is basically recreating that program. "The
difference is we learned from the last time that you have to
keep tripwires in place to identify when these programs cease to
be functioning as they intend."
2:30:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH thanked Mr. Colt and Ms. Martin and adjourned the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at 2:30 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ISERcostofcrime_final090127.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2009 1:30:00 PM |