Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
10/24/2017 10:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION
JOINT MEETING
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 24, 2017
10:32 a.m.
10:32:07 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coghill called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:32 a.m.
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Mike Dunleavy
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly
ALSO PRESENT
Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of Corrections;
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System. Senator
Kevin Meyer; Senator David Wilson; Senator Tom Begich;
Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Dennis Egan.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Randall Burns, Director, Division of Behavioral Health,
Department of Health and Social Services; Andy Jones,
Chief, Rural and Community Health Systems, Division of
Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services;
Gennifer Moreau-Johnson, Behavioral Health Policy Advisor
Commissioner's Office, Department of Health and Social
Services; Quinlan Steiner, Director, Public Defender
Agency, Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: CRIME and JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW
10:33:19 AM
Chair Coghill reviewed the meeting agenda. He communicated
that part of the process was to review the criminal justice
reform issues that came about in SB 91 [criminal justice
reform legislation passed in 2016] including things that
were working, things that were underway, and things that
could be done better. The idea was to determine whether SB
54 would answer some of the concerns. He detailed that most
of the effort had occurred in the Department of Corrections
(DOC). He shared that Dean Williams, Commissioner,
Department of Corrections would address what the department
was required to do and items that were in process. The
committees would also explore what the cost or benefit
would be to the state if the legislature undid the
requirements. The same considerations would be made for the
Court System and the Department of Health and Social
Services. The goal was to get the information out to the
public and legislators who may have questions or concerns.
Chair Coghill asked Commissioner Williams to detail what
had been required of DOC, the status, what would happen if
the requirements changed (e.g. in a full repeal), what the
benefits of SB 54 would be, and benefits ranging from
pretrial to post-incarceration.
10:35:56 AM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
addressed the status of the department's response to the
passage of SB 91. He highlighted that DOC had made some of
the important changes that were required in one-third of
the bill regarding probation and supervision. The process
had been concluded, was in policy, and regulations had been
written. He identified the new Pretrial Enforcement
Division as one of the bill's large reform components (one-
third of the bill) that would be implemented in January
[2018]. The department was currently in "full tilt mode"
with the hiring and training of pretrial officers. Most of
the probation officers/enforcement officers would be armed
and had arrest capabilities for people in pretrial. The
focus of the pretrial enforcement effort was to deal with
people based on risk, not on ability to pay. The department
had developed an assessment tool that would enable pretrial
enforcement decisions to be made based on the risk a person
presented to the public versus their ability to get out
because they had more cash than a poor person. The tool had
been developed in conjunction with numerous partners in law
enforcement and other areas and would be piloted in the
coming month or two. He considered the area to be one of
the fundamental components of the overall process.
10:38:24 AM
Commissioner Williams discussed the importance of pre-
release planning. Some of the work had been done
previously, but one of the most important things DOC could
do for inmates was to ensure they had plan, including
employment and housing. He added that the recidivism rate
had been between 65 and 70 percent for almost 20 years. He
underscored that the issue was about recidivism and
reoffence rates; any positive impact on the rates would
increase public safety. His job as commissioner was to make
sure the department was bending the curve and trying new
strategies. He mentioned work with seafood processors and
efforts to improve work inside the prison system, which was
a major focus. He stated that "idle hands are the devil's
workshop." He stressed the importance of having productive
activities. He elaborated that in other states and
countries the recidivism rate decreased when inmates worked
on productive activities. He furthered that there were
well-researched and experienced places ahead of Alaska,
which was the direction he was aiming for.
Commissioner Williams addressed what he thought would
happen if the state did not make some of the fixes he
believed were necessary. He asserted that he was a strong
proponent of SB 54, which made necessary tweaks and
provided some discretion back. He remarked that when such a
large shift was made, there were things that may not be
right the first time; however, it was important to stay the
course. He stated that reversing course would be a disaster
for DOC alone. The department was responsible for standing
up one of the most important parts of the effort. He
discussed the importance of making sensible decisions based
on risk assessment, not on a person's ability to pay bail.
He discussed the danger of low-level criminals consorting
with more major offenders, and the subsequent negative
influence. He stressed that making sensible decisions on
who the state imprisoned was critical. He believed some
individuals needed to be in prison; however, getting
smarter about the issue as other states had done was
paramount.
Commissioner Williams stressed that he was working to stand
up an entire division, which was probably one of the most
important things to occur in the department's history. He
stressed the need for steadiness in the process where the
department was asking people to do a job, training them,
and arming them. He shared that he had people asking
whether they would have a job in the division. He
characterized the situation as tenuous and underscored the
need for calm waters and thoughtful discussion. He
recommended proceeding with due diligence while addressing
parts of the reform that did not work. He vowed to be
candid on areas that were successful and areas that were
not. He looked forward to future work to improve the reform
efforts.
10:42:56 AM
Chair Coghill appreciated Commissioner Williams's statement
that one of the most important components was pretrial. He
specified that population growth had accelerated in
pretrial misdemeanants over the years. He explained that it
would be a risk assessment tool plus some supervision,
which was new for DOC. He thought it would be an important
public safety issue for the state. He mentioned DOC's work
on probation and parole risk assessment and accounting for
"good time" that had been set out in SB 91. He thought that
it would create accountability and would give people a
chance to succeed post-incarceration. He asked for
confirmation that the work had been underway for seven to
ten months.
Commissioner Williams agreed.
Chair Coghill asked if the work had been successful and
whether there were things that required better
understanding.
Commissioner Williams replied that he believed it had been
successful. He stated that like any change, there were
mixed reviews from DOC staff on the success - some believed
it was very successful and others thought it was less
successful. They were still in the process of change. He
mentioned that part of the supervision strategy was about
providing incentives. Part of SB 91 provided incentives and
a good time structure. For example, if two people were on
probation for the same amount of time, the person behaving
well should receive good time for that behavior. The bill
had set some parameters and structures in place and
appropriately restrained the department in the matter of
parole revocation. He explained that a person's probation
should not be revoked because of a technical violation. He
detailed that suspended time could be revoked after three
strikes. He believed it recreated restraint. The biggest
growth in in the prison growth population was in pretrial.
Commissioner Williams informed the committee that the
second largest growth in the prison population was in
probation violations. He detailed that it did not involve
people convicted of new crimes, but people who missed
appointments (e.g. did not meet their probation officer or
did not follow through with something else). He recognized
that it was still important to enforce the requirements,
but not only by sending a person back to prison. He
believed there should be some restraint on the department.
He thought the policies [designated in SB 91] were smart
and needed time to work out, with the intention of
revisiting them later if revision was needed.
10:46:30 AM
Chair Coghill remarked that the department had closed a
prison and prison population had changed. He asked what
Commissioner Williams attributed that change to.
Commissioner Williams discussed that some would say the
department had closed a prison prematurely, but he had
wanted to get ahead of it. He had received some criticism
for the closure. He detailed that as the bill [SB 91] had
been about to pass, the department had observed that it the
prison system had capacity already and with the
anticipation the population numbers would continue to be
tamped down, he had closed a prison ahead of time. He could
have held off, but he had decided to act because it was
plausible and cost-effective. He stated that prison counts
had been declining. He stressed that prison reduction had
to get to a particular place until there was something to
close. The decline had to be in the 20 percent range before
a prison could be closed. He noted that he could close
"mods" (prison housing units) depending on their location.
Commissioner Williams relayed that the initial reduction
had provided breathing room to save money and redistribute
staff to facilities that were "bleeding"; particular
facilities were still bleeding, but not as bad as
previously. There were still significant problems in that
area. The knowledge that the legislation would bring
further reductions in prison population gave comfort in the
decision to close a prison. He thought it would have been a
foolish step to close a prison that would be needed in the
near-term because it took time and training to ramp up
prisons. There were also vulnerabilities in opening new
prisons and it was necessary to be very careful.
10:48:52 AM
Chair Coghill stated that a big chunk of reinvestment had
gone into pretrial and another chunk had gone towards
programming in DOC facilities. He asked for detail on the
process.
Commissioner Williams stated that the department had used a
big chunk of the savings to roll into the pretrial
enforcement effort. He specified that about half of the
savings (approximately $5 million) had been used to stand
up the pretrial enforcement effort. For the other half, the
department had dipped into savings. He had used some of the
positions that had been reallocated to bring down over time
elsewhere in other facilities. He explained that some money
had been saved there as well - probably in the millions -
in terms of overtime.
Commissioner Williams listed three components to closing
the prison: 1) staying in a pretrial; 2) saving of money;
and 3) redistributing some of the PCNs [position control
numbers] to bring down overtime and increase safety in some
of the other facilities.
10:50:05 AM
Chair Coghill asked if new programs that were intended to
be inside the jail system were going well.
Commissioner Williams replied that there had been some
problems with some of the contractors in terms of the
substance abuse treatment, but there were other pieces the
department was doing. One of the major components he had
used funding on was the implementation of the Vivitrol
Behind the Walls Program. He detailed the department was on
the front end of the issue; it represented one of the
promising strategies he needed time to develop. He
elaborated that about 65 or 70 people had started the
program. He emphasized the importance of accessing
reinvestment funds for similar programs, especially due to
the opioid crisis.
10:51:21 AM
Senator Micciche referred to Commissioner Williams comments
about "moving backward." He asserted that the safety of the
law-abiding citizens should come first. He spoke to
increased crime beginning around 2011, which had become
steeper recently. He highlighted car thefts, burglaries,
and petty thefts. He wondered why there should not be a
repeal [of SB 91]. He asked why not repealing was best for
Alaska and how Commissioner Williams could convince him
that the direction forward would reduce recidivism and make
Alaska a safer place.
Commissioner Williams replied that it was necessary to be
targeted on the issue that needed fixing. For example, if a
patient was sick they were not treated with every
antibiotic on the shelf. He stated that SB 54 allowed some
of the discretion that perhaps should not have been taken
out [by SB 91] and provided some of the remedies for what
the department wanted to go after and other remedies to
deal with low level offenders bedeviling the state. He
underscored that containing those offenders for a time was
productive, but it did not tell the state what they would
do with the individuals. There were fixes in SB 54 that he
was in favor of; however, he worried about abandoning the
greater good because of some issues. He was not supportive
of a full repeal.
Commissioner Williams remarked on a premise that SB 91 had
been a mistake. He questioned what the state would be going
back to [if a repeal was passed]. He shared that recidivism
rates had been 65 to 70 percent for the past 20 years,
which he characterized as a disaster and unacceptable. His
goal was to reduce the prison population in order to go
after the people representing the most risk to the state.
He wanted breathing room to go after those individuals. He
thought it would be disastrous to DOC to undo regulations
and policy and stand down 60 positions he was in the
process of bringing on. He would be supportive if public
safety was improved. He advised the necessity of coming to
a common understanding "of why we think we're here in the
first place."
Commissioner Williams highlighted major reasons for
criminal justice reform including the rampant opioid crisis
facing the country and a recent increase in property crimes
in Alaska. He stressed that the onus was on him as the head
of DOC. He explained that 11,000 individuals were released
from prison in one year and 5,000 of those individuals were
guaranteed to be in jail for a new crime within the first
six months. He underscored that those were the individuals
who were breaking into homes and vehicles because they had
no job or home. He clarified he was not suggesting a do-
gooder activity. He emphasized the need to get the
individuals in positions to work and be productive. He
recognized there were some individuals who would not get
it. He cautioned a guided and studied approach when
considering the path forward.
10:55:43 AM
Senator Micciche asked if the department was undertaking an
experiment or if there were examples in other states that
had resulted in a lower recidivism rate and reduction in
crime.
Commissioner Williams replied that approximately 25 other
states had done pretrial enforcement. He noted he had
studied the information early in his tenure to understand
what he was getting himself into in the job. He detailed
that the states had passed similar legislation doing risk
assessments and monitoring based on risk, as opposed to
monitoring based on bail. In those other states, between
the time of a person's arrest and the resolution of their
court date, their court appearance rates had gone up and
the crime rate between the time they were arrested and went
to trial had gone down. He was hopeful for pretrial because
it improved public safety in that area.
Commissioner Williams addressed the second part of Senator
Micciche's question about whether other states had done
justice reform and become smarter in recidivism rates. For
example, Wyoming was the only state with a smaller
population than Alaska; it also had a smaller prison
population and a recidivism rate of 35 percent. He did not
know whether the low rate was due to justice reform, but
there was a focus on social justice and productive
activities within the prisons. He remarked that it was not
only Norway [focusing on those items]. Wyoming's recidivism
rate was about half of Alaska's.
Commissioner Williams believed there were things to learn;
he noted it increased public safety. It was hard to know
whether the reform in Alaska would work the way it was
intended in other states; however, many other states had
tried the reform and had achieved positive results with
decreased prison populations. He referenced Texas and
Georgia as examples. He stressed it was not an experiment
and had been well researched. He thought it was necessary
to keep an open mind, but to learn from the experience of
other states.
10:58:00 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop concurred that employment and job
training was extremely important. He mentioned the value of
a good education, which began in school and transferred
into prison for inmates stuck at a third-grade reading
level. He stated they needed to continue with that
education model. He believed Commissioner Williams was
correct - January 1 was an important upcoming date. He
referenced the risk assessment tool and asked if the
department had received 100 percent buy-in regarding the
pretrial assessment tool and allowing a person to await
their pretrial date outside of prison. Secondly, he
remarked on the 60 new department positions who were asking
Commissioner Williams whether they would have a job. He
observed that it was possible to have a good plan, but
without people to execute and believe in the plan and
following the team lead, it would fail. He was leaning
towards continuity.
Commissioner Williams appreciated Vice-Chair Bishop's
comments. He agreed it was necessary to have the right
people. He believed in the pretrial enforcement model. He
had researched the matter carefully in other states. He
elaborated that he had travelled to Kentucky where the
model had been used for 15 years. He elucidated that Alaska
was not doing anything different - it was merely trying to
start what Kentucky had started. He stated that starting
justice reform was difficult, but it was necessary to stay
the course.
Chair Coghill remarked that the department was working on a
deadline coming up in the next several of weeks.
Commissioner Williams agreed.
Vice-Chair Bishop remarked that the department would be
under the microscope and he would be as supportive as
possible. He thought due diligence in pretrial assessments
was essential to ensure individuals did not slip through
the cracks and become repeat offenders during the pretrial
phase. He thought preventing individuals from becoming
repeat offenders during pretrial would contribute to
success going forward.
11:01:23 AM
Senator von Imhof referred to the department's closure of a
prison, and to Commissioner Williams's mention of a
pretrial backlog. She remarked that there was much talk
about criminal activity taking place in Anchorage and other
locations. She concluded there could be a bubble of
potential inmates moving through the system in a year or
two with the passage of SB 54 and providing the tools to
prosecutors to hold and evaluate potential prisoners. She
asked how the system would hold, house, and contain such a
bubble in the near-term.
Commissioner Williams thought that the concern would be met
with what happened when an objectified standard risk
assessment. He discussed failure to appear in court, which
was an important data point in assessments. The goal was to
separate the wheat from the chaff. He likened the people
who showed up for court appearances and represented little
risk (they had not been in trouble previously) to wheat. He
noted that any bubble that existed by virtue of SB 54,
there would still be the pretrial enforcement tool for
people remanded in custody to determine quickly whether a
person should be kept in custody. He relayed that currently
troopers and DOC transported people back and forth
constantly. He explained that people ended up in a contract
jail where they remained for a week, went to a correctional
facility such as Lemon Creek Correctional Center, then had
to go back to court, and may be released three or four
weeks later. He emphasized the importance of deciding early
on during that three to four-week period if the individual
would get out or remain in custody. The situation avoided
the bail review - the option was still available for a
judge to consider, but the whole point was making decisions
early on. He stated that if there were a bubble or people
coming back through, he was less worried about the issue
because there was a process of analyzing the situation and
making a decision early on.
11:04:52 AM
Senator von Imhof understood the need for early decision
making in terms of transportation and other factors. She
shared that she had heard from constituents who were hoping
for more arrests of the individuals Commissioner Williams
had described as bedeviling communities and perhaps holding
them longer. She believed people wanted car and petty
thieves off the streets to relieve some of the stress and
anxiety going on in neighborhoods. She asked if SB 54 would
give the tools and space to process people who were
"terrorizing" the state's communities.
Commissioner Williams answered in the affirmative. He
considered that his job as commissioner was to think beyond
whether someone was held for a week, a month, or a year. At
some time, 95 percent of the individuals in prison would be
released. His job was to help reduce the risk for
residents. He cared very much about SB 54 and putting the
tools back in the tool chest. He was looking for longer-
term solutions but acknowledged the importance of short-
term solutions as well. He supported fixing the law to
provide more discretion. He stated that even car thieves
would be released from prison eventually - they may get out
in a week or in a year. He could not change the past
victims or past crimes, but he could impact the future
victims. He defined recidivism as the reoffence rate and
public safety. He believed the pretrial effort was more
successful at putting the right people in prison than the
current system. He elaborated that it resulted in putting
the right people in prison faster and kept them in faster,
whereas it kept the individuals who should not be in prison
out faster (before they lost their job and housing and
became a social welfare burden on the state).
11:07:36 AM
Senator Wielechowski remarked that much of the state's
recent criminal justice efforts had been geared towards
dealing with individuals after a crime had occurred. He was
interested in root causes of the rise in crime in the
state. He queried the reason for the opioid epidemic and
increased theft. He asked if the department was gathering
intake data from prisoners to determine what was causing
people to turn to crime (e.g. economic information, drug
usage, educational information, and other). He wondered if
it was possible for the department to provide such
information in order to craft data-driven policies to
achieve crime reduction before it occurs.
Commissioner Williams was not sure the department was
gathering the aforementioned data in a standard way. He
highlighted that DOC was conducting a Vivitrol study with
the University of Fairbanks that included comparing
individuals using Vivitrol versus those who were not. He
believed the study would provide some background. He
discussed working with other states to gain information
about their experience with the opioid epidemic. He
recalled traveling to Barnstable County, Massachusetts that
has a population of about 1.1 million. He had spoken with
the sheriff's department and had learned the county had
been dealing with the issue for a while. The county was
making progress on how to deal with heroin addicts.
Commissioner Williams was uncertain the department was
gathering the data Senator Wielechowski was asking for.
However, he invited the senator to come talk with ten
heroin addicts to ask how they had become addicts. He
detailed that for many of the individuals, becoming an
addict had not been in their career path. He spoke to the
importance of passed legislation and work underway to gain
control of opioids. There were some strategies employed by
other states, which he intended as the next step. He
mentioned collaborating with the governor's office to get
people together to address strategies. There were
strategies used by other states that he saw as the future.
The strategies could improve the problem but would not fix
it entirely.
11:11:01 AM
Chair Coghill shared that the University and the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) were looking at whatever
data they could gather. Probably for the first time in
Alaska's history, a deep data dive had been conducted on
what was taking place in the corrections and criminal
justice systems. The state was embarking on the journey and
he saw the University as a large contributor to research
efforts.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the commissioner thought it
would be beneficial to have a screening and data collection
process.
Commissioner Williams replied that it was a great idea. He
agreed the processes would be beneficial, but he did not
have a clear picture of what that would look like yet.
11:12:13 AM
Senator Stevens appreciated comments about the importance
of education and job training and how the items could
impact recidivism. He stated that 40 percent of his
community worked in the fishing industry and he was
concerned about displacement. He shared that in the 1970s
he had purchased furniture from the Seward Prison. He
stated it was great furniture, but the facility had been
closed. He noted there had been criticism that the
furniture was competing with private furniture sales
businesses. He wondered how to train people, but not
displace people who already have jobs and without competing
against established businesses and industries.
Commissioner Williams thought that Senator Stevens had
touched on a very important point. He referenced seafood
processors hiring people from overseas and they had lost
some discretion they had through the J-1 program. He
acknowledged they would have a harder time getting
employees. He emphasized that the prison would not be
displacing anyone from seafood processing. He stated that
he had recently met with processors in Dillingham and
Bristol Bay. He stressed that the processors hired 400 to
500 people. He was looking for a pilot project to put 10 to
30 inmates on one floor out there. The idea was for the
individuals to earn minimum wage, receive overtime, and
serve out their sentence under the department's guidance
and supervision. He stressed that it was the future. The
food processing idea was a significant and promising
strategy. He would be meeting with individuals from Trident
Seafoods in a couple of weeks. He believed it was one of
the best things going in terms of a public/private
partnership.
Commissioner Williams addressed prison industries not
competing with private companies. He wanted to get over the
way prison industry had been done in the past. He noted
there was current legislation on the topic. He underscored
the importance of doing prison industries the right way
like other all other states if the legislature wanted to do
something for public safety, help DOC run a prison system,
and do something about the terrible recidivism rate that
had been consistent for 20 years. He stressed that it would
save the state money. Additionally, there were ways to make
the changes without competing with private industries. He
stressed that in addition to pretrial, it was the second
thing he was advocating for. He asked the legislature to
get the legislation passed.
Commissioner Williams wanted to make sensible changes and
recommended including a sunset clause to review how the
changes worked. He advised shutting the changes down if
they resulted in putting someone out of business. He
emphasized the importance of changing the system behind the
walls. He highlighted that the systems in Norway and Sweden
focused constructive activities - whether a person had a
job. The ethos of their systems was for inmates to be
productive and to work and not merely sit in prison. He
stated the items really mattered in terms of public safety
because eventually inmates were released from prison. He
characterized the changes as taking the next bite of the
apple to make a long-term difference.
11:16:46 AM
Senator Dunleavy believed Commissioner Williams had
mentioned there were issues with a contracted substance
abuse treatment provider. He noted it was his understanding
that DOC was ending the contract on December 16 [2017]. He
asked what the department had done to provide treatment for
inmates across the state.
Commissioner Williams confirmed that he had a problem with
the contract. There was a new person in charge of the
contract and he would be meeting with them in the coming
weeks. Some of the contracts were back in place. He
believed in the value of substance abuse and other
treatment programming in prisons. He also believed
productive activities for inmates was good. He shared that
most of his career was in juvenile corrections and the
department provided a significant amount of money in this
area. However, when he spoke about constructive activities
and reducing idle time where people were sitting around
with nothing to do, the importance of changing the culture
inside and making facilities safer was huge for inmates and
staff.
Commissioner Williams detailed that the department had made
steps to review how contracts were done. He explained there
had been one massive contract with one company; when it had
gone bad, everything it contained had gone bad. He
furthered that it had been a bad system and the contractor
had agreed it should not have been set up the way it was.
He noted the contract had been determined prior to his work
with the department. He thought that the prison should have
small individual contracts with each community to do
activities in prison. He believed in treatment programs,
but his priority was focusing on productive time and jobs.
He was reconstructing the smaller contracts to smaller
contracts on substance abuse; he believed they would get
back on track.
11:19:22 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked if it was safe to say that there was
not a systematic approach, but that Commissioner Williams
was working on it.
Commissioner Williams replied that he would not
characterize the situation as one with no systematic
approach. He stated that the department had functional
contracts in certain locations; however, there were some
prisons that did not have functional contracts.
Senator Dunleavy surmised "it was not there yet"
systemwide. Commissioner Williams agreed.
Senator Dunleavy thought it was no secret that there were
illicit drugs in the state's prisons causing issues. He
asked for detail on what was occurring. There was an
assumption that once a person went to prison they were
detached from the world of drugs and crime; however, that
may not necessarily be the case.
Commissioner Williams agreed and elaborated that in many
cases inmates were more attached to crime in prison. He
stressed that it was a misconception that inmates did not
have access to drugs. He stated that it was a clue when
people released from prison were addicted. He stated it no
fault of the department's staff, who had inherited the
current system. There had been no internal affairs in the
department when he started. He stressed the importance of
the issue because it started to create deterrence among who
was trafficking drugs inside. There had not previously been
a coordinated approach to the problem, but an approach had
been implemented. He detailed there were internal
investigators, and partnerships with the FBI, DEA,
troopers, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The partners met
monthly, had strategies, and shared intelligence. He noted
it had never occurred in the past. He credited others for
great ideas that had been employed.
Commissioner Williams emphasized the necessity of
productive activities in jail; without those activities
people found other things to do. Productive time and jobs
mattered because it took away the desire for subcultures
and sub-activities. He furthered that gangs started to go
down in working, functioning prison systems. There was less
trafficking of drugs inside prisons. He stated that
suboxone was "the bane of our existence." He detailed that
the substance was highly concealable and was prevalently
trafficked inside prisons. He was concerned about the use
of the drug as an alternative treatment for heroin because
it was a secondary drug trafficked on the streets and in
prisons at a high value. He returned to a previous question
by Senator Wielechowski about why people were heroin
addicts. He relayed that many heroin addicts were now
addicted to suboxone. He stressed that deterrence inside
the prison system mattered, as did intelligence and
investigators. There were also policy pieces related to how
the problem was treated and making sure a secondary problem
was not created (e.g. suboxone).
11:23:05 AM
Senator Dunleavy appreciated the remarks. He observed that
frequently in government there was not a systemic approach
to eliminating problems. He detailed that turnover and a
lack of funding interrupted the ability to have a
systematic approach. He thought there was a drug culture in
the state's prisons, which ran counter to the general
perception. He asked what the department needed from the
legislature (when developing its budget) that in the ideal
world would eliminate the problem from persisting. He
reasoned that the average person would think that having a
similar drug culture in prisons compared to outside prison
did not make sense.
Chair Coghill thought Commissioner Williams had done a good
job reviewing work in progress including pretrial, post
incarceration, issues in the state's jails, and the benefit
of SB 54. He commented on the broad nature of the
conversation. He pointed out that there was not a static
prison population. He understood the department did not get
to select who showed up in its prisons; the legislature was
trying to give DOC the best tools possible to deal with the
population and reduce recidivism. He appreciated
Commissioner Williams's testimony.
Commissioner Williams thanked the committee.
Chair Coghill reviewed the remaining schedule for the
meeting. He observed that criminal justice reform impacted
the Court System because offenders were brought there by
the police and the system was responsible for adjudicating
the individuals. There had been court rule changes and
methods the Court System had to employ. He asked for a
summation of the positive and negative effects and changes
of SB 91 from the Court System's perspective. He remarked
that the courts were typically neutral on policy, but they
did have to deal with the practical effects. He asked for
comments pertaining to SB 91 and SB 54.
11:26:53 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
appreciated the opportunity to explain some of the things
the Court System had done with respect to SB 91. During the
past session she had gone through some of the additional
trainings, forums the Court System had created, and a host
of activities undertaken by judges and the administrative
office after the passage of SB 91. She detailed that judges
applied the laws passed by the legislature, but they had to
know what the laws were. She elaborated that due to the
large size of the bill there had been a significant level
of training had been required. At present, two of the three
bill phases were in effect. Sentencing changes from July
12, 2016 had been in effect and were underway. She noted
that the legislature had heard a little about and perhaps
the public was not happy with several of those changes,
which would be addressed by SB 54. The second phase of the
law related to probation and parole had impacted the Court
System because changes to probationary periods. The
implementation of parole was under the purview of DOC, but
when the court sentenced someone to probation there were
numerous things that happened - if a defendant did not do
well the court obtained petitions to revoke probation.
Ms. Meade explained that SB 91 had established an incentive
schedule and regulations and DOC had created policies about
how to come back to the court to try to incentivize people
when they did not do what was appropriate, to do better the
next time. As a result, initially there were many more
petitions to revoke probation, but due to SB 91 they were
for shorter periods of time in the hope the defendants
would correct their behavior before being re-imprisoned for
a long time or having all their suspended time imposed.
Consequently, there had been an increased number of
hearings, but perhaps an improvement in outcomes whereby
people would learn early on (with shorter, definite prison
times) to do what was right when out on probationary
periods.
Ms. Meade discussed that the third phase of SB 91 had not
gone into effect. She noted that as Commissioner Williams
had testified, it was a substantial impact on everyone in
the criminal justice system. The changes to pretrial were a
sea-change in how the work would be done in January [2018].
The judges were being trained on the changes extensively
the next day. The bail statute - the things a judge thought
about when deciding how much bail and what conditions to
impose, was repealed and reenacted into a comprehensive
document (6 to 8 pages) explaining how the judge makes a
bail decision under SB 91. She furthered that the process
changes took winnowing and explaining - the Court System
had created summary sheets and charts.
Ms. Meade furthered that the work was being done in
conjunction with the new Pretrial Services Division under
DOC. The division created its own set of forms and a
pretrial [assessment] tool. She noted that the judges would
want to know about the tool. She continued that judges
wanted and always welcomed more information in making bail
decisions. She furthered that if judges were going to get a
risk assessment score from the division, they would want to
know what went into the assessment and to be able to trust
it. She noted that the work was underway. She stated that
it was interesting times for the court to adapt to the
changes; however, more information was always better, and
the judges wanted to make the best decision possible.
11:30:48 AM
Ms. Meade stated that it had all come about during the
buildup with the ACJC and the talk during the passage of SB
91. One of the focuses had been that the state's pretrial
population had grown significantly, which meant there were
people in jail awaiting their trial who were innocent until
proven guilty and perhaps the right people were not
incarcerated. Therefore, getting more information about a
person's risk would be helpful. The stated goal was to
reduce the pretrial population and limit the number of
people in jail to those who need to be there.
11:31:24 AM
Ms. Meade segued into the statewide bail schedule, which
had done by the Court System. She believed there had been a
great deal of misinformation and misinterpretation on the
matter. She clarified that for decades the state had bail
schedules that were drafted and promulgated by presiding
judges. In the midst of the discussion on SB 91 in March
2016, the presiding judges recognized the new research done
by the ACJC - the fact that the pretrial population had
risen 81 percent over the past 10 years, which had been
surprising to many people in the criminal justice system -
and the belief by the legislature that too much money was
being spent on individuals in jail pretrial.
Ms. Meade relayed that the presiding judges had decided to
look at bail schedules and had made several decisions.
First, they had decided on one statewide bail schedule. She
believed there had been up to eight schedules prior to that
time to take different cultural norms into account. The
action meant that the four presiding judges would have to
agree on what went into the bail schedule. To compliment
the work of the commission and the legislature the judges
thought that perhaps more people ought to be released
pretrial; therefore, they specified larger categories of
people to be released pretrial.
Ms. Meade communicated that the change caused some
consternation. She clarified that the changes did not and
would never apply to felony arrests. For example, a person
arrested and brought to jail for vehicle theft would not be
released because of the bail schedule; vehicle theft was a
Class C felony if it was over $1,000, which it typically
was. She underscored that the bail schedule only applied to
misdemeanors. The change did not apply to crimes involving
domestic violence; anyone arrested for domestic violence
was held to see a judge the following day. She clarified
that felony and domestic violence arrests required seeing a
judge. The change to the bail schedule allowed a law
enforcement officer to arrest someone, bring them to the
correctional facility, and before that person was booked if
their offence was of the certain categories in the bail
schedule, they could be released on their own recognizance.
11:34:06 AM
Ms. Meade explained that the Court System had been working
to ensure law enforcement understood that in any case, for
any reason, if law enforcement or the correctional officer
at the jail did not like what the bail schedule specified,
they should call a judicial officer to have something else
done. For example, if the bail schedule said to release a
person on their own recognizance because of reckless
driving, the law enforcement officer could call a judicial
officer. There were judicial officers on call around the
clock to accept those calls. She emphasized that the calls
were wanted.
Chair Coghill stated that it had been a miscommunication
that had become apparent to the legislature along the way
in that a police officer could ask a judge. He noted there
had been some pushback [due to the miscommunication]. He
thanked Ms. Meade for the clarification.
Ms. Meade understood that some law enforcement had
expressed discontent with some of the provisions in the
bail schedule at an ACJC meeting. The judges at the meeting
had reiterated that law enforcement could call [a judge].
She detailed that sometimes it happened and sometimes it
did not. She thought perhaps more training could be done on
both sides to ensure an officer knew they could call. She
explained that the officer could call for any reason.
Ms. Meade detailed that the revised bail schedule
dovetailed more closely with the current bail statute. The
statute specified a person should be released on their own
recognizance unless something more was needed to ensure the
person's appearance in court and something more was needed
to prevent threat to the victim or community. She added
that at the same ACJC meeting, law enforcement had
expressed discontent about misdemeanor assault. She
detailed that under previous versions of the bail schedule,
misdemeanor assault had been an own recognizance (OR)
release - allowing a person to go with a date to come back
for their arraignment (four days to one week later
depending on the court). Law enforcement thought it would
be more appropriate to hold a person arrested for
misdemeanor assault until they saw a judge the next day or
held with some money bail so that many individuals could
not get out. The presiding judges had taken the
recommendation and the current version of the bail schedule
reflected that a misdemeanor assault was no longer an OR
release. She pointed out that recommendations could be made
and considered by the presiding judges.
11:37:13 AM
Ms. Meade spoke to another dissatisfaction she had heard
from some people. She detailed that the bail schedule did
not say that a person shall be held if they were severely
intoxicated. The presiding judges' response to the issue
was varied; the four judges could not agree that it was
valid to hold someone until they reach a certain blood
alcohol content. Without a law requiring DOC to hold
intoxicated individuals for a certain amount of time, some
of the presiding judges thought there was not a legal basis
for doing so. In other words, some of the judges did not
think it was justified by statute to make DOC into a detox
center. She noted that the legislature may have heard
something about law enforcement wanting a "sober" law. The
reason being that previously Anchorage's bail schedule
specified people could be held until they reached a certain
blood alcohol content or until they were released to a
responsible sober adult. However, the first judicial
districts never had the same provision. There had
previously been variation and unifying the schedule meant
some changes had been made that impacted different law
enforcement and defendants in different ways.
Ms. Meade noted that the Court System was neutral on bills.
For example, she did not have a policy position on whether
there should be jailtime for Class C felonies. However,
there were a number of provisions in SB 54 that would
clarify some confusing pieces of SB 91. She explained that
SB 91 had changed the violating conditions of release from
a misdemeanor to a violation (but making it an arrestable
offence), which had caused numerous logistical difficulties
for the court. The change to a violation with a maximum
$1,000 fine made it difficult to figure out what to do with
the offender. She elaborated that the person could not be
held in jail, if jail was not a possible penalty for the
offence. A few workarounds had been developed allowing the
system to deal with the issue; however, SB 54 changed the
violation to a Class B misdemeanor with a maximum of five-
days of jail time. The change would be helpful because it
would enable DOC to hold a person until they saw the
sentencing judge again and perhaps get the bail conditions
in the underlying criminal case adjusted appropriately. The
change would clarify and help streamline the process.
11:40:23 AM
Ms. Meade categorized a couple of the other SB 54
provisions as procedural and would help the functions of
the court. For example, the bill provided clarification on
how past offences were counted to determine what sentencing
range a person was in. The bill fixed a problem where SB 91
had changed driving with a license suspended to an
infraction in many situations but driving without a license
was still a misdemeanor. The change had created an anomaly
that she believed was corrected by SB 54. The Court System
did not have a position on whether it was sound policy, but
the changes did clarify some things that would streamline
questions that had arisen with the passage of SB 91.
11:41:22 AM
Senator von Imhof referred to her earlier questions
regarding concern over district being repeatedly hit with
petty crime. She asked what the passage of SB 54 would
allow in situations where repeated break-ins were
occurring.
Ms. Meade thought Senator von Imhof was referring to
provisions in SB 91 specifying that misdemeanor thefts of
items valued under $1,000 did not carry the potential for
active jail time (a person could get suspended time or
probation). Under SB 91, even if a person had repeatedly
committed the crime, active jail time could not be directly
imposed by a judge. There had been some dissatisfaction
about that. She detailed that Section 10 of SB 54 directly
addressed the matter. There would still be no active jail
time for a first offence, but a person could get up to five
days in jail for a second offence and ten days for a third
offence. The reasoning was that thefts were very serious to
the victim and community and it had been observed that
having no possible jail time perhaps created incentive for
the criminals. She reiterated that under SB 54 a judge
could impose active jail time - she believed law
enforcement and prosecutors thought the offenders ought to
be put in jail for at least a couple of days as a penalty.
11:43:51 AM
Senator von Imhof referred to quicker processing of
pretrial. She referred to a recent Alaska Dispatch News
article specifying that the Anchorage Police Department
(APD) did not always have the incentive to finish all the
paperwork to arrest someone because they were released so
quickly. She wanted to ensure that there was incentive for
APD to follow through on arrests. She referenced the
potential for five days in jail for a second offence and
ten days in jail for a third offence, but no jail time for
the first offence. She hoped the individuals would not be
released before the ink was dried on their paperwork.
Ms. Meade could not speak to the motivation or incentive of
law enforcement. She referred to the crimes as low level -
relative to thefts of things with higher value - which had
been focused on by communities since there was no potential
for active jail time in SB 91. She elaborated that if she
were a law enforcement person she would want to begin
counting a person's thefts because by the second time they
could go to jail. She reasoned that it would incentivize
her to arrest a person the first time as well; therefore,
if it was the type of individual who would enter a future
of criminality, she could begin to document it. Law
enforcement either returned to their vehicle or used their
handheld to look up a person's record when determining what
to charge them with. Filling out the paperwork and
following through was something she would do if she were in
those shoes. She noted that she did not want to speak for
anyone at the Department of Public Safety or police
departments.
11:46:13 AM
Senator Micciche addressed vehicle thefts. He discussed
that vehicles enabled people to get to work and to take
their kids to school. When they lost their vehicle they
often could not replace that mode of transportation. He
furthered that the vehicle owner and police were both
frustrated. He stated that Ms. Meade had said that courts
could hold a person [for vehicle theft]. He furthered that
people were not being held or it did not seem like they
were being held. He elaborated that sometimes the police
picked up the same person in another vehicle on the same
afternoon. He wondered why the system was not being
stricter on those individuals. He stated that the Senate
had passed SB 54 in April, which would bring a presumptive
jail time of zero to 365 days for Class C felonies. He
asked why the courts were not taking the issue more
seriously.
Ms. Meade replied that she would need more detail on what
Senator Micciche was referring to. She clarified that it
was not the case where an individual would be released
right away under the bail schedule for a felony vehicle
theft; it could not happen. She explained that it was
difficult for a judge to hold the person in jail pretrial
(until a person was tried, accepted a plea deal, or until
their case was dismissed) when law (SB 91) specified that a
person could not go to jail for a crime. She elaborated
that SB 91 had specified that a person would presumptively
get no jail time for a first time Class C felony. She
furthered that it could be the case that a judge let a
person out on their own recognizance at a hearing the day
after a crime was committed (it could not be under the bail
schedule) and the person then committed another crime.
Under SB 54, there was a possibility of zero to 365 days of
jail for a first offense vehicle theft. She added that more
jail time was allowed for second and third offences as it
was under SB 91. Currently, if a person came in for their
arraignment where bail was set on their first vehicle
theft, the court had a different law in front of them. If
the person could serve jail time, the court was perhaps
more inclined to set a bail amount and keep the person in
prison pretrial.
Chair Coghill thanked Ms. Meade for the explanation and
remarked it was a good reason for the legislature to
expedite SB 54. He stated that the public outcry on the
issue had been huge. He thanked Ms. Meade for providing the
court's point of view. He noted that the information
provided in the hearing was for legislators and the public
to learn how to make the state a safer place quickly. He
believed SB 54 was at the center of good productive
conversation. He relayed that the committee would next hear
from the Department of Health and Social Services about
behavioral health. He noted the issue had been significant
in the state's jail system for some time. He spoke to the
importance of learning what was taking place, what was
working, and what concerns existed.
11:50:35 AM
RANDALL BURNS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), referred to a list titled "Substance Use
Disorder Residential & Outpatient Services - State Grantees
& Private Providers" (copy on file). The list included all
the substance use disorder residential and outpatient
services in Alaska by community (state grantees and private
providers). The Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) had also provided a handout with the definition of
the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) level of
care summary (copy on file). The presentation would be
focused on substance use and the impacts of SB 91 because
DHSS believed it had been the public's concern. He relayed
that the presentation would not focus on mental health
treatment.
11:52:51 AM
Mr. Burns addressed a PowerPoint presentation titled "Joint
Senate Finance and Judiciary Committee Meeting" dated
October 24, 2017 (copy on file). He began on slide 2,
"Medication Assisted Treatment - Prescription Drug and
Opioid Addiction Program (MAT-PDOA)." He detailed that the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) had granted the funds targeted at three priority
areas to combat opioid abuse:
1. Opioid prescribing practices to reduce opioid use
disorders and overdose
2. Expanded use and distribution of naloxone
3. Expansion of Medication-assisted Treatment (MAT)
to reduce opioid use disorders and overdose
(Alaska is focusing on expansion of MAT with
these funds)
May 2016
· Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) submitted
application to SAMHSA for MAT-PDOA funds
· DHSS DBH proposed to target two communities where
there is high prevalence of individuals with
opioid use disorders (Anchorage and Juneau) and
proposed to expand access to medication assisted
treatment in these communities.
September 2016
· DHSS DBH awarded $3,000,000 ($1 Million per year)
for 3 years (FFY 2016 - 2019)
11:54:49 AM
Mr. Burns moved to slide 3, "Medication Assisted Treatment
- Prescription Drug and Opioid Addiction Program (MAT-
PDOA)":
January 2017
Funds were awarded to 2 grantees and opioid treatment
services began in January 2017:
· Narcotic Drug Treatment Center in Anchorage:
funds the increase of opioid treatment program
(Methadone) capacity, with the opening of a
second dosing window to serve and an additional
200 patients over next 2.5 years
· Rainforest Recovery Center in Juneau: funds an
office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) program
(Suboxone) with goal to serve 100 patients over
the next 2.5 years
The goal of funding these agencies' MAT services is to
increase Alaska's overall MAT capacity by 250
individuals over the next 2.5 years
Mr. Burns added that DHSS had given $450,000 to the
Narcotic Drug Treatment Center per year and Bartlett
[Regional Hospital] had received $350,000, beginning in the
current year.
11:56:08 AM
Mr. Burns advanced to slide 4, "Opioid State Targeted
Response (STR)":
Alaska's focus for the STR:
· Increase provider capacity in Alaska for
medication assisted treatment (MAT)
· Increase number of clients receiving appropriate
opioid use disorder / medication assisted
treatment
· Decrease the negative impacts of opioid use
Funds awarded to Alaska:
2017 $2,000,000.00
2018 $2,000,000.00
To achieve these goals Alaska is utilizing a four-
pronged approach:
1. Fund 3 agencies in high needs communities to
provide office-based opioid treatment (OBOT)
using Vermont's hub and spoke model
2. Increase number of physicians, PAs, and NPs by
facilitating access to education and case
consultation
3. Engage Alaska's reentry coalitions to facilitate
access to MAT for individuals who are returning
to the community from correctional facilities
4. Purchasing and distribution of drug disposal bags
and naloxone in remote areas of Alaska
Mr. Burns elaborated that the department's intent had been
to fund four agencies in high-needs communities, but it had
ended up only funding three. He detailed that the Vermont
"Hub and Spoke" model included stabilizing the addicted
patient and providing suboxone through office-based
treatment by a physician who had agreed to open a suboxone
practice, which was usually housed with their primary care
practice. As the individual improved, the process involved
ensuring they were connected with other local service
providers to meet additional treatment, housing, or
healthcare.
Mr. Burns highlighted slide 5, "Opioid State Targeted
Response (STR)":
3 agencies were awarded funds in August 2017
· Fairbanks Native Association (FNA) in Fairbanks:
Goal is to serve 70 new clients in FY18
· Interior Aids Association (IAA) in Fairbanks: Goal
is to serve 66 new clients in FY18
· Cook Inlet Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
(CICADA) in Kenai: Goal is to serve 40 new clients
in FY18
Services just began this month (October 1, 2017)
Mr. Burns expounded that DHSS had initiated four grant RFPs
and only three agencies had applied. He explained that the
division had some additional funds, which it was in the
process of considering putting out the remaining $300,000
for the current fiscal year for adolescent services. The
department had identified there were additional needs for
adolescents experiencing an opioid use disorder; it planned
to target the particular population.
11:59:38 AM
Mr. Burns spoke to slide 6, "Prescription Drug Opioid
Overdose-Related Deaths (PDO)":
· Collaborative initiative between DBH and the Office
of Substance Misuse and Addiction Prevention (OSMAP)
· Implementation of Project HOPE - Harm reduction,
Overdose Prevention, and Education
o Program focuses on opioid overdose education,
prevention and community outreach
o Community-based naloxone (NARCAN) distribution
program
o As of 9/29/17, 8,181 Narcan kits and 25,000
drug disposal bags
· Funding awarded to the state in 2016 - $4,058,213
for a five-year period
Mr. Burns noted that OSMAP director Andy Jones was
available for more detailed questions.
12:01:15 PM
Mr. Burns looked at slide 7, "The Strategic Partnership for
Success (PFS)":
· The Strategic Prevention Framework Partnerships for
Success (PFS) initiative is part of a comprehensive
approach to opioid addiction in Alaska.
· The goal of the initiative is to reduce and prevent
the non-medical use of prescription opioids and
heroin among 18- to 25-year-olds by focusing on
three key intervening variables:
1. The social availability of prescription opioids,
2. The retail availability of prescription opioids
3. The perceptions of harm for risk.
· Six prevention and early intervention coalitions in
communities around the state were awarded funds
through the PFS grant: Sitka, Juneau, Kenai,
Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks.
· Funding: $1,648,188 each year for 5 years (although
we were notified of a $500,000 reduction in the
amount of the FY18 grant award)
· Project period 9/30/2015 through 9/29/2020
12:02:36 PM
ANDY JONES, CHIEF, RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS,
DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), elaborated on the success of
the initiatives. He detailed that the education aspects had
been a great foundation for Alaskan communities. He
furthered it had been shocking how communities were asking
for the basic level education. Therefore, it was one of the
components provided to community members and providers. He
reported an increase in expansion of taskforces across the
state, which were creating community-based solutions and
adding community continuity. He relayed that the solution
was in the community, which was one of the things the
division was working with.
12:03:23 PM
Mr. Burns turned to slide 8 pertaining to recidivism
reduction and funds that had been directed to DHSS because
of SB 91.
GENNIFER MOREAU-JOHNSON, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH POLICY ADVISOR,
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), addressed slide 8,
"Recidivism Reduction." Recidivism reduction funding was
intended to break the cycle of repeat offenders; SB 91
resulted in the Division of Behavioral Health (DBH)
receiving $1 million for FY 17 and $2 million for FY 18
through which, DBH was able to leverage a strong grants and
contracts infrastructure to coordinate targeted programs
and support.
12:04:34 PM
Ms. Moreau-Johnson spoke to slide 9, "Funds are being used
for":
· Increased Partners Reentry Center (Anchorage)
funding
o Additional deliverables, including:
ƒIncreased Medicaid enrollment
ƒProvide a reentry center model and
reentry center technical support
statewide
o Increased number of reentrants served
· Expanded existing community reentry program and
coalitions
o Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su and Juneau
ƒCase Management Services are targeted
to offenders who have served over 30
days and are within 90 days of release;
priority is given to medium to high-
risk felony offenders and high-risk
misdemeanants
· Base funding for rural reentry coalitions
o Grants to develop rural coalitions have been
awarded to Kenai, Nome, and Ketchikan
o Dillingham was awarded a grant to expand
their reentry task force and case management
efforts
Ms. Moreau-Johnson elaborated that the expanded community
reentry program and coalitions offered case management
services, housing placement and transitional supports,
linkage to treatment, employment assistance, Medicaid
enrollment, transportation assistance, and emergency
assistance vouchers. She detailed that rural reentry
programs were focused on provider capacity and community
planning.
12:05:27 PM
Ms. Moreau-Johnson highlighted slide 10, "Funds are being
used for":
· 2-year study of the DOC Vivitrol Intervention
Program
o The University of Alaska will assess the
effectiveness of the program
· Technology platform improvements for secure case
management tracking and increased functionality
in both DOC and DBH
o Alaska Corrections Offender Management
System (ACOMS)
o Alaska Automated Information Management
System (AKAIMS)
In addition
· DBH treatment supports leveraged with criminal
justice-specific supports
o Linkages to treatment providers pre-release;
transitional, rapid or permanent housing
placements; increased enrollment in Medicaid
(to facilitate greater access to treatment
resources); transportation support for
individuals to attend appointments
Ms. Moreau-Johnson expounded that the Vivitrol Intervention
Program would provide valuable information about
individuals reentering communities seeking assistance. The
technology platforms would facilitate referrals from the
therapeutic courts and to refer reentering individuals to
case managers.
12:06:10 PM
Ms. Moreau-Johnson discussed slide 11, "Alcohol Safety
Action Program (ASAP)":
Enhanced Adult Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)
screening and monitoring
· All ASAP offices have been trained and are
currently screening and assessing clients using
the new tools
· If clients score high on a preliminary
assessment, ASAP probation officers and grantees
have been trained to use the full LSI-R
assessment
· Continuing training opportunities for ASAP
probation officers and grantees, including
utilizing distance conferencing and learning
tools (Web-Ex and Moodle)
Ms. Moreau-Johnson elaborated on slide 11. The ASAP program
ensured screenings were conducted using a validated risk
tool and monitoring of participants was appropriate to the
risk of reoffence as determined by the screening.
Mr. Burns added that at the end of FY 16 the legislature
had suggested funding of up to $31 million in new funds for
behavioral health.
Mr. Burns discussed slide 12, "Increased Substance Use
Disorder Treatment Services." He explained that eventually,
new additional behavioral health funds of $6 million had
been delivered to the division. Subsequently, the division
had provided grants in communities with the identified need
of additional substance use disorder treatment. The three
projects were outlined on slide 12:
· Set Free Alaska, a 16-bed Residential Women &
Children's Substance Use Disorder Program
· Central Peninsula General Hospital Withdrawal
Management program, 6 beds expanding to 10
· Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) Sobering Center-
opening as a day program this month, expanding to
12-bed capacity
Mr. Burns expounded that the withdrawal management program
was a new detox program on the Kenai Peninsula. He
referenced the Tanana Chiefs Conference Sobering Center in
Fairbanks and detailed that the goal had been to open the
center much sooner, but they had been struggling with the
facility and local public concerns about placing a
behavioral health program in their neighborhood. He had
been in Fairbanks the previous day and had been told the
facility should be opening shortly. He concluded that the
presentation had been a brief overview of the opioid
treatment, substance abuse, and use of recidivism reduction
funding that had come to the department in the past two
years.
12:09:10 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked what plans had been implemented
by the department to measure the effectiveness of funds
that had been and would be spent. He asked to receive the
information in order for the legislature to determine where
state dollars were best used.
Mr. Burns replied that all the federal grants had specific
requirements around data collection and reporting, which
the department had to provide. The department would be
happy to share the data with the legislature. Additionally,
DHSS was tracking success and the number of individuals
served by the $6 million and the out sum from the three
grants [shown on slide 12] to recidivism reduction
programs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the public was interested
in the behavioral health services deployed and the timing
of the services. She asked whether it was fair to say that
the grants addressed by Mr. Burns had been received from
the federal government and passed to local communities. She
stated that the Senate Finance Committee was sometimes
criticized for increases to the state budget. She asked if
the funds received would look like an increase in spending
on the state's balance sheet.
Chair Coghill added that the state was working in
partnership with the federal government to solve a problem
occurring nationwide but was troubling to Alaska.
12:12:04 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), relayed
that he was a member of ACJC, and had worked extensively on
the recommendations that formed the basis of SB 91 and SB
54. The full implementation SB 91 had yet to occur -
significant provisions would go into place in January 2018.
He noted that future success of the initiatives in SB 91
were contained in the most recent ACJC report; there was a
need to continue to fully implement SB 91 and to ensure
that sufficient funding for rehabilitative programs was
present to achieve the maximum benefits of the initiatives,
recidivism reduction, and increased public safety. He
furthered that SB 54, in line with original policies,
included changes and tweaks that substantially address
public concerns in an effort to continue the credibility of
the justice system as reductions in recidivism were
pursued.
12:14:15 PM
Senator Stevens referred to Washington Post articles and a
60 Minutes television report about middle suppliers. He
cited a report about [the pharmaceutical company] McKesson
selling 1 million pills into a community of 200. He asked
if that was under Mr. Steiner's oversight and wondered if
anyone was dealing with the issue. He wondered if the issue
was covered in SB 91 or SB 54.
Mr. Steiner was not familiar with the article referenced by
Senator Stevens and could not comment.
Senator Stevens encouraged Mr. Steiner to read the article,
which he called remarkable and shocking. He detailed that
there were small communities inundated with many more pills
than they could possibly use. He shared that because of
donations from drug companies to Congressmembers, Congress
had passed a law that kept the Drug Enforcement Agency from
doing investigations. He would be grateful if Mr. Steiner
would contact him to discuss what could be done in Alaska.
Mr. Steiner replied that he would review the articles and
would follow up with Senator Stevens.
Chair Coghill informed the committee that SB 74
[legislation passed in 2016], Medicaid reform, had
requirements on reporting and limitations on dispensing. He
suggested a discussion with Senator Pete Kelly's office [SB
74 sponsor] to help understand the issue and status. He
believed the topic would be an important part of how to
look at Alaska.
Senator Stevens requested that Chair Coghill's office
disseminate the report from the Washington Post. He
believed people would be shocked by events taking place in
Kentucky.
12:16:11 PM
Chair Coghill asked Mr. Burns to address an earlier
question by Co-Chair MacKinnon.
Mr. Burns replied that the division requested authority to
expend federal grant funds. He detailed that federal
authority was required to access the funds, but the
increment did not show up as General Fund.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that grants received by the
state showed up on the state's budget. She specified that
the first step was to allow federal authority and then the
funding came in as federal receipts. She thought that for
some people who considered the budget to be increasing,
there may not be understanding that increased spending
could be merely a pass-through of federal dollars to local
communities to help with the opioid epidemic.
Mr. Burns agreed.
Chair Coghill confirmed that when the state received funds
from the federal government and passed the funds to
communities, it appeared the state was spending the money.
12:18:29 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman announced that the Senate Finance
Committee would be conducting meetings the following week
in Anchorage to deal with the second item (payroll
deduction) on the governor's call to special session.
Chair Coghill thanked the presenters for their time. He
believed the meeting goal had been to address that much
work had gone into the process and there was need for some
changes in SB 54. The committees wanted to establish what
had been happening and what was good for Alaska in terms of
public safety. He concluded that the Senate would wait to
see how the House managed the issue.
Co-Chair Hoffman emphasized that crime was in important
issue to the Senate. He noted that the Senate had early
action on SB 54. He furthered that SB 91 was law and the
Senate was trying to make fixes to assist agencies. He
communicated that the Senate was looking forward to
receiving action by the House. He thanked the committees
and the public for paying attention to the important issue.
ADJOURNMENT
12:20:26 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|