CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 223(JUD) "An Act limiting the award of good time and restricting release on mandatory parole for prisoners serving certain sentences who fail to attain certain minimum educational standards; providing that prisoners having attained or attaining those educational standards receive good time awards and availability of release on mandatory parole of one-third of the term or terms of imprisonment rounded off to the nearest day; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Donley, sponsor, testified this is a "familiar concept" that would encourage prisoners who do not already have a high school education to obtain their General Equivalency Diploma (GED) while in prison. He explained the incentive would be a reduction in the amount of good time, or non-discretionary parole, available. He also pointed out the state would be required to make such educational opportunities available. Co-Chair Donley informed that Alaska has the "most generous" good time provisions in the United States, noting a person sentenced to ten years could be paroled after serving 6 2/3 years. He stated the national standard is 85 percent compared to 75 percent in Alaska. He qualified that Alaska laws are tougher for some offenses. Co-Chair Donley summarized the goal of this legislation is to encourage offenders to obtain their education. He referenced studies showing that the rate of recidivism is directly related to education. Co-Chair Donley stated it is reasonable to require that parolees have the ability to read and write. He said this does not unfairly penalize those inmates who do not obtain a GED because the amount of good time allowed for their sentences would be the national average. He added that not providing such a high level of good time is reasonable because studies show an increased likelihood of illiterate offenders reentering the criminal justice system. Co-Chair Donley noted the State of Florida has instituted a similar program at an estimated savings of $1.9 million due to reduced recidivism. He qualified Alaska has fewer inmates and the amount would therefore be lower. Co-Chair Donley spoke of his efforts to determine the savings, which are not reflected in the fiscal notes. He noted the Department of Corrections has attempted to estimate the cost of housing the approximately 16 inmates per year who would not obtain a GED. He informed the average annual cost per inmate is $27,000, which would total approximately $400,000. He compared this amount to the costs involved with the 41 percent national re-incarceration rate of offenders without a high school education. He calculated that of the 111 inmates this legislation would apply to, less the 16 who would remain incarcerated for a longer period, and assuming the six-percent success rate experienced in the State of Florida, approximately six former Alaska inmates would not re-offend as a result of obtaining their GED. He qualified the incarceration costs would be higher but stressed the cost savings of the six successful inmates would offset that amount. He listed the costs of crime to society and injuries to victims of the multiple crimes that might be committed before an offender is apprehended, plus the expenses of the criminal justice system. Co-Chair Donley stressed the only reason to not pass this legislation is the potential cost of inmates remaining in prison longer. However, he emphasized the possibility of significant savings from reduced recidivism. Co-Chair Donley asked and answered, "Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely." Co-Chair Donley asserted educational opportunities as part of restitution is mandated by the state Constitution. He noted other states are operating similar programs with success. He indicated he intended to perform additional research on the recidivism rate in Alaska in order to accurately calculate the potential savings involved. Co-Chair Donley stated that withholding the permanent fund dividend for an additional year from those who have committed serious crime, would "more then fund" the additional incarceration expenses of the inmates who would receive reduced good time. He suggested such a proposal could be incorporated into this bill, although he recommended separate legislation. Senator Wilken asked if this bill is identical to legislation considered in a previous session. Co-Chair Donley answered it is and explained the earlier legislation was introduced during a year when no legislation with accompanying fiscal notes was passed. Senator Green asked for clarification of Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the committee substitute, which gives exemptions to the GED provision for those who already have a high school education, are incapable of attaining a diploma, do not speak English, or are of a certain age or social background. Co-Chair Donley affirmed and noted this language is consistent with assumptions made by the Department of Corrections and reflected in an assessment contained in the fiscal note. Co-Chair Donley explained Section 2 and detailed the process of granting good time credit of one-third of the sentence for inmates who have a high school education or are determined to be incapable of receiving such. Others, he continued, would receive one-sixth good time credit unless they obtain a GED while incarcerated. Senator Hoffman commented the committee substitute is an improvement over the original bill. He spoke to the unquantifiable expense of those inmates who do not obtain a GED and subsequently serve longer portions of their sentences. He suggested performing a two to three year demonstration project in a controlled setting before enacting legislation to identify and rectify concerns. He agreed it has been proven that people with a higher education are less likely to commit crimes and are more productive citizens. However, he asserted that placing these assumptions into law is excessive. Senator Ward supported this bill. He stated that a demonstration project has merit, although not as much merit as would a law. Senator Ward stated that people who are incarcerated have "problems" with work ethic and educational ability. He asserted that an overriding factor for a prisoner is "how much time do they have; when can they get out." He stated that a vast majority of inmates perform certain actions if they know doing so could reduce the length of their stay. Senator Ward told of inmates he has encountered who embrace religion, sobriety or "anything that the system gives them in order to make the system happy" and obtain release. He remarked that a benefit is that occasionally, while "pulling this con upon society, they get caught up in it and get better". Senator Ward expressed this legislation addresses those inmates who had problems that resulted in them not obtaining a high school education. He commented that many of these people are "getting through life because they have wits, they are very smart, but they don't have the foundation and the ability." He said these people do not want others to know that they are unable to read and that this is one reason they "turn to crime". Senator Ward predicted that if education were offered as an incentive, those inmates would "come to the table" even if it means admitting they are unable to read well or perform mathematical functions. JOE MASON, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Northwest Campus, testified via teleconference from Nome in support of the bill and stressed that statistics prove education reduces recidivism. He told of teaching audio conference college courses to students incarcerated at Anvil Mountain Correctional Center and shared the story of one former inmate student, who later pursued further education after being released and was voted Student of the Year at the Northwest Campus. He attested this person today is not the "anger-filled individual" he was before receiving an education. He stressed audio conferencing and correspondence courses are effective methods of providing education to inmates. Mr. Mason suggested that the inmates who receive an exemption from the GED requirement due to language, social, age or intelligence levels should also be required to pursue and meet "measurable education objectives to improve their skills." ROSE MUNAFO, Criminal Justice Planner, Inmate Programs, Division of Institutions, Department of Corrections, testified via teleconference from Anchorage that no one believes education is not "a good thing" and that it would contribute to productivity. SFC 02 # 18, Side A 10:52 AM Ms. Munafo warned of the fiscal ramifications of this legislation. She stated that in 1987 or 1988 the budget for criminal education efforts was reduced by one-half, although the inmate population has continued to increase and she did not see how the objectives of this bill could be accomplished within the current level of funding. Senator Hoffman asked if the witness supports the legislation. Ms. Munafo did not. She suggested other methods, such as an incentive provision allowing inmates to earn additional good time. Senator Hoffman asked if the witness would endorse a demonstration project. Ms. Munafo replied that although she had not considered it, she would support it. Senator Ward asked how many prisoners in Alaska have been refused an opportunity to receive a GED due to budget restraints. Ms. Munafo did not know of any although noted there is a wait list, which varies with each institution. Senator Ward asked the average time on a wait list. Ms. Munafo was unsure. Senator Ward clarified the witness' testimony that because of budget constraints, this legislation would result in additional costs. However, understood that educational opportunities were currently available. BRUCE RICHARDS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections, testified via teleconference from Anchorage that the increased cost to the Department would be the longer incarceration of those who do not obtain their GED. Senator Ward stated there would be no increase to the cost of the educational program. Mr. Richards replied there currently is a wait list and that in order accommodate the additional inmates, funding for additional "contract hours" of educators would be necessary. Senator Ward asked if the witness saw providing additional educational opportunities for inmates to be "a problem". Mr. Richards did not. He preferred an incentive process of allowing prisoners to earn additional good time rather than the proposed method that would remove good time initially and require inmates to earn that time back. He understood the system in the State of Florida provides additional good time for those who receive a GED, rather than a reduction for those who do not. Senator Ward asked if the one-third-sentence reduction is not an incentive. Mr. Richards responded the one-third reduction is already in place and that making additional good time available would be an incentive and would be more appropriate. Co-Chair Donley noted the Executive Branch presented this option when the earlier legislation was considered. He stressed Alaska already has the highest good time policy and he argued it is bad public policy to release inmates earlier. Co-Chair Donley stated he would support a demonstration project except that one could not be fairly implemented within the criminal justice system. He addressed the suggestion of a lapse date, informing that because this legislation only applies to those with sentences longer then two years and to those sentenced after the effective date of the law, the effects would not be apparent for several years. He noted the additional expenses would not be incurred until the third year and any savings would not occur until the fourth year of the new program. Senator Hoffman commented that adding more available good time would allow "good people" who obtain a degree, to be released earlier and become more productive. He surmised this would result in more savings. Senator Leman referenced the analysis in the fiscal note relating to the cost of contractual services to administer the education program. He asked the current process for administering the GED examinations. Ms. Munafo explained the fiscal note reflects the anticipated additional testing to determine an individual's reading and mathematic level prior to enrollment in a GED preparation course. She noted the fiscal note also includes additional "teacher time", based on 97 students per education provider the previous year and the projected 111 additional students this legislation would incur. Senator Leman asked if the teachers would utilize an existing literacy program. Ms. Munafo replied a program is in place that is similar to that used by adult learning centers. CANDACE BROWER, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections testified in Juneau, that although the Department supports education as part of rehabilitation, it is opposed to the approach contained in this legislation. She stated the Department currently provides successful educational opportunities and encourages inmates to improve themselves. She anticipated less money would be appropriated for the Department's FY 03 budget and stated this legislation would increase expenses. She listed the increase of 300 additional inmates since one year ago and the increase of 919 inmates since 1996. She attributed the increases to statutory changes that increase sentences. Ms. Brower cautioned against criminalizing those who lack an education. She noted that many offenders receive education while on supervised parole and she spoke to the limited resources for educational programs available to the Department. Ms. Brower knew of no other state that makes education a condition of early release, although many offer incentive programs. Ms Brower informed the GED examinations have been changed, are more rigorous and she was unsure how inmates would perform. Ms. Brower asserted that lowered recidivism is the result of a number of factors, not only one program. Co-Chair Donley agreed recidivism is complex, but stressed research has shown the number one factor relates to the ability to read and write. Senator Leman did not want dangerous criminals released early. However, he wanted others to repay their debt to society in other ways then being incarcerated in a prison facility. Co-Chair Donley spoke to the argument of positive incentive. He told the history of increasing good time from one-quarter of the sentence to one-third, reiterating it is the highest rate in the nation. He stated that this legislation provides negative incentive is misleading. He was more inclined to provide additional good time for those who did not commit act of violence. He noted the current good time was increased to one-third was due to difficulties the Department had with tracking the different amount of good time available for different inmates convicted of different offenses. He suggested this issue could be revisited to allow additional good time for those offenders who did not commit a violent crime and who received a GED during their incarceration. Co-Chair Kelly expressed support for the bill. Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee to await data from the Department of Corrections to incorporate into a fiscal note.