HJUD - 03/10/95 HB 200 - CUSTODY OF PRISONERS Number 700 CHAIRMAN PORTER read the title of the bill and announced that since the bill sponsor had stepped out of the meeting, they would start taking testimony. JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Commissioner's Office, Department of Corrections, explained that the effect of this bill would be to transfer the operation of community jails, of which there are 15 across the state, to the Department of Corrections for their operation management under contract with the municipalities that had these jails. There are no fiscal notes attached to this bill. The department would speak on behalf of it. They feel that the Department of Corrections is an appropriate place for the operation of these facilities. He was not yet familiar with the details. Although there is no fiscal note showing operating funds for these contract jails in the FY 96 budget, that amount would be the same whether they were operated by the Department of Corrections, or by the Department of Public Safety. The only extra costs would be 39.3 thousand dollars for start up costs to assist in negotiating the contracts which would take effect July 1. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this would impact the problem the Department of Corrections has with jail space. MR. SHRINER said it would not affect the amount of space. The people who are in these facilities are in there for relatively short periods of time, generally pending transfer, either to a larger holding facility, or to serve a short sentence for a DWI, or something like that. Number 825 LEUITENANT TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, manages the community jails. He gave an overview of the functions of the operation. There are currently 15 facilities throughout the state which are all owned and operated individually by local communities. They are contracted by the state to provide jail services, not only for the communities for which they are in, but for the surrounding communities as well. They are utilized by local police departments, the State Troopers, and everyone who has a need to care for prisoners. The current program is being operated at fiscal year 93 levels. About two years ago, there was a task force formed by the Governor which was made up of all groups of people who deal with the programs; from the legislature, to the contractors, to members of all the departments affected by this program. This task force took a comprehensive look at the entire program and made recommendations as to how it should be operated. The program has been in existence for over 20 years. It originated in the, then, Division of Corrections, within the Department of Health and Social Services, and was originally designed to provide pre-arraignment or first-24-hour holding facilities for rural areas. Once persons were arraigned, they could be transferred into the major areas into a state owned institution. As the years went by, the courts and every other part of the criminal justice system moved out into those rural areas, and those facilities then became pretrial, post-trial, and sometimes even facilities that held sentenced people. They have evolved much further than just pre- arraignment facilities. During the late 70's the Department of Law reviewed the program, and made the recommendation that facilities that were used for pre-arraignment only, should be transferred to DPS. And those facilities used beyond the pre-arraignment situations should be maintained by the Division of Corrections, which is now the Department of Corrections. At that time we inherited all of the facilities that existed, but they have changed dramatically since then. Number 850 DENNY DEWITT, Aide to Representative Eldon Mulder, said, as it has been explained, the purpose of HB 200 is to implement the recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Community Jails. What is happening, is that the administrative structure of who operates community jails is being moved from DPS to Corrections. This bill simply enables that. REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER arrived and also provided information on his bill. TAPE 95-29, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if this might be a window of opportunity to initiate a privatization of a portion of our corrections industry. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was a good question which they had been discussing in their subcommittee, and planned to continue spending a lot more time on. Privatization has proven to be a possibility, and a cost saving measure throughout the country. Our contract in Arizona is for $59 a day, per person. That includes making a profit and amortization of their debt. When you compare apples to apples in Alaska, we are well over $150. Privatization outside works, but you have to have some factors built in there. One factor is scale. The institution down there is a 500 bed facility. In Alaska, he believed we only have one facility nearing that magnitude, so the scale does not fit. The second thing that plays into it is the health care costs. The individuals sent to Arizona were picked partially for the fact that they did not pose any outstanding major medical problems. We are keeping most of the high maintenance prisoners. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER continued, stating that in the interest of where we go from where we are at; he had a go ahead from the Commissioner and the Governor to continue looking at privatization of certain facilities within the state. As you know, institutions are bulging at the seams, so we are going to look at the possibility of private facilities. He felt communities should be willing and able to pick up some of the cost for incarceration in their villages. This is something they plan to pursue through AML and through their committee. A good number of people like the idea of "three strikes, you're out" and bringing adolescents up into adult court for heinous crimes. They like getting tough with crime. But getting tough with crime has a cost. Right now, some of us are paying for that cost, and others are not. It is worthy of discussion. CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that these facilities were built with state funds and given to the municipalities. The people staffing these facilities are municipal employees who often have other municipal duties, besides the guard or matron duties at the jail. So the state is subsidizing that a little bit. They do not adopt their own municipal crime codes, so all prisoners are charged under state code, which makes them the state's responsibility, rather than the communities' responsibility. The communities are not contributing a dime. This has to stop. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 200 out of committee with individual recommendations and fiscal notes. Seeing no objection, the bill moved.