HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID    1:04:08 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release; relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of driving under the influence; relating to termination of a revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early termination of probation and reduction of probation for good conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205, labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted in the 3/14/16 meeting.] CHAIR LEDOUX advised that the committee will continue testimony regarding reinvestment policies. 1:04:36 PM CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Director, Partners Reentry Center, offered to answer questions regarding justice reinvestment from the standpoint of the Partners Reentry Center and holding people accountable. She explained that the center opened in August 2013, and since that time it has served 2,992 individuals, and since July 1, 2015 through March 30, 2016 there are 943 new individuals in the program with another 222 in the program previous to the beginning of this fiscal year, and its budget was to serve 500 but due to the need it will exceed that amount by a long shot. She further explained the Partners Reentry Center takes people who would otherwise be homeless. It provides, on a partnership basis - not through entitlement, the ability to obtain short-term housing for 45-60 days, the opportunity to get into permanent placement housing, and the opportunity to obtain employment or get back on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or other benefits that will allow them to become self-sufficient within 60 days upon release. 1:06:57 PM MS. MCLAUGHLIN explained that as of this morning, data shows that its daily attendance is between 62-94 people each day and operates as an immediate provider of services because people are served the day they walk in. The Partners Reentry Center asks for the person's commitment to work with them because statistically it has found that if it can hold onto people, who would otherwise be homeless, to be in the program one-to-two-to- three times per week they have a higher likelihood of success. She said it is focused on issues from the "Boots on the Ground," and opined that several of the House Judiciary Standing Committee members may have come to the Partners Reentry Center. She related that the Partners Reentry Center does have enough housing with 12 sites in Anchorage and enough beds available, but it does shepherd its resources carefully so it can serve as many people as necessary while it refers them out to other more long-term reentry programs. Of the individuals who were in the Partners Reentry Center's program during the month of February, she noted, it had 62 hires for employment, and it started a Native reentry group which is up to 25-30 Native reentrants who are goal driven to advocate for themselves to go back to their villages. 1:08:35 PM MS. MCLAUGHLIN explained that the Partners Reentry Center has been using that with a restorative justice model and its goal is to try to get people back to more culturally relevant areas if their villages invite them back and there is not a public safety risk. The reality with justice reinvestment is that 90-95 percent of all people incarcerated will be released and rather than deny that fact, the Partners Reentry Center embraces it and asks how to be certain these people have the healthiest transition if they don't have a support system in place. She pointed out that the Partners Reentry Center aggressively performs in-reach and pre-release planning at all of the institutions, and its highest volume comes out of the Goose Creek, Palmer, and Hiland Mountain Correctional Centers. She said the "inside and out program" was recently transferred to the Partners Reentry Center at retiring Justice Dana Fabe's request, and it will aggressively follow through at the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center. 1:09:58 PM MS. MCLAUGHLIN offered that the Partners Reentry Center is involved in the Vivitrol program because there were too many overdoses of heroin and the misuse of alcohol. She explained that it is a no cost event for the state as the Partners Reentry Center is doing it without grant monies. Vivitrol is a shot version of the oral Naltrexone and the goal is to get opioid, heroin, or alcohol addicted people the shot as soon as release is possible because it has been found that people with high addiction rates, with those three substances, usually recidivate within the first thirty days, she explained. Currently, it is a pilot program and the Partners Reentry Center receives the first shot free of charge, and they then sign people up for Medicaid in order that the second through fourth shots are paid under Medicaid. As of today, she advised, the Partners Reentry Center has 49 people in that program, 28 of which accepted Vivitrol, of those 28, 4 have recidivated. She continued that of the 21 people declining Vivitrol, 19 have been re-incarcerated within the first 30 days of release, and of the two individuals still out there is a warrant for one for failure to report. The Partners Reentry Center is using that as an opportunity to try to deal with the heroin, opioid, and alcohol addiction issues, and is working with the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to determine whether the Vivitrol program can be expanded into that area. She noted there are many peer groups and the Partners Reentry Center's goal is simple "if you touch people who are coming back into society after whatever length of stay that they have incarcerated, you give them a sense of hope, a positive attitude, and a path, they have a higher likelihood of success." The Partners Reentry Center would like to see other communities around the state have an opportunity to offer this type of program in their local areas, thereby, allowing people to go home, to have some restorative justice and healing within the communities, she said. 1:12:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the total of the Partners Reentry Center's budget, including the staff levels. She further asked if this bill were to pass with the reinvestment how she anticipates the Partners Reentry Center's build up time to increase care for the influx of people. MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered that she is committed to being available to anyone who would otherwise be homeless, coming out of jail with a felony or misdemeanor with an Alaska Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) or treatment component. The Partners Reentry Center has been able to give these services to everyone qualifying under those two requirements. Their budget for FY16 was $550,000 and it was enhanced by an AHFCB half of $146,000. There are six staff working full time and she commented that it is understaffed and needs to be better staffed to perform real time data entry and real time services because it cannot have people wait. She pointed out that if people are homeless the people who fail are the people the Partners Reentry Center can't pass off on a quick referral to substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment and; therefore, it is committed to serving people the day they walk through the door. Together with the six staff, she explained, there are five practicum UAA students that the Partners Reentry Center hosts, and one (indisc.) trainee through the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) who was a successful reentrant and is now paid through the DLWD and staffed at the Partners Reentry Center. She explained that it also collaborates with the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) to have substance abuse assessments completed the week people release, "so they come over and do that," and the Partners Reentry Center borrows from CITC for that purpose. 1:15:52 PM MS. MCLAUGHLIN related that the model Partners Reentry Center is using is that it is the hub in that a person comes in and is referred out as quickly as possible or gets people signed up for Medicaid and PFDs. She stated that Commissioner Dean Williams, Department of Corrections (DOC) wanted to be certain that was being done. The Partners Reentry Center also collaborates with all other entities and performs quick referrals within the first thirty days of release. In response to how long it would take to ramp up for additional people she answered that due to the model, which is participant centered, the Partners Reentry Center does need more staff without question, but it will not turn someone away because it is understaffed. She remarked that the Partners Reentry Center's ask has been $685,000 for FY17, which would include one additional staff member. 1:16:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked where clients go to receive their shots when volunteering to go through the long-term shot program, and who is administering the shots. MS. MCLAUGHLIN responded that it is done two ways: through myHealth Clinic with a health practitioner working on her Ph.D. for medically assisted treatment and she provides the majority of the shots; and the Alaska Native Medical Partners Reentry Center. She reiterated that the shots begin the day people are released from jail. MS. MCLAUGHLIN, in response to Representative Lynn, advised that myHealth Clinic is on Abbott in South Anchorage. 1:18:05 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. McLaughlin to explain the shots. MS. MCLAUGHLIN responded that the Vivitrol shot is a sensory limiter wherein if someone attempted to use alcohol, heroin, or an opioid they would not have any kind of enhanced effect. It doesn't make a person sick, it just stops the sensory benefits a person would think they would receive from those drugs. The shot is given in the buttock every 28 days, and the recommended expectation for the use of the shot is six to twelve months, although it depends upon the individuals. For example, when she travels to Hiland Mountain Correctional Center she will tell individuals who have found themselves rearrested several times because of opioid, heroin, or alcohol use, if they want to partner with the Partner Reentry Center when released they will have a shot ready the day of release, and it will make certain the person gets to myHealth Clinic and receives the shot. She explained that in tandem with the shot, it also mandates that people have behavioral treatment component, such as substance abuse counseling, or Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), or attend peer-to-peer groups because the shot will only get the person so far in stopping physical cravings for these drugs. She pointed out that unless the underlying reason for the use of the drugs or alcohol is determined, the program will not be sustaining. She opined that the actual compound within Vivitrol is the same as Naltrexone and Norcan, which is the drug used to try to reverse an overdose. 1:20:18 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked about Antabuse. MS. MCLAUGHLIN explained that this is not like Antabuse because it does not make a person sick, it just causes the person to stop craving the desire for those drugs themselves. For example, she related they have an individual who was very addicted to Suboxone and heroin, and is on his third shot of Vivitrol. He advised her that previously when he saw a Suboxone pill he would sweat and anxiously hope he could get that pill into his body, and a Suboxone pill on the street is usually $80. She said he related that due to the shot he is fully employed, paying rent, and when triggered in that manner it has had no effect on him because he is not craving it. Vivitrol is not a drug that causes addiction; therefore, if a person stops the shots there is no withdrawal although the cravings will return unless the person has learned how to address them. CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether she meant the psychological cravings will return. MS. MCLAUGHLIN agreed and said the psychological cravings will return and basically the shot tries to give the brain a rest from the drugs so it can start retooling itself. 1:21:51 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether it eliminates physical cravings. MS. MCLAUGHLIN said correct, in that it is a sensory blocker and if a person tried to drink on Vivitrol the person would not become intoxicated because it blocks those senses. CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether it would work to ease the pain of withdrawal. MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered no, it will put the person immediately into withdrawal. With alcohol, she said, the shot can be given within two to three days of someone using alcohol. While with heroin, the person must be free of heroin in their system so it requires an approximate seven day to ten day wait in order to take the shot. That is why, within their program, it is imperative that the shot is given the day upon release because there would not be an opportunity to go out and use, she explained. 1:23:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that the shots without the backup treatments offer disappointing results. He asked her to explain MRT and peer groups because he would like to know whether there are plenty of services working with individuals to retool their life patterns and replace the vacancy left there by the addiction. MS. MCLAUGHLIN replied that Representative Keller is absolutely correct, unless a person gets into the underlying reasons, the point of failure for Vivitrol is after a person stops taking Vivitrol and the cravings return, and if the person has not determined the source of the cravings they will go back to using. She stressed it is key that the behavior management component is included. The Partners Reentry Center has an individual, Robert Champion, MRT Facilitator at the McLaughlin Youth Center, who offers groups at the Partners Reentry Center filled with individuals on Vivitrol so they have the capacity to do it, she said. She related that she likes MRT as a model because it is 12 weeks to 16 weeks that gets into cognitive behavioral changes, and for some people that works. She noted individuals with jobs, who have a life, and are doing okay but cannot dedicate a tremendous amount of time to a substance abuse intensive treatment program. She said they offer peer-to-peer group three times a week, they also partner with the Cook Inlet Tribal Council, and the Anchorage Native Justice Centers for their men's and women's groups. She explained that if individuals are over-programmed and are required to do too many things, they are being set up to fail. Therefore, the Partners Reentry Center is trying to give people tools to move forward in a healthy manner but not over-programming them to the point they have to decide whether to live homeless or without food in order to pay for their substance abuse treatment. She said she does not want to be disrespectful to any substance abuse programs but the wait lists and the delay in getting assessments is causing people to fail before getting into the programs. 1:27:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the Partners Reentry Center has been around long enough to accumulate data as to its success rate. MS. MCLAUGHLIN advised that Partners for Reentry started the program during second week of September, and she reiterated the information regarding the 49 individuals she previously explained. They have looked at other programs to compare themselves to and they have not found any programs being conducted in this manner. Although, Arizona asked the Partners Reentry Center to assist with a pilot program that would be modeled after what is being done in Alaska because it is showing some promising results at this point. She stated she is hopeful that with the benefit of Jill Green, health practitioner, performing the injections and working on her thesis that they will acquire more data. The Partners Reentry Center has a real time data base and every time something happens it is put into their system immediately, track it, and perform more analysis, such as who were these people, what was their intensity of drug usage, how many times did they violate or have new charges, and she related that they will be able to do that but not yet. 1:29:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that her patrons live all over town and ask how they typically get to the facility. MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered that Partners for Reentry facility is at 419 Barrow Street, and myHealth Clinic for the shot injections is located off of Abbott. 1:30:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reiterated his question and asked how the patrons typically get to the facility. MS. MCLAUGHLIN explained that the bus goes right there and they ask them to take the bus but if there is any hesitancy or if they are not from Anchorage, the Partners Reentry Center has taxi vouchers that will allow them to get to the facility to get their shot and have them take a bus back to their housing. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked who pays for the shot. MS. MCLAUGHLIN related that their patients are homeless with no money and it paid by asking the drug manufacturer to give them the first shot free and they have been willing to do that. She reiterated that the first shot is free and they then sign people up immediately for Medicaid if Medicaid eligible, and the remaining shots are paid through Medicaid. 1:31:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to her statement that another place for shots was the Alaska Native Medical Center and assumed it pays for the shots for their clients and back-bill Medicaid. MS. MCLAUGHLIN answered in the affirmative. CHAIR LEDOUX thanked her for testifying and noted that she had been to the Partners Reentry Center and expressed it is a phenomenal program. 1:33:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred a question to Brenda Stanfill and asked how this bill will improve the lot for victims. Obviously, he said, a target is that there will be a reduction in the crime rate and the best thing victims will see is not being a victim. 1:34:12 PM BRENDA STANFILL, Commissioner, Alaska Justice Commission, said she has put a lot of thought into that question in terms of looking at this as each victim of crime versus looking at a bigger picture of Alaska in that "we're all in this together." She related that this is only the first building block and in moving forward and reviewing these specific bills, this is the first year of the commission working fully through to set what she considers to be a foundation. It is known that changes have to be made in the state's criminal justice system and initially the commission, in attempting to determine who the current system worked for, went around the table and realized that victims, offenders, judges, and defense and prosecution are not happy. The commission then tried to create something that is actually working by looking at the victims as being part of the process. She noted some push back on pretrial and said that, to her, pretrial means the state will do the upfront work to determine how to hear victims' voices and complete the risk assessments. If a judge is expected to release someone on their own recognizance, she opined that the judge will listen closer to a victim's voice and be certain restraints are in place to keep the victim and public safe rather than just ordering $500 bail and no contact with the victim. She related that in having a Pretrial Services Office the state can speak with the victim to uncover more information for the risk assessment, and begin to consider whether this defendant could have a suspended entry of judgment, which is a totally different concept than the current process. She offered a scenario of a 19 year old making a dumb mistake by vandalizing someone's property or something within a group of peers, and now there is a high dollar crime, and said that pretrial services can take the time to possibly determine that this is a youthful offender and the state could order one year to pay the victim back for their damages, including community work service, and if they do it in one year they do not have a record. Consequently, she pointed out that a huge hole has not been dug for the 19 year old to have to dig out of to make the victim whole. 1:37:52 PM MS. STANFILL said the bill may be taking away some prison time but it is known that prison is not changing people, and while it may make the public feel better because their punishment is jail. She commented that when speaking with most people living a portion of their lives in jail they will say it's not a bad place to be, because Alaska does not have uncomfortable jails. She stated that the state would like to get the people before jail is a part of their system and that there may be other options besides jail to use as a punishment. She then commented that the state could look at holistic ways in terms of restorative justice because victims are not being put back intact, and sometimes the crime is so horrendous there is no way the victim can be put back intact, and what can be done to provide more support services in that situation. Currently, $360 million is put into the Department of Corrections (DOC) verses approximately $15 million for victims' services. The state needs to get to the point that it is spending as much time focusing on victims and their health and making them whole as it is on the DOC, she related. 1:39:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that he has been in jail many times professionally and commented that each time he goes in he does not have the thought that he wants to be there. Although, some people may feel it is better than life on the streets, it is a miserable place to be and the public doesn't want to be there either, he remarked. CHAIR LEDOUX referred to Ms. Stanfill's statement that jail is not an uncomfortable place in relationship to punishment, and she expressed that some crimes society needs to punish. Possibly this is not the politically correct comment, she remarked, but maybe it should be an uncomfortable place. MS. STANFILL noted that she shares in those thoughts and jail does limit freedom and certain things. Meanwhile, victims are doing everything they can to have a place to live after the person paying child support is now incarcerated, including how to pay the bills. At the same time, the person in jail has three square meals, a place to sleep, and it's nice and warm, and they are not sharing a bed with their children. She explained that when she says jail is not bad, she means that in the way of Alcatraz and the movies and opined that is not what Alaskan jails are. Interestingly, the Fairbanks Correctional Center's statistics are flat until October through March because people are cold. The hope is to get that person warm without committing a crime, she said. Currently, the state can't get ahead of it enough to focus on it because all of the state's resources are sucked into paying those hard bed dollars. 1:42:01 PM CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that when she comments the jails are not that uncomfortable, she is comparing it to the movie, "Midnight Express." 1:42:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered the old saying for a lot of people not leading a successful life, "three hots and a cot." He commented that at one time prisons were called penitentiaries, which is where penance comes from, being punished at a penitentiary and paying penance. Currently, the state has morphed into correctional centers as it is not trying to punish, but rather to correct. He said there should be some punishment element and not just to correct, such that parents punish their children by taking away the car keys. He remarked that jail should not be comfortable, although, on the other hand it should be a safe place. He reiterated that the bill is changing it from penitentiary with penance to corrections. MS. STANFILL related that quite a few young men in both the House of Representatives and the Senate committee meetings have testified to the changes they were able to make after receiving intensive treatment while in jail. Unfortunately, she noted, the intensive treatment piece is missing because it was taken away and that intensive treatment was a key part of their testimonies. The corrections portion needs to be put back because, currently, the state is just looking at the penalties and it doesn't have the systems and processes in place to make the corrections, she stressed. 1:45:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to tying in the importance of jobs for inmates because if they do have a job they have the opportunity to pay restitution and continue to care for those depending upon them. The plan of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission for the future is to take away some of the barriers to employment. Also, the concept is to make sure people locked up don't just sit around, but that there actually is a work penalty or reward, and that element must be built in if the system is to reform, he opined. 1:47:52 PM SYLVAN ROBB, Policy Analyst, Office of Management & Budget (OMB), said she is available to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reminded Ms. Robb that the committee requested an idea of the savings from this bill independent of the governor's separate cuts. MS. ROBB answered that when taking out the $8 million Governor Bill Walker's reduction, the five year savings from the reforms included in this bill are $11 million, which would be the net savings after reinvestment. MS. ROBB, in response to Representative Claman, answered that the net savings would be for five years. She added that it is worth noting that the Department of Corrections' budget will still be reduced by an additional $40 million during that time period. CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the $40 million has nothing to do with this bill. MS. ROBB responded that Chair LeDoux is correct. CHAIR LEDOUX asked why it is being discussed here. MS. ROBB opined that she wanted to clarify those numbers and that the Department of Corrections will have that budget reduction. She related that Chair LeDoux is correct in that it is not part of this, so the net savings over five years from HB 205 is $11 million. 1:49:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT advised that she has requested an opportunity to speak with Governor Walker about HB 205 to determine whether he supports, is neutral, or is out of favor with the commission's recommendations and the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Kaci Schroeder to give the committee a description of the current restitution system, and the measures in place for a victim experiencing $1,500 worth of property stolen. 1:51:30 PM KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Legal Services Section, Department of Law, said that Alaska's current restitution statutes are fairly robust in that if a victim of a crime is entitled to restitution it is something the prosecutors frequently seek. The restitution is incorporated into the plea negotiations and the prosecution seeks it after trial as part of sentencing. They ask that judges make it both a part of their sentence and their probation, and it is important to note that restitution is a civil order so it does extend beyond the life of the criminal case. After the restitution order is made, if the victims choose they can try to collect on their own or ask the Department of Law (DOL) to assist. She offered that DOL has a collections unit dedicated to collecting restitution and child support collections. Unfortunately, DOL does not have an attorney dedicated solely to collections, but the collections unit focuses on garnishing PFDs. Although, it does have other avenues for collections available to them; however, in its experience garnishing wages or bank sweeps are not particularly helpful because often probationers do not have steady employment and don't make a lot of money so getting restitution piecemeal sometimes is not that effective. The PFD offers a way to one-time collect a large sum of money and the unit also takes voluntary payments from probationers who are paying. 1:53:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how much money the Department of Law collected in 2015 for restitution. MS. SCHROEDER advised that the collections unit collected just under $2.8 million, and it currently has 8,000 open restitution cases. 1:53:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to people on probation and parole and asked whether it is a condition of all of those people to make restitution payments as a condition of their probation. MS. SCHROEDER reiterated that the Department of Law seeks restitution both as a term of the sentence and as a term of probation. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the order in which restitution is paid. MS. SCHROEDER responded that child support is first and restitution is second. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that child support garnishment would continue through completion of the back child support being paid, and in the meantime the victim's portion would wait until the back child support is paid and the restitution then goes to the victim. She asked how often that happens. 1:55:01 PM MS. SCHROEDER asked Representative Millett to clarify her question. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that the civil liability goes throughout the life of the person, and asked how long it takes to get the checks into the hands of the victims after child support is paid. MS. SCHROEDER responded that it would be difficult to say because child support payments vary in their amounts and the order may stipulate how much money to take and leaving some money DOL could collect for restitution. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether Ms. Schroeder had charts depicting how many years out some victims receive restitution. She referred to the order in which restitution is paid in that victims are second, acknowledging the need for the payment of back child support. She related the need to balance that with the victims who sometimes don't receive restitution for 10-15 years. MS. SCHROEDER responded that she spoke with the lead attorney in the collections unit and they do not track the amount of restitution owed versus how much has been paid per order. It is difficult to say how long victims wait, although, she offered that they can wait an exceeding long time and often they are not paid at all. 1:56:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that the data she is looking for is not tracked, and asked whether anyone tracks that information other than the Department of Law. MS. SCHROEDER said she does not know anyone that would be tracking that information, and that the collections unit is very small and it is overwhelmed with its workload which can be part of the reason for not tracking. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that possibly restitution could be restructured wherein at the same time the arrears in the child support are being paid, the victims are also recognized with some portion of restitution during the time PFDs and wages are garnished. CHAIR LEDOUX commented that she understands where Representative Millett is coming from but the child support arrears are usually done when someone is on public assistance within the child support enforcement agency. Therefore, when collecting for child support, the state is actually collecting not for the children anymore because the children have been paid by the state, but collecting for the state to [repay] public assistance. She pointed out that if the state ceases collecting as much money for the state it will be more expensive to the state. That is not saying that the legislature shouldn't necessarily be doing it that way but, she opined, it will have some fiscal impact on the state. MS. SCHROEDER responded that Chair LeDoux is correct, that is one of the reasons PFDs are garnished for child support payment, and opined there are probably other ways but that is outside of her knowledge base. 2:00:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the committee is told on the one hand that Alaska has the most robust restitution laws around and yet the total amount of money victims have received is unknown. He then asked for the total restitution compared to the amount of money collected because "certainly" that can be determined. He said he assumes the courts keep records of the restitution orders which will provide a total amount of restitution, and then DOL handles the collection so that should be an easy comparison and he would like to see the number. He pointed to the question of where the collected money goes and how much goes to the state and how much to victims and said the committee has to get to the bottom of this and start by comparing how the state is doing on restitution. MS. SCHROEDER opined that she does not know whether DOL has the numbers as to the amount the outstanding judgments total, but she will ask. She further opined that she does not know whether the court system tracks that information, and noted that the Department of Law (DOL) does not execute every restitution order because sometimes victims take it into their hands to execute on the order. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the priority of child support over restitution and surmised it would be applied if there is a levy made on a PFD. MS. SCHROEDER said he was correct, and the priority order is for PFD garnishments. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered a scenario of someone being on probation or parole and part of their condition is that the person must write $100 for restitution once a month, and get a receipt. He described that as a voluntary payment and even if that person owes child support if the probation officer says he doesn't care about the child support, the person still needs to pay the restitution. MS. SCHROEDER answered that he was correct. 2:03:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether she knew the differentiation between the amounts collected through levies from the PFD versus amounts collected for restitution in voluntary payments. MS. SCHROEDER answered that she does not have that data but she would check on it. 2:03:24 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether she had any suggestions as to what the committee could actually do to beef up the robust restitution system because if people are waiting 10-15 years for their money it may not necessarily be working. She said she is aware that "you can't squeeze money out of a rock ... a turnip." MS. SCHROEDER agreed, and offered that an issue is that people do not make a lot of money and sometimes restitution is in large amounts. She offered that she does not have a lot of ideas but DOL would evaluate any ideas the committee offers to determine how it would work. As far as a robust system, she opined that Alaska has a robust system as far as being able to order and obtain judgments that order restitution, and the collections issue may not be as robust. [HB 205 was held over.]