HB 118-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS  3:04:54 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to state identifications and driver's licenses for persons in the custody of the Department of Corrections; relating to the duties of the commissioner of corrections; relating to living conditions for prisoners; and providing for an effective date." 3:05:10 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, prime sponsor, provided introductory remarks on HB 118. He recalled that last year, a number of hearings in the State Affairs Standing Committee pertained to rehabilitation, improving Alaska's correctional facilities, and reducing recidivism. Subsequently, a committee bill was put forth that included statutory recommendations by the Department of Corrections (DOC) and stakeholders, which "died" in the House Rules Standing Committee at the end of the thirty-first legislative session. He noted that HB 118 is a continuation of that legislation. 3:07:09 PM LINDSAY BIRK, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss- Tomkins, prime sponsor, presented HB 118. She paraphrased the sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The intent of this bill is to remove the restriction prohibiting a prisoner from possessing a computer in their cell, expanding access to safe and secure internet for purposes of rehabilitation and reintegration, and provide prisoners with easier access to state identification upon release. HB 118 creates an easier process of reentry and rehabilitation for inmates and lessens the risk of reoffending. By allowing access to safe and secure internet, inmates are better able to prepare themselves for reentry into the outside world. According to a study released by the Department of Justice, 68% of prisoners are arrested again within three years, 83% during the following nine years. One of the key reasons for reoffending is the difficulty prisoners face securing employment post incarceration. Access to online job training, therapy and visitation helps to alleviate the risk of reoffending. Another important element of this bill is it provides easier access to identification for prisoners upon release, allowing them an important tool for reintegration. Both expanding internet access for prisoners and providing prisoners with easier access to state identification help ease the difficulties of reentry and will help to lower the risk of recidivism. 3:09:18 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony. 3:10:00 PM DON HABEGER, Community Coordinator, Juneau Reentry Coalition, informed the committee that a reentry coalition is a local organization that engages community partners, local businesses, and individuals to support those transitioning from corrections back into the community. The purpose, he said, is to ensure that local resources are available to support successful reentry and reduce the incident of reincarceration. He added that when burdens to successful reentry manifest themselves, reentry coalitions work to alleviate those barriers. He explained that reentry coalitions base their work on evidence-based principals and rely on the Risk-Need Responsivity Model, which is also used by DOC through its level of service inventory revised assessment, which is given to inmates incarcerated for more than 90 days. The model teaches that treatment benefits increase when interventions begin early in the corrections process. He relayed that reentry coalitions believe that Alaska has erected an artificial statutory barrier, which adds difficulty to treatment delivery during incarceration. He stated that HB 118 would address this issue by allowing access to technology to increase rehabilitative treatment, training, reentry case management, pro-social development, and related programing during incarceration. He reported that utilizing safe and secure modern technology as a delivery medium improves community public safety outcomes, as individuals are better prepared for life on the outside. Additionally, he said the importance of having valid state ID [identification] upon release [from incarceration] cannot be overstated. He pointed out that simple things, such as accepting a job and filling out the I-9, cannot be accomplished without one. He said the bill would require the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and DOC to work together to ensure a state ID card is on hand upon release, which would improve the reentry process. He emphasized that [Juneau] Reentry Coalition supports the state ID provision in HB 118. 3:14:24 PM KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections, expressed that the department supports this legislation. She addressed the state ID provision, explaining that currently, 12 percent of releasing inmates do not have a valid ID. Those released from DOC without a valid ID receive a voucher, which allows them to start the process at DMV. Further, she reported that of the 12 percent, or 300 individuals, who release without an ID, about 100 use the voucher system. She said DOC is working with DMV to find a way to close that gap so that every releasing inmate will have an ID on hand. She continued by noting that DOC supports changing the statutory requirement that does not allow inmates to have a computer device in their cell. She added that the change would allow the department to provide education and communication opportunities for inmates. 3:16:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said her understanding was that the computers would be in a controlled environment. She inquired about the need to have computer access in individual cells. MS. GOODE noted that despite the terminology, tablets are often used to provide this education and communication link. She explained that current state statute prohibits the use of a tablet from inside an inmate's cell even for reasons such as a family phone call or [educational] course. She offered her belief that should the bill pass, the department would write policy to ensure that this technology is used in a secure manner. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about protecting the department against liability. She offered the example of an individual who claimed it was a civil right for every inmate to have a tablet. She acknowledged that [the legislature] does not "necessarily" want to limit access; however, she said, it's a matter of money and security. She questioned how to legally protect [DOC]. MS. GOODE suggested that DOC work with the Department of Law (DOL) while building policy on this matter. Further, she addressed the issue of security, noting that the tablets would not provide broad or "free-flowing" access to the internet. She assured the committee that DOC has a constitutional obligation to protect victims' rights; therefore, the tablets would only allow access in a controlled environment. She reiterated that the department would work with DOL to ensure that the policy is legal and fair for everyone. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether regulations during COVID-19 have been relaxed to allow the tablets to be used for visitation and telehealth. She asked how the experience has been for DOC and what the department has learned "during the time of this new period of access through the internet." MS. GOODE said the department would have liked to [allow the use of tablets], but current state law prohibits it. She noted that telehealth was utilized via (indisc.) through medical, but not with tablets or individual offenders. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for verification that the proposed statutory change would allow the department to utilize telehealth for [inmates] and visitation with loved ones. MS. GOODE explained that it would provide "what the department looks at," such as education, social programs, and visitation with family. She offered to follow up with the general telehealth programs that are available for the inmate population. 3:21:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 6, line 26, and asked why the term "healthcare" is used versus "telehealth." CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that the language was incorporated in partnership with DOC. He acknowledged that if healthcare is proscriptive to the possibility of telehealth, that's not the intent. He said amending that to be explicitly clear could be an easy fix. 3:22:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referenced page 6, subsection (i), and asked if without the proposed change, that subsection would prohibit the department from providing tablets or computers to prisoners under any circumstance. MS. GOODE said that is the section of statute that is being revised to offer as much as possible through the tablets. She surmised that when [the original statute was written] in the 1990s, the idea that prisoners could use tablets in a secure manner did not exist. She conveyed that the intent was to be more expansive so that when telehealth and healthcare options became available, DOC would be allowed to offer them. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how the department plans on preventing prisoners from using the tablets for inappropriate purposes. MS. GOODE said DOC would work with vendors that offer secure networks to ensure that the proper security is in place. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the "healthcare" language on page 6, line 26, and pointed out that healthcare is broad enough to include telehealth, but telehealth may not be broad enough to include all healthcare. Therefore, he opined that the term "healthcare" is appropriate. He directed attention to lines 22- 24 and asked if the facilitating case plan would limit the ability for a sick prisoner to use a tablet to speak with a doctor. He questioned whether the case plan includes staying healthy while in prison. MS. GOODE opined that the language that pertains to what's accessible from the tablet is broader rather than prohibitive. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for confirmation that the language would allow for a prisoner in his/her cell to use a tablet to communicate with a medical provider via telehealth. MS. GOODE said she is unsure whether direct access to a provider would be available. She offered to follow up on that. 3:26:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reasoned that it raises the question of what an individual would be doing for his/her own health care in terms of communicating directly with a provider. MS. GOODE noted that many inmates may have special diets, which is something in a case plan that could be viewed on a tablet. Another possibility could be using the tablet to fill out Medicaid forms. She opined that addressing healthcare in the bill allows for growth. She reiterated that the intent was to be expansive so that as technology changes, DOC could offer options to inmates in a safe and secure manner. 3:28:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the tablets could be a hazard in terms of glass, which could be turned into a weapon. MS. GOODE said DOC would work with providers and vendors that have developed safe and secure protection for the tablets, which has been proven in facilities nationwide. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN referenced a Washington Post articled [included in the committee packet] that mentions devices that had been used to coordinate rebellion in various facilities. He asked if the system would enable "cross-communication coordination" between inmates that could be used against the guards. MS. GOODE reiterated that this would not provide free-flowing internet access. She assured Representative Kaufman that DOC would work with vendors to ensure that the institutions' needs are met, as well as the public's safety. She emphasized that the department has a constitutional obligation to protect victims. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether monitored access to tablets in the library, for example, would be better than in- cell use. MS. GOODE acknowledged that Representative Kaufman may be right, adding that in some institutions, tablets could be checked out for use in a general area. She cautioned against saying that [the tablets] would never be used in a single cell depending on the individual and the circumstance. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN reiterated his belief that there is a control issue [to address]. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that DOC is full of professionals that do this work every day of every year. He imagined that as Ms. Good had testified, the parameters would be narrow and prescribed. He added that the department is looking for the statutory discretion to do what is currently prohibited. 3:33:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Section 3, paragraph (11), specifies that the commissioner shall assist a prisoner with obtaining a valid state identification card before release. He asked why the new language in paragraph (11) [page 4, lines 17- 21] repeats that instruction with an emphasis on 120 days. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. Good could remember the particular origin of the added language. MS. GOODE said she did not remember. She suggested that it could have been a drafting determination. MS. BIRK said she was also uncertain. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested that Ms. Birk follow up with the requested information. MS. GOODE offered her understanding that the existing language [in paragraph (11)] indicates that DOC could continue using the voucher system for an individual who has been in prison for less than 120 days; however, after 120 days, the legislature recommends that DOC work with the Department of Administration (DOA) to provide the prisoner with an identification card. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the legislature instruct the commissioner to ensure that all inmates have an identification card upon release rather than emphasizing those serving a term that exceeds 120 days. He sought to clarify why those prisoners would need an identification card more than any other prisoner. MS. GOODE replied it's about timing. She pointed out that it takes several weeks to receive an official identification card from the DMV; therefore, DOC wouldn't have the time to obtain a new ID for a prisoner who is only serving a five-day term. 3:36:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why instruction on obtaining state identification is being removed from Section 5 [page 7, lines 1- 2]. MS. GOODE offered her belief that the deletion in Section 5 was a drafting determination. 3:37:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled that legislators were given the opportunity to experience the reentry assimilation. She reflected on the barriers to getting an identification card upon release. Additionally, she pointed out that 90 percent of incarcerated individuals reenter the system. She directed attention to Section 4, subparagraph (I), on page 6 and asked whether [prisoners] could take classes and participate in behavioral health sessions, as the equipment allows, and whether the department has adequate resources to facilitate that. Further, she asked what it would cost and expressed concern about the zero fiscal note. MS. GOODE stated that the bill is primarily an authorization bill that grants the authority to provide this technology as a means to deliver education. She conveyed that DOC is confidant that the fiscal note is accurate, adding that it could be built upon later. 3:39:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that in subparagraph (I) [page 6, lines 20-27], the department is asking for statutory approval to allow an inmate to use a computer for any purpose. He inquired about the thought process behind that broad authority. MS. GOODE explained that the language "and may not be used for any other purpose" was removed because it could be confining as technology advances and more services become available via tablet. She said the department was attempting to avoid "[boxing themselves] in;" however, she added that DOC would understand if the legislature chose to include sidebars, as it's a policy call. 3:41:31 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 118 was held over.