SB 24 EXTEND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION Co-chair Drue Pearce directed that SB 24 be brought on for discussion. SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, sponsor of the legislation, came before committee. He explained that the bill reflects a recommendation from the sentencing commission. It is also part of the Governor's anti-crime package. It extends the available period of probation in criminal matters from five to ten years. Once an individual leaves a correctional facility, there is currently no means of supervising him or her for more than five years. Evidence indicates that the recidivism rate for certain crimes (sex offenses were noted as an example) is reduced by a longer period of probation. While treatment programs for rehabilitation of sex offenders have not proven to be effective, longer term supervision tends to prevent recidivism. The proposed bill represents a tool that could be used by the criminal justice system to protect the public. Senator Donley noted that since fiscal impact would occur five years hence, fiscal notes are zero. He acknowledged that the change in law could result in costs as individuals are placed on longer periods of probation. Those costs could be negated by judges who elect, in non-mandatory sentencing cases, to utilize a longer period of supervised probation in the community rather than longer sentences. The proposed bill passed the House in the last legislature, but died in Rules without coming to a floor vote. There has been no expressed opposition to the bill. (Senators Sharp and Jacko arrived at this time.) Senator Rieger inquired concerning the difference between probation and parole. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Dept. of Law, briefly came before committee in response to the question but deferred comment to staff from the Dept. of Corrections. DIANE SCHENKER, Special Assistant, Dept. of Corrections, explained that in Alaska probation/parole officers supervise both probation and parole. Supervision is thus similar. The parole board sets the conditions of supervision for an individual on parole. Conditions are individually tailored to the offender. For someone on probation, the court sets the conditions at sentencing. Neither parole nor probation has an inherently higher level of supervision. Discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Ms. Schenker regarding the role of presumptive sentencing. Senator Sharp referenced comments from parole/probation officers that parole is not revoked for two and three time felony offenders while they are awaiting trial on yet another charge. Ms. Schenker advised that the court makes the decision as to whether or not probation is revoked. The department may file petitions to revoke based on the offender's behavior. Due to over crowding, the department attempts to use every alternative other than a full revocation and return to incarceration. Further discussion followed between Senator Sharp and Ms. Schenker regarding actions that can be taken by a parole officer when an offender commits an additional crime while on parole or probation. Ms. Schenker reiterated that any action is subject to court review. Senator Donley stressed that the probationary or parole period is when financial restitution is made to victims. Since monthly restitution payments are often small, the current five-years are often are not sufficient to pay the debt in full. Discussion followed between Senator Kerttula and Ms. Schenker regarding the "burn out" rate for probation officers and department replacement needs. Speaking to costs of the proposed bill, Ms. Schenker voiced inability to estimate the impact. It is difficult to estimate how many cases might result in probation for ten years. She advised that the department could reduce the fiscal note to zero if the extended period of probation would be unsupervised. She indicated that, at the present time, an individual on probation for five years is generally not supervised for the full five years. After one, two, or three years, the individual is either going to make it, or he or she has violated parole and been returned to jail. Misdemeanants are always placed on unsupervised probation. Ms. Schenker voiced department concern that it may incur liability if it does not supervise offenders during the last five years of ten-year probation. Senator Kerttula attested to future need for additional probation/parole officers. Senator Jacko concurred in concern for fiscal implications resulting from the extension. Ms. Schenker attested to difficulties associated with attempting to estimate the cost. Senator Donley noted that nothing in the bill compels a high level of supervision. It will be up to the judge to make an assessment for each case. Ms. Schenker again voiced concern that the department may incur additional liability if statutes do not clarify that the extended period is unsupervised. If that is not clear, the department would be "hard pressed" to "make it unsupervised." Senator Sharp voiced concern regarding what appears to be broad application of the extension at the discretion of the judge. Senator Donley noted that current statutory provisions require five years probation/parole for "every kind of crime . . . ." He stressed that the proposed bill would be an effective tool and one of the only tools for diminishing recidivism of sex offenders. Co-chair Pearce called for additional testimony on the bill. None was forthcoming. Senator Kerttula MOVED for passage of SB 24 with individual recommendations. No objection having been raised, SB 24 was REPORTED OUT of committee with an indeterminate fiscal note from the Dept. of Corrections and zero notes from the Dept. of Public Safety, Dept. of Law, and Court System. Co-chairs Pearce and Frank and Senators Kerttula and Rieger signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators Jacko and Kelly signed "no recommendation." Senator Sharp signed "do not pass."