SENATE BILL NO. 64 "An Act establishing the Alaska Sentencing Commission; relating to jail-time credit for offenders in court- ordered treatment programs; allowing a reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of driving while under the influence or refusing to submit to a chemical test; relating to court termination of a revocation of a person's driver's license; relating to limitation of drivers' licenses; relating to conditions of probation and parole; and providing for an effective date." 9:11:15 AM SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, related that the bill had the three overriding goals of improving public safety, slowing the growth of the prison population, and saving the state money. He related that if things were not changed, the Senate Finance Committee might to consider how to build the state's next big prison. He stated that the bill was a cooperative effort between himself, Senator Ellis, Senator French, and Senator Dyson that had been under development for well over a year and half. He continued that the bill was the result of many hours of testimony and that the sponsors had hammered out a good piece of legislation that the committee would be able to appreciate. He thought that there were several things in the bill that would help the state turn the corner on a variety of things that "really kicked the feet out from under us," which was the drug and alcohol problem in Alaska. He stated that the legislation would give the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and the Department of Law (DOL) real tools to help manage a population that needed better avenues. He stated that Alaska needed to figure out how to deal with the issue of sobriety, as well as how to keep people accountable and not spend the most amount on jail time. He spoke of the need let people have as much freedom as possible and be productive while still protecting public safety.y. Senator Coghill related that in his mind, there were several over-arching aspects as the bill was being put together. He reported that he had always had an eye to the victim and that in Alaska, victims were quite often left without remedy. He thought that even as Alaska was trying to give avenues for those who had offended, the state wanted to make sure that the public was safe and that the victims were given every opportunity for restoration; he thought that there were avenues to do this under the 24/7 Sobriety Program. He reported that the 24-7 program allowed people to be productive while under accountability, which allowed them to pay restitution in other ways; he thought that the bill fell into what Senator Dyson had pushed on restorative justice. He added that the protection for the victim and the need for accountability were heavily embedded in the bill in the most cost-effective ways. He noted that the legislation contained a sobriety program and established the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission that would study the question of whether there were areas of Alaska's mandated sentencing laws that the legislature should be looking at; the bill would provide the commission with a list of things to think about and would require it to come back to the legislature with a report. Senator Coghill thought that through the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, it was time to examine how Alaska looked at its criminal code, mandatory sentencing, and how the sentencing had fit in real life; this would not be done with the intent of how to be soft on crime, but to be as real as possible in accountability. He stated that that imbedded in the bill was a Probation Accountability and Ccertain en Enforcement ??(PACE) program that acted swiftly in the event of a parole violation. He noted that the sponsors were requesting that a fund be established within the bill that would allow the state to have a programmatic approach for those exiting jail; he noted that were several ways to setup of a fund and hoped that he would have a clearer path forward on that issue the next time the bill was before the committee. Senator Coghill noted that thresholds for felony theft had not been adjusted since 1978 and thought that it represented an important thing to do because currently, Alaska could produce felons for things that really did not rise to the level of a felony; if under certain circumstances, they more than once they could be a felon if they offended more than once. He noted that under the bill, some of these felonies needed to be adjusted and that the time value ofand money and crime needed to be considered. He noted that the sponsors were asking the DOC epartment of Corrections and the Department of Health and Social Services DHSS to assist in creating better risk and needs assessments. He thought that the bill would help protect the public and keep people more accountable. He reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee had included a section for people who picked up children and did not have good identification; the section heldp people to a level of accountability if they did not have the right to pick up a child at school. He concluded that were multiple aspects in the bill, but its real focus was public safety, accountability, and avoiding building another prison that would cost the state $300 million or more. 9:18:25 AM Senator Dunleavy pointed to the fiscal notes attached to the bill and inquired if the he bill's cost would represent an increase to the budget or a transfer from another area. Senator Coghill replied that the way the bill was written, it would was a general fund appropriation to the stated, but added that he would have his staff propose ways to decrease that cost and produce a CS. He stated that decreasing the bill's cost really revolved around the recidivism fund. He observed that the legislation did have an expected savings that was very hard to quantify which was the reduction in cost of keeping people accountable outside of jail versus a the higher cost of incarceration. He related that the cost savings would be very hard to quantify, but it was expected to occur. He thought that there might be an estimation of what that savings was sometimes in the future, but reiterated that he was unsure if the DOCdepartment would be able to quantify the number. 9:20:30 AM JORDAN SCHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation titled "Senate Bill 64 Omnibus Crime/Corrections bill" (copy on file). He spoke to slide 1 of the presentation and read off his talking points (copy on file).: SLIDE 1 Mr. Chairman, thank you for hearing Senate Bill 64 today in light of a full schedule. Just to bring you up to speed on where SB 64 has been: (2) senate state affairs (2) joint judiciary (7) senate judiciary The Senate Judiciary Committee received input from the Department of Law, Dept. of Corrections, the Court system, Public Defender, and as a result of that feedback, this CS was formed. Today we go over version D. 9:21:34 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 2 and spoke from his talking points.: SLIDE 2 The state is not receiving good value for the money spent on our corrections system. 2 out of 3 of our prisoners return to prison quickly after release. Most of these offenders return in the first 6 months - which is one of the worst recidivism rates in the country. So, we must ask ourselves: with state revenues falling, is this how we want to spend our money? M 9:22:00 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to a graph on slide 3 and reported that currently, the price of incarceration was $159 per day, per inmate and was about $54,000 per year, which was approximately twice as much the cost in the Lower-48. 9:22:09 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 4 and read from his talking points.: SLIDE 4 Today Alaska is at a crossroads. If the prison population continues to grow at its current rate, the state's prisons will be, yet again, at full capacity in just two years. So, the state must today either start planning to build a new prison, start sending prisoners out-of-state, or, look at programs that are proven to work - things other states are doing today - to reduce recidivism, reduce our DOC budget, and put off a huge capital expense (and an operating expense) of building another prison. Mr. Schilling related that the graph on slide 4 was from the Legislative Finance Division. He stated that the red line was the maximum capacity of the prison system and that the blue line was the prisoner population. He stated that the prison population in Alaska was growing at a steady 3 percent per year and that in 2016, where the blue and red lines intersect, was when the system would be over capacity. He stated that the horizontal cells at the bottom of slide showed the budget and relayed that the lately, it had increased about 7.3 percent per year. 9:23:14 AM Co-Chair Kelly requested Mr. Schilling to repeat the figure. Mr. Schilling confirmed that the corrections the corrections budget had been increasing 7.3 percent per year. 9:23:20 AM Mr. Schilling pointed to slide 5 and read his talking points.: SLIDE 5 Many states have been faced with the same problem - the problem of needing a new prison every 5 or 10 years. Those states identified the things driving their prison growth and developed policies to address them. Over the last couple years, 15 of those states actually closed prisons. Texas and Kansas were among the first states to make some big changes. Texas was faced with building 4 new prisons. Instead of doing that, they funded some of these programs, and they ended up not needing a single new prison, and they actually closed a prison a few years later… so we can look to what other states have done to see what works. Kentucky's omnibus corrections bill is projected to save them $420 million over the next 10 years. Arkansas' omnibus bill is expected to save $875 million. We haven't done much in corrections reform. The vast majority of Alaska's criminal statutes were rewritten in 1982. The Alaska criminal code was based on the best research at the time. Research, however, has continued to advance during the last 25 years and much has been learned about effective ways to address our prison problem 9:24:29 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 6 and related that the bill had three main goals, which were to increase public safety, reduce recidivism, and reduce costs. M 9:24:38 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 7 and spoke from his talking points.: SLIDE 7 Now, the DOC has similar goals. This is the mission statement of the Department of Corrections. 1) Secure confinement 2) Reformative programs 3) Community Reintegration That mission is pulled right from the Alaska Constitution. So, it's not that their goals are wrong, but it's how they allocate resources to achieve those goals. M 9:25:02 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to the charts on slide 8 and read from his talking points: SLIDE 8 This is how they allocate those resources. The Department places a major emphasis on secure confinement, and barely any emphasis reformative programs or community reintegration. Yet those are the very areas where we can affect recidivism. If we keep doing the same thing, we'll keep getting the same results. These are the results we're getting right now. Mr. Schilling discussed the top pie chart on slide 8 and stated that it depicted how DOC allocated its full-time positions; 86 percent of the positions were focuseds on the warehousing aspect, 4 percent wereas focused on reformative programs, and 10 percent wereas for supervised release. 9:25:39 AM Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to the graph on slide 9 and addressed his talking points.: SLIDE 9 The Department of Corrections made this graph and it shows the drop in recidivism over the past few years. While it may look like a dramatic decrease is occurring, you'll notice this is about 1.5% reduction over 4 years. That's not enough, and it's not happening quick enough. At that rate, our prison system will be at capacity by 2016. And 63% is still one of the highest recidivism rates in the country. M 9:26:12 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 10 and spoke from his talking points. SLIDE 10 SB 64 has 8 main pieces to address our recidivism problem: · SB 64 establishes a 24/7 Sobriety Program used to prevent offenders from drinking. The program includes twice-a-day alcohol testing and swift punishment if alcohol is consumed. · SB 64 creates the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission to evaluate the system and make recommendations. · SB 64 expands a program called P.A.C.E. which is a different way of doing probation that prevents violations and new crimes. · SB 64 requires the Dept. of Corrections to conduct more assessments of their prisoners. · SB 64 establishes a Recidivism Reduction fund in the Department of Corrections to grant money to transitional re-entry programs. · SB 64 increases the felony theft threshold from $500 to $750. The threshold was established in 1978 and has never been adjusted for inflation. o Lastly, SB 64 incentivizes treatment and expands the ability to get credit for time in treatment. Mr. Schilling inquired if Co-Chair Kelly would like him to go through the bill section by section. Co-Chair Kelly replied in the affirmative. 9:27:35 AM Mr. Schilling pointed to slide 11 and addressed his talking points.: SLIDE 11 The first 3 sections of the bill fill a gap in our criminal codes relating to attempted child abduction. These sections of the bill resulted from an amendment in Senate Judiciary. Mr. Schilling related that while the first 3 Sections of the legislation did not deal directly with recidivism, it had a strong public safety aspect. 9:27:59 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 12 and spoke from his talking points.: SLIDE 12 If a potential abductor goes to a school/daycare, and attempts to pick up a child that doesn't belong to them, the only charge currently on the books that can be made against the person is Criminal Mischief. These sections create a crime of "custodial interference in the 2nd degree" if an attempted abduction like that is made. 9:28:41 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if there were comments or discussions about cases of custody in and divorces situations in the Senate Judiciary Committee. She wondered what would happen if a mom who had custody of her child sent a neighbor to pick up the kids and that because of the volatility of the situation, a restraining order, or some other unkownsituation, the school did not want to release to a friend who the child knew;. sShe wondered how this a situation like the one described above would be dealt with and pointed out thought that the father might claim that it was an abduction. Mr. Schilling responded that it was a good question and relayed that the issue had been discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He directed the committee's attention to page 2 on line 16 of the legislation and stated that it was where the language was added that stated that in order for a crime to be committed, a person must have no legal right to pick up the child; the language had been added to address the type of situation that Vice-Chair Fairclough had referred to. He explained that if someone who had custody of a child gave a person permission to pick that child up, that would suffice as a legal right. M9:29:56 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 13 and related that the next 15 sections of the bill, which were Sections 4-19, dealt with Alaska's felony theft threshold. 9:30:08 AM Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to slide 14 and discussed hise talking points.: SLIDE 14 Sections 4-19 address the felony theft threshold. The dividing line between a misdemeanor theft and a felony theft is $500. If you steal something over $500, it's a felony. If you steal something under $500, it's a misdemeanor. That dividing line, the felony threshold, was established by the legislature over 30 years ago. Because that amount has never been adjusted, it fails to take into account 30 years of inflation. $500 in 1978 had much more purchasing power than it does today. In fact, $500 in 1978 is equivalent to $1800 today. In other words, what amounted to a misdemeanor 30 years ago may now constitute a felony. 9:30:44 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 15 and related that the graph showed where Alaska was compared to other states on the West Coast regarding felony theft thresholds. He reported that Alaska had was one of the last holdouts that had a felony threshold rate this low for theft. He added that the graph needed to be updated and that not only had Colorado adjusted theirs in 2007, but that it had done so again recently. He stated that property crimes made up the largest portion of Alaska's felonies and that the sponsors were seeking a modest increase in the threshold from $500 to $750. 9:31:19 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 16 and stated that the following statutes were those that would need to be adjusted if the felony theft threshold was changed from $500 to $750: Theft 2nd degree Theft 3rd degree Theft 4th degree Concealment of merchandise Removal of identification marks Unlawful possession Issuing a bad check Fraudulent use of an access device Vehicle theft in the 1st degree Criminal mischief 3rd degree Criminal mischief 4th degree Criminal mischief 5th degree Criminal simulation Misapplication of property Defrauding creditors. Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 16 and stated that the reason that there were 15 sections in the bill dealing with statutes was because of the of the number of them of them that were affected by the threshold change. Mr. Shilling read from his talking points: A felony conviction carries lifelong consequences. There are thousands of consequences and barriers that follow a felony for the rest of his or her life. A felony conviction greatly diminishes the ability of that individual to lead a productive life. This problem disproportionately affects those in rural Alaska. A basic window, if broken in Anchorage might only be a misdemeanor, but that same window in rural Alaska could trigger a felony. As inflation continues, this problem will get worse. One criticism we have heard is that some think theft will increase. Co-Chair Kelly inquired if the sponsor had had discussions about the $750 dollar amount and thought that it did not seem achieve that much. Mr. Schilling responded that when Senator Coghill had originally introduced the idea several years prior, the suggested new threshold had been $2,500 and that when the bill was again reintroduced the previous session, it was at $1,500 , but and it was amended down to $1,000; it was then amended again down to $750 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He agreed that the number was not very significant if it was going by inflation. 9:32:40 AM CoCo-Chair Kelly thought that the threshold in the bill needed to higher than $750 and inquired if the cost of a dented fender in the charge of criminal mischief would be applied under the legislation. Mr. Schilling responded that Co-Chair Kelly was correct. 9:33:10 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that small businesses are the ones advocating for a smaller threshold because they felt that breaking a storefront window in Anchorage rose to the level of a felony. Vice-Chair Fairclough referenced slide 15 and noted that only 10 states were provided. She inquired if the 10 states on the slide were the bottom 10 and requested a range inside of the U.S. where the level might be set. She recalled that the bill had been originally introduced with a new felony theft threshold of $2,500 and now appeared to still be second to the bottom at $750. She felt that businesses were not aware of how much the current threshold was costing the state in the form of corrections and the Alaska Court System. She understood the offense and that perhaps if businesses wanted to keep the threshold low, they could help carry the burden. Mr. Schilling responded that Vice-Chair Fairclough was correct in that not every state was listed on slide 15 and that there were, in fact, states that had a lower such threshold than Alaska. He stated that it was also true that the National Federation of Independent Business had pushed back on the bill's concept. 9:34:44 AM Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to slide 20 and thought that it was important to understand that theft under $500 was still a class A misdemeanor and carried up to a year in jail and up to a $10,000 fine; furthermore, these crimes would not go unpunished, but the threshold was being adjusted to track the original intent of the legislature when it had put in the $500 limit. 9:35:04 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered what the bar graph on slide 15 represented inside of the U.S. She inquired whether it represented the high and the low or another category. Mr. Schilling responded that the x-axis was showing a dollar amount and that Alaska's current bar was about $500; the numbers next to the bars were the years that the thresholds had been established. He noted that Alaska's threshold was established in 1978, but the state just above it on the chart, which was Nevada, had a threshold of $650 that was established in 2011. 9:35:43 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough commented that there were 50 states and that she was looking for a range. She inquired if the chart's states reflected the high and the low or were there numbers that were not shown on the extrapolation for the graph. Mr. Schilling responded that the graph did not reflect a high or low range, but that he would produce the information for the committee. Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that she was trying to get a range for the committee. Mr. Schilling replied that he had a seen a low threshold of about $300, but that he could not recall which state that was; he believed that $2,000 was the new threshold for Colorado. Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if Mr. Schilling thought that the high was Colorado at $2,000. Mr. Schilling responded that he believed that it was. 9:36:29 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 17 and. He related that there had been concerns by the business community that the bill would result in increased crime and theft; however, other states had not seen those effects from similar legislation. He pointed to slide 17, 18, and 19's graphs and related that they graphs had come from the PEW Research Center, which had conducted a lot of research on the issue. He noted that Arkansas had raisedchanged its threshold in 2011 and that instances of theft remained unchanged. M 9:36:55 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 18 and related that Ohio had increased its threshold in 2011; theft had actually dropped there since then. 9:37:00 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 19 and pointed out that South Carolina had doubled its threshold in 2012; again, crime was steady. 9:37:06 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 20 and related that it was a visual representation of what the sections did. Mr. Shilling spoke to his talking points for slide 20: These sections also raise the lower threshold of $50 that sits between a class A misdemeanor and a class B misdemeanor to $250. So, we propose to increase the threshold to $750. It's a modest amount, but it's a step in the right direction. 9:37:28 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired why the threshold was being changed if there were results that showed it did not make a difference on the crime rates. Mr. Schilling replied that the purpose it was to reduce the number of people who were receivingbeing felonies es for crimes above $500, but under $750. He furthered that the sponsor was trying to reduce the collateral consequences that followed someone for the rest of their lives if they received a felony convictions. He offered that it was becoming easier and easier to receive a felony conviction. 9:38:06 AM Co-Chair Kelly thought that the point was that the crime level did not go up as a result of the changing the of felony theft threshold; it could benefit the state by having the cost be a lot less with the same amount of crime. He observed that the sponsor was also trying to address a human element with the change, but that it could not be quantified. 9:38:27 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough requested that the presentation be directed back to slide 17 and noted that when she looked at the graphs, she saw something different. She offerednoted that in Arkansas, it appeared as though theft had been trending downward until the threshold had been raised there. Mr. Schilling responded that the uptick in the graph was right before the state had changed the threshold and that it appeared to him as though the line level was level at the point at which it was changed. Vice-Chair Fairclough observednoted that there was an inflection downward in one of the categories of theft. Mr. Schilling replied in the affirmative. 9:39:09 AM Senator Bishop requested the average age of peoples of the felons whothat committed felony theft. He wondered if most of these types of crimes were committed by people who were 18 and 19 years old and expressed that he added that wanted to help paint the picture. He added that felony theft could be a barrier to a young person who was seeking employment and noted that it prohibited these people from working on the pipeline. Mr. Schilling responded that that he would work with the Alaska Ccourt Sysystem to determine if that was a number that he could obtain. Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if there had been discussion regarding in the Senate Judiciary Committee about a judge's discretion related to the bill. She relayedted that some judges had indicated to her that sometimes the legislature was so prescriptive in what it did that there was sometimes very little latitude for judges to consider what was happening in the court room or to an individual who might be a troubled child who threw a rock or might be a multiple offender. She further clarified the question and wondered if the discussion of giving judges the flexibility of weighing an individual perpetrator's circumstances in his decision. Mr. Schilling responded that the issue had not been discussed specifically in regards to the felony theft threshold, but that he understood that giving judges very little discretion was a problem. 9:41:19 AM Vice-Chair Fairclough recalled the example of a mischievous child breaking a window and thought that perhaps exceptions could be made in certain cases. She appreciated the work of the bill's sponsor but had heard from the judicial system that the legislature was getting very prescriptive and that a having justice versus prescriptive penalties was something that was sometimes out of judges' hands. 9:42:07 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 22 and read off of his talking points. : SLIDE 21 Alaska has, for decades, been in a long struggle with alcohol. It has reached epidemic proportions and costs the state millions each year. The societal cost of alcohol is huge too - from FASD and suicide to domestic violence and sexual assault. Alcohol is a factor in many (if not most) crimes - For example, alcohol is involved in 75% of domestic violence offenses -- and if we can address that area, alcohol abuse, we could see a huge reduction of recidivism in Alaska. Sections 20-22 establish 24/7 in pre-trial. 24/7 Sobriety is a program developed in 2005 in South Dakota. It curbs alcohol use, it makes the public safer, and it reduces recidivism. The best part is that it costs the state next-to-nothing. 24/7 Sobriety is a growing trend in the U.S. There are 3 states with an established program (SD, ND, & MT), 11 states with pending legislation, and 5 more states operating pilots. The program has one goal: sobriety 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. The program requires the participant to: 1) refrain from alcohol and 2) show up twice-a-day for a breath alcohol test. (The court may also order remote monitoring in certain cases.) 9:43:42 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 22 and discussed his talking points.: Participation in the program can be required as a condition of probation, parole, or pre-trial. So, if an offender commits a crime, and alcohol is a factor in that crime, the court can order that person on 24/7 Sobriety, either as a condition of their release before trial, or as part of their probation. It is a particularly effective program for repeat DUI offenders. 9:43:56 AM Senator Hoffman requested that Mr. Schilling address the how remote monitoring would work in rural Alaska. Mr. Schilling deferred to DOC regarding where the department's monitors could and could not be used; however, he had information later in the presentation that would cover some of the devices and ways that it would work in rural Alaska. 9:44:24 AM Mr. Schilling continued to address slide 22 and spoke to his talking points: So, if an offender commits a crime, and alcohol is a factor in that crime, the court can order that person on 24/7 Sobriety, either as a condition of their release before trial, or as part of their probation. It is a particularly effective program for repeat DUI offenders. 9:44:38 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 23 and discussed his talking points.: SLIDE 23 All testing fees are paid by the participant, so it's a self-funded program. The cost is anywhere from $4-5 dollars per day, which the offender pays - and that's enough to sustain the program. 9:44:52 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 24 and addressed his talking points: SLIDE 24 There are several ways to test: in-person, ankle bracelet, home-based device, or a portable Breathalyzer. While in the program, participants remain in society, conduct their daily lives, go to work, pay their fees, and fulfill their responsibilities, as long as they remain sober. Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 24 and stated that the device on the far left side was a portable breathalyzer and the one in the middle was a home-based device that was being used in a pilot program in Anchorage; the device on the far right was an ankle device referred to as the SCRAM bracelet and was something that DOC was using. 9:45:28 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 25 and addressed his talking points.: SLIDE 25 Someone can be on the program anywhere from a week to a couple years. The program was based on personal responsibility and accountability, backed by swift and certain sanctions if there is a violation. If the offender blows hot, they receive a swift sanction (arrested immediately, a quick hearing, and a short jail sentence, usually 1-3 days.) M 9:45:52 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 26 and read from his talking points.: SLIDE 26 The program works. Most people on the program quit drinking completely, and another 30% quit drinking after their first couple violations. 24/7 Sobriety is a public safety measure. South Dakota has been collecting data on their program for almost 10 years now, and the results are very exciting. Mr. Schilling pointed to slide 27 and addressed his talking points.: SLIDE 27 They have seen a 9% decrease in domestic violence and a 12% decrease in drunk driving. The program is reducing recidivism and saving them money. The bottom line is: a majority of the people in the program quit drinking completely, and that's good for public safety and good for the budget. 9:46:29 AM Mr. Schilling addressed slide 28 and read from his talking points.: SLIDE 28 The next section, 23, makes changes to AS 12.55.027. This section of law lays out the requirements to receive credit for time served in a treatment program. By relaxing these requirements on treatment programs, the program can offer better treatment, and participants can more readily earn credit for time served there. Remember, offenders have little incentive to enter (and pay for) a treatment program if they won't get credit for their time. 9:47:06 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 29 and spoke to his talking points.: For 25 years, it was the Court that made determinations of what counted as credit for time served in a treatment program, based on years of caselaw, starting with Nygren v. State in 1983. In 2007 the legislature enacted this section of law. Now, it is laid out in statute, and is much more restrictive than it was pre-2007. It leaves little room for an offender to participate in activities that programs would like to provide, such as going to a job center, attending church, vocational classes, or going to AA and NA meetings. If we relax the requirements in this statute, it encourages rehabilitation and treatment, and allows treatment programs to do more. And it brings the statute more in-line with how things were done prior to 2007. The way these changes are written in SB 64, we're still preventing credit for time served for going to dinner and a movie. So, SB 64 says that in order to get credit for time served, one must live in a treatment facility and can only get a "day pass" for things like employment, voc. tech classes, AA or NA meetings, and any other purpose that is directly related to their treatment. This encourages treatment, which is by far less expensive than a prison bed. 9:48:39 AM Mr. Schilling related that Sections 26 through 28 of the bill dealt with the expansion of PACE. a program called Probation Accountability and Certain Enforcement (P.A.C.E). Mr. Schilling pointed slide 30 and discussed his talking points.: SLIDE 30 When an offender is put on probation, they are given a list of things they can't do - like use drugs. If they violate the conditions of their probation by using drugs, it's called a "probation violation" and that can trigger you going back to jail. In Alaska, we have a big problem with people on probation getting these violations or committing new crimes and repeatedly coming back into the prison system. This revolving door of people coming in and out of the prisons is one of the biggest drivers of our high recidivism rate. But more important to this committee, it is one of the biggest cost drivers to the Department of Corrections. 9:49:28 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 31 and addressed his talking points.: SLIDE 31 There is a way to stop this revolving door. There is a different way of doing probation and it's a program called P.A.C.E. (Probationer Accountability and Certain Enforcement). Mr. Schilling pointed to the pie graph on slide 31. He related that the green slice represented 14 percent and was the amount of people who were serving time currently solely based on a probation violation. Mr. Schilling continued to address slide 31 and read from his talking points.: ..it was first developed in Hawaii and is now being used in 17 other states. It reduces the number of re- arrests, reduces the amount of drug use, reduces the number of missed appointments, and ultimately reduces the number of people going back to jail. It's an intensive program for offenders who have been identified as likely to violate the conditions of their probation. The program involves frequent and random drug tests and responds to any violation with swift, certain, and short terms of incarceration. Probation-as-it's-currently-done-today comes with high rates of violations. For example, despite rules requiring sober living, probation-as-usual oftentimes affords offenders opportunities to continue using drugs, which in most cases means continuing to commit other crimes. Drug testing tends to be too infrequent and sanctions are too rare and too delayed. When sanctions are imposed, they tend to be too severe (months, or occasionally years, in prison) rather than a 2-3 day jail term. P.A.C.E. takes away the discretion of the Probation Officer because when someone violates a condition of his or her probation by, for example, testing positive for drugs or missing an appointment, under P.A.C.E, that individual is arrested immediately and brought to court within 72 hours. At the court hearing, the judge imposes a sanction of a short jail term, commonly two to three days. If the offender violates his or her terms again, the process is repeated. In short, every single probation violation is dealt with quickly and a sanction is imposed each time. In contrast, under "probation as usual," revoking someone's probation or holding a court hearing might not occur until several probation violations are reported. As a result, the process can require several costly court hearings over a six-month period and can be generally characterized as anything but "swift and certain." This is more intensive probation, but it can be scaled at low cost. In Hawaii, the program grew from 35 probationers to more than 1400 without adding courtrooms, judges, court clerks, police officers, or jail cells. To begin putting a tourniquet on our rate of recidivism, this bill establishes PACE statewide immediately, which the Department of Corrections estimates needing additional personnel for. Mr. Schilling observed that the bill did have a fiscal note that accounted for the need of the additional personnel within DOC. 9:52:25 AM Co-Chair Kelly observed that the fiscal note for the bill was for about $1.6 million and inquired if there was any way to anticipate the savings that it would result in. Mr. Schilling replied that there were ways to estimate the savings and believed that the sponsor had a report from the Division of Legislative Research to that effect. He thought that the report was in members' packets (copy on file) and stated that further along in the presentation, he would discuss the reduced number of days in prison that people had under P.A.C.E. 9:52:51 AM Mr. Schilling continued to address slide 32 and stated that P.A.C.E. probationers were 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime and were 72 percent less likely to use drugs. He noted that the graph depicted a precipitous drop off after the first violation of a positive urinalysis. 9:53:14 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 33 and stated that P.A.C.E. probationers were 61 percent less likely to skip appointments. 9:53:22 AM Mr. Schilling addressed to slide 34 and relayed that P.A.C.E. probationers were ultimately 53 percent less likely to have their probations revoked, which was where a cost savings could be found because they were not coming back to prison. 9:53:37 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 35. He stated that the graph also reflected the likelihood of P.A.C.E. probationers' probation being revoked, but it reflected the state's pilot P.A.C.E. program in Anchorage. 9:53:47 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 36 and stated that it showed how many less days a P.A.C.E probationer would spend in prison; they served 48 percent fewer days in prison. He reported that when the cost of incarceration was $160 per day, a 48 percent decrease was huge. He observed that each new probation officer in Alaska paid for their own salary and benefits if they kept just 2 people out of prison for a year. 9:54:17 AM Mr. Schilling directed the committee's attention to slide 37 and discussed his talking points.: SLIDE 37 The Department of Corrections evaluates inmates to figure out their risks and needs. This type of evaluation can give the DOC an idea of the underlying reasons that person committed the crime like if they have a substance abuse or a mental health problem. Based on this assessment, you have a good idea if the offender needs to be in PACE, if he could use substance abuse or mental health treatment, basically, discovering what the underlying issue is. 9:54:45 AM Mr. Schilling spoke to slide 38 and related his talking points.: SLIDE 38 The department uses a 54-item assessment, which identifies problem areas in an offender's life and helps predict their likelihood of recidivating. The assessment looks into 10 areas like family/marital issues, attitudes, substance abuse or alcohol issues, etc. However, when someone is sentenced to serve time in prison here in Alaska, more often than not, we do not evaluate or assess that person. The Department of Corrections assesses less than half of the felons coming through the system, and assesses hardly any misdemeanants, even though misdemeanants are the future felons. You can't link an offender to treatment if you don't assess them. You can't understand the underlying, root causes for their crimes if you don't assess them. In speaking with the department, a risk-needs assessment takes about 45 minutes to complete. Mr. Schilling addressed slide 39 and read fromaddressed his talking points.: SLIDE 39 So, this section [Section 29] of the bill requires the Department to perform a risk-needs assessment on all offenders who have been sentenced to 30 days or more. This will mean a significant increase in the number of assessments the Department conducts. The Department estimates needing additional probation officers to do these assessments. 9:55:54 AM Co-Chair Kelly wanted the record to reflect that Co-Chair Meyer had rejoined the committee. 9:56:14 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 40 and relayed his talking points.: SLIDE 40 When someone has served their entire sentence, they are released from prison. Every state releases their prisoners differently. Some states transition that person into a halfway house or some other type of gradually phased re-entry. But here in Alaska, more often than not, these prisoners are released into the parking lot of the prison without any resources whatsoever. This is one of the root causes of our high recidivism rate - we dress them in the clothes they entered prison with, and we release them into the parking lot. They don't have first month's rent or a deposit, and they can't get a job. They certainly can't afford treatment. And if you're from rural Alaska, you're probably being released in a city you're unfamiliar with. So, as a result, many of those recently released go straight to a homeless shelter and are back in jail in no time. It's this approach to re-entry that is the main cause of Alaska's high recidivism rate. Of all of the recidivism we're seeing, most of it occurs in the first 6 months. If, during those first 6 months after release, we could, put them in a transitional re-entry program - a place with a structured environment, sober living, treatment, and help getting a job or education in their own communities -- we could greatly improve their chances of not reoffending. 9:57:13 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 44 and related his talking points.: This section creates a fund to start those types of programs. This fund will distribute money to programs that have those 4 things: case management, sober living, substance abuse treatment, and work placement. By putting some focus on re-entry, we can drastically reduce our rate of recidivism. This fund would be managed by the Department of Corrections, which comes with a fiscal impact to administer the fund. 9:57:34 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 46 and related that the bill established the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, which was simply a commission that would review, analyze, and evaluate the effect of laws and practices within the state's criminal justice system. He stated that an original CS to the bill had the commission set at 17 members, but the amount had been reduced to 12; the commission had a sunset date established of 5 years. 9:57:58 AM MrR. Schilling addressed slide 47 and stated that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission had some powers and duties that were essentially pulled from the state constitution, did not have an executive director, was staffed by the Alaska Judicial Council, and provided an annual report to the legislature each year. 9:58:07 AM Mr. Schilling discussed slide 49 and related the applicability and transitional provisions in the bill. He noted that the bill had an effective date of July 1 of the current year; however, the legislation gave DOC the ability to start working on the regulations immediately. 9:58:51 AM AT EASE 10:12:06 AM RECONVENED