HB 93-PROBATION AND PAROLE: WORK, TRAVEL ACCOM.  9:38:25 AM CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of HB 93. [CSHB 93(STA) was before the committee.] REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced HB 93 speaking to the following sponsor statement: Before you today, I bring HB 93 which is a piece of a continuing legislation on our ongoing reforms of Alaska's criminal justice and corrections systems. If I may, I would like to thank Senator Coghill for letting me work with him last year on SB 64 and for allowing me to carry this bill this session. As we all know, Alaska has held one of the highest rates of recidivism and the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is over $150 per day with the cost continuing to rise; it is a fact with our budget climate today, our state cannot afford to build another prison. HB 93 builds on the bipartisan efforts of the legislature that we have started to move the needle on recidivism. In 2011, 52 percent of probationers did not complete their court orders of release and returned back to prison; those reforms that we've been putting in place has helped to lower that number to 45 percent in 2014. 9:40:07 AM CHAIR STOLTZE asked Representative Tilton to repeat what percentage of probationers did not complete their orders. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON replied that 52 percent in 2011 did not complete their court ordered conditions. She asserted that some of the reforms that the Legislature has put into place from 2011 to 2014 has lowered the number to 45 percent. CHAIR STOLTZE commented that probationers are essentially doing their full sentences in installments. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON answered yes. She continued her overview as follows: Those who work with probationers, such as Partners In Progress, have identified employment as being one of the three largest components, but employment being number one, the other two are housing and social services to help them through their transitioning; but, what we do know is that few employers are willing to hire somebody with a record, so we have a little challenge there. As a matter of fact, there is a study with the Urban Institute that showed just 12.5 percent of employers said that they would definitely accept an applicant with a criminal record. What HB 93 does is it encourages employment by making it clear to probation officers that when they are scheduling the probation appointments that they use diligent effort to schedule around the person's employment, thereby allowing the probationer to be successful in their employment. This bill also allows the probationers reasonable travel within the state to work as long as it is not in conflict with the terms of the conditioners of their probation; it is a building block and another tool in our toolbox. By keeping probationers employed, we give them the opportunity to give back to the system, they reduce the draw on our health and social services budget, and the cost to our state when a prisoner recidivates, so ultimately and potentially saving a lot of dollars to our state. 9:42:03 AM CHAIR STOLTZE asked for comments from the Alaska Department of Corrections. 9:43:42 AM CARRIE BELDEN, Director, Probation & Parole, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage, Alaska, announced that the department supports HB 93 and noted that the department has worked with the sponsor on the bill. She said the department believes that work is a very important to keep the state's population of probationers and paroles on the straight-and-narrow and out of trouble. She stated that the department thinks that work and employment is a very vital part of the reentry process. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he liked HB 93. He asked how the department deals with an issue where parolees in Anchorage or Fairbanks work on the Slope or rural Alaska. MS. BELDEN answered that the department deals with the situation Senator Wielechowski noted quite often. She detailed that the department's probation and parole officers do value employment and the department tries to schedule meetings when the person is in town. She said the department does telephonic meetings and very much tries to accommodate schedules. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that Senator Coghill is doing a good bill which seeks to have more electronic monitoring. He asked if the department has an issue with electronic monitoring in rural communities or on the Slope. 9:45:29 AM MS. BELDEN replied that the department can and does monitoring in the areas that Senator Wielechowski noted. SENATOR COGHILL asked if the word "diligent" was used as a term of art in the phrase, "Diligent efforts to secure and maintain steady employment." He asked if "active efforts" should be used rather than "diligent efforts." He opined that "diligent" has more flexibility, but also could be very subjective. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON replied that Senator Coghill's reference in the use of the word "diligent" had been the first time. She remarked that consideration in the use of "diligent" should be discussed with the department. CHAIR STOLTZE noted that "diligent" must mean something due to its use in the sponsor statement. 9:47:52 AM SHERRIE DAIGLE, Special Assistant to Commissioner Taylor, Alaska Department of Corrections, commented that the use of "diligent efforts" probably comes from the diligent efforts of the probation officers who are constantly working with the probationers to help and assist them in obtaining employment. She commented that she did not know why the word "active" was not used. She added that the department would review the use of "diligent efforts" in the bill. SENATOR COGHILL commented that accountability and flexibility are big things to parole officers. He reiterated that "diligent" was very subjective compared to "active." SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what happens when a probation officer believes that a probationer is "gaming the system." He noted that the bill places requirements on a probation officer that they "shall permit" each probationer travel. MS. DAIGLE answered that the probation officers are very keen to some of the tactics that some people use. She specified that most people on probation are going to comply by seeking employment and going through the right avenues to stay employed. She said probation officers closely monitor individuals that Senator Wielechowski was referencing. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that because the bill does say "Shall permit each probationer to travel in the state to make different efforts," there could be a situation where a parole officer does not allow travel and the probationer challenges the decision by saying the law says he or she can go. He asked who solves the situation that he previously noted. 9:50:20 AM MS. DAIGLE answered that the department does not know. She noted that the department has had discussion on the scenario that Senator Wielechowski described, but the department was not sure. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the bill should be fixed to avoid the situation he previously described. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the scenario Senator Wielechowski described has never been litigated. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI guaranteed that the scenario he described would occur if the current bill passes. SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that Section 2 in the bill talks about what the parolee is responsible to do. He said the bill falls into the category of why the government does that; for example, the parole officer sometimes is more concerned about what they are doing than what the parolee is doing and the scenario Senator Wielechowski described is an assertion where the parolee must be accommodated if work is the issue. He conceded that consideration must also be given to the "gaming of the system." He said he is open to further discussions. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON concurred with Senator Coghill that the parolee would have to be accommodated. CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he understood probation and parole. He asked if probation and parole was entirely an administrative procedure within the parole board or does it get kicked up to the courts. MS. DAIGLE answered that courts are involved in probation and parole. 9:53:20 AM MS. BELDEN detailed that a parolee or the probationer and the probation officer would sit down and have their office visit where work schedules are discussed. She asserted that parole officers try and be fair about work schedules because they do want them employed. She specified that courts and parole boards come into play when there are violations. She said when the parole officer has tried to work with probationers and parolees informally, but the violations are too big or the parole officer is just not getting anywhere with the probationer or parolee, the probation officer will file a petition to revoke probation or parole violation and bring the probationer or parolee before the court or before the board. 9:54:50 AM CHAIR STOLTZE asked what is the condition for the consumption of alcohol and if the condition has been tested in the courts. MS. BELDEN answered that no alcohol to excess is a general condition that all of the probationer or parolees get. She detailed that the no alcohol consumption means zero tolerance is a case-by-case basis and that depends on the individual's history and crime that is specific to them. CHAIR STOLTZE noted that marijuana is supposed to be regulated like alcohol. He asked if there should be parole conditions on marijuana. MS. BELDEN replied that if the parole board or court does not want a probationer or parolee to ingest marijuana, then the parole board or court can put a specific condition on that says no marijuana consumption. CHAIR STOLTZE asked even under the new paradigm where marijuana is legal. MS. BELDEN answered that just like alcohol is legal for most, a prohibition condition can be placed on an individual. She said marijuana would be legal for most, but a parole board or court can invoke a marijuana prohibition if they chose. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted two scenarios as follows: Number one, a probation officer says "No, I don't think you should go to travel," and then the probationer gets an attorney and they go to court, and the attorney says "Well, the law says you shall permit them." So explain what is likely to happen and maybe we need Legislative Legal Services to come in and weigh in on this, explain what is likely to happen in that situation. The other situation is the person goes and then the probation officer wants to get them back and then it goes before a judge as well, maybe just talk about how the courts you expect would deal with that situation. 9:57:13 AM MS. BELDEN replied that the department shared Senator Wielechowski's concern. She said by placing "shall" in the bill removes the discretion of the parole officer and Legislative Legal Services may indicate how big the issue was. She said the department will try to work things out internally to get a happy middle, but a worst case scenario could occur where a person ends up before the court or parole board. SENATOR COGHILL stated that the parole board still has significant leeway by setting other conditions. He said the bill orders travel to be taken into account, but consistency is also mandated. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON specified that, "When not in conflict with the other terms and concerns of their probation" was clearly stated in the bill. She noted that previous discussions with Legislative Legal Services occurred in a previous committee that tried to address other verbiage, but there was not another work- around. She said the decision was to go ahead with the bill as it was with the understanding that the bill is not in conflict with conditions of probation terms. 9:59:34 AM CHAIR STOLTZE asked if probation should be viewed as a qualified privilege or a right. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON answered that probation was a qualified privilege. MS. DAIGLE answered that the department would agree that probations was a qualified privilege. CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he understood the reformation provision in the state's constitution as well. He remarked that he just wanted to make sure in the zeal to try to empty the state's prisons that the "wrong ones" were not let out. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the bill has a Judiciary Committee referral. CHAIR STOLTZE answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON confirmed that the bill does has a Senate Judiciary Committee referral. CHAIR STOLTZE commented that having two committee referrals for the bill was advantageous in order to address a few issues. He opined that HB 93 looks more right for passing than the bill that was just dropped. 10:01:24 AM CHAIR STOLTZE announced that HB 93 would be held in committee with a sincere intent to readdress it as quickly as possible. He added that the committee would like to have Commissioner Taylor of the Department of Corrections on the record as well. He noted that Commission Taylor began his career in probation and added that the committee would deprive itself of a strong voice with a lot of authority if the commissioner did not address the committee. MS. DAIGLE replied that the department would make Chair Stoltze's request happen. 10:02:26 AM There being no further business to come before the committee, Chair Stoltze adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee hearing at 10:02 a.m.