SB 91-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID  9:09:00 AM CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of SB 91. SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of SB 91, revealed that during the previous year he had worked with the Senate to address corrections reform. He explained that a commission was put together to study Alaska's corrections system and sentencing structures. He noted that prior to working in the Legislature, he had served as a pastoral worker and spent a third of his time either in a halfway house or in a jail dealing with people. He detailed that his pastoral work provided him with an interesting view to see everything from people who made mistakes and were trying to find a way to correct, to those who were really good conmen or were just bad people. He disclosed that he has paid close attention to corrections and sentencing issues during his time on various committees in the Legislature. He noted that he has served nearly all of his time on judiciary committees and has been responsible for helping create laws that hold people accountable at a high level; however, he became aware of issues where felons were being put into prison without expectations for change. He remarked that he became a magnet for corrections and sentencing issues after SB 64 passed in 2014, a bill that addressed reform. He added that he currently knows more about the process of enforcement, the courts, and prison than he ever thought he would. 9:11:18 AM He asserted that he wants the public to be safe through good peacekeeping, protection and restitution for victims, offender productivity, and rehabilitation for offenders. He remarked that getting people who will change into programs with some degree of accountability is his focus. He revealed that approximately 90 percent of prisoners currently in jail will be back in society in one form or another. He said the question is whether released prisoners will reform or recidivate as well as how to keep individuals accountable. He said the high cost of building Goose Creek Correctional Center made it apparent to him that the state would not be able to afford another $250 million prison for a good while, but noted that the prison population continues to grow. He added that the cost to annually operate Goose Creek costs $50 million. He asserted that based on inmate population trends, the state will not be able to hold people without building another prison, a problem that is coming very fast. He asserted that the state does not get to deal with how society changes where offenders show up at the door because of enforcement issues, but the state wants good enforcement. SENATOR STOLTZE pointed out that Goose Creek is an operating budget expense, specifically a lease-purchase that is similar to the Seward-model. SENATOR COGHILL stated that SB 91 is a work in progress and he is very open to discussion. He summarized that the challenge is trying to figure out how to keep people from returning to prison while keeping the public safe. 9:14:47 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee meeting. SENATOR COGHILL explained that the nonviolent prison population includes people in the pretrial and probation violation categories. He noted that the length of stays has an impact on the prison populations and the intent is to find ways to turn that around. CHAIR STOLTZE asked that Senator Coghill define and specify the types of people identified as nonviolent so that the public can weigh in on the proposed policies. SENATOR COGHILL replied that he is initially addressing the nonviolent population in different categories from a high overview perspective. SENATOR STOLTZE pointed out that legislators have to be sensitive to a person who has been burglarized that might consider a certain level of violence due to an invasion of one's privacy. He noted that Alaska's Constitution addresses both reform and victim's rights. SENATOR COGHILL agreed that a balance has to exist for nonviolent people who have violated someone. He said an offender's payback must be considered if jail time is the best and can restitution be considered. He explained that his presentation will give the committee a high overview of the bill polices and then get into some of the specifics. 9:16:50 AM SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that electronic monitoring is going to be one area where people may be held accountable without costly jail time. He noted that electronic monitoring may include nonviolent individuals who are in pretrial for domestic violence that are not married or cohabitating, parolees with good-time credit, or probationers. SENATOR COGHILL explained that SB 91 addresses policies that include: administrative sanctions, probation caps, technical violations, good-time on parole, protective orders, police training surcharge, community work service, increased judicial discretion, and driver's licenses. He detailed that technical violations are situations where a probationer does not get to their meeting on time and good-time is a benefit earned by a person who does their actions well in prison. He noted that the police training surcharge was first put in in 1998 and the bill looks at upping the charge. He explained that judicial discretion was increased in some places. He admitted that there is always tension between the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the Department of Law on allowing judges with more discretion even after a sentence has been handed down or a bargain has been agreed upon. He detailed that driver's licenses addresses DMV revocations and other revocations. 9:19:47 AM CHAIR STOLTZE added that administrative revocations are also included. SENATOR COGHILL answered yes. He detailed that administrative revocations do not always line up authority-wise and SB 91 tries to address that. He explained that limited licenses are for individuals who have revoked licenses. He admitted that some people are driving anyway without impunity, no accountability, no insurance, and people can be hurt. He detailed that limited license allows an individual to drive under certain conditions with insurance and accountability. He stated that earned-credit is for the nonviolent population that addresses how to provide an opportunity for betterment. He noted that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission and legislators have brought up people coming out of jail that are forbidden in Alaska to get food stamps. He detailed that SB 91 addresses the policy question whether punishment should follow an offender out of jail or should an individual be allowed to receive food stamps during their reentry program to improve their lot in life. 9:21:02 AM SENATOR HUGGINS joined the committee meeting. SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that Senator Coghill's presentation addresses a complex area. She emphasized that the factors driving prison growth include the nonviolent population, those awaiting judgement in the pretrial population, increase in the average length of stay, and probation violations. She revealed that the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly hears the factors for prison growth and cost increases. She asserted that the dollars spent on increased prison costs could be used towards education funding, infrastructure development in the Arctic, or all kinds of things. She stated that holding people accountable is important, but rethinking how corrections can be done more efficiently must also be considered. SENATOR COGHILL summarized that there are so many interlocking pieces in SB 91. He reiterated that his intent is to review the policy calls being looked at and then to review how the sections interlink within the bill. 9:23:28 AM JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that there are two big pieces in the bill that deal with driving reforms: administrative license revocations and limited licenses. MR. SHILLING explained that administrative license revocation is something that occurs pretty quickly after someone either refuses a breath test or produces a breathalyzer test of 0.08 blood alcohol content or greater. He detailed that for public safety reasons, revocation is done right away. He specified that driving under the influence (DUI) is a 90 day revocation for the first offense, 1 year for the second offense, and a lifetime revocation for the third offense with a 10 year period. He revealed that what can happen with administrative revocations is a person does not get their driver's license back if their case is dismissed or the person is found not guilty. He specified that if a person is acquitted or their case has been dismissed with prejudice, the administrative revocation is synched up with the court revocation to allow the person to get their driver's license back. He explained that the limited license portion of the bill addresses a felony DUI situation where a person has their license revoked for life. He said there is a thought from people in the criminal justice community that people do not simply quit driving when their license has been taken away. He detailed that in an effort to steer people with revocations towards a limited license if their vehicle has mandatory interlock, a requirement to have insurance, and participation in the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) with 24/7 sobriety. He said an individual would be extended a limited license if they jump through the noted hoops and drive safely on the road. 9:26:04 AM MR. SHILLING addressed the pretrial population and revealed that 40 percent of the state's prison population is pretrial. He specified that the pretrial population consists of people that have not been found guilty yet, but the group is one of DOC's biggest cost drivers; some are going to be found not guilty, some are going to have their cases dismissed, but those people already cost the state money before decisions are reached. He specified that the bill creates an ability for a judge to determine if someone can be restricted to home confinement with GPS monitoring with possible alcohol monitoring during pretrial. He detailed that if a judge deems home confinement is a safe approach, the individual will get credit for time served. He revealed data from a recent survey that 340 nonviolent pretrial offenders in prison for drug or property crimes were costing the state $53,000 per day. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if all drug crimes are nonviolent. MR. SHILLING replied that the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) classifies drug offenders as either nonviolent or violent. He agreed that some of the crimes technically classified as nonviolent are invasive and fall into some gray areas. CHAIR STOLTZE commented that some drug crimes are pretty black and white. SENATOR MCGUIRE revealed that she had heard a claim in the Senate Judiciary Committee that 90 percent of all crimes in all categories includes some form of drug or alcohol use. She asked him to verify that the pretrial population identified by Mr. Shilling specifically involve drugs without a crime against a person. 9:29:46 AM MR. SHILLING answered correct. He specified that many of the individuals are Class C felons for drug possession. SENATOR COGHILL added that the judge's discretion for the pretrial population has to be significant where bail is immediately set and either the person is kept in jail or allowed to be held accountable outside of jail. CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he wants to be careful. He pointed out that a drug bill from the previous year had falsely referenced the disposition of an individual that fueled a lot of debate. SENATOR MCGUIRE replied that she respects what Chairman Stoltze said. She remarked that she has watched the state go in cycles between incarceration and rehabilitative deterrent models. She said Senator Coghill's model is a good one that takes into account changing policies, but does not over react and let the "pendulum" swing too far. She asserted that no one in the committee would envision letting somebody in the pretrial population out that is a violent offender with a propensity to hurt somebody. She remarked that the bill addresses nonviolent offenders who have been divided into a particular category. She said the conversation is worth having whether or not to expand the housing of nonviolent offenders on electronic monitoring with a 24/7 sobriety program. 9:32:41 AM MR. SHILLING said there are two other electronic monitoring reforms. He revealed that offenders in prison currently get one third off of their sentence for good behavior. He specified that the bill would extend good-time when DOC deems an offender safe enough to release on electronic monitoring. He said the second aspect addresses domestic violence offenders. He explained that a statutory prohibition exists that does not allow DOC to put any domestic violence offender on electronic monitoring. He specified that electronic monitoring would only be considered for non-intimate partner domestic violence offenders and not for intimate partner domestic violence offenders. He revealed that one of the main drivers for the state's prison population are the nonviolent offenders. He explained that prisons used to be filled with a majority of violent offenders. Just in the past decade, the majority are now nonviolent offenders. He said the bill encourages nonviolent offenders to seek and complete treatment while in prison with a goal for the individual to not recidivate. He noted that Alaska has the third highest recidivism rate in the U.S. where two thirds reoffend within three years. He revealed that DOC has reported that nonviolent offenders who complete treatment while in prison reduce their likelihood to reoffend by 21 percent. MR. SHILLING detailed that DOC has a range of treatment programs, including: Life Success Substance Abuse Treatment (LSSAT) and Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT). He specified that LSSAT is an outpatient program that takes about six months to complete, RSAT is a more intensive program that takes about a year to complete. He revealed that according to DOC, 80 percent of its prison population has a drug or alcohol problem. He concurred with Senator McGuire that drug and alcohol use is a nexus to many crimes. He noted that public defenders have said that 90 to 95 percent of their clients committed their crimes while under the influence of some substance. He revealed that 32 states have some form of earned credit, either for probation or in a facility, when an individual completes a treatment program. He pointed out that prisoners are currently given good-time for doing virtually nothing where two thirds of their sentence is taken off in a block up front. He specified that the bill proposes that credit will only be applied if an offender does something of merit, like pass their General Educational Development (GED) exam. 9:36:13 AM He said the same logic of the earned credit would be applied to probation and parole reforms where month to month compliance would result in credit off of probation sentences. He explained that probation officer (PO) caseloads are extremely high where each PO averages 84 probationers. He added that caseloads have increased 36 percent over the last 10 years. He asserted that establishing earned credits would allow limited supervision resources to be focused on high risk offenders while also encouraging probationers to comply with their terms. He detailed that eligibility for credit would include meeting obligations such as victim restitution. He added that a cap for technical violations on jail terms was also created. He revealed that 20 percent of DOC's prison population is due to probation violations where new crimes are not committed, but terms of conditions are violated. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the violations are for infractions outside of incarceration. MR. SHILLING answered yes. CHAIR STOLTZE asked that the committee have discussions with DOC employees as well. 9:38:18 AM MR. SHILLING declared that the bill's proposes to put a cap on the amount of time someone can spend in prison on a technical violation. He noted that many states have placed caps on technical violations, some with 90 days. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if technical violation would apply to a sex offender who does not stay away from a playground. MR. SHILLING answered that not all technical violations are equal, some are much worse than others. CHAIR STOLTZE replied that his instincts were correct where he should be concerned. MR. SHILLING specified that a technical violation for missing an appointment is one thing, but violating the terms for sex offender treatment is obviously much worse. CHAIR STOLTZE opined that skipping class and hanging around grade schools would be worse. MR. SHILLING explained that SB 91 proposes to do something similar to technical violations were minimums and maximums are placed on a number of crimes; example, burglary would be 3 to 7 years. He added that the bill also creates an alternative for DOC's administrative sanctions where a PO would have more discretion to swiftly punish an individual other than strictly petitioning to revoke probation and remanding back to prison. 9:40:47 AM SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if there is anything in the bill that expands the 24/7 Sobriety Program to give judges the discretion to use the program for probation violations that involve alcohol. She revealed that approximately 6,000 Alaskans are participating in the 24/7 Sobriety Program. She detailed that participants blow into a breathalyzer twice a day and the program has successfully turned people's lives around. She noted that there have only been 3 violations in the last couple of months out of 6,000 participants. She detailed that the 24/7 Sobriety Program is used in pretrial as a sentencing mitigator. She agreed with Chairman Stoltze that a violation for a sex offender is a totally separate issue; however, consideration should be given for allowing judges to extend the 24/7 Sobriety Program to those on probation with an underlying addiction. She detailed that violators could be extended the opportunity to go into the 24/7 Sobriety Program as opposed to going back to jail for 90 day at $150 per day. CHAIR STOLTZE opined that most second time offenders have used treatment options as a ploy. SENATOR MCGUIRE replied that her understanding is the 24/7 Sobriety Program has not been used in the probation violation breaks. MR. SHILLING explained that SB 64 created the successful 24/7 Sobriety Program. He disclosed that judges have the ability to apply the program as a bail or probation condition. He said the court system does not frequently use the 24/7 Sobriety Program for probation. He surmised that Senator McGuire may be talking about a diversion program that allows POs to send someone into the 24/7 Sobriety Program for a violation. He said he is not sure if POs have the authority to send someone into a 24/7 Sobriety Program and noted the probability for due process considerations. 9:44:27 AM He explained that due to comprehensive welfare reform in the mid-90s, assistance was not allowed for individuals convicted of felony drug charges. He added that prisoners are released without identification and some individuals need to support a family. He explained that SB 91 purposes to provide a bridge while a released inmate finds a job by providing food to an individual and their family rather than having the individual fall back into criminal activity as a way to make money. He added that a second component tasks DOC to establish a reentry program that a prisoner would participate in 90 days preceding their release. He detailed that prisoners would address: community resources, reentry planning, probation overview, and how to get a photo ID. He added that future consideration may be given to requiring DOC to provide an ID when a prisoner is released. He summarized that SB 91 expands a mitigating factor for those who complete treatment, reforms community work service where conversion into jail time is not allowed if service is not completed, makes a small change to the protective order statutes, and increases the police training surcharge. CHAIR STOLTZE noted that the sponsor has worked with a lot of stakeholders that are trying to do some unprovoked good, including national organizations like the Pew Charitable Trusts. CHAIR STOLTZE revealed that the fastest growing website originating in his and Senator Huggins' districts is Stop Valley Thieves, a website with over 6,000 participants. He asserted that an under represented point of view in the legislative process is the person that stays away from the criminal system and only encounters it on the victim end. 9:47:46 AM SENATOR HUGGINS asked if Mr. Shilling knew the statistical gender breakdown for DOC inmates. MR. SHILLING answered no. He said DOC keeps offender profile data. He stated that the women's population is increasing at a quicker pace and added that the Alaska native population is over represented. SENATOR HUGGINS opined that the young men and women that ultimately end up in prison can be predicted with some degree of confidence in middle school. CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that some of the young men and women that Senator Huggins noted do straighten themselves out too, some through good sports programs. 9:49:33 AM RONALD TAYLOR, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage, Alaska, noted that he worked on SB 64 with Senator Coghill and Senator Ellis, a complex bill that required everyone to work through the bill's nuances to make sure the end result was something that could be supported and could continue to be supported. He said SB 91 was also a complex bill that has to be delved into. He asserted that DOC is committed to working with the senators and their staff. He said concerns raised by Chairman Stoltze will be taken into account. He declared that category definitions will be provided to accurately identify which of those are nonviolent versus violent. He set forth that DOC will work to make sure that the legislative goals are accomplished, goals that the department believes are positive. He stated that the department's goal is to do a better job to ensure that those in DOC's custody or released on probation and parole stay in their community rather than going back into custody for minor technical violations. He asserted that he wants to make sure that technical violations are distinguished from those that are significant enough for jail; however, there are some that DOC believes should not be in jail. He stated that DOC can do some alternatives and do a better job tying to an individual's risk and need. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR noted that Mr. Shilling said, "We want to punish." He asserted that the wrong mindset is to have probation officers in a mindset that DOC needs to punish. He said the people who need to do the punishing or give the sentences are the judges and parole boards. He declared that DOC's job is to give a person a recommendation on a plan to be successful and not a plan of punishment. 9:52:46 AM CHAIR STOLTZE asked if Commissioner Taylor supports any administrative changes while people are incarcerated, such as the power to take away good-time. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR replied that DOC currently has the power to take away good-time. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if DOC should be limited in taking away good-time or should good-time remain untouched by the Legislature. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR replied that he does not think SB 91 targets good-time. CHAIR STOLTZE specified that he is asking a broad question if he thinks that good-time is an important management tool for DOC, especially when the department is undermanned. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR answered that the administrative tools that DOC uses are important and the department does not want anything that takes away from that. He stated that DOC wants to take full advantage of any additional tools that can be utilized inside its institutions. He pointed out that SB 91 focuses on the administrative sanctions when persons are outside of the institutions on probation and parole. CHAIR STOLTZE said he would like to make sure that DOC employees and their representatives address the committee. He stated that DOC employees know the inmates better than anybody can imagine. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR addressed Senator Huggins' question regarding gender, he revealed that 88 percent of inmates are male, 12 percent female. He summarized that DOC looks forward to working with the Legislature on SB 91 and taking care of the concerns that were raised. CHAIR STOLTZE admitted that the Legislature has taken a piecemeal approach to corrections reform and noted that he had a discussion on another piece of legislation that addressed probation. He said the committee will have Commissioner Taylor back for further discussions. SENATOR HUGGINS remarked that prison is really like any other society where somebody is in charge, sometimes it's the guards and sometimes it's the prisoners. He said prisons have an ethnic makeup with regional pieces, power-brokering, contraband, and visitation issues. He asked how the variables that he described affect the profile of inmates. He pointed out that DOC gets a different look at inmates inside prison where an individual shows their hand whether they may be more hardened or victimized. 9:56:40 AM COMMISSIONER TAYLOR responded that Senator Huggins described prisons quite well. He said DOC deals with a range of issues when a person is brought into the institution and the un- sentenced population brings even greater challenges. He said DOC sort of knows what to expect from the sentenced population, but the un-sentenced population comes in with many unpredictable variables. He detailed that DOC has to determine the right place to house a person and to make sure not to place someone with the wrong people where rehabilitation inside and out of prison becomes more difficult. CHAIR STOLTZE noted his skepticism, but conceded that the Legislature will have to figure a way to do things differently. He thanked Commissioner Taylor and invited correctional officers to attend a future meeting. He reiterated that he does not think there is anybody in the system that knows what the Legislature is dealing with as well as the correctional officers. 10:00:18 AM CHAIR STOLTZE announced that he would hold SB 91 in committee.