HB 231-EXTEND BOARD OF PAROLE  9:24:09 AM CHAIR STOLTZE called the committee back to order and announced the consideration of HB 231. 9:24:51 AM ESTHER MIELKE, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, read the sponsor statement as follows: The Board of Parole currently serves in Alaska as the authority over parole setting; it is currently set in statute to be terminated on June 30, 2016. HB 231 originally extended the date to June 30, 2022, but the most current version of the bill which was passed by House Finance extends it to June 30, 2021; this is a 5-year extension. The Division of Audit did an audit on the Board of Parole last year and the audit includes an examination of the board's performance in light of the 11-sunset criteria of points provided within the Alaska statute. The Division of Audit found the board to be in good standing, but provided four recommendations to improve their operations which address: 1. The accuracy and consistency of the information contained in parole files; 2. Documentation of victim and offender notifications; 3. Deficiencies in proposed regulation changes methods; 4. The security of the Department of Corrections' information system. In response to the audit, the Board of Parole provided responses to the identified recommendations; likewise, the Department of Corrections generally agreed with the recommendations. HB 231 fulfills the constitutional requirement that the state establish a parole system and accordingly assist in keeping Alaskans safe. As you can see the bill also has a fiscal note which covers the board's operating costs which were included in the recently passed budget. 9:26:36 AM CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Mielke to explain the change in the extension date. MS. MIELKE explained that typically the Board of Parole was extended for eight years, but the Division of Audit suggested a six-year extension due to the crime bill that was passed. She noted that the current version of the bill was amended to five years. CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Mielke to verify that the change was made in House Finance. MS. MIELKE answered yes. 9:28:30 AM KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the division looked at whether the Board of Parole was serving the public's interest and whether it should be extended. She set forth that the division concluded that the Board of Parole met the constitutional requirement that the state establish a parole system in addition to operating in a professional and efficient manner. She stated that the Legislative Audit Division recommended a six-year extension and added that four recommendations were presented for operational improvements. She specified that the first recommendation was for the executive director to improve procedures to ensure the required documentation for parole hearings was accurate and consistently included parole files. She detailed that the division looked at 38-discretionary parole hearing files and several errors were found such as risk assessment forms not being tabulated correctly and parole applications were missing. She pointed out that the division recommended a general documentation clean-up because the errors did not impact the risk assessment. MS. CURTIS explained that the second recommendation was for the executive director, in coordination with the Department of Corrections' management, to implement documentation standards to ensure all offenders' and victims' notifications are made in accordance to statutory requirements. She revealed that based on a sample of parole files, the division found a general lack of documentation that offenders and victims were being notified of board hearings as required by law. She said the division believes that notifications were happening because complaints were not evident, but notifications could not be verified due to a lack of documentation. She detailed that the third recommendation was for the board to ensure proposed regulations and all statutory requirements were addressed related to its duties. She noted that the recommendation was a housekeeping type of recommendation. She explained that a statute requires the board to establish regulation standards under which the suitability of a prisoner for parole should be determined. She revealed that the regulations in place during the audit described the risk assessment matrix that had been used for many years as the tool; however, the board implemented a new risk assessment tool in 2014 called the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) tool. She divulged that when the board went to change the regulations, the Department of Law recommended that any tool not be included in order to avoid the trouble of changing regulations in the future. She remarked that while the Department of Law's recommendation was reasonable and efficient, the recommendation does not comply with statute. She explained that the fourth recommendation was for the Department of Corrections Administrative Services Division's director take steps to ensure that their Offender Management System complied with security best practices. She revealed that the division withheld details for the security finding to avoid exploitation. She specified that the Legislative Audit Division provided details to the Department of Corrections and corrective action was taken. She summarized that the Department of Corrections and the Board of Parole concurred with the Legislative Audit Division's recommendations. 9:32:06 AM CHAIR STOLTZE noted that Ms. Curtis' audit gave a short shrift to victims' rights. He opined that an abridgement of prisoners' rights would have received a bigger section in the audit. He pointed out that victims' rights was a prominent part of the state's constitution. He added that he was not sure if the audit reflected the seriousness of the violation. MS. CURTIS replied that the notifications would have been worded very strongly if the Legislative Audit Division really felt that notifications were not happening. She specified that the recommendation boiled down to a problem with the Department of Corrections not using the management system for documentation on the officer or institutional levels. She said the Legislative Audit Division believed that notifications were happening, but people were not taking the time to document how and when the notifications were happening. She summarized that the Legislative Audit Division thought that notifications recommendation was a procedural issue as opposed to a victim or offender issue. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the Legislative Audit Division had contact with the Alaska Office of Victims' Rights on the notification issue. MS. CURTIS answered no. She specified that the Legislative Audit Division kept its interactions with the board and the Department of Corrections. SENATOR MCGUIRE requested to address the executive director for the Alaska Board of Parole. She asked that Mr. Edwards address the four recommendations from the Legislative Audit Division. She specified that the two areas that caused her the most consternation were recommendations 1 and 2. She addressed Recommendation 1 and asked what Mr. Edwards was doing to respond to the audit in the area of risk assessment forms. She stated that she was concerned that SB 91 would expand the work the Board of Parole would do with notifications and pointed out that errors were currently occurring. She remarked that SB 91 would also increase reliance on risk assessment as a tool as opposed to a simple financial requirement. She stated that she shared Chair Stoltze's concern regarding Recommendation 2 on notifying both parolees and victims. She remarked that in many cases notifications were not occurring or at a minimum were not occurring in less than 30 days in advance. 9:34:19 AM JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole, Anchorage, Alaska, addressed Recommendation 1 and noted that the audit occurred when the board used an old risk-assessment tool that was developed in the late 70s. He revealed that the board brought in an expert and decided to change to the LSI-R evaluation tool that was used by the Department of Corrections. He remarked that LSI-R was a dynamic, data-driven tool that analyzed up-to-date and accurate information. 9:39:47 AM He concurred that SB 91 will have a significant impact on the Board of Parole. He opined that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission attempted to recognize that the Board of Parole has an active role in corrections and criminal justice. He pointed out that the Board of Parole was one of the only agencies that can actually release inmates early from prison. He set forth that the board was happy with its process. He noted that the board's recidivism rate was only 5 percent on discretionary parole or early release. He disclosed that the board has been trying to move in the directions that SB 91 has outlined. He remarked that SB 91 solidifies legislatively the direction the board will be moving into. SENATOR MCGUIRE asked that Mr. Edwards address Recommendation 2 and respond to the many errors made in the victim and offender notifications as well as why parole was not granted. 9:42:48 AM MR. EDWARDS replied that the audit mentioned that the victim notifications were not documented along with the prisoner notification of granting or not granting parole. He said the board acknowledges that documentation should have occurred. He set forth that victims were included and the board was very open and transparent during the victim process. He stated that staff has been directed to conduct an exhaustive review of every parole-applicant information packet to ensure notifications are going out. He added that the board has worked with the Division of Institutions for the Department of Corrections in opening and expanding a knowledge base for a specific area in the Offender Management System that includes victim notification, dates when paperwork was sent out, and officer commentary. He revealed that the officer commentary was included in the board's parole information packets as well as comments made by each victim. MR. EDWARDS stated that victims have an impact on the parole system. He said the board highly encourages victims to either comment in-person, telephonically, or in writing. He said the board makes every attempt to be inclusive and transparent. He pointed out that the board has a pretty good relationship with the Alaska Office of Victims' Rights. He asserted that the board takes victims' statements very seriously. He admitted that victims that testify before the board was an emotional event at times and the board tries to be as sensitive as it can. He voiced that the board feels that the documentation system has been improved to makes sure there is a paperwork trail of dates, times, and any comments made. 9:45:57 AM SENATOR MCGUIRE stated that she appreciated Mr. Edward's explanation on Recommendation 2. She said she encouraged her colleagues to follow up prior to the sunset. She set forth that victim notification should have a zero-failure rate. She noted that one victim was not provided with an offender-release notification. She pointed out that the state has very high rates of domestic violence and assault. She remarked that she could not imagine if the victim was a member of her family and they were not notified. CHAIR STOLTZE asserted that correctional officers did not provide enough input on the issues of parole, probation, and furloughs. He opined that correctional officers know the inmates the best and asked how their input might be augmented in a formal or informal fashion. MR. EDWARDS revealed that he was a correctional officer at a maximum-security prison 16 years ago. He detailed that he lived with the inmates and recognized their challenges. He explained that a correctional officer gains a certain knowledge and respect through professional interaction with inmates. He revealed that the board currently accepted written testimony or statements from correctional staff on behalf of particular inmates. He said including inmate input was not necessarily mandated, but the board would be happy to look at having correctional officers as part of the process. He disclosed that the board consisted of two former correctional officers that share the same interests and ideology as he does. He set forth that the board was inclusive and welcomed expanding its inclusiveness to the correctional staff because he agreed that they offer insight as to day-to-day operations. 9:48:50 AM CHAIR STOLTZE specified that guard input would provide both positive and negative input. He stated that guards probably know which prisoners were very redeemable and rehabilitable. SENATOR MCGUIRE thanked Mr. Edwards for his comments on SB 91 and his work towards making the Board of Parole better. She shared that the Legislature was looking into the high-cost category of parole revocations and denials. She asked that Mr. Edward think about Recommendation 1 regarding the lack of communication regarding parole violations and the category's high cost impact to the state. MR. EDWARDS replied that he appreciated Senator McGuire's comments and would adhere to her recommendation. 9:51:00 AM CHAIR STOLTZE closed public testimony on HB 231. SENATOR COGHILL asked when an audit commences prior to a sunset date. MS. CURTIS explained that audit timelines differ between boards, commission and entities with sunset dates. She specified that the audit for the Board of Parole was conducted the year before the 2016 sunset date. SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that the Board of Parole was making changes as well as possible changes from pending legislation. He asked if a 2021 sunset date would trigger an audit in 2020. MS. CURTIS answered that work would start in 2021. She noted that she was approached with a one-year termination date and remarked that she did not know if the Legislative Audit Division currently had the resources to do an audit in one year. She revealed that in order to evaluate a board there has to be a certain number of years which the board can accomplish what was in SB 91 to actually be able to review the bill's impact on the board. She disclosed that she advocated for a three-year minimum before the Legislative Audit Division goes back in. She pointed out that the audit's six-year recommendation was not reflective of SB 91 because the bill was not in play during the audit, but the Legislative Audit Division thought legislative oversight earlier than the maximum eight years was prudent and with the implementation of the new risk assessment tool, the division settled on six years; however, an earlier audit in light of SB 91 made a lot of sense. CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he favored a shorter timeline, but noted that the committee was not making a final decision because the finance committee was a safety in changing if necessary. 9:54:56 AM CHAIR STOLTZE announced HB 231 would be held in committee.