Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/18/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:41:33 PM Start
01:42:18 PM SB91
02:58:35 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to a Call of the Chair --
Heard & Held
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
"State Employee and Officer Compensation"
<Above Item Removed from Agenda>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      April 18, 2016                                                                                            
                         1:41 p.m.                                                                                              
1:41:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee                                                                            
meeting to order at 1:41 p.m.                                                                                                   
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair                                                                                          
Representative Bryce Edgmon                                                                                                     
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Lynn Gattis                                                                                                      
Representative Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
Representative Cathy Munoz                                                                                                      
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
Representative Lance Pruitt                                                                                                     
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jorden Shilling, Staff,                                                                          
Senator John Coghill.                                                                                                           
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM                                                                                                               
         OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS                                                                              
          CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee                                                                     
          for further consideration.                                                                                            
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.                                                                                 
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am                                                                      
     "An  Act  relating  to   criminal  law  and  procedure;                                                                    
     relating   to   controlled  substances;   relating   to                                                                    
     immunity   from   prosecution    for   the   crime   of                                                                    
     prostitution;  relating   to  probation;   relating  to                                                                    
     sentencing;  establishing a  pretrial services  program                                                                    
     with pretrial  services officers  in the  Department of                                                                    
     Corrections; relating  to the publication  of suspended                                                                    
     entries of  judgment on  a publicly  available Internet                                                                    
     website;   relating   to  permanent   fund   dividends;                                                                    
     relating   to   electronic  monitoring;   relating   to                                                                    
     penalties  for  violations   of  municipal  ordinances;                                                                    
     relating   to   parole;    relating   to   correctional                                                                    
     restitution   centers;  relating   to  community   work                                                                    
     service;    relating   to    revocation,   termination,                                                                    
     suspension, cancellation, or  restoration of a driver's                                                                    
     license;  relating  to  the excise  tax  on  marijuana;                                                                    
     establishing  the recidivism  reduction fund;  relating                                                                    
     to the Alaska Criminal  Justice Commission; relating to                                                                    
     the disqualification of  persons convicted of specified                                                                    
     drug offenses from participation  in the food stamp and                                                                    
     temporary assistance  programs; relating to  the duties                                                                    
     of the commissioner of  corrections; amending Rules 32,                                                                    
     32.1,  38,  41,  and  43,   Alaska  Rules  of  Criminal                                                                    
     Procedure, and  repealing Rules  41(d) and  (e), Alaska                                                                    
     Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure; and  providing  for  an                                                                    
     effective date."                                                                                                           
1:42:18 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  JOHN COGHILL,  SPONSOR, thanked  the committee  for                                                                    
hearing the bill.                                                                                                               
Representative  Wilson asked  what  version of  the bill  he                                                                    
would discuss. Senator Coghill relayed  that the bill before                                                                    
the committee was the House Judiciary Committee version.                                                                        
Representative Gara suggested that  the sponsor speak to any                                                                    
concerns over the way the  bill changed during the committee                                                                    
Senator  Coghill  provided  a  high level  overview  of  the                                                                    
legislation.  He  referred  to a  sectional  analysis  color                                                                    
coded chart  (copy on  file) that matched  the topic  to the                                                                    
related  bill  sections. He  explained  that  SB 64  Omnibus                                                                    
Crime/Corrections/Recidivism   (CHAPTER   83    SLA   14   -                                                                    
07/16/2014)  established   a  commission   [Alaska  Criminal                                                                    
Justice  Commission] that  examined criminal  justice issues                                                                    
defined by  the legislature. The commission  discovered that                                                                    
the  recidivism rate  was  extremely high  and  a cause  for                                                                    
concern.  The issue  was so  broad that  the commission  was                                                                    
tasks with further studies  of recidivism. Subsequently, the                                                                    
commission developed 21  recommendations that were contained                                                                    
in the  bill in some  form. He related that  formulating the                                                                    
recommendations   was  a   consensus  driven   process.  The                                                                    
commission  was  comprised   of  public  defenders,  judges,                                                                    
victims' advocates,  police, and others. He  voiced that the                                                                    
process had been very thorough.  The commission was "housed"                                                                    
in  the Judicial  Council. He  delineated  that the  council                                                                    
examined  the issue  for  years but  only  related to  court                                                                    
rules  and procedures,  the  impact  on probation  officers,                                                                    
etc.  Many of  the same  individuals from  the council  were                                                                    
members   of   the   commission   and   brought   beneficial                                                                    
information and experience  on the issue. He  noted that the                                                                    
state  had "shortcomings"  with its  criminal justice  data.                                                                    
Throughout  the nation  a move  to work  on judicial  reform                                                                    
called  "reinvestment reform"  was  already  in progress  in                                                                    
many states that  explored how to reinvest  money within the                                                                    
criminal justice system.  The  Pew Foundation and Council of                                                                    
States   Governments  West   had  facilitated   data  driven                                                                    
studies. He  recounted that the governor,  House, and Senate                                                                    
requested  that Pew  closely  examine  the state's  criminal                                                                    
justice  system and  formulate data  specific to  Alaska. He                                                                    
remarked that  it was the first  time the state had  taken a                                                                    
hard look at the issue.                                                                                                         
1:50:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Senator Coghill deemed that due  to the discovery process he                                                                    
described   the  commission's   recommendations  were   data                                                                    
driven; researched  and outcome  based programs  that worked                                                                    
in  other states.  In  the process,  he  and Senator  Johnny                                                                    
Ellis  examined  the "Right  On  Crime"  resources that  had                                                                    
turned the  corner on reducing  cost, recidivism,  and crime                                                                    
in Texas.  The Right  On Crime  information was  provided to                                                                    
the   commission.   He    discussed   the   recommendation's                                                                    
categories the commission developed  that were listed on the                                                                    
color  coded  sectional  as follows:  pretrial,  sentencing,                                                                    
community  supervision and  other areas.  The goals  were to                                                                    
improve     pre-trial     procedures.     The     sentencing                                                                    
recommendations  were developed  out of  the examination  of                                                                    
what worked  from felony, drug,  and parole  related issues.                                                                    
The community supervision  recommendations attempted to hold                                                                    
individuals  accountable  but  produce better  outcomes.  He                                                                    
stressed  that if  sentencing changed  accountability should                                                                    
not   change.  He   expounded   that   there  were   several                                                                    
recommendations  that  did  not  fit into  the  first  three                                                                    
categories.  He   provided  the   example  in   Alaska  that                                                                    
subsequent  to   the  release  of  a   person  convicted  of                                                                    
committing a  violent crime the individual  was eligible for                                                                    
food stamps  however convicted drug  offenders were  not. He                                                                    
noted that  the issue fell  into the other  category. Issues                                                                    
regarding license  revocation for drinking and  driving were                                                                    
dealt with in  the bill. He further  explained the sectional                                                                    
analysis chart  that associated the  provisions in  the bill                                                                    
by   category,  policy,   recommendation  number   and  bill                                                                    
sections. He  detailed that the bill  sections contained the                                                                    
"code of law." He related  how he performed his own personal                                                                    
study of the statutes relating to the bill versions.                                                                            
1:56:03 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair   Thompson    thought   the    sponsor's   personal                                                                    
information  paper  would  be   helpful  for  the  committee                                                                    
members  and  requested  copies  for  distribution.  Senator                                                                    
Coghill related that he had  not updated his information for                                                                    
the new bill version, but offered to provide it.                                                                                
Representative  Gara asked  why  some of  the bill  sections                                                                    
related  to recommendations  and policies  on the  sectional                                                                    
analysis sheet were highlighted  and other were not. Senator                                                                    
Coghill  answered that  the highlighted  area were  the main                                                                    
places  where   the  policy  was   impacted  and   the  non-                                                                    
highlighted   section   references   designated   conforming                                                                    
provisions. He  noted that his  office had done  a sectional                                                                    
analysis  for  the most  recent  version  and would  provide                                                                    
further  information  to   the  committee.  Senator  Coghill                                                                    
explained that  the presentation provided  reform statistics                                                                    
and  proven  practices.  He  voiced  that  things  were  not                                                                    
working  at  their  optimal level  in  the  state's  current                                                                    
correctional  system.  He  spoke   to  high  recidivism.  He                                                                    
referred to  pre-trial accountability and reported  that the                                                                    
bill contained  new policies. The  new policy  established a                                                                    
risk  assessment   tool  that  did  not   grant  individuals                                                                    
determined to be  a high risk bail and  low risk individuals                                                                    
would be  monitored in  a different  way. He  continued that                                                                    
the bill changed  the way probation/parole was  done so that                                                                    
the  higher  the  risk the  more  accountability  and  lower                                                                    
accountability   ascribed  to   low  risk   individuals.  He                                                                    
emphasized  that  reductions  in prison  sentences  provided                                                                    
cost savings  to reinvest in programs  that would eventually                                                                    
reduce the crime rate and change behaviors.                                                                                     
2:01:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Thompson noted  that the committee had  one hour to                                                                    
hear the  presentation. He  noted that  the bill  would come                                                                    
before the committee multiple times.                                                                                            
JORDEN  SHILLING, STAFF,  SENATOR JOHN  COGHILL, provided  a                                                                    
PowerPoint    presentation     titled    "SB     91:    ACJC                                                                    
Recommendations"  dated April  15, 2016  (copy on  file). He                                                                    
spoke to slide 2 titled  "Prison Population Up 27% Over Last                                                                    
Decade"  and  relayed  that  the  chart  depicted  that  the                                                                    
state's  prison population  had  grown 27  percent over  the                                                                    
past  decade   and  was  "significantly"  faster   than  the                                                                    
residential population that grew at  one third of the prison                                                                    
growth  rate. He  detailed that  prisons were  over capacity                                                                    
and without  reforms would jail an  additional 1,300 inmates                                                                    
by 2024. Despite  all of the spending  the state experienced                                                                    
very low  return for  the money and  was spending  on things                                                                    
that  did   not  work  or  change   criminal  behavior.  The                                                                    
situation  spurred the  legislature to  create the  Criminal                                                                    
Justice  Commission. He  turned  to slide  3 titled  "Prison                                                                    
Population  is Half  Sentenced  Offenders, Half  Supervision                                                                    
Violators and Pretrial Defendants"  that identified the main                                                                    
drivers of the increased prison population.                                                                                     
     Pretrial - 28 percent                                                                                                      
     Supervision Violator - 22%                                                                                                 
     Sentenced - 50%                                                                                                            
Mr.  Shilling  reported  that  three-quarters  of  offenders                                                                    
entering prison post-conviction were convicted of a non-                                                                        
violent felony  offense and their  length of stay was  up 31                                                                    
2:04:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling  relayed that probation violators  made up one-                                                                    
fifth  of  the  prison  population  that  only  committed  a                                                                    
technical violation  of probation. The  commission developed                                                                    
a  comprehensive set  of reforms  that  addressed the  three                                                                    
population  divers. The  reforms  were  proven factors  that                                                                    
other  states had  used  successfully  while protecting  the                                                                    
public, hold  offenders accountable,  and reduced  the daily                                                                    
prison  population.  The  savings  could  be  reinvested  in                                                                    
programs  proven  to reduce  crime.  He  noted the  pretrial                                                                    
population grew 81  percent in the last decade.  He moved to                                                                    
slides 4 through 6 and addressed pretrial recommendations.                                                                      
Slide 5:                                                                                                                        
   Pretrial Recommendations                                                                                                     
   1. Expand the use of citations in place of arrest for                                                                        
     lower-level nonviolent offenses                                                                                            
   2. Utilize risk-based decision-making                                                                                        
   3. Implement pretrial supervision                                                                                            
   4. Focus supervision resources on high-risk defendants                                                                       
Mr. Shilling presented slide 6:                                                                                                 
     The  Commission   recommended  expanding  the   use  of                                                                    
     citations  in  place of  arrest  for  lower level  non-                                                                    
     violent offenses.                                                                                                          
     •76%  of   pretrial  admissions   to  prison   are  for                                                                    
     misdemeanor charges.                                                                                                       
     •56%  of pretrial  admissions to  prison  are for  non-                                                                    
     violent misdemeanor charges.                                                                                               
Mr. Shilling turned to slides 8 and slide 9.                                                                                    
Slide 8:                                                                                                                        
     Growth in  Pretrial Population  Linked to  Large Number                                                                    
     of  Nonviolent Offenders  Held  Pretrial, Longer  Stays                                                                    
     Behind Bars                                                                                                                
     •Half   of   pretrial   defendants  are   detained   on                                                                    
     nonviolent charges, including misdemeanors                                                                                 
     •Defendants staying longer pretrial than they used to                                                                      
Slide 9:                                                                                                                        
     Research  Shows: Detention  Should be  Linked to  Risk,                                                                    
     Limited for Low-Risk Defendants                                                                                            
     Source: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission                                                                                 
     •Pretrial risk  assessment can help  predict likelihood                                                                    
     of  pretrial failure  (far  better  than a  defendant's                                                                    
     ability to pay bail); and                                                                                                  
     •Pretrial  detention   can  lead  to   worse  outcomes,                                                                    
     particularly for low-risk defendants.                                                                                      
Mr. Shilling  elaborated that most pretrial  defendants were                                                                    
misdemeanants  in  order  to stem  the  number  of  pretrial                                                                    
arrests. He discussed the pretrial  risk assessment tool and                                                                    
highlighted  that   the  tools  were  found   to  be  highly                                                                    
predictive. Research  indicated that pretrial  detainment of                                                                    
low  risk individuals  made  them more  like  to commit  new                                                                    
crimes and  recidivate. Based  on a  bail review  study, low                                                                    
risk defendants  were in prison  with very low  bail amounts                                                                    
of  $500 and  $1000 while  high risk  defendants were  being                                                                    
released if the bail requirement was met.                                                                                       
2:09:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling relayed statistics  from Kentucky that employed                                                                    
a  similar  type  of  pretrial  risk  assessment  tools.  In                                                                    
Kentucky 70 percent of pretrial  defendants were releases of                                                                    
which 90  percent appeared at  all of their hearings  and 92                                                                    
percent  completed  pretrial  without any  new  arrests.  He                                                                    
referred back to the  remaining two pretrial recommendations                                                                    
and turned to slide 11:                                                                                                         
     Implement Pretrial Supervision                                                                                             
     •Minimal supervision with court date reminders                                                                             
     •Basic supervision (in-office appointments, phone                                                                          
     calls, field visits)                                                                                                       
     •Enhanced supervision (higher frequency contacts, drug                                                                     
     and alcohol testing, electronic monitoring)                                                                                
     Research shows that enhanced supervision should be                                                                         
     focused on those who are most likely to fail pretrial.                                                                     
Representative  Wilson spoke  to  the  risk assessment.  She                                                                    
asked whether  all defendants  were required  to participate                                                                    
in risk assessment,  even if the individual  could meet bail                                                                    
requirements.  Mr. Shilling  answered that  following arrest                                                                    
the  individual  would  receive a  pretrial  assessment  and                                                                    
would  apply  to  every   defendant  which  approximated  35                                                                    
thousand each year.  The risk score would be used  as a tool                                                                    
for  the  judge  to  make   an  informed  release  decision.                                                                    
Representative  Wilson asked  whether  a  person could  make                                                                    
bail  and  avoid  jail and  risk  assessment.  Mr.  Shilling                                                                    
stated that  the bill envisioned eliminating  bail schedules                                                                    
entirely and the option to be  released on bail could not be                                                                    
exercised  until the  state determined  the  risk to  public                                                                    
safety. Representative  Wilson spoke  to another bill  HB 15                                                                    
Elect Monitoring Credits; Mitigating  Fctrs. [Chapter 20 SLA                                                                    
15  - 05/14/2015  Sponsored by  Representative Wilson].  She                                                                    
asked  whether  the  provisions  for  electronic  monitoring                                                                    
under HB  15 would be eliminated  with passage of SB  91 and                                                                    
the pretrial  supervision provisions. Mr.  Shilling answered                                                                    
that  the bill  would not  affect the  option of  electronic                                                                    
monitoring    since   the    assessment   occurred    before                                                                    
arraignment.  Representative Wilson  wondered  how the  bill                                                                    
fit in  with pretrial  supervision. Mr.  Shilling reiterated                                                                    
that credit for electronic  monitoring always occurred after                                                                    
arraignment and would not be affected by SB 91.                                                                                 
2:14:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki asked about  the risk assessment. He                                                                    
cited  information from  slide 9  regarding risk  assessment                                                                    
and  prediction of  pretrial failure  and  asked for  backup                                                                    
data. Mr.  Shilling answered  that the  research was  out of                                                                    
Kentucky  and  offered to  provide  it.  He added  that  the                                                                    
research showed that the pretrial  actuarial tool was better                                                                    
than professional  judgement alone.  Representative Kawasaki                                                                    
wondered  about  enhanced  supervision  and  asked  how  the                                                                    
provisions  differed than  current  practices. Mr.  Shilling                                                                    
responded  that currently  the state  did not  supervise any                                                                    
one on a  pretrial basis and viewed the provision  as one of                                                                    
the larger public safety enhancements  of the bill. He added                                                                    
that  the Department  of Corrections  (DOC) would  determine                                                                    
what  supervision level  each  defendant  received based  on                                                                    
their assessment. He indicated  the program carried costs to                                                                    
the state.                                                                                                                      
Vice-Chair  Saddler asked  whether  there  was any  evidence                                                                    
about the  effectiveness of citations  in lieu of  an arrest                                                                    
as a deterrent.  Mr. Shilling would follow  up with specific                                                                    
Representative  Gara  understood   that  leaving  low  level                                                                    
offenders   in  jail   for  too   long  made   them  "better                                                                    
criminals."   He  asked   whether  research   back  up   his                                                                    
assertion.  Mr. Shilling  answered  in  the affirmative.  He                                                                    
noted that  a large  body of research  was available  on the                                                                    
issue.  He relayed  that pretrial  low risk  defendants that                                                                    
were detained for more than  24 hours led to worse outcomes.                                                                    
His  deduced  that  detrimental results  happened  when  the                                                                    
individual was removed from his  community for a long enough                                                                    
period  of time  to  lose the  stabilizing  elements in  his                                                                    
life.  In addition,  data pointed  out that  mixing low  and                                                                    
high  risk offenders  led to  "criminogenic" effects  on the                                                                    
low risk offenders.                                                                                                             
Representative Munoz  referred to  the graph  on slide  2 of                                                                    
the presentation that depicted to  main spikes in the prison                                                                    
population in 2007 and again  in 2011. She asked whether the                                                                    
sponsor had analyzed  any changes in law  that occurred. Mr.                                                                    
Shilling  replied  that a  number  of  laws the  legislature                                                                    
enacted affected  the prison  population. He  indicated that                                                                    
following the  Blakely Decision [2004] by  the United States                                                                    
Supreme  Court the  legislature increased  sentencing ranges                                                                    
as  well as  increased sex  offender sentences  in the  mid-                                                                    
2000s  and   many  conditions   on  probation   and  parole.                                                                    
Representative  Munoz asked  for  a listing  of the  statute                                                                    
changes.  She  asked  for examples  of  technical  probation                                                                    
violations. Mr. Shilling replied  that some common technical                                                                    
violations were  a missed  appointment, changing  an address                                                                    
without notifying a probation officer, and substance use.                                                                       
2:20:36 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Neuman referred to an  editorial by Martin M. Moody                                                                    
from  the Juneau  Empire. He  noted that  the editorial  was                                                                    
written  by  an  inmate.  He  asked  Mr.  Shilling  how  the                                                                    
sentences would change. He read from the editorial:                                                                             
     In  response  to Kara  Nelson's  column  in the  Juneau                                                                    
     Empire on  March 31, I wish  to tell you the  dark side                                                                    
     of Senate Bill 91 and House Bill 205.                                                                                      
     You see,  your wife,  girlfriend and daughter  will all                                                                    
     do  their first  shot  of heroin,  crystal meth,  crack                                                                    
     cocaine  or  whatever  other  drugs  because  they  are                                                                    
     offered for  free. This  is how  drug dealers  get them                                                                    
     hooked. Over the  next couple of weeks  or months, drug                                                                    
     dealers  will sell  her the  drug she  needs to  get by                                                                    
     from day to day. At  some point she will eventually run                                                                    
     out of money to support her habit.                                                                                         
     It is  at this point  drug dealers will break  her will                                                                    
     to perform sexual  acts for a hit. She will  be shot up                                                                    
     with  a large  dose  to  make her  sick.  While she  is                                                                    
     puking  out her  guts in  the toilet  or in  some other                                                                    
     state of  debilitation, she will be  sexually violated.                                                                    
     If  she resists,  she will  be physically  abused until                                                                    
     she submits.  She will be  emotionally wrecked,  but if                                                                    
     she behaves  she will be  rewarded with another  hit to                                                                    
     make her feel good.                                                                                                        
     Afterward, your  wife, girlfriend  or daughter,  who is                                                                    
     lying there on  the bathroom floor, will  be offered to                                                                    
     any man who is present at the time as a party favor.                                                                       
     At  this  point,  the  drug   dealer  owns  your  wife,                                                                    
     girlfriend or  daughter. He has broken  her physically,                                                                    
     mentally,  emotionally and  spiritually.  He will  have                                                                    
     her selling herself to support  not only her drug habit                                                                    
     but  his as  well. She  will steal,  harm children  and                                                                    
     walk away  from her  marriage. She will  commit crimes,                                                                    
     go to prison and may  even contract STDs. Your daughter                                                                    
     will have what seems  like teenage behavioral problems,                                                                    
     but the  truth is she will  not tell you what  is going                                                                    
     on. They  both will always  go back to the  drug dealer                                                                    
     for another hit, no matter  how demeaning the dealer is                                                                    
     to her or how degrading he is to her sexually.                                                                             
     The dealer does  not care about her  feelings, nor does                                                                    
     he view  her as  a human being  with value.  Your wife,                                                                    
     girlfriend or  daughter are nothing  more than  a party                                                                    
     The drug  dealer does not  care about the harm  he will                                                                    
     cause her, family  members or friend or  if he destroys                                                                    
     her  life. The  drug  dealer will  not  care about  her                                                                    
     children because  when the time  is right he  will turn                                                                    
     the children into future  drug dealers and prostitutes.                                                                    
     The  more she  comes back  to the  dealer, the  more he                                                                    
     controls her.  She will lose  her self-worth  and self-                                                                    
     esteem. The  last thing  the drug  dealer will  take is                                                                    
     her self-respect.                                                                                                          
     You see, SB 91 and HB  205 award extra time off credits                                                                    
     for people  who will only  get out and return  within a                                                                    
     few   months.  Since   my   arrival   at  Lemon   Creek                                                                    
     Correctional Center  in September 2014, I  have watched                                                                    
     the  same one-third  of the  prison population  get out                                                                    
     and come back. And their  return is always for the same                                                                    
     thing: dealing  drugs or  dirty urinalysis  tests. They                                                                    
     will do a  small amount of time and be  returned to the                                                                    
     streets  or  be given  the  opportunity  to go  to  the                                                                    
     halfway house, only to return  to prison again in a few                                                                    
     days, weeks  or months on  new charge or  for probation                                                                    
     I am happy for Ms.  Nelson and she deserves the support                                                                    
     of  the  community. She  has  overcome  her demons  and                                                                    
     moved forward in  life. I commend her for  the work she                                                                    
     has done.  I have never  met her, however, I  have seen                                                                    
     her here at  Lemon Creek. What I have  written about is                                                                    
     what   I  hear   day  in   and  day   out  in   various                                                                    
     conversations between  inmates. And I really  would not                                                                    
     call  it "conversation,"  it  is  more "bragging"  than                                                                    
     conversing. There  are three  women here right  now who                                                                    
     have  been  involved  in the  very  situations  I  just                                                                    
     described above involving five  inmates who openly brag                                                                    
     about "turning these women out."                                                                                           
     By the  way, I am  a convicted sex offender,  so please                                                                    
     explain to  me, who is  the real boogeyman  in society?                                                                    
     Since  being  a  sex  offender  is  more  demonized  by                                                                    
     society,  law enforcement,  Department of  Corrections,                                                                    
     social services  and legislative  policymakers, I  am a                                                                    
     little  confused on  the matter.  Because  from what  I                                                                    
     heard every day  for the past 18 years,  there seems to                                                                    
     be very little  difference between what I  did and what                                                                    
     a drug dealer will do to  a woman in order to "turn her                                                                    
2:25:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Neuman asked how SB  91 would sentence drug dealers                                                                    
and sex  offenders and whether  any funds were  available in                                                                    
the bill for  Alaskans like the one in the  article and what                                                                    
it  would  do  for  victims  and  vulnerable  Alaskans.  Mr.                                                                    
Shilling   replied  that   SB  91   would  not   change  any                                                                    
presumptive  sentencing for  sex offenders.  He communicated                                                                    
that the editorialist was correct,  but the bill did seek to                                                                    
address  rampant theft,  rampant substance  abuse and  other                                                                    
crimes that  were driven by  addiction. He relayed  that the                                                                    
state's current response to  drug addiction "absolutely" did                                                                    
not work. He specified  that sentence reduction and sentence                                                                    
increases  did not  deter  drug use  and  related crime.  He                                                                    
restated  that   justice  reinvestment  was   about  halting                                                                    
spending   money  on   policies  that   did  not   work  and                                                                    
reinvesting it in the correct intervention.                                                                                     
Co-Chair  Neuman  spoke  to Recommendation  11:  Incentivize                                                                    
Completion  of Treatment  for Sex  Offenders with  an Earned                                                                    
Time  Policy from  the "Alaska  Criminal Justice  Commission                                                                    
Justice  Reinvestment Report"  from December  2015 (copy  on                                                                    
file). He read the following:                                                                                                   
     Specific    Action    Recommended:    To    incentivize                                                                    
     participation  in   and  completion  of   sex  offender                                                                    
     treatment, the Commission recommends:                                                                                      
     a.  Implementing   an  earned   time  policy   for  sex                                                                    
     offenders  who are  currently ineligible  for mandatory                                                                    
     parole, whereby offenders  are able to earn  up to one-                                                                    
     third  off their  sentence if  they complete  in-prison                                                                    
     treatment requirements set forth by the DOC.                                                                               
     b.   Expanding   the    DOC's   capacity   to   provide                                                                    
     residential,  long-term  sex  offender  treatment  that                                                                    
     focuses on  ensuring the  offender is  held responsible                                                                    
     for harmful  behavior and teaches  cognitive behavioral                                                                    
     strategies to end patterns of abuse.                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Neuman  stressed  that legislation  he  previously                                                                    
worked  on established  ineligibility from  mandatory parole                                                                    
because  the  recidivism  rate   of  sex  offenders  was  92                                                                    
percent. He  strongly disagreed  with the  recommendation in                                                                    
light  of  the  high  recidivism rate  of  92  percent.  Mr.                                                                    
Shilling  concurred  that   recommendation  11  incentivized                                                                    
completion of sex  offender programming through establishing                                                                    
a one-third  credit. He explained that  the Senate Judiciary                                                                    
committee  reduced  the credit  to  one-fifth  and that  the                                                                    
Senate  removed the  credit entirely.  He remarked  that the                                                                    
sponsor favored the Senates  response to the recommendation.                                                                    
Co-Chair    Neuman    requested    that    addressing    the                                                                    
recommendation was a very high priority for the committee.                                                                      
Mr. Shilling moved to slide 13:                                                                                                 
     Sentencing Recommendations                                                                                                 
     5. Limit the use  of prison for lower-level misdemeanor                                                                    
     6. Revise drug  penalties to focus the  most the severe                                                                    
     punishments on higher-level drug offenders                                                                                 
     7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds                                                                          
     8. Align  non-sex felony presumptive ranges  with prior                                                                    
     presumptive terms                                                                                                          
     9.  Expand  and  streamline the  use  of  discretionary                                                                    
     10. Implement  a specialty parole option  for long-term                                                                    
     geriatric inmates                                                                                                          
     11.  Incentivize   completion  of  treatment   for  sex                                                                    
     offenders with an earned time policy                                                                                       
Mr. Shilling briefly addressed slide 14 titled "Vast                                                                            
Majority of Admissions to Prison are Misdemeanants." He                                                                         
noted that most of the offenders and crimes were non-                                                                           
violent. The commission recommended a variety of sentencing                                                                     
changes including:                                                                                                              
     Reducing low level Class B misdemeanor to violations                                                                       
     Changing  how driving  with  a  suspended licensed  was                                                                    
     addressed and differentiate  between suspension for DUI                                                                    
     or a point's revocation                                                                                                    
    Reduce disorderly conduct to a maximum 24 hour hold                                                                         
     Mandatory  electronic  monitoring  for first  time  DUI                                                                    
     A  new presumptive  range for  Class A  misdemeanors of                                                                    
     zero to thirty days with the exception of Assault IV                                                                       
2:30:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling noted sentencing Recommendation 6: Revise Drug                                                                     
Penalties to Focus The Most the Severe Punishments on                                                                           
Higher-Level Drug Offenders and turned to slide 16:                                                                             
   Over Last Decade, More Offenders Entering Prison for Drug                                                                    
   Crimes, and Staying Longer                                                                                                   
   Over past 10 years-                                                                                                          
   · admissions to prison for felony drug offenses has                                                                          
     grown by  35%, driven in  large part by a  68% increase                                                                    
     in admissions for MICS 4 offenders; and                                                                                    
   · length of stay for Alaska's felony drug offenders has                                                                      
     increased by 16%.                                                                                                          
Mr. Shilling moved to slide 17:                                                                                                 
     Research   Shows:  Long   Prison  Sentences   for  Drug                                                                    
     Offenders Have Low Deterrent Value                                                                                         
     •There is no significant  effect of longer prison stays                                                                    
     on  recidivism rates  (i.e.  staying  in prison  longer                                                                    
     does not  make an  offender less  likely to  recommit a                                                                    
     •In   addition,   some   studies   find   that   severe                                                                    
     punishments  such  as  felony  convictions  and  prison                                                                    
     terms may have  criminogenic effects, causing offenders                                                                    
     to be more likely to commit crimes in the future.                                                                          
Mr.  Shilling  explained  that  the  commission  recommended                                                                    
establishing  a 2.5  gram threshold  whereby  more than  2.5                                                                    
grams of  a 1A,  2A, or  3A substance  was prosecuted  for a                                                                    
higher level  felony and under  2.5 grams was a  lower level                                                                    
felony.  He  spoke  to  slide   18  that  listed  sentencing                                                                    
Recommendation   7:   Utilize  Inflation-Adjusted   Property                                                                    
Thresholds.  He reported  that  the legislature  established                                                                    
the dividing  line between misdemeanor  and felony  theft in                                                                    
1978  at  $500.  Inflation  had eroded  the  value  and  the                                                                    
commission recommended  raising the value to  $2000 that was                                                                    
close to the $500 value  adjusted for inflation. He moved to                                                                    
slide  19  that  included  a   chart  titled  "Felony  Theft                                                                    
Threshold in  Alaska has not  Kept Pace with  Inflation." He                                                                    
discussed slide 20:                                                                                                             
     Research Shows: Raising the  Felony Theft Threshold Has                                                                    
     No Impact on Crime                                                                                                         
     •Between 2001  and 2011, 23 states  raised their felony                                                                    
     theft  thresholds. In  these 23  states, the  change in                                                                    
     threshold had  no impact,  up or  down, in  the state's                                                                    
     overall property crime rate.                                                                                               
     •In  fact,  property  and   larceny  crime  rates  fell                                                                    
     slightly  more  in  the 23  states  that  raised  their                                                                    
     thresholds from  2001 to 2011  than the 27  states that                                                                    
     did not.                                                                                                                   
Mr.  Shilling  moved  to  slides 21  and  22.  He  addressed                                                                    
sentencing   Recommendation    8   Align    Non-Sex   Felony                                                                    
Presumptive Ranges  with Prior  Presumptive Terms.  He moved                                                                    
to slide 22  titled "In 2005, Alaska  Moved From Presumptive                                                                    
Terms  to Presumptive  Ranges." The  chart depicted  how the                                                                    
legislature raised sentences in  2005. He explained that due                                                                    
to the  Blakely Decision  in 2005,  states were  required to                                                                    
mandate sentencing  differently in  response to  the Supreme                                                                    
Court case. Alaska  moved from a presumptive  term system to                                                                    
a presumptive range system. The  legislature used the entire                                                                    
presumptive term as the floor  of the new presumptive range.                                                                    
The legislature added  intent language at the  time that the                                                                    
legislature was  not attempting "to  bring about  an overall                                                                    
increase in  active imprisonment  time." However,  using the                                                                    
previous  term  as the  floor  of  the new  range  increased                                                                    
prison time significantly. He turned to slide 23:                                                                               
     Change in Felony Sentencing Led to Increases in Length                                                                     
     of Stay Behind Bars                                                                                                        
     From 2004 to 2014, average length of stay for:                                                                             
        · Class A felonies grew 80 percent;                                                                                     
        · Class B felonies grew 8 percent; and                                                                                  
        · Class C felonies grew 17 percent                                                                                      
Vice-Chair Saddler  pointed to slide  22 and asked  what the                                                                    
20  years meant  on  the  presumptive terms  for  a Class  A                                                                    
felony.  Mr. Shilling  answered that  the 20  years was  the                                                                    
maximum  hard  cap  for  sentencing  if  an  aggravator  was                                                                    
Mr. Shilling  moved to  slide 24  titled "Align  Ranges with                                                                    
Prior Terms" that contained the  sentencing range chart with                                                                    
the commission recommendations.                                                                                                 
2:35:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling turned  to slides 25 and 26.  He referenced the                                                                    
sentencing Recommendation  9: Expand and Streamline  the Use                                                                    
of  Discretionary Parole.  He turned  to slide  26 titled  "                                                                    
Parole  Eligibility  Applied  Inconsistently"  He  indicated                                                                    
that  currently  eligibility  for discretionary  parole  was                                                                    
restricted  for  the  most serious  crimes  of  unclassified                                                                    
felonies  including  murder  and kidnapping  or  the  lowest                                                                    
level felonies  and not  for any  felonies that  fell within                                                                    
the  two extremes.  The bill  expanded  the eligibility.  He                                                                    
addressed slide 27:                                                                                                             
     For Those Who are Eligible, Parole Underutilized.                                                                          
     •On any given month in 2014, an average of 463 inmates                                                                     
     were eligible for discretionary parole, and an average                                                                     
     of only 15 parole hearings were held.                                                                                      
Mr. Shilling  detailed that  the commission  wanted everyone                                                                    
eligible  for parole  to receive  a hearing.  The commission                                                                    
also   established  an   administrative  parole   provision;                                                                    
currently    not   in    statute.   Administrative    parole                                                                    
presumptively granted  parole to first  time B and  C Felons                                                                    
by restricting  hearings only to individuals  that failed to                                                                    
comply  with  their case  plan  did  not obey  institutional                                                                    
rules, or to individuals that requested a hearing.                                                                              
Mr.  Shilling  addressed  slides  28 and  29.  He  discussed                                                                    
sentencing Recommendation  10: Implement a  Specialty Parole                                                                    
Option for  Long-Term Geriatric Inmates. He  presented slide                                                                    
29 titled  " Population  of Oldest  Offenders Has  More than                                                                    
Doubled  in  Past 10  Years"  and  detailed that  the  elder                                                                    
population was the fastest growing  age group and was due to                                                                    
the significant  increase in sentences  in the  past decade.                                                                    
Currently,  the state  had no  parole option  for the  older                                                                    
offenders.  He moved  to slide  30  titled "Alaska's  Oldest                                                                    
Offenders  Least  Likely  to Recidivate  Upon  Release."  He                                                                    
added  that the  elder  inmates were  the  costliest to  the                                                                    
state. The recommendation offered  an opportunity to receive                                                                    
a  hearing if  the  inmate  was 55  or  older  and served  a                                                                    
minimum of 10  years of their sentence. It  was notable that                                                                    
the age  ranges were expanded  in the Senate and  some types                                                                    
of  offenders were  excluded. The  current policy  reflected                                                                    
the  commission's   recommendations  and  did   not  reflect                                                                    
changes made in the Senate.  He opined that the elderly were                                                                    
the  safest  inmates  to  release  and  were  the  costliest                                                                    
inmates by two to three times.                                                                                                  
Mr.  Shilling  addressed  slide 31  that  listed  sentencing                                                                    
Recommendation 11:  Incentivize Completion of  Treatment for                                                                    
Sex Offenders  with an  Earned Time  Policy. He  skipped the                                                                    
data and  mentioned that the policy  mitigated one-third off                                                                    
of  a sex  offender's sentence  subsequent to  treatment. He                                                                    
highlighted to slide 35:                                                                                                        
     Community Supervision Recommendations                                                                                      
     12. Implement graduated sanctions                                                                                          
     13. Cap incarceration time for technical violations of                                                                     
    14. Establish a system of earned compliance credits                                                                         
     15. Reduce maximum lengths for probation terms and                                                                         
     standardize early discharge proceedings                                                                                    
     16. Extend good time eligibility to offenders serving                                                                      
     sentences on electronic monitoring                                                                                         
     17.   Focus   ASAP   resources   to   improve   program                                                                    
     18. Improve  treatment offerings in CRCs  and focus use                                                                    
     of CRC resources on high-need offenders                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling  addressed slide 36 titled:  "Almost Two-Thirds                                                                    
of Offenders Released Return to Prison Within Three Years."                                                                     
He  voiced that  graduated  sanctions  were tools  probation                                                                    
officers used to gain compliance  by addressing bad behavior                                                                    
quickly or  eliciting good  behavior through  incentives. He                                                                    
turned to slides 37:                                                                                                            
     Swift,  Certain, and  Proportional Sanctions  Effective                                                                    
     at Changing Offender Behavior                                                                                              
     •Research shows that  responding to violations quickly,                                                                    
     certainly,  and proportionally  is  the most  effective                                                                    
     way  to change  offender  behavior. Key  elements of  a                                                                    
     successful system include.                                                                                                 
Mr.  Shilling  moved  to  slide  38  that  listed  Community                                                                    
Supervision  Recommendation 13:  Cap Incarceration  Time for                                                                    
Technical Violations of Supervision. He restated that one-                                                                      
fifth  of  Alaska's  prison   population  was  comprised  of                                                                    
individuals that did not commit a new crime.                                                                                    
2:41:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling turned to slide  39 titled "Petitions to Revoke                                                                    
Take  a Month  to  Resolve." He  addressed  slide 40  titled                                                                    
"Once  Sentenced, Nearly  Half of  Revocations Staying  More                                                                    
than One Month." He noted  that the graph also depicted that                                                                    
some  individuals  spent  over  a   year  in  prison  for  a                                                                    
technical   violation.   The  commission   had   recommended                                                                    
creating a cap for the violations as follows:                                                                                   
     The first revocation received 3 days in prison.                                                                            
     The second revocation received 5 days in prison.                                                                           
     The third revocation received 10 days in prison.                                                                           
     The  forth   plus  revocation  was  left   to  judicial                                                                    
     suspension   allowing  imposition   of  the   remaining                                                                    
     sentencing time.                                                                                                           
Mr. Shilling  spoke to  slide 41  that listed  the Community                                                                    
Supervision Recommendation 14: Establish  a System of Earned                                                                    
Compliance Credits.  He noted that currently  offenders were                                                                    
kept on probation and parole  for long periods of time; even                                                                    
those considered  low risk.  Almost all  violations happened                                                                    
in  the   first  year  and  repeat   violators  were  easily                                                                    
identified  early on.  He added  that  Parole and  Probation                                                                    
Officers caseloads  "were out of control"  and averaged over                                                                    
50. He spoke to slide 42:                                                                                                       
     To  Change Offender  Behavior,  Rewards More  Effective                                                                    
     than Sanctions                                                                                                             
     •Research shows  that states achieve  higher successful                                                                    
    supervision rates when rewards outnumber sanctions.                                                                         
     •Successful  supervision  programs  provide  incentives                                                                    
     for   meeting   case-specific   goals   (for   example,                                                                    
     rewarding  an  offender  with   a  drug  addiction  for                                                                    
     participating   in   an  out-patient   drug   treatment                                                                    
     program), thereby enhancing supervisees' motivation.                                                                       
Mr. Shilling voiced that the  commission recommended a month                                                                    
for  month compliance  credit that  was intended  to achieve                                                                    
sustained compliance and lessen recidivism.                                                                                     
Mr. Shilling discussed  Community Supervision Recommendation                                                                    
15:  Reduce   Maximum  Lengths   for  Probation   Terms  and                                                                    
Standardize Early Discharge  Proceedings. He examined slides                                                                    
44  through  46.  He  briefly   mentioned  slide  44  titled                                                                    
"Average  Length of  Stay on  Community  Supervision Up  13%                                                                    
Over Past Decade."  He cited the data depicted  on the graph                                                                    
on slide 45 titled:                                                                                                             
     "Failure  Most Likely  to Happen  Within Three  Months"                                                                    
     that   clearly  demonstrated   that  the   majority  of                                                                    
     probation  or  parole  violations occurred  within  the                                                                    
     first three months [62 percent]. He spoke to slide 46:                                                                     
     Frontload and Focus Supervision Resources                                                                                  
     •Research shows that  supervision resources provide the                                                                    
     greatest public  safety returns  when focused  on those                                                                    
     most likely to reoffend:  high-risk offenders and those                                                                    
     recently  released  from  prison.  Key  elements  of  a                                                                    
     successful system include:                                                                                                 
     •Identifying    offenders    who    warrant    enhanced                                                                    
     supervision and  those who  do not,  including reducing                                                                    
     reporting  requirements for  those who  are succeeding;                                                                    
     •Deterring  future crime  and  technical violations  by                                                                    
     changing  offender  behavior  in the  first  few  days,                                                                    
     weeks, and months after release.                                                                                           
Mr. Shilling furthered that in  order to reduce probation or                                                                    
parole  violations  and  new  crimes  it  was  important  to                                                                    
frontload the  states resources and focus  limited resources                                                                    
on  those  likely  to  offend.  The  commission  recommended                                                                    
limiting probation term  lengths and discharging individuals                                                                    
on probation or  parole after one year  of perfect sustained                                                                    
compliance.    He    spoke    to    Community    Supervision                                                                    
Recommendation   16:  Extend   Good   Time  Eligibility   to                                                                    
Offenders  Serving Sentences  on  Electronic Monitoring.  He                                                                    
moved to slide 48:                                                                                                              
     Unlike Those in Prison, Offenders  on EM Unable to Earn                                                                    
     Good Time                                                                                                                  
     •The  ACJC found  that, while  most  offenders who  are                                                                    
     housed within  an institution  have the  opportunity to                                                                    
     earn "good  time" up to  one-third off  their sentences                                                                    
     in acknowledgement  of positive behavior,  offenders on                                                                    
     electronic   monitoring  are   currently  banned   from                                                                    
     earning this incentive.                                                                                                    
Mr. Shilling  elaborated that  currently most  inmates often                                                                    
choose to  remain incarcerated in  order to  accumulate good                                                                    
Representative Wilson asked  whether inmates who accumulated                                                                    
good time  had "the choice  to take the full  sentence." Mr.                                                                    
Shilling  answered  in the  affirmative  and  added that  an                                                                    
inmate  could refuse  electronic monitoring.  Representative                                                                    
Wilson  reiterated  her  question  and  clarified  that  she                                                                    
wondered  whether  an  inmate could  refuse  probation.  Mr.                                                                    
Shilling believed she was referring  to mandatory parole. He                                                                    
understood  that  an  individual could  not  deny  mandatory                                                                    
2:46:51 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr.  Shilling  spoke  to  slide  49  that  listed  Community                                                                    
Supervision  Recommendation  17:  Focus  ASAP  Resources  to                                                                    
Improve Program Effectiveness. He discussed slide 50:                                                                           
     Increases in  Referrals to ASAP Have  Limited Program's                                                                    
     •Alaska's  Alcohol   Safety  Action   Program  ("ASAP")                                                                    
     provides  needed   screening  and   treatment  referral                                                                    
     services  for thousands  of  misdemeanor offenders  who                                                                    
     are referred by the court.                                                                                                 
     •However, the  Commission found  that increases  in the                                                                    
     number of  referrals to ASAP  have not  correlated with                                                                    
     increased  funding   for  the  program,   resulting  in                                                                    
     limited program effectiveness.                                                                                             
     •In  fiscal  year  2015,  ASAP  received  nearly  7,250                                                                    
     referrals.  57%  of  which  were  statutorily  mandated                                                                    
     referrals  (DUI  and  MCA).   The  remaining  43%  were                                                                    
     referrals that were not mandated by statute.                                                                               
Mr.  Shilling informed  the committee  that the  program was                                                                    
housed  in  the Department  of  Health  and Social  Services                                                                    
(DHSS).  He  highlighted   the  last  Community  Supervision                                                                    
Recommendation 18: Improve  Treatment Offerings in Community                                                                    
Residential Centers  (CRCS) And  Focus Use of  CRC Resources                                                                    
on High-Need Offenders. He turned to slide 52:                                                                                  
     CRCs Mixing High-and  Low-Risk Offenders; Not Providing                                                                    
     Evidence-Based Treatment                                                                                                   
     •The  Commission found  that CRCs,  otherwise known  as                                                                    
     halfway  houses, are  likely  mixing high-and  low-risk                                                                    
     offenders,  which  research  has   shown  can  lead  to                                                                    
     increased recidivism for low-risk offenders.                                                                               
     •Additionally, the Commission found  that CRCs would be                                                                    
     more   effective   at   reducing  recidivism   if   the                                                                    
     facilities   offered   evidence-based   treatment   for                                                                    
     offenders in addition to supervision.                                                                                      
Mr.  Shilling  mentioned  that the  recommendation  included                                                                    
requiring treatment when housed in  a CRC and prohibited the                                                                    
mixing of low and high risk offenders.                                                                                          
Mr. Shilling spoke to the  concept of reinvestment beginning                                                                    
on  slide  53. He  briefly  cited  slide 54  titled  "Absent                                                                    
Reform, Prison  Population Projected  to Grow  by Additional                                                                    
27% over  Next Decade,  Costing at  Least $169  Million." He                                                                    
moved to slide 55:                                                                                                              
     Reinvestment Directive to the Commission                                                                                   
     "In  this  budget   climate,  investments  that  expand                                                                    
     treatment  and services  only  become  possible with  a                                                                    
     reform package  that results  in substantial,  real net                                                                    
     savings to the state."                                                                                                     
     •Letter  to  Alaska  Criminal Justice  Commission  from                                                                    
     Finance  co-Chairs, Senate  President,  and Speaker  of                                                                    
     the House                                                                                                                  
Mr. Shilling shared that the  letter directed the commission                                                                    
to "think  big" and requested recommendations  that resulted                                                                    
in  "real   systemic  change."   He  illuminated   that  the                                                                    
commission   had   met   for   months   and   had   provided                                                                    
recommendations that  were projected  to reduce  the average                                                                    
daily prison population by 21  percent over the next decade.                                                                    
The commission's recommendations were  projected to save the                                                                    
state $424  million over  the next  ten years  that included                                                                    
averting  future  prisoner  growth and  savings  to  current                                                                    
population and marginal offender  costs. The savings did not                                                                    
take  into account  the possible  closure of  DOC facilities                                                                    
and the changes  in the new version reduced  the savings due                                                                    
to reductions to  the prison population of  only 18 percent.                                                                    
He addressed slide 57:                                                                                                          
     "Justice Reinvestment" concept                                                                                             
     Free  up  funds  by  focusing prison  beds  on  serious                                                                    
     violent  offenders,  and  reinvest  a  portion  of  the                                                                    
     savings into  the services needed to  reduce recidivism                                                                    
     and protect the public.                                                                                                    
Mr.  Shilling related  that  more than  30  states had  gone                                                                    
through  the process.  He reiterated  that the  approach was                                                                    
data driven,  analyzed the  state's spending,  and allocated                                                                    
offender  populations in  a more  cost effective  manner. He                                                                    
listed the steps necessary as  a state moved through justice                                                                    
reinvestment as follows:                                                                                                        
   1. Establish a working group. The state created the                                                                          
     commission in 2014.                                                                                                        
   2. Analyze the drivers.                                                                                                      
   3. Develop policy recommendations                                                                                            
   4. Work on codifying recommendations. The work was                                                                           
     currently in progress.                                                                                                     
   5. Reinvest savings in things that reduced crime.                                                                            
Mr. Shilling presented slide 58:                                                                                                
     Reinvestment Priorities                                                                                                    
     •Pretrial supervision;                                                                                                     
     •Violence prevention and victims' services;                                                                                
     •Community-based treatment; and                                                                                            
     •Reentry and support services                                                                                              
Mr. Shilling referred  to the fiscal notes  and relayed that                                                                    
there  was money  appropriated to  the  Council on  Domestic                                                                    
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) for victims' services.                                                                      
2:51:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Neuman  asked how the  bill addressed the  need for                                                                    
treatment   after   arrest.   Mr.  Shilling   replied   that                                                                    
reinvestment was really only possible  if savings were found                                                                    
from items that were not  working and spent on programs that                                                                    
achieved  results. The  committee had  its own  reinvestment                                                                    
decisions  to  make. He  detailed  that  the Senate  Finance                                                                    
Committee   emphasized   DOC    treatment,   halfway   house                                                                    
treatment,  and  community  based treatment.  He  noted  the                                                                    
effectiveness of the treatment programs he mentioned.                                                                           
Senator Coghill added  that one of the new  concepts was the                                                                    
risk   assessment    in   pretrial   with    its   resulting                                                                    
"diversionary  potential."  A   treatment  option  could  be                                                                    
mandated instead of jail time.  He believed the new pretrial                                                                    
services  offered  a  valuable  new  tool.  Co-Chair  Neuman                                                                    
thought the sponsor  had stated that the  biggest problem in                                                                    
delivering treatment  after arrest was the  lack of funding.                                                                    
Mr. Shilling responded in the affirmative.                                                                                      
Senator Coghill  interjected that  was exactly  the problem.                                                                    
He believed  that doing things  differently saved  costs and                                                                    
freed  up  money  for treatment,  which  could  be  mandated                                                                    
through pretrial.                                                                                                               
2:55:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Saddler  spoke  to  the  aim  of  modifying  the                                                                    
behaviors  of  individuals to  change  the  outcomes in  the                                                                    
criminal  justice   system.  He  wondered  to   what  extent                                                                    
modifying  behaviors  within the  correctional  institutions                                                                    
were   "individuated"  versus   categorized.  Mr.   Shilling                                                                    
answered that DOC  currently did a number  of assessments to                                                                    
determine inmate needs.                                                                                                         
Senator  Coghill  elaborated  that  COC  employed  the  LSIR                                                                    
[Level  of  Service  Inventory  -  Revised],  which  was  an                                                                    
assessment  tool.  The bill  directed  the  use of  new  and                                                                    
different  assessments  that  currently were  employed.  The                                                                    
risk assessment in the bill  morphed into individualized re-                                                                    
entry planning as the inmate neared release.                                                                                    
CSSSSB  91(FIN)  AM was  HEARD  and  HELD in  committee  for                                                                    
further consideration.                                                                                                          
Co-Chair Thompson  discussed the schedule for  the following                                                                    
morning.  He recessed  the meeting  to a  call of  the chair                                                                    
[Note: the meeting never reconvened].                                                                                           
2:58:35 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB91 - Visual Aid ver V.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
SB 91
SB91 - Supporting Document (Letter to Commission 25% Reduction).pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
SB 91
SB 91 Presentation.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
SB 91
SB 91 - Sectional Analysis ver V.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
SB 91
4 18 16 Cash Flow under HB245 version I.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
HB 245
HB 245 CS WORKDRAFT FIN vI.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
HB 245
SB 91 Editorial Juneau Empire.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
SB 91
SB91 Actuarial Letter 4.18.16.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
SB 91
SB91_HB205_Opposition_Letter_.pdf HFIN 4/18/2016 1:30:00 PM
HB 205
SB 91