 We're a little late in starting this morning. We're waiting for some committee members and folks to folks who are going to testify witnesses to sign on and get ourselves organized. So I want to welcome everyone this morning. The first person we're going to start with is David sure. David sure from the attorney general's office to go through the highlights of the bill and their take on it. So David, I'm going to turn it over to you. If you could identify yourself for the record, that would be great. Certainly. And thanks for having me this morning. I am David chair from the attorney general's office and I am here to introduce you to the committee. And I'm going to voice our strong support for the bill. We are really appreciative of the work that has gone in to producing this show. And the issue of. Introducing due process into post incarceration supervision. Introducing increased due process, I should say, and in the post incarceration supervision. As well as lowering the rate of. In addition, I'm grateful to this committee for making the time and effort to take this up and challenging circumstances. As the committee knows, well, this is really the product of a lot of work done by. CSG council and state governments and the justice reinvestment grant that came through last year. And I want to express my gratitude to them. They did really extraordinary work. And I would join that praise and thanking them. They really did remarkable work, produce some really remarkable research and statistics. And even beyond this bill, I'd really recommend to the committee to review some of the reports that they produce. There's really just a goldmine of data in there that tells us a lot about how our system works. And I see Alan is on the call and thanks to Alan. She's certainly part of that group and they just did great work. And so I'm really glad for what they did and we're glad for the bill that's resulted. I won't spend a lot of time going through the technical aspects of the bill, although I, because I believe I, the committee has been hearing about that and will continue to hear that about that. We strongly support the structure that has been worked out. With a sort of presumptive parole option for those who are eligible and a fairly strong presumption that people will go into presumptive parole. And a high standard for choosing not, or I should say a more challenging standard to meet for choosing not to have people go into presumptive parole. All of that we believe is a good way forward. And we think that the system as it's been designed is really a good one. I think that there's obviously going to be coordination that will have to be done between the parole board and DOC and I think that's going to be a good way forward. I'm not sure if I'm making sure this actually works well, but I have no doubt that they will get that done and make that workable. The other piece that I would like to bring up, and I'm also happy to answer any questions. I certainly was involved in working out some of the. Detail aspects of it. So I'm happy to answer any questions people have any on that, but I don't want to take up too much time. So as I said, I'm happy to answer any questions people have. I'm happy to answer any questions people have. I'm happy to answer any questions people have. I'm happy to answer any questions people have as well. The only other piece that I would bring up. Which I believe was brought up by. It's on that's right in the long ago yesterday on the bill. And I also serve as the attorney general's offices representative to the racial disparities panel that a ton shares. And that was just to echo what I believe he was. Talking about with respect to section 19. And I would echo that aspect of it and just say, I do think the racial disparities panel would be a good. Voice to have as part of that process. Making sure that they are involved in the. Construction of a better and more complete data collection. Effort for the state and figuring out ways in which we can really make that consistent statewide and understand what's really happening. Not just from the police operation side, but all the way through the court operations as well, which I think is really where we don't have a lot of transparency at the moment. In terms of decision making and the sort of high discretion, high impact decision points that we talk about. That was an area that the panel really spent a lot of time talking about and working on and learning about. And I think that that would encourage. Adding. The racial disparities panel to the group of entities that's working on that. And that would really be our only ask at this point, but I would again, happy to be helpful as I can be with respect to other aspects of the bill as we go through and try to figure stuff out. And I would also say. Seeing this bill get to the finish line is really our priority. So I think that we can really help with that and compromise in whatever ways need to happen to make that. Get to the finish line. So thank you very much to the committee for taking up what we view as a really essential piece of legislation and one that's really going to have a huge, what we believe will be a really significant impact. On the system and a positive impact. Thank you. I think that we are going to have a discussion about the committee's next section. So you did answer that. And. Also I want to assure people that S3 38 is a priority. We. Are committed to working on the bill and getting it through the finish line. The question is we don't know that timeframe for the finish line. The bill may not even get to the full house until sometime in May. It doesn't mean that we're not supportive of it. It's just the timing. In terms of trying to get through any or keeping open other bills. Trying to deal with the COVID-19 emergency first. And then we need to deal with our capital bill. And this bill probably in May is what it's beginning to look like. From what I'm hearing. And that doesn't mean to say that we're not going to be supportive of it. It just will be our legislative session is not functioning at the same rate of speed. As if we were in the building. We're not going to be supportive of it. And just for folks to be cognizant of that and have patients. And I think one of the keys to that we're really. Want to make sure with this legislation and any changes that we make. That we do our due diligence in making those changes, but also aware that this is a Senate bill. So we need to make sure that we have the initial work on this bill. To see if we can come to. Agreement. So we do not need to go into a conference committee. So. Saying that to let people know. Questions. David. Butch. Thanks. And then Sarah. I'm going to go into the bill. And yesterday when a ton was testifying. I never guess I can't. Anyway, when he was. Testifying yesterday. He mentioned the same thing and it makes no sense. They are mentioned in section 19 under parentheses B. But I think. How. They're not in print A. Part of the second might get you want them included in. Part A of that. Group that's going to work with crime research group. That's exactly right. The hope would be to be included in 19. A. Because that was really. And I will. Circle back with. To make sure everybody's on the same page and understand. What's been happening. I will circle back with some judiciary members to explain that. The panel simply didn't meet during. Because they have me once a month, it was just a matter of timing. It wasn't a matter of. Coming in late and making a late ask is just a matter of timing. That was just the one thing they identified as something that they thought would be a good change. And so I'll circle back and let Senate judiciary know why the timing worked out the way it did. That would be a help. Right. So then do we still need. parentheses B under. Section B. Well, that's working with the. Sentencing commission. Yeah. Right. I do read those as doing. Two different chunks of work. And I think they're both worth pursuing. And in both instances, I would envision the distracial disparities panel as being a. Essentially a sort of consulting entity to that work. But I think we'll be able to win the worthwhile. Lends to it. And having done some real work on some of these issues. Sure. And I guess my last question, Dave. David is. In prene. It says each stakeholder identified in a subjection. Shall report their findings to just. And I'm sure you worked on this with, with the folks. What's your take on that? That says each state sounds to me like we're going to get. Five or six different reports. Is that your take on that? Or do you know. That's a good question. And I'm not sure if that was really the intention here. I think. I will say speaking for myself that I had envisioned it as more of a. A cooperative venture that would result in a report. It may well be the, you know, these are all different. Systems that obviously overlap very closely, but they all have their own. They have visibility into different aspects of the system. So it certainly might make sense that in the report, it would be. That would be different angles that would be included from the different entities, but my understanding of it had really been that this was going to be a cooperative venture. Which I think makes more sense in terms of trying to have a unified system. If that needs to be clarified. Certainly. I think that would be reasonable to do. So you're the first person I've asked that question to. So I've taken a poll now. Thank you. Okay. Sarah. Good morning, David. I appreciate your support and involvement in all of this. And I just wanted to ask you. About one of the things that you said, just to make sure that I'm attracting it. That you. I think that would be reasonable to do. So you're the first person I've asked that question to. So I've taken a poll now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You supported this, this notion of presumptive parole for the, the high standard. You know, that the DOC needs. And the pro board. DOC needs to meet a high standard. So I'm trying to track that in the bill. I think it's in section 10. There's a. Where. I think the department shall recommend per presumptive release for each eligible inmate, unless it determines based on clear and convincing evidence. We had heard from the parole board that they were interested in lowering that to a preponderance of evidence. And I'd love to hear you talk a little bit more about it so that. I'm sure I'm clear. And understand. We're coming at it from the standpoint of. We really want to make sure that. We're operating. With the presumption. Actually being effective. And so we want that presumption to work and to be utilized. And I certainly believe that the department will be. We'll be able to do that. But I also think that it is important to have it be codified. That it is a high standard to. To. Determine not to do that. And I think that's, you know, I know that. Current department. Leadership is completely on board and is going to make this work. And I want to make sure that as we move into the future. We'll have the same directive that it's a high standard to meet. In order to ensure that. We are actually utilizing the sort of the alternative pathways that are being created by the bill. So you'd recommend that we keep it the way it is. The way that it's currently written. That's right. Great. So to put that in English, David. What, what you're saying is. That in order to deny someone a presumptive parole, DOC needs a higher level level of standard to prove that they are not eligible. Yes, that's a fair way to put it. In English. If it was preponderance of the evidence, that's a lower proof level. Yes, exactly. Thank you for stating that plain language. Putting it in English, not legally's. Yes. The lawyers are the worst for making themselves understood. When there's more than one lawyer in the room. Right. Exactly. Any other questions. So it, you know, the attorney general's office in DOC appear to be on the same page with that higher standard that's needed. To deny someone presumptive parole. That had been my understanding. Obviously things have been a little chaotic recently. I haven't had a chance to check in in the way that I normally would with. That had been my understanding that in the Senate side, there had been agreement on that, but I obviously deferred to DOC in terms of their. Stance on that. Okay. Any other questions for Dave. David. We're good to go. Okay. Let's turn it over to DOC. David, if you want to stay hooked in, you're welcome to, or if you want to go do other work. And leave us, that's fine as well. I'll leave it up to you to decide. Thank you. Available, but turn myself off for, for now. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to turn it over to DOC. I don't know if it would be Monica. First or Dale, however you folks. I will. This is Dale. Director of field services for the remote department corrections for the record. Representative. I'm not sure how you want me to go through. This is a pretty. Bill 30, 20 sections. I can kind of break it down section by section if you want, or you can kind of clump it and chunks like probation and kind of go through that. There are a couple of tweaks that we would like to have considered to really to clear up the language a little bit, make it a little bit easier for everyone to understand. Without really, without, I don't think we're changing what the intent of the language is. I don't think we're changing the intent of the language. I don't think we're changing the intent of the language. Without really, without, I don't think we're changing what the intent of the language was. It's just when you're looking at it and trying to implement something. Some of the language is a little wonky and it was, and it wasn't. It could be interpreted a few different ways. I would probably just do it in the clumps. Okay. Not have to go section by section, but the probation section is, there's three sections, but it's all together. Yeah. So, so overall we are in favor of, of, of this bill. So the probation section, what really the big, the big change with the probation section here is. Excuse me, Dale, do you have something going on in the background? Yeah, my wife's working in my office too. We're both, I'm sorry, I can try to leave if it helps. I need to go to a different room, but we're both kind of stuck working at home. I don't know what to say about that. That's fine. If it affects folks on the phone or just let me know. Okay. Okay. I can also go through those. Pardon. I can also go through them if it's easier. No, I let Dale start and then we'll go from there. So the way with the, the big change to the probation section is it allows credit. For probation time. This seemed to be kind of something missing in our system. So someone could have a sentence that was imposed. And they could be on probation for a period of time. And then get that probation revoked. And they would have no credit added to their sentence. And they basically start as a brand new sentence over again. The way that the department supervises now. The department supervises. The department supervises. The department supervises. The department supervises based on risk. And legal status and stuff like that. So the legal status is doesn't really impact how the department supervises an individual. As we're supervising more based on risk. So a furlough. We a probationer and a parolee. At the similar levels of risk or getting supervised the same way. And the parolee and the furlough. We would end up getting credit. So. So it just seemed like it would make things a little cleaner. It would help move individuals through the system quicker. And it also still allow. Individuals to aren't non-compliance. To still be revoked and still be held accountable for that action. So the first one was really about, about indicating that in the second one in the second section. Let me go there. Okay. Okay. Before you move on. So it's, it's, um, This is why I need some clarification. Um, and they're earning credit. Towards, is it just towards their minimum? And if they meet, say their minimum is three years and they have a maximum of seven. So they've done really well for three years on probation. So that. Calculates towards the three year minimum. So then they would not have to serve a minimum. So it's a seven is a max still in play. Um, no, so they would be getting. So let me simplify this. Someone has, let's say a two year to four year sentence. And they're on probation for a year and for whatever happens, they get revoked. So that two to four year, they'd get a year of credit applied. So it's a two year to four year sentence. And so an effective, they'd have a one to three now is what, what they would have to serve, um, as a sentence defender, unless they make parole. So it's credit as I would if they were a parolee, or if they were a fuller, we, it's, it's the same. So day for day credit while on probation. So let me, let me, um, I think it's a two year sentence. Correct. Two men, two max. And if they had no probation and they went in and were incarcerated with those sentence of two men and four max. When they reached that two years. As they met their minimum. And to reach their maximum, they have two more years to go. Correct. That makes sense to the committee. I didn't see anything. So I assume it does. Yeah. But I'm just a little confused. What, what part of the bill are you in? I know you're in the probation, but what section of the, within that, that, that, that section. Are you, are you actually talking about. So we are in. We started with section to section. Section two. And where this comes up is on page. Five line. Two and three. And that is that the new language. Because we have different versions. So we have a few different. I don't want to say versions, but the way it came through. So some pages aren't tracking for everybody. Okay. So. The language added was at all times served on probation prior to the time the violation is filed. So that's the start of it. It's, it says the same thing in like three different areas. We moved over to. Hey, Alice, if you're on that belt is introduced and passed by the Senate, you'd be following along with Dale. They'll be on page five line. Right. Two and three. That's what I have, but some folks have the. One is official. Okay. So on section three. Mine is page nine. Line 11. It starts talking about the credit and how it. Comes into effect. So it's the little D. One is where I'm at. So it talks about all probation. She received one day of credit toward the probation as minimum sentence. This is, this is kind of how it's going to be implemented. We, we would like to have added that basically the court will tell us the amount of credit that's going to be added. We would like to have added that basically the court will tell us the amount of credit that will be given. We'd like that added because it will save kind of confusion down the road because a lot of times. If someone doesn't agree with the credit that the department applies, they'll just go back to court and it'll kind of, kind of go back to the, to the, to the area. So some language basically says the court will indicate the amount of credit that. Toward the offender would, would help. Make everything clear for everyone. So at the time of the, of the sentencing at the court hearing, everyone knows what the sentence would be instead of having it. Determined by the department later down the road. I think it's just a little cleaner way of doing it. But, but that basically kind of plays out how the, how it's designed is that you're going to get to the time when you start on the road. I think the credit will be going into, to effect. And then I'm. No. This is just for clarity and for really understanding. Okay. So they've reached. So they've reached their minimum. Right. Finish out their maximum. They are on probation until probation is revoked or until they term out of their probation or it's discharged from the court. So they don't go to a different legal status. Only reason they'd go to furlough is if probation was revoked and they were giving a two-serve sentence. So if someone on probation that's passed their minimum sentence gets revoked, they would be furlough eligible right from the beginning. Does it mean they'd be on furlough? It depends on what behavior got them there, but they would be eligible. So they'd start their sentence after their minimum. Right. Because if their probation is revoked, that means they would then be incarcerated. Correct. Just so people can follow that trail. If the probation is interrupted, it does not necessarily mean that they're going to be incarcerated for a length of time. Probation is interrupted, but then is it up to the court? So there is no interruption for probation. So we could file a violation, and then depends on what the violation is. If someone absconds and we file a warrant, kind of credit stops until they are incarcerated or until they've picked up. Or if we file a violation, they could still earn credit. The court will determine how much credit they get once the violation is filed. So it's still in play with the tools of probation. I'm not sure if that's clarifying it for you. OK. But so there is no interrupt. So we just can't take someone. We don't have the department doesn't have the authority to give a sanction in jail like we would for furlough. We don't have the authority. We can put someone in jail. We can arrest them, like law enforcement would, like you violated a condition to your risk. We have criteria and arrest them. And then then they're due process to go back before the court, not the department. So that's a big difference with probation and furlough is who kind of determines what happens with the violation process. Yeah, I know what I'm going to do. Hopefully that clarified that for you. Thank you. OK. Do you have a question? I hope so. We do have a question and it's Kurt. I also have a comment, Dale. So the other person working in your office knows that this is a very public forum. And so anybody watching is hearing what she's saying as well. My question is, the way this credit works, do you see it as when the person comes off probation, the court says they receive this much amount of credit? It's therefore a reduction in students at that point where it's not a reduction in students per se. What it is is the credit applied to that as if they were a detainer. Say someone was a detainer for six months and they got sentenced to a sentence. They'd get that six months credit. It's kind of the same concept as that. So once the probation is revoked and the court says, you've received a year of credit based on your probation time, that year credit would be applied to the current sentence and reduce the current sentence by a year on the minimum max. OK, so it would actually reduce that hypothetical two-year minimum to a one-year minimum. Right. And as far as DOC is tracking it, and maybe Monica could answer this later, it would be as if they had received a minimum of one year as far as DOC is concerned. We still put down this, it'd be a sentence computation. So they still put down the sentence that was imposed that was revoked by the court. So there's two to four, the sentence would be two to four, but then we would apply a credit to it. So it would be a reduction. In essence, it would be a one to three. But it's a two years, but already with a year of credit is how we would have calculated out. I'm just trying to think whether the DOC is going to have to keep track of that credit and say, yeah, this person had a two to four, got one year of credit. It became a one to three. They got good time for this much. Or whether it's simply their sentence for all intents and purposes changed to a one to three. We would probably have to look at Monica a little bit for that. We may have to track some of it. I think a lot of it's going to be pretty straightforward. Someone comes on in this date and they get violated and revoked on this date. We can look at a calendar. It's when I think when people come in and out and there's multiple sentence and dates and there's multiple violations. And when cases start getting complicated, it's probably when the department's computation unit is going to have to really start tracking all those days. OK, makes sense. Yep. This is going to have an increase for classification for classification and sentence computation unit without a doubt, just because there will be more computations going on overall. But I think we think it's a good outcome for that. Did I clarify that for everyone? I think so. I know Butch has a question here, but let me interject just for clarity. People who are on probation, if we do the good time, they're not eligible for good time, correct? I believe that's the way it is currently drafted. Good time, the rule hasn't come out yet. But I don't think community supervision, as far as probation, parole, and Monica is our good time expert right now. But I don't think probation, it would count toward probation, a good time account toward probation. It would count for parole and possibly parole, Monica? The bill, as it's currently written, says that probationers are not able to receive good time people or parole, but people on parole are able to receive this. OK, Butch? Thanks. So, Dale, I just want to make sure who's keeping track of what on a very simple, like who's keeping track of what you explained. It sounds like DLC keeps track up to a point, and then the court keeps track and wraps around that. And when somebody's on probation, who is the gatekeeper on that time? Because actually, if they're on probation, they're better off getting day for day than they are on good time where they're getting a day for every five days or seven, whatever we land on there. So the courts keep track. You keep track who runs the totals. So for violations, it's going to be the department. So if no one violates, so someone gets a probated sentence and there's a term, there's an end date. The one to two year sentence ends in two years. At that two years, there's a date on the probation order. At that date, the case has been satisfied and is discharged and is closed out. That's a part. Yeah. So if there's a violation, and these are some things that are going to have to be worked out with the courts and our sentence company. So someone gets put on probation on a set date. We know what that date is. And let's say they have a violation a year later. We can figure that out on some level. I think, and we could say that they came on this date and they was violated on this date. And the court can determine the dates, the amount of time that was, and then do they get credit during the violation process is what the court would also need to figure out. So they would get, let's say they're on for a year and then we file a violation and we keep them under supervision. And it takes three months to go through that process. They'd have a year of credit. And then the court would determine during that violation time, do they get the three-month credit? Did they do what they needed to do? It's really a court decision at that point. I think where our sentence comp unit, and obviously the courts can reach out to us, and they do now as to what the sentences are. As when they start getting multiple sentencing dates and they start getting violations and they get a new sentence, and when we get complicated cases is when the department's probably going to have to start doing sentence comps with our sentence comps unit. But these are things that will need to be hashed out between us and the courts as we go through. It's a new way of doing it, but I'm not concerned as far as us being able to do it. OK, so when a probationer is actually on probation doing well, they get day for day. You're keeping track of that day for day time until they reach their max. So if they're doing good, what happens is there's a yes, in essence, but there's an end date. So you get a probation order and it says it's two year term and the two year ends on January 15, 2022, whatever the date is. At that date, if there's no violations, the case just is done. It's turned out. So it closes out. So it says in this bill that the court will terminate probation and distracts a person. Yes. And it sounds like you've got to work that out. Who over in the previous section, maybe I'm just being a hard head here, but I want to know who's going to keep track of the day for day when somebody is on probation. Is it you or the courts? I'm not sure. Monica, what do you think? I think on some level, it would probably fall in the department. I think it would fall in the department. I'm pretty sure that the court would come back and ask us for our records and to look in the offender's file and see what it says in terms of their start dates and when they're on certain legal statuses and whether or not there were any other circumstances that might have resulted in them losing credit. So you're keeping track of their probation as long as you're doing well. They get hauled back in. The court makes a decision that lets you know what the decision is. You add that credit to their time if there's a favorable decision or whatever. Then they go forward when they reach their maximum term that they're on probation for. The court needs to notify you. Who notifies the court? I'm guessing you will notify the courts that they reached that term. No, right now, the courts, when a case reaches its term date, which is what this would be, the court discloses it out. So we know everyone has the same date. So on that date, on the termination date that's indicated on the probation order is when the case closes out. The court does it and we do it. Yeah, so we don't go back and forth with each other. It just closes out. So it's independent action. But this entity takes. So the court just assumes if I'm done my probation, next Tuesday, if they don't hear from you, then my probation is terminated and my case is settled at that time. It's kind of like an automatic thing. Yep, only time that comes into play is when we file a violation. If someone does everything they need to do, they go till the term date or until we discharge earlier through a midpoint review or some action like that. So basically you're keeping track of everything except when there's violation. And then the court stepped in and helped you out figuring that out. Well, we're keeping track of the violations as well. We know when someone violates it. The court will determine if they get credit for the violation time. So it really comes into play if the court wants to give, if someone's in violation, does the court want to give them credit for that violation time? And I think it's going to be at the discretion of the judge, depending on what the violation was, what the offender did to rectify the situation, compliance, or things of that nature. Yeah, and I get that. It's just that, and then you kept saying, well, we're going to work it out with the courts. We're going to work it out in the courts. I got to think about that a little bit because I'm just afraid somebody or something is going to get lost on either side here. But it's probably no different than what you're doing now. I don't know. So, Dale, I just want to clarify. Because you had language you wanted inserted in D1, and I'm interpreting it that it would be after the first sentence there, where you wanted the court to tell DLC the amount of credit given. So after the violation, after the judge determines, then they would give us information. Otherwise, the department would have to make a determination. And that could be in a lot of times it ends up back in court because people disagree with whatever determination of the sentence they should have. So what this does, it kind of puts it. I'm trying to figure out where you want to put in that language. Would it be a new sentence right after that first sentence, if it's for violations? Are we on D1, page nine, line nine, lines 11 and 12, it's D1. I think right after, right before the court, the last sentence, I think we had it right for the last sentence. And that's something like the court to indicate the number of days credit and give the total number of days credit towards the sentence. And that way, it's clear at the time of the revocation hearing or the violation hearing what the credit is and what credit is applied. Instead of the department determining it, we work with the courts anyway on this, but the court will say, this is the credit that we're gonna give you based on the violation. That's what that language would do. Without that language, it would fall to the department. The department would do its calculation and that would could be not everyone at the time would know what the credit would be. And if someone disagrees with it, it could end up back in court arguing over the credit that the department applied. What the department would say that this is a clear way at the time of the sentencing at the revocation hearing, everyone is aware of what the credit is and it's a cleaner, neater, everyone understands what the sentence is instead of having, everyone talks about corrections math. We're trying not to do corrections math. We're trying to make sure everything is upfront and clean at the beginning when the revocation is issued. So I just want clarity in terms of where to insert the language for the court telling DOC of the amount of credit given. It would be on line 17. Correct. It would be a new sentence after the- Shall commence, period. After it shall commence, then there'd be a new sentence that the court would tell DOC. Because our drafts, I wanna be really clear with Bryn in terms of where some recommended changes are. And we look at that same language kind of added in section four, this talks about the revocation. One's about a violation. One is when it is revoked and a two-serve. We'd want that similar language added and that would be section four, page 10, between lines 11 and 14. And that would probably, that's one long sentence there, but it would probably be somewhere in that section that the court would also find the credit that they would receive through the violation. It seems like for this little changes in three separate probation sections of the probation statute. So we're gonna be working with Bryn sometime next week in terms of working with new language. And whenever that may occur, we may need to circle back with you folks. That's absolutely fine. Okay. It's just difficult sometimes to do this electronically and not in a committee room. Yeah, I would agree with that. Anything else on probation? Those are the big key of the changes in probation. All right. Pooch? Yeah, something? Yeah. I do. Dale, over in D1, it says the probationer shall cease accruing credits and so on. And then you asked us to put this language in at the end of that. So I guess it's just a matter of process. So I'm assuming if somebody gets hauled back in, you will start counting them as losing credits unless the court tells you they didn't. And then the last sentence in front of your Senate says if the court finds no violation occurred, there should be no interrupting probationers accrual or credit. Is that like an assumption that's being made that you won't stop their credits until there's a court hearing? So in essence, so the court will decide what happens, right? So if there's a violation, unless we file a violation and at the end of that violation, the court doesn't find the violation occurred, there'd be no harm to the offender. So we file a violation, it wasn't proven in court. We're not gonna take credit from the offender based on that violation. So I get hauled in court. I get hauled in court. I still keep getting my credits until the court says I don't. In essence, yeah. If a warrant is filed, it's an understanding that it would probably stop. So if a warrant is filed on a violation, you can't term out. So we have a warrant, the VOP warrant stops the term from happening until the court hears it and either reinstates the probation or revokes. Okay. Okay. I guess. Any other questions on this piece? Anything else on probation? Dale? No, those are the big, those are the big change. Okay. Do you wanna move on to parole? We can do that. So parole kind of creates this presumptive parole and eligibility for parole. So in section six, the really big addition is kind of this compassionate language on the top of page 13, on number three, where an inmate is over 65 years of age and not serving a sentence of life without parole. They're basically eligible for a parole review even if they're not their minimum sentence. So it doesn't mean that people are gonna get parole. It just means that if someone that meets this criteria, even though it's before their minimum sentence has occurred, they're eligible for a parole review and if the parole board determines, could parole them at that time. Then you have presumptive parole and presumptive parole kind of sits out the criteria for it right now. It's for the non-listed population and it goes through one through five kind of the criteria to get presumptive parole. One tweak we'd like to add to this is on section three. So it's page 13, line 16. The complaint with the inmate's case plan during a period of incarceration if the inmate is incarcerated for less than 90 days or is compliant for the 90 days proceeding to the completion of the inmate's minimum term if the inmate is incarcerated for 90 days or more. We'd rather have that change to basically that the inmate is compliant with their case plan in regards to required services and programming. The case plans can be interpreted as a very vague in some ways. And I think what we're looking to do is if someone's doing required services or doing their risk reduction programming or attending their education that they're required to do that they would be eligible for that. We don't want someone not being eligible because in their case plan, it talks about living in orderly, industrious time in the facility and they don't make their bed. We don't that technically they could be non-compliant. It's a lot of interpretations of the case plan. So having something very clear and concrete about what they need to require to do will just make it easier and cleaner for everyone because someone could pick up a minor DR and if their case plan indicates institutional compliance technically they would not be in compliance with their case plan if they pick up a DR for not making their bed. So this just eliminates some of the minor stuff that can get kind of the interpretation parts of what a case plan compliance is. And it makes it really clean that if you're required to do it you have to do it in order to be eligible for presumptive parole. Gail, could you repeat the language again please? So the current language says is compliant with the inmate's case plan during a period of incarceration if the inmate is incarcerated for less than 90 days or is compliant for the 90 days preceding the completion of the inmate's minimum term if the inmate is incarcerated for 90 days or more. All right. Where would your new language go in there? It would replace three. Basically you would say is compliant with case plan in regards to required services or programs or programming. So if someone has to do education and they're doing education, they're eligible if they meet all the other criteria. If they're not doing education and they're required by statute to do education then they would not be eligible for presumptive parole. But it kind of takes a lot of the subjectivity stuff out of we set up a case plan to really to work with the entire individual and some things are really required and some things are not. And this really just, you know if we want them to reduce, you know do their mandated stuff is what we want and kind of take the subjectivity out of that requirement. So what you're also, if you replace the language is currently there in number three with your proposed language. You're taking out the qualifiers for less than 90 days or 90 days preceding the completion of the person's minimum. So you're applying it you're not qualifying it with any of these measures you're just applying it to all inmates regardless of where they are in their sentence. Correct. So the required services is they have to be in a so with programming with our risk reduction programming you have to be in it and you have to complete it. So if they've done that they've met that requirement that they've completed their required case plan. If they're in education and they have a case so if they're in education they can roll in education and be compliant for it. So it kind of takes some of the restrictors off and allows for a cleaner version where the inmates and the corrections staff know what the individual needs to do in order to be eligible for presumptive parole. So it's not so subjective. Correct. I mean we want one thing with presumptive parole we're trying to take some of the discretion out and make it very clean and I guess less subjective. So this is really a major this is gonna I'm just thinking of relaying this to our draftsperson if you could submit that language for this section to Phil and myself and there may be as we continue you may have some other language too that would just help when we're working with Brynn in terms of the new draft. Let's don't go on committee notes and memory. No, that's fine. Some of the reasons for the change is really to make things not simpler but cleaner and clear for everyone. And I'm looking at implementing this for 1500 inmates. So make sure that we have it clean so everyone understands having clarity and statute is really important. It just saves issues down the road. So that's presumptive parole. We're in favor of presumptive parole in a couple and section eight I think it turns over to listed offenders. So it kind of expands the pool. This is kind of a, this is a new I can understand the Senate's reasoning for this. This is kind of a new process. So let's start with the less violent group and see how that works out. And if it works out well, expanding it in two years is kind of already set up to happen. If issues come around, there's also time that we're not letting, we're not putting public safety at risk at this point by presumptive paroling the listed or the violent population. That was really, really the big thing was that presumptive parole, what section am I in now? On section 10, release on parole. It kind of talks about what the department needs to do. If you look on page 19, it talks about the department identifying the individuals that are gonna be eligible for presumptive parole and that we notify the board six a days prior to that date. It's fairly straightforward. One thing we would like to kind of clarify a little bit is on line 14 of page 19, the B, the inmate is not willing or capable of fulfilling the obligations of a law-abiding citizen. That's a little on this objective side, kind of what we would like to have added there is a willing or able to fulfill the obligations of parole. So what we're looking at to do that, there's already, A, already will eliminate the safety risk. Are people not compliant? That already eliminates them. What B will do is we wanna make sure that someone wants to be on parole because at times we'll have individuals not wanting parole. And the way the language is set up now, if someone doesn't want parole, they're not eligible for release on furlough. So that just, it didn't make sense. And really kind of the fundamentals process of supervision is that everyone needs a law-abiding life. What this does is say, here's your parole, presents a parole, are you gonna be able to fulfill those requirements of parole? And if the defender says yes, they say yes. If they say no, it would make them ineligible for furlough release in this bill with a new language. Why would someone not want parole? What would be some of the? Good time, sometimes parole puts on more conditions and restrictions in what furlough will allow sometimes. Sometimes people don't mind, it's multiple reasons. I think what's gonna come into play with in the future with this is when good time comes into play. If furlough ease get good time and parole ease don't, it will be a big incentive for, there could be an incentive for someone to stay on furlough and earn their good time as opposed to being on parole. But I think we're gonna change that for good time so that parole, they can also earn good time. Is that correct? I think we're changing that, aren't we? Not in the language I have. But that was a discussion somewhere along the way. I remember that somewhere. So that might be something we also wanna think about. So, and everyone was talking, I know the clear and convincing evidence. I believe that came about through prisoners' rights. I don't know if that was, I think it was just more of a discussion within the committee about the evidence laid out there and we were fine with clear and convincing. For operationally, it's cleaner and easier to implement. But also, you're using clear and convincing evidence on kind of, if you look at A, a reasonable probability. So I'm not sure having a reasonable probability, if it's clear and convincing or preponent of the evidence for reasonable probability, I'm not sure how much those two standards are gonna make a difference. We're fine with either, we can make either work. So we're not really pushing clear and convincing or I think it was preponderance. Either is fine with us, we can make either work. So Dale, we heard from the parole board that they would prefer preponderance of evidence as they seem to feel it gives them a little more latitude and would like that changed. Can you comment on that? Well, these are really determinations by the department. So it doesn't impact the parole board decision. So to speak at that point, what this does is as we're implementing this, clear and convincing evidence is a pretty high standard. So this is kind of a policy. So if we're really looking at individuals on presumptive parole, and we think that's gonna be the standard and I know some of the discussion in the judiciary was about some point getting rid of furlough that you're gonna need to have some clear evidence why this individual that meets all the other criteria before is not gonna be eligible for presumptive parole. And it's really, and it does leave a little, in some ways it's easier for the department to implement because it's clear and convincing, it's pretty straightforward as opposed to there's a lot more discretion with preponderance of the evidence. It's a lower, I mean, that's why it's a lower standard because there's lower requirements for it. But as I said before, the department's not really pushing one way or the other. We can make either work. I think where we might have some of the impact is on challenging later down the road, if we get challenged in court, how to defend clear and convincing, pretty standard at a pretty high level. So we have to, the department really has to have really good evidence. But preponderance, it's a lower standard, a lot more wiggle room for lack of a better word, as to how our decisions are made. So you don't see clear and convincing as a barrier to recommending somebody to be on this status. I don't see it having much of an impact. It could, but right now, I don't foresee it as being a huge impact. I don't think one way or the other is not gonna swing. We're gonna have 200 one way and 50 the other. I think it's gonna be very minimal if really much of an impact. Anybody got any questions that they also fire on this particular section? Okay, Dale, go ahead. No, furlough is changing a little bit. I'll just move on to furlough. The temporary furloughs just kind of cleans it up based on all the other changes. It's kind of a technical update. Dale, I have a question. I'm sorry I was muted. I didn't realize it. So did you, I had to scoot out for a minute. Did you talk about the parole board when we heard testimony from the parole board? They were concerned it's clear and convincing because they use preponderance of the evidence. And they were concerned how that would play. Did you address that while I was out of the room? Yes, ma'am, I can go over it again if you'd like. No, I'll figure that out with the committee. Thank you. Sorry about that. So section 11, they really kind of take our current furlough and added temporary and kind of cleaned up some of the other language based on all the new changes coming down. And we're fine with all of that. One thing it does is on page 22, line 13, it gets rid of the 808 F, which is a lack of housing, which we're in favor of that, that really created some issues as far as public safety was concerned. And we're glad that this draft has that removed. Treatment furlough on section 12, it's really just kind of clean up. A lot of this is clean up. One of the things we're doing with the furlough that CSG and what this JRI bill does is it really cleans up and simplifies furlough. It gets rid of furlough is a very complicated and there's a lot of offshoots and different status and different variations of it. This really cleans it up because one of the thoughts is that we are so complicated and furlough is so complicated that it's actually to our disadvantage that we're dealing with so much administrative burden that we're not actually able to supervise the offender as well. So that's what a lot of the furlough stuff does. And one section for section 13, furlough will become community supervision furloughs or normal conditional reentry is our standard furlough. When people talk about furlough for the most part, they're talking about conditional reentry. That's at your minimum, you're eligible for release. It's not replaced with this community supervision furlough. It still has a lot of the same nuts and bolts as conditional reentry, but I think it kind of changes the name. We'll allow us to look at it a little differently as a department. One little tweak we'd like to add is on page 25, line four on number two is ineligible or refuses presumptive parole of this section. So that kind of adds that caveat. If someone refuses presumptive parole, we still want to be able to release them if they're appropriate for release. So that just kind of codifies a previous section to that. Could you mention that again? I'm sorry, Dale. I was writing down something else. No, on page 25, line four, number two, it says is ineligible for presumptive parole presumptive. We would like to add is ineligible or refuses presumptive parole. In that case, if someone says, I don't want presumptive parole for whatever reason, we can still release them if they're appropriate for release. So it just seems that it was missing that someone might not want, we can't force parole upon someone. So it has to be, they have to choose to have it. We don't want someone not, choosing to present the parole for whatever reason, we don't want to have to limit them from being released. Then we go on to the terms of community supervision on section 14. A lot of this is adding, adding how do I put this? It's putting more protections in for offenders during violation processes. And allowing offenders to have just a greater amount of due process. It'll allow, for example, if the department interrupts or revokes an individual for more than 30 days, we notify the prisoners' rights. So they think that that decision is inappropriate, they can challenge us. One of the, this came from prisoners' rights and the department was fine because it's transparency in what we do. And I think as a government entity that impacts individuals' liberty, I think we should be as transparent as possible. And this allows that to happen. It allows cases to go back before the court that they weren't able to go back before previously. Do we have a question, Dale or Kurt? Yeah, I'm sorry to go back a little ways here. Back to page 22, line 20 on yours, I believe is the same of mine. It has to do with subsection G. And you mentioned that it does remove that subsection B dash F. That's the housing one, right? Correct. So does that, what's the implications of that? Does that mean that more people could be released even though there is no adequate housing? No, this prevents someone from being released if they're held for lack of housing. So when this language first came out, it must have been eight or nine years ago when we started looking at this, the department started tracking some of its data. And what I found out is that individuals that were released without appropriate housing or approval housing, re-offended at a much higher rate than those that were actually higher risk that have stable release plans. So what this really indicated was having a stable place to live has an impact on people's success. We're sending out lower risk individuals with really bad release plans because that's the only thing we're holding them in for and they just re-offended at a much higher rate. The higher risk individuals that we released that had good release plans re-offended at a lower rate than the lower. So it just really emphasized that as a public safety tool, if we're looking at that, that we should make sure that we have good plans and approval housing when releasing individuals. And that's all that does. And it was in... But removing that, how does that affect it? By removing that section, aren't you then saying that you don't need to have the adequate housing? No, what this does is we won't release you homeless, basically what it says. If you're homeless, we won't release you homeless without an appropriate approval plan. Okay. So CUR 808F was really being emphasized, started about five years ago, four or five years ago, that DOC could not hold someone back from furlough if they did not have adequate housing. They had to furlough them regardless if they had adequate housing or not. That's what 808F says. And that has created a lot of problems out there. If you talk to probation parole officers, the 808F, there were a lot of folks out there with no housing. I see, but 808F also does say that the provided the public safety and best interests of the offender will be, and so on. That is true. But there was legislation, there was something somewhere Dale, a few years ago, I think it was four or five years ago that it really said DOC is gonna do 808F. And they did. We had a, must have been eight or nine years ago. We're basically said, we're gonna release some. And I think out of the hundred people we released, like 25 we didn't, because we just did not feel good about that. And that's a lot where we get, sort of getting a lot of our data about the outcomes, because it takes three years to get recidivism outcomes. And that's after we saw that, we said, this is not good. I mean, some ways we couldn't supervise individuals. We couldn't go check them in the field because they didn't have a house, they didn't have a residence. So they either couch surfing or they were going to places that they shouldn't have. And the data and the research indicated that it was bad outcomes for that population. And that if we wanna look at public safety and offender success, we should have good release plans and approval housing. All right, okay, thank you. You're welcome. So we did section 14. I'll let section 15 is just kind of cleanup language. I'll let Monica talk about section 16, the good time. This is really her, what she's been working on. She can speak to a much more eloquently than I can. Okay, thank you, Dale. This was very good. If you could submit particularly that section that you want to replace the language, the 90 days with the case plan, if you could at least submit that language to us so we're clear in what you're looking for. So when we work with Bryn, you hear clearer. Send it to you or send it to you and Bryn or... Send it to both Bryn and me. Okay, I can do that. Okay, let's shift to good time. Monica, let's have a good time, huh? Okay, well, we'll try. Have to be saying everyone, I think it's somewhere Monica Weber, administrative services director for the Department of Corrections. And just to reiterate what Dale said, the department is overall supportive of the bill and the types of information that we're putting forward here are more technical types of changes in order to make the different aspects of the bill easier for us to implement and more clear for people. So section 16 is the section on good time that's spent a lot of time reviewing this section. The changes that were made in the Senate judiciary that I want to address first are really in this first section around the filing of the rule and the timing of the filing of the bill. So there's a little confusing language in there. By understanding overall around the effectiveness of the effective date of most of the changes that are in S-338 are that they go into effect on January 1st, 2021 and the Council of State governments made their recommendations thinking that all of these components would be effectively January 1st and they put out the projections around what that could potentially do to the offender population, the incarcerated population with all the effects by date. So for some reason in the Senate, this date of October 1st, 2020 was put in there for the Department to file a rule and have good time be effective on October 1st, 2020, which is slightly conflicting with the overall intent of the January 1st. So I would ask that the committee think about the implementation. When this was passed a year ago and we had to file the rule on July 1st, 2020, I think I shared with the committee that even if that would be a little bit difficult to go through all of rulemaking and have the good time rule implemented after the formal rulemaking process was complete. I believe right now that- Emergency rules are an expedited process. Right, I understand. It also means that an emergency would be implemented immediately, right? So this says that we would file a rule and that we would implement good time on October 1st, 2020. What it says is you would file for the rule. Doesn't mean that the rule goes into effect on July 1st. It's by July 1st you would file and that those items that you filed would become the emergency rule. It says- And there was a practice- And there was a practice that made this something that Brindley says that we file a rule on July 1st to have good time become effective on October 1st. And that we have to adopt that as an emergency rule and propose the final rule at the same time so that earns good time, the Earned Good Time Program becomes effective on October 1st. I think the thinking is you file it, becomes the emergency rule and good time is effective on October 1st under the emergency rules. Right, I understand that. And then we go forward and promulgate the final rules. Right. Our issue is having good time be effective on October 1st, 2020. We provided testimony earlier that it would be difficult for us to have it effective on January 1st, 2021. And now the date's been pushed back several months which would make it even more challenging. And so I'm not sure if we really understood the reasoning for pushing it back. We also would request, quite honestly, more time than the January 1st start date that was in the original bill to implement good time just given all of the other things that the Department is managing right now and trying to implement that program would be challenging under these circumstances. What would you suggest for a date? We were thinking March 1st of 2021 which is just quite honestly a few months after our original plan start date of January 1st, 2020. So... You keep breaking up. Oh, I do. Let me turn my, you know, I'll turn my video off. Sometimes I think that'll, can you hear me better? At this point, yes. I think this will be an issue of a lot of discussion. I understand the immediate situation with the COVID-19 may create some issues. I'm not so clear on the emergency rule creating an issue. So I wanna... We can file the emergency rule. That's not the problem. I think it's our understanding of why the effective date needs to be October 1st when all of the other sections of this bill become effective January 1st. I think the intent is to move people through the system and move them back into the community. And that was a recommendation of the Council of State Governments. Okay, well, I mean, no, Ellen's on the phone and perhaps Ellen can provide some more information around why that recommendation was made. I don't recall having that conversation with the Council of State Governments around the October 1st. I may have misunderstood that, but that is my understanding, as well as increasing the length of time, the length of credit earned from five days to seven days. Right, which I think that the department doesn't have any issue with that. I will say in that same section where it changes five days to seven days, it also changed the word month to 30 days. Right. And that is also problematic for calculating and we would request that the word month be placed back in 30 days to be struck. Do you know why that was changed? I do not. Do they know how you accrue, how you count the days or I don't know? I know it was changed in Senate Judiciary. I think there was a conversation and then there was a misunderstanding about the days. Okay. We need the word month to be there. Okay. Butch has a question. So Monica, at the end of the day, on the October 1, 2020 date, can you stand up a program by then? I will do it if this is what the bill says. Well, that's not the answer. The answer, unfortunately, the answer is can you or can't you? And being saying that you will do it doesn't tell us if you can or can't, it's just that you will. And understanding that the COVID-19 thing has got you kind of bollocksed up a lot without COVID-19, could you stand up that program by October 1st? It would have been a challenge for us to stand it up by October 1st. Okay. Thank you because so often we hear, oh, well, we'll get it done. And then all of a sudden creates, we create, legislatively create a problem for you or others, not necessarily all of us in DOC, that we just set these unrealistic dates and expect good things to happen and they can't. So I guess that answered my question. Thank you. Kurt, I know you got a question, but let me clarify what was just asked. So pre COVID-19, it would have been difficult, but if the legislation stayed for October 1st, you would get it up and running. Is that from working on it from July 1st going forward, that you could get it up and running if it required October 1st? I'm not sure I understand your question. So my question is that this section is to take effect upon passage. So pre COVID-19, we would have passed this probably in May. Beginning of May and it would have become effective. So you have from the 1st of May until October 1st to put it in place, not July 1st. My question is, were you thinking it was July to October? No, so what we were originally thinking was that we would file a rule on July 1st and we would go. July 1st, but the language for the effective date for this is upon passage, which pre COVID-19 would have been in May. That would have been two more months. Passage? If you look on the effective dates, this section in section 16 is effective upon passage. So my interpretation of that was that it was effective on passage and that we still had the timeframe that on July, by July 1st, we had to file the rule. Not that we had to. You would start working on implementing good time upon passage, which would have been in May and not July. That was pre COVID-19. So you had two months or six weeks. So you write a rule and file the rule by July. It would just file it. Yeah. You need it to file it. Yeah, it's not clear. It's emergency rule. So it's not clear when you would file. It just said you would file. So that's the problem. I agree that it's not clear. And that was part of the part of it. When you file the emergency. Okay. So in my conversations around rule making, of course, we can file the emergency rule and we can. Put the effective date and then the emergency rules are effective for 180 days. So we could file a rule on July 1st and make it effective in theory, in practice. We could file a rule on July 1st. It could become effective on October 1st. And that's something that I believe this statute says, but still the overall feedback that we're trying to provide to you is that the October 1st date pushes up what was already a difficult deadline for it. Okay. I appreciate that. So we have another question. Kurt? I think it may be a comment, but when you're worrying about all these dates of when things become effective and whether you'll be able to actually have a program working, the people who are incarcerated are going to start calculating it at whatever date this says it becomes effective. So you may not have a program that can handle it until sometime, but the people calculating their good time will be saying, this became effective at this date. So you should be giving me this amount of time and you have to go back and look back to say how long they've actually done that, how long they've served. And do you see what I mean? Well, actually the way I understand it is that good time does not become effective until the rule becomes effective. And so when the rule, whatever date the rule is, if it's October 1st or if it's January 1st, that is the date that people will be able to start accruing credit or start accruing their good time, not upon the effective date of this bill being passed. Okay. I just think we have to make sure that it's extremely clear because incarcerated people will look at that and find good sources for litigation if it's not very clear. I agree it's not clear. When we did earn good time last year, I think we were clear in the language on page 29, number five, we were real clear that the program will become effective upon the department's adoption of the final proposed rule. So what this proposes is they're gonna go forward with emergency rules in the interim of getting their permanent rules adopted. So when they put in those emergency rules and that becomes an emergency rule, they then can start awarding earned good time beginning October 1st and the emergency rules need to be in place by October 1st. So they're gonna operate for 180 days under the emergency rules before their permanent rules are in place. That's the thinking behind this language. Yeah, that is what this bill says, correct. What this bill says. So Kurt, you still have your hand up? Okay, take your hand down. Okay. Butch. So Alice, you're reading that last sentence that you just read about the effective of this and then thinking of Kurt's question. But we deleted it, because this bill, this bill deletes it. Really, I'm wondering if we should put it back in and change final proposed to emergency rules that would give clarity, might give clarity if people are trying to read the bill and answer Kurt's question about having somebody look at the bill and miss the new months where it's in parentheses A in the second. Just a thought. So we need to do some work on this and this would be working a little bit, I think with Brynn for a little bit more clarification. Yeah. Thanks. Anything else? No, the only other thing that I wanted to, I guess maybe it's a reminder, and so you have forgotten is that we did submit a report. We had that discussion, I believe in January around the availability of good time for inmates who are currently sent and the community is entertaining, adding that to this bill. Correct. And part of the thinking on that, Monica, is we wanna make sure that there's a plan in place for notifying the victims and who would put that plan in place and who would notify the victims. And the thinking that we had in the committee last week is that our legislative language would be our intent and the rules would kind of clarify who would really develop the plan and notify the victim. And again, I think that's something else to consider in terms of timing. If we need to put a plan together to notify the victims and we need to put that in the rule and the rule goes into effect by October 1st, that's just another implementation complication. Anything else, Monica, on good time? I don't have anything else on good time, Dale. I didn't know if you wanted to say anything else about it. No, if there's any clarity, we can add more, but no, but I'm good with good time. So I can just continue if you want. This is Dale Carrick from Corrections Again. So section 17, it's just more cleanup area. Section 18, they added some language back around escape language. This was taken out last year, but it was put back in this year. With some additions of some changes around, or pages at page 31, to put escape statute back on as a crime that the violation of the subdivision of this subsection requires showing that the person intended to escape from furlough. So we are fine with that language. I think it just allows for, if we believe someone has attempted, because furlough is still considered an incarcerated sentence, and this does allow for us to file warrants through the court and as well as our commissioners warrant. One thing that we found out with a high profile case that without having a warrant signed for the court, a court issued warrant allows other resources to come and play such as the U.S. Marshals. So we had some, this would just allow for some more clarity when that happens, when we start looking for additional resources to go after an individual that has escaped supervision. Not sure this will have an impact on our bed space. I'm not sure the amount, but this was a public safety concern and we are fine how it is being addressed with that language. Section 19, we are in favor of this. We think anytime we have data that can look at how a state or criminal justice system is applying its rules fairly and equity across the board, I think it's always important and it's also always necessary to look to get that information. So we are definitely in support of that as a department. Section 20, we have this department of corrections programming and working group. One thing we would like kind of added in this is to have this work group also look at how to expand and make probation more of the standard sentence or kind of work group. We'd like to move more cases toward probation to allow probation as a standard sentencing direction of the courts as a department. We feel that that will put a lot of the due process back in the court where it probably belongs. It's their sentence that they're controlling. The court owns the sentence a little bit more than the department. It also allows the department a lot of flexibility with a probation case when it comes to midpoint reviews and early discharges while still allowing the ability to revoke probation at the end and still hold someone accountable and protect the public. I think it's, we just like to have this work group kind of explore that as an option. They're looking at a bunch of other different things especially when we start looking at identifying offenders' risks and looking at doing assessments before trial. I think this would really make sense to kind of add exploring that as a standard option for the courts to explore. And the last thing is section 21, home confinement furlough and reintegration furlough are appealed. Again, I think a lot of that is under the concept that we are very complicated. And by removing those two flavors of furlough that kind of cleans everything up. Reintegration furlough is a pre-minimum release. And what was happening is a lot of the courts and a lot of the plea agreements and sentenceings were adding the RF time into their sentences. And we have a really high non-compliant population. So majority of the individuals didn't get reintegration furlough because they're non-compliant. So in essence, we artificially, it sounds good on the surface but in reality artificially, we inflated a lot of sentences and most people weren't eligible for. So kind of getting rid of that. It also cleans up a lot of administrative paperwork because we'd have to review every case coming through at a central level. So doing this part of it is to reduce a lot of some administrative burden, which we've been kind of under the gun for a few years now with the department and we have so many processes and our staff, our probation officers and our caseworkers spend a lot of time managing paper and not a lot of time managing people. And I think our strength is managing people. And so the more we can remove some administrative burdens on the outside so spends as well as more time with our offenders, the better the outcomes will be across the board. And for folks, the reintegration furlough was put in when we got rid of good time because we thought that might be some incentive for folks to comply with their case plan or not get so many DRs. And home confinement never really took off. Home detention. Yeah, home detention never be there, but that's not in here. Just home confinement. And the affected dates, and we're fine with the affected dates other than I think Monica brought up about the rule. Really the issue with that is gonna be, writing of the rule will be easy. It's implementing it and the training and the policies and the changes to our system. That's really where we need the time. And of course, in this current situation, everyone's, you guys are slower in getting stuff done, so is the department. We're just, everyone's kind of scattered that and we're focusing on something else right now, to be honest. But that's all my testimony. I will take any questions. Representative Emmons, I will get that language to you and Brent, even in a day or two. I'll run it by Commissioner Baker, make sure he's good with it and... Even by the beginning of next week would be okay. Okay. Okay, just to give you some more leeway. So we do have a question. Butch? Dale, thanks for your testimony of you and Monica, both the bill's becoming, I think, clearer every day, but in section 19 under A, there's a report required at the end of that section and I'm taking a little survey. The last line says, each stakeholder identified in the subsection shall file, shall report their findings. And I take, I read that as every person individually has to do a report. Is that, was that your understanding or other? Representative Shaw, could you tell me what page in line I'm trying to... I'm in a different version, but under section 19. Okay. In print A, it says during the legislative interim, at the end of that paragraph, it says each stakeholder identified in the subsection. Yeah, okay. I will let Monica chime in on that. She's the one that really works in the reports. I would do it the way you interpret it, that we would say, here's what our findings are, but I'm not, I don't know if it's a joint report from everyone, so I'll let Monica have her thoughts on that. Right, just for the committee's awareness, but I'm the department of corrections representative on the racial justice and disparities panel. So I attend the meetings on a monthly basis. I think you heard from David that the committee met just once this year, problems that kept us together. So my reading of the section 19 is that, yes, each stakeholder would report their findings separately. Although I do agree that it would make more sense to file a report together if we could manage that, particularly since the crime research group is going to be working with all of us. I wonder if the intent of this was that in the report that each stakeholder has a way of weighing in, particularly if they disagreed. I wonder if that was the way of approaching that. I don't know, are people thinking? Yeah, so this is just an issue to flag. Maybe Bren can give us some thoughts on this. Everybody went on mute, is that Mary? I'm on mute. Yeah. Kurt? I have a question for Monica when we're done with 338. Okay, let's finish up on 338. Anything else? Questions of Dale and Monica pertaining to the bill? I know Ellen's waiting in the wings here and I don't know if we're gonna have enough time because we're due to go to 11. We'll figure something out, Ellen, just hold tight, okay? Okay, Kurt, what's your question on Monica? Well, there's also, Ellen might be able to assist too because I don't know whether Monica, have you seen the paragraph in the capital budget adjustment thing that we, to a straw vote here on that has to do with DOC doing some study for getting numbers for a potential women's re-entry facility. Have you seen that paragraph? I have not seen that paragraph. You know, have you seen that paragraph? No, I haven't seen it. Okay, it's just, I'd be interested in your input on that if you ever get a chance to look at it. Of course, we'll take a look and if I do, I'll do that. Monica, go ahead, Kurt. Do you want me to send it to you or anything like that that would help? If it's published in a version of the bill online, I can certainly find it. It's our latest draft, draft 1.8, and it's in the back. It's very, it's just asking DOC to gather some data about re-entry for women and program needs and what's available. Okay. And come back with us in January. That sums it up pretty much, right, Kurt? Yeah, we'll take a look. Thank you for pointing that out, Jeff. Anything else when corrections for 338? So, Ellen, we have about 10 minutes. How are we going to proceed here with you? I feel like Ellen Wheeling-Wiest with the Council of State Government Justice Center, I can go quickly through. I've just been taking notes on some things that I would like to just add from our perspective or any clarity that might help. And then we have a couple of things or just a few things that we would recommend to strengthen the bill, primarily from an implementation and also from a behavioral health standpoint. I put that in writing and circulated it to a couple of folks and I'm happy to just, I think Philly may have included you on that as well, so you should have it. And if the committee wants to review that in writing first, that's fine with me, because it pretty much documents what our recommendations there are. I would like the committee to go through those. I think it's going to take longer than 10 minutes. That's a concern. Can you just give the three bullets of what they are? Yep, the first thing, yeah, from an implementation standpoint, in speaking with colleagues of mine who have worked with states that have passed Justice Reinvestment Policies and then gone on to receive assistance for implementation, what tends to work really well in their experience is if the state designates a working group or an oversight body of some kind, similar to the working group that worked on the first phase of this project to sort of oversee implementation. And that would be the entity to which my colleagues working on implementation and other departmental staff and leadership would report to you on sort of what's happening and it allows for there to be mild markers on progress made and it sort of keeps a bit of a structure in place for making sure that the implementation is really moving along. So the first recommendation for ours is that Senate Bill 338 includes some sort of establishment of what oversight committee or body or working group might serve that role. And we have from other states learned some examples about what ideal membership looks like. We also recognize that there might be something in place already in Vermont that can serve that function. So as long as there's some designation, that's our primary objective. The second piece is around in thinking through if that entity exists, one big piece that we think needs to continue moving that we frankly weren't able to do enough on from our perspective is more work led by the Agency of Human Services in understanding how people with behavioral health services are who interact with the criminal justice system, particularly in correction settings are screened for their needs and they're the challenges that they face, mental health or substance use. So where the screenings do occur, which we know that there's screenings in place now, but if there are gaps, what those gaps might be, how that information is collected and shared. We understand that there's a lot of information sharing barriers across different agencies certainly and even actors and people within agencies have a hard time navigating the legal requirements and where laws like HIPAA and other pieces may or may not allow for more information sharing that would just help more people who work with that individual know what that individual's needs and challenges are. So we recommend providing updates to an implementation oversight committee around where there are barriers around information sharing and where those could be potentially overcome to be still legal, but also more effective in sharing that information. Really the goal is to make sure that more of that behavioral health needs information be integrated into someone's experience and their case planning while they're incarcerated and particularly when they're in the community so that people who are working with that individual in DOC, as far as DOC staff, but also across the Department of Mental Health, designated agencies, housing providers, just that there's more of a conversation around what a person needs so that in theory you're better able to connect that person to services where they exist. It's a huge amount of work in some ways to get to but we've tried to boil that down in what I described in that sort of two-page document of we think even if just AHS took the lead on pulling together the right folks across departments to look at what exists, where there are gaps for challenges and what some opportunities might be to move forward, that that would really keep the process moving. We started to have a lot of those conversations through Justice Reinvestment and just didn't get as far as we think the state could really carry it forward. And then there's a technical fix in the Budget Amendment Act 88 around graduated sanctions that we recommend and that's really my fault. When I had recommended language, just mis-wrote what it should be and so there's just a small technical fix that that has now been signed into the Act and so we're not sure there's an opportunity to fix that through S-338. Whoops, sorry. I just wanted to note a couple of things from earlier today though. On the good time enactment, I just wanna say we have no, we're sort of neutral on when this happens except that we had calculated all of our modeling around people beginning to be able to earn good time on January 1st, 2021. So leaving all of the mechanics of that to you all just because I couldn't begin to parse out as much as Monica knows or any of you, it's more that from our mode of thinking was, can this be something that's effectively happening by January 1st? And then that really informed our modeling from there and we can work to modify that if that timing changes as well. But obviously the sooner it happens, the sooner people begin earning good time. But we really thought of it as note everything like Monica noted, everything should, we should assume that everything would start to really become real by January of next year. So that's how we were thinking about all the pieces of this stuff. And then Dale spoke to this, but just a lot on the furlough and 808F and kind of getting rid of certain furlough statuses. From our perspective, a lot of that was informed by Dale and his staff telling us what they found useful in what existed in furlough and what's not useful. And recognizing that there's a lot that was created that was intended to be useful that actually is either counterproductive or like Dale noted, VOC through experience found was having negative impacts so they stopped using those furlough statuses. So it really is meant to sort of clean things up, capitalize on what's effective and kind of let go of the things that don't work so well. And then I would just say on the issue of the preponderance of the evidence versus the clear and convincing, we feel pretty neutral on that and defer to the practitioners who are gonna have to make that real on what feels most effective. Obviously, as David share noted, there's a higher standard for clear and convincing. So it might make it easier for folks presumptive parole to go through, but we also have a lot of confidence in DOC and the parole board and kind of how they operate around this. So we feel like whatever feels appropriate to you all and to the board and DOC works for us. Yeah, I'll stop because I know I'm running on everyone's time. Oh, I think you might be on mute representative Evans. If I get on mute, did I hit myself? I think on the three bullets that you talked about about the working group and then the community services within the agency of human services as well as graduated sanctions. I know you sent that to a few of us yesterday and Phil, you did receive it. I'm wondering Phil, if you could send that to all of the committee members so that everyone can look at that prior to really looking at the language for that. Did you submit this as well to Bryn? Alan? I think I put Bryn on mute. Yeah, she did. What did you do, yes. Yes, yes, okay. So, questions of Alan? So we'll schedule some time again with you, Alan. I'm sure to go more into depth on some things. We received a lot of information today and tomorrow we look like we're booked up possibly as well. We're gonna need some committee time to really process through some of these changes and talk as a committee as well for this. Any questions of Alan before we start finishing up our work on 338 this morning? So tomorrow, Phil, we're due to, let me get back to where I was, trying to pull up our agenda. So tomorrow we're back at 130. Correct, and I'm still waiting to hear from AHSDCF, Ken Schatz. And if I don't hear from him by mid-afternoon, both the Defender General, Matt Valerio and either James Pepper or John Campbell are prepared to testify tomorrow. And it's just establishing a time for them to start and it all depends upon Commissioner Schatz. So what I would, I know people do wanna hear. Okay, let's just see if he can do anything tomorrow. And I don't wanna push it too much for him because I know that all the commissioners are really working hard. And if he can't come in tomorrow, see if he can do it next week on Tuesday. And if he can't, then that takes care of the Defender General and States Attorney. And then maybe after them, we can just do committee discussion on where we are with 338. Just to let folks know in case you wanna listen in tomorrow for that. So pay attention to our agenda when it gets posted, which may not be until later on today or even tomorrow morning. We just have to go with the flow. Anything else before we finish up on 338 and finish our time on YouTube? Finish our time for today. If not, I wanna thank folks who are viewing us on YouTube. We appreciate you paying attention and listening in. And again, if you have anything you'd like to testify on pertaining to 338, please email myself or Phil Petty. And we will do our best to accommodate. So thank you and we'll be back on tomorrow at 1.30.