Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows offender evaluation bill, pauses action and asks staff for follow-up on treatment, compassionate release
Summary
The Joint Budget Committee narrowed LLS 205821 to two evaluation topics — the aging incarcerated population and access to the *** offender treatment program — and declined to approve a broad, contracted study at this meeting.
The Joint Budget Committee considered LLS 205821, a draft bill to evaluate Department of Corrections (DOC) practices affecting aging incarcerated people and access to required treatment services.
Presenters told the committee the draft originally included four evaluations: aging in DOC, an evaluation of the *** offender treatment program backlog, an evaluation of community corrections referrals, and an evaluation of DOC’s classification system. Because of fiscal concerns and to narrow scope, the draft discussed in the hearing removed community corrections and the classification review and retained only two components: the aging population review and an evaluation of access to *** offender treatment.
Senator Mabile introduced the intent: the evaluation would examine whether people who are aging or medically frail in DOC could be moved safely to community care, community corrections, or state facilities such as veterans’ nursing homes to avoid expensive incarceration and possible litigation. Members and stakeholders cited pending litigation (multiple individual lawsuits and a pending class action) alleging delays or blocked access to necessary treatment and noted the potential fiscal and human costs.
Committee members debated alternatives to an outside study. Several members suggested using internal resources (LCS/legislative staff), an RFI, or directing DOC to produce specified data and a plan. Staff warned an RFI sometimes returns limited or non‑informative responses and said the state auditor process would be a different, lengthier path. DOC staff and other presentors said a practical barrier is the willingness of nursing homes and some community facilities to accept certain released individuals; even when release is appropriate, placement options are limited.
Decision and directions: The committee did not pass LLS 205821 at this meeting. Instead members directed staff to pursue several near‑term, lower‑cost steps: request specific information from DOC (counts of people eligible for compassionate release and current placement options), pursue RFIs or legislative‑staff research of best practices in other states, and report back during figure setting or via staff briefings. Committee members also asked staff to explore whether DOC could reallocate existing budget authority to study or pilot placement alternatives and whether some work could be done by legislative staff or by contracting out only narrowly to outside experts if necessary.
The committee emphasized the policy urgency — members said the state faces ongoing lawsuits and an aging prison population while noting budget constraints made a large, contracted audit or evaluation difficult to approve immediately.
