HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2015
As Reported by House Committee On:
Criminal Justice & Corrections
Title: An act relating to judicially supervised substance abuse treatment.
Brief Description: Changing provisions relating to judicially supervised substance abuse treatment.
Sponsors: Representatives Kagi, O'Brien, Hinkle, Fromhold, Darneille, Upthegrove, Tom, Kenney and Dickerson.
Brief History:
Criminal Justice & Corrections: 2/22/05, 3/1/05 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
|
|
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE & CORRECTIONS
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 4 members: Representatives O'Brien, Chair; Darneille, Vice Chair; Kagi and Kirby.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 3 members: Representatives Pearson, Ranking Minority Member; Ahern, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; and Strow.
Staff: Yvonne Walker (786-7841).
Background:
The Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) is an alternative sentencing program that
allows a court to waive imposition of an offender's sentence within the standard sentencing
range.
If the court determines that a DOSA sentence is appropriate for an offender then it may
impose an alternative sentence that includes confinement in a state facility for one-half of the
midpoint of the standard sentencing range. While in confinement, the offender must
complete a substance abuse assessment and receive, within available resources, substance
abuse treatment and counseling.
The offender must spend the remainder of the midpoint of the standard sentencing range in
community custody following incarceration. The community custody portion of the sentence
must include alcohol and substance abuse treatment which has been approved by the Division
of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA) of the Department of Social and Health Services.
Offenders may also be required to adhere to crime related prohibitions and affirmative
conditions as part of their sentence, as well as pay a $30 per month fee while on community
custody to offset the cost of monitoring.
DOSA Eligibility. An offender is eligible for the prison-based DOSA program if he or she:
one year;
If an offender violates or fails to complete the DOSA sentencing conditions, a violation hearing must be held by the Department of Corrections (DOC). If the DOC finds that conditions have been willfully violated, the offender may be reclassified to serve the unexpired term of his or her sentence as ordered by the sentencing judge. If an offender is reclassified to serve the unexpired term of his or her sentence, the offender will be subject to all rules relating to earned early release time.
Summary of Substitute Bill:
In addition to the original prison-based DOSA, where incarceration in prison is a portion of a
DOSA sentence, a community-based DOSA is also created. Courts have the option to
sentence a nonviolent offender with a substance abuse addiction to either the current
prison-based DOSA or the new community-based DOSA.
DOSA Eligibility. An offender that has not been convicted of a violent offense in the last 10
years is eligible for either DOSA program.
A motion for a DOSA sentence may be made by the court, the offender, or the state. If the
court determines that the offender is eligible for a DOSA sentence, the court may order an
examination of the offender. The examination report must contain information on the
offender's addiction issues to be addressed and a proposed treatment plan. The treatment
plan must contain: (1) a proposed DASA licensed or certified treatment provider; (2) the
recommended frequency and length of treatment, including both residential chemical
dependency treatment and community-based treatment; (3) a proposed monitoring plan,
including any requirements regarding living conditions, lifestyle requirements, and
monitoring by family members and others; and (4) recommended crime-related prohibitions
and affirmative conditions. After receipt of the examination report, the court may impose a
DOSA sentence if it is determined to be appropriate.
Costs of the examinations, preparing treatment plans, and all community-based treatment
may be paid from funds provided to a county from the criminal justice treatment account, if
the county chooses to provide the services directly or by contract.
The court may bring an offender participating in a DOSA program back into court at any time
on its own initiative to evaluate the offender's progress in treatment or to determine if any
violations of the conditions of the sentence have occurred. If the offender is brought back to
court, the court may modify the terms of the community custody or impose sanctions. The
sanctions may include ordering the offender to serve a term of total confinement within the
standard range of the offender's current offense at any time during the period of community
custody if the offender violates the conditions of the sentence or if the court finds that the
offender is failing to make satisfactory progress in treatment. If an offender is ordered to
serve a term of total confinement then he or she will receive credit for any time previously
served.
Community-Based DOSA Sentence, Treatment, & Sanctions. If a court determines a DOSA
sentence is appropriate for an offender, the court may order the offender to a prison-based
DOSA sentence or a community-based DOSA sentence. If a community-based DOSA
sentence is ordered then the court must impose a term of community custody equal to
one-half of the midpoint of the standard sentence or two years, whichever is greater. In
addition, the court must impose, as conditions of community custody, treatment and any other
conditions as stated in the offender's treatment and monitoring plans. An offender may also
be required to adhere to crime related prohibitions and affirmative conditions as part of his or
her sentence.
The court must schedule a treatment termination hearing three months prior to the anticipated
completion date of community custody. Prior to the treatment termination hearing, the
treatment provider and the DOC must submit written reports to the court and parties
regarding the offender's compliance with treatment and monitoring requirements, and
recommendations regarding the offender's termination from treatment.
At the treatment termination hearing, the court may: (1) authorize termination of the
offender's community custody on the expiration date corresponding to one-half of the
midpoint of the standard sentence range; (2) modify the conditions of the community custody
and may continue the hearing to a date before the expiration date of the offender's community
custody; or (3) impose a term of incarceration equal to one-half of the midpoint of the
standard sentence range, followed by a term of community custody. If the court imposes a
term of incarceration, the DOC must, within available resources, make chemical dependency
assessment and treatment services available to the offender during the terms of total
confinement and community custody.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
The substitute bill eliminates the provisions in the original bill that: (1) expanded eligibility
for participation in the DOSA program; (2) changed how the original prison-based DOSA
operated; and (3) required an offender's record of conviction to be vacated upon completion
of a DOSA program. The substitute bill gives the courts the option to impose a sentence
based upon the current prison-based DOSA program or a new community-based DOSA
program. The community-based DOSA is created and it includes a community custody
sentence that is conditioned on supervised inpatient and outpatient treatment, with a court
termination hearing to be ordered three months before the community custody ends.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Preliminary fiscal note available.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect on October 1, 2005.
Testimony For: This is a further step in the way we address the issue of nonviolent drug
offenders in this state. A couple of years ago the Legislature passed a bill to reform drug
sentencing and expand drug courts. The problem is, since the passage of the drug reform bill,
Washington has been experiencing a funding deficit. As a result, last year the Legislature
passed SB 5990 which increased earned early release time for many offenders. What has
happened is that now offenders would prefer to spend their time incarcerated with a very
short prison term than participate in a drug court program which is a very demanding
sentencing alternative.
This bill provides a well regulated punishment and treatment system while ensuring to make
frugal use of the state's resources. It is crafted in a way to continue to encompass only
nonviolent drug offenders for treatment consideration and gives judges the authority to
consider a variety of treatment options and punishments that have been authorized by the
Legislature. The bill gives judges the authority to bring the offender back into court at any
time to check on his or her progress and its passage will help to restore the judges' confidence
in the DOSA program so that they will use it more in the future.
The bill will stop the revolving door of drug offenders and will give judges another tool to
ensure that nonviolent drug offenders are addressing their addiction as well as their crime.
Time has shown that the use of harsh incarceration penalties are ineffective. It is time to
make the criminal justice system more therapeutic and more treatment oriented. Treatment
works whether coerced or not.
There are some provisions of the bill which may need to be clarified, such as who will be
required to do the evaluations for the court.
Testimony Against: The Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys has participated
in drug treatment reform in the past and recognizes that volunteer and coerced treatment is
effective. However, the problem that prosecutors are seeing is that they are re-prosecuting
people over and over again. The problem with this bill is that people are forgetting that
possession, distribution, and manufacture of controlled drugs is a crime. As a "crime" it
deserves punishment.
This bill provides release to career criminals. It undercuts programs that are already working
by shortening the time. It does not recognize the Washington Institute for Public Policy's
study showing that the DOSA program has been ineffective for property offenders.
Furthermore, this bill will not slow down the revolving door and is a first step to
decriminalization. There is no "just desserts" component in this bill.
History has shown that we have opened up the DOSA program in the past for more offenders.
The problem is that the Legislature also ended up passing the Offender Accountability Act
and these same offenders ended up getting no supervision out in the community. Then HB
2338 passed which shorten sentences. A year later, SB 5990 passed and the sentences for
these same offenders ended up getting cut in half and as a result there was no incentive for
them to go to the DOSA program or even a drug court program. One fix to this problem may
be to take SB 5990 off the books and go back to truth in sentencing.
What people have to realize is how much time a person actually receives currently under
DOSA. Right now a person under a DOSA sentence will receive half off of the prison term,
which is the midpoint of the standard range cut in half. Due to the passage of SB 5990,
offenders get an additional half off of that sentence. That means a DOSA offender would
only serve 25 percent of his or her sentence. The frustration is that the 25 percent is not
much time for a person's behavior to be interrupted or for that person to get treatment before
he or she is released back out into the community. Currently a career property offender with
an offender score of nine would get an 80-month sentence and under this bill that same
offender would only get 90 days. Ninety days is just not enough time for that person to go to
prison and get treatment.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Kagi, prime sponsor; Judge Deborah Fleck,
Superior Court Judges Association; and Roger Goodman, King County Bar Association.
(In support with concerns) Anne L. Fiala, Department of Corrections.
(Opposed) Russ Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney and Washington Association of
Prosecuting Attorneys; Deb Kelly, Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney; and Tom McBride,
Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.