S.B. 142 Private Probation and Court Ordered Services Amendments: transcript

And it looks like we do have an amendment as well. We do. If, is it a, let, let me just quick look. Was it a sub or no, it's an amendment That's right. With some addition of doppel language.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. This is a, uh, bill in the way of cleanup and clarification with help from our doppel colleagues as well as the AG that works with them. When this bill was passed, uh, two years ago, it was, uh, the intent was very clear. We thought that this would apply to both providers of private probation services as well as businesses that provide private probation services. But the language did not reflect that. And so we have run into some complications both in the DHHS licensing space as well as in the doppel space because, excuse me, the language was not clear. So with the assistance of doppel, we are amending that language to make it clear that the original intent of this bill, which was essentially saying that if you are providing private, um, probation services, so not necessarily within our systems probation services, you're providing private, contracted out sort of probation services, that it's not okay to be the person who provides both the supervision as well as who provides the treatment services. There's an inherent conflict of interest there. If you're the person who says treatment will look like you complete A, B, C, D and you won't complete that, and it'd be able to be done with your supervision until you do that. But you're also the person who's providing supervision, there's an inherent conflict of interest that those two should be separate decision makers. And the bill, uh, when it passed, went into play, or excuse me, went into, um, services. ISN isn't the right word. Effect went into effect. And then this did become clear to us. And so it has taken this long to work it out. And that's all this bill is doing, is changing it to add the clarity that it is both a business and an individual that this rule applies to.

Thank you Chair. Could, could the sponsor for the benefit of the those that are here define what a private probate probation service is?

Well, and I wanna make sure I speak to what the definition is in the code. So I wanna make sure that I, I've got it here. I've got the whole bill here. Um, I didn't see it in the bill, so I might need to, 'cause I don't wanna describe it. My, what my understanding is, I wanna give you the actual legal definition. So let me, I'm digging through the pieces here and I'll be darned if I'm not seeing the actual, that's interesting that it's not right there in the definitions, isn't it? Right at the beginning, usually of the bill. It's there. I might would have to phone a friend on that to get that for you. Meaning my, uh, Drafter sets on it. Sets on it. Yeah. It's in the, it's in the title. Do you have it in your, on yours? 'cause in my printed out paperwork thing, I'm not seeing it.

I believe the definition you're listed looking for is in title 58, uh, 50 dash two, the definitions for that chapter, which would apply to the, the section that's being amended in this bill. So, um, 58 dash 50 dash two. Uh, the definition for private probation provider is what you were looking for, Senator, is that correct?

Yes. So that, that term is defined in subsection four. A as private probation provider means any private individual preparing pre-sentence investigation reports or providing probation supervision in accordance with a court order under section 77 dash 18 dash 1 0 5. And who is licensed under this chapter and whose services are limited to minor offenses and misdemeanor violations and then it goes on subsection four B. A private probation provider does not have the authority of a peace officer.

You didn't have that memorized. I'm aiming for one day. One day. Or have it the cheat sheet on my forum, although my readers are gonna have to get stronger to

Thank, thank, thank you for the response and staff. Thank you. Thank you.

This has been substituted, right? Is this the Amend? It's been amended. Amended. Amended. Okay.

We, we move the private probation court ordered service amendments as amended Senate bill 1 42 with favorable recommendation.

I'll waive Okay.

I'll waive as well. Thank you.

I I am not gonna ask you to define that on the Senate floor. I'm gonna have it printed out. Thank you. I'll with that.

Uh, they appreciate the support.

Oh, thanks. Uh, committee members for having us here today. Senate Bill 1 42 is actually a very simple little, uh, cleanup clarification piece. Um, a bill that, uh, set, uh, Representative Loubet and I had run two years ago on, uh, clarifying that supervision or private probation and supervision and treatment should be separate spaces. Uh, meaning the conflict of interest if you're providing those in the same space is pretty significant. If the person who is running your probation and determines when you've completed treatment is also the person getting paid to do your treatment, you have a little bit of a problem there. So, the bill was run two years ago, and it turns out there was a little bit of a language confusion. And so over the last 18 months, with thanks to both our la in our caucus as well as Brian Bean in the Senate, working through it with Doppel and the ags, we need to add a little additional wording to make it clear that neither an individual nor a program can offer both of those services. So, uh, the intent was the same as from the initial, but we need to add the wording about, uh, a program, a human services program may not provide both. So that's really the, the cleanup of this bill, and we tried every way without a bill to fix it and ultimately needed a bill.

Representative Hollins, I move that we pass out SB 1 42, um, private probation and court services, order services, amendment with a favorable recommendation.

Um, to the bill sponsor. I, I appreciate the time and we'll also waive any sum.

oversight services as well as treatment services. So really all we're adding is a program as well as an individual. And I, I owe, uh, a great debt to both Brian Bean and Isabella Derham for trying to help us navigate this without a bill. But ultimately we did need a bill. Uh, with that I'm open to any questions.

A third time Roll call vote. Senator Ipson Spery Blue in Brammer Bus Palmore Esca Fillmore Grover Harper Kinins Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab. K Aye. McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Milner Musman Owens Pitcher Plum. I Rebe Sando Aye. Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. Senate

Thank you Ms. Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. This bill adds a clarification that was requested by Dopel and the ags office so that our initial intent of the law could go forward. It's simply adding that a program can also not participate in conflict of interest, um, provision of two different services. And that's it. Simple. Bill,

Thank you. With that I would call the question.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle,

Thank you Mr. Speaker. We passed this, uh, bill very similarly in a past session. Um, but unfortunately there was some ambiguity in the language. And so this bill is to try to clarify that when a private probation, um, uh, provider is having a, uh, one of the people go through mental health, uh, treatment or they're also having education services or rehabilitation services, they can't also be the provider of those services. Um, what has been happening is that, uh, there has been at least one that we are aware of a probation, uh, provider that will, uh, provide uh, uh, requirements on these individuals that in order to complete probation, they have to, uh, do these mental health, uh, screenings and treatments and services. Um, and that they have to then pay the probation officer to have all these things done. And so we want to separate that conflict of interest, allow it so that way the private probation officer can make what they feel is appropriate without being conflicted. And then that the individual can then go to another provider for those services. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. We the sponsor yield to, uh, uh, series

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, Mr. Speaker, would this bill impact, uh, residential programs that don't have a payment component, but they do have a supervision and treatment component? Um, and Mr. Speaker, what I'm referencing is programs like the Other Side Academy.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. No, this would not impact those type of programs.

Thank you. I waive Summation has been waived.