Restrictive Housing Legislative Working Group

Good morning. Convening our meeting of the Restrictive Housing Legislative Working Group Act 292, Senate Bill 104, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025. Today is Tuesday, December 16, 2025.

This is a meeting set and scheduled at 9:30am we are in Conference Room 325 and we are also having participants from our working group on Zoom as well as any testifiers and members of the public. Welcome to our meeting.

I know we Members, we haven't had a meeting in a while, so just jumping right into our agenda, we open and now roll call of Members. [Roll Call]

Members. Thank you. We have a complete group of Members here. First up on our agenda is approval of minutes. Before I. Before I jump into this, I believe we have to make sure that and ask if there's any testimony on the proposed agenda that is on that that has been posted.

Any public testimony? Seeing none in the Zoom room or in the in the conference room. Any comments from the Members here about the agenda? Seeing none. We're going to move forward with the agenda approval of minutes. Our Last meeting was October 16, 2025. These minute meetings have been distributed.

They are also posted on the Restrictive Housing Group works website under special [email protected] Do I have a motion to approve these minutes? Second. Any objections? Seeing none. Accepted by unanimous consent. Okay, looking at the minute meetings for Tuesday, October 28, which was a site visit at Jalamu Correctional Facility. Do I have a motion to approve? Sure.

Thank you. Second. Second. Okay. Seeing no objections passed with unanimous consent. All right, thank you Members for letting us take care of that business. Any questions or comments from public on this? Seeing none. All right, moving to the next agenda item. Announcement and transition of working group. Senate co-Chair. Members of the working group.

I just want to thank everyone for being so patient. There has been a lot of transition on our side of the table with a lot of movement of Members. We really appreciate the hard work of Senator Elefante who was co chair of this group.

But as he has now been moved to chair the Committee on Labor, we are so lucky to have the experience of Senator Kara Fukunaga to join us as she's now been named Senate Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Public Safety. Is that correct, Senator?

So she is getting up to speed on this, I wanted to welcome her because by virtue of Act 292 she is named as co chair of this Committee and I wanted to turn it over to my co chair if she had any comments as we, as we move into this work. So sorry, I lost my voice.

I'm going to be so I want to really thank Senator she has been sitting on the Committee so is apprised of many of these issues. But as you know, the way that committees weren't chair chairs really take the lead.

So we are, we are really grateful that Senator Fukunaga is stepping up and is going to be helping us move along. Any comments or questions from the committee members? Any comments or questions from the public? Seeing none. Okay, we will move on. Overview of working groups projected work timeline so members, I want to thank you.

The work timeline is generated based off of Senate Bill 104. So if you look into it and I didn't, you know, I'm assuming everyone's sort of done their homework.

And so so according to this, and I just want to remind everyone I know that this is a refresher for everyone, our working group is actually not set to be dissolved until January 8, 2027. Right. And so in the Bill there are a number of timelines and topics that we need to take up.

So the purpose of this agenda item is for me just to review this and then what I would like us to do is we move forward into the agenda is we need to talk about what we want our work plan to be as a working group. Right.

So this is something that we're going to have to come up with together as, as a working group. I do want to pin some important details that SB104, Act 292 lays out in terms of things that we were required to do. Working backwards again, the committee or the working group would be dissolved in January 8, 2027.

We would require on December 11, 2026 a report of DCR's progress towards full compliance with Act 292 as it's drafted. Wednesday, July 1, 2026. 40 days prior to the regular session. Excuse me, I'm sorry, I don't have the date for it, but sometime in October.

We would need 40 days prior to the 2027 regular session, a report to the Legislature and to the commission. As. The bill now stands. Act 292 restricted housing effects are supposed to go into effect July 1, 2026. Right. So that is what is currently in the bill.

Also 40 days prior to the 2026 regular session DCR was slotted to submit report to the Legislature and the overall oversight commission and interim report that would have been, let me see, Friday, December 12, and then not specified in the bill.

But one of the things things that we can do as a working group is identify the monthly meetings we would have from now through 2027. So we've already, you know, we've done quite a bit of work.

We've had one meeting where DCR presented to us the current policies that was done like the October 16th, which was what we just approved. So it wasn't clear to direct you, Johnson. And so and the Department Department that we needed that December 12, 2025 interim report.

My view is that the presentation that was provided on October 16th qualifies for our purposes as an interim report. Now, I'm going to leave it to the Director and the Department because the interim report is actually by law supposed to go to the Legislature and the oversight commission. So I think that still needs to be sorted out.

But for our purposes, for our working group purposes, I do think that we have in fact complied with the spirit of the law and we did receive an update and report of where the oversight commission, I mean, excuse me, where the Department is with implementation.

I want to open this up now because that's kind of the lay of the land, right?

That's the calendar that we have all the way through 2027 and what we're working with in terms of guidelines, well, not really guidelines, but required by statute to do as a working group wanted to open this up to anybody for any comments from the Committee Members first. Go ahead, Director Johnson.

So when we presented our presentation on October 16, what we presented was our recommended amendment to the law which would allow us to comply with the law as the bill is currently written. We cannot comply. Hence, we provided a breakdown section by section of the proposed changes and we provide justification for proposed changes.

So I can provide that to the Legislature in the form of a report. That's not a problem. I apologize because I assumed that we met, as you indicated, the requirements when we provided that presentation.

So I think we need to at some point discuss any differences that the committee may have working with may have with the recommendations on the amendments so that we come up with an agreement to amend the bill in certain places that we and then we can comply. That we can comply with the law. Come first July 2026.

I think it's a.

Senator Rhodes, can you remind us what the what it was you say you can't? Well, what, what was. There are a number of things that we didn't agree with we couldn't do. Like one of the provisions was if we could not guarantee an inmate safety in a facility, we'd move them to another facility.

The problem with that is we only have one male medium security facility in the state.

We'd have to meet that person, obviously.

Yeah. Interstate compact. Because we can't put a convicted felon in a jail setting with free trial. Fair enough.

Okay.

There are a number of other things. I, I have it here. I can provide it to the Committee again if you wish. But if we had about 30 different requests to amend different portions and strike certain sections of the law. Wouldn't mind seeing a copy of again. I just sent.

Just to be clear, I just sent a copy of the Operando report, the tracking sheet and comparison sheet to Taylor. What I did not have is the MOA between us and Department of Health is currently reviewed by both agencies.

Because the current MOA called for only transfers from O triple C to the state to the state, whereas it should be transfers from office. Also we included language that our branch chief, if there's a discrepancy with Department of Health, she or he has. He or she has the final say in the transfer. So that.

So that's under review. When Senator was co chair we. I expressed some concerns about releasing to the public confidential policies. So I would prefer to talk to the co chairs privately about those confidential policies because I am concerned about releasing those policies.

And There was a third thing in that we had discussed in this October 16th meeting that safety Watch and Suicide Watch are medical decisions made by the medical staff, not by security staff. So we would prefer to see that moved out of restrictive housing law because this deals restrictive housing deals particularly with disciplinary issues.

Suicide Watch and Safety Watch, which is stepped out from Suicide Watch are not security issues. Those are legal decisions that should be covered by separate policies.

I was just alerted. If we could try to speak a little louder.

We're still testing out our house technology is so great.

I know. Thank you. Senator Rhodes. Just speak a little louder.

Okay.

Thank you. I want to comment on Senator Rhodes questions just briefly. We submitted and circulated to the Members the proposed departments revisions to Act 292. It's also on our working group website. So it is there. The DCR presentation from October 16th is also there. So together we do have some. Yeah, we do have that.

We're not going to spend the time now because you know, we have to really dig into those recommendations. But are there any Further questions about the General overall calendar and how we're moving towards this. So that's the overview. So. And. And now we are moving into the discussion about DCRs December 142025 Interim Report and proposed legislation.

I actually think we flew past that as part of our discussion. Is there any more comments or questions? Any questions from anyone on Zoom?

Actually, I have one. Just.

I.

I have a comment. Chair, whoever's first. Sorry.

Okay.

Good. I'm gonna. Let's go to Zoom first, and then we'll go to Dr. Kamisatu. Go ahead, Ms. Woodward.

Mahalo, Chair. And mahalo to the Department for their report and continued engagement on this issue. I have several comments with respect to the department's proposed amendments and interim report, which I have compiled into a statement to ensure I touch on all points. So with the Chair's proposed permission, I'll go ahead and read that. Now.

I'm gonna. I'm gonna indulge in. And how. How is this a long. Ms. McKenna or Ms. Woodward?

It's about two to three minutes, so I can wait. If other Members have questions or comments.

I'm gonna go ahead and indulge in this. So go ahead, Ms. Woodward.

Mahalo, chair. First, a process clarification on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. All Bill positions must be reviewed, voted upon, and approved by OHA's Board of Trustees before OHA can take an official position. So today, I'm speaking strictly from a staff analysis perspective, and I want to be clear that any position discussed here does not reflect.

Does not yet reflect a formal OHA position. So from my staff analysis, I will be recommending an opposed position to our board on the department's proposed amendments if introduced as a Bill in the 2026 legislative session session. My core concern is that the amendments undermine the intent of Act 292.

Act 292 was enacted with a clear and express purpose, which is to meaningfully restrict the use of restrictive housing and ensure less restrictive, more humane housing for paho, particularly for vulnerable populations.

In my assessment, the department's proposed amendments materially undermine that intent by narrowing procedural protections, shifting decision making authority in ways that reduce independent review, expanding discretionary exceptions that allow restrictive housing to continue under different labels, and weakening enforceable standards in favor of aspirational language such as strive, attempt, and if practicable as proposed, these amendments do not meaningfully ensure less restrictive housing, but instead risk preserving the status quo through reclassification and delayed implementation.

Further, the amendments remove or dilute key procedural safeguards, including including the removal of clear and convincing evidence standard for placement in restrictive housing, replacing hearings with reviews and limiting participation rights, and expanding exceptions for medical or clinician determined placements without sufficient guardrails.

Collectively, these changes reduce transparency, accountability and meaningful opportunities for PAHOW to contest placement, which is contrary to Act 292's original intent. I'm also concerned about the lack of data on restrictive housing use.

At the last working Group meeting, I requested data on how many Pahau are currently in restrictive housing, their category of placement, whether that be disciplinary, administrative, medical or protective custody, and the reasons for placement, as well as the length of time each person has been held in restrictive housing.

I remain concerned that this data does not appear to be readily available and without this baseline information it is difficult to evaluate the current compliance with Act 292, assess whether proposed amendments are necessary or appropriate, or measure whether future reforms are actually reducing restrictive housing.

With respect to the Opulento assessment, the Department shared findings included the physical plant being described as decrepit and overcrowded, facility layouts that do not allow for private medical or mental health examinations, and a design that demands a significant increase in security and medical staffing.

The Department stated these issues will be resolved through the HCF Consolidated Healthcare Unit and the new OCCC. However, OCCC has been under construction for years and these harmful conditions exist today, not in a future facility.

This is precisely why interim measures like Those in Act 292 are necessary now, and why weakening those measures through amendments is deeply concerning. Another key finding from the Opulenta report was inappropriate housing to designations, specifically suicide and safety cells being used to house individuals with safety concerns who are not truly in need of mental health services.

The Department has stated that Act 292 would address this concern. However, under the proposed amendments, that assurance does not hold. Expanded clinician discretion and broader medical exceptions risk continuing the same misuse under a different designation and without strong limits and reporting requirements. Restrictive housing may may simply be relabeled rather than reduced.

In effect, the amendments undercut the very reform the Department says Act 292 is meant to achieve. If the Department believes it cannot meet the acts of Act 292 under current conditions, those needs should be explicitly reflected in its budget Bill.

Accordingly, I was encouraged to hear the Department plans to include necessary staffing and facility modifications in its budget Bill and would further encourage the Department to additionally include traffic training and data infrastructure as well as clearly identify what resources are required to comply with Act 292. As enacted rather than seeking to weaken statutory requirements.

Structural reform requires investment, not statutory retreat. So to summarize from a staff analysis perspective, I believe these proposed amendments undermine the original intent of Act 292. They weaken enforceable protections without resolving the real documented problems identified in the Opulento assessment.

Interim safeguards are necessary precisely because long term construction solutions are delayed and transparency, data and budget alignment are essential for meaningful reform. I look forward to continued discussion and to receiving the outstanding data requested which is critical for this working group to fulfill its statutory mandate. Mahalo for your indulgence, Chair.

Thank you Ms. War and I really really appreciate this is the place that we're going to have the frank decision discussion amongst all the stakeholders because this work is so important. We know that people's lives are entrusted into the care of the state and so we want we take that responsibility very carefully.

At the same time we have to be able to balance what can be done given the situations that we know exist as well as in some part the funding that is the responsibility of the Legislature. So I really appreciate Ms. Woodward your thoughtfulness and interest putting that together.

One thing I want to comment on is I do have the reports and this was promised from Director Johnson. So I do want to share. I I couldn't just bring it to this meeting because I had to do it by Sunshine Law.

So at I will distribute the copies of the Opulento experts report, the Opulento sediment tracker, the 2010 MOA that that Director provided to us, as well as the restrictive housing comparison guidelines that will become the body some of the work, the body of work that we're going to be digging into as we move forward, both looking at the amendments and at future proposed legislation and what might need to be done this legislative session as well as the next legislative session.

Again, I want to remind this group we are entrusted to continue past 2026 and even though some of the legislative chairs may be gone or Members, we are setting this up so that it will go and continue through 2027 in whoever's hands is the next House Public Safety Chair and other Members of of the Senate or or House.

So thank you again. Is there any other comments just generally about the proposed recommendation? Because I do not want to cut off any good discussion. I'm going to give it to Dr. Kamisato and then I will a seat to anyone on on Zoom. So Dr. Kamisato and then maybe Sergio next.

Director Johnson, on behalf of the Department of Health we wanted a clarification on the language as well. If you don't know the answer to this one. A transfer for higher level of care to a different facility would be intra Department. Correct.

Outside of the Department, we don't have a higher. We cannot provide a higher end of care than what we have at Halawa and women's facility. So when we transfer someone to a higher level of care that we can provide, it has to be to the state hospital or it has to be to an outside entity.

Another facility could even be another state that can provide for that person's needs. Okay, thank you very much.

Can I ask a follow up question on that? So knowing that it's an inter departmental versus an intra, I'm assuming intra would have been an easier transfer, but an interdepartmental is harder.

I believe that's what the MOA is being drafted for. The MOA is being updated. So the 2010 MOA is being updated because it only allowed transfers multiple steam. However, the draft allows transfer from any DCR facility to the state hospital.

One of the primary concerns we have is that in the past seven years, even though we have the MOA in place, less than 32 or three patients were accepted from DCR to go to the state hospital. And the experts identified 62 males and 16 females that need a higher level of care than we can provide.

So we're scrambling to try to find a location other than a state hospital. The state hospital is over a census to place these people so they can get the level of care they need.

Okay, and just a quick clarification. Go ahead.

Tell me that's outside court order. I'm sorry, that's outside of what's being court ordered. Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, clarification. When you say the experts say this is. Are you talking about the opulento experts having identified that as a gap and a problem in our system? Yes. Okay, thank you. Any other clarifications on this matter or questions? Okay, just.

Question Chair.

Go ahead. Mr. Aquabila.

Just regarding the language on physician and clinician, if you could, someone could just kind of expand on that difference. And just at the moment I just wanted to second Ms. Woodward's analysis and I just want to second kind of our conclusion. And I believe this is kind of a starting point for the conversation.

And we appreciate Director Johnson's proposed amendments and you know, we understand this is kind of just the beginning point for the discussion. But I just wanted to thank Ms. Woodward for her analysis and we second her analysis.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I think that's a question for you, Mr. Akubila. Are you. Are you looking at something specific in the proposed language?

There was just a strike through with physician and was replaced with clinician instead. And if someone could just kind of expand on that difference, I believe that.

Particular changes because we don't always have physicians on duty at facilities 247. So when we say commission, we need a licensed clinician who is a medical expert, who is licensed to practice.

So could I ask a clarifying question? Does that include if it's not a licensed psychiatrist, it might be a licensed APRN?

Or psychologist?

Or a psychologist or doctor of osteopathy? So they're not. Why don't we do this? Mr. Johnson, do you have someone from your staff who can be identified and come to the table?

Yes, I do. I'll ask our health care administrator, Roby Glidewell to come and clarify.

Corrections Healthcare.

Thanks.

Dr. Glidewell.

APRN Glidewell so we also hire doctors of osteopathy. They're not considered physicians. We have current state staff been with us for years. This exclude them as it is written.

Does that help? Mr. Alcubilla?

Yeah. Thank you very much for the clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know we might have a lot of actual questions about that, so we can dig in that into that later, but are there any big pressing questions right now just generally about the interim report and proposed legislation? Representative Shimizu thank you.

Chair, thank you for your comments. I can appreciate them and agree. In the ideal situation, I guess my question would be is if the requested requirements to comply as OHA states, DCR comes to the Legislature or states in their report, the additional requirements that they need to comply and those additional provisions are not provided.

Should we consider some of DCR's comments in the interim to to make the step of improvement towards the ideal compliance?

I think that's part of the consideration because that's what we're balancing as a working group, what is actually practically feasible and what we are willing to invest in to make sure that the Department can get to where they need to be. And that's not all in our hands.

We as chairs and Members of this Committee will want to give DCR the world, but we have to compete against other means. So that I think is part of the conversation we have to have.

Well, we did, as a result of the experts report, we did request 35 new positions and the Governor supported it in his budget. And so we would ask that this working group and the oversight commission support that request.

And all those are medical positions, psychiatrists, psychologists and nurses and APRNs that are needed if we are to try to meet some of them. We're trying to meet basic care of those in our custody care, particularly those with mental health issues.

Our population can continues to grow, yet the state does not have the bench based capacity for those that are seriously and persistently mentally ill, that are in operational system, that really belong in a therapeutic environment. And if it weren't for their mental health illnesses, they probably would not be involved in the criminal justice system.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing the news about and the prioritization of the 35 new positions, because I think that is certainly something that we have to track as a working group to ensure that the department's able to do what what's required under Act 292. Okay, any further comments or questions? Go ahead, Ms. Brady.

I want to thank OHA for that really comprehensive report. I've gone through the bill many, many, many times and I guess the thing that really jumped out at me is that the Department will strive. People are dying in those facilities. So it's nice that you're going to strive, but you've got to figure out what to do.

This is we're not the only place that has prisons and there's lots of incredible information out there from all sorts of people and we need to stop being so insular and look at what's going on and what's happening inside the cell.

So it's nice that you're going to strike, but that's not a lot of comfort to families lost loved ones. So that really jumped out at me. There are several other things, but I'm going to hold off on that.

But I think we need to always bear in mind we're dealing with human beings who are in the most stressful situation of their lives and we need people who actually know how to deal with that.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. I think we all agree that we're really wanting to work and that's why we're sitting at this table. Any other comments or questions from Members here and then on Zoom? And I do want to say we're going to continue to work through.

We have to move into talking and identifying issues for our group to start to look at as we move forward. But anything specific to the proposal imposed legislation, I don't see anything on Zoom. Rep. Shimizu, did you want to say something further?

I just wanted to piggyback on this comment. Obviously it is a very emotionally touching situation and it reminds me of an information that we had regarding compassionate views and that that might be a peaceful that provides PCR with kind of an exit off ramp for those people that are affected.

It was noted informational briefing that why is the only state that doesn't have compassionate meetings program.

Thank you. And thank you for acknowledging the other work that we're doing that might actually impact some of this, the census within our prisons and jails. Any other comments before we move to the next agenda item? Because I think we're actually moving into that area. Is there any comments from the public here, seeing none.

Any comments to no one. No public Members in the zoom. All right, so moving to the next agenda item. Discussion about work plan and areas to be studied by the working group. So Members, what I would like to invite everyone to do at this part at this point is that we've gotten some baseline information from the Department.

We have one site visit under our belt. The bill is actually quite comprehensive and actually phases in different parts of the law affecting different populations. What I'd like us to do is I know that Members have particular interest areas that they want to make sure that we dig into.

And so now's the time for the group to kind of this is an open discussion as we move and map out 2026 and 2027.

What are some of the things that you guys want us to dig into as a group as we look to kind of, you know, refine the law, improve it or maybe have areas of exploration?

I think for me, and I'll start this off by saying one of the things that struck me through the site visit was understanding the staffing challenges and Director touched on that, is that sometimes the staffing challenges create situations where there is restrictive housing de facto because we don't have enough staffing.

We're not going to solve this problem here. But I would like our working group to dive into some of the staffing issues and see what is being done through the agreements at the different facilities to ensure that there is staffing so that we don't have to ensure these kind of de facto restrictive housing lockdowns that are occurring.

Because I think that is a concern raised by some people, I'm throwing that out there.

I'm going to keep a running list of all of these things and then what we'll do is at our next meeting, after co-Chair and I can consult, we will come kind of sort out what some of these issues are being, how we might tackle them over the next year.

So for me, it's going to be staffing issues. Anyone want to comment or add?

Thank you, Chair. In addition to that, my understanding is besides the staffing shortage, it's just the physical plan shortages. I mean, they just don't have the space to put people where they're supposed to be put and they're forced to do makeshift type of operations just to do what they need to do. And.

I don't envy that position by any means.

Okay, appreciate that.

Actually, I would comment that I would concur with the staffing and recruiting and retention, but I think the Department would Agree that if we were to fill a lot of these vacancies, a lot of the things that the act is trying to fix will resolve a lot of the issues that, that are occurring in our facilities.

So, you know, if we were fully. Staffed, probably half of these things probably. Would have a conversation.

Go ahead.

Yes, I would just like to again put forward my request regarding the, the data on, again, how many inmates are currently in restrictive housing, their category of placement, et cetera. Without that data, it's really difficult to, you know, move forward and evaluate current compliance and what policies would be appropriate moving forward.

So if that data is not currently available, then I would like to, you know, understand how, how we could get that information, because I think it's critical in determining, you know, if we're, if we're, if our goal is to reduce restrictive housing, particularly for vulnerable populations, if we don't have those numbers, it's almost impossible to do that.

I would echo that, Ms. Woodward. I think, you know, the bill is structured in such a way that we identify different populations, right. The age 60 and over, the under 26 or under the minors. We also identify groups of SMI populations.

So I think we're going to have to work with the Department to get that kind of data pursuant to those categories. And so that is something that we can work on moving forward. Thank you, Ms. Woodward. Senator Rhodes,

I'm not sure this is. Really under the scope of the bill, but I have wondered for some time now whether or not there was some possibility of evaluating more, of evaluating more prisoners since they're already in custody for either.

I know, for the ones that are really bad off and they're trying to hurt other people, that they end up at the state hospital. I'm not sure what the internal process is, but they go if they have to go. Right.

But the lower level ones that Director was talking about that probably wouldn't be involved in the justice system at all if their mental illnesses were addressed, it seems to me. So they're there. I mean, they're in your facilities. Why can't we evaluate them for some.

Lower level mental illness that would require either assisted community treatment petition or voluntary. More work on the voluntary end. Because the ACT law is a very broad standing, which is any interested party. Well, if you're holding someone as a prisoner, you're certainly an interested party. And the AG is required to file these.

If the psychiatrist evaluates him and says, hey, you really. But it seems like it would help in a number of ways. It seems like if you got an ACT petition on somebody who's coming out of jail or prison that that would help to cut to stop the revolving door. Of course it also helps the individual.

But also it seems like for those who are still in prison or jail for a while, it would make it so that they would be easier to manage because they have, if they're bipolar or something, you know, they have these wild swings.

And so I don't know, I don't know if that really fits under what we're trying to do, but it does seem to me like there's a, some possible synergy there.

Senator, this is why I'm going to miss working with you as we both move on to different adventures after 2026. I think you're, you're hitting right on actually the population that we've identified in the bill as those with serious mental illness.

And actually I would like to turn to Dr. Champion because Dr. Champion, I know that you're working as the governor's kind of representative on the justice system and that you have tentacles, I hope, or feelers into both what's happening in the jails and what's happening in a state hospital and then what's happening in community.

Can you respond to any of that? Because I actually do believe that the work you're doing can help us inform the mental health system within DCR and how it may actually be connecting, facilitating, helping the work with the state hospital and with the community. And this touches on act. So can you maybe comment on that?

Because I think this actually does feel all right into your wheelhouse.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on that.

I think both the Senator's question and Chair, your comments reflect that there is a high degree of cycling through our systems and facilities, needs of the individuals, but also interventions that can be assessed and implemented to help stabilize folks from whatever facility they're in or back in community.

And its key in delivering those assessments and doing planning so that interventions are carried out both to meet the needs of individuals but also reduce the likelihood that people will continue to come into these touch points.

It's certainly relevant whether somebody is in a hospital or correctional facility that they are assessed and provided treatment that can help maximize their recovery personally, but also assist in running a smooth and orderly facility with minimal disruptions.

So I also recognize that ACT or long acting injections or other relations in delivering care to individuals is relevant in all the settings that you mentioned. The other comment I would make is. That. I resonate with, we are identifying that the work that we're doing in the mental health and justice space is collaborative work.

It's interagency work, it's inter facility work to make sure that the needs of the individuals who are coming through these different facilities and systems are identified.

Contract.

When you, when you use the term wheelhouse or I would say lane or you know, working table. I do agree that this kind of issue. Collaborative, interagency coordinated.

So I guess moving forward, I mean when I look at Senate Bill 104 at page 21, when it identifies, At page 21 when it identifies that our working group needs to review, consider and identify laws, policies and procedures for those Members of vulnerable populations who b have a physical or mental disability, a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that's the, that is the, that is that population that is cycling between prison HSH and the community.

I'm looking at Dr. Champion and Senator Rhodes to just confirm that.

And so we need to understand, I think, Dr. Champion, I guess what I'm saying is that one of the parking lot issues that we need to put down is what precisely is happening with what you're doing and the Governor is doing to ensure that we're moving people seamlessly through prison to state hospital to community based mental health programs.

And if it's not happening, that's actually a problem for us because then they're getting backloaded and they either get stuck in the state hospital or then they get stuck in the prisons. And so that's why this precisely needs to be addressed in this working group and discussed at some point. Is that accurate?

No, that's accurate. The only thing I think I would add is it seems to me like. It would actually, even if there's no beds available to come out of prison or jail with an act order makes it so much easier than next time they cycle through, right?

So they end up at Queens again and they, assuming the paperwork keeps up with them, you know, they, they would say, oh, they got a, they've got an act order on them so we can do X and X without having to go to court or anything.

So I, I don't know, it just seems like even if we, if we don't have the beds, which I think is a choke point, the letter that we got back from Dr. Fink to inquiry we made gave us non fiscal alternatives for what was going on.

But I think one of the big problems is the fiscal alternative, which is we gotta have the right beds, which costs money. But even if we don't have the right beds, I think the person is still gonna be better off with an order on them coming out of the correctional system.

Yeah. And I would say I thought we had drafted the law so that could happen.

And, and it apparently is not happening. I mean, I'm not pointing any, I'm not casting any aspersions because the law hasn't caught on fast anywhere. But it does seem to me like a prime opportunity where you have a basically literally a captive audience. I don't use the word literally very often.

And you can evaluate them and see if something needs to be done.

And I guess what I would say with this is that we do know that the Medicaid reentry services programs, despite all the changes that are happening with Medicaid, that is still a waiver that we have access to. And so why is that Medicaid reentry services program not connecting people who are coming out of jail to potential help?

The state is doing efforts on deflection and diversion. So deflection is zero. And one of the Sims spectrum and then two to five is the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. I think part of the concern is that at that deflection point, the off ramp, the services aren't there. That's part of the problem.

People are coming into us who have mental health issues who have nowhere else to go because even if they deflect them, there's no place to send them, to place them to provide the services that they need. So they end up coming to us.

And I can tell you now, a jail setting is probably one of the worst people places to place someone with mental health issues because they're not in a therapeutic environment and if subject be preyed upon by other inmates that don't. Have mental health issues.

And what I would ask and clarif ask as a clarifying question, when you see the services aren't there, is it community based services that include both beds, but may or. Or housing that's separate, but then also just case management so that these people are connecting with mental health services. All of you.

Okay, so that's the kind of thing that I think as a working group we're going to have to dig into because I know Dr. Kamisato, the Department of Health has a lot of contracts in amhd. So where is the gap happening?

Because that gap is then causing a backlog in the prison which is then causing potential like pylons of people and this kind of restrictive housing that is not humane. Yes.

So I think one of the things that the workgroup may want to look into is 704-42126 which has placed a large number of low level offenders who have mental illnesses into both the Department of Correctional Rehabilitation as well as the Hawaii State Hospital.

And I think that's been a pain point for both of our departments. Offenders, you know, and those mentally ill who may have just been released from court are now winding up in either jail or the state hospital or Department of Health custody for longer than that. Not to say that that is a bad thing.

We want to get the treatment, all that, but I think some of the time frames can be a little bit short to provide psychiatric treatment. And, and I believe both departments are having some difficulty housing these low level offenders, have mental illnesses which, you know, require treatment, though may not be willing. To engage in treatment.

And I would like to just reflect that, you know, this again, we're going a little bit far afield, but I, and we're going to come back to this. But I want to also say that part of it has been because we don't have, we don't see the Act 26 orders or not the Act 26.

We don't see the act order is being placed.

And I want to share with you that I had a conversation with some of the doctors maybe even a year ago about clients who are cycling through and I had a Department of Health staff members say, well, they're not a, they're not imminently dangerous to themselves or others because they're, they're homeless and they survive for three years.

That was an unacceptable answer.

And it's also contrary what the statute says. The statute says if you're unaware of your, if you're unable to. If you're. Not conscious of the fact that you have an illness that in itself is defined as a danger to yourself. So the letter that we got back recently from Dr. Fink saying that I think it was.

Of 259 evaluations that are now required before you leave under Act 260 came up with an act recommendation. I just find that very difficult to believe. These are people who can't, they can't move forward with their legal defense because they're mentally ill and they don't understand the charges being brought against them.

I can see it if it was 50% or something, but it does, it feels to me like the Department of Health is two things. They're not following the law currently and it just isn't a priority for you guys.

And I don't understand that because this group of like 500 people statewide causes so much grief just for themselves, for the neighborhoods they live in, for the, for the prison system.

And we, it doesn't have to be like this, but it just seems like the Department never makes it a priority to get to the root of that particular, those particular people's problems. So I don't know. I.

Senator, I think you and I are probably on the same page with this. So we're going to cycle back to this because this is an important piece.

Again, if that 259 people are not in the not cycling through the jail system that relieves and allows then DCR to focus on those who are going to be in the system for a much longer time.

I think Chair, if you go back and you can identify that group through amhd, I think what you're going to find is those are the high end users that are costing the emergency rooms.

But if you can divert them and provide services, including housing, counseling, case management, I think what you'll find out is the system as a whole will shrink. You won't have as many arrests, you won't have as many court cases, you won't have as many emergency room visits.

I think we're agreeing with you because that's what we've been promised year after year and that's why we passed some of those act laws. So that's why I'm looking at Dr. Champion. Right. We know that Maui recently had a conference with Judge Leifman. I believe Judge Leifman is going to be coming again.

It seems like there's been a lot of talk for the last three years. We need to start seeing some action. And so that's going to be one piece of it.

I'll just do one follow up. So you're saying that you felt like. You didn't need to keep people in state hospital so long. But that's one of the criticisms that the Department has taken is you're not keeping there long enough.

I apologize. That's not, not what I meant. I specifically. Act 26, aka 704. 421. There's only 10 days, right.

Before we have to release them. Right? That's not long enough to treat. Okay, so I misunderstood. I thought you were saying they would stay.

I have not seen the letter from Dr. Fink, so I apologize on that as well. I am not up to bid on that. I have to get clarification, but I do. That's true. Personally, I want longer time frames for treatment.

I would like a more robust system in place to help deal with these issues and to put the right people into the right place. Okay, thanks.

I appreciate that. Clarification. I know there's a question from Rep. Iwamoto, but I will. Before we go to Rep. Iwamoto, I do want to say that to Dr. Kamisato.

What you're asking for is a longer than 10 day period, but then that's going to increase the length of stay at the state hospital, which you guys are also saying then causes census problems there. So there's this balancing of things, these acts that we're going to need to do.

But it doesn't have to be at the state hospital. It's in the custody of the Department.

Of Health, but it doesn't have to be at the state hospital. Yes, I think that it just would possibly require another work group to take a look at the data and what the effects currently are. But basically, from what I'm understanding, it is not working.

Okay, thank you. There was a lot of discussion here. We're going to have to cycle back to this because again, this is a choke point that's creating pressures in both state hospital and our jails and prisons. Rep. Iwamoto, you have a comment or question?

Yes, I have too. I've been waiting for a while. Thank you so much. I just want to share with the room that it's really, really difficult to hear one side of the table.

It's just, I know it's a new microphone system that we're using, so I've been relying on the transcript to actually hear what some people are saying. And I apologize to Dr. Champion if I was not able to hear his response correctly.

But from what I did hear or read, I didn't get the impression and maybe Dr. Champion needs more time maybe to do a formal presentation to this group. But I didn't get the feeling that Dr. Champion fully understood the way all the different departments are, should be working together.

I mean, because I feel like a lot of the problems that we're seeing from our perspective, it's an Executive branch management and coordination of different departments around this specific population, which is my understanding that Dr. Champion is the reason why you serve in this kind of role, to really be the governor's kind of conductor from all of these parts of the orchestra.

And so we really, we the Legislature, I feel like we really need you to fully, fully understand the details, the nuance, the complexities, and be able to demonstrate to the Legislature, at least to this Committee, that you are, that you're pushing the right thing and helping the right, you know, Department at the right time with the right supports and you're communicating the needs to the Governor, vice versa, because I feel like you're that middle person and a lot of it, you can, can help this effort tremendously.

So I apologize if you communicated that better, but I wasn't able to hear it. But so, again, Chairs, if you can schedule a future meeting, a formal presentation so that we can see that Dr. Champion does understand how all of these things should be working together, the law, the execution, the implementation, all of this, this.

That'll be really helpful. I want to go back to OHA's testimony, which I really appreciated their, their call out for data and I think co-Chair Belatti mentioned that she did receive some data, but because of Sunshine Law or something, you couldn't introduce it into this meeting.

I, again, apologies if I misheard that, but I would think that it is acceptable to receive from a Department head into this meeting so that it is for public consumption right away and we don't have to wait until the next scheduled meeting to be released that information.

So again, I apologize if I'm not hearing things correctly, but yeah, so I would basically, you know, ask that this, this data be released definitely before the next meeting of this particular Committee. Thanks.

Thank you. What I'm going to say, just to respond. Yes, I mean, I think we're going to have to ask Dr. Champion and again, this is just us plotting out what we're going to do for the next year.

So we, I think we should schedule quickly, probably in the new year, some presentation by Dr. Champion and the work he's doing between these departments, because I think that will inform us one, some legislation that might be needed.

I already hear some hints of legislation that might be needed, funding that might be needed, as well as to understand what can be done simply just by coordinating better. Right. Because in many ways we've handed the Administration many, many, many laws actually at different times, with Recommendations by different AGs and different members of DOH and Governor's team.

So in some ways for us it's a little bit kind of we're at odds, we're not understanding why it's not working because we've already written a lot of laws to help make it work. So we can expect that, I think, and we'll map this out probably for January.

Rep. Iwamoto, to your question about the release of the data. Yes, my intention is to release it long before, before we've been sort of figuring out what we need to do to comply with Sunshine.

And my hope is that as we leave this meeting, if we can get some agreements as to regular meetings and then that will then set up the timeline because we have to on our end, just so everyone knows we have to generate agendas, we have to generate minutes that you then have to get kind of pre approved by us and then put out for the next agenda.

And so those are the kind of things that have been kind of like stopping us in getting, in getting the free flow of information that is both free flow to the members, but as we give it to the members, it also, it also has to go to the public. Right.

So that's what we've been kind of hampered by. So yes, Rep. Iwamoto, we will circulate this information in a more timely manner so that we can do the work as, as a group. Any other issues, I don't want to, you know, we have until 11:30.

I don't think we're going to need to take it because we already have a long list of things to do. Are there any other issues that this group feels like we need to dig into as we plot forward through 20?

Rachel, I'm not sure if I missed. Some information, But I think DCR's justification. Or explanation of some of the challenges they face in meeting and complying would be helpful.

I mean, I know you've gone exhaustively on some of these things, but like I said, maybe I missed it, but your position and trying to understand the limitations and the obstacles you face, I think would be very helpful for, for us to try and create a balance in moving this protection issue forward.

I can do then when I provide the written report which includes our requested. Amendments, I think I will explain in. The Covid letter the challenges we face in a little more detail, particularly in those critical areas because we do face. Some infrastructure limitations that really prevent us.

From doing a lot of the things that's required of this bill with respect. To housing locations and space.

If I can make a suggestion, Director, I think sometimes it helps because I think all of your recommendations and the challenges are in that 33 page presentation.

It's there, but I think what we need is a one pager, a one pager that can just digest it all and then we can quickly refer to the 33 pager, but it's that one pager. So we understand what are the big top, top line categories.

I think looking at the list that we've developed, that covers quite a bit. So just to recap, it's. Issues, physical plan issues, data by categories, how do we evaluate and understand the movement of those with lower level of mental illness in the system? So that goes to the entire Coordination.

And justifications for the challenges, the real challenges that DCR faces in the short term. We can always add to this working list. This is a lot already to tackle, but we can always add to it. So I don't think that this is something that an end all, be all.

We've had a lot of discussion Members, any comments from the public here? I have to ask any publics from the comment on Zoom? On Zoom, no public mmembers. So seeing none. All right, so we can actually move on to our next steps and next meetings for the working group.

So I called out some of the formal things that the law calls for, but can we maybe discuss for our next steps and next meetings? Initially, when I had talked with Senator Elefante, we had said that we were going to pause some of the meetings during the regular session.

But my inclination, because there's so much work on this list that we have that we try to plan some meetings and if maybe not monthly meetings because that is very rigorous.

But I think it's important to have a meeting before session, sometime before session starts because we have to look at the legislation that's immediately before us and then some of these topical pieces. We may have time within the legislative calendar to have briefings and meetings.

So, and what I'm thinking of is like in February when we have a 10 day recess, in particular, it's a five day recess. So those might be some good times. I want to leave this up to your calendars.

So if, I don't know if Members, if you can pull out your calendars to see what might work for the next couple of meetings.

For before session. That's, that's, that's fine. After session. I think it's just probably better to schedule them. And at least for me, probably I can, that's kind of, even during, almost. Don't mean anything to the Judiciary Committee. We just keep going. So.

Understood, Chair. Understood, Chair. Do we know when the five day recess is? Because what, I think what should be important, what we should do is we should leave this meeting with at least two meetings.

One second.

When's that? Okay, I'm gonna push this a little bit because we lost a lot of time between having to schedule meetings. I would propose that we do something before session and then we have recess days actually at the end of, at the end of January.

And so what I'm concerned about is that one, we need some, just maybe some basic foundational information presented to us on some of these issues from folks like Dr. Champion. And we might need a meeting to discuss legislation.

What I would propose is maybe a meeting on 14 January or looking at the group, are there particular days that are better for this group? Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays. No preferences. Now we can call it.

Yeah, not Saturdays.

Well, today's Tuesday. How about we say the, the 13th. January 13th meeting for this group. And then January 27th is a recess number one. If we can plan a meeting for.

And then what's the deadline for the bill introduction?

Bill Introduction cutoff is the 28th. So I think if we have those two meetings before bill Intro cut off. And we do know, Tony, looking at you, that that DCR will introduce one a bill on its own through the governor's package.

No. Oh no, no. When I spoke to Senator Lafonte, we agreed that this Committee may. The legislator on the Committee may submit the bill forward. The Governor gave us a hard deadline and we didn't have. We could not meet before they needed. To submit their package.

Okay. So we're gonna have to probably on the 13th between then and opening day, come up with at least some template of a bill to move forward and introduce. Okay, so January 13th and 27th and then looking at the mandatory Reese's Day, just sticking to our Tuesday meetings.

We'll skip a meeting in February and then pick up another meeting date on March 3rd. That's another Tuesday. Is that okay? That's during a five day recess for us. I think if we can keep it to 9:30, it's a good time for, for us.

And we'll just lock in those dates and times for now and then that will allow us to make sure we get out notices at the right time as well as the materials in advance to the members of the public and this Committee.

We will endeavor to get this room because the setup allows us to sit around the table and work together with microphones. With microphones. We hopefully will work out the kinks in all these microphones. We're the first test group, so this is good. Any other comments or questions from people here? Any comments or questions?

I'm sorry, if you can't hear us. Rep Iwamoto, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Co-Chair Belatti. So you know what's interesting to me? So when we're trying to safeguard, you know, people's rights to be free of, you know, torture and subjecting them through this restrictive housing and then we're saying it's dependent on if we get funding to protect them.

What's really kind of hard is that we keep passing new laws that either extend sentences or create new elevated offenses. And so we're basically putting more people in prison, but we're not increasing their budget. Is there any way that we could propose a moratorium on increasing the, you know, the populations in that. The.

That they need to manage so that, because it feels unfair that we keep putting more people, keeping more people in longer and then we're expecting them to the Department to find a way to then manage them in a humane way away when we're not giving them more funding. I don't know.

There needs to be something needs to change. We can't keep, you know, putting that pressure. If we're not providing the funds and, and not making it conditional just for preserving human rights, but also just if we can't afford more funds to create longer sentences, then we need to have a moratorium on that.

If I might. Chair. Thank you. The duties of the, of the Population Management Commission, when it absolved, went to the Oversight Commission. It is my understanding that Commissioner Martha Charney of the Oversight Commission is working with the commission staff on establishing maximum amounts, persons we can have in custody at each of our facilities.

She's taken into account the recent bed space we offered, we added at Women's Community Correctional center at HCCC, and it's going to be added to Maui.

However, I think what this group has to understand is that even if they establish population limits, it is the judiciary that makes the decision on who sends folks to jail or to prison. So somehow that information would have to be discussed with the judiciary.

So the judiciary could understand the dire position that DCRI is in with respect to space and population management.

Thank you for that proposal, the clarification of what's happening. And I would just say that if the judiciary were sitting here at the table, I think they would say, well, they have to administer the laws, so we all have to do what we're supposed to. Supposed to do under our statutes and our constitutions.

And then maybe it's the Legislature that needs to look at itself and like, Fund more. But, but at the same time, we're also facing a budget challenge. And so that is the challenge of our work collectively. You know, I don't think it's enough to just say it's one person or one stakeholder group.

This is the challenge that we face collectively. But I'm hopeful because as I'm looking around the table and people are hopefully looking back, we can tackle these issues and we have to. So we have our next steps, we have our next meetings.

I have to ask one more time any public questions or comments on anything that we've talked about in this agenda. Seeing none. Seeing none on Zoom. Are you ready for the call of a question to a juror?

Right. We are adjourned. Thank you, Members, for protecting.