Rep. Steve Berch Newsletter:  When the truth hurts


This newsletter summarizes a recent meeting of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee (JLOC), which oversees a vital legislative service organization called the Office of Performance Evaluations (OPE).
 
It is unusual for JLOC to meet this late in the year. However, there was an effort last session by majority party leaders to dissolve JLOC and destroy OPE (H68). When that effort failed (the bill passed the House but died in the Senate), they refused to officially authorize JLOC to convene until very late in the session (after budgets were proposed – which impacted agency funding). This JLOC meeting would have otherwise taken place back in January.

There is a continuing effort by some people in power to hide information that might contradict, refute, or otherwise derail a desired political outcome. I debated against H68 earlier this year (click here).

When the truth hurts, the legislature should deal with it – not hide it.
 

 

Reliable information from a credible source

OPE was created by the legislature in the 1990’s to be a credible source of reliable information that conducts research and analysis on issues that can have a profound effect on Idaho and its citizens. It is an independent, non-partisan, objective organization. Part of JLOC’s responsibility is to protect OPE from outside political pressures, which is why it is the only equally bi-partisan committee in the legislature (four Republicans and four Democrats, two each from the House and Senate).
 
Each year, JLOC solicits project proposals from legislators and assigns 3-4 of them to OPE. These projects result in formal, detailed reports that provide guidance for the legislature. In short, OPE provides facts and information that would otherwise not be known or made available to the public
 
This meeting of JLOC (9/22/23) publicly reviewed two recent reports issued by OPE, both of which are discussed below.

This is the first of a two-phase analysis of Idaho’s criminal justice system. This first report addresses how Idaho prepares inmates for reentry into society. (Note: inmates are now referred to as “residents”; parolees are now called “clients”). The second phase (likely to be issued in 2024) will address prevention and alternatives to incarceration. Here are some highlights from this report focused on reentry:
 
Notable facts
Conclusion:  Limited capacity, unknown program effects, and insufficient metrics impede reentry success in Idaho.

  • 37% of convicted felons released in 2018 were back in prison after three years (recidivism). However, this metric is insufficient. It doesn’t explain why clients return to criminal behavior.
  • There are not enough probation/parole officers (one per 71 clients).
  • Early discharge requests and parole are often denied, many times without explanation. This creates a disincentive for residents to earn it.
  • There are not enough reentry center resources. Reentry centers prepare clients to reenter society by providing them with useful jobs and employable skills.
  • Behavioral intervention attempts are difficult to achieve. The effectiveness of the Idaho Department of Correction’s (IDOC) programs are inconclusive at this time. 

Report recommendations

  • Staffing shortages should be resolved.
  • Parole decisions and practices could be better explained.
  • IDOC should implement pre- and post-program testing and surveys to learn more about program effectiveness.
  • IDOC should develop additional metrics for reentry success that are aligned with successful reintegration factors (e.g. health – especially mental health services, housing, employment, job retention and social relationships). 

Personal observations
As with many issues facing Idaho, insufficient funding continues to limit success. Every one of the recommendations in this report (especially staffing shortages) are problems that adequate funding can help resolve. Some factors that get in the way of doing this include:

  • Department heads are hesitant to ask for the actual amount of money they really need to meet their goals and fulfill their mission. The legislature has conditioned them to not ask for too much money, under the mantra of “small government.” As a result, initial budget requests often start out as insufficient.
  • The cost of not adequately funding a department is not factored into the equation. For example, a reduction in recidivism would result in other estimated cost savings (reduced crime, lower prison population, etc.). The net cost of an investment would be lower when adding in its financial benefits.
  • There can be resistance to spend tax dollars on state services that are perceived as benefitting only a small percentage of the population. The prison system can be particularly difficult to adequately fund. I’ve had more than one constituent ask why their tax dollars should be used to make life easier for a criminal. 

I touched upon this last point when one member of the committee expressed a concern that benefits were being provided for inmates that weren’t being made available to similar demographic groups outside of prison. Minimizing reentry services for inmates is not a solution. I discussed in committee how we should consider the broader economic and societal benefits of investments that reduce recidivism (click here).       
 

This disturbing report exposes the state’s failure to adequately fund a sustainable direct care workforce that many Idahoans (children, adults, the disabled) are dependent upon for assistance with essential, daily tasks. This includes personal care (eating, bathing, etc.), nursing (wound care, health monitoring), home maintenance, counseling, transportation, physical therapy, dietary support, and many other services.
 
Notable facts
Conclusion:  Idaho has a shortage of direct care workers that is worse than the national average because pay is capped by how the state manages Medicaid rates.

  • 33,000 Idahoans rely on a direct care workforce.
  • There is a shortage of 3,000 direct care workers needed to meet today’s needs. This shortage is projected to grow to over 9,500 workers by 2032. The shortage is most acute in North Idaho.
  • A typical nursing assistant in Idaho is paid an average of $14.16/hour. Other direct care workers are only paid an average of $11.49/hour. Over 75% of these workers say that higher pay would keep them from leaving their job. I emphasized this concern during discussion in committee (click here).
  • 80% of direct care workers reported that they did not receive paid sick leave. This can put people at risk if a sick worker shows up to avoid missing a day’s pay. 60% did not receive benefits such as paid personal or vacation days. Most receive no health insurance or retirement benefits.
  • Direct care workers have the knowledge, skills and ability to get a 36-39% raise by seeking employment elsewhere.

Report recommendations

  • The Division of Medicaid in the Department of Health & Welfare (DHW) should set competitive wage targets via comparison with similar occupations, and factor inflation into budget requests.
  • Rates should be adjusted more frequently (the last wage survey was conducted in 2018). Region-specific rates could better account for different market drivers across the state.
  • DHW should make training more accessible and develop a career ladder for direct care workers.
  • Management capacity in the Division of Medicaid should be increased. 

Personal observations
This report is subject to the same observations for the previous report: hesitancy to request the necessary funding, failure to consider the consequential costs of not adequately funding vital services, and political resistance to spend tax dollars that benefit a small group of people relative to the larger population. Inmates were the “small group” impacted in the first report; here it is those who need direct, personal care and services. I reflected on this during committee discussion (click here).


Note:  Two new OPE reports were released to the public since the two reports above were reviewed at the September 22 JLOC meeting:

I will discuss these reports in a subsequent newsletter after they are formally reviewed at the next JLOC meeting.