Ted Sakai had been retired for nearly seven years when the Abercrombie administration persuaded him to return as director of public safety to begin implementation of fundamental changes in Hawaii’s criminal justice system.

For nearly 27 years, Sakai, 65, had held numerous executive positions in the Department of Public Safety, which runs the state’s prison system.  He had been public safety director from 1998 to 2002 and returned to that post on June 1, succeeding Jodie Masaka-Hirata, who moved to the role of deputy director of corrections.

During his earlier time in the department, Sakai had held positions as administrator of corrections programs and warden of the Waiawa Correctional Facility, where he tightened security against escapes and expanded treatment programs for inmates.

This year’s Legislature enacted two measures involving a justice reform initiative aimed at freeing up prison space and reducing the number of prisoners sent to a private facility in Arizona to serve their sentences. The comprehensive plan was initiated as a Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), conducted by the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments in partnership with the Pew Center on the States and the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance.

“One thing that’s been rewarding is the fact that I get to work with folks on a really good professional staff here who’ve been very focused on things like the JRI and things like improving the lot of the sheriffs,” he said. “That aspect has been very rewarding.”

QUESTION: What will the Department of Public Safety be doing in the months ahead to implement the new law based on the Council of State Governments’ Justice Reinvestment Initiative?

ANSWER: The first thing we need to do is make sure we meet the requirements of the law that was just enacted, and so we’re working to make sure that we have the evidence-based risk assessments in place. There are two of them, one starting July 1, which is already passed, and the other starting Jan. 1. So we’re pretty comfortable that the July 1 assessment is in place. It’s a matter of how we implement and make sure we do it properly.

Q: What does that involve?

A: The law requires that we do a validated risk assessment instrument for parole, a projectile of what kind of risk an offender will present if that person is released in a good community. We already have an instrument in place, and so we have a team that’s working to make sure that we use the instrument properly so that we can give parole (authority members) the best information that we can possibly provide them so that they can make a good decision.

Q: What kind of information would that include?

A: That would include the factors that led to the offender’s coming to prison, committing the offense in the first place, and whether or not the offender would be at risk because these same factors might be in place. For example, it could be lack of a job, it could be substance abuse, it could be family or associates — things along those lines.

Q: The plan that’s been outlined would decrease Hawaii’s out-of-state prison population by nearly 1,200 over the next six years. Is that possible?

A: We’re not sure yet. It’s a projection that was made by the Council of State Governments, and it provides a framework, but what we’re really trying to do now is sort of put meat on the bones, so to speak. We’re trying to see whether or not we can get these programs in place that will allow us to divert people away from the system and into programs, whether or not we can get the programs in place that parole would be convinced that offenders need can be released.

Q: The Justice Center plan called for 410 prisoners to be brought back from Arizona in the first year, and then gradually smaller numbers after that. Can that be done in the first year?

A: Again, it’s a projection that was made and we’re viewing our data right now to see who do we have in Arizona, what facilities and what programs do we have in Hawaii, and can we fit them in. Because we would like to meet that goal, but we want to be sure that we can do it without endangering the public.

Q: Is the state considering construction of new prisons or reopening up facilities that used to be used for that purpose?

A: We are looking hard at whether or not we can reopen Kulani (on Hawaii island). We haven’t reached a point where we can make a decision on it yet, but we’re looking at it. We have to look at the condition of the facilities that are very successful with the Youth Challenge program that’s operating there now. We want to make sure that the Youth Challenge Program can continue to operate. Those are some of the considerations that we have when we look at Kulani. … That’s the facility that was closed under Gov. (Linda) Lingle’s administration. It’s the Youth Challenge program for teenagers who are in danger of dropping out of school, and I understand that it does quite a good job. … I remember that we had about 200 (inmates at Kulani) at one point.

Q: A major aspect of the initiative would be that prisoners not be released at the end of their sentences without being subjected to parole supervision. Does the new law allow that to happen?

A: What the new law says is that the prisoner should not … “max out,” to serve their full maximum (term). They need a period of supervision, a period of reentry into the community, because if inmates walk out from, say, Halawa (Correctional Facility), into the streets, it’s a tremendous transition they would have to make. If they do that, then there’s a real good likelihood that they will re-offend, commit a crime again. So what we need to do is provide as many inmates as possible with a transition period where there will be supervision and support — supervision because we can monitor them, and if we believe that, the probation officer believes the offender is in danger of reoffending, we can take him back, or we can provide him with some, say, treatment or other kinds of things that will help him get on the straight and narrow.

Q: Can those things be required? If a person wants to max out, is there a way to keep him from doing that?

A: I don’t think we can require them to go through any kind of program like this, because we’re really talking about human motivation, and it’s such a complex thing. We can tell them, “You got to go out,” and if they say, “No I’m not,” we can force them out, but there’ll be consequences to that, too.

Q: Can the Parole Board make that requirement, or are their hands tied?

A: The Parole Board can make that requirement, but the Parole Board is very concerned about not only the needs of the particular individuals but also the safety of the community, so I think the Parole Board will, if they believe the offender will commit a new crime if they’re going to be released, then they won’t and they shouldn’t be.

Q: Does the plan call for halfway houses as an element of parole supervision?

A: We’re in the process of trying to identify what are these kinds of program services we need, be it halfway houses, substance-abuse treatment. It could be other kinds of housing programs. It could be improved job-placement programs. We’re in the process right now of identifying what are these things we need, so we know how best to spend the money that the Legislature has made available to us.

Q: Are there halfway houses now?

A: There are some, but not nearly enough. That’s just my gut feeling. There’s just not nearly enough. We’re going to need more … I believe on every island. We focus a lot on Oahu, but, for example, on the Big Island the correctional facility is in Hilo, so the transition program, the so-called reentry program, is in Hilo, but 40 percent of the inmates at the facility there are from the Kona side, so they can transition in Hilo but then when they go home they’re going to have to go home to Kona, which is, what, more than 100 miles away? So they’re going to have to make another transition. Yes, I believe we’re going to need to improve the transitional services on the Kona side. I think that when you look at every community, Maui probably has a similar situation, Kauai probably has a similar situation.

Q: Will this involve hiring more people?

A: We believe it will. We’re trying to identify exactly what staff is needed. We want more parole officers. We want more people to help the inmates through this reentry process.

Q: Honolulu Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro questions pulling inmates from prison to reduce the expenses of incarceration. How do you respond to that?

A: We are not going to release inmates simply to reduce the cost of incarceration. What we want to do is manage the risk to public safety. That’s why the law requires us to do this risk assessment. That’s why the Legislature has provided us with the initial funding to develop the program, the monitoring that’s going to be needed outside. So when we release (inmates), we will have taken all these things, the level of risk, in consideration. If we release, it’s because we believe the person can be released without undue risk to public safety. We’re not going to release just simply to reduce the cost of incarceration.

Q: What are the most challenging aspects of the Reinvestment Initiative?

A: There’s nothing that I would put my finger on as saying this is the most challenging. There are challenges all along the line. There are many challenges, but there are great opportunities for us. One of the challenges is making sure that we have the programs out there in the community, programs that can come into the facilities to help the inmates. One of our efforts now is to reach out to the communities and make sure that help of social service agencies and substance abuse agencies understand what we’re trying to do and make sure they’re willing to come forward and help us with this. Because if we don’t have these agencies, then we won’t be able to send inmates out.

Q: Can you explain what happened recently with the question of whether deputies should be issuing traffic citations?

A: That was a big misunderstanding. It started with me. I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. I noted that the deputies are understaffed. We’re in the process of working with some of the other agencies such as Judiciary, to determine what the proper staffing levels are. Security in courts, for example, is a core function. … So when I heard that they were issuing jaywalking tickets, I said, wait a minute, I don’t think that’s a core function; we have to pull back on that. And so the directive from me was focus on your court functions, but I never intended that deputies stop doing this. For example, if deputies see any kind of violation in the normal course of their normal duties, they need to respond. But they shouldn’t go out of there way to do jaywalking, if we need them in the courts.