Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/02/1996 09:15 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 270
An Act relating to juveniles; relating to the
jurisdiction of juvenile courts; relating to the
release of juveniles; and relating to records
concerning juveniles.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 270 be brought on for
discussion. He then explained that the original bill
contains changes in procedures dealing with minors and
changes in confidentiality of minors' records. CSSB 270
(Judiciary) removes confidentiality provisions which were
the subject of much debate and discussion regarding impact
of the change and possible loss of federal funding. Senator
Randy Phillips questioned whether changes in state law
should be either driven or precluded by receipt or loss of
federal moneys. Co-chairman Frank concurred. He
acknowledged need to better understand the federal
situation. He said he asked the department to determine
whether it is possible to meet state objectives and retain
federal funds. Co-chairman Halford voiced his hope that
changes at the Congressional level would ease the situation.
Senator Sharp attested to constituent concern regarding
confidentiality. Residents want to know if criminals are
living in their neighborhoods. Senator Randy Phillips
voiced lack of support for Senate Judiciary removal of the
confidentiality change.
KELLY HUBER, aide to Co-chairman Halford, came before
committee to speak to accompanying fiscal notes. She
explained that the cost shown on the Dept. of Health and
Social Services note for the original bill totals $7,625.9.
Senate Judiciary Committee did not wish to become involved
in potential loss of federal funds and deleted all language
relating to juvenile records in its version.
To a comment by Senator Phillips that the Judiciary
substitute essentially "guts the bill," Co-chairman Halford
noted that the new version contains provisions that help, in
terms of what courts may consider, and allows application of
municipal offenses. Removal of confidentiality from
juvenile records would have the most immediate impact and
the least cost if federal funds were not involved.
KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services, Dept.
of Health and Social Services, came before committee.
Speaking to federal funding, she said the department has
repeatedly been told that if information relating to
juveniles is made public "on a blanket basis--full
disclosure," Alaska will be ineligible to apply for federal
funds through Titles 4(b) and (e). That amounts to "roughly
$7.6 million." Most states publish juvenile records. That
publication is allowed because juvenile delinquents are not
in the same agency as children in need of aid--for which the
foregoing federal titles were established.
While the division was originally told it would suffer
financial penalties if it disclosed information, it has
since been indicated that it would be possible for the
division to restructure organizationally. While that would
incur some cost, administratively, it would not "be the same
kind of loss of $7.6 million." The division is examining a
restructuring that would meet federal approval and allow
disclosure of "some degree of information with regard to
juvenile delinquents." The division recognizes concerns at
both the community and legislative level. The Governor's
conference on juvenile justice is discussing the issue this
week. Ms. Tibbles asked that the division be given an
opportunity to attempt to restructure and reach an agreement
with the federal government that will not jeopardize
funding.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the structural break between
delinquents and child-in-need-of-aid provisions is statutory
or within the department. Ms. Tibbles responded, "It's
within the department."
In response to a question from Senator Rieger, Ms. Tibbles
explained that waiver of a juvenile to adult court removes
all constraints. The minor is treated as an adult.
Senator Sharp asked that information from the federal
government on potential loss of funds be provided to
members. Ms. Tibbles agreed to do so.
Co-chairman Halford asked if constraints are applied to
release of juvenile delinquency records if they are not
contained within child-in-need-of-aid provisions. Ms.
Tibbles responded, "Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that
there are." The concern is that a section of the state out-
of-home-care population would not be eligible for
reimbursement for foster or residential care expenditures
from the federal government. That is one reason Alaska has
continued to try to mesh the two, so that the state could
maximize federal receipts in foster and residential care by
including juvenile delinquents. That places the state in
the position of not being able to release the records.
Ms. Tibbles cited difficulties associated with sorting out
funding within the single BRU. She added that a good share
of the federal receipts not only apply to reimbursement for
foster care costs but to administrative costs associated
with serving minors (social workers and probation officers).
It is difficult to determine how much would be lost.
Co-chairman Halford asked if it would be possible to develop
a fiscal note that reflects the cost of separation of child-
in-need-of-aid activities as well as the incidental loss of
federal funds resulting from removal of juvenile records.
Ms. Tibbles said she would not guarantee it would be
forthcoming before the end of the week. Co-chairman Halford
suggested it would be worth waiting for the information and
further suggested that the bill be held in committee pending
receipt.
MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage,
next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. She expressed
support for the original bill which she said incorporates
some of the municipal partnership plan.
Addressing discussion of potential loss of federal funding,
Ms. Hughes said the municipality made inquiries at the
federal level and was told that division reorganization
would solve the problem. Laws dealing with delinquents have
different rules and regulations than these involving
children in need of aid.
Ms. Hughes advised that the legislation also deals with
jurisdictional questions and would provide municipal
jurisdiction over "minor civil juvenile infractions." It
also enumerates dispositional considerations that must be
made by the court in terms of what is in the best interest
of the child and what is in the best interest of the public.
It mirrors conditions of bail in adult criminal provisions.
Ms. Hughes concurred in Co-chairman Halford's decision to
await receipt of fiscal note information regarding division
restructuring. She voiced support for "some type of release
of information."
In response to a question from Senator Phillips, Ms. Hughes
directed attention to page 4, line 1 through 18, of the
original bill and explained that under current law, the
juvenile's interests take priority over the interest of the
public. Provisions enumerated at page 4 protect the public.
Senator Randy Phillips asked if the department
philosophically supports release of the names of juvenile
offenders. Ms. Tibbles responded, "To some extent." She
expressed concern about a piecemeal approach that would
release the names of all young people alleged to have
committed a delinquent act in the absence of ability to
later clear the juvenile's name if he or she was
subsequently acquitted. Ms. Tibbles further attested to
levels of delinquent acts. She noted that a large number of
young people, in the process of growing up, make stupid
mistakes, learn from the mistake, and do not reoffend. The
department is not convinced that release of those names
would serve a valid interest for either the juvenile or the
public. However, the department agrees that some
information should be released for both a deterrent effect
and protection of the public.
Senator Rieger suggested that the value of deterrence rests
in sanctions it might impose on those considering commission
of a crime. He then expressed discomfort with the wording
in subsection (5) on page 4 of the original bill. He
questioned the wisdom of making an example of one person
beyond the gravity of the crime, to have an effect on
others.
Discussion followed between Senator Zharoff and Co-chairman
Halford regarding language within subsection (7) of the
original bill and facilities for detention of minors.
END: SFC-96, #63, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #63, Side 2
Further discussion followed between Senator Zharoff and Ms.
Tibbles concerning where the line on disclosure of a
juvenile crime should be drawn. Ms. Tibbles cited juvenile
sex offenders as an example.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|