Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/15/2021 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB168 | |
| SB21 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB58 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 105-DETENTION OF MINORS
[Due to technical difficulties, the first few minutes of audio
was not captured; however, the pertinent information has been
provided from the secretary's log notes.]
3:27:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to the detention of
minors; relating to minors subject to adult courts; relating to
the placement of minors in adult correctional facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
3:27:21 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), presented HB
105 on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor. She explained that the intent behind HB 105 is to
bring Alaska into compliance with recent changes to the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). The JJDPA was
initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized in 2018, she
continued, and is the primary piece of federal legislation that
guides juvenile justice practices around the country. Lack of
compliance with the JJDPA will lead to grant penalties on the
divisions' major federal grants. She stated that HB 105 makes
two changes in statute to bring Alaska into compliance. The
first change is that the bill would require that minors who have
been waived into the adult criminal justice system be held in
juvenile facilities until the minors become legal adults and
turn 18. Currently, she added, minors who are subject to the
auto waiver or discretionary waiver statute are held in adult
jails and correctional facilities. The second change, she said,
is that the bill would expand the court findings that are
necessary for non-delinquent minors to be held temporarily in a
secured juvenile justice facility.
MS. DOMPELING explained that the bill is limited in scope and
intentionally has no impact on the crimes or sentences of minors
who are subject to the waiver into the adult justice system.
Further, the bill will have no fiscal net impact. If
implemented, she opined, HB 105 would improve the conditions of
confinement for minors that are currently held in adult
facilities. She said that minors can be difficult to manage in
adult facilities and are often placed in segregation units. To
accomplish this, the proposed legislation would require the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and DHSS to develop agreements
about the holding of minors who are in DOC custody in DJJ
facilities. She added that data provided to the committee by
DOC [hard copies included in committee packets] identified seven
youth under the age of 18 who are currently held in a facility
statewide.
MS. DOMPELING continued that the second change proposed by the
bill involves the limited circumstances when non delinquent
minors may be held temporarily in secure juvenile justice
facilities pending another placement, which qualifies as a non-
secure placement. She noted that these situations are rare and
generally only happen when a minor in the custody of the Office
of Children's Services (OCS) has run away from placement and is
in a dangerous situation. In those situations, she explained,
under AS 47.10.141, these minors are held securely for a short
period of time pending placement in another non-secure setting.
The new federal changes to the JJDPA expand the court findings
that are necessary before those minors may be detained, and
further limits the duration of the secure holding. She
reiterated that these cases are rare, and noted that there has
been a total of only three minors that have been held in this
manner during the last three fiscal years.
3:28:59 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), presented the sectional analysis of HB 105 on behalf of
the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor. He
paraphrased Sections 1 through 3 of the Sectional Analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Amends AS 33.30.011(a) Duties of
commissioner to expand the duties of the Commissioner
of the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with the Department of Health and Social
Services for the detention and care of minors who are
waived into the adult criminal justice system.
Section 2: Amends AS 47.10.141(c) Runaway and missing
minors to reference a new subsection that adds new
requirements for court findings related to holding
non-delinquent minors in secure juvenile facilities.
Section 3: Amends AS 47.10.141 Runaway and missing
minors to add a new subsection to include expanded
requirements for court findings before a non-
delinquent minor can be held in a secure juvenile
facility.
MR. DAVIDSON reminded the committee that Section 3 is a rare
occurrence and such measures are only taken when a minor is in
danger. He explained that Section 4 and Section 5 address DJJ
jurisdiction and applicability, and read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 4: Amends AS 47.12.020 Jurisdiction to add a
new subsection related to the jurisdiction of the
Division of Juvenile Justice to detain and care for
minors under Department of Corrections custody.
Section 5: Amends AS 47.12.022 Applicability;
inclusion of certain persons as minors to make
conforming amendments to include minors subject to the
adult court processes in the definition of "minor" in
delinquency statute.
MR. DAVIDSON paraphrased the remainder of the sections, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 6: Amends AS 47.12.030(a) Provisions
inapplicable to add a reference to the "autowaiver"
statute the new practice of holding minors subject to
adult court proceedings in secure juvenile facilities.
The section also includes the term "transported" to
the adult processes that apply to waived minors to
reflect current practices.
Section 7: Amends AS 47.12.100(a) Waiver of
jurisdiction to add a reference to the "discretionary
waiver" statute the new practice of holding of minor
offenders subject to adult court proceedings in secure
juvenile facilities. The section also includes the
list of adult court practices that apply to these
offenders.
Section 8: Adds a new section 47.12.105 Minor
offenders subject to adult court to describe the
process, requirement, and exceptions for holding minor
offenders in the custody of the Department of
Corrections in secure Division of Juvenile Justice
facilities until age 18. This section also describes
the court process and findings that may allow for
minors to be held in adult facilities in certain
circumstances.
Section 9: Amends AS 47.12.150(a) Legal custody,
guardianship, and residual parental rights and
responsibilities to make conforming changes to clarify
that minors in the custody of the Department of
Corrections detained in Division of Juvenile Justice
facilities are subject to the same residual parental
rights as other minor offenders.
Section 10: Amends AS 47.12.160(e) Retention of
jurisdiction over minor to make conforming changes to
the dual sentencing provisions.
Section 11: Amends AS 47.12.240(a) Detention of minors
to make conforming changes.
Sections 12-13: Amends AS 47.12.250(a) Temporary
Detention and Detention Hearing to make conforming
changes.
Section 14: Amends AS 47.12.310(a) Agency Records to
apply the same confidentiality requirements for
information about waived minors as other minors served
by the Division of Juvenile Justice, unless otherwise
allowed by statute.
Section 15: Amends AS 47.12.310(b) Agency Records to
specifically allow information sharing between the
Division of Juvenile Justice and the Department of
Corrections about former juvenile offenders and minors
in DOC custody held in secure juvenile facilities
until age 18.
Section 16: Repeals sections for conforming purposes.
Section 17: Applicability clause applies to minors in
Department of Corrections custody on or after the
effective date.
Section 18: Revisor's instructions. Section 19:
Special effective date clause. This Act takes effect
on July 1, 2021.
3:33:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked Ms. Dompeling how many 18-year-olds
are in DJJ facilities and how many minors are currently in DOC
facilities.
MS. DOMPELING answered that she doesn't know how many 18-year-
olds are in DJJ facilities currently, but she can get that
information for him. She said that, for delinquent youths, DJJ
has the authority to supervision until the youth turns 19. She
said that there are some 18-year-olds in the DJJ facilities that
are there under the delinquency statutes, not under the auto-
waiver. According to the numbers provided by DOC today, she
said, there are seven minors in DOC facilities state-wide.
MR. DAVIDSON added that Section 8 of HB 105 discusses
transferring minors who are 18 years old to DCC custody at age
18. He offered clarification that this only applies to minors
who have been waived into the adult system. He said that no
delinquent minors will be transferred to DOC at age 18 as these
minors are held under different statutes. He informed committee
members that the Senate Health and Social Services Standing
Committee noted the same lack of clarity [in Section 8 of SB 91,
which was absorbed into HB 105], and for this reason adopted a
committee substitute in a meeting on April 6, 2021, with
suggestions from DJJ to clarify that it referred only to waived
minors.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether this would alter the number
of 18-year-olds in the system.
MS. DOMPELING replied that this would not be changed. She said
that under delinquency statues that fall under AS 47.12, DJJ
would still have the ability to have jurisdiction over juveniles
potentially up to age 19.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether offenses are treated
differently when determining if an 18-year-old goes to a DJJ
facility or a DOC facility.
MS. DOMPELING answered yes, there are different offenses. The
statute for automatic waiver of offenses is for minors who are
age 16 or older at the time of the offense, she said, and the
majority fall under [AS 47.12.030] that if those youth are
alleged to have committed an unclassified or felony crime
against a person or arson in the first degree, it would be
classified as an auto-waiver case.
3:36:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the department could detail
the changes and amendments that were proposed by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee on April 12, 2021.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee passed two amendments: the first amendment caught an
error in Section 3 of HB 105, but left a reference to
delinquency in the Child Protection statute [AS 47.12.250]. He
offered clarification that this was an existing erroneous
reference in the statute, and the intent is to fix that error in
the bill. He explained that the section of the Child Protection
statute only deals with runaways, not the arrest of delinquent
minors. The second amendment was passed in an attempt to
clarify Section 8 of HB 105 to ensure that the section refers
only to waived minors who are subject to the auto-waiver under
AS 47.12.030 or under AS 47.12.100, which is the discretionary
waiver. He shared that the Senate Health and Social Services
committee defined the term "waived minor" for the purposes of
achieving clarification in Section 8. He emphasized that the
legislation would not change how delinquent minors are held, but
would focus on the new class of minors that the division would
be responsible to hold potentially between the minors' sixteenth
and eighteenth birthdays if waived into the adult system.
3:39:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked Ms. Dompeling for clarification on
minor offenders subject to adult court, whom he understood are
entitled to a hearing every 30 days to determine whether they
should be continued to be held in adult facilities. He asked
how this would work, particularly in terms of the fiscal note.
MS. DOMPELING answered that it's a "relief valve," and explained
that DJJ's intention is to hold every single automatically
waived juvenile in the DJJ system. If, for some reason, the
juvenile is out of control to an extent that all of the
available resources allocated for the juvenile have been maxed
out, she explained, and DJJ has determined that the individual
would be better suited in a DOC facility, the department could
go to a judge in a court and provide evidence as to why a DOC
facility might be a better fit. The judge would then make a
decision based off these findings, and the state would not be
penalized for violating the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) because the findings would be cemented in
the court. She said that a requirement that is part of JJDPA is
that there needs to be a review every 30 days by the judge to
ensure that the circumstances still exist that make the DOC
facility still a better fit for the minor. She emphasized the
importance of judicial oversight when a minor is placed in adult
facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX shared his understanding that an initial
sentence requires that a juvenile be held in a juvenile
facility, but circumstances may change after sentencing that
cause DJJ to determine that the juvenile should be held in an
adult facility. He asked Ms. Dompeling whether his
understanding is correct.
MS. DOMPELING responded yes, that's correct. She added that
this could occur pre-conviction or post-conviction.
3:43:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked Ms. Dompeling whether the
evaluation for placement is objective or subjective.
MS. DOMPELING replied that the reasons that would have to be
identified to support holding a minor in an adult facility would
have to be specific in statute. She explained that DJJ brings
the issue forward, but there would have to be judicial
proceedings to make the change.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether there are objective
evaluators through DJJ to avoid legal action.
MS. DOMPELING replied that the memorandum of understanding (MOU)
is not prepared yet, but shared that her vision as director is
to have protocols in place in DJJ to ensure that mental health
clinicians have worked with juvenile justice officers and
nursing staff and other direct care youth to try to help manage
the behavior of the minor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY commented that he is encouraged to hear
that that process is in place.
3:46:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA directed attention to Section 8 of HB 105
[page 7, lines 18-31 and page 8, lines 1-21], and shared his
understanding that the evaluation categories appear subjective.
He asked Ms. Dompeling whether these were the guiding statutes.
MS. DOMPELING responded that she was referring to internal
protocols, but the statutes referenced in Section 8 of the bill
[AS 47.12] would be the guiding statutes, and are sourced from
the federal JJDPA.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA shared his understanding that, while the
process would follow particular guidelines, it would remain
subjective, and he opined that there is no structured standard
or clarity. He asked whether it's necessary for the guidelines
to be subjective, or would clarifying language be more
appropriate.
MS. DOMPELING answered that it is sufficient in its current
state. She noted that the department has worked with the Public
Defender Agency (PDA) to recognize that, in those situations,
minors affected would still be represented by PDA and would have
legal counsel available. She clarified that she anticipates
that this will not be a common event, and that there are
currently many minors in the DJJ system that have behavioral
problems and it has been determined that DJJ is still the best
appropriate facility for these minors. She noted that the staff
are experienced in managing difficult behaviors and that minors
would only be transferred to DOC in extreme situations.
3:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX stated his understanding that the goal of HB
105 is to reduce numbers of juveniles being held in adult
facilities. He asked Mr. Davidson whether there would be much
of a change in Alaska, and offered a guess that there may not be
separate facilities for adults and minors in smaller communities
throughout the state.
MR. DAVIDSON responded that the expectation of the proposed
legislation is that all minors would be required to be held in
DJJ facilities. He explained that there are some exceptions in
Section 8 of the bill that would allow minors to be held in
adult facilities, but he said these cases would be rare. He
opined that the 30-day requirement for courts to revisit minors
being held in adult facilities is a high standard. He noted
that currently, all minors are permitted to be held in adult
facilities during transport to a juvenile facility [AS
47.12.240], and that is intended to remain with the proposed
legislation. He added that another instance that may occur is
that, when juveniles go to court, the juveniles will temporarily
be held in an adult facility pending the court hearing. He
continued that DJJ also recognizes that there are communities
without juvenile facilities, and part of the "relief valve" for
these communities is the judge's ability to rule that the minor
be held in an adult facility throughout the court proceedings
pending the outcome of the trial. The expectation at the end of
the trial, he said, is that the minor be moved to a juvenile
facility. He stated that it is a common practice to hold
juveniles in adult facilities in segregation units, separate
from the rest of the adult population in the facilities. He
opined that those experiences would be dramatically improved for
those minors [should HB 105 pass].
3:54:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened public testimony for HB 105. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, she
closed public testimony.
[HB 105 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 58 Additional Document - HRSA Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Additional Document - Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives 4.1.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 105 v. A 2.19.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Transmittal Letter 2.18.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 2.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 2.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Supporting Document - ABADA & AMHB Letter 3.5.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Testimony - Received as of 3.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Additional Document - Memo from DJJ to HJUD 3.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD 3.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. B (Distributed by HJUD Committee) 3.12.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 58 Sponsor Statement v. A 3.30.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Guttmacher Alaska Statistics 2016 3.30.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Guttmacher Public Costs from Unintended Pregnancies February 2015 3.30.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Unintended Pregnancies Study March 2011 3.30.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 HSS Hearing Request 3.30.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 168 DHSS FN.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |