04/23/2019 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB37 | |
| HB96 | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 23, 2019
3:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Co-Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sharon Jackson
Representative Lance Pruitt
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Matt Claman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 37(FIN)
"An Act relating to the statewide immunization program; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 37(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 96
"An Act relating to Alaska Pioneers' Home and Alaska Veterans'
Home rates and services."
- MOVED CSHB 96(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 89
"An Act relating to the prescription of opioids; relating to the
practice of dentistry; relating to the practice of medicine;
relating to the practice of podiatry; relating to the practice
of osteopathy; relating to the practice of nursing; relating to
the practice of optometry; and relating to the practice of
pharmacy."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 37
SHORT TITLE: RENEWAL OF VACCINE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
01/25/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/19 (S) HSS, FIN
02/06/19 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/06/19 (S) Moved SB 37 Out of Committee
02/06/19 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/08/19 (S) HSS RPT 5DP
02/08/19 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH, COGHILL, STEVENS,
GIESSEL
02/13/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/13/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/13/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/12/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/12/19 (S) Moved CSSB 37(FIN) Out of Committee
03/12/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/13/19 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/13/19 (S) DP: VON IMHOF, MICCICHE, SHOWER,
WILSON, BISHOP
03/13/19 (S) NR: STEDMAN, WIELECHOWSKI, OLSON
03/27/19 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/19 (S) VERSION: CSSB 37(FIN)
03/29/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/19 (H) HSS, FIN
04/09/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/09/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/11/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/18/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/18/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/18/19 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/23/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 96
SHORT TITLE: PIONEERS' HOME AND VETERANS' HOME RATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS
03/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/19 (H) STA, HSS
03/26/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/02/19 (H) STA AT 4:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/02/19 (H) Moved CSHB 96(STA) Out of Committee
04/02/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/03/19 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 4NR
04/03/19 (H) DP: SHAW, FIELDS
04/03/19 (H) NR: LEDOUX, WOOL, STORY, KREISS-TOMKINS
04/09/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/09/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/11/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/18/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/18/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/18/19 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/23/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 133
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
04/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/19 (H) HSS, JUD
04/23/19 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor, reviewed [CSSB
37(FIN)].
KEN HELANDER, Alaska Director of Advocacy
AARP Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support during the hearing of
SB 37.
REPRESENTIVE ZACK FIELDS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor, presented HB 96.
LAURA BONNER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support during the hearing of
HB 96.
VERNA ESPENSHADE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of HB 96.
AVES THOMPSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support during the hearing of
HB 96.
CHARLES MCKEE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments not on topic with the
published agenda.
TRACY DOMPELING, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing of HB 133.
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Spohnholz,
sponsor of HB 133, presented a Definition Reference Document and
a sectional analysis during the hearing of HB 133, and answered
questions.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing of HB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:13:26 PM
CO-CHAIR TIFFANY ZULKOSKY called the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:13 p.m.
Representatives Drummond, Jackson, Tarr, and Zulkosky were
present at the call to order. Representatives Spohnholz and
Pruitt arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 37-RENEWAL OF VACCINE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
3:14:00 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 37(FIN), "An Act relating to the
statewide immunization program; and providing for an effective
date."
3:14:40 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB
37, paraphrased from the following sponsor statement [original
punctuation provided]:
Senate Bill 37 reauthorizes the statewide immunization
program in the Department of Health and Social
Services, which is scheduled for repeal January 1,
2021. Established in 2014, via Senate Bill 169, the
program monitors, purchases and distributes all
childhood vaccines and select adult vaccines to
providers, making access to vaccines universal for all
Alaskans. By 2018, the program covered more than
333,000 Alaskans, 45 percent of the total population.
Next to clean drinking water and good nutrition,
vaccines have saved more lives than any other public
health intervention. The statewide immunization
program is fully funded by the state Vaccine
Assessment Account through assessments (upfront fees)
from health plans and insurers. There are no
undesignated general funds needed for this program.
The state leverages its buying power to purchase
vaccines in bulk using the fees collected from
healthcare payers. The state distributes that vaccine
to providers who then administer them at no charge,
improving health and wellbeing while lowering overall
vaccine costs by 20 -30 percent. Through the statewide
immunization program, Alaska continues to demonstrate
leadership in creating innovative solutions for
difficult public health issues. Out of the 11
universal vaccine purchase programs in the United
States, Alaska is the only state to allow providers to
receive state supplied vaccine for uninsured adults,
enabling greater vaccine access for Alaska adults.
Alaska's immunization program is an example of a
successful public-private partnership that ensures
Alaskans a healthier future at the lowest possible
cost. The department reduces vaccine - preventable
diseases, and providers have improved health outcomes
for their patients and easier vaccine stock
management. The insurers pay less to vaccinate
individuals; we all save more money in the long run
due to decreased medical costs from vaccine-
preventable diseases.
SENATOR GISSEL further explained the original program was
voluntary, therefore, the bill removes the term "phase in
program over a three-year period" and provisions for opting out
of the program. She said the program has been highly successful
and uses no general funds. Senator Gissel noted there is
virtually no opposition to the bill albeit, initially, the bill
was opposed because the program includes vaccines for adults and
children.
3:17:57 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on SB 37.
3:18:23 PM
KEN HELANDER, Alaska Director of Advocacy, AARP Alaska,
expressed AARP Alaska's continuing support for the original
program and for SB 37. The assessment program is a proven and
effective model for cost containment, efficiency, and
sensitivity to rural needs. Also, AARP Alaska supports the
inclusion of adults in the program because not being vaccinated
is a threat to the health of older adults. He said the public
health interests of the state are served by a coordinated
universal vaccine access program; in addition, AARP Alaska
believes the program gives more flexibility to the [commissioner
of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)] in
response to an outbreak of communicable disease. He restated
AARP Alaska's support for the passage of the bill.
3:19:43 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
3:19:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report [CSSB 37(FIN)], labeled 31-
LS0162\S, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, [CSSB
37(FIN)] was reported out of the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee.
3:20:13 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:20 p.m. to 3:23 p.m.
HB 96-PIONEERS' HOME AND VETERANS' HOME RATES
3:23:54 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 96, "An Act relating to Alaska Pioneers' Home and
Alaska Veterans' Home rates and services."
[Before the committee was CSHB 96(STA), labeled 31-LS0646\U.]
3:24:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 96, offered to answer questions about CSHB
96 (STA).
3:24:35 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY [opened] public testimony on HB 96.
3:25:08 PM
LAURA BONNER said she is a 47-year Alaska resident and voter.
She said she is a retired construction worker living in
Anchorage and expressed her strong support for HB 96, which
would keep rates at the Pioneer Homes and the Alaska Veterans'
Home affordable. She cautioned raising rates is an example of
cost shifting. Further, the bill would show Alaskans value
their veterans and seniors, as they have since 1913. Residents
of the homes need predictability of rates and she said she may
need [said] predictability in the future. Ms. Bonner urged for
the legislature to find other ways to raise revenue.
3:26:36 PM
VERNA ESPENSHADE said she is 88 years old and has lived at the
Anchorage Pioneer Home for nine years. She used to be very
happy at the Pioneer Home, but in the past years, the food and
the atmosphere are "not all the way it used to be." Ms.
Espenshade spoke in opposition to raising her rent. She said
she can afford her Level 1 rent of $2,588 but if the rent is
raised, she would have to go on Medicaid, which the state would
have to pay. She questioned how this could be the right thing
to do, when she can afford to pay her rent at the present rate
but could not afford to pay over $3,000. She complained that
the home has changed, and she is not happy with the rent
situation.
3:28:21 PM
AVES THOMPSON said his wife lives at the Anchorage Pioneer Home
and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. She resides in
the Memory Care Unit and the current monthly cost of her
residence and assistance is $6,795 per month. The Division of
Alaska Pioneer Homes [Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS)] is promulgating regulations that would increase [his
wife's] rate to $13,333 per month - which is an annual increase
of $78,456 - and is not a budget reduction but is only a change
in funding sources. In fact, the governor's amended budget for
the division is only $4,200 less than the current budget. Mr.
Thompson said he is a private payer and receives no subsidies
from state or federal government; his long-term care insurance
will lapse in approximately 13 months and the remainder of his
wife's care is funded by retirement income and personal savings.
The rate increase would force his wife out of the Pioneer Home
and the final result would be that most or all of the Pioneer
Homes' residents will be subsidized by public dollars. Mr.
Thompson said this fails to benefit the citizens of Alaska.
Although HB 96 would limit the fees, a 30 percent increase is
excessive as the rate of inflation in Alaska has been relatively
low. He suggested an increase of 10 percent to 20 percent may
be appropriate. Mr. Thompson advised [the increase in rates] is
not consistent with statements made by Representative Neal
Foster, co-chair of the House Finance Committee. Mr. Thompson
said without action to reduce the rate increase, the division
will implement the higher fees, which will be disruptive and
destructive.
3:32:16 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:32:48 PM
CHARLES MCKEE provided comments not on topic with the published
agenda.
3:37:04 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 96.
3:37:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report CSHB 96(STA), labeled 31-
LS0646\U, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
3:37:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected. He observed the bill was not
referred to the House Finance Committee - although the bill
affects state finances - and urged the committee to request the
Speaker of the House to add a referral prior to moving the bill.
3:38:24 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:38 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT further explained because the financial
nature of the bill would affect individuals and the state, the
bill should be referred to the House Finance Committee. He
remarked:
... there's kind of a delicate balance between the
usurping of, kind of, our authority of controlling
things, and giving that to the regulators as well as
the times that we put things in statute because of
the, the great challenge there is to change statute.
... You don't really want to give it all over to the
regulators to make those decisions, at the same time,
as we've seen this year, anytime that you're looking
to make a change ... it becomes very difficult if we
find later that we need to make an adjustment that
doesn't fit with the statutory guidelines that we've
given ... I'll maintain the objection.
3:41:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ recalled testimony by DHSS presenting "valid
concerns" that rates at the Alaska Pioneer Homes have not been
raised; however, she urged for "some reason and rational" to the
process of raising rates. She disagreed that the methodology
using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) restricts the ability of
the department to raise rates and keep up with the cost of
providing care. One of the problems has been that DHSS does not
have a structure in place to allow for reasonable rate
increases. Co-Chair Spohnholz agreed if the division tried to
proceed with a dramatic increase that did not comport with the
language in HB 96, it would have to return to the legislature
for a policy decision, which would be appropriate if a
[department/division] makes very extreme changes. She expressed
her support for the bill.
3:43:49 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Zulkosky,
Spohnholz, Drummond, and Tarr voted in favor of reporting CSHB
96(STA) out of committee. Representatives Pruitt and Jackson
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 96(STA) was reported out of
the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-2.
3:44:34 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:44 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.
HB 133-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
3:47:09 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, speaking as the sponsor of HB 133, explained
the bill was introduced at the request of the Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), to address outdated language and other issues in
statute. She paraphrased from the following sponsor
statement[original punctuation provided]:
HB 133 is a statutory cleanup bill that updates the
terms used to describe the facilities operated by the
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and provides
updated definitions for those terms. Current statutes
contain references to facilities which DJJ does not
operate, and facilities that do not exist in the state
of Alaska. The bill also makes a clear distinction
between the role of juvenile probation officers and
adult probation officers in places where the
difference is unclear. Additionally, HB 133 adds
juvenile justice staff to the list of mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect. These updates
are necessary to provide statutory clarity to ensure
the Division can manage its facilities effectively
throughout the state. Currently, Alaska Statutes
reference places like work camps and juvenile
detention homes, which are not recognized or operating
in the state of Alaska. HB 133 adds "juvenile
treatment facility", "juvenile detention facility" and
"temporary secure juvenile holding area" as facilities
currently being operated by the division and provides
clear definitions for each of these terms. Because
references to these facilities occur in many places in
statute, this bill also touches upon many sections of
statute. These changes are necessary to provide the
clearest regulation over facilities in existence and
operated by the DJJ. HB 133 clarifies the role of
juvenile and adult probation officers, first by
distinguishing clearly between the two, and second by
providing a clear definition for the term juvenile
probation officer. These are meaningful changes to
provide the best protection for juveniles in the
custody of the Division of Juvenile Justice. Lastly,
HB 133 adds DJJ staff to the list of mandatory
reporters. It is the Division's objective to engage in
the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Adding DJJ
staff to the list of mandatory reporters provides the
best guarantee that when DJJ staff discover cases of
child abuse and neglect, those cases are reported,
investigated, and resolved for the best interest of
the child. While these technical language updates
touch many sections of statute, the changes in
language do not substantially alter the authority of
the Division over juveniles in its care. Rather, these
updates protect juveniles by making it clear where
juveniles can be placed and clearly defining the
authority of DJJ, its staff, and facilities using
current and relevant language.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ added another update is to correct an
oversight revealed by [the recent court decision in State vs.
Daniel M. Carey]. She explained state law directs that having
sex with a person one has authority over is illegal; currently
however, DJJ staff is exempt from this law, and HB 133 adds DJJ
staff to the list of professionals who have authority over
others and therefore could be found responsible for sexual abuse
of a minor in certain circumstances. Generally speaking, HB 133
would make clarifications in language to describe DJJ facilities
and staff and would update statute.
3:51:46 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, DJJ, DHSS, listed the many state
departments, agencies, and divisions, and other entities, that
contributed to HB 133. She said updating the terms of DJJ
facilities and staff has been a priority for DJJ as inaccuracies
and outdated definitions complicate its work with the
legislature, law enforcement, and the public. The changes would
also clarify which statutes apply to the adult and juvenile
systems of justice. Many of the definitions or clarifications
within HB 133 are located throughout statute; also, as
legislation directed at DJJ is "pretty rare," the bill creates
an opportunity for other minor corrections and adjustments. Ms.
Dompeling restated DJJ's concern about a "loophole in Alaska
Statute" within the state's criminal code - regarding the
prosecution of a significant crime - that is corrected by HB
133. She continued, noting areas of reporting for child abuse
are considered mandatory in the policy of the division thus
clarification in statute is warranted, as are other
clarifications: charging documents filed by probation officers;
releases of information; victim notifications; the revocation of
driver's licenses.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out HB 133 is 21 pages long, so staff
developed two sectional analyses, one that describes substantive
policy changes and their affected statutes, and another which
describes changes as they are located in the bill.
3:55:38 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, sponsor of
HB 133, directed attention to a document entitled, "Definition
Reference Document" provided in the committee packet. She said
the majority of the bill repeals antiquated language, amends
terminology, and creates new definitions where necessary. Ms.
Holland said on page 1, the document enumerates repealed,
amended, and new terms as directed by the bill. On page 2, in
section 24, HB 133 repeals the definition and powers of youth
counselors.
3:56:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:56 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.
MS. HOLLAND directed attention to changes in terminology that
are made by the bill and are separate from the policy
clarifications. The term "youth counselors" is repealed because
it is antiquated and "youth counselor powers" is inaccurate.
She noted the document is color-coded: terms being repealed
have an orange background; terms amended have a green
background; new terms have a blue background; locations in
statute have a yellow background; references to relevant areas
of statute have a white background. Additional terms being
repealed in the bill are juvenile detention home, youth
detention facility, juvenile work camp, and correctional school.
She further explained juvenile detention home is replaced by
juvenile detention facility and is defined to be a secure
facility for the detention of minors under DJJ custody. Further
indicated on page 2, for accuracy and consistency, the bill
replaces the terms "juvenile detention home" and "youth
detention facility" with "juvenile detention facility" in AS
Title 9, Title 14, Title 17, Title 18, and Title 41.
4:02:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if the new terminology allows
flexibility for additional changes in statute should there be
future policy changes.
MS. DOMPELING opined the new definitions are sufficiently broad
unless there are unforeseen drastic changes.
MS. HOLLAND continued to [page 4], noting section 28 of the bill
amends the definition of "minor" to include a person who was
under [18 years of age] at the time an offense was committed.
Section 27 amends the definition of "juvenile detention
facility" to be a secure facility for the detention of minors
under DJJ custody. Also, on [page 4 and continuing to pages 5
and 6] are the references to statute affected by the
aforementioned definition.
4:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked, "If we change the definitions from
a correctional school juvenile detention home, is that to say
that we can never have one?"
MS. DOMPELING, in response to Representative Jackson's
clarification of her question, said to her knowledge the state
has never had a correctional school; DJJ partners with local
school districts to provide youth with education in a locked
facility, but not in a correctional school per se.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked whether the state has ever had a
juvenile detention home.
MS. DOMPELING explained there are many definitions for the same
thing and so the name juvenile detention home could have been
used to describe a certain facility; the bill seeks to clarify
the statute by providing one definition for various facilities.
In further response to Representative Jackson, she said DJJ
operates two types of secure facilities: juvenile detention
facilities and juvenile secure treatment facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON surmised, were the state to operate a
correctional school, it would be included in the "generic name."
MS. DOMPELING said yes.
MS. HOLLAND returned attention to [page 6] and noted section 29
defines "juvenile treatment facility" as a secure facility for
treatment of minors adjudicated delinquent and committed by a
court to the care and custody of DJJ under a "(b) 1 order."
Current statute defines juvenile treatment institutions, which
is an inaccurate connotation of DJJ's facilities, thus
throughout the bill "institution" is replaced with "facility."
Further, the bill clarifies "secure residential psychiatric
center" is a separate institution that would not be operated by
DJJ, for example, the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API).
4:11:25 PM
MS. DOMPELING, in response to Representative Jackson, explained
DJJ requested changes to the language [in statute] not because
it sounds too strict, but because it does not reflect DJJ's
mission. Youth are ordered by the court into DJJ juvenile
secure treatment programs; however, DJJ facilities are not
jails: youth are required to participate in school, substance
abuse treatment, family therapy, and other treatment.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY expressed her understanding the intent of the
bill is to bring alignment and consistency into all related
definitions in order to more accurately reflect the activities
within DJJ.
MS. DOMPELING said correct.
4:12:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said, "... you're saying we're doing the
same things, but we just want to call it a facility."
MS. DOMPELING advised DJJ has two different types of secure
facilities: detention facilities are for youth alleged to have
committed a crime but who have not been convicted, and therefore
are put in a short-term holding situation without treatment;
secure treatment facilities are for youth who have been
adjudicated for a crime and sentenced to treatment for up to two
years. In further response to Representative Jackson, she
confirmed youth were sent to a detention home prior to
sentencing.
4:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON cautioned, "What I'm just trying to
clarify ... as a kid I don't want to go to a detention home ...
but a facility doesn't sound so bad."
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Dompeling to discuss the mission of
DJJ as it differs from that of the Department of Corrections
(DOC).
MS. DOMPELING explained the mission of DJJ is to hold youth
accountable for their actions, to promote the safety and
restoration of victims and communities, and to provide
competency and development for youth in order to prevent them
from committing crimes in the future.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked how DOC completes its work.
MS. DOMPELING said DOC is also aware of research that indicates
incarceration for a sentenced period of time is not a strong
deterrent against recidivism. In fact, research has shown, in
both juvenile and adult systems, that addressing the root cause
of why one is committing a criminal or delinquent offense is
more likely to prevent recidivism. In juvenile facilities,
youth do not have an option as to whether they participate in
treatment programs so they can progress to release; however, DOC
does not have the ability to provide [a similar level of
mandatory individual treatment].
4:18:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, in response to Representative Jackson,
explained HB 133 does not make broad-ranging policy
restructuring by changing the names used by DJJ. The intent of
the bill is to conform law with changes that have been made over
the last several decades related to changes in DJJ operations
and changes in the treatment of youth that have occurred over
several decades, but the law and language in statute have not
kept up with the pace of the changes. In fact, outdated
nomenclature has created problems for DJJ, the court system, and
law enforcement; she stressed the bill does not propose to make
"facilities more or less strict ... and I would argue that the
term facility isn't more or less strict - or more or less scary
- than previous names, it's just that those institutions like
homes, juvenile detention homes, just don't exist anymore so
it's more appropriate to have a broader definition ...."
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked for an example of how the [current
language in statute] interfered with law enforcement.
MS. DOMPELING gave an example of a law enforcement officer who
seeks to place a juvenile in a juvenile detention home but finds
Johnson Youth Center is a juvenile detention facility.
4:22:05 PM
MS. HOLLAND returned attention to [page 6 and continuing through
page 8] which listed the statutes affected by the new definition
"juvenile treatment facility." She continued to [page 9],
noting section 29 creates a new definition for the term
"temporary secure juvenile holding area": separate quarters
used for temporary detention of a delinquent pending court order
or transportation to a juvenile detention facility. Ms. Holland
explained the reason for the new term is that existing statute
relates only to short-term detention in a city jail, which is
not an option in many rural communities in Alaska. On [page
10], section 24 creates a new definition for "juvenile probation
officers" and repeals the definition for "youth counselors."
Section 24 also gives juvenile probation officers the powers of
probation officers and describes the duties of juvenile
probation officers.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked for the difference between a youth
counselor and a probation officer.
MS. DOMPELING explained DJJ no longer has youth counselors but
has juvenile justice officers who are staff who work in DJJ's
twenty-four hour, seven day-per-week facilities providing direct
care and supervision of youth who have been ordered by the court
into secure treatment or secure detention. Probation officers
are DJJ staff who receive and respond to allegations of
delinquency, and work with youth, families, and victims to
determine appropriate formal or informal action, Furthermore,
after a court finding, probation officers work directly with
youth and families, seeking to prevent recidivism. In addition,
if youth are in violation of terms of probation, probation
officers intercede.
4:27:02 PM
MS. HOLLAND turned attention to the [*Edited 4/23* sectional
analysis] in order to review the policy clarifications within HB
133. She noted the document is color-coded: new, amended, and
repealed definitions have an orange background; policy
clarifications have a blue background; references to updated
terminology in relevant areas of statute have a white
background. As indicated in blue on [page 2], section 5 of the
bill clarifies employees of juvenile treatment institutions, and
juvenile and adult probation officers, qualify as legal
guardians; legal guardians are defined as persons who exercise
supervision over a minor, or other person committed to DHSS
custody. To address the aforementioned [State of Alaska vs.
Daniel M. Carey] court decision, section 6 adds correctional
employees and DJJ staff to the list of individuals defined as
being in a position of authority over a minor when applied to
charges of sexual abuse of a minor in the first, second, and
fourth degree.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY surmised this policy change is to address the
aforementioned loophole in statute.
MS. HOLLAND said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for an explanation of the current
loophole in statute.
MS. HOLLAND explained there are two issues, the first of which
is the inaccurate definition of juvenile probation officer -
which is repealed in section 3 of HB 133 - that defines a
juvenile probation officer as one who is assigned to supervising
individuals 18 or 19 years of age. This inaccurate definition
is part of the reason the [defendant in the lawsuit] was not
successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked, "... can you clarify we're getting
rid of a different terminology than they highlighted in, in a
court case?"
MS. HOLLAND further explained the current definition of position
of authority does not clearly list DJJ staff, parole officers,
or employees of DJJ, even though the definition does include "or
a substantially similar position to examples such as guardian ad
litem, babysitter, teacher, et cetera ...." She restated
section 6 of the bill clearly lists DJJ facility staff members
under the definition of position of authority so they can be
included in charges of sexual abuse of a minor in the first,
second, and fourth degree.
4:33:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked about the second issue, which is
"the under 18 challenge" and surmised the [DJJ] employee would
have had to be over the age of 18 and thus would have fallen
"within other statutory designations of rape, even." He
discussed several other related scenarios.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ suggested there is confusion between the
perpetrator and the victim: the perpetrator was an adult and
the victim was underage. She remarked:
The way that the statute was written is that a
juvenile probation officer means a person assigned to
supervise another person 18 or 19 years of age when,
in fact, they are supervising people that are ... the
age of 19 and under. ... And, the juvenile probation
officer was not identified in statute as being a
person who has authority over the victim. For those
two reasons, this person was able to demonstrate that
they should not be held accountable for sexually
abusing this minor. ... They were able to
demonstrate in a court of law because our, because our
language hadn't kept up with what was really
happening, they were able to get him off.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY inquired as to the minimum age required for an
individual who works as a juvenile justice officer or a juvenile
probation officer within DHSS.
MS. DOMPELING answered usually 21 years of age; although job
classes differ, probation officer staff are usually a little
older because they are required to have a bachelor's degree or
five or six years of prior experience.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY, in response to Representative Pruitt, advised
the bill will be referred to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee and returned attention to aspects of the bill germane
to the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
4:39:10 PM
MS. HOLLAND directed attention to section 8, which adds
treatment institutions and juvenile treatment facilities to the
list of facilities excluded from the legal definition of
"private exposure." Private exposure occurs when an individual
exposes their body or part of their body in a place and under
circumstances where they believe that no one would see or
photograph them, however, private exposure does not occur within
correctional facilities and [by provisions in HB 133], within
juvenile justice treatment facilities. Section 9 clarifies DJJ
facilities and treatment facilities are places were public
education must be provided. [On page 3], section 11 clarifies
juvenile detention facilities and treatment facilities are
included in the list of facilities operated by the state that
are not required to provide medical marijuana. Section 16
inserts "juvenile" before "probation officers" to clarify duties
are specific to juvenile probation officers, and not
correctional officers. Section 17 clarifies DJJ may file
amended or supplemental petitions if new information is
received. [On page 4], section 22 inserts the term "juvenile"
to clarify the authority to arrest a minor rests specifically
with juvenile probation officers. Section 23 clarifies the
authority to detain a minor rests specifically with juvenile
probation officers. Section 25 adds "secure residential
psychiatric treatment centers" to the list of facilities from
which, at the victim's request, they will receive notification
upon release of a juvenile. [On page 5], section 26 corrects
language authorizing the department to disclose confidential
information related to the offense at the time a minor has
received an adjudication, and not at the time of an allegation.
[On page 6], section 38 adds juvenile probation officers, DJJ
office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. Section 39
repeals revocation of driver's licenses for non-driving offenses
that are adjudicated informally - a provision which was absent
from 2016 legislation - and Ms. Holland gave an example.
4:46:26 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY returned attention to sections 5 through 7 and
asked DJJ to provide an executive summary to the committee to
clarify how the bill would resolve the issues related to DJJ
staff who are in a position of authority. Further, she asked
that the executive summary include references to the [State vs.
Daniel M. Carey] court case.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR returned attention to section 22 and asked
for clarification of "parole officers" and "juvenile probation
officers."
MS. DOMPELING explained there are no juvenile parole officers in
Alaska, and all are juvenile probation officers [who are
assigned] whether a youth is placed on probation by the court,
or after release from a DJJ secure treatment facility.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether juvenile probation officers
are involved at pre-trial, during custody, and after a youth is
released.
MS. DOMPELING said yes. She informed the committee in most
areas, the probation officer involved with the first report
alleging delinquency will usually stay with that youth and
family all the way up through their period of probation.
Furthermore, a youth ordered into a secure treatment facility is
assigned a transitional services probation officer who works
with the youth on reentry and during their time of supervised
probation.
4:49:53 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, DJJ, DHSS, in
further response to Representative Pruitt's questions, related
the Department of Law drafted the provisions of HB 133 intended
to close the [loophole] that allowed for the acquittal in the
State vs. Daniel M. Carey court case, and he offered to provide
further information in this regard. He said part of the
confusion [about the remedy] is that the victim was almost 18
and was not a resident of the facility at the time of the
offense. He remarked:
But while the victim was in the facility, Mr. Carey
used his position of authority to develop the
relationship and then upon release, this under-18-
year-old minor developed a relationship with Mr.
Carey. It was not a sexual assault because of, some
of the consensual natures because she was a 16-year-
old. ... So, the provisions of sexual assault don't
apply in that case. ... So, that's why you see that
definition in the bill where there's 18- and 19-year-
olds under juvenile probation officers ... that's
about these young adults who are supervised, and we
want to make sure that our staff are not allowed to
engage in consensual or not, you know, consensual
relationships with people they are supervising.
MR. DAVIDSON said the provisions of sexual assault did not apply
in the State vs. Daniel M. Carey case, so the prosecutor charged
sexual abuse of a minor - also a very serious felony - however,
to support that argument, the definition in statute must be
amended to "juvenile justice facility staff" because position of
authority under current statute says "counselor"; thus the judge
and defense attorneys in the case argued successfully that the
[statute] did not apply because the defendant was not a
counselor, or in a substantially similar position, but was a
juvenile justice officer, "and so, that's what we're trying to
fix here ...." He further reviewed both of the changes within
HB 133.
4:53:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT expressed his understanding of portions of
the preceding testimony related to the State vs. Daniel M. Carey
case and observed [HB 133] intends to address not the charge
that there was sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, but
the abuse of a position of authority, which is "that small
loophole, and it is a small loophole, from which we have make
that slight adjustment."
MR. DAVIDSON confirmed that the position of authority was the
loophole that was the basis for the court ruling even though it
was intended to be a broad definition [of position of
authority]. He pointed out the term youth counselor was used to
define staff in the past; however, after the creation of DJJ in
1998, a new job class of juvenile justice officers was
developed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT surmised the broad terminology changes
within HB 133 are necessary because of the State vs. Daniel M.
Carey court case and its ramifications.
MR. DAVIDSON acknowledged DJJ was working on the bill prior to
the judgement on State vs. Daniel M. Carey, and said, "We cannot
allow another case like this to move forward."
4:56:33 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HB 133. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, public testimony was
closed.
[HB 133 was held over.]
4:57:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB133 Supporting Document-Carey Case 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB133 Sectional Analysis ver M 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB133 Supporting Document-Reference by Definition 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB133 Sponsor Statement 4.22.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| SB37 AVAP Renewal vsn A 1-25-19.PDF |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Hearing Request HSS 1-30-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Letter of Support AK Pediatric Grp 1-24-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Letter of Support American Academy of Pediatrics - AK 1-24-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Sponsor Statement 1-28-19.cg.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document WA Post Anti Vaccine NC outbreak 11-18.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document Alaska Public Health Advisory 1-29-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Annual Report 2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Status Update 2017.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Sectional Analysis 2-3-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document NPR 2-2-19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Payers.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| HB133 Fiscal Note DHSS DJJ 4.21.2019.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/25/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| SB37 Supporting Document AVAP Providers.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 2/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 37 |
| HB096 Bill Version A 3.25.19.PDF |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Sponsor Statement 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SFIN 3/9/2020 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Sectional Analysis 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Fiscal Note DHSS-APHPA 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document Alaska Pioneer Homes Advisory Board Report 2018 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document Consumer Price Index in AK Statutes 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document-PPT Presentation 3.5.19 HSS Finance Subcommittee, 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letters of Support 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document AK Dept of Labor Consumer Price Index 2018 3.25.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Fiscal Note DHSS-PH 3.26.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document DHSS Budget Subcommittee Amendment No. 1 PASSED 3.26.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/26/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letter of Support #11 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letter of Support #12 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letters of Support Redacted 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Letters of Support Redacted 3.27.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 ver U Sectional Analysis 3.28.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/28/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Opposing Document - Letter of Opposition 3.28.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/9/2019 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.28.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB096 Fiscal Note ver U PHPA-HSTA 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/2/2019 4:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Sectional Analysis Version M 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Hearing Request Memo-Rep Fields to HSS Committee 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Fiscal Note Pioneer Home Allocation 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Fiscal Note Payment Assistance Allocation 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB0096 Bill Version M 4.3.19.PDF |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Version U 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Supporting Document Combined Letters of Support 4.8.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Summary of Changes Version M to Version U 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Sponsor Statement 4.3.19.pdf |
HHSS 4/23/2019 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |