Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/03/2002 01:13 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 430 - SURCHARGE ON FINES/JUV JUSTICE GRANT FUND Number 0128 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 430, "An Act imposing a surcharge on fines imposed for misdemeanors, infractions, and violations and authorizing disposition of estimated receipts from that surcharge; and creating the juvenile justice grant fund in order to provide financial assistance for the operation of youth courts." Number 0151 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that HB 430 would provide a stable source of funding for "the youth court program," which has students doing the prosecuting, defending, and judging of youthful offenders. He continued: They've found that the best way to deter youthful offenders, particularly for the smaller, non-violent "introductory" crimes, is to, in effect, embarrass them in front of their peers - that the most embarrassing thing that can happen to [an] 11- to 15- year-old is being judged, not by their parents or other adults, but by other teens. The program has been remarkable successful; there's a very low recidivism rate for offenders who go through it. It is extremely cost effective, and the only problem has been that it's been very difficult for them continue and expand without a stable source of money. [House Bill 430] provides a surcharge on certain crimes, the types of crimes that could be covered under the youth court itself, and uses that surcharge to fund the courts as well as fund startup for youth courts in other areas. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that with HB 430, he wanted to ensure that the money raised by the surcharges did not become the youth courts' sole source of funding; he wanted each individual youth court to continue its aggressive fundraising efforts, both in the private sector and at the municipal level. Hence, funds collected via the surcharge would be distributed as a matching grant to match funds raised directly by the youth courts themselves. He noted that the Anchorage Municipal Assembly has approved a resolution supporting HB 430. He offered that in times of budgetary constraint, there is an obligation, "if we're going to propose increased expenditures, to [also] propose where we're going to get those revenues." REPRESENTATIVE MEYER expressed support for HB 430. He said his concern, however, revolves around having to appropriate the money each year: "someone is going to have to remember to do that." He asked: "How do we make sure that this money gets appropriated back to youth courts like we want it to?" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT, after noting that the state does not have dedicated funds, merely designated funds, said that HB 430 would "be another of those." He noted that historically, the legislature, although not constitutionally obligated to do so, has always honored such intentions. That, coupled with vigilant observation by the youth court, he surmised, would most likely ensure that the [funding] did continue. Number 0460 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that he agreed with that observation. He added that the youth court program in Anchorage has been very successful in helping to reduce "youth crime." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said: I certainly am supportive of youth courts. I think they've worked very well. ... [However], I've been here for ten years listening to people figuring out how to fund specific things, and I want to put it on the record again that I was opposed to the designated receipts program for the very reason that although it is not dedicated funds, it really is dedicated funds. And my problem with dedicated funds is, they are okay as long as there is a direct relationship from where they come from to where they're going, and that the amount that's available - where they're coming from - has a relationship to the amount you need. That's, I think, what is critical in a dedicated fund. ... I have a [real] problem with the attitude that if we want to get more money, we just need to have more user fees. Well, this isn't even a user fee; this is an application of a "charge against a charge that a person has had to pay" because they did something that happens to be the same thing that the ... youth court is dealing with, ... but there is not a relationship between the money and that, at all. And so what you're doing is putting a penalty on the people, who are paying a fine, to take care of this. You could argue, I suspect, that over the long term, you keep these kids from being [criminals], ... [though] that's kind of a reach on that issue. But I can also tell you that tallying up and finding these little pots of money to pay [for] specific things over the long term may be problematic in the legislative process, and we could do the accounting without having it "designated or programmed" receipts. And that was what I would have preferred. In some cases I think user fees are fine, but when they get excessive, which many of ours are, and then we don't call them taxes, I think that's not fair. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES concluded: So, [I] just wanted to let you know where I stand on those issues, ... [though] I'm not making any decision on what I'm going to do on your ... piece of legislation. I appreciate you bringing it forward and trying to get some money to pay for the youth courts, because I think it's important, but quite frankly I think we all ought to pay. That's what's fair and equitable; if we're benefiting, we should be paying for that, and I think we are. And now we're not [with HB 430]. Number 0667 LeANN CHANEY, United Youth Courts of Alaska (UYCA), testified via teleconference in support of HB 430. She said: This relatively new organization was incorporated in 1998 as a nonprofit, and is a resource to Alaskan communities. The [UYCA] serves as a centralized location to obtain training, technical assistance, and informational materials on how to start and maintain a youth court. There are 15 youth court programs in operation, with over 950 youth who volunteer over 27,000 hours statewide, adjudicating over 900 criminal cases annually. Juvenile defendants earn and pay over $14,500 in restitution to victims, and work over 15,000 community-service hours. Studies indicate that early intervention can effectively prevent more serious violations from occurring in the future. As reported by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice [CJJ], prevention saves lives and money: for each child prevented from beginning a life of crime, taxpayers save as much as $2 million. There is an urgent need for the legislation to provide support to these innovative programs across Alaska. Processing a case through youth courts and other informal dispositions costs significantly less than processing a case through the formal juvenile justice system [JJS]. These programs are a high-impact, low-cost alternative for early offenses, and provide immediate consequences for misdemeanor crimes that are otherwise low priority within the heavily burdened juvenile justice system. The state of Alaska will benefit more by providing a stable funding source for youth courts and other informal dispositions, by passing [HB 430]. Thank you. Number 0783 SHARON LEON, Executive Director, Anchorage Youth Court (AYC), testified via teleconference in support of HB 430. She said: We appreciate this opportunity to testify about providing a positive solution to a statewide concern for organization and [for] sustained youth court operating funds, and for funds for the other informal dispositions in which youth actively assist in adjudicating their peers, like the new tribal models that are being organized. And I wanted to speak to you from the perspective [that] AYC is the oldest youth court in the state; we were founded in 1989 on the premise that if teens are influenced by negative peer pressure, they can also be influenced by positive peer pressure. And it's worked: ... 89.9 percent of those who complete the court obligations ..., at the last recidivism check, had not reoffended. And AYC is the model for ... most of the other urban Alaskan youth courts that were later founded. Actually, AYC largely existed through support of the legal community ... [via] small donations until 1996, and we almost closed twice during that time, so we always operate pretty close to the margin. But our caseload grew exponentially in 1996, from about 20 cases a year to 400 or more, and that's when juvenile crime was really rising and became a serious issue here in Anchorage. The cost to operate the program actually also rose, of course, but not nearly as high as the caseload did. Since that time, the municipality has provided $115,000 annually, and that's about 41 percent of AYC's budget. But we have been put on notice that they cannot continue supporting [the] AYC at this level, but operating funds are the hardest to come by. Most granting agencies want to fund special projects or new projects; we're not a new project anymore, so AYC has worked really hard to raise its fundraising, through donations and small grants, to about 29 percent of its budget. [The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)] and [the] United Way provide an additional 22 percent together, and student case and class fees raise the final 8 percent. In trying to be creative and positive, we youth courts have suggested actually two additional possibilities: the one that's before you today [HB 430] and then the possibility that jurors in Alaska's courts could have the option of donating their fees to youth courts - and this does happen in Odessa, Texas; there is precedent for it. Number 0972 MS. LEON continued: But today we stand ... before you to ask [you] to help utilize [this] opportunity to ensure that youth throughout the state can continue to help reduce crime and form a lifelong pattern of good citizenship. That's something that usually isn't talked about; everybody is really interested in reducing crime, but we also have a whole cadre of youth, throughout the state, who are doing positive things, and this [HB 430] can help them do that. ... For instance, there was a student who came back last year. He's gone off to college now, and when he visited me in the summer he said, "You know, Sharon, I never thought I'd be using this stuff again, but my friends have come to me and said, 'Oh, we're going to go out and do this thing or that thing.'" And he's said, "Well, if you're smart, you won't do it, and I'm sure not going to, because it's a class three or a class four misdemeanor." And raising awareness of all of the youth in Alaska and helping them to be good citizens and increase the public safety is exactly what I think [HB 430] will go a long way to doing. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether defendants that come before the [youth] court pay any fees. MS. LEON said yes, adding that since 1996, defendants have paid $50 each to come to youth court, though that is just a part of the fees that defendants pay; defendants also have to pay $35 if they go to "juvenile anti-shoplifting," and $110 if they go to "drug and alcohol assessment." She said the students and the adult board members felt that since the goal is to make the youths responsible for their actions, the fee ought to be an amount that they could earn themselves, and even the youth who go through the program say that $50 is a fair amount. She noted that the AYC raises about $18,000-$20,000 a year through such fees. Number 1095 RUTH SANDSTROM, President, Board of Directors, Anchorage Youth Court (AYC), testified via teleconference in support HB 430. She indicated that through her involvement in the AYC during the past six years, she has gotten to know some of the students and considers them to be incredibly talented. She said that as a tax payer and a trained accountant, she can confidently say that the return on investment for the AYC is well worth it. She, too, remarked that the "cost of a lifetime criminal is ... [approximately] $2 million," adding that [incarcerating a child for] just one year in the McLaughlin Youth center costs approximately $40,000. She concluded: "If we can keep one or two kids out of those institutions, we can save money down the road; ... we can't afford to not fund these sorts of organizations." Number 1172 LISA ALBERT-KONECKY, Program Coordinator, Mat-Su Youth Court (MSYC), testified via teleconference in support of HB 430. She noted that similar legislation was introduced four years ago [at the request of] the founder of the MSYC, Jim Messick, who passed away last summer. She added: "His legacy remains in [HB 430]; his intention was to have adult misdemeanants help pay for a program that helps juvenile misdemeanants stop their errant ways." She mentioned that the concerns that she hears about pertain to money, and that "the Valley" (Matanuska-Susitna valley) supports the MSYC in several different ways; the use of Wasilla's City Hall has been volunteered, and several attorneys have volunteered their time. The students, however, "are the ones who keep the program going," she noted. MS. ALBERT-KONECKY remarked that any money provided through HB 430 is not going to solve all of the MSYC's [monetary] problems; the MSYC will continue to seek funds from other sources in the community. She mentioned that she used to work at the McLaughlin Youth Center, and indicated that she really believes in the youth court program because it focuses on prevention rather than merely on treatment after the fact. "I believe that this small piece of the pie - [HB 430] - would help ... youth courts all over the state," she concluded. Number 1311 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), said that the DHSS supports HB 430. He elaborated: I will echo that we do believe in the efficacy of youth courts; they have been a significant part of the change process that has taken place [in] juvenile justice over the last four or five years. I would have ... one recommendation in Section 6: the bill would establish a juvenile justice grant fund in the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and I would recommend the committee and the sponsor consider amending that, to put that juvenile justice grant fund under the Department of Health & Social Services. [For the benefit of the reader, Section 6 actually refers to AS 44.47, which pertains to the repealed Department of Community and Regional Affairs. And what was formerly known as the Department of Commerce and Economic Development - AS 44.33 - is currently called the Department of Community and Economic Development.] MR. BUTTCANE continued: We have a number of similar grants that we administer and, in support of youth court activities, we've got in place an infrastructure network that would allow us to administer grant funds without any additional expense or cost to the state. And it just brings the grant-fund source closer to the beneficiary of such grant funds. Next, I would also point out that the department has submitted a fiscal note for this piece of legislation based on numbers that we have obtained from the Alaska Court System [ACS]: on a surcharge of $10, it is estimated that it is possible to raise revenues in the amount of about $300,000. Again, the bill would make those monies available to start up youth court operations or to maintain current or existing youth courts. We currently have about 33 different partnerships with localities around the state, and about half of those are youth court programs that would be beneficiaries of this program. So we are in favor of this, and I would be happy to answer any questions if you have them. Number 1429 CHAIR ROKEBERG, after noting that there were no questions at this time, announced that the public hearing on HB 430 would be held open and that HB 430 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|