Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/13/2024 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Report on Relationships Between Intimate Partner Violence and Alaskan Women's Health | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2024
1:46 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): REPORT ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE AND ALASKAN WOMEN'S HEALTH
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
INGRID JOHNSON, Associate Professor
UAA Justice Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation on Relationships
between Intimate Partner Violence and Alaskan Women's Health.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:46:17 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:46 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kaufman, Tobin, and Chair Claman. Senator Giessel
arrived immediately thereafter.
^PRESENTATION(S): REPORT ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE AND ALASKAN WOMEN'S HEALTH
PRESENTATION(S):
REPORT ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND ALASKAN WOMEN'S HEALTH
1:46:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced a presentation on Relationships Between
Intimate Partner Violence and Alaskan Women's Health from the
Alaska Justice Information Center (AJIC), University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA). He invited Ms. Ingrid Johnson to put herself on
the record and begin the presentation.
1:47:25 PM
INGRID JOHNSON, Associate Professor, UAA Justice Center,
Anchorage, Alaska, delivered a presentation on Relationships
between Intimate Partner Violence and Alaskan Women's Health.
She said she is an associate professor at the UAA Justice Center
and the principal investigator for the Alaska Victimization
Survey (AVS). She said this presentation is based on a specific
report that was published November 2023.
1:47:40 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL joined the meeting.
1:48:05 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 2, Overview and History of the Alaska
Victimization Survey (AVS):
[Original punctuation provided.]
Overview and history of AVS
• General methodology
• General population survey of adult women residing
in Alaska.
• Respondents randomly selected and contacted by
landlines and cell phones.
• Modeled after the National Intimate Partner and
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) administered by
the CDC.
• Questions about victimization are "behaviorally
specific" and include a wide range of violence
against women.
• Survey procedures designed to maximize the safety
and confidentiality of respondents.
• Joint effort between the Alaska Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA; funders) and the
University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center
(research implementation).
• Conducted statewide surveys in 2010, 2015, and 2020
(quinquennially)
• 13 regional surveys were conducted 2011 2015
MS. JOHNSON explained that regional surveys were conducted to
obtain region-specific prevalence estimates. She stated that
with all the data now combined, more in-depth analyses are
possible due to the larger sample size.
1:49:27 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to the chart on slide 3 and stated that
the report she is presenting to the committee today
includes all individuals who ever participated in the AVS.
She said this represents nearly 13,000 women from all of
the statewide and regional surveys.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Location, years, and sample sizes of statewide and
regional AVS.
12,985 Alaskan women participated in regional or
statewide Alaska Victimization Surveys between 2010
and 2020.
Year Location/Region Sample Size
2010 Statewide 871
2011 Municipality of Anchorage 718
2011 Bristol Bay Region 373
2011 Fairbanks North Star Borough 745
2011 City and Borough of Juneau 604
2012 Kodiak Island Borough 415
2012 City and Borough of Sitka 282
2012 Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta 509
2013 Kenai Peninsula Borough 987
2013 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 648
2013 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1,190
2014 Nome Census Area 265
2014 North Slope Borough 169
2014-2015 Aleutian/Pribilof Island Region 82
2015 Statewide* 3,027
2020 Statewide 2,100
Notes
* The 2015 statewide sample included enough cases to also
generate Municipality of Anchorage specific prevalence
estimates and to add an additional 38 cases to the
Aleutian/Pribilof Island sample to generate estimates for
that region.
1:50:39 PM
SENATOR TOBIN, referring to slide 3, asked about the percentage
of non-English speaking, non-institutionalized women in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough who were represented by the 1,190-
sample size.
1:51:03 PM
MS. JOHNSON replied that the information is available through
the UAA AVS ScholarWorks repository. The repository has a
PowerPoint or report containing population percentages for each
region. She offered to gather that information for the
committee.
1:51:39 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL sought confirmation that those who participated
in the survey were non-duplicated individuals.
MS. JOHNSON replied that she could not confirm that.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether some participants could have
moved, for example, from Juneau to the Mat-Su, between 2011 and
2013 and been included in the survey twice.
MS. JOHNSON replied in the affirmative and clarified that
respondents could have participated in both the statewide and in
a regional sample. She explained that the survey is not designed
to track participants over time. Surveyors randomly select
individuals from landline and cell phone lists and there is no
way to determine whether someone has already participated.
1:52:18 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether the survey included a question
such as, "Have you participated in a survey like this before?"
MS. JOHNSON answered that she was unsure whether respondents
would recognize it as the same survey, given that there are
other surveys covering similar topics. Other surveys include the
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS),
AVS is designed after the NISVS, and the Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS).
1:52:49 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 4, Why this Report on Health:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• Research has consistently demonstrated the negative
impacts intimate partner violence (IPV) has on
physical and mental health
• Raise awareness in Alaska about
• Different forms of IPV and their impacts on
health
• Impact of recent and historical IPV on health
MS. JOHNSON explained that the report includes different types
of IPV, such as:
- coercive control and entrapment
- psychological control and aggression
- physical aggression
MS. JOHNSON said historical IPV experiences are not commonly
explored in literature and expressed interest in examining
whether such experiences impact health.
1:54:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the timeframe parameters used to
determine whether historical IPV has health implications, for
example, whether there are still health impacts 10 years later.
MS. JOHNSON replied that she uses a somewhat crude measurement,
explaining AVS questions start with:
- How many partners have ever done this to you in your lifetime?
If the answer is one or more, then the respondent is asked:
- How many intimate partners have done this in the past year?
MS. JOHNSON stated that the survey collects both lifetime and
past-year experiences but does not specify whether incidents
occurred 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It only identifies
whether the experience happened within the past year.
1:56:05 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 5, Forms of IPV:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Forms of IPV
Table 1: Percentage of adult, non-institutionalized
Alaskan women who participated in the Alaska
Victimization Survey (AVS) with historical and recent
experiences with various forms of intimate partner
violence (IPV; a N = 12,985).
Details on the specific behaviors in each of these
forms of IPV are included in the report Appendix.
d
b c ANY
HISTORICAL RECENT LIFETIME
ANY INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 44.3 16.9 61.2
Control 31.3 9.5 40.8
Reproductive control 9.9 1.9 11.8
Threats of harm 36.3 7.3 43.6
Harm infliction 42.4 12.5 54.9
Indirect harm infliction 22.2 3.7 25.9
Direct harm infliction 42.1 11.8 53.9
Psychological aggression 35.1 10.3 45.4
Physical violence 35.5 4.6 40.1
Minor physical violence 33.7 4.1 37.8
Severe physical violence 27.5 2.8 30.3
Sexual violence 16.7 1.3 18.0
a N for each form of IPV varies slightly under 12,985
due to missing data on each item.
b Women were classified as having historical
experiences if they had experienced a form of IPV in
their lifetime but not in the year prior to
participating in the survey.
c Women were classified as having recent experiences if
they experienced a form of IPV in the year prior to
participating in the survey. Participants with recent
experiences may also have had historical experiences,
but are only included in the recent category for this
report (i.e., historical and recent are mutually
exclusive categories).
d Adding together the historical and recent percentages
gives the total percent of women experiencing a form
of IPV ever in their lifetime.
1:59:52 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether respondents who self-identify as
women need to provide documentation.
MS. JOHNSON replied that the survey can include transgender
women. She said respondents who volunteer that information are
included in the survey.
2:00:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked her to elaborate on the meaning of
reproductive control within the context of the survey.
MS. JOHNSON replied that reproductive control means:
- The partner attempted to get the respondent pregnant when she
did not want to be or tried to stop the respondent from using
birth control.
- The partner refused to us a condom when the respondent wanted
to use one.
MS. JOHNSON said that while slide 5 lists the different forms of
IPV, the following slide presents six health measures. These
include four specific health conditions, along with a self-rated
physical health measure and a self-rated mental health measure.
2:00:46 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 6, Physical and Mental Health:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Physical and Mental Health
Table 2: Percentage of adult, non-institutionalized
Alaskan women who participated in the Alaska
Victimization Survey (AVS) reporting various health
conditions and overall physical and mental health
status (a N = 12, 985)
PERCENT
HEALTH CONDITIONS
Frequent headaches 17.5
Chronic pain 25.3
Difficulty sleeping 31.6
Health-related limitations 33.2
SELF-RATED PHYSICAL HEALTH
Excellent 16.7
Very good 33.6
Good 32.6
Fair 13.3
Poor 3.7
SELF-RATED MENTAL HEALTH
Excellent 28.6
Very Good 36.1
Good 26.5
Fair 7.5
Poor 1.3
a N for each health condition varies slightly under
12,985 due to missing data on each item.
2:01:39 PM
MS. JOHNSON explained that these percentages represent the
overall sample of participants experiencing these different
conditions, not just participants who experienced violence. She
reviewed the data set: nearly one-third of respondents reported
difficulty sleeping, one-quarter experienced chronic pain, 17.5
percent reported frequent headaches, and one-third experienced
some form of health-related limitation.
MS. JOHNSON discussed self-rated physical and mental health,
noting that participants were asked to choose from five rating
options: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. She observed
that many respondents selected "very good" or "good," which
seemed encouraging. However, some participants may have chosen
to rate their health more positively than their actual condition
to avoid appearing as though they were complaining.
MS. JOHNSON stated that although self-rated health is not a
perfect assessment method, existing research supports its value
as a reasonably accurate indicator of general health. She
pointed out that very few participants selected "fair" or
"poor," which resulted in small subgroups. She stated that
having a large, combined sample size of approximately 13,000
cases allows for meaningful analysis even within these small
subgroups. With only one year of data or a limited sample size,
the level of analysis done in this report would not be possible.
She expressed enthusiasm about being able to conduct these
analyses.
2:03:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed his understanding that given the overall
large size of the dataset, meaningful analysis is still possible
despite the relatively small percentage of participants who
selected "poor. He sought confirmation that the small
percentages still represent sufficient numbers for analytical
purposes.
MS. JOHNSON replied that the large sample size is beneficial
because it yields enough cases even within small percentage
groups. She explained that with a sample size of 1,000, 1.3
percent would represent only 13 cases, whereas with 10,000
cases, the same percentage yields 130 cases. This is enough to
support more robust analyses. She emphasized that this is
particularly important when examining past-year experiences
involving less common forms of violence. There should be at
least, at a rough estimate, 15 to 20 cases representing a
specific experience for analyses to be statistically meaningful.
With a dataset this large, even a small number of reports
related to poor health or uncommon forms of violence can still
produce reliable findings.
2:05:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there are statistics that compare
these findings with a group of individuals who have not
experienced intimate partner violence (IPV).
MS. JOHNSON replied that the next slide addresses that
comparison.
2:05:26 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 7, The Relationship Between IPV and
Health:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The Relationship Between IPV and Health
A significantly larger percentage of those who
experienced any IPV (either historically or recently)
have negative health outcomes than those who never
experienced it.
Table 3: Percentage of any intimate partner violence
groups (never experienced, historical experience, and
recent experience) endorsing each health outcome.
ANY INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
NEVER HISTORICAL RECENT
(N=4,900) (N=5,592) (N=2,130)
Frequent headaches 11.9 18.3 28.0
Chronic pain 17.5 29.1 32.2
Difficulty sleeping 20.9 36.3 43.6
Health-related limitations 23.4 38.2 40.6
Self-rated physical health
Excellent 22.0 14.4 11.5
Very Good 38.5 32.2 27.2
Good 28.7 34.3 37.1
Fair 9.0 14.9 18.4
Poor 1.9 4.3 5.7
Self-rated mental health
Excellent 37.6 25.1 17.8
Very good 37.5 37.4 30.1
Good 21.2 28.0 33.3
Fair 3.3 8.4 14.7
Poor .3 1.1 4.1
Note: N for each row varies slightly due to missing data on each
item.
All differences between the Historical group and the Never group,
as well as between the Recent group and the Never group, are
significant at the p<0.001 level using Pearson chi square tests
of independence.
2:09:25 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 8, The Relationship Between IPV
Subtypes and Health. She stated that this section of the report
breaks down the various subtypes of intimate partner violence,
such as reproductive control, direct harm, indirect harm, minor
physical aggression, and severe physical aggression and examines
how each relates to the identified health outcomes. She stated
that overall nearly all subtypes of IPV, whether experienced
historically or recently, are associated with negative health
outcomes. She noted that a few items within the reproductive
control category did not yield significant results, those
exceptions are clearly identified in the report.
2:10:16 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slides 9 - 12 to discuss multivariate
results beyond the report. She explained that the report
primarily presents bivariate results, which examine the
relationship between one form of intimate partner violence
(IPV), such as psychological aggression, and a single health
outcome. She emphasized the importance of multivariate analysis,
noting that IPV often involves multiple, overlapping forms of
harm that may simultaneously co-occur. Individuals who
experience physical harm are also subjected to threats and
control, thus experiencing multiple forms of intimate partner
violence at once.
2:11:11 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 10, IPV Subtype Co-occurrence:
[Original punctuation provided.]
IPV Subtype Co-occurrence:
Control - Yes Control - No
Threat-Yes Threat-No Threat-Yes Threat-No
Harm-Yes *32.3 **5.1 **8.3 ***9.7
percent percent percent percent
(n=4129) (n=653) (n=1056) (n=1242)
Harm-No **1.0 ***2.8 ***2.3 38.4
percent percent percent percent
(n=131) (n=358) (n=296) (n=4900)
N=12,765
*32.3 percent experienced all three forms of IPV
**14.4 percent experienced two of three forms of IPV
***14.8 percent experienced one of three forms of IPV
2:11:16 PM
MS. JOHNSON stated that the table identifies three main
categories of intimate partner violence (IPV): control, threats,
and harm. According to the data, 32.3 percent of respondents
experienced all three forms. While it is unclear whether these
experiences occurred within the same relationship, the findings
indicate that nearly one-third of the approximately 13,000
participants had experienced at least these three types of harm
potentially from different partners, or possibly from the same
one.
MS. JOHNSON explained that the table also breaks down
combinations of the three categories. The data show that 14.4
percent of respondents experienced at least two of the three
forms, and 14.8 percent experienced only one. She noted that
these findings raise questions about the limitations of
bivariate results. For example, it becomes difficult to isolate
whether negative health outcomes are specifically linked to
psychological aggression, or whether such outcomes are more
directly attributable to accompanying physical violence.
MS. JOHNSON stated that multivariate analysis can address these
questions by allowing researchers to control for one type of
IPV, such as physical aggression, while examining the
independent effects of another, such as psychological
aggression. With a sample size this large, it is possible to
perform such analyses and determine whether those who
experienced psychological aggression, but not physical violence,
still show poorer health outcomes.
2:13:08 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 11, Multivariate ([Ordinary Least
Squares] OLS Regression) Results. She noted that the table on
this slide is complex but was included for reference purposes.
The following bullet points provide an overview of the results
in the table:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• Approximately 12 percent of the variance in both
physical and mental health can be explained by the
three forms of IPV along with the demographic
control variables
• Experiences with control IPV lowers one's physical
and mental health scores by 0.10 and 0.14
(respectively), holding all other forms of IPV and
demographics constant
• Experiences with threat IPV lowers one's physical
and mental health scores health score by 0.08 and
0.07 (respectively), holding all other forms of IPV
and demographics constant
• Experiences with infliction IPV lowers one's
physical and mental health scores health score by
0.15 and 0.19 (respectively), holding all other
forms of IPV and demographics constant
2:13:12 PM
MS. JOHNSON moved to slide 12, Conclusion from Multivariate
Results:
Conclusion from Multivariate Results
• Summary
• Control, threats, and infliction subtypes of IPV
matter for current health independently of one
another
- Note, however, that financial strain has
greater impact on health than history of IPV
• Implications
• Control and threats are bad for health regardless
of whether harm was ever inflicted important
for outreach, assessment, and treatment
MS. JOHNSON stated that multivariate analyses are somewhat more
limited than the bivariate analyses and noted she is available
to discuss this further if needed. She explained that the
implications for outreach, assessment, and treatment highlight
the importance of considering all forms of intimate partner
abuse, even in the absence of physical aggression. It is not
just physical violence that matters for health outcomes.
2:14:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN contrasted the mostly negative values shown on
slide 11 with the positive values presented on the other slides.
He asked her to elaborate on the meaning of the values in the
table on slide 11.
MS. JOHNSON replied that slide 11 presents multivariate analyses
focused on self-rated physical and mental health. She explained
that the first two columns correspond to physical health models,
and the next two to mental health models, labeled Model 1
through Model 4.
MS. JOHNSON noted that self-rated health is measured on a scale
from zero to four:
• zero = poor health
• one = fair health
• two = good health
• three = very good health
• four = excellent health
MS. JOHNSON explained that the values in the table reflect how
much a respondent's self-rated health changes in relation to
experiences of intimate partner violence. These values are not
percentages. A negative value indicates a decline in self-rated
health associated with that experience.
2:16:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the upper left box on the slide and
sought confirmation that the value of -0.17 represents a
reduction in the respondent's self-rated physical health score,
with four indicating excellent health and zero indicating poor
health.
MS. JOHNSON replied that she is fairly confident the reduction
reflected a change from the mean score of the sample.
2:17:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to slide 7 and the values listed under the
groups NEVER HISTORICAL," and RECENT He asked where
the -0.17 is a reduction from.
MS. JOHNSON replied from the mean; however, the mean is not
shown on those slides.
2:18:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the -0.17 value represented a
reduction from the mean of everyone who took the survey compared
to people who experienced control, or from the "NEVER" group
compared to those who experienced control.
MS. JOHNSON replied that the -0.17 reflected a comparison
between those who had ever experienced control and those who
never had. She referred to slide 11, Model 1, the first
coefficient for control, explaining that this group's score
would be 0.17 lower than the mean.
2:18:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that reduction was from the
mean of the NEVER group.
MS. JOHNSON clarified that it was a reduction from the mean of
the whole sample.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that he would be interested in learning more
about the significance of those values and invited her to follow
up with the committee if she wished.
2:20:18 PM
MS. JOHNSON expressed her belief that the important details are
summarized in the bullet points on slide 11:
[Slide 11 bullet points are as follows:]
• Approximately 12 percent of the variance in both
physical and mental health can be explained by the
three forms of IPV along with the demographic
control variables
• Experiences with control IPV lowers one's physical
and mental health scores by 0.10 and 0.14
(respectively), holding all other forms of IPV and
demographics constant
• Experiences with threat IPV lowers one's physical
and mental health scores health score by 0.08 and
0.07 (respectively), holding all other forms of IPV
and demographics constant
• Experiences with infliction IPV lowers one's
physical and mental health scores health score by
0.15 and 0.19 (respectively), holding all other
forms of IPV and demographics constant
MS. JOHNSON said that she will get back to the committee with
precise interpretations of those values.
2:21:35 PM
SENATOR TOBIN expressed interest in the demographic breakdowns
referenced in the presentation. She asked whether an additional
document on demographic breakdowns exists. She further asked
whether the data reflect race, socioeconomic class, or household
composition variations, such as the presence of children or
elderly family members. She wondered whether there would be
further analysis exploring these factors.
MS. JOHNSON replied that the dataset includes racial identity
categorized as: Indigenous, any versus other, and White, only
versus other. The children variable reflects whether the
respondent has ever lived with children under the age of 18,
which she described as a relatively rough measure. She expressed
her belief that financial strain is based on two variables:
difficulty paying bills and whether one of them had foregone
medical care due to cost. She stated that further analyses could
be conducted though the capacity to do so depends on staffing.
She noted particular interest in exploring Indigenous
experiences with violence compared to non-Indigenous
individuals.
MS. JOHNSON shared a particularly interesting finding unrelated
to violence, stating that financial strain showed a stronger
negative association with health than any of the IPV variables.
She noted that the coefficient for financial strain was much
larger than those for the violence-related items.
2:23:56 PM
SENATOR TOBIN commented that she had heard a strong anti-
violence program is also a strong jobs program and stated that
the data on financial strain reinforces that idea.
SENATOR TOBIN referred to slide 2, which showed that statewide
surveys were conducted in 2010, 2015, and 2020. She shared that
in 2010 she was identified as Black and White in the U.S.
Census, while in 2020 her classification included Black, White,
and American Indian. She noted that the way questions are framed
can influence how individuals self-identify. She asked whether
the AVS questions remained consistent across the 2010, 2015, and
2020 surveys, and whether researchers considered how
respondents' identification of race or ethnicity may shift over
time. She remarked that in the 1990 U.S. Census, she was
identified only as Black.
2:24:50 PM
MS. JOHNSON replied that the survey questions used in the
analyses have been worded the same over time. Although some
questions in the Alaska Victimization Survey (AVS) vary across
versions, the core questions relevant to these analyses have
remained consistent for comparison and collective use. She
mentioned one minor exception, a stalking related item. Wording
was slightly revised to reflect changing technology; a reference
to MySpace was replaced with Snapchat or a more up-to-date
social media platform. Aside from that, all key items remained
unchanged.
MS. JOHNSON said other questions can be added to the survey, but
then they cannot be used across different surveys. For instance,
adverse childhood experience questions were added to the 2020
survey, but those questions are specific to that year and can
only be analyzed using 2020 data.
MS. JOHNSON responded to the self-identity question, stating the
survey does not have a reliable mechanism to account for changes
in self-identity over time. However, surveyors always allow
participants to identify as more than one race, so that data is
available historically.
2:26:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to slide 11 and pointed out a significant
distinction in the table. He said the physical health finding
for individuals identified as hite, onlyis a positive value,
which presents a striking contrast to the physical health
finding for those identified as "Indigenous, any
MS. JOHNSON stated that she would probably revise how the race
categories are structured if she could. She explained that the
current model uses three race categories, with "Indigenous, any"
encompassing all individuals with any Indigenous identity. The
"Other" category includes a range of groups such as Black and
African American to Asian, Pacific Islander, and East Asian. She
noted that due to limited sample sizes, the survey cannot
analyze these racial groups individually.
MS. JOHNSON said ideally, "White, only" should be used as the
reference category in the model. This would allow comparisons
between "Indigenous, any" and "White, only," as well as between
"Other" and "White, only." At present, the structure compares
"White, only" to "Other," but not to "Indigenous, any." She said
that this is something she would redo and then see how the race
results come out. She stated that restructuring the model in
this way would not affect items, such as control, threats,
infliction, children, or financial strain, but how those racial
variables perform might change.
2:27:42 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that the research focuses on English-
speaking, non-institutionalized individuals. She expressed
curiosity about how Alaska's growing refugee populations might
impact the data. She asked whether the Alaska Justice
Information Center (AJIC) had considered collecting data from
those communities in the future, stating that many of Alaska's
refugee populations could substantially shift the reporting
outcomes.
MS. JOHNSON responded that there have been requests over the
years to offer the survey in languages other than English, but
doing so presents complications. She explained that this would
require having translators available for any variety of
languages, which raises challenges. Deciding which languages to
prioritize is also difficult. She noted that expanding the
survey beyond English would represent a significant
methodological change and could affect the comparison of results
across different years.
2:29:15 PM
MS. JOHNSON commented on phone access, stating some individuals,
particularly those in controlling relationships, may not have
access to a phone or may not be permitted to participate in a
phone survey without interference. She stated that partners have
insisted on listening in or forced participants to hang up in
some cases. She said these are considered hard-to-reach
populations, which are inherently difficult to study through a
survey like this.
MS. JOHNSON surmised that accessing those populations would
almost require a different study. Any prevalence estimates would
be imprecise due to the inherent challenges in reaching those
groups.
MS. JOHNSON outlined two tasks she would complete at the request
of committee members:
- Gather survey sample information that includes relevant
region-specific population percentages.
- Provide a clearer interpretation of the coefficients presented
on slide 11.
2:30:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed appreciation to Ms. Johnson.
2:30:56 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center Presentation to Senate Judiciary 3.13.2024.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2024 1:30:00 PM |