1 HOUSE BILL NO. 6 "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors." Representative Kelly, sponsor of HB 6, discussed the legislation. He maintained that there exists a veil of secrecy surrounding the world of juvenile crime. He observed that the identities of youth criminals are kept secret in an attempt to protect the futures of young offenders. He asserted that this has had the effect of "enabling these youth in their life of crime, and allowing them to walk the streets unknown to us." He stressed that HB 6 is not about punishment. It is about protection of the public and the public's right. He emphasized that secrecy prevents the community from coming to the aid of youth offenders. He observed that a recent Fairbanks' survey listed juvenile crime as the number one concern. He stated that the Alaska Peace Officers Association and the Alaska Municipal League support the bill. He maintained that secrecy protects a flawed system. Representative Kelly discussed the juvenile intake system. He noted children are referred to the Department of Health & Social Services for a preliminary investigation after arrest. At that point, the Department can pursue an informal adjustment, where the minor admits guilt, consents to the outcome and an informal adjustment or the Department of Health & Social Services can petition the court for formal proceedings. Representative Kelly observed that HB 6 would require that names of certain minors be released at adjustment and petition. The names of minors that have committed crimes against persons, use of a deadly weapon, burglary, arson, prostitution of the 1st degree (forcing someone into prostitution), distribution of child pornography, or selling drugs will be released. Minors that are in disregard of authority and who refuse to participate in rehabilitation programs or community service could also have their names released. He explained that names are released at petition and adjustment to equalize the procedure. He observed concern that minors would seek adjudication if names were not released at petition. Co-Chair Therriault observed that many cases do not result in a formal finding of guilt. He emphasized that it would be difficult to only release names upon a finding of guilt. He asked for further explanation of the preliminary investigation leading to petition. Representative Kelly stated that probable cause would exist. 2 In response to comments by Representative Grussendorf, Representative Kelly emphasized that minors committing "the more bold crimes" will have their names released. He stated that the names of minors who commit dangerous crimes will be released at adjustment. He added that children who are 16 years or older and have a previous conviction will also have their names released. Representative Kelly clarified that subsection (g) on page 3, refers to felony delivery of a controlled substance. He explained that the legislation was changed to clarify that the possession of a living marijuana plant or passing a joint would not trigger the provisions. Possession of a controlled substance must be accompanied by an intent to deliver. Co-Chair Hanley referred to subsection (c), page 3, and line 22. Representative Kelly clarified that the names of minors who refuse to participate in a court ordered or probation officer required placement plan will be released, for any offense. He stated that the intent is to cover youth offenders who are committing misdemeanors and have no respect to authority. Running away is not considered an offense. He observed that smoking, traffic offenses and fish and game offenses are considered adult crime. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the intent is to retain the secrecy system for lesser offenses, but allow additional leverage for cases where the minor is not amenable to making restitution or rehabilitation. Co-Chair Hanley asked how names will be released. He clarified that he is not concerned with the release of juvenile names as provided for in HB 6. He stated that his concern is regarding the costs versus the benefits. Representative Kelly noted that electronic technology can be utilized. He stressed that the media will report the name that can be disclosed. He stressed communication between teachers and the Department will be increased. The police will also have access. Representative Kelly referred to a Fairbanks case where a juvenile shot a trooper. He noted that newspapers will report the more serious cases. Discussion ensued regarding police access. Representative Kelly explained that police do not know what happens to children after they are arrested. The arrest record is not confidential within the Police Department. He stressed that the community will be protected by knowledge of youth offenses. He noted that in the Fairbanks case, neighbors did not know that the juvenile had been committing burglaries in the neighborhood. 3 Representative Davies agreed that improved communication between the Department of Health & Social Services and the police is needed. He stated that there are circumstances, especially in the case of a first time offense, that children should not be branded as criminals. He observed that the concern is where to draw the line. He emphasized the need to send an immediate message that an act is wrong and that there is a consequence. He questioned the need to release names in the case of a first time offense, where the minor is willing to admit guilt and be subjected to rehabilitation and restitution. He stated that if a minor resists admitting guilt or they have been previously through the system their names should be publicized. Co-Chair Therriault referred to the Fairbanks case. He observed that the persons victimized did not know that the juvenile offender lived in the area. He asked if discussion had occurred regarding first versus second offenses. Representative Kelly replied that there are "plenty of second chances built into this bill." He noted that some offenses were removed where it was decided that minors should not be "branded." Misdemeanor assault was not included for disclosure. He noted that drug related offenses must be accompanied with the intent to distribute to trigger disclosure. He stated that most crimes will be second time offenses. He maintained that more dangerous crimes should not be kept from the community. He stressed that crimes against a person, forcing prostitution, burglary and arson are serious crimes. He observed that the communities need to know about minors who have "blown off the system." Discussion ensued regarding burglary. Co-Chair Hanley read the definition of "burglary" under AS 11.46.300 - 310. Burglary in the second degree is committed when a person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with the intent to commit a crime in the building. Representative Kelly noted that vandalism would not trigger disclosure. He observed that criminal mischief in the first-degree covers damages from $500 hundred to $100 thousand dollars. He noted that under this definition a broken window could result in a child's name being published. Co-Chair Hanley noted that the legislation would put at risk $7 million dollars of federal funding, unless the Department of Health & Social Services is restructured. He observed that even if the Department is split the State will loose $700 thousand dollars in federal funds, as a result of the legislation. 4 Co-Chair Therriault explained that children in need of aid will be separated from delinquent minors. HOUSE BILL NO. 6 "An Act amending laws relating to the disclosure of information relating to certain minors." MARGARET GRASSE, SOCIAL WORK STUDENT testified via the teleconference network. She questioned if parent's names would be released. She expressed concern with restructuring costs. She spoke in support of the Anchorage Youth Court. She asked how the Youth Court would be affected. Representative Kelly acknowledged that parents' names will be released. Names of foster care providers will not be released, except in the case of long term foster care parents. He maintained that the Youth Court will not be affected. He emphasized that the State will not have an increased infrastructure cost. The State will loose federal funding. CLINT HESS, CHIEF JUDGE, ANCHORAGE YOUTH COURT testified via the teleconference network. He expressed concerns with the legislation. He maintained that there will be no incentive for youths to choose the Youth Court. He observed that one incentive to choose the Youth Court is that names are kept confidential. (Tape Change, HFC 97-48, Side 2) Mr. Hess spoke in support of the Anchorage Youth Court. He observed that the Anchorage Youth Court has a lower recidivism rate than the regular juvenile process. He noted that the Youth Court handles minors that are tired of listening to adults. He pointed out that, at the Youth Court, their peers tell minors they are wrong. He asserted 5 that juveniles can "cheat the (agency) process." He expressed concern that parents will pressure children to use the regular juvenile process. He observed that minors perform community services as part of their sentence. He asserted that youth courts will be downsized as a result of the legislation. He emphasized that members of the Youth Court participate in the judicial process. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Hess observed that the Youth Court would not receive arson cases. The Youth Court would receive some of the burglary cases. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the there will be no shortage of cases for the Youth Court. He pointed out that under current law, juvenile cases are kept confidential unless they are tried as adults. He did not think the legislation would provide a disincentive. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Hess noted that juveniles that go through the Youth Court and complete their sentences can truthfully state that they have never been convicted of a crime. He reiterated concerns that disclosure would reduce incentive to go to the Youth Court. He reiterated that it is "far easier to cheat to regular process than it is to cheat the Anchorage Youth Court." He stressed that sentences by the Youth Court are harder. Representative Kelly pointed out that the benefit of confidentiality is not bestowed by the Youth Court. The Youth Court carries out the rules of the Department. He added that the Youth Court does not handle the level of crimes identified by the legislation. He pointed out that the Youth Court could use the threat of disclosure as an additional lever in the case of second time possession of controlled substances on school grounds. He maintained that the Youth Court will not be affected. He pointed out that community service is an adjustment that the Department of Health & Social Services allows the Youth Court to use. Co-Chair Therriault observed that Mr. Hess's remarks indicate that restitution ordered by the agency is not being followed up. Mr. Hess stressed that the time between the crime was committed and the sentence is handed out and completed is much shorter in the youth court system. He emphasized the benefit of a short turn-around-time. Co-Chair Therriault questioned the affect of community condemnation to juveniles. Mr. Hess stated that minors are more affected by peer condemnation than community condemnation. 6 MAT NEIL, SENTENCING COORDINATOR, ANCHORAGE YOUTH COURT testified via the teleconference network. He applauded the effort to address juvenile crime. He expressed concern with disclosure in informal adjustment cases. He stressed the need to separate anti-social behavior from "dumb choices." He stated that the formal system is over-loaded. He observed that the Youth Court has the time and resources to verify restitution and monitor payments to victims. He asserted that the legislation will cause victims to wait longer, result in less restitution, and delay consequences. He maintained that some good kids could be labeled without cause. He stated that adjustment cases should be left off the public list. He noted that the 89 percent of Anchorage Youth Court cases do not reoffended. Co-Chair Hanley clarified that youth courts can only deal with violations of state law that are misdemeanors or violations that constitute a violation of municipal ordinance that would be considered a misdemeanor. He concluded that the Youth Court would not handle the types of cases that are addressed in the legislation. He spoke in support of the Anchorage Youth Court. He emphasized that the legislation would provide a disincentive to the Youth Court. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Neil stressed that kids are impulsive. He did not think that a child entering a person's house would necessarily know that they are committing a felony. JOAN FOOTE, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 6. She noted that her area was terrorized by juvenile delinquents during the past summer. She referred to amendments that Representative Kelly had prepared (copy on file). She spoke in support of deleting "failed, without good cause," and inserting "knowingly failed." She maintained that the legislation will help juvenile offenders to realize the seriousness of their actions. She expressed support for the Fairbanks Youth Court. She maintained that the legislation will help juvenile offenders to realize the seriousness of their actions. AL NEAR, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of deleting "failed, without good cause," and inserting "knowingly failed." He agreed that the Fairbanks Youth Court is a good addition to the juvenile system. He maintained that many of the offenders diverted to the Youth Court would have gone straight anyway. He stressed that the community has a right to know about juvenile offenders. He asserted that vandalism should be included in the legislation. He point out that a threshold 7 level could be contained. He recounted his experience with a juvenile offender in Fairbanks. Representative Kelly agreed that criminal mischief in the second degree needs to be addressed. He stressed that it needs to be addressed in separate legislation. CAM CARLSON, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 6. She disagreed that children would be "branded for life" by the bill. She observed that confidentiality statutes have not always been in place. She maintained that public awareness and humiliation is a strong deterrent. She asserted that the public has the right to know. She alleged that children know that they can do anything they want until the are 18 years of age. She maintained that younger children are used as runners by older, harden criminals. She stressed that it is too late to inform the public after 3 or 4 offenses have been committed. SCOTT CALDER, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network. He stated that the discussion is good, but expressed reservations about portions of the bill. He emphasized that there need to be timely, consistent and logical consequences. He stressed that parents are a tremendous resource that need to be protected and enhanced. He maintained that the most important reason to release the names of children that have come into contact with Division of Family and Youth Services is to protect the child. He asserted that contact with the Division is dangerous. He implied that children are not taught they have responsibilities. He stated that children who have been sexually abused are more likely to start fires. He maintained that it cannot be assumed that "just because there is combustible materials involved, that we are dealing with a harden criminal that cannot be rehabilitated, even at a young age." Mr. Calder stated that the right of the public to obtain information based on probable cause needs to be looked at. He stated that the need-to-know status of the person receiving the information should be identified. He referred to the Fairbanks Youth Court. He asserted that the system excludes unwanted input in regards to problems in the larger system. He did not think that secrecy as a key to rehabilitation makes sense. He stressed that kids that do not care what adults say are the problem that needs to be addressed. (Tape Change, HFC 97-49, Side 1) He maintained that the Division of Family and Youth Services 8 is at fault. He asserted that parents must be empowered. He stressed that if children do not listen to their parents they are not going to listen to anyone else. MARK MILLARD, DIRECTOR, BEHAVIOR HEALTH SERVICES, SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM expressed concern that HB 6 goes too far. He questioned how many youths committing dangerous felonies reoffend. He noted that public identification of youthful offenders will increase community visibility and increase social sanctions. He stated that positive opportunities of these youth could be affected, making it more difficult for youth to engage in positive activities. He maintained that public disclosure will result in an increase in juvenile delinquency. He observed that the State will loose federal funds as a result of the legislation. Representative Davies asked if there is a screening tool that can be used to determine which youth are likely to reoffend. Mr. Millard stated that the whole juvenile probation process attempts to make this determination. MICHAEL KIRK, JUNEAU urged the Legislature to accompany the legislation with a youth corps to prevent juvenile crime. He stressed that when juveniles are busy, they do not create mischief. He emphasized that juveniles are not being challenged by society. He referred to past youth programs that provided children with challenges and kept them active. He noted that many of today's children are bored. He added that a "hard nosed" legal system needs to be accompanied by challenges and "rights of passages." He observed that schools are afraid of expelling children for fear of loosing funding. He asserted that restitution is no substitute for prevention. He maintained that a 12-year-old child knows the difference from right and wrong. He referred to a Yale study by Gazelle. He stated that the study showed that young children know different degrees of right and wrong. He maintained that parents should have their names published if there is negligence or if they do not attempt to regulate the child's activities or get help from the authorities. Mr. Kirk stressed that peer pressure is not an excuse. ROBIN LOWN, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (APOA) testified in support of the legislation. He noted that the Association encompasses all aspects of law enforcement. He stated that APOA supports HB 6. He stated that it is necessary and advisable to disclose the names of violent juvenile offenders and offenders who do not comply with their sentences. He observed that adult criminal records are not readily available. Adult records are obtained at the court where the person was convicted. Adult records are available to law enforcement officers. All 9 adult convictions go into the state system. He noted that police do not have access to juvenile records. In response to a earlier comments regarding burglary, Mr. Lown pointed out that less serious crimes can be plea or charge bargained down to something less than a burglary. He stated that there is no check and balance on the Division of Family and Youth Services in regards to what happens to offenders. He inferred that public input is restricted by the secrecy of the proceedings. He questioned if the current juvenile system works well. He asked if juvenile crime is being reduced. He stated that DFYS is not succeeding. ANGELA SALERNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS ALASKA CHAPTER observed that the juvenile population in the State of Alaska has risen 40 percent between 1980 and 1990. She stressed that there is more juvenile crime because there are more juveniles. She maintained that HB 6 radically changes the juvenile code. She stated that the Juvenile Court is the result of reforms and not an experiment. She stated that HB 6 will be a dramatic departure from what has been a reform. The Juvenile Court was intended to resemble a civil not a criminal court. The juvenile system places an emphasis on the youthful offender's eventual reintegration and return to society. Ms. Salerno stressed that the cost of the measure is high. She questioned what the State of Alaska will get for $1 million dollars. She maintained that research done at the University of Florida has shown that popular "get tough" measures fail in dealing with juvenile crime. She referred to a study that appeared in the April 1996 issue of the Journal of Crime and Delinquency. The study found that youths tried as adults commit new crimes at a higher rate than their counterparts who stay in juvenile courts. This finding is significant to the debate on HB 6 because releasing the names of juvenile offenders treats them as de facto adults. She maintained that those youths are reoffending more quickly and more violently. She stated that there is a misperception that nothing happens to juveniles who commit crimes. The confidentiality of juvenile cases, combined with the emphasis on rehabilitation, may lead to the impression that there are no sanctions, punishment or measures to hold the juvenile responsible are now in place. People who deal with juvenile offenders, the courts and probation officers, have a number of choices or dispositions; waiver to adult courts for the most serious offenses, adjudication and probation; or in more severe cases, institutionalization in long-term detention and treatment facilities, informal adjustments, and probations. She maintained that minor offenses are 10 often not treated because of a lack of funding. She observed that the juvenile system works much like the adult system. Ms. Salerno maintained that releasing the names of juvenile offenders and their parents will not deter the youth from future crime. Youths engaged in ongoing criminal activity may see disclosure as a "badge of honor." More impressionable youth may internalize the label, compromising efforts at rehabilitation. She expressed concern that children will act out their labels. She stated that labeling will impact their future employability as well as social standing in the community. Ms. Salerno expressed concern with disclosure at case adjustment. She emphasized that adjustment is where juveniles get help from diversion programs. She stressed that the role of treatment and diversion may be negated by disclosure. Ms. Salerno questioned how the community will help if there is disclosure. She stated that there is no link or mechanism for kids, who have their names released, to be helped by the community. She stressed that there needs to be responsible adults charged with helping youths. She maintained that the community will shun the offender. She emphasized that this will stress troubled families. Ms. Salerno observed that juvenile crime is closely associated with societal problems beyond the youth's control. She noted that juvenile crime is closely related to a number of societal problems that are beyond the juvenile's control. She identified some of the problems:" * The sheer number of young people in Alaska; * Poverty as a link to juvenile crime; * Child abuse and its link to juvenile crime; and * Failure in school and its link with juvenile crime. Nearly 25% of Alaska's ninth graders do not graduate from high school. Ms. Salerno stated that NASW supports a balanced and restorative approach to juvenile justice. Restorative justice tries to "put it back together, rather than just punishing." She urged the consideration of a variety of on going prevention and diversion programs. She stated that breaching the confidentiality of minors will not get us where we want to go. 11 Co-Chair Hanley disagreed that juvenile crime is beyond the youth's control or that labeling creates the problem. He acknowledged that there are contributing factors, but emphasized the need for accountability. He stressed that if someone commits a felony, regardless of if they are a juvenile, it is a problem. He did not think that the stigma to the individual is as great as some assert. He acknowledged that there will be some prejudice against offenders. He noted that his biggest concern is what the State receives for the money that would be spent. He did not have a problem with disclosure. Co-Chair Therriault noted that disclosure is mandatory in many states. He questioned if there is a problem in other states from disclosure. Ms. Salerno observed that disclosure has only been popular for about 5 years. Ms. Salerno stressed that NASW is supportive of consequences. She noted that NASW supports early, sure and swift consequences. She expressed concern that this is not happening due to financial constraints. She observed that social workers work in crisis. She acknowledged that there are some kids that are "too far gone." She suggested that a wide net is being cast, that is catching kids that could be rehabilitated. Representative Kelly agreed that some problems have occurred from the way the system is funded. He stated that juvenile crime and the DFYS system as it relates to juvenile crime will have to be addressed. HB 6 and HCR 4 were HELD in Committee for further consideration.