HOUSE BILL NO. 182 "An Act relating to testing of sexual assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date." 3:28:40 PM Co-Chair Johnston asked the bill sponsor to begin her presentation. She relayed the names of the testifiers available online. 3:29:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, BILL SPONSOR, began with slide 2 of the PowerPoint Presentation, "House Bill 182." She provided some context for the incarnation of the bill. She indicated that in 2014 she had received something from the Joyful Heart Foundation, an organization founded by Mariska Hargitay, the actress from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. During Ms. Hargitays time as an actress on the show, she received several letters from individuals who were survivors of sexual assault. The actress wanted to be helpful. She started the effort with the Joyful Heart Foundation specifically focused on ending the backlog campaign. As a result, the representative was inspired to begin work on HB 182. Representative Tarr explained that there were six pillars embodied by the Joyful Heart Foundation. She wanted to show what she had accomplished to-date, as it was something that everyone could feel good about. She was trying to facilitate a lasting systemic change. The six pillars included an annual statewide inventory, mandatory testing of backlog kits, mandatory testing of new kits, a statewide tracking system, a victims right to notice, and funding for reform. She posed the question about where Alaska was in the process. Representative Tarr continued to slide 3 to discuss the states current status. She conveyed that she first started working on the project in 2014 with the statewide audit which was required by the U.S. Department of Justice in order to receive federal funding towards the effort. The statewide audit was how the state learned that there were approximately 3,400 untested rape kits in the State of Alaska. The early work also led to the audit of the crime lab where other deficiencies were discovered. The state had been able to improve the process outside of legislation. She believed people would feel very positive about the happenings at the crime lab which Mr. Kanaris, the chief of the forensics laboratory in Anchorage, would report on. Representative Tarr detailed that some of the changes that were made working with the crime lab included making sure that each rape kit had a unique identifier to ensure a chain of custody. Previously, all of the kits were prepared in Anchorage and sent out to more than 200 law enforcement agencies across the state, but with no unique identifiers. It was impossible to tell whether a kit was used or unused sitting on a shelf once it left Anchorage. The issue was problematic; hence, a tracking system was established. Representative Tarr reviewed some of the other legislation that the state passed. The state supplied funding for the mandatory testing of the backlog kits as well as established the policy of storing all of the kits at the crime lab in Anchorage. The funding also paid for the installation of high capacity shelving. With the passage of HB 49 [Legislation passed in 2019 Short Title: Crimes; Sentencing; Drugs; Theft; Reports] all new kits were required to be tested within 1 year and, the statewide tracking system was put into place. The bill also established a victims right to notice. Representative Tarr indicated that the Joyful Heart Foundation wanted to see a website established for individuals to be able to follow the progress of their kits using a unique identifier. The states current protocol was that all kits would be sent to the crime lab within 30 days, tested within 1 year, and individuals would be notified within 2 weeks of their kits being tested. Eventually, she hoped the state could implement a more sophisticated tracking system in which individuals could track the progress of their own kits. She explained that it was important for a victim to be able to track their own kit because an individual was re-traumatized every time they had to retell their story. Having to call an authority to obtain information could be traumatizing, as they would likely have to retell their story over-and-over again. She thought the victim notification piece was a helpful step in limiting the re-traumatization of victims. Representative Tarr continued that currently, shortening the timeline was the next right step and the reason for HB 182. She had worked with Mr. Kanaris reviewing the best-case scenario in terms of turnaround time for the processing of rape kits. Mr. Kanaris had indicated 60 days was the most reasonable timeline. He had done some research about what other states were doing which provided the reason behind 60 days as an attainable goal. However, presently the most achievable goal was 6 months. 3:35:33 PM Representative Tarr moved to slide 4 to discuss the timing of the testing. The legislation was specifically to shorten the time of the testing once kits were collected. Mr. Mosley was allowed to be on the streets prior to his arrest. The article referenced in the slide indicated that he was allowed to be on the streets prior to his arrest. The delay in testing his rape kit allowed a fourth woman to be raped. Representative Tarr continued to slide 5 which she read: "The effect on the victims cannot be overstated. Some of these women waited years to find out who their assailant was. [One woman] moved back to her hometown out of fear and shame. One of these women, after years of suffering from infertility despite her best efforts with her partner, became pregnant as a result of the rape. The cruel irony of carrying the child of her rapist after years of trying to have a child with her partner had a significant impact on her. For each of these women, they re-live the trauma of the rape and recently endured having to tell a grand jury what happened to them." Representative Tarr relayed that the state might have prevented some of these things from happening had it done things in a timelier fashion. She reemphasized why timing was so important. She had heard too many awful stories and believed the state could do better. 3:37:09 PM Representative Tarr continued to slide 6. She relayed that the 6-month mark was the focus of the bill. She indicated certain resources were necessary and were reflected in the fiscal note. She reported that even if funding was made available on July 1, 2020, it would take a number of months to find the right staff, as the positions were very technical. She also reported that because there had been a national effort regarding the issue, there was a large demand for qualifying professionals. She relayed that specialized training was required for a person to be able to process the kits. She listed off several of them. Representative Tarr indicated that the fiscal note reflected the challenges of the timeline and the effective date. It would take some time for the lab to get properly staffed, train personnel, and be compliant with the law should the legislature pass the bill. She noted that when she had discussed with Mr. Kanaris whether the state could get to 60 days in the first step, he thought that it was possible to get to 6 months if the resources were provided in the legislation. Once everyone was fully trained and the backlog was caught up, the lab would not need additional resources to reach the 60-day mark. All processing would improve with building capacity among staff. She reiterated that the 2020 goal was to reach the 6-month mark and to continue working with the crime lab to reach the 60-day mark. She commended Mr. Kanaris for all of his work at the crime lab and for the work he had done in researching what other states were doing. He could speak to the return on investment and investing in the type of work related to HB 182. 3:40:33 PM Representative Tarr played the movie trailer to a video entitled, "I Am Evidence." [The committee watched the video] Co-Chair Johnston invited Mr. Kanaris to comment. 3:42:37 PM DAVID KANARIS, CHIEF, FORENSIC LABORATORIES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), mentioned that the positions the lab was requesting would move the Department of Public Safety in the right direction in terms of processing the 9-month backlog of sexual assault kits. There were several national studies about the benefits of testing the backlog kits. A paper was published in 2019 entitled, The Jurisdiction of Return on Investment from Processing the Backlog of Untested Sexual Assault Kits. The paper looked at all of the different factors and benefits of processing kits. The benefits included providing resolution for survivors, preventing repeated assaults from serial rapists, and preventing societal costs external to the people directly victimized. He reported an estimated 9,000 percent to 64,000 percent return on investment for each sexual assault test processed. The disparity in the numbers depended on the number of kits being processed. Mr. Kanaris continued that the cost of processing per kit in a large testing facility which processed several thousands of kits per year was much less than in a smaller facility. Alaska was on the low end of the spectrum and would likely see a return on investment of 8,000 percent to 10,000 percent. Currently, the cost of testing in Alaska was about $1500 per kit. The national average was between $1400 and $1600 per kit. He reported a large uptick in submission of kits to the lab. In 2012, there were 303 DNA submissions to the lab across all case types, not just sexual assault cases. In the previous year, 651 kits were submitted to the lab. In the current year, the lab anticipated receiving over 800 cases, 60 percent of which would be sexual assault tests over 500 sexual assault cases. He reported an increase of 34 percent in violent crime rates in Alaska between 2013 to 2017. There was also increased national attention on the sexual assault backlog which had moved to the forefront of policy reforms. There was also the issue that DNA had become a forensic panacea resulting in more agencies submitting more items and evidence for testing. The department was asking for funding for 2 positions to get the lab to the 6-month mark. Co-Chair Johnston asked Representative Tarr to present the sectional Analysis. 3:46:45 PM KARLA MS. HART, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, relayed that in Section 1 the timeline was changed from one year to six months. In Section 2 the effective date was changed to 2021. 3:47:12 PM Representative Josephson thought Representative Tarr's work on the bill had been heroic. He offered that she could count on his support of the bill. He asked if the reason why the lab thought it could reach the 6-month mark was that it would outsource testing until the 2 positions could be hired. He asked the sponsor if she was comfortable with the language in the bill, The agency shall ensure. Representative Tarr responded that it was true that outsourcing would be necessary to meet the 6-month timeline. Concurrently, the lab would be staffing the positions and rotating in the new employees. 3:48:17 PM Representative Josephson relayed that, in his time as a state prosecutor, a sexual assault would not typically come to disposition in a 6-month window. With expedited testing, a persons nature of defense would likely become obvious sooner and would be the reason for a significant return on investment. Representative Tarr asserted that the law would help to better understand who was involved in sexual assault crimes and what to focus on in terms of prevention work. 3:49:34 PM Representative Wool thanked Representative Tarr for her presentation. He was looking at the backlog number in 2017 of 3,484 and in 2019 of 1,696. He clarified that the test kits had been outsourced for processing to reduce the backlog. He queried about incoming kits and the ability to keep up with processing. Representative Tarr responded the that backlog was all of the untested kits when she started her effort in 2015 beginning with the audit. The kits had been cataloged, prioritized, and sent out in batches. The funding that was placed in the capital budget a couple of years prior was being used to cover the backlog. The bill was addressing the new incoming kits and the timeline for processing them. There would be a period in which the staff would be trained, and the kits would continue to be processed by a third party. Representative Merrick asked if the results of the kits were entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) or a similar database. Representative Tarr responded affirmatively. She deferred to Mr. Kanaris to provide further detail. Representative Merrick asked Mr. Kanaris to provide information regarding genealogical testing and furthering a particular investigation. Mr. Kanaris responded that everyone that was eligible would be entered into CODIS. He reported that CODIS was strictly governed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). There were certain eligibility requirements for which samples could be entered. In order to be eligible a crime had to have been committed. The lab worked with law enforcement agencies to make sure each sample was eligible. If a sample was eligible, it would be entered into CODIS. In terms of genetics, it was not something that the state dealt with directly, as the cases were very labor intensive. Genealogical testing required a certain skill set that the State of Alaska did not currently have. The law enforcement agency submitted samples to Alaskas lab. If a test did not generate a hit against a profile in CODIS, law enforcement would make a decision in concert with the lab about genealogical testing. The lab could provide technical expertise in explaining what steps would need to be taken. However, such work was not currently being done in the crime lab. Representative Merrick thanked Mr. Kanaris for all of the great work he was doing at the crime lab. Co-Chair Johnston set the bill aside. She reviewed the agenda for the following morning. Amendments for HB 182 were due Wednesday, March 4th at 12:00 p.m. HB 182 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.