HB 351-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT  3:10:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "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 adjudication of minor delinquency and the deoxyribonucleic acid identification registration system; 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." 3:11:22 PM JUDY JESSEN, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [Included in members' packets], which read: HB 351 is a statutory cleanup bill which updates the terms used to describe the facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice 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. HB 351 also requires staff of juvenile justice to be added 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 351 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. 3:13:16 PM HB 351 also 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 351 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, these language changes do not significantly 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. 3:14:25 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the Sectional Analysis, which read [Included in members' packets] [original punctuation provided]: Section 1 AS 09.65.255(b): Deals with indemnity of civil liability for the actions of minors in state custody Adds foster home, definition reference for foster home, juvenile treatment facilities, juvenile detention facility, and treatment institution. Adds references for the definitions of juvenile treatment facility and treatment institutions Section 2 AS 11.41.425(b)(1): Deals with sexual assault in the third degree Adds staff who work in juvenile detention facilities and juvenile treatment facilities to definition of sexual assault in the third degree Section 3 AS 11.41.425(b)(2): Deals with sexual assault in the third degree Updates the definition of juvenile probation officer. 3:15:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked in what way Section 2 added to the definition of sexual assault in the third degree, and what was attempted to be accomplished. 3:15:49 PM MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services, explained that, in these sections referring to the sexual abuse of a minor and the sexual assault crimes addressed in AS 11, the terms describing the juvenile staff and facilities already existed, and these were just conforming changes. These staff were not being added and were being provided as a reference to the earlier new definition. He emphasized that, for the purposes of sexual assault in the third or fourth degree, it was a special crime for staff of a juvenile justice facility to engage in sexual behavior with kids in their care. 3:16:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 24 and asked about the changes to juvenile probation officers that necessitated these conforming changes. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the actual definition of juvenile probation officers was in Section 24, and that the existing statute, AS 47.12.270, referred to youth counselors, an earlier term for facility staff which described the work of probation officers. He added that this reference and definition had existed for decades. He pointed out that there was only a minor update for the actual work of probation officers in Section 24. 3:18:08 PM MS. JESSEN continued her paraphrase from the Sectional Analysis, which read: Section 4 AS 11.41.427(b)(2): Deals with sexual assault in the 4th degree. Updates definition of juvenile probation officer 3:18:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the new definition for the juvenile probation officer position required any additional certification, training, or credentials. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the probation officers were considered peace officers, although they were not an official part of the peace officer corps and were not sworn officers similar to adult probation officers or police officers. They did attend divisional training and they did meet the requirements to fulfill the role. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the proposed bill made any change to adult probation officers. MR. DAVIDSON replied that adult probation officers were already cited in statute, and that the proposed bill delineated between adult and juvenile probation officers in the sections that referenced probation officers, to provide clarity. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether, if juvenile probation officer was not specifically delineated, this would be a reference to adult probation officers. MR. DAVIDSON replied that this had been the attempt, although it was possible that some references had been missed. 3:20:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his belief that the definition for juvenile probation officer was specifically asking the department to title these individuals as such. MR. DAVIDSON stated that the title of juvenile probation officer was for personnel reasons and was attached to the job description in AS 47.12.270. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the substantive difference between a juvenile probation officer and a juvenile justice officer. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the two had separate job descriptions, duties, and roles within the department. There was also a pay differential, as well as a difference for experience and requirements, and educational background. He declared that these were different positions and did not replace each other in terms of the roles in the Division of Juvenile Justice. He listed some of the duties of a probation officer. 3:23:31 PM MS. JESSEN continued to paraphrase from the sectional analysis Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, and Section 11, which read: Section 5 AS 11.41.470(3): Deals with crimes by legal guardians Adds employees of juvenile treatment institutions and juvenile and adult probation officers to list of legal guardians Section 6 AS 11.41.470(5): Deals with crimes against persons committed by a person in a position of authority Adds correctional employee, juvenile facility staff, and staff members of juvenile treatment institutions as people in positions of authority Section 7 AS 11.41.470: Deals with crimes against persons committed by a person in a position of authority Adds definitions for juvenile facility staff and treatment institutions Section 8 AS 11.56.760(a): Deals with orders to submit to DNA testing Clarifies that those who have been "adjudicated delinquent" may have to submit DNA samples Section 9 AS 11.61.123(e): Deals with Indecent Viewing or Photography Adds treatment institutions and juvenile treatment facilities to list of included facilities. Provides references to definitions of those terms Section 10 AS 14.07.020(a): deals with providing public education services Includes juvenile detention facilities and juvenile treatment facilities as places where public education must be provided. Provides references to definitions of those terms Section 11 AS 14.30.186(a): Deals with providing special education Includes treatment institutions, juvenile detention facilities, or juvenile treatment facilities as places where special education must be provided. Adds references to definitions for those terms 3:25:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation to the functional effect of the expansion of the definition in Section 10, page 4, line 27 for juvenile education services. MR. DAVIDSON explained that this section related to the duties of the Department of Education and Early Development to provide education services to youth in the custody of the Division of Juvenile Justice in their facilities. He said that this was updating the references to those facilities, and it was not an expansion. He noted that all the facilities had school district operated schools and he pointed to AS 47.12 for a definition of those facilities. He stated that the intent was to update the references and ensure they were being uniformly referenced across the statute. He said that each of these conforming changes had individually been discussed with the Department of Education and Early Development. He added that there had been discussions regarding special education with the Governor's Council on Special Education and Disabilities to ensure they were "hitting our references correctly." 3:27:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for examples of juvenile treatment facilities. MR. DAVIDSON explained that, for the purposes of the bill, the definition of juvenile treatment facility was referenced in AS 47.12, and included the four Division of Juvenile Justice institutional treatment facilities: McLaughlin Youth Center in Anchorage, the Bethel Youth Facility, the Johnson Youth Center in Juneau, and the Fairbanks Youth Facility. He pointed out that previously some of the terms had not been well defined and there were not any references provided throughout the statute. 3:28:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to page 4, line 27, asked if there was a definition of detention. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice were referred to as detention homes in the earlier statute, and these terms had been deleted from statute. He stated that this proposed statute did not use this term, as it was a less specific term. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there were any detention facilities that were not included in the definition for juvenile detention facility or juvenile treatment facility. He asked if, during this transition, there was any chance for someone "to fall through the cracks." MR. DAVIDSON explained that, as the Department of Education and Early Development was required to provide education services, there was not a chance. He reported that a definition for temporary juvenile holding areas was being added, explaining that these were areas where a youth, who had committed a criminal offense and needed to be detained, was held securely while awaiting transport to a juvenile justice facility. He clarified that there was not an expectation that educational services would be provided at these facilities, as they were most often a "less than six hour hold and were waiting for the trooper to come and transport that youth... " MR. DAVIDSON, in response to Representative Eastman, explained that the Department of Education and Early Development did provide education services for youthful offenders who were held in Department of Corrections facilities, as they had been tried as adults. He pointed out that this section of the proposed bill was addressing education in coordination with the Department of Health and Social Services, and not with the Department of Corrections. 3:32:22 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15, which read: Section 12 AS 17.37.070(6): Deals with medical marijuana Includes juvenile treatment facilities as facilities operated by the state which are not required to provide medical marijuana Section 13 AS 18.20.499(2): Deals with overtime for nurses Adds "juvenile" treatment facilities and treatment institutions to describe facilities operated by Division of Juvenile Justice Section 14 AS 47.10.141(c): Deals with Runaways and Missing Minors Updates terms used to describe juvenile detention facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice and inappropriate emergency placement for minors. Section 15 AS 47.10.141(j): Deals with Runaways and Missing Minors Creates new definition for "temporary secure juvenile holding area" where delinquent minors may be kept while awaiting transportation to a juvenile detention facility or pending a court order in AS 47.10.990 REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her belief that Section 15 offered a new definition for "temporary secure holding area." 3:33:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification that Section 13 defined a juvenile treatment facility as an area in which overtime for nurses was prohibited. MR. DAVIDSON replied, "That's my understanding." REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if these were salaried state employees that would not otherwise be eligible for overtime. MR. DAVIDSON replied that some of the salaried staff were overtime eligible. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referenced AS 18.24.400, listing facilities which, under this amendment, would include juvenile treatment facilities and that "a nurse in a health care facility may not be required or coerced to work overtime." 3:34:49 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, and Section 19, which read: Section 16 AS 47.10.990(20): Deals with Runaways and Missing Minors Updates the definition used to describe facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile justice for the temporary secure detention of minors. Section 17 AS 47.12.025(c): Arrest procedure for juveniles Clarifies that the described duties apply to juvenile probation officers, not adult probation officer. Updates language used to describe juvenile facilities and other areas where delinquent minor may be held. Section 18 AS 47.12.120(b): Deals with the placement of minors who have an adjudication order under AS 47.12.120(b)(1) Updates terms of facilities where minors can be placed Section 19 AS 47.12.120: Deals with DNA submission for minors Adds a new subsection to clarify that minors 16 or older may be ordered to submit a DNA sample if adjudicated for certain crimes 3:35:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if "16 or older" [in Section 19] was new language, and if so, why was this being added. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the underlying statute requiring DNA submission for adjudicated delinquents 16 years of age or older already existed in AS 44, and this referred to the delinquency statute to bring "that all together." REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there was a category of crimes committed by a juvenile that was not already considered a crime committed by an adult. MR. DAVIDSON explained that this was "kind of a term of art we use which is the youth that are referred to the division commit delinquent acts that would have been a crime if they were an adult, but they are delinquents rather than criminals." He stated that the crimes requiring DNA samples were crimes of a sexual nature. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the penalty for a 16-year-old not submitting to a DNA test. MR. DAVIDSON replied that this was a misdemeanor, as it was part of an adjudication order and the court sentence, and he would research the exact crime. 3:38:32 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 20 and Section 21, which read: Section 20 AS 47.12.240(a): Deals with placement of minors after court commits them and before they are convicted Makes conforming and clarifying amendments to the conditions under which a minor may be held in a facility housing adult prisoners and the language used to describe facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice Section 21 AS 47.12.240(b): Deals with temporary holding of minors while awaiting transport Updates language used to describe conditions under which a minor may be held in a facility housing adult prisoners and the language used to describe facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice REPRESENTATIVE TARR addressed an amendment [Included in members' packets] which would amend Section 21. 3:39:58 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from Section 22 and Section 23, which read: Section 22 AS 47.12.245(b): Deals with parole officers arresting minors Clarifies that the authority to arrest a minor rests with juvenile, not adult, probation officers. Section 23 AS 47.12.250(a): Deals with temporary detention/ detention hearings Clarifies that the authority to detain a minor rests with "juvenile," not adult, probations offices. Adds "temporary secure juvenile holding areas" to the list of approved placed to hold juveniles 3:40:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared testimony from another committee which reported that a Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) must restrain a person after an arrest. He asked if the VPSO could secure a juvenile in a place not described as a secure juvenile holding area, such as the VPSOs home or office, and, if so, would this practice come into conflict with Section 23. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the temporary juvenile holding area was in compliance with the federal Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention Act. He reported that the Division of Juvenile Justice had agreements with dozens of these temporary areas and these were monitored and inspected every third year. He acknowledged that, upon occasion, it was necessary to restrain adults and juveniles in areas that were not part of the definition. 3:42:07 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 24, which read: Section 24 AS 47.12.270: Deals with juvenile probation officers Updates the title and duties of juvenile probation officers. 3:42:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked in which situations the juvenile probation officer would need to exercise the powers of a peace officer with respect to the service of process. MR. DAVIDSON replied that he was not sure of the role for a peace officer, although they did have the ability to arrest minors if they had failed to meet conditions of conduct imposed by the court. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to [page 14] line 19 and asked whether the addition for "service of process" had been "copied over from another pre-existing statute" or was it now a power of a peace officer being given to a juvenile probation officer. MR. DAVIDSON deferred to the experts within the division for a more thorough answer to the powers and the intent. He offered his belief that it was being held over from the section which was being repealed and re-enacted. 3:44:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 13 [line 25] which specified that a juvenile probation officer may arrest a minor under certain conditions, and he asked if an adult probation officer could arrest a juvenile under these conditions. MR. DAVIDSON opined that, for the purpose of the delinquency statute, this was being specific to the roles of juvenile probation officers. He pointed to the citizen arrest provision, which allowed that any peace officer or citizen witnessing a crime had that power. He noted that this was in a different statute and was not being addressed here. He reported that these sections in AS 47.12 referred to the powers of the juvenile probation officers employed by the Division of Juvenile Justice and was not intended to preclude other powers. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that he wanted to make sure that something necessary was not being excluded during this clarification process. He asked if an adult probation officer could only have the authority to arrest a juvenile under the citizen arrest basis. He declared that the proposed bill specified that only a juvenile probation officer could make the arrest. MR. DAVIDSON opined that, as it was generally outside the role of an adult probation officer to monitor the conditions under which a juvenile had been released from the Division of Juvenile Justice, they would not be privy to the information necessary to conduct an arrest. 3:47:29 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 25, which read: Section 25 AS 47.12.310(d): Deals with notifying victims of crimes Clarifies that the department has a duty to notify victims when a minor is released from any court ordered placement under AS 47.12.120(b)(1) REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if this expanded or maintained the status quo. MR. DAVIDSON replied that this was an expansion of the notification as youth were placed in secured places in other non-Division of Juvenile Justice on rare occasions. 3:48:26 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 26, Section 27, Section 28, Section 29, Section 30, and Section 31, which read: Section 26 AS 47.12.315(c): Public disclosure of information in department records relating to certain minors Corrects language authorizing the department to disclose confidential information related to the offense when a minor has received an adjudication, rather than the offense the minor "alleged to have committed." Section 27 AS 47.12.990(7): Deals with definitions and institutions Amends the definition of juvenile detention facility Section 28 AS 47.12.990(12): Deals with definitions and institutions Amends the definition of minor Section 29 AS 47.12.990: Deals with definitions of institutions Creates new definitions for juvenile probation officer, juvenile treatment facility, residential child care facility, temporary secure juvenile holding area Section 30 AS 47.14.010: Deals with the powers of DHSS over DJJ Updates language to describe juvenile facilities operated by the department Section 31 As 47.14.020: Deals with the duties of the department related to the custody of minors Updates the language used to describe juvenile facilities operated by the department REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if [Sections 30 and 31] just addressed deletion of the homes and the juvenile work camps, and updated the language. MS. JESSEN expressed her agreement. 3:49:55 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 32, which read: Section 32 AS 47.14.040: Deals with the authority to maintain and operate facilities Updates the language used to describe places the department can operate juvenile facilities to reflect the diversity of Alaskan communities and entities, such as the need for airports that operate "temporary secure juvenile holding areas." REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if this was an appropriate place to insert a provision for the unorthodox restraining techniques which were occasionally used. MR. DAVIDSON asked about the unauthorized restraint techniques. He said that he was not aware that this was an issue in statute. He offered his belief that the addition of this definition served to define these areas as having a duty to provide sight and sound separation and move them on in six hours or less. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that, as this was the vehicle for a lot of changes, he would ask the people in the Department of Public Safety. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 26, page 15, and asked if there was now anything in the provision to limit the type of information available to a parent or guardian. MR. DAVIDSON stated that the disclosure statutes were very robust and included someone with a legitimate interest in receiving the information. He said that this section amended a bill passed in 2012, as it was an "alignment issue" for "alleged to have" to now become "adjudicated delinquent." 3:53:18 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 33, Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, and Section 37, which read: Section 33 AS 47.14.050(a): Deals with the operation of homes and facilities Repealed and reenacted to update the language used to describe juvenile facilities Section 34 AS 47.14.050(b): Deals with the operation of homes and facilities Updates language to reflect the diversity of Alaska communities that may be authorized to operate juvenile detention facilities Section 35 AS 47.14.990(7): Social Services and Institutions Definitions Updates the definition of juvenile detention facilities Section 36 AS 47.14.990(14): Deals with Social Services Institutions and Definitions Updates the definition of minor Section 37 AS 47.14.990: Deals with Social Services Institutions and Definitions Adds new definitions for juvenile probation officer, juvenile treatment facility, and temporary secure juvenile holding area 3:54:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 34 of the proposed bill [page 18, line 2], and asked if this prohibited the department from entering into a contract with a tribal organization. MR. DAVIDSON explained that the intent was to update the term "cities," which was not inclusive of the types of communities in Alaska that may want to seek a contract with the department. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the department was opposed to adding language to permit tribal organizations alongside municipalities. MR. DAVIDSON directed attention to page 17, line 21 of the proposed bill, and explained that the intention was to include the range of organizations. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the language limited this. MR. DAVIDSON replied that it would be an unintended limitation. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that many non-profits associated with Native Corporations had contracted to provide VPSO services, although he was unsure if these would qualify. He stated that he did not know if a tribe would be considered a non-profit and asked if it would be appropriate to expand this section to include tribal authorities. 3:57:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KITO pointed out that the regional non-profit corporations were distinct entities and were not affiliated with the regional for-profit corporations, even though they may share some regional boundaries. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the tribal entities operated under non-profit corporation status. REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated that there were tribes which were established as non-profit organizations, although he was unsure whether this was universal. 3:58:04 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 38 and Section 39, which read: Section 38 AS 47.14.020(a): Deals with mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect Adds juvenile probation officer, office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of mandatory reporters Section 39 AS 47.28.15.176: Repealers Repeals revocation of juvenile driver licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled informally by the division. Repeals definitions for the terms "juvenile detention home" and "juvenile work camp" and "treatment facility" REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to Section 38 and asked if the practical impact of the change to the mandatory reporter status might mean to juvenile correctional facilities. MR. DAVIDSON replied that this impact had been considered, and, by policy, the staff were mandatory reporters. They did receive admissions about abuse and neglect from the youth and they did make those reports. This change would recognize the duties and important role played by the staff. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if it was good policy for every person speaking with the juveniles to be a mandatory reporter. MR. DAVIDSON replied that facility staff and probation officers often had strong relationships with the youth, built upon trust and sharing. He said that the youth in the treatment facilities were required to assess their criminal offenses and the factors leading up to these offenses. He stated that, although these assessments could include abuse and neglect, every time they were brought up did not necessitate a new report. He allowed that with those youth "further deeper in the system" who "have been adjudicated delinquent and are working through their process," there was a different relationship and these admissions and discussions were much more confidential. 4:01:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether, as some youth were notorious for making false reports, this provision which removed the staff discretion necessitated the reporting as legitimate. MS. JESSEN said that, as many of the juvenile probation officers had professional certifications which carried an ethical requirement to report these types of infractions, the real amount of discretion was very limited. She pointed out that every report would go through an investigation process and there was not an automatic condemnation of the person receiving the allegation. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that there was a consequence for having to go through an investigation, and sometimes multiple investigations. MS. JESSEN, in response to Representative Eastman, declared that all staff as mandated reporters would be obligated to report every allegation. MR. DAVIDSON pointed out that the staff, by policy, were mandatory reporters, although the relationships with youth allowed for modulation of those known to be multiple reporters. He pointed out that once something was reported, they did not keep reporting it. He reported that the Office of Children's Services was the arbitrator of the investigations. He reiterated that the proposed bill did not change the discretion currently allowed by staff. 4:05:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that, although there were more than 15,000 reports of harm each year, only a few thousand were screened in for an actual investigation, others were screened out, and false reporting takes place. 4:06:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there was an obligation for a mandatory reporter to report suspected child abuse inflicted by the minor in custody. MR. DAVIDSON said "yes." 4:05:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 19, line 9 of the proposed bill, and asked whether someone was no longer a mandatory reporter if they volunteered for less than four hours each week. REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that this was the minimum to be a mandatory reporter. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER mused that this did not apply to juvenile corrections or treatment. 4:07:27 PM MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 40, Section 41, and Section 42, which read: Section 40 AS 11.41.425(b)(1) Applicability section Applies to sections of the bill related to criminal offenses Section 41 Authorizes the department to adopt regulations to implement the changes of the legislation Section 42 Effective date for regulations. Immediately, allows DJJ to begin making changes 4:07:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced the questions on the proposed bill for follow up, which included a question about the temporary, secure juvenile holding area, the inclusion of tribal entities, and some additional questions regarding Section 34 of the proposed bill. MS. JESSEN acknowledged these questions and stated that she would have the answers as soon as the next committee meeting. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Jessen if there was anything else that should be addressed. MS. JESSEN offered her belief that the regulations should be regularly reviewed and updated with the current best practices. MR. DAVIDSON added that, as bills which addressed juvenile justice and delinquency were rare, this was an opportunity to fix several "tweaks" which had been pending for many years. 4:10:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that HB 351 would be held over.