HB 133-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT  2:25:53 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "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 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." 2:27:00 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:29 p.m. 2:29:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 133. She stated that she was introducing HB 133 at the request of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) [within the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)]. She said the bill had been heard as House Bill 351 in the previous legislature. She pointed out that the three main purposes of HB 133 were to: close loopholes relating to the sexual abuse of a minor and sexual assault in the third degree, update terminology that defines and references DJJ facilities and staff, and codify in law some of the best practices the DJJ has undertaken in the past couple of decades. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that she thinks the most important aspect of the bill is that it would close loopholes relating to sexual abuse and sexual assault of a minor. She explained that this issue came to light in 2003 [during the Carey case] when a DJJ staff member had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor, in a DJJ facility, and was unable to be convicted due to loopholes in the law. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that there is some outdated terminology used to describe DJJ facilities, and HB 133 would update the statutes to accurately reflect the authorities and responsibilities of the DJJ. She explained that HB 133 would not substantially modify the way the DJJ operates, but the bill would work to improve the DJJ's ability to complete its mission. She stated that the majority of HB 133 would update language in Alaska's statutes, which describes facilities operated by the DJJ that is inaccurate, outdated, and obsolete. She explained that this language is used several times throughout the bill, which is one of the reasons it is so lengthy. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that in addition to updating definitions, HB 133 would make some policy clarifications which were raised due to issues that appeared over time and reflect the standard operations of the DJJ. She said that HB 133 would add DJJ staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect and would clarify that DJJ probation officers have the authority to file amended petitions in court. She stated that HB 133 would add secure residential psychiatric treatment facilities to the list of facilities for released juveniles. She said that the bill would correct language authorizing the DJJ to disclose confidential information related to the offence, when a minor has received an adjudication, rather than the offence a minor was alleged to have committed. She summarized that HB 133 would improve the DJJ's ability to complete its mission, by codifying best practices, ensuring juveniles are safe and secure when they're in the DJJ's custody, and closing loopholes relating to sexual abuse of minors supervised by the DJJ. 2:33:06 PM MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 133 on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime sponsor. She offered a PowerPoint presentation titled, HB 133: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-up Bill [hard copy included in the committee packet]. 2:33:47 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation, said that HB 133 closes two loopholes regarding sexual assault in the third degree, as well as sexual abuse of a minor relating to the DJJ staff. She pointed out that these two changes can be found in section three and Section 6 of HB 133. Section 3 repeals the outdated definition of juvenile probation officer which, under current state statute, limits them to a person assigned to supervise another person of 18 or 19 years of age; this definition is outdated because the DJJ regularly oversees people ranging from 16 to 20 years old. She stated that the individual in the Carey case was 17 years old, which allowed the DJJ staff member to be acquitted of the charge. She explained that Section 6 of HB 133 closes the loophole related to sexual abuse of minors, which is accomplished by clarifying that the DJJ staff are in a position of authority over minors in their custody. She expressed that even though common sense might dictate that the DJJ staff are in a position of authority, the lack of clarification in statute allowed for the acquittal of the abuser in the Carey case. She expressed that Section 6 contains a statute that was written 30 years ago, which is a great example for why the statute needs to be updated. 2:35:34 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 3, pointed out a comprehensive list of the definitions that would be repealed, amended, and put into place by HB 133. She said some of the definitions were 30 to 50 years old, and HB 133 would update them to reflect the many changes to the DJJ over that time period. 2:36:08 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 4, pointed out the terms that would be repealed by HB 133. She said that Section 24 would repeal the position of youth counselor, which has not been a part of the DJJ since 2003. She explained that the duties currently described for a youth counselor are those of a probation officer, which is not a DJJ position. She stated that Section 3 of HB 133 repeals the inaccurate definition of juvenile probation officer, as mentioned previously. She said that multiple sections of HB 133 would repeal the terms juvenile detention home, youth detention facility, correctional school, and juvenile work camp. She explained that these terms are either antiquated or don't accurately describe the facilities that the DJJ currently operates. As an example, she said that Alaska has never had a juvenile work camp and the DJJ does not currently operate a correctional school; HB 133 would replace those terms with "juvenile detention facility" and "juvenile treatment facility" to more accurately reflect the facilities the DJJ operates. 2:37:40 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide [5], she pointed out the definitions that would be amended by HB 133. Section 28 would amend the definition of minor to include a person who was under the age of 18 at the time he/she committed an offense and continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the DJJ. She explained that this would not affect the definition of minor in other statutes; it would just clarify that after a convicted minor turns 18, he/she will continue to be treated as a minor for his/her crime, and not as an adult. Ms. Holland said HB 133 also amends the definition of the term juvenile detention facility, broadening it to be a secure facility for the detention of minors. She explained that the current definition in statute for this term limits it to separate quarters within a city jail, which does not accurately reflect the facilities the DJJ currently operates; some communities don't have a city jail that meets the standards for separation of sight and sound from adults. 2:38:58 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 6, pointed out the new definitions that would be presented by HB 133. Section 29 would present the definition for juvenile treatment facilities. She said this was recommended by the DJJ to more accurately reflect some of the facilities that it operates. Current terminology in statute refers to juvenile treatment institutions; however, there is a difference between a treatment institution and a treatment facility. Section 29 also presents the definition for a temporary secure juvenile holding area. She said that the DJJ currently oversees over 30 temporary secure holding areas across Alaska, and it partners with local law enforcement officials to provide training and compliance for temporary holding areas before juveniles can be moved to a secure detention area. Section 24 would replace the definition for youth counselors with an updated definition for juvenile probation officers, which does not limit them to overseeing individuals of 18 and 19 years old, accurately reflects the positions, provides them with the powers and authorities of probation officers, and describes their duties. 2:40:39 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 7, pointed out the policy updates of the DJJ to codify its best practices and resolve issues that have arisen over time. She said that Section 5 of HB 133 would clarify that employees of juvenile treatment institutions and juvenile and adult probations officers qualify as legal guardians. She stated that Section 8 would clarify that secure juvenile treatment facilities are being added to the list of facilities excluded from compliance related to the definition of "private exposure," which is where an individual exposes his/her body under circumstances in which he/she would reasonably believe he/she would not be viewed or photographed. She explained that prisons and psychiatric institutions are also on the list of facilities excluded from compliance related to the definition of "private exposure". She stated that Section 9 would include the DJJ in the list of places where public education must be provided. Sections 16 and 17 of HB 133 would clarify that juvenile probation officers have the authority to file amendments and supplemental petitions; there have been instances in the past where it has been argued in court that the DJJ does not have this authority. Sections 22 and 23 of HB 133 would clarify that the authority to arrest and detain a minor rest with juvenile, not adult, probation officers. 2:42:43 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 8, stated that Section 25 of HB 133 would add secure residential psychiatric treatment centers to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is released, the victim(s) will receive notification. Section 26 would correct language authorizing the DJJ to disclose confidential information related to an adjudicated offense, rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed. She said that Section 38 would add juvenile probation officers, the DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. She explained that this is already a common practice of the DJJ; it regularly reports to the Office of Children's Services (OCS), and all DJJ staff are trained on detecting child abuse and neglect. She explained that in 2016 Senate Bill 165 repealed the revocation of juvenile driver's licenses for offenses involving controlled substances that were non-driving related. As an example, she offered her understanding that before Senate Bill 165, a 14-year-old could be convicted with possession of marijuana and lose the privilege to have a driver's license for the rest of his/her life. She stated that Senate Bill 165 did not repeal the revocation of juvenile driver's licenses in cases that were handled informally by the DJJ, in which there was no proven guilt, thus creating an issue of unequal protection under the law. 2:45:21 PM MS. HOLLAND, referencing slide 9, summarized the goals of HB 133. She reiterated that HB 133 would close existing loopholes regarding sexual assault in the third degree and sexual abuse of a minor, update terms and definitions pertaining to the DJJ facilities and staff, and codify the DJJ's best practices to improve it's ability to complete its mission. 2:46:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the topic of the permanent revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles convicted of possession of an illegal substance. 2:46:49 PM MS. HOLLAND answered that it was in relation to non-driving possession offenses. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on whether the repeal of the revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles was only for convictions that were handled through the courts. She also asked whether the revocations that were still being issued were handled through the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). 2:47:36 PM MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services, replied that historically driver's license revocation was defined in two sections of statute: the DMV statute and DJJ statute. He clarified that the revocations that occurred for juvenile offenses were temporary; there were no lifetime revocations as previously stated by Ms. Holland. He explained that Senate Bill 165, which was passed in 2016, removed a crime called "habitual minor offending," which revoked driver's licenses for juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent for habitual minor offenses. He said that this was a very small number of juveniles. Responding to a follow-up question from Representative LeDoux, he clarified that these revocations were not permanent and usually lasted six months to a year during the convicted juveniles' probation. MR. DAVIDSON said that Senate Bill 165 also repealed the revocation of driver's licenses for juveniles who were adjudicated for substance abuse and possession of illegal substances unrelated to driving. He explained that what was mistakenly left in statute, which HB 133 would fix, is the revocation of driver's licenses for youth whose substance abuse cases were handled "informally." These were cases that never went to court; the youths were cited by the police and referred to the DJJ, and the statute still states juveniles' driver's licenses should be revoked, even for charges unrelated to driving. 2:49:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the DJJ was supposed to seek revocations through the DMV, and whether the DJJ did seek those revocations. MR. DAVIDSON answered yes, the DJJ has revoked juveniles' driver's licenses for possession and habitual minor consumption offenses. He said that since the passage of Senate Bill 165 in 2016, when the issue was identified, the DJJ has tried to avoid seeking revocation because of the question of unequal protections. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that what she meant to ask was whether the DJJ revoked licenses after the changes of Senate Bill 165. 2:50:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the informal system requires a plea agreement and whether - if the convicted minor protests the conviction - the DJJ still has the power to revoke his/her driver's license. 2:51:04 PM MR. DAVIDSON replied that the juvenile system is different from the adult system. He explained that the DJJ tries to reach out to youths in order to meet them where they are and assess the nature of their substance abuse issues. He stated that it was decided that revocation of a driver's license, for an offense that was unrelated to driving, was not an appropriate consequence and was an unnecessary burden. He explained that the DJJ has many ways to work with convicted minors and their families and help to set them on the right track; the revocation of driver's licenses was not a method the DJJ probation staff found to be effective or appropriate for offenses unrelated to driving. He stated that offenses related to driving are not handled by the DJJ; they are handled by the district courts. 2:52:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that what he would like an answer for is whether it is required, in cases that are not going through the court process, for a minor to consent to the revocation of his/her driver's license. MR. DAVIDSON replied that Tracy Dompeling, Director of the DJJ, was a former probation officer, who is probably in a better position to answer the question. 2:53:22 PM TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services, explained that the DJJ receives all the referrals from law enforcement for allegations of criminal offenses that are committed by juveniles. She clarified that the DJJ does not receive referrals for offenses related to status, alcohol, driving, and other similar offenses; it only receives referrals for criminal offenses. She said that the DJJ's position is that low-level offenders are best treated outside of the formal judicial system. The DJJ has the authority to work with youth and parents to informally adjust cases, with various levels of intervention, with the intent of preventing repeat offenses. She said the DJJ has an "intake interview" process involving a probation officer and the youth and his/her parents. She explained that if the youth is adamant that he/she did not commit an offense, the DJJ cannot impose any type of sanction, consequence, or requirement on the youth or his/her family. At this point, the DJJ can choose to either dismiss the charge, due to the lack of an ability to move forward with the case, or, if the DJJ strongly feels there is a case to be made, the youth will be appointed an attorney and the case will be taken to the courts to determine guilt or innocence. 2:54:49 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 133. After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 2:56:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, knowing now that the driver's license revocations are not permanent, how long they are being revoked. 2:56:28 PM MS. DOMPELING reiterated what Mr. Davidson had stated before, and said the licenses are revoked for approximately six months. This process required the DJJ to send the paperwork to the DMV, which would either revoke the youth's current license or have an impact on the youth's ability to obtain a license in the future. She explained that Senate Bill 165 repealed the revocation of a youth's driver's license, when he/she was formally adjudicated delinquent through a court. She reiterated the point on inequality that Mr. Davidson had made previously and said that the DJJ recognizes it is not in compliance with the statute involving revocation of driver's licenses in informal cases; however, the DJJ understands it is not appropriate to revoke a license in an informal case, when a youth adjudicated through the courts is not subject to the same consequence. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the consequences are for youths who are adjudicated through the court system. MS. DOMPELING answered that youths adjudicated through the court system have several consequences, including: they are usually on formal probation, they may need to have a substance abuse assessment and follow up with recommendations, they may be placed in an out-of-home care facility, they could have to pay restitutions to a victim, they may have community service ordered, and they may have to meet other various requirements. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that there are real legal consequences for those youths. MS. DOMPELING replied that that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it were worth considering the possibility of revoking driver's licenses for shorter periods of time, such as a couple of weeks, equating it to being like, "When you screw up at home, you get grounded." MS. DOMPELING answered that she understands the idea behind what Representative LeDoux suggested, but she recognizes that a lot of administrative paperwork is involved in the process; however, she said that given her current understanding of the process, it would take longer than two weeks for the DJJ to even process the paperwork. She expressed that when working with youth involved in the cases handled informally, the DJJ can still require the same consequences as through a formal court, it is just not legally mandated through a court. She said that this gives the DJJ several ways to hold minors accountable when they are willing to work with the DJJ and its probation officers. 3:00:33 PM CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Ms. Dompeling came with a statement on the DJJ's position on HB 133 and this would be the last thing the committee would hear this meeting. 3:00:58 PM MS. DOMPELING stated that she had been given approval to say that the DJJ does support HB 133, and it believes the bill is important to reflect the work being done by the DJJ. She pointed out that the DJJ is seeing a positive change in recidivism rates from youth in its secure treatment; in Fiscal Year 2013 (FY 13) recidivism rates were at approximately 76 percent; in FY 19 that rate had decreased to approximately 36 percent. She summarized that the DJJ is doing positive work with youths and would like to see that work reflected in current statute. 3:01:40 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 133 would be held over for further review.