SENATE BILL NO. 289 An Act relating to runaway minors and their families or legal custodians. Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 289 be brought on for discussion. Co-chairman Frank explained that, at a previous meeting, the committee asked that the Dept. of Law review case law on the constitutional rights of minors. He referenced the department's March 18, 1996, memo (copy on file in the original file for SB 289). He further noted that the department declined to comply with a committee request that it draft a findings and purposes section for the bill. The Division of Legal Services therefore drafted the requested language per amendment 9-LS1635\M.1, Lauterbach, 3/19/96. Co-chairman Frank voiced his belief there is no constitutional question associated with placement of juveniles in semi-secure facilities. Co-chairman Halford noted that advocates of the legislation would only be "shortly satisfied with a semi-secure environment because it won't work either." It will make the situation a bit better, but it will not provide a solution for problem kids. Co-chairman Halford voiced his belief that the Dept. of Law is not prepared to take the necessary steps the legislature is inclined to take because it is the legislature rather than the department that has heard constituents complain for many years. In response to a question from Senator Phillips, Co-chairman Halford reiterated that one cannot take the right to freedom away from a status offender without meeting constitutional guidelines. JANINE REEP, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Dept. of Law, came before committee. She advised that she drafted the March 18, 1996, memo in response to the committee request for review of case law relating to the placement of minors. She explained that she did not draft findings and purposes language since it generally cites legislative intent and why the legislation is being promulgated. She said that while she could guess at reasoning behind the legislation, she is not a legislative employee and does not know exactly what the legislature wants set forth. Further, the department does not have statistics on runaways. Co-chairman Halford said the legislature needs to know the source of constitutional challenges and what kinds of findings strengthen arguments against those challenges. As an example, he cited both substantial threat to public health and safety or to the minor. He then suggested that cases relative thereto be reviewed and court language used in effecting statutory corrections. Ms. Reep explained that case law relating to juvenile delinquency and confinement of minors provides no solutions. The end result is that if the state is going to confine a minor, protections (notice, hearing, oversight by the court) must be in place. Co-chairman Halford asked if it would be possible to provide security for a short period, such as three days, without running the gamut of full constitutional protections. Ms. Reep said she did not know. She acknowledged that other states have experimented in this area. Co-chairman Frank suggested that, in the absence of case law in Alaska, the legislature do its best to structure a system that provides greater safety and security for juveniles and let the courts rule on the issue after the fact. Ms. Reep directed attention to page 2 of her memo and noted provisions that allow runaways in need of aid to be locked up for 24 hours. That involves going before the court and obtaining a probable cause finding that the child is in imminent danger, and there is no alternative to detention. Ms. Reep stressed need to ensure due process so that "people aren't put away without a really good reason." Current protections accorded delinquents attach to the fact that delinquents face the possibility of incarceration. They are thus entitled to counsel. In a delinquency case, young people can be held for 48 hours before they go to court. Within that time, the state must prove probable cause. Co-chairman Frank asked if a minor would have to be represented by counsel to be placed in a secure environment until the Division of Family and Youth Services could provide alternative placement. Ms. Reep said that 24-hour detention is not often used. However, under current practice, "Those minors are appointed counsel." Comments followed regarding cost concerns that have acted as roadblocks to past legislative action on this issue. In the course of further discussion, Ms. Reep attested to cases involving equal protection challenges in other states for confinement of status offenders or runaways with juvenile delinquents. Co-chairman Frank asked if a minor could be placed in protective custody for a status offense. Ms. Reep said she had not conducted sufficient research to make a determination. Many states have done many different things. Co-chairman Frank referenced the administration's focus on children and families and specifically noted funding for the children's trust. He then questioned the department's unwillingness to develop reasonable methods of addressing the runaway problem. Ms. Reep made reference to the conference on juvenile justice, terming it an effort by the administration to address the problem. Many from the Dept. of Law are involved. Work is ongoing. The intention is to develop solutions. Senator Randy Phillips stressed that additional study is not the answer. A solution lies in return of authority to parents. Co-chairman Halford referenced an earlier comment regarding 48-hour detention, prior to a hearing, and asked why that provision could not be applied to a status offense. The runaway could then be held in protective custody. The only way out of that custody would be pick up by a parent or legal guardian. Ms. Reep explained that for 48-hour detention to occur, probable cause must be established by someone, generally a police officer, that the juvenile has committed a crime. Co-chairman Halford suggested that the crime be the status crime. That would at least provide a 48-hour cooling off period. Ms. Reep again cautioned that necessary protections must be in place. Due process is a constitutional right that must be addressed. Further comments followed by Co-chairman Frank regarding protective custody situations. Additional discussion followed regarding current 48-hour detention of juvenile delinquents. Co-chairman Halford suggested that failure of the minor to remain in a semi-secure facility be backed up by 48-hour detention. The youth would then have the right to counsel, and after 48 hours a decision would be made for court- directed placement. Co-chairman Halford suggested that the 48-hour period would serve as a deterrent to running from a semi-secure facility. It would further serve as a deterrent to avoidance of parental authority. Ms. Reep commented that one of the findings that must be made by an officer when he or she detains a minor is that detention is necessary to protect the minor or the community. Under runaway statutes (child in need of aid provisions) an individualized finding that the minor is in danger must also be made. Ms. Reep attested to overcrowding in juvenile facilities and noted that the state does not have room to "detain the kids that need to be detained." That raises a question regarding where runaways would be placed. That is a significant problem. Co-chairman Frank acknowledged that, while provisions for semi-secure placement and enhanced opportunity to prosecute those who contribute to the delinquency of a minor are steps in the right direction, the bill does not go as far as it should. He suggested that further exploration might uncover a reasonable next step, within constitutional parameters, to make the bill truly meaningful in getting families back together. Co-chairman Halford asked that staff from the Dept. of Law review proposed findings. Co-chairman Frank stressed that the objective is not incarceration of young people. The intent is to get their attention and get them back with their families. He suggested that the threat of incarceration would serve as a deterrent, and 48 hours of protective custody might be beneficial. Discussion followed regarding making the act of running away a crime. Senator Randy Phillips reiterated need to backup parental authority. DONNA SCHULZ, Juvenile Probation Officer, Division of Family and Youth Services, Dept. of Health and Social Services, came before committee. She cited the following areas as problematic: 1. Movement from semi-secure to secure placement would entail loss of $787.0 in federal moneys. Funding depends upon meeting core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. One of those requirements relates to status offenders and does not allow for placement in jails or detention facilities. 2. Where would these young people be detained? Detention facilities are already overcrowded, and there are waiting lists for placement of juvenile offenders. The impact of bringing runaways into the system would exacerbate the problem. 3. Does placement of runaways in existing facilities meet the philosophical aim of the facility? Ms. Schulz voiced support for semi-secure placement provisions. She referenced clear delineation between delinquents and status offenders. Co-chairman Halford advised of his understanding the state would lose federal funding if it incarcerates status offenders with delinquents. He then asked if runaways could be held in protective custody for 48 hours in separate confinement in the same facility. Ms. Schulz noted that Alaska law allowing for a 12-hour hold in protective care is considered a violation of federal requirements. The state is only allowed a certain percentage of violations per 100,000 before federal funds are lost. Discussion of federal law, renewal, and possible changes followed between Co-chairman Frank and Ms. Schulz. She acknowledged that abused children were the focus of 1974 federal law. END: SFC-96, #42, Side 1 BEGIN: SFC-96, #42, Side 2 Senator Rieger stressed need to differentiate between minors who run away from an abusive home environment and those fleeing parental authority. He then suggested that focusing on protective custody for running away from a semi-secure facility might be a different question than the status crime of "being on the street in the first place." It would also help sort out the different classes of minors on the street: those who are there because they want the freedom and thrill of street life versus those who are fleeing a dangerous situation at home. Ms. Schulz questioned prior comments indicating that only 10 percent of runaways are fleeing abuse or neglect and suggested that the percentage appears very low. National statistics evidence 67 to 69%. She stressed need for better numbers at the state level and voiced her estimate that the percentage is "at least 50 percent; it could be higher." Senator Zharoff noted that the problem with runaways is not unique to one area of the state. Constituents indicate that those advising minors of their rights do not also speak to responsibilities and potential liabilities. He cited gang involvement as an example. Senator Sharp reiterated need to prosecute adults who solicit juveniles and provide communal-type living situations which encourage them to remain away from home. That is where legal emphasis must be placed rather than on attempts to incarcerate minors. Co-chairman Frank noted that the draft Finance version makes prosecution in this area easier for the state. He agreed to take a second look at penalties for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The bill was held in committee for further review.