SENATE BILL NO. 270 An Act relating to juveniles; relating to the jurisdiction of juvenile courts; relating to the release of juveniles; and relating to records concerning juveniles. Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 270 be brought on for discussion. He then explained that the original bill contains changes in procedures dealing with minors and changes in confidentiality of minors' records. CSSB 270 (Judiciary) removes confidentiality provisions which were the subject of much debate and discussion regarding impact of the change and possible loss of federal funding. Senator Randy Phillips questioned whether changes in state law should be either driven or precluded by receipt or loss of federal moneys. Co-chairman Frank concurred. He acknowledged need to better understand the federal situation. He said he asked the department to determine whether it is possible to meet state objectives and retain federal funds. Co-chairman Halford voiced his hope that changes at the Congressional level would ease the situation. Senator Sharp attested to constituent concern regarding confidentiality. Residents want to know if criminals are living in their neighborhoods. Senator Randy Phillips voiced lack of support for Senate Judiciary removal of the confidentiality change. KELLY HUBER, aide to Co-chairman Halford, came before committee to speak to accompanying fiscal notes. She explained that the cost shown on the Dept. of Health and Social Services note for the original bill totals $7,625.9. Senate Judiciary Committee did not wish to become involved in potential loss of federal funds and deleted all language relating to juvenile records in its version. To a comment by Senator Phillips that the Judiciary substitute essentially "guts the bill," Co-chairman Halford noted that the new version contains provisions that help, in terms of what courts may consider, and allows application of municipal offenses. Removal of confidentiality from juvenile records would have the most immediate impact and the least cost if federal funds were not involved. KATHY TIBBLES, Division of Family and Youth Services, Dept. of Health and Social Services, came before committee. Speaking to federal funding, she said the department has repeatedly been told that if information relating to juveniles is made public "on a blanket basis--full disclosure," Alaska will be ineligible to apply for federal funds through Titles 4(b) and (e). That amounts to "roughly $7.6 million." Most states publish juvenile records. That publication is allowed because juvenile delinquents are not in the same agency as children in need of aid--for which the foregoing federal titles were established. While the division was originally told it would suffer financial penalties if it disclosed information, it has since been indicated that it would be possible for the division to restructure organizationally. While that would incur some cost, administratively, it would not "be the same kind of loss of $7.6 million." The division is examining a restructuring that would meet federal approval and allow disclosure of "some degree of information with regard to juvenile delinquents." The division recognizes concerns at both the community and legislative level. The Governor's conference on juvenile justice is discussing the issue this week. Ms. Tibbles asked that the division be given an opportunity to attempt to restructure and reach an agreement with the federal government that will not jeopardize funding. Co-chairman Halford asked if the structural break between delinquents and child-in-need-of-aid provisions is statutory or within the department. Ms. Tibbles responded, "It's within the department." In response to a question from Senator Rieger, Ms. Tibbles explained that waiver of a juvenile to adult court removes all constraints. The minor is treated as an adult. Senator Sharp asked that information from the federal government on potential loss of funds be provided to members. Ms. Tibbles agreed to do so. Co-chairman Halford asked if constraints are applied to release of juvenile delinquency records if they are not contained within child-in-need-of-aid provisions. Ms. Tibbles responded, "Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that there are." The concern is that a section of the state out- of-home-care population would not be eligible for reimbursement for foster or residential care expenditures from the federal government. That is one reason Alaska has continued to try to mesh the two, so that the state could maximize federal receipts in foster and residential care by including juvenile delinquents. That places the state in the position of not being able to release the records. Ms. Tibbles cited difficulties associated with sorting out funding within the single BRU. She added that a good share of the federal receipts not only apply to reimbursement for foster care costs but to administrative costs associated with serving minors (social workers and probation officers). It is difficult to determine how much would be lost. Co-chairman Halford asked if it would be possible to develop a fiscal note that reflects the cost of separation of child- in-need-of-aid activities as well as the incidental loss of federal funds resulting from removal of juvenile records. Ms. Tibbles said she would not guarantee it would be forthcoming before the end of the week. Co-chairman Halford suggested it would be worth waiting for the information and further suggested that the bill be held in committee pending receipt. MARY HUGHES, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage, next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. She expressed support for the original bill which she said incorporates some of the municipal partnership plan. Addressing discussion of potential loss of federal funding, Ms. Hughes said the municipality made inquiries at the federal level and was told that division reorganization would solve the problem. Laws dealing with delinquents have different rules and regulations than these involving children in need of aid. Ms. Hughes advised that the legislation also deals with jurisdictional questions and would provide municipal jurisdiction over "minor civil juvenile infractions." It also enumerates dispositional considerations that must be made by the court in terms of what is in the best interest of the child and what is in the best interest of the public. It mirrors conditions of bail in adult criminal provisions. Ms. Hughes concurred in Co-chairman Halford's decision to await receipt of fiscal note information regarding division restructuring. She voiced support for "some type of release of information." In response to a question from Senator Phillips, Ms. Hughes directed attention to page 4, line 1 through 18, of the original bill and explained that under current law, the juvenile's interests take priority over the interest of the public. Provisions enumerated at page 4 protect the public. Senator Randy Phillips asked if the department philosophically supports release of the names of juvenile offenders. Ms. Tibbles responded, "To some extent." She expressed concern about a piecemeal approach that would release the names of all young people alleged to have committed a delinquent act in the absence of ability to later clear the juvenile's name if he or she was subsequently acquitted. Ms. Tibbles further attested to levels of delinquent acts. She noted that a large number of young people, in the process of growing up, make stupid mistakes, learn from the mistake, and do not reoffend. The department is not convinced that release of those names would serve a valid interest for either the juvenile or the public. However, the department agrees that some information should be released for both a deterrent effect and protection of the public. Senator Rieger suggested that the value of deterrence rests in sanctions it might impose on those considering commission of a crime. He then expressed discomfort with the wording in subsection (5) on page 4 of the original bill. He questioned the wisdom of making an example of one person beyond the gravity of the crime, to have an effect on others. Discussion followed between Senator Zharoff and Co-chairman Halford regarding language within subsection (7) of the original bill and facilities for detention of minors. END: SFC-96, #63, Side 1 BEGIN: SFC-96, #63, Side 2 Further discussion followed between Senator Zharoff and Ms. Tibbles concerning where the line on disclosure of a juvenile crime should be drawn. Ms. Tibbles cited juvenile sex offenders as an example.