HB 133-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT  1:41:03 PM CHAIR WILSON announced the consideration of 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." 1:42:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 133, said this bill does three things. First, it will close a loophole related to sexual abuse of a minor that was discovered a few years ago; second, it will update terminology that defines and references Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities and staff; and finally, it will codify some of the division's best practices. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said a loophole related to the crime of sexual abuse of a minor came to light in 2017 when a DJJ staff member was acquitted after sustaining an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor previously under his supervision. HB 133 would close this loophole by adding DJJ staff to the list of individuals who are defined as being in a position of authority over DJJ-affected youth. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said HB 133 makes important clarifications in the language used to describe DJJ facilities and staff and updates the statutes to reflect the authority and responsibilities of the division. Some of the current statutory language is outdated, inaccurate, and obsolete. For example, HB 133 would eliminate the term juvenile work camps from statute because they have never existed in Alaska. She described 133 as largely a cleanup bill. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said HB 133 will codify best practices and clarify the division's authority. These changes resolve issues that reflect the standard operations of the division. For example, it will add DJJ staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. The division does this in practice, but it should be in statute. HB 133 clarifies that DJJ probation officers have the authority to file amended petitions. In the past, some petitions have been denied, inhibiting DJJ probation officers from advocating for youth when new information comes to light in their cases. It will also add secure residential psychiatric treatment centers to the list of facilities for which victims will be notified when a juvenile is released. It will amend language authorizing the department to disclose confidential information relating to the offense when a minor has received adjudication, rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said modest but important updates will ensure that the division, law enforcement, and the courts have essential clarity. 1:45:39 PM MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State Legislature, began a PowerPoint presentation on HB 133. She reviewed slide 2: Closes a loophole for sexual abuse of minors. Daniel Carey case in 2013DJJ staff sustained an inappropriate sexual relationship with a juvenile under DJJ supervision. They were acquitted because a judge found that sexual abuse of a minor statute does not explicitly list DJJ staff as being in a position of authority over DJJ youth. Section 6Clarifies that DJJ staff are in a position of authority over minors in their custody MS. HOLLAND reviewed slide 3: Updates and definitions Repeals youth counselors, juvenile detention home, youth detention facility, correctional school, juvenile work camp, juvenile probation officers, correctional school Amends juvenile detention facility, minor New Definitions juvenile treatment facility, temporary secure juvenile holding area, juvenile probation officers MS. HOLLAND reviewed slide 4: Repeals Youth Counselors," Section 24 "Youth Counselors" have not been used in the division since 2003, the duties described under this section do not apply to facility staff but to probation officers. "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 3 Inaccurate definition, corrected with new definition in Section 24. "Juvenile Detention Home," "Youth Detention Facility," "Correctional School," and "Juvenile Work Camp," Sections 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 30, 31 and 32 All are repealed and replaced with "juvenile detention facility" and "juvenile treatment facility" for accuracy and consistency. MS. HOLLAND reviewed slide 5: Amended Definitions "Minor," Section 28, referenced in section36 Amends the definition of minor to include a person who was under 18 at the time they committed an offense and is subject to the jurisdiction of DJJ. If a minor commits an offense then turns 18 after, they will remain in DJJ's custody. "Juvenile Detention Facility," Sections 27 and 35, referenced in sections 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 30, 32 Corrects the definition to be a secure facility for the detention of delinquent minors under DJJ custody. The current definition limits it to separate quarters within a city jail, some communities do not have such a jail suitable for juveniles and use other facilities. 1:50:01 PM SENATOR SHOWER read from slide 5, If a minor commits an offense then turns 18 after, they will remain in DJJ's custody.and asked how long someone can be detained. MS. HOLLAND deferred to Matt Davidson. 1:50:42 PM MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services, Juneau, Alaska, stated that youth can remain in the division's custody up until their 18th birthday. Under court order, if the youth is an adjudicated delinquent and has been convicted of a crime under the juvenile court statutes, the person can stay in custody an additional year. In some circumstances and with the minor's permission, youth can say in DJJ custody to continue services up until the age of 20, but this is relatively rare. SENATOR SHOWER asked if youth would be remanded to the adult system the day they turn 20 years of age. MR. DAVIDSON replied that only happens in rare instances. As a general rule, youth remain in the juvenile system until their court order ends and then they are out of the justice system. SENATOR SHOWER said he wants to prevent housing a 25-year-old with a 15-year-old. 1:52:38 PM SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that a juvenile who has committed a crime that it is so severe that the juvenile is tried as an adult is not left in the juvenile justice system. He agreed with Mr. Davidson that it is rare that DJJ jurisdiction would be extended for an extra two years, but there are some instances where it will help rehabilitate or improve the youth's chance of success. MR. DAVIDSON confirmed that youth whose crimes are waived into the adult system are not considered juveniles and proceed through the adult court. MS. HOLLAND reviewed slide 6: New Definitions "Juvenile Treatment Facility," Section 29, referenced in sections 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 30 and 31. Current statute refers to "juvenile treatment institutions", however DJJ feels that this terminology is not reflective of the facilities they operate. Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area," Section 29, referenced in sections 13, 14, 16, 21, 23 and 32 DJJ already operates with a list of temporary secure holding areas in various communities throughout the state. "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 24, referenced in sections 4, 5, 6, 16, 22, 23, 29, 37 and 38. There is no accurate definition for "juvenile probation officers" under current statute. Section 24 repeals the definition for "youth counselors" and replaces it with an updated definition for "juvenile probation officers", affording them powers of a probation officer and describing their duties. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said this slide highlights three definitions that the bill seeks to streamline. SENATOR BEGICH expressed concern about the temporary secure juvenile holding area change and asked for assurance that this will not remove the requirement that the state has to adhere to the reporting requirements of the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act that provides protections for youth. He specifically asked for assurance that the new definition of "temporary secure" does not remove these facilities from reporting requirements. He noted the state has previously had difficulty with compliance and it cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars. 1:57:53 PM MR. DAVIDSON assured Senator Begich that the definition will not negatively impact reporting. The intent of adding a definition of temporary secure juvenile holding area is to give a term of reference for part of the federal reporting requirements. The division has improved its reporting of holding juveniles in secure locations other than juvenile facilities. Although these facilities were described in statute, the facilities were not defined. The division seeks to continue to comply with the federal law, he said. SENATOR BEGICH expressed appreciation for the assurance and acknowledged that the division has worked in the last decade to bring Alaska fully into compliance. MS. HOLLAND reviewed slide 7: Policy Updates: codifying best practices Section 5: Clarifies that employees of juvenile treatment institutions and juvenile and adult probation officers qualify as legal guardians. Section 8: Clarifies that secure juvenile treatment facilities are excluded from the definition of "private exposure." Section 9: Includes DJJ facilities in the list of places where public education must be provided. Sections 16 and 17: Provides juvenile probation officers with the authority to file amended and supplemental petitions, and clarifies that for juveniles this duty falls upon juvenile probation officers, not adult probation officers. Sections 22 and 23: Clarifies that the authority to arrest and detain minors rests with juvenile, not adult, probation officers. SENATOR SHOWER asked for an explanation of Section 8. MS. HOLLAND deferred to Mr. Davidson. 2:01:11 PM MR. DAVIDSON responded that Section 8 addresses laws relating to taking images or exposure of people's private parts. There is an existing exclusion for correctional facilities, detention facilities, hospitals, and psychiatric centers. This is updating the terms used to describe juvenile justice facilities in that section. There is no change in the practice. The division works to give youth privacy, but there are times when youth are exposed accidentally. This protects the division against any litigation or criminal when this happens. SENATOR SHOWER asked how youth are accidentally exposed and if this could create a loophole. MR. DAVIDSON answered that examples include youth exposing themselves intentionally and photos taken in a hospital setting to an area that might be considered sensitive. There are times when youth are potentially exposed, and the bill is attempting to protect against criminal action. SENATOR SHOWER asked for the intent of Section 9 and if it codifies any changes to current practice regarding providing public education in DJJ facilities. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that DJJ facilities are already required to provide education and this clarifies that obligation in statute. SENATOR BEGICH added that the bill is modernizing definitions. Section 9 clarifies what is meant by juvenile detention facilities as it relates to providing education for children in such facilities. The language provides coherence and clarity for the public in this area. He said he is pleased that Senator Shower is asking questions because people need to hear the intent on the record and know that nothing nefarious is going on. 2:06:05 PM MS. HOLLAND reviewed slide 8: Policy Updates: codifying best practices Section 25: Adds "secure residential psychiatric treatment centers" to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is released, victims will receive notification. Section 26: Corrects language authorizing the department to disclose confidential information related to an adjudicated offense, rather than the offense the minor was "alleged to have committed." Section 38: Adds juvenile probation officers, DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. Section 39: Repeals revocation of juvenile driver licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled informally by the division. CHAIR WILSON asked whether Section 25, secure residential psychiatric treatment centers, was in lieu of going to a different type of secure facility. Someone convicted of a crime may be sentenced to a residential psychiatric treatment center and the state may not have the proper level of care. Many kids in Alaska are sent to a rehab center in Texas. If someone is released from the center in Texas, he asked who has the responsibility to make the notification, DJJ or the entity in Texas. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ replied DJJ is responsible for victim notification but that is not clear right now for youth sent to secure psychiatric treatment centers. The bill seeks to ensure that victims are notified when someone who is alleged to have committed or has been convicted of a dangerous crime is released. SENATOR BEGICH said notification currently is limited, and might abrogate the victim's right to know, because the statute only identifies a juvenile justice facility. This provides better protection. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ added that this is about clarity for victim notification and ensuring that it can happen. Now it is essentially prohibited. CHAIR WILSON summarized that the victim would only know that the person was released from custody, but the notification would not break HIPAA rights by stating that someone was released from a psychiatric center. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ agreed. SENATOR SHOWER asked if Section 38 codifies current practice. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ answered yes; this is happening in practice, but identifying DJJ personnel as mandatory reporters should be law because it is so important. The department supports this provision. SENATOR SHOWER asked for a plain English explanation of Section 39. 2:10:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said Section 39 relates to substance use abuse issues. She explained that it is technically legal for the department to negotiate an informal agreement to take away a juvenile's driver's license in such a case instead of going to court, but that is not allowed in cases that have gone to trial. She said the system should be equitable and punishment for a less serious case being resolved informally should be the same as for a more serious case being resolved formally. SENATOR SHOWER asked if this might tie the department's hands by requiring it not enforce something or moving it to the appropriate place for adjudication. MS. HOLLAND advised that in 2016, DJJ's authority to petition for revocation of driver licenses for adjudicated cases was repealed, but the court's authority to revoke driver's licenses for the same offenses was not repealed. The courts still have this discretionary tool under AS 28.15.185(k). SENATOR BEGICH added that it is an automatic revocation under AS 47.12.06(b)(5). He said this still allows discretion, depending on the nature of the crime, but it eliminates an automatic revocation that makes no sense in many diverted cases. With diversion, the attempt is to keep a kid out of the system and there should be as many tools as possible for the kid to succeed, he said. SENATOR SHOWER asked for confirmation that with this bill the department retains the ability to do this. SENATOR BEGICH said yes; all sorts of conditions can be in a probation agreement or diversion agreement or informal agreement. In an adjudicated case, those decisions would be in the hands of a judge and out of the probation officer's hands. MS. HOLLAND summarized that HB 133 closes a loophole regarding sexual abuse of minors, updates terms and definitions pertaining to DJJ facilities and staff, and codifies best practices to improve the division's ability to complete its mission. 2:15:43 PM CHAIR WILSON thanked the sponsor for carrying the bill and solicited a motion. 2:16:12 PM SENATOR SHOWER moved to report HB 133, version M, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 133 was reported from the Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee.