SB 267 MINOR DELINQUENCY HEARINGS PUBLIC  SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, sponsor of SB 267, stated the bill is part of the Municipality of Anchorage's crime package and was introduced at MOA's request. SB 267 provides that hearings dealing with juvenile crime offenders be generally open to the public but subject to closure, sealing, and expungement after rehabilitation. MOA seeks to change the current presumption that juvenile criminal records and hearings should be kept confidential and closed. Confidential records and closure of hearings is disfavored, as public access will further the important goals of: system accountability; the assurance of truthful testimony; public education and awareness, particularly among the young, whose belief in their invincibility is fostered by ignorance of the consequences; protection of victims' rights; and subsequent accountability for repeat offenders. These goals can better be met in a system that presumes that open records be the norm rather than the exception. Individuals who commit foolish mistakes, or are rehabilitated, will be suitably protected by allowing after-the-fact sealing of records. TAPE 96-20, SIDE B Number 000 SENATOR PEARCE was unsure whether SB 267 would affect Title IV funds, which is not the intent of the MOA. She believed both Alaska's congressional delegation, and federal officials, would be amenable to finding a way to deal with the funding question, as other states are opening records. SENATOR ADAMS repeated his concern about the loss of Title IV funds, and questioned under what circumstances the court could close a hearing to the public under Section 3. SENATOR PEARCE replied the court will set that determination under Rule 3(C), the delinquency rules. KATHY TIBBLES added that currently all juvenile hearings are closed, except for the juvenile offenders waived to adult court. Alaska differs from some states in that juveniles are covered by agencies that are not IV-E agencies, such as a department of corrections. Alaska receives a sizable amount of IV-E funds to offset the cost of caring for juvenile delinquents which amounts to 50 percent of the cost of care. The states that house juveniles in non IV-E agencies do not receive that federal reimbursement. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what amount of IV-E funds would be lost if DFYS was limited to foster home and CHINA programs and juvenile delinquents were housed in a different agency. MS. TIBBLES responded DFYS is trying to identify that amount, however it is a complicated process because all three are in the same BRU. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if a victim attending a closed juvenile hearing can provide information to the media or others after a hearing. MS. TIBBLES believed the victim is restricted from doing that. MS. TIBBLES stated DFYS is trying to determine if it administratively separates the two sections within the division, and stops collecting federal funds for the delinquent population, whether that approach would satisfy the federal requirements as to the release of records. She added that the loss of funding might be substantial, and the policy decision as to whether opening records is favorable would need to be determined. SENATOR GREEN questioned whether states who house juvenile offenders under their departments of corrections have probation officers and staff to do follow-up within that department. MS. TIBBLES responded different states have different set-ups. SENATOR TAYLOR repeated that housing juvenile offenders in an agency outside the IV-E funding agency would allow disclosure of records. MS. TIBBLES agreed, but stated reducing resources to address juvenile delinquency will occur and those resources are already limited. She added DFYS petitioned on 30 percent of misdemeanor referrals last year. SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many of the 30 percent petitioned resulted in adjudications. MS. TIBBLES did not know. SENATOR TAYLOR commented that during his years practicing law, he has only seen one adjudication go to a jury trial. He asked Ms. Tibbles to provide that information. Number 473 SENATOR TAYLOR felt the role of social workers in DFYS to be complicated by the fact that they are required to be both prosecutors and nurturers. He questioned whether that is why other states have separated those functions. MS. TIBBLES replied that social workers deal with CHINA clients which are neglected and abused children. Probation officers deal with youth offenders. The division's mission is to protect children, rehabilitate offenders, and protect the public, which is better accomplished by preventing further delinquency. DFYS believes it is better to work with parents when possible to improve the family situation than to automatically waive juveniles into adult court. SENATOR TAYLOR felt because juvenile offenses have increased and law enforcement officers are frustrated in their ability to work with the existing system, a review of other approaches should be undertaken. He felt a lot of the conflict surrounding juvenile offenders could be resolved by a thorough discussion of the mission of DFYS.