HB 6 RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS  REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 6, stated currently there exists a veil of secrecy around juvenile crime. Current laws allow juveniles to commit violent criminal acts, safe in the knowledge that their names will be kept confidential by the authorities. That public policy does not provide protection to the public. Several recent cases in Fairbanks illustrate the need for disclosure. In one case a man was killed during a daytime robbery by a teen. The newspaper reported that the names of the two juveniles who were with the murderer would not be released. Since then, the juveniles were waived into adult court and their names were released, but that does not often happen. A second example involved David Knutsen who shot a State Trooper three times. He was involved in numerous burglaries. HB 6 has been reworked through the committee process and is a bill that will protect, and give a second chance, to those juveniles who do not pose a threat to public safety, but does allow the public to know the names of juveniles who are committing serious crimes for the second time. SENATOR PEARCE asked Representative Kelly to explain how the disclosure provision will work. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to a diagram illustrating a two prong system. When a juvenile is arrested, he/she would go through a preliminary investigation and then if he/she admits guilt, an informal adjustment would occur with the outcome being restitution and rehabilitation or placement. If DHSS believes the juvenile to be dangerous, or if the juvenile resists, the juvenile will be sent to petition also to provide for juveniles who are released against the wishes of DHSS before they are adjudicated. There can be a long time period between release and adjudication when they are free to continue their activities. Also, DHSS feared adjudication would cause a logjam of petitions because of the chance that the case would be thrown out of court. As a compromise, a process was established in which DHSS can petition the court to prohibit name disclosure based on one of two factors: that the case is an isolated incident; or that the juvenile does not pose any further danger to the public. Representative Kelly added that he believes the fiscal note for the bill is legitimate. SENATOR PARNELL asked Representative Kelly if he believes HB 6 will be cost effective. REPRESENTATATIVE KELLY said he does and added that this issue is extremely high profile and he has received a lot of support on HB 6. SENATOR PARNELL asked Representative Kelly if he believes HB 6 will have any deterrent value. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he did not; HB 6 is strictly to enhance public safety. Number 223 BARBARA BRINK , the current Acting Director of the Alaska Public Defender Agency, made the following comments. The debate between the public's need to know and juvenile confidentiality is not a new one. Courts and Legislatures have struggled with it for years. Chief Justice Rehnquist addressed this issue in 1978 in Smith v. Daly Publishing and wrote an opinion in favor of confidentiality as follows: It is a hallmark of our juvenile justice system in the United States that virtually from its inception from at end of the last century, proceedings have been conducted outside of the public's full gaze and that youth brought before the juvenile courts have been shielded from publicity. This insistence on confidentiality is born of a tender concern for the welfare of the child, to hide his youthful errors and bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past. The prohibition of publication of a juvenile's name is designed to protect the young person from the stigma of his misconduct and is rooted in the principle that the court concern with juvenile affairs serves as a rehabilitative and protective agency of the state. Publication of the names of juvenile offenders may seriously impair the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system and handicap the youth's prospect for adjustments to society and acceptance by the public. This exposure brings undue embarassment to the families of youth offenders and may cause the juvenile to lose employment opportunities or provide the hard core delinquent with the kind of attention he seeks thereby encouraging him to commit further anti-social acts. The resultant widespread dissemination of a juvenile offender's name therefore may [indisc.] beneficient and rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court system. MS. BRINK pointed out that no other state provides for public disclosure of this kind of informal and adjustment information. These are the kinds of juvenile offenders who have a good chance at rehabilitation. Juveniles who get adjusted are prepared to accept responsibility and make restitution. Those juveniles will be stigmatized and branded. Names will be disclosed prior to adjudication, so these juveniles will be tried in the court of public opinion. PAM KARALUNAS , representing the Arctic Alliance for People, interim Executive Director for the Resource Center for Parents and Children, and Big Brothers and Sisters, and as the parent of a juvenile offender, testified. Although she shares the frustrations of many people in the community about how juvenile crime is mishandled, she does not believe HB 6 will correct the situation. She expressed concern that HB 6 contains no age limit, that informal adjustments will be published, and that name disclosure occurs before the juvenile is proven guilty. Number 300 BETH GAMBRELL expressed concern that children make mistakes, and should be allowed to, except when firearms are involved. She does not believe publishing the names of those involved in informal adjustment is appropriate. Name disclosure should not occur prior to a court decision, due to the negative effects of placing a label on a child because the label could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. C-JOE DIMATTEO , with the Alaska Council on Prevention of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and a member of the Governor's Council on Youth and Justice, echoed the previous witnesses' concerns. He asked the committee to consider including an age limit and to prevent names from being submitted until after adjudication. Many public comments made to the Governor's Council support those changes. D. BUNTI REED , a parent of a child with a traumatic brain injury and a secondary diagnosis of a mental illness, noted about 20 other parents who were attending the Children's Mental Health Convention attempted to testify today but had to leave. She agreed with Judge Rehnquist's opinion and is concerned with words contained in HB 6 such as "alleged" and "informal" because it will allow children and parents to be labelled. Many children in the juvenile system are identified as having a mental illness in their first infraction with the law. Although the intent of HB 6 is to protect communities, she does not agree the bill will do that, and sees it as a gross violation of parents and chidlren in Alaska. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Reed who the people were that left. MS. REED provided some of the names. LAURA ROREM , a parent of two children who have suffered from brain disorders, one with mental illness and the other with fetal alcohol syndrome, and a member of the Alaska Mental Health Board, made the following comments. Brain disorders are no-fault diseases that affect behavior, thinking processes, mood, judgment, reason and decision to name only a few. They are caused by bio-chemical and/or abnormalities in the brain. Weakness of will and bad parenting are not to blame. These problems are not caused by problems in living, bad environment, abuse or neglect. These diseases are grossly misunderstood and treatment for them is sporadic, haphazard, difficult to access, and blame-oriented. Children and adults with brain disorders are good people but their brains are diseased. They are often incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong and are unable to understand consequences. Often, early intervention is not available and services are not provided until after a child commits a crime. Instead, the child and family will be ostracized and publically humiliated, and HB 6 will bring punishment rather than treatment and will violate one's right to privacy. Number 464 SENATOR PEARCE commented that she has a lot of sympathy for the parents of mentally ill children but noted the crimes listed in HB 6 involve deadly weapons, arson, burglary, child pornography, promoting prostition, and misconduct involving a controlled substance. She questioned whether there is a linkage between mental illness in youth and those types of crimes. MARY MESSNER , a Public Health Nurse in Barrow, stated she works with families and children with special needs. Many of those children have neuro-biological disorders. Forty to seventy percent of the children in the juvenile justice system nationwide are not diagnosed with mental health problems early enough. Children with neuro-biological disorders are most often not diagnosed at all, and when they are diagnosed the disorders are complex, evolving, and often co-exist with other disorders. Public disclosure of the names of juveniles and their families is wrong. If the Senate wishes to address juvenile crime, she suggested considering a bill for mandatory mental health evaluation by a child and adolescent psychiatrist of all juveniles who enter the juvenile justice at any point and for juveniles entering substance abuse treatment, where 70 percent are shown to have treatable neuro-biological disorders. Number 450 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Messner to address Senator Pearce's question about the delineation of serious crimes in HB 6 and their link to mental illness. D. BUNTI REED addressed Senator Pearce's question as follows. The cognitive disability of her son causes him to respond toward aggressive behavior of other students more violently than other youngsters of his age. Last week she was called into school because her son attempted to assault another student with a bookbag. The police were also called and considered her son's action to be classifiable as assault with a weapon. Her son is mentally retarded and mentally ill. She felt the embarassment to his siblings of an arrest in the family is almost criminal itself. SENATOR PEARCE asked if the other students and parents of those students in the classroom with Ms. Reed's son are aware of the disorder and that provocations that may seem normal to them to be more difficult for her son. MS. REED responded that the immediate classroom members are aware but other students are not. Because of his disability, he is fairly comical and due to adolescent impetuosity, he is teased and baited frequently. Number 479 KENNETH DAVIS testified in opposition to HB 6. He is the parent of four children; two are severely emotionally disabled; one with fetal alcohol syndrome, psychotic brain disorder, seizure disorder, learning disabled, attention deficit and hyperactive disorder, and is an acting sex offender. If HB 6 is passed, the effectiveness of his son's treatment will cease. As an active sex offender who is receiving treatment, his son is required to live in specialized foster care. Publishing the names of the offender, his family, and the specialized foster family who are acting guardians, will have a negative effect. He questioned how many foster families would be willing to accept a high risk child if they must suffer harassment and ridicule from friends and neighbors after name disclosure. CECELIA DAVIS stated that as parents, it is their duty and obligation to the community to protect it against their son which is why he is in a specialized program. But, she is also the parent of both a victim and an offender and is stuck in several positions. Often when the name of the offender is disclosed, the victim's identity becomes known. The victim can be devastated because of the ridicule. She informed the committee that her son's mental disabilities are the result of his natural mother's misuse of alcohol. As a victim of sexual abuse herself, she feels obligated as a parent to protect society and educate others so that they can help. She cautioned that if HB 6 passes, as currently written, it will be devastating to children with mental disabilities and to victims. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that a provision on page 4 prohibits the names of foster families from being disclosed unless they have the child on a permanent or long term basis. In addition, some of the examples given previously would fall under the Children in Need of Aid provisions, and their names would not be disclosed. LORI NAMYNIUK , President of the Substance Abuse Directors Association of Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 6 because of the breaching of confidentiality at the petition stage and because the bill contains no age limit. There is no research that indicates that action of this type will decrease juvenile deliquency. Rather than adopting a punitive approach, the Legislature needs to look for solutions. The projected $1.2 million cost of HB 6 could be used for intervention activities. Number 547 MARGOT KNUTH , Assistant Attorney General and representative of the Governor's Council on Juvenile Justice, testified. At a conference of the Council held last year, the most divisive issue discussed was the issue of disclosure of the names of juvenile offenders. The Conference ultimately recommended that some disclosure of juvenile names is necessary to protect the public; of those juveniles at least 15 years of age who committed a felony offense against a person, or a second burglary offense. SB 69 was introduced by the Governor and sets the age limit at 16. The single largest provider of mental health care in the State of Alaska is the Department of Corrections. There are more mentally ill people housed by the Department of Corrections than in all other mental health facilities. The Governor's Conference recommendation bill differs from HB 6 is that it only follows the cases that DHSS has identified as the serious offenders that need to fall within the court's jurisdiction. A serious concern expressed at the Conference was that disclosing the name of the offender often identifies the victim inadvertently, especially in sexual offenses among family members. Yet, name disclosure to protect others makes drawing the line a difficult policy issue. She acknowledged and appreciates Representative Kelly's effort to work very hard to accommodate the Council's concerns and noted the HB 6 has been tailored to include only very serious crimes and contains an escape provision where the court can be petitioned to prevent name disclosure. TAPE 97-30, SIDE B DR. RUSSELL HOFFMAN of Bethel stated that he has been practicing medicine in Alaska since 1973 and specializes in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. He advises the Court System about the reasons for people's behavior and designs treatment programs for offenders. He noted he travelled to Juneau at his own expense because he feels strongly about the complex issue of disclosure. He noted the bill specifies in five different places that the release of information about the victim will be prohibited which illustrates that the release of information can be a hurtful process. He discussed a recent tragic event in the Bethel school system and how the gossip and rumors about people periperally involved was extremely harmful to those people and their families. He noted the ripple effect of those rumors on other community members. He explained that is an extreme example of how HB 6 could play out in a small community. The issue of disclosure is a very important one for those who try to treat children and turn a negative situation into a positive one. He stated in the past 4 1/2 hours he has received over 100 signatures from the Bethel community in opposition to HB 6. JOHN CYR , President of NEA-Alaska, stated that one thing of paramount importance to NEA's members is the ability to know the kinds of students they work with on a daily basis. NEA's primary concern is with the stage at which the offender's name is released. NEA prefers that the name be released after adjudication when the juvenile has been convicted. In his experience, he knows of juveniles who have been accused of very serious crimes erroneously. Had those juveniles' names been released, serious consequences would have occurred. One of NEA's primary functions is to keep students in school and needs to develop alternative programs, especially to deal with violence. NEA also believes there is a critical need for juvenile detention centers to provide adequate help for these offenders. DIANE WORLEY , Director of the Division of Family and Youth Services, DHSS, stated that DHSS has worked very closely with Representative Kelly and understands the direction he is taking with HB 6, but is concerned with how far the bill goes. HB 6 conflicts with DHSS' goal of working with families and children, and to protect children and to rehabilitate where possible. DHSS is concerned about striking the necessary balance to protect communities from juveniles, who have committed serious crimes or are repeat offenders, but believes HB 6 is too broad and covers all ages, and does not take into account mitigating circumstances. DHSS does support some level of disclosure but does not believe HB 6 establishes the appropriate balance. Number 465 SENATOR PARNELL asked what specific changes need to be made to HB 6 to get support from the Administration. MS. WORLEY answered that she is speaking only for DHSS and not for the Governor's Children's Cabinet. SENATOR PARNELL asked Ms. Worley to clarify her statement. MS. WORLEY said DHSS is part of the Children's Cabinet and has worked closely with it on HB 6 but DHSS' perspective is slightly different because it works with these juveniles on a daily basis. She clarified that because of the direct impact HB 6 will have on DHSS, it has more specific concerns than other departments. SENATOR PARNELL asked if DHSS' specific concerns are age and mental health. MS. WORLEY replied yes, and a third issue is informal adjustment because that is the key to the work DHSS does with juveniles; with those who admit to a crime and are willing to work with DHSS and their families on rehabilitation. SENATOR PARNELL asked Ms. Worley if she thinks disclosure should only occur when juveniles are on the yellow track. MS. WORLEY said that is correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR summarized Ms. Worley's preference as age 16, yellow-track, upon conviction. ANGELA SALERNO , Executive Director of the National Association of Social Workers, pointed out that confidentiality of juvenile records was part of a larger reform measure which began early in the Century and established juvenile courts to accommodate the disability of youth. HB 6 would be changing that in a fundamental and critical way and creates a radical and untested measure. Although we are all concerned about juvenile crime, we should not act out of desperation. The purpose of HB 6 is to protect ourselves but is illusory and will make us less safe because we will be forcing children further down the road toward crime. Number 398 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Salerno when "we" decided that non- publication of the names of juveniles was an attribute of the juvenile justice system. MS. SALERNO said she did not have the date in Alaska, but the practice was established when the first juvenile court was created in Illinois at the turn of the Century. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented on the schizophrenic logic we have taken toward the responsibilities we allow juveniles to have, and those that we do not. MS. SALERNO emphasised that DHSS' charge is to work with those juveniles who might be rehabilitated. Those children often suffer the disabiilty of lack of parental control. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that sometimes parents do everything they can for a child yet the child chooses to be delinquent. MS. SALERNO agreed. MR. CYR commented he believes that adults are absolutely responsible for their children, but questioned at what point the system should take over when a child gets in trouble. He expressed concern that we may be acting prematurely when children can be saved or have been misidentified. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted many legislators are concerned that several years ago, in attempt to keep names anonymous, foster parents were not given information about the young people being placed in their homes and the foster parents suffered major consequences because of it. Number 347 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY addressed comments made by previous witnesses. The informal adjustment process allows DHSS to decide whether the child can be rehabilitated. He agrees with that provision and adopted the Children's Cabinet amendment which provides for disclosure for a second offense. A provision for formal adjudication was included in the original bill, but DHSS requested that be changed to petition to prevent a logjam. When he agreed to petition, DHSS argued the need to change to informal adjudication. At that point he included an amendment from the Lieutenant Governor's Office which allows DHSS to petition against disclosure. At this point in time, DHSS is still pushing for informal adjudication. He stated DHSS wants the parents or foster parents of the defendant to be able to petition the court. He believes, as well as the Court System, that system will not work because every attorney who represents one of these juveniles will be guilty of malpractice for not petitioning the Court. DFYS is not currently able to disclose that a party who was arrested is innocent. HB 6 would allow DFYS and the Court to release the names of those who are found innocent. Regarding the two-track system, REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he has met everyone's objections except DFYS' because it is opposed to any disclosure whatsoever. HB 6 contains escape hatches and only applies to offenders who commit very serious crimes for a second time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced HB 6 would be heard again on Friday, April 25, and adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.