• 1987 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Parry, David L. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1989-07)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, 32 instances of a status offender held in secure detention were recorded in 1987; by comparison, there were 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 806 separation violations were recorded in 1988, representing a 2% reduction from the 1976 baseline if 824 violations. 601 jail removal violations occurred, representing a 30% reduction from the 1980 baseline. The report includes significant discussion of obstacles to Alaska's compliance with JJDPA and measures being taken to overcome those obstacles.
    • 1988 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Parry, David L. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1990-03)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, 7 instances of a status offender held in secure detention were recorded in 1988; by comparison, there were 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. (An addittional two status offenders held in secure detention satisfied the "valid court order" exception, and were not counted as violations.) 564 separation violations were recorded in 1988, representing a 32% reduction from the 1976 baseline and 30% since the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services implemented its revised Jail Removal Plan in December 1987. 409 jail removal violations occurred, representing a 53% reduction from the 1980 baseline.
    • 1989 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Read, Emily E.; Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1990-12-03)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, two instances of a status offender held in secure detention were recorded in 1989; but both satisfied the "valid court order" exception, so were not counted as violations; by comparison, there were 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 336 separation violations were recorded in 1989, representing a 60% reduction from the 1976 baseline and 41% from 1988. 249 jail removal violations occurred, representing a 71% reduction from the 1980 baseline and an 39% reduction from 1988.
    • 1990 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Read, Emily E.; Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1991-10)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, no instances of a status offender held in secure detention were recorded in 1990, as compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 135 separation violations were recorded in 1990, representing an 84% reduction from the 1976 baseline and 60% from 1989. 99 jail removal violations occurred, representing a 89% reduction from the 1980 baseline and an 60% reduction from 1989.
    • 1991 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Curtis, Richard W.; Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1992-10)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, one instance of a status offender held in secure detention was recorded in 1991, as compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 65 separation violations were recorded in 1991, representing a 92% reduction from the 1976 baseline and 48% from 1990. 81 jail removal violations occurred, representing a 90% reduction from the 1980 baseline and an 18% reduction from 1990.
    • 1992 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Curtis, Richard W.; Schafer, N. E.; Atwell, Cassie (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1993-10)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, one instance of a status offender held in secure detention was recorded in 1992, as compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 11 separation violations were recorded in 1992, representing a 99% reduction from the 1976 baseline and 83% from 1992. 44 jail removal violations occurred, representing a 95% reduction from the 1980 baseline and an 46% reduction from 1992.
    • 1993 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

      Curtis, Richard W.; Atwell, Cassie; Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1994-09)
      The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, no instances of a status offender held in secure detention was recorded in 1993, as compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of 1976. 16 separation violations were recorded in 1992, representing a 98% reduction from the 1976 baseline of 824 violations. 59 jail removal violations were projected, representing a 94% reduction from the 1980 baseline and an 25% increase from 1992.
    • 2015 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast Presentation

      "MacKinnon, John; Guettabi, Mouhcine"; Construction Industry Progress Fund (CIPF); Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska; Northrim Bank ("Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage", 2015)
      "Construction spending in Alaska in 2015 is expected to be strong in spite of the drop in the price of oil from more than $100 per barrel in the summer of 2014 to between $45 and $50 today. However, the longer the price stays low, the greater the risk that some projects will be cancelled or postponed. It is impossible to predict what will happen to the oil price, because world supply has outstripped demand. The price will stabilize, and perhaps begin to increase, only when the low price stimulates more demand and eliminates high cost production, a process that could take more than a year. Presented in Anchorage, AK on Jan 29, 2015, and in Fairbanks, AK on Jan 30, 2015."
    • Accessing Permanent Fund Earnings to Reduce the Fiscal Gap

      Goldsmith, Oliver Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-02-04)
    • Adapting to Environmental and Social Change: Subsistence in Three Aleutian Communities

      Schmidt, Jennifer; Berman, Matthew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2018-04-19)
      Our surroundings and society are both constantly evolving. Some changes are due to natural processes. People are responsible for other changes, because of what we do—for example, increasing the size of the population, expanding technology, and increasing mobility and connectivity. And some changes—like climate change—are due to a combination of natural processes and actions of people. In the Arctic, including the Aleutian Islands, marine and coastal ecosystems have seen the largest number of regime shifts with direct and indirect consequences for subsistence activities, commercial fisheries, and coastal communities (Council 2016). This paper describes current subsistence activities and changes local residents have observed over time in three Aleutian Island communities—Akutan, Nikolski, and Atka. As described more later, we did initial household surveys in 2016 and a second round in 2017, as well as more detailed interviews with some residents.
    • Adverse Childhood Experiences and Their Association with Alcohol Abuse by Alaska Adults

      Rivera, Marny; Sidmore, Patrick (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-06-15)
      This article examines the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) — such as abuse and household dysfunction in childhood — and its association with adoption by Alaska adults of the health-risk behaviors of heavy and binge drinking. The behavioral health of Alaskans could be improved by addressing the association between ACEs and health-risk drinking behaviors, and establishing an integrated prevention system.
    • Alaska 1332 Waiver - Economic Analysis

      Bibler, Andrew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-12-23)
      The four guardrails that a successful 1332 waiver must meet are as follows: 1. Coverage - There must be at least a comparable number of individuals with coverage under the waiver as would have had coverage without the waiver. 2. Affordability – The waiver should not result in an increase in out-of-pocket spending required of residents to obtain coverage, relative to income. 3. Comprehensiveness – The waiver should not decrease the number of individuals with coverage that meets the essential health benefits (EHB) benchmark. 4. Deficit Neutrality – The waiver should not have any negative impact on the federal deficit. In this report, the first three guardrails are briefly discussed to reaffirm that the actuarial analysis conducted by Oliver Wyman demonstrates that the proposed waiver meets them. The actuarial report from Oliver Wyman projects that the proposed waiver will increase the number of individuals taking up insurance in the individual market, lower average premiums, and have no impact on the comprehensiveness of coverage. The numbers reported in the actuarial analysis are then used to help evaluate the impact that the proposed waiver will have on the federal budget.
    • Alaska 1332 Waiver- Economic Analysis

      Bibler, Andrew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2016-12-01)
      The four guardrails that a successful 1332 waiver must meet are as follows: 1. Coverage - There must be at least a comparable number of individuals with coverage under the waiver as would have had coverage without the waiver. 2. Affordability – The waiver should not result in an increase in out-of-pocket spending required of residents to obtain coverage, relative to income. 3. Comprehensiveness – The waiver should not decrease the number of individuals with coverage that meets the essential health benefits (EHB) benchmark. 4. Deficit Neutrality – The waiver should not have any negative impact on the federal deficit. In this report, the first three guardrails are briefly discussed to reaffirm that the actuarial analysis conducted by Oliver Wyman demonstrates that the proposed waiver meets them. The actuarial report from Oliver Wyman projects that the proposed waiver will increase the number of individuals taking up insurance in the individual market, lower average premiums, and have no impact on the comprehensiveness of coverage. The numbers reported in the actuarial analysis are then used to help evaluate the impact that the proposed waiver will have on the federal budget. There are at least four ways in which the waiver will have an important impact on the federal budget, which are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Impact of Proposed Waiver on Budget Direction of Effect APTC Savings + Individual Shared Responsibility Payments - Health Insurance Providers Fee - Federal Exchange User Fees - Overall Impact on Budget + The first and most important impact of the waiver is that it will lead to a reduction in premiums. The reduction in premiums reduces the amount of Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC) that individuals will be eligible for and generates savings of $50 - $100 million per year from 2018 through 2026. There are also three routes through which the waiver will negatively impact the budget by decreasing revenue: individual shared responsibility payments, health insurance providers fees, and federal exchange user fees. Because the waiver will lead to more individuals taking up insurance in the individual market, fewer individuals will owe 2 Attachment 4 Alaska 1332 Waiver - Economic Analysis December 23, 2016 the individual penalty for not having health insurance. The health insurance providers fee depends on the amount of premiums aggregated to the national level. Because the waiver depresses premiums in the Alaska individual insurance market, it will have a secondary negative effect on the total amount collected through the providers fee for years 2019 through 2026. Lower premiums also reduce the amount collected in federal exchange user fees, a 3.5% tax imposed on premiums sold through the Federally Facilitated Marketplace. The aggregate impact on the budget is positive, because the APTC savings outweigh the combined negative impact of the other three channels. Table 2 summarizes the aggregate impact of the four components on the federal budget. Year Final Savings 2016 $0 2017 $0 2018 $48,973,684 2019 $52,260,336 2020 $56,108,411 2021 $61,486,732 2022 $65,612,013 2023 $72,213,851 2024 $77,717,467 2025 $84,814,665 2026 $91,785,506 Table 2: Estimated Savings from Waiver (Before Pass-Through Funding) The overall impact through these four components is about $49 million in savings in 2018. Savings increase in every year thereafter, reaching nearly $92 million in 2026. The savings listed in Table 2 are before the granting of any pass-through funding, so they suggest that as long as pass-through funding is less than or equal to these figures, the proposed waiver will meet the federal deficit neutrality requirement.
    • Alaska as a Case Study of OJJDP-Mandated Jail Monitoring

      Schafer, N. E.; Read, Emily E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1990-10-03)
      The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention has mandated that all states monitor jail records for the presence of juveniles and inspect jails and lock-ups in which juveniles might be detained for sight and sound separation. The experience of Alaska in complying with this mandate is instructive. In the largest state in the union 99 facilities in a monitoring universe of 111 (89.1 %) are accessible only by air or water. Alaska's jail monitoring plan accommodated this inaccessibility. The plan and 1989 monitoring activities are explained and discussed. As the largest state in the Union Alaska has had some unique problems complying with the mandate of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act to monitor secure facilities for the presence of juveniles. In spite of these problems Alaska has produced a model monitoring plan and has successfully completed three years of compliance monitoring activities. The monitoring process and the problems associated with monitoring activities are useful for other states to consider as they review their monitoring plans.
    • Alaska Boards and Commissions: Results of the Alaska Citizen Members Survey

      Knudsen, Kristin S. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2013-07-19)
      This report presents results of a survey of lay adjudicators in mixed-administrative tribunals in Alaska. Mixed administrative tribunals are appointed boards or commissions in which lay members decide legal issues with the involvement of a professional administrative law judge. This involvement varies in degree and methods, depending on the tribunal’s rules and statutes. The report describes reported participation, role perception, attitudes toward law, recruitment, and satisfaction with experience.
    • Alaska career pathways: A baseline analysis

      DeFeo, Dayna Jean; Hirshberg, Diane; LeCompte, Cathy (Center for Alaska Education Policy Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2014-06-01)
      This report details the findings from a 2013 statewide study of career pathways (CP) and programs of study (PoS) in secondary districts in Alaska. Twenty-seven of Alaska’s 54 districts provided data around the maturity of their CP/PoS, the availability of different CP/PoS, how career planning is addressed, and the availability of courses and PoS in the Health Sciences cluster. The differences between urban and rural communities are often noted in conversations around education, programming and policy in Alaska, and the data in this report reflect this established phenomenon. The contribution of this report is in helping to demystify and contextualize some of these known differences, and to make differentiated recommendations for moving forward.
    • Alaska Civic Learning Assessment Project: Final Report and Policy Brief

      Hill, Alexandra; Hirshberg, Diane; Fickel, Letitia (Center for Alaska Education Policy Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2006-11-01)
      In late 2002, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) and Carnegie Corporation of New York, in consultation with the Corporation for National and Community Service, convened a series of meetings involving some of the nation’s most distinguished and respected scholars and practitioners in the area of civic education. The purpose was to determine, based on solid data and evidence, the components of effective and feasible civic learning programs. Representing a diversity of political views, a variety of disciplines, and various approaches, these individuals shared a common vision of a richer, more comprehensive approach to civic education in the United States, notwithstanding some disagreement about aspects of how civic education should be conducted. Their final report, entitled The Civic Mission of Schools, is a compelling statement of the national landscape regarding civic learning and the critical role that schools play in fostering citizenship education. Below is an excerpt from the report’s Executive Summary: For more than 250 years, Americans have shared a vision of a democracy in which all citizens understand, appreciate, and engage actively in civic and political life. In recent decades, however, increasing numbers of Americans have disengaged from civic and political institutions such as voluntary associations, religious congregations, community-based organizations, and political and electoral activities such as voting and being informed about public issues. Young people reflect these trends: they are less likely to vote and are less interested in political discussion and public issues than either their older counterparts or young people of past decades. As a result, many young Americans may not be prepared to participate fully in our democracy now and when they become adults. Recognizing that individuals do not automatically become free and responsible citizens but must be educated for citizenship, scholars; teachers; civic leaders; local, state, and federal policymakers; and federal judges, have with the encouragement of the president of the United States, called for new strategies that can capitalize on young people’s idealism and their commitment to service and voluntarism while addressing their disengagement from political and civic institutions. One of the most promising approaches to increase young people’s informed engagement is school-based civic education. The CIRCLE report identified the following major reasons why schools are ACLAP Final Report & Policy Brief Page 2 important venues for civic education: • It is crucial for the future health of our democracy that all young people, including those who are usually marginalized, be knowledgeable, engaged in their communities and in politics, and committed to the public good. • Encouraging the development of civic skills and attitudes among young people has been an important goal of education and was the primary impetus for originally establishing public schools. • Schools are the only institutions with the capacity and mandate to reach virtually every young person in the country. Of all institutions, schools are the most systematically and directly responsible for imparting citizen norms. • Schools are best equipped to address the cognitive aspects of good citizenship—civic and political knowledge and related skills such as critical thinking and deliberation. • Schools are communities in which young people learn to interact, argue, and work together with others, an important foundation for future citizenship. As a result of the CIRCLE report, the national Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools (CCMS) was launched in 2004, funded by the Carnegie Corp and the Knight Foundation (www.civicmissionofschools.org). The CCMS campaign is working with coalition members and advocates across the political spectrum to dramatically elevate civic learning as an educational priority. The ultimate goal of the campaign is to ensure that schools in the U.S. provide each and every student with a citizenship education that allows them to acquire the skills, knowledge and attitudes that will prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives. Such citizens are those who: • are informed and thoughtful about the history and processes of American democracy and public and community issues and have the ability to obtain information, think critically, and participate in dialogue with others who hold different perspectives; • participate in their communities through organizations working to address cultural, social, political, and religious interests and beliefs; • act politically using the skills, knowledge and commitment needed to accomplish public purposes such as group problem solving, public speaking, petitioning and protesting, and voting; and ACLAP Final Report & Policy Brief Page 3 • have moral and civic virtues such as concern for the rights and welfare of others, social responsibility, tolerance and respect, and belief in their ability to make a difference. As part of the CCMS campaign, competitive grants were awarded to 18 states for projects to advance civic learning. In September 2004, the Alaska Teaching Justice Network (ATJN), a statewide coalition of public, educational, legal, and judicial organizations and individuals dedicated to advancing law-related education in Alaska, secured a small grant from the campaign to conduct the Alaska Civic Learning Assessment (ACLA) Project. The goal of the ACLA Project is to better understand the current state of K-12 civic learning in Alaska and to assess the civic knowledge and experiences of Alaska's youth. The project has focused on both civics topics common across the United States and those unique to Alaska, with the goal of informing efforts to improve civic education in the state. After a brief overview of national research on civic education, this report presents findings from the ACLA Project research on the current status of civic education in Alaska, the civic knowledge of youth and adults, and the attitudes about civic education held by educators, youth and elders.
    • Alaska Department of Corrections: Admissions and Population, 2004–2013

      Parker, Khristy (Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-06-01)
      This fact sheet presents data on admissions to, and confined populations in, the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) from 2004 to 2013, focusing on incarcerated populations and rates, in both in-state and out-of-state facilities, as well as populations and rates in special supervision programs such as Community Residential Centers (CRCs) and electronic monitoring (EM). Data was compiled using the annual DOC Offender Profile publications for 2004 to 2013.
    • Alaska Department of Corrections: Institutional Populations, 2005–2014

      Parker, Khristy (Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-09-08)
      This fact sheet presents data on institutional populations supervised by the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) based on their status in the criminal justice system from 2005 to 2014. Probation and parole populations are excluded unless they have violated the terms of their release and been returned to incarceration; individuals on non-criminal holds are also excluded. Data was extracted from the Alaska Corrections Offender Management System (ACOMS).
    • Alaska Department of Corrections: Post-conviction Incarcerated Population, 2005–2014

      Parker, Khristy (Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-11-01)
      This fact sheet presents data on post-conviction incarcerated populations in both in-state or out-of-state institutions supervised by Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) from 2005–2014. The Fact Sheet focuses on post-conviction incarcerated populations by crime classifications and crime categories overall and within gender. This fact sheet does not include pretrial populations or populations supervised by the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) in non-institutional programs.