• The Bar Hours Change in Anchorage: A Preliminary Study

      Johnson, Knowlton W.; Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1982-04)
      This study, conducted in collaboration with the Salvation Army, Inc., analyzes the impact of a reduction of bar hours in Anchorage, Alaska in October 1981. Prior to the bar hours change, Anchorage bars were closed for only three hours each day. Following the change, bars were closed for eight hours on weekdays and six hours on weekends. Phase I of the study analyzed trends in alcohol distribution and alcohol-related incidents from July 1980 to March 1982. Phase II focused on activities on Fourth Avenue in downtown Anchorage, an area widely perceived as a locus of alcohol-related social disorder. Researchers observed activity in and around Fourth Avenue businesses and conducted semi-structured interviews with employees of designated businesses, social control agents, and emergency service personnel to gather information on perceived positive and negative effects of the bar hours change.
    • Barrow

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1979)
      This unpublished manuscript discusses police, judicial practices, and alcohol control in Barrow and the North Slope Borough of Alaska in the 1970s, and compares outpatient accident trends in Barrow and Bethel and their implications for protective custody laws. Community solutions to alcohol control in an area village, discussed under the pseudonym “Fishnet," are also described.
    • Baseline Assessment: Alaska's Capacity and Infrastructure for Prescription Opioid Misuse Prevention

      Elkins, Amanda; Barnett, Jodi; Hanson, Bridget; Smith, Oliver (Center for Behavioral Health Research & Services, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-08-01)
      The State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) was awarded the Partnerships for Success (PFS) grant by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAHMSA) in 2015. DBH contracted with the Center for Behavioral Health Research and Services (CBHRS) at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) to conduct a comprehensive project evaluation. As part of the evaluation, CBHRS performed a baseline assessment of the state’s capacity and infrastructure related to prescription opioid misuse prevention. Researchers conducted interviews with key stakeholders representing state government, healthcare agencies, law enforcement, substance abuse research, and service agencies. Interviews were semistructured, with questions addressing five domains of interest: (1) state climate and prevention efforts; (2) partnerships and coordinated efforts; (3) policies, practices, and laws; (4) data and data monitoring; and (5) knowledge and readiness. Thirteen interviews were conducted and analyzed using a qualitative template analysis technique combined with a SWOT analysis (i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). Emergent themes are displayed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Emergent themes from SWOT analysis Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (1) New and revised policies and guidelines (2) Activities and partnerships between state agencies and communities (3) Knowledge and awareness of state leadership (1) State policy limitations (2) Insufficient detox, treatment, and recovery support resources (3) Lack of full coordination within state agencies and with communities (1) Education enrichment (2) Policy improvements (3) Expansion of treatment, recovery, and mental health support (1) State fiscal crisis (2) Prescribing practices (3) Complexity and stigma of addiction (4) Legislative support Despite limitations in sample representativeness and interview timing, participants agreed that agencies, communities, and organizations across Alaska have demonstrated great concern about the opioid epidemic and that this concern has translated into considerable efforts to address and prevent opioid misuse. Participants also noted a variety of opportunities as targets for future work, many of which would address some of the current weaknesses that exist. Results yielded clear recommendations for increasing awareness and providing education to a variety of groups, further improving relevant policies to promote prevention, and expanding services for prevention and treatment.
    • Baseline Assessment: Alaska's Capacity and Infrastructure for Prescription Opioid Misuse Prevention

      Elkins, Amanda (Center for Behavioral Health Research & Services, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-08-01)
    • Baseline Opioid Survey: Access, Consumption, Consequences, and Perceptions among Young Adults in Alaska

      Barnett, Jodi; Hanson, Bridget; Smith, Oliver (Center for Behavioral Health Research & Services, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-05-01)
      In September of 2015, SAMHSA awarded the Partnerships for Success (PFS) grant to the State of Alaska  Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Behavioral Health (DBH). The PFS grant program is  a five‐year effort that focuses on preventing and reducing substance use and building prevention  capacity at both the state and community levels. DBH provides leadership for the project and facilitates  the conduct of project activities by community‐level coalitions. Additionally, DBH contracted with the  Center for Behavioral Health Research and Services (CBHRS) at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)  to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the PFS project.   Using a data‐informed prioritization process to narrow the substance abuse focus of the grant, the State  Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup chose two PFS priority areas: 1) non‐medical use of prescription  opioids among 12‐25 year olds; and 2) heroin use among 18‐25 year olds. Data on the use of and  consequences related to prescription opioids and heroin in Alaska are described below.  Partnerships for Success (PFS) Priority Area: Non‐Medical Use of Prescription Opioids  Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) indicate that young adults aged 18‐25  consistently have the highest percentage of non‐medical use of prescription pain relievers in Alaska  compared to youth aged 12‐17 and adults aged 26 and older (see Figure 1).1,2,3 While small decreases in  use were observed among all age groups from 2009 to 2014, the age‐specific pattern remained  consistent.   Figure 1. Past year non‐medical use of prescription pain relievers in Alaska from 2009 to 2014 by age  Additional data requested from NSDUH (see Table 1) indicated no significant change in non‐medical use  of prescription pain reliever estimates among 12‐25 year olds in Alaska between years 2007‐2010 and  2011‐2014 but a decreasing trend was observed for past year use and past year prescription pain  reliever dependence or abuse.4 0 5 10 15 2009-2010 2011-2012 2013-2014 Percentage 12-17 years 18-25 years 26+ years 4 Table 1. Past year non‐medical use of prescription pain reliever estimates among individuals aged 12  to 25 in Alaska from 2007 to 2014  1 Dependence/abuse is based on definitions found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM‐IV)  Estimates of past year non‐medical use of prescription pain relievers among individuals aged 12 and  older in Alaska are slightly higher than national estimates but both follow a small decreasing trend in use  from 2009 to 2014 (see Figure 2).1,2,3 Figure 2. Past year non‐medical use of prescription pain relievers among individuals aged 12 and older in  the U.S. and Alaska from 2009 to 2014  Other indicators related to non‐medical use of prescription opioids in Alaska have also decreased slightly  or stabilized in recent years. Treatment admissions for synthetic opiates (opiates or synthetics including  Methadone, Oxycodone, or Oxycontin) as a primary, secondary, or tertiary substance of abuse have  stayed relatively stable from 2013 to 2015 (1,052 to 1,011 treatment admissions), according to the  Alaska Automated Information Management System (AKAIMS).5  Age‐adjusted overdose death rates in  Alaska have decreased from 11.2 per 100,000 in 2009 to 8.5 per 100,000 in 2015. Although overdose  deaths from prescription opioids are decreasing, Alaska still has higher rates of overdose deaths from  prescription opioids than the nation overall (7.3 vs. 5.1 per 100,000 in 2012).6 
    • Baseline Opioid Survey: Access, Consumption, Consequences, and Perceptions among Young Adults in Alaska

      Barnett, Jodi (Center for Behavioral Health Research & Services, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2017-05-01)
    • A Basic Police Communications and Records System: Student Manual for the Police Communications and Records Program

      Angell, John E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1980)
      This student manual describes the basic structure of a sound police communications and records system, covering organization; files, forms, and procedures; property control records; and records retention and destruction.
    • Bats!

      Reimer, Jesika (University of Alaska Anchorage. Bookstore, 2018-04-04)
      UAA Bookstore presents zoologist Jesika Reimer: Bats! Jesika Reimer is a zoologist at the Alaska Center for Conservation Science at UAA and has been studying bats in the north for the last eight years. She is currently involved in bat research throughout interior Alaska and has been studying a network of little brown myotis maternity colonies in the Copper River basin and along the Tanana River, to assess seasonal activity, roose preferences, and how nocturnal bats survive in the land of the midnight sun.
    • Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs)

      Parker, Khristy (University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, 2009-02-01)
      An overview of key research findings nationally and in Alaska on batterer intervention programs (BIPs). BIPs are intervention and treatment programs intended to reduce recidivism rates among men arrested for domestic violence offenses.
    • BBNA Pebble Mine Technical Assistance Project - FInal Report (Volumes I-III)

      Sharp, Suzanne; Colt, Steve; Langdon, Steve; King, Meg (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2006)
      This report summarizes and incorporates various materials prepared for the Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA) under contractual agreement with the Institute o f Social and Economic Research (ISER) o f the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). The project is known as the BBNA-UAA/ISER Pebble Mine Technical Assistance Project. The project period was September l, 2005 through November 30, 2006. The Pebble Mine Technical Assistance Project was funded by U.S. Department of Environmental Protection through the Indian General Assistance Program (!GAP) for Alaska Native tribes. The funding was provided to the Bristol Bay Native Association through an "unmet needs" grant designed to provide technical assistance to the Bristol Bay tribes and tribal members in addressing environmental quality and subsistence issues associated with the proposed Pebble Mine project. The proposed Pebble Mine would be located in the Kvichak River drainage, home of the world's most productive sockeye salmon fishery and possibly draw water from the Nushagak-Mulchatna River watershed as well. This proposed development raises major issues related to environmental quality o f the lands and waters customarily utilized by Bristol Bay tribes situated in the Kvichak and Nushagak-Mulchatna River drainages. Bristol Bay tribal members from local communities in the vicinity of the proposed Pebble Mine project make substantial subsistence use of natural resources in the area which sustain the nutritional, economic, social and cultural health of tribal members. The purpose of the project was to provide technical assistance to the tribes to allow them to fully comprehend the nature of the Pebble Mine project and its potential impacts on the environment and their subsistence uses, and to enhance their capacity to fully participate in the review and permitting process should permits to develop the Pebble Mine be sought. The purpose of participation is to insure that protection for the environment and subsistence uses that depend on a healthy and productive ecosystem are fully addressed in the project review process.
    • Behind the Pen with Don Rearden's Creative Writing Students

      Rearden, Don (University of Alaska Anchorage. Bookstore, 2012-12-04)
      UAA students from Professor Don Rearden's Creative Writing class read and discuss their current work. Everyone is welcome to attend. Professor Don Rearden teaches creative writing in the Department of English at UAA. He is the author of the novel The Raven's Gift and the co-author of Never Quit, the memoir of Alaskan pararescue operator Jimmy Settle.
    • Benefit vs. Cost of Alaska Criminal Justice Programs

      UAA Justice Center (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2018-01-16)
      The Alaska Results First report released by Alaska Justice Information Center (AJiC) in October 2017 shows the benefit to cost ratio (monetary return on the state’s investment) for Alaska's adult criminal justice programs, provides tools for assessing how changing the cost structure and delivery method can impact benefit to cost ratios, and provides a new eight-year study of Alaska recidivism rates. This article briefly summarizes the report and provides an introduction to an accompanying article about the report's findings on recidivism in Alaska.
    • Benefit-Cost Assessment of the Port Mackenzie Rail Extension

      Colt, Steve; Szymoniak, Nick (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2008-06-20)
      Costs We assume that the Port MacKenzie rail extension would cost $275 million to construct.1 This is a conservative estimate based on a range of between $200 million and $300 million for different route options. The time horizon runs 50 years from 2012 to 2061. O&M costs are assumed to be $1.5 million per year, with a net present value of $26.1 million. The net present value of all costs using a 5% real discount rate2 and a base year of 2010 is $301.1 million. Benefits The rail extension would provide two distinct types of benefits: 1) It reduces the cost of rail transportation; and 2) It is likely to stimulate significant new mines and other major development. These benefits come from a diverse mix of potential projects – thus a strength of the rail extension is that its economic viability does not depend on any one project. Reduced transportation costs Relative to Seward, using the extension would save 140.7 miles per one-way trip.3 Assuming an average cost savings of 6 cents per ton-mile and a 5.0% real discount rate, we estimate that using the extension would save $572 million in avoided rail costs, avoided port costs, and avoided railroad and road upgrades. These savings are shown in the table and figure on the following page. In addition to the above, we estimate that about 22,000 train crossings of Pittman Road and other roads would be avoided by the extension, saving motorists up to 64,000 vehicle-hours of travel time delay between now and 2061.
    • Benefits and Costs to Rural Alaska Households from a Carbon Fee and Dividend Program

      Colt, Steve (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-06-22)
      This paper analyzes the benefits and costs of a carbon fee‐and‐dividend (CFD) policy to individual rural Alaska households. The three study area regions are the Bethel Census Area, the Wade Hampton Census Area, and the Northwest Arctic Borough. These three regions have the state’s highest fuel prices and very cold climates. The CFD policy consists of two elements.  The first is a fee of $15 per metric ton of CO2 beginning in 2016 and increasing by $10 per ton in each subsequent year. The second is the complete return of all fees to households in the form of dividends, which are estimated to equal $300 for each adult plus $150 for each child (up to two). The annual dividends would increase in future years commensurate with the total amount of fees.
    • Benefits and Costs to Rural Alaska Households from a Carbon Fee and Dividend Program - Final Report

      Colt, Steve (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-08-01)
      This paper analyzes the benefits and costs of a carbon fee‐and‐dividend (CFD) policy to individual rural Alaska households. The three study area regions are the Bethel Census Area, the Kusilvak Census Area, and the Northwest Arctic Borough. These three regions have the state’s highest fuel prices and very cold climates. The CFD policy consists of two elements.  The first is a fee of $15 per metric ton of CO2 beginning in 2016 and increasing by $10 per ton in each subsequent year. The second is the complete return of all fees to households in the form of dividends, which are estimated to equal $300 for each adult plus $150 for each child (up to two). The annual dividends would increase in future years commensurate with the nationwide total amount of fees. Baseline conditions.  The study area has a total population of about 32,000 people, many of whom live in large households with low cash income. Fuel prices averaged $6.62 per gallon in January 2015.
    • Benefits of Alaska Native Corporations and the SBA 8(a) Program to Alaska Natives and Alaska

      Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage; Haley, Sharman; Fay, Ginny; Ainsworth, Joel; Angvik, Jane; Hill, Alexandra; Martin, Stephanie (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2009-07-07)
      Senator Begich’s office asked ISER for assistance assembling information to document the social and economic status of Alaska Natives and the benefits of the 8(a) program. His purpose is to brief Missouri Senator McCaskill and her committee which is reviewing the status of ANC contracts awarded under SBA’s 8(a) program. This review was triggered by a 2006 GAO report recommending increased SBA oversight to 8(a) contracting activity. Highlights of the GAO report are provided in Tab A.1; a letter dated May 15, 2009, from Senators Begich and Murkowski to Sentaor McCaskill, outlining their concerns is provided in Tab A.2. As the Congressional Research Service report (Tab A.3) explains, the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program targeting socially and economically disadvantaged individuals was operating under executive authority from about 1970, and under statutory authority starting in 1978. A series of amendments from 1986 to 1992 recognized Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) as socially and economically disadvantaged for purposes of program eligibility, exempted them from limitations on the number of qualifying subsidiaries, from some restrictions on size and minimum time in business, and from the ceiling on amounts for sole-source contracts. Between 1988 and 2005, the number of 8(a) qualified ANC subsidiaries grew from one to 154 subsidiaries owned by 49 ANCs. The dollar amount of 8(a) contracts to ANCs grew from $265 million in FY 2000 to $1.1 billion in 2004, approximately 80 percent of which was in sole-source contracts. (GAO Highlights, Tab A.1) The remainder of this briefing book is divided in three sections. Section 2 addresses changes in the social and economic status of Alaska Natives from 1970--the year before the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the subsequent creation of the ANCs--to the present. ISER’s report on the “Status of Alaska Natives 2004” (Tab B.1) finds that despite really significant improvements in social and economic conditions among Alaska Natives, they still lag well behind other Alaskans in employment, income, education, health status and living conditions. A collection of more recent analyses updates the social and economic indicators to 2008. There were many concurrent changes throughout this dynamic period of Alaska’s history and we cannot attribute all the improvements to the ANCs, though it is clear that they play an important catalyst role. In the final part of section 2 we attempt to provide some historical context for understanding the role ANCs have played in improving the well-being of Alaska Natives. Section C. documents the growth in ANCs and their contributions to Alaska Native employment, income, social and cultural programs and wellbeing, and their major contributions to the Alaska economy and society overall. Section D. Looks specifically at the 8(a) program. Although there are a handful of 8(a) firms with large federal contracts, the majority are small, village-based corporations engaged in enterprise development in very challenging conditions. A collection of six case studies illustrate the barriers to business development these small firms face and the critical leverage that 8(a) contracting offers them.
    • Benefits of the Cook Inlet Ferry to the Municipality of Anchorage

      Szymoniak, Nick; Colt, Steve (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2009-06-30)
      The purpose of this study is to examine the economic benefits of the Cook Inlet Ferry to the Municipality of Anchorage. The Cook Inlet Ferry is currently being built at the Ketchikan, Alaska shipyard. The U.S. Navy has financed construction of the ferry as a prototype military landing craft for northern, ice-filled waters. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough paid for Ferry engineering, design, and outfitting with federal transit monies. Following short-term Navy testing of the craft, it will be transferred to the Borough to provide ferry service in Cook Inlet. The Borough will provide operating and maintenance information to the Navy on an ongoing basis. The Borough will operate the ferry, which will provide regular service between Anchorage and Port MacKenzie as well as service to other points on Cook Inlet. The Ferry is expected to be operational by 2010.
    • Benefits of the Southcentral Rail Extension to the Municipality of Anchorage

      Colt, Steve; Szymoniak, Nick (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2010-01)
      The proposed Southcentral rail extension to Port MacKenzie is likely to generate significant economic benefits for the residents of Anchorage. These benefits are due to a combination of reduced transport costs, the ability to ship bulk commodities over shorter distances, and economical access to industrial land. We considered and analyzed these benefits under a set of assumptions about job creation, transportation costs, land use considerations and future mineral development. Our major findings include the following: Jobs • Port MacKenzie. The rail extension will generate new jobs for Anchorage workers by stimulating industrial development and jobs at Port MacKenzie. Under a base case scenario with a rail extension and ferry service, Anchorage residents would gain 730 average annual jobs and $50 million of annual income during the period of 2013 -2017 from industrial development at Port MacKenzie. Hundreds more jobs would be gained after 2017. The rail extension will play an important role in this process. For example, it will allow coal exports through the port as early as 2013, generating more than 100 jobs. • New Mines. Major new mines shipping concentrate via the rail extension would generate thousands of new jobs, and a significant fraction of these jobs would be held by Anchorage residents. Our detailed analysis of the potential employment from five specific mining projects indicates that more than 2,000 average annual jobs would be created in Anchorage or held by Anchorage residents once the mines are fully developed. Most of these jobs would be in mining and in professional sectors that pay good wages. Also, during initial mine development, many of the jobs would be in construction and fabrication. • Rail Construction. The construction of the rail extension would generate up to 3,000 total jobs, and ongoing operations would generate up to 150 total jobs. It is likely that many of these jobs would be held by Anchorage residents. • State Revenues. State mining taxes generated from new mines will boost the Anchorage economy. Estimated tax revenues and royalties would grow steadily, reaching $267 million per year by 2040. A large share of these potential tax revenues, roughly proportional to Anchorage’s share of state population, would likely flow into the Anchorage economy, sustaining hundreds of direct jobs and reducing property tax burdens that would otherwise stifle private sector job creation. Regional Competitiveness • New Economic Opportunities. Port MacKenzie and the rail extension, operating together, are a significant new strategic asset for the entire regional economy. This infrastructure will create expanded opportunities for mineral, timber, and energy resource development, and the export of bulk commodities by rail through Port MacKenzie constitutes a new economic sector for the Southcentral regional economy. As the region’s commercial and financial hub, Anchorage will gain jobs and income from all of this activity. • More Efficient Land Use. The rail extension allows for higher-valued use of land in Anchorage. The rail extension will allow for railroad-dependent industrial development to take place at Port MacKenzie. This development would allow limited existing industrialzoned land throughout Anchorage to be used for other, higher-value uses such as commercial development, while still meeting the regional economy’s need for industrial land. Fiscal Benefits • New State Revenues. As noted above, revenues to the State of Alaska from new resource development would grow steadily, reaching $267 million per year by 2040. These revenues will reduce the need for other taxes, stimulating capital formation and job creation by the private sector. • Higher Local Tax Base. Local governments will also see higher tax revenues from a higher-valued property tax base. The stimulated new development will increase the tax base and reduce the need to raise taxes on homeowners or existing businesses. Other Benefits • Port of Anchorage. The industrial and mineral development stimulated by the rail extension to Port MacKenzie will likely increase both the volume and the value of cargo going through the Port of Anchorage. For example, if large mines are developed, the goods and equipment used by the mines for development and operations will flow through Anchorage. • Rail Shipping Costs. The unit cost of shipping on the Alaska Railroad is likely to fall as fixed costs of roadbed maintenance and administration are spread over a higher volume of shipments.
    • Best Practices and Guidelines for Scheduling Oil Drill Rig Resources for Projects on Alaska's North Slope

      Mici, Alket (University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015-12-01)
      The recent increase in the number of the projects and activities on the North Slope of Alaska has become challenging, leading to numerous scheduling conflicts for equipment and resources. This project explains steps that can be taken to improve resource allocation and guidelines for scheduling oil drill rig work activities for oil and gas projects on Alaska’s North Slope. The project includes insights from two years of research to improve the oil drill rig scheduling process, a survey of subject matter experts involved in the oil drill rig scheduling process, research of similar Arctic environment projects, and the researchers professional experience identifying and mitigating risks and schedule conflicts in the mid-term planning phase of oil and gas projects. Implementing the proposed guidelines has improved the oil drill rig scheduling process, roles and responsibilities are more clearly defined, communication among groups has been improved and support groups have adequate time to complete their work. Results include reduction of oil drill rig move downtime and a reduction in the time to produce oil after the oil drill rig leaves the well site.
    • Better Understanding the Modifiers of Domestic Water Consumption: An Investigation Project

      Lespin, Eric J. (University of Alaska Anchorage, 2014-04)
      Around the world different living circumstances have an enormous yet poorly quantified impact on human water consumption. Water consumption levels are in turn closely linked to health and quality of life, particularly where access to water is limited. These facts place significant water and health impacts in the hands of those who make design and implementation decisions about living circumstances – professionals who are not necessarily experts in matters of water. This investigation was an examination of the abundant yet discordant and atomized data on human water consumption, providing a summary of water consumption modifiers and water consumption numbers over a wide range of circumstances, in table form, to those involved with dwelling infrastructure, water/sanitation, hygiene, or other water-impacted fields. Disambiguation of the water consumption concept was necessary, which encompasses three categories of consumption: footprint, domestic, and ingestion. Footprint water consumption was documented to be greater than domestic consumption by an order of magnitude. Domestic consumption was found to be ~99% defined by our surroundings and to vary between 7 and 600 lpcd. Principal modifiers of domestic consumption are service level, sanitation decision (dry vs. flush), presence of metering, use of low flow fixtures, residential lot or compound size, and climate. Sanitation decision is linked to substantial health externalities. Price appeared to have a less-than-anticipated impact, due likely to social/health restraints in applying strict economic principles. Dwelling size was found not to be a modifier. Relative impact of modifiers discussed.