• 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.
    • 2004 Census and Survey of Homeless Youths in Homer, Alaska

      Rosay, André B. (University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, 2005-06-01)
      In the spring and summer of 2004, we conducted a homeless youth survey and assessed the services available to these youths in order to identify gaps in services. As we interviewed youths, it became clear that we interviewed youths at vastly different stages of homelessness. At the first stage were youths who had less experience being homeless or had just begun their homeless experience. We categorized these youths as runaways. At the second stage were youths who experienced longer, more extensive, or more intense periods of homelessness. We categorized these youths as chronic homeless youths. Runaway youths became homeless primarily because of problems at home, suggesting a need for greater family counseling in Homer. Runaway youths were also heavily involved in drug and alcohol use, suggesting a need for greater drug and alcohol programming. When runaway youths were directly asked about needed services, most expressed needs for additional recreational activities, particularly in terms of places were youth would be welcome. As homelessness progresses from the runaway stage to the chronic homelessness stage, the needs of homeless youths changed. Once at the chronic homelessness stage, the needs of homeless youths become more focused on employment assistance. Chronic homeless youths were homeless because they simply could not afford housing in Homer due to a lack of meaningful employment with decent pay and benefits. Compared to runaways, it is more difficult for chronic homeless youths to transition back into permanent housing. However, employment assistance would allow these youths to transition back into permanent housing. Results from the services survey indicate that many services are already available to homeless youths in Homer. In particular, the basic physical needs of homeless youths appear to be adequately satisfied. Few youths expressed needs for these services. Youths who did express such needs were able to receive these services and held favorable opinions about the services they had received. However, fewer agencies provided employment assistance, drug and alcohol programming, family counseling, or recreational opportunities to homeless youths. At the same time, these were significant needs expressed either directly or indirectly by the homeless youths surveyed. The recommendations that emerge from this study are therefore to enhance employment assistance (particularly for chronic homeless youths) and to enhance drug and alcohol programming, family counseling, and recreational opportunities (particularly for runaway youths). Employment assistance should be designed to lead youths into productive and meaningful careers that provide enough pay to afford housing. All services should be developed so that they are available during the summer (when youths are out of school) and to all youths, including ones who have stopped going to school. Furthermore, it is critical to keep the costs of these services as low as possible, as most of these youths (and their families) have few financial resources. Finally, more should be done to make available services known to homeless youths, particularly to runaway youths. Although many services are already provided to youths in Homer, most runaway youths were unaware of these services. With help and guidance, all youths can successfully transition back into permanent housing. At the same time, these services may prevent youths from becoming homeless.
    • 2010 Anchorage Underage Drinking Survey: A Look at Adult Attitudes, Perceptions, and Norms

      Rivera, Marny; Parker, Khristy; McMullen, Jennifer (University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, 2012-07-12)
      The Anchorage Underage Drinking Survey (AUDS) was conducted to assess adults’ recent exposure to Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol media campaign about underage drinking, as well as adult attitudes, norms, and perceptions regarding the underage drinking problem in Anchorage. Our interest was in understanding community perceptions regarding the extent of the underage drinking problem, underage access to alcohol through social and retail outlets, consequences of underage drinking, and laws and policies designed to reduce underage drinking and the consequences stemming from it. The survey contained six major sections: (1) underage drinking problem, (2) adult influences on underage drinking, (3) alcohol consumption, (4) responses to underage drinking, (5) public service advertisements, and (6) respondent background information.
    • 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 Community Jails: Jail Profiles

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2000-10)
      Highly detailed information derived from billing sheets from 1993–1999 on fifteen community jails (Barrow, Cordova, Craig, Dillingham, Haines, Homer, Bristol Bay Borough, Kodiak, Kotzebue, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Unalaska, Valdez and Wrangell). Each jail profile shows the number of admissions by month, time of day and day of the week; the charge category for admission; the gender breakdown for admissions and bedspace utilization; and the duration of detention by specific charges. The overall analysis revealed that while there is regional variation, public order charges, including drug and alcohol-related charges and protective custody holds, were, overall, the most frequent cause for admission.
    • Alaska Correctional Master Plan: Proposed Funding Strategy

      Endell, Roger V. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1980-03-18)
      In 1978, the State of Alaska committed itself to the development of a comprehensive master plan for its correctional system based on a philosophy consistent with the mandate of the Alaska Constitution (Article 1, Section 12): "Penal administration shall be based upon the principle of reformation and upon the need for protecting the public." A fundamental goal of the recommendations of the Alaska Corrections Master Plan is the provision of the most adequate corrections system for Alaska at the least possible cost. The single most effective means of accomplishing this is to avoid unnecessary incarceration of offenders, thereby avoiding the capital cost of constructing new facilities to accommodate growing inmate populations. Avoidance of unnecessary incarceration in turn requires development of a full range of community-based corrections programs, including pre-trial release, probation, pre-release, and parole supervision. This report recommends administrative and statutory changes for a proposed funding strategy.
    • Alaska Correctional Requirements: A Forecast of Prison Population through the Year 2000

      Barnes, Allan R.; McCleary, Richard (School of Justice & School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 1986-01-03)
      The growth of the Alaska prison inmate population over the past fifteen years has been substantial. According to available statistics there were 482 institutionalized adult prisoners under control of the Alaska Division of Corrections in January 1971; by January 1980 this population had increased to 770 inmates; and between 1980 and 1985, the number of Alaska inmates almost tripled, rising from 770 to 2,073. Accurate forecasts of the future size and makeup of the prison population are needed as a basis for long-range programs and capital planning. This report presents long and short-term forecasts of the Alaska incarcerated prisoner population and bedspace needs of the Alaska Department of Corrections through the year 2000. The forecasts were developed by taking into consideration historical facts and status quo assumptions. Attention is also given to the impact of the 1980 Alaska criminal code revision on unsentenced and sentenced populations. The forecast derived from this study provides evidence of the need for additional institutional capacity in Southcentral Alaska by 1990. Planning should proceed for a capacity of 1,000 beds to be available for use by 1990.
    • Alaska Correctional Requirements: A Forecast of Prison Population through the Year 2000 — Executive Summary

      UAA School of Justice (School of Justice, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-01-03)
      This Executive Summary presents major findings of the full report on the bedspace needs of the Alaska Department of Corrections as projected by the School of Justice through the year 2000. The forecast derived from this study provides evidence of the need for additional institutional capacity in Southcentral Alaska by 1990. Planning should proceed for a capacity of 1,000 beds to be available for use by 1990.
    • Alaska Corrections Master Plan: A Preliminary Draft Summary

      Endell, Roger V. (Criminal Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1979-07-11)
      In 1978, the State of Alaska committed itself to the development of a comprehensive master plan for its correctional system based on a philosophy consistent with the mandate of the Alaska Constitution (Article 1, Section 12): "Penal administration shall be based unon the principle of reformation and upon the need for protecting the public." This summary of the Alaska Corrections Master Plan was prepared to facilitate an overview of the various sections of the plan prior to the final meeting of the joint Master Plan Advisory Committee. As the plan itself was not yet in final approved form, this summary reflects the plan as it existed prior to finalization.
    • The Alaska Corrections Master Plan: Legislative Implications

      Endell, Roger V. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1979-11-08)
      This paper provides to members of the Alaska State Legislature a summary of those areas of the Alaska Corrections Master Plan which have obvious legislative implications. It includes recommendations for (1) statutory changes, (2) operational funding (personnel), and (3) capital improvements above and beyond the "normal" correctional budgetary process. It is not an all-inclusive narrative summary of the Master Plan. The summary provides page reference numbers to the Master Plan, general topics, and a brief description of the recommendations under the three major topical headings listed above.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 1: Offenses against the Person

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-02)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 1 is comprised of four articles contained in the Offenses Against the Person chapter of the draft Revised Criminal Code: criminal homicide, assault and related offenses, kidnapping and related offenses; and sexual offenses. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include general definitions of terms used throughout the Code, including definitions of the four culpable mental states; derivations of each provision of the Code; existing law that the Code will revise; status of criminal code revision in other U.S. states; and an index to commentary.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 2: General Principles of Criminal Liability; Parties to a Crime; Attempt; Solicitation; Justification; Robbery; Bribery; Perjury

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-02)
      he Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 2, is comprised of seven articles of the draft Revised Criminal Code: general principles of criminal liability; parties to crime; justification; attempt and related offenses (part 1); robbery; bribery and related offenses; and perjury and related offenses. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code; existing law that the Code will revise; and an index to commentary.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 3: Offenses against Property

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-04)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 3, is composed of five articles contained in the Offenses Against Property chapter of the draft Revised Criminal Code: theft and related offenses; burglary and criminal trespass; arson, criminal mischief, and related offenses (part 1); forgery and related offenses; and general provisions. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code; existing law that the Code will revise; and an index to commentary.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 4: Conspiracy; Criminal Mischief; Business and Commercial Offenses; Escape and Related Offenses; Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings; Obstruction of Public Administration; Prostitution; Gambling

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-07)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 4, is composed of nine articles of the Revised Criminal Code: attempt and related offenses (part 2); arson, criminal mischief, and related offenses (part 2); business and commercial offenses; escape and related offenses; offenses relating to judicial and other proceedings; obstruction of public administration; general provisions; prostitution and related offenses; and gambling offenses. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code and amendments to the gambling provisions of Title 5 of the Alaska Statutes.