Parole and Probation in Alaska, 2002–2016

Underlying data is available in both Excel and PDF format. (Download below.)This fact sheet presents data on the characteristics of offenders who came under the supervision of the Alaska Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole (DOC-PP) between 2002 and 2016. Probation and parole offender data are from the Alaska Department of Corrections’ annual Offender Profile publication. Overall trends saw numbers of probationers and parolees increasing from 2002 to 2012, then decreasing through 2016. The majority of probationers and parolees are between 20 and 34 years old. The trend for both males and females followed the overall trend, increasing from 2002 to 2012 then decreasing. On average, from 2002 to 2016, Alaska Natives were 26.7% of the probation and parole population, Asian & or Pacific Islander 4.1%, Black 8.7%, and White 56.1%.Overall / Age / Gender / Ethnicity / Summary / Note

Value of Stolen Property Reported in Alaska, 1985–2016

Data is available in both Excel and PDF format. (Download below.)This fact sheet presents data on the value of stolen property reported in Alaska from 1985 to 2016 as reported in the Department of Public Safety publication Crime in Alaska. Overall, the 31-year trend reveals that the total value of stolen property in Alaska was relatively static with a trough beginning in 2008 and rising in 2014. The increase in stolen property value from 2014 to 2016 was mainly due to increases in the aggregate values of stolen motor vehicles and miscellaneous items. After adjusting for inflation, the highest total value of stolen property was recorded in 1990 at $61,651,724. The lowest total value of stolen property recorded was in 2011 at$22,189,499. Of the different property types, motor vehicles represented the largest value and share of stolen property. On average, motor vehicles were 53.7% ($24,246,790 per year) of the total value of stolen property.Stolen property / Total value of stolen property / Currency, notes, etc. / Jewelry and precious metals / Clothing and furs / Locally stolen motor vehicles / Office equipment / TV, radios, cameras, etc. / Firearms / Household goods / Miscellaneous Summary / Note

Motor Vehicle Theft Arrests Reported in Alaska, 1985–2015

Data is available in both Excel and PDF format. (Download below.)This fact sheet presents data on motor vehicle theft arrests reported in Alaska from 1985 to 2016 as reported in the Alaska Department of Public Safety publication Crime in Alaska. Overall, the motor vehicle arrest rate consistently declined between 1990 and 2014 when it reached the lowest level in the 1985–2016 period. The motor vehicle arrest rate rebounded in 2015 and 2016. Increases in Alaska motor vehicle arrest rates in 2015 and 2016 were particularly pronounced among adults and males, while motor vehicle arrest rates for juveniles and females remained minimal in comparison. On average, adults accounted for 62.6 percent and juveniles for 37.4 percent of all arrests for motor vehicle thefts reported in Alaska from 1985 to 2016. Males accounted for 81.8 percent of all motor vehicle theft arrests, females 18.2 percent.Motor vehicle theft arrests / Oveally motor vehicle theft arrest rates / Arrest rates by age / Arrest rates by gender / Summary / Note

Effect of Alaska Fiscal Options On Children and Families

Alaska’s state government faces an unprecedented challenge, with the need to close an estimated $3 billion gap between projected revenues and expenditures in fiscal year 2017. Total unrestricted state General Fund revenue in fiscal year 2016 (the 12 months ending June 30, 2016) was$1.3 billion, or about $1,800 per resident. That was barely more than the state dispenses annually to Alaska school districts, to support public education (Alaska Office of Management and Budget, Enacted Fiscal Summary). Despite low oil prices and declining production, petroleum revenues still accounted for 72 percent of these funds (Alaska Revenue Sources Book, Fall 2016, Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division). Alaska is the only state that does not have either state income or sales taxes. It is clear that Alaskans will soon have to accept some form of broad-based revenue measure to enable continued funding of basic public services. A 2016 analysis by ISER researchers discussed the potential effects on Alaska’s economy and households of various options to reduce expenditures and increase revenues.1 That study examined how the effects of revenue measures varied for Alaska households with different levels of income. These same revenue measures and expenditure cuts are also likely to have a much bigger effect on some households than others, depending on the presence and number of children in the family. This study extends the previous analysis by specifically examining how different options would be likely to affect families and children. Many large expenditures in the state budget can easily be identified as specifically benefiting children. These include state-funded programs such as the Alaska Public School Foundation program and the Division of Juvenile Justice and Office of Children’s Services, for example, as well as joint federal-state programs such as Medicaid and Denali Kidcare. Less obvious are the effects on children of potential measures to fund these and other state expenditures. This study focuses on describing and quantifying the effects of alternative state revenue options on Alaska families and children. In addition to considering how the revenue measures might affect families with children compared to households without children, we also consider how the burden of each measure might differ for rural and urban families.National Science Foundation Alaska Children's Trust UA Strategic Investment FUnd

Permanent Fund Dividends and Poverty in Alaska

Presentation given to Anchorage Population and Economic Data Workshop on October 18, 2016 in Anchorage, AK