MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES
Sixty-seventh Session
May 19, 1993
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Vice Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:43 p.m., on Wednesday, May 19, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator Lori L. Brown
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, District No. 35
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst
Susan Henson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael McMahon, Social Service Director, Churchill County Welfare
John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services
Denell Hahn, Director, Clark County Social Services
Jon Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services
Verlia Davis, Deputy Director, Clark County Social Services
May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Robert Ranney, Director, Clark County Juvenile Court Services
Vice Chairman O'Donnell opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 27.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 27:Urges Congress to support "ENABLE" program. (BDR R-1896)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, District No. 35, testified in support of A.J.R. 27. She testified that this resolution urges Congress to fund the ENABLE demonstration project. The project would create a network of family services throughout rural Nevada that would address the needs of families holistically. At the present time, many families receive a variety of health and human services, but there is no organization. The service system is hampered by the confusion of responsibility, and it does not respond to the changing needs of communities. A major reason for the confusion is that government makes decisions by program, rather than by policy. Assemblywoman de Braga stated ENABLE will provide a primary case manager for a family and provide one-stop-shopping that will make the process more efficient and therefore less costly to the state, the counties, and to the people who need those services. The project involves establishing 17 family service centers in the 15 rural counties. These centers will provide simultaneous eligibility determinations for all services, maintain information, and develop innovative funding sources. She continued, the goal will be to help families attain self-sufficiency. The grant being sought by A.J.R. 27 is for start-up costs only. Once the service center network is in place, it will utilize existing state and local budget appropriations. Assemblyman de Braga introduced Michael McMahon, Social Service Director, Churchill County Welfare, and originator of the ENABLE project.
Mr. McMahon spoke before the committee, not on behalf of Churchill County, nor the Association of County Welfare Directors, but rather to present an alternative to the existing mechanism of providing health and human services throughout rural Nevada. More specifically, Mr. McMahon requested endorsement of this resolution which would support and facilitate acquisition of funds needed to develop this network.
He stated the ENABLE project proposes the development of a network of 17 separate community-based family service centers throughout rural Nevada. There have been two different grants written and submitted to the federal government. Within those two grants, the federal government has mandated there be a clear consensus, both by the state, as well as the 15 rural counties that are affected, supporting the concept so they can proceed with the funding process.
Mr. McMahon presented the committee with a document entitled Today's Government Challenges (Exhibit C). He referred to page 1 which depicts the challenge that is faced by all levels of government today, and the requirement to provide more services with less or diminishing resources. The ENABLE concept operates under the premise that there are no new funds. The project talks about
utilizing the existing allocated resources more effectively throughout the network of family service centers.
He explained page 2 (Exhibit C) sets out what the ENABLE projects expect to accomplish, a single point of access, or essentially a one-stop shopping center. This would be a one-roof area where people could apply for services, receive services, or acquire additional education, such as parenting skills, or communication skills to deal with aging children. Another aspect is automated eligibility. Once the information has been captured, it will be electronically scanned to determine eligibility for all programs and services. Additionally, the project will be purchasing and installing pre-existing computer programs that can do electronic eligibility determinations. These are community-based programs which will allow for the planning and delivery of services specific to a particular community. Rural Nevada has been at a disadvantage in its ability to secure additional funding sources, or new programs. It does not have a data collection system which allows the state to count the services, programs and needs and create statistical data to present to the legislature, or federal government, and thus receive additional programs. The ENABLE project puts everything under one roof giving the state that consistency.
Mr. McMahon drew attention to page 3 (Exhibit C) which depicts how the ENABLE program will work. Basically, the individual counties would contract with ENABLE for services that would normally be provided through the county. Additionally, ENABLE would contract with the various state agencies, services and programs so that all of those services would then be available through each of the family service sites. It puts everybody under one roof, one eligibility process and one case management system.
He explained the cost issue is dealt with on page 4 (Exhibit C). ENABLE is premised on utilizing existing resources more effectively. Historically, human service funds have been broken down at 60 percent to Clark County, 20 percent to Washoe County, and 20 percent to rural Nevada. ENABLE is not looking to offset those percentages, but rather to utilize the existing 20 percent which goes to rural Nevada through this network.
Mr. McMahon pointed out the existing current access sites in rural Nevada are shown on page 5 (Exhibit C), and a pictorial representation of what ENABLE expects to accomplish by having 17 sites is shown on page 6 (Exhibit C). Many people in rural Nevada do not have resources or transportation to travel to and access the current service sites. With 17 centers throughout the state, the pupil can access the services more readily.
Mr. McMahon said benefits of the ENABLE program are discussed on page 7 (Exhibit C). A cost savings will be realized as the project will reduce the duplication of rent and various lease agreements with photocopiers, telephone systems, etc., as they will be taken care of through one central point. Additionally, the single point of accountability will allow the program to more accurately determine if the families are reaching a point of self-sufficiency. By establishing contracts with the state and the counties, the programs are locked into specific time frames which lend the system a certain predictability. The system allows for flexibility whereby resources can be moved within the network. Mr. McMahon spoke of Churchill County, which has a teen pregnancy problem, and thus would use a different mix of services when compared to Eureka county, where the predominant demographics are senior citizens.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell asked Mr. McMahon if he had received any reaction from Washington D.C. In response to the Vice Chairman's question, Mr McMahon stated within health and human services the second grant was submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the federal government appears to be interested in these programs. They are looking at several other models throughout the United States which would provide integrated service delivery in the rural areas. Washington D.C. seems to be in favor of programs of this type, and it appears funds are available. In further response to Vice Chairman O'Donnell's question, Mr. McMahon stated ENABLE is not a state program, but rather a private company, and gave a brief explanation as to the history and incorporation of ENABLE. In his opinion, a third party entity acting as a facilitator between the counties and state seemed to be a more effective mechanism to insure trust by all parties.
Senator Glomb commended Mr. McMahon for his efforts with this innovative project, and questioned if the state employees would be working for ENABLE.
Mr. McMahon replied that ENABLE would contract with the counties and utilize the existing allocations for a particular program. The county would take the percentage of the budget going to fund those projects in the rural areas and contract with ENABLE to perform those services. There are issues which are currently unresolved, such as the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), etc., however, these are being looked at and addressed. Mr. McMahon said he has gone to the Governor and requested an executive order, and has been working with Jerry Griepentrog-Carlin, Director, Department of Human Resources, to look at the impact this would have throughout the state.
Senator Glomb asked Mr. McMahon if a cost analysis has been done. In response to Senator Glomb's question, Mr. McMahon directed the senator to the Project Summary Description (Exhibit D), the last page entitled Source and Use of Funds. He stated the funding would allow the ENABLE project to examine the proposed areas, as the specific sites have not yet been identified. Within many of the rural communities, there is no infrastructure that can be affordably modified to accommodate the American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, etc. However, there are other facilities, such as school buildings, senior centers, or other buildings that could be utilized. Mr. McMahon stated passage of A.J.R. 27 would show consensus and support of the concept.
In response to Senator Brown's question, Mr. McMahon pointed out ENABLE is an S Corporation within the state of Nevada.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell asked John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, if the state had an opinion regarding the ENABLE project. Mr. Sarb stated it was his understanding A.J.R. 27 is a resolution which would allow Mr. McMahon to apply for a federal grant to essentially look at the viability of this project. Prior to the state transferring $120 million to a private corporation, the project will require a lot of work and analysis to determine the feasibility. Currently the state has no opposition to the project and will even be offering support in attempting to locate services as close to the community as possible.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 27.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 27.
SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (CHAIRMAN RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Vice Chairman O'Donnell opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 57.
SENATE BILL 57: Authorizes county to exclude indigent person deemed to be employable and with no dependent children from cash grants for necessary maintenance. (BDR 38-216)
Denell Hahn, Director, Clark County Social Services, requested S.B. 57 due to the lack of flexibility in serving different categories of clients in Clark County. She stated the county has been working with Jon Sasser of Nevada Legal Services, in drafting an amendment which would partially solve his concerns and the county's concerns. She remarked the county has one lingering concern, a previously introduced amendment to S.B. 57 to eliminate the word "household," Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 428.015 and 439B.310. The county would like to eliminate the definition of household in the statute, as it does not address the different kinds of households being dealt with in the various programs in Clark County. Ms. Hahn suggested the Clark County Commissioners, who are authorized by other sections, establish their guidelines of those who qualify. However, she pointed out Mr. Sasser feels the definition of household must remain in the statute.
Jon Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services, testified that his position on the bill remains the same, he would prefer the bill not pass. He reiterated in his original testimony, he stated he would be willing to explore a definition of who is or who is not employable be put in the statute. In furtherance of a meeting held with Ms. Hahn of Clark County Social Services, an amendment has been drafted (Exhibit E) to meet that criteria. Basically, this amendment states that a person who, although able bodied, but facing substantial barriers to employment, could not be turned away at the front door of social services. Once that person gets in the front door, social services would continue to work with them, either by requiring job searches, requiring the person to participate in the General Assistance for Temporary Employment (GATE) program, or other employment and training programs.
Mr. Sasser pointed out the county is unhappy with the words "poor employment history" found in section 2(c)(i) of the proposed amendment (Exhibit E).
Mr. Sasser testified there is one clause the bill drafters included in the original bill that was not requested and which, in his opinion, could be misinterpreted, section 2, line 19, which reads, "as determined by the board of county commissioners." Mr. Sasser briefly outlined for the committee his concerns regarding interpretation of the language. He stated during discussions with the county there appeared to be no problem with deletion of that language. Therefore, he presented the second proposed amendment (Exhibit F) which deletes the above-referenced language from the bill.
Mr. Sasser said the final issue is a proposed amendment introduced by Verlia Davis, Deputy Director, Clark County Social Services, at the previous hearing. That proposed amendment would remove the word household from the statute and leave the definition up to the county commissioners. Mr. Sasser asserted the definition of household applies not only to the cash assistance program, but it also defines who is eligible for medical assistance, and as a result, for whom the county pays hospital bills under the medical indigency program, and whose bills the hospital has to write off as bad debts. Mr. Sasser stated he understood Ms. Hahn's concerns, but felt this could raise collateral questions which have not been addressed, plus it could have an impact on the budgets of county and private hospitals. Mr. Sasser stated the definition of household is at issue in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 460. Mr. Sasser encouraged the committee to either hold further hearings on A.B. 460, or to reject the county's proposed amendment introduced at the earlier hearing on S.B. 57.
Assembly Bill 460: Requires counties to use level signifying poverty for Nevada in determining eligibility of indigent persons for financial and medical assistance. (BDR 38-1452)
Ms. Hahn remarked she did not have a copy of the proposed amendment with her, but explained it dealt with elimination of the word household from the statute. Ms. Hahn explained at this time the county uses an eligibility unit for various programs, and that eligibility unit is different if they are applying for nursing home care versus out-patient medical care. The county is also using a different definition for homemaker care because they are using the Title 20 Grant, and their definition of a household for purposes of eligibility is different than the county definition.
Ms. Hahn encouraged deletion of the word household from the statute. She noted for the record she would not have any problem introducing the amendment provided by Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst, which would solve the problem as well.
Senator Glomb wished to clarify her understanding of the testimony taken today. She noted the parties concerned have reached a measure of consensus, except Mr. Sasser who, in principal, objects to the bill as a whole. The senator asked Mr. Sasser to explain his objections to the bill.
Mr. Sasser stated there are three ways to approach the problem of employable people who are poor and needy, but do not have a job. One extreme is to say everybody who is able bodied will be turned away at the front door. Mr. Sasser said that was in the original bill and he voiced his objection. The second approach is to let everybody in the door, as is done today, but once they get in the door, require a number of things of them, (1) require they look for work in good faith, and terminate them if they do not comply, (2) require them to engage in work for their money through something like the GATE program, (3) require them to engage in any employment training activities the county mandates, and (4) if there is reason to believe they will waste their money on alcohol, make the payment directly to a landlord. In Mr. Sasser's opinion, this system, which is currently in place, works fine the way it stands because there are four protections to make sure malingerers do not get on and stay on the program and the county's interests are protected. The third approach is to have staff spend time sorting through each person and make an administrative decision as to their eligibility. Mr. Sasser emphasized in his opinion, the current approach works fine and there is no reason to change the law.
In response to Vice Chairman O'Donnell's remark, Mr. Sasser agreed the funds question is a complicated issue. There is a cap that goes to this program and the medical program. The cap is on a base year that goes up 4 percent per year. In every year, the total of the cash assistance program and the medical assistance program has exceeded the cap, and consequently the program has been broke for the past 12 years. When the program is broke, as this is tied in with the county hospital, the hospital gets 80 or 90 percent reimbursement, and the portion it does not get is passed along, either with other county funds, or is bad debt. There is a shifting line, and the question is does the county shift the line over $100,000 this way or that way. As this program is broke every year they must create priorities and the priority with the least political clout is the group of single-employables, who will disappear and never come back.
Ms. Hahn disagreed with Mr. Sasser and stressed, in her opinion, the system is not working. She stated her office turns 30 to 40 people away per day, who are in need of assistance. The department is understaffed because employee's salaries are under the cap and additional salary money would come out of the service money. The department exceeded appropriations in the budget by about $1 million last year, and expects the same this year. Ms. Hahn feels the single-employables have an advantage over the elderly, disabled and the women with families who are not able to show up at 4:00 a.m. to get the earliest slots in line. It is her understanding the department must serve all categories equally and thus they cannot prioritize, as this is in violation of the due process rights of the single-employable. The single person who is able bodied gets the same grant as a pregnant female. Ms. Hahn emphasized the system is not working and the county program cannot keep up with the demand. She is seeking more flexibility to prioritize. Ms. Hahn did voice her agreement with the second amendment (Exhibit F) proposed by Mr. Sasser.
Verlia Davis, Deputy Director, Clark County Social Services, stressed the inability to serve all those in need of assistance has become a morale problem for staff, in that they feel they are not able to serve those who are the most needy.
In response to Vice Chairman O'Donnell's comments, Mr. Sasser agreed social services is dealing with an underfunded program, which is the real issue. However, he stated, to cut a group off avoids the real issue. In his opinion, the problem can be addressed administratively through appointment systems, different kinds of lines, etc. He pointed out women and children have other programs, such as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) and the single-employables have no other programs. Mr. Sasser stressed by closing the door on this one particular group, the single employable, their related problems will appear elsewhere in the system.
Senator Glomb asked if each county is allowed to say how they administer their general assistance program. Ms. Hahn replied they must operate under certain guidelines set by statute. Senator Glomb asked if the rurals do it differently than Washoe County versus Clark County. Ms. Hahn responded they are held to a different standard than Clark County. Washoe County and Clark County are the only programs paying cash assistance. A discussion ensued between Senator Glomb and Ms. Hahn regarding the "poor employment history" language in the proposed amendment (Exhibit E). Senator Glomb asked if Washoe County utilizes a priority system.
May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services, testified she agrees with all the amendments and suggestions Ms. Hahn proposed, in that Washoe County is having similar problems with the growth of the cash assistance program. Ms. Shelton presented to the committee graphs depicting general assistance expenditures by category (Exhibit G). She pointed out in fiscal year 1989-1990 expenditures were $311,416, and in fiscal year 1990-1991 those expenditures increased to $671,447. Ms. Shelton pointed out 1990-1991 was the year they started serving single and married couples who were employable, with no dependents. Washoe County voluntarily did this as the court ruled in favor of Nevada Legal Services in a lawsuit brought by a single-employable. Washoe County will only help the employables and mothers waiting to get on ADC for 30 days during any 12 month period. She implied Washoe County would continue to follow these procedures until told to cease by a court of law, even though Nevada Legal Services has made it known this is not a fair practice.
Mr. Sasser explained that Clark County, by regulation, elected to no longer serve the single-employables. Nevada Legal Services challenged their ability to do that under the existing state statute and the court agreed with Nevada Legal Services and Clark County now serves single-employables.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell encouraged Mr. Sasser to state that he would, "never challenge this language in future cases." Mr. Sasser replied, "There are no constitutional arguments that can be made against this kind of language." However, how it is applied in an individual case, or if they adopt regulations implementing this, or inconsistent with this, those might be challenged. He reiterated, "There would not be a constitutional challenge to the state's ability to do these kinds of limitations."
Senator Brown stated she was under the impression that the main purpose was to let programs like GATE not be challenged, in that if the county offers someone work and they refuse, the county does not have to give them money.
In response to Senator Brown's statement, Ms. Hahn remarked the purpose of this bill is to allow the county to treat categories of people differently, and allow the county to treat the group of people who do not have any work restrictions different than they treat other clients.
Senator Brown commented she received language from Carole Vilardo which appears to be different than the language proposed today, which basically says if employment is offered and the person decides not to work, assistance can be denied.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, responded to Senator Brown's remark by advising she was not able to attend the end of the meeting and thus was not aware of the recent language change. Ms. Vilardo stated she would be comfortable with the new language if social services and legal services could agree, so as to avoid threats of legal action.
Mr. Sasser emphasized no amendment would make him fully happy; however, he stated he could live with the proposed amendments and deletion of the language "poor employment history." However, he stressed he did not feel further discussion would resolve defining the word household.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell noted with the loss of a quorum, the meeting was now a subcommittee hearing and as such they would be unable to act on S.B. 57. He called on John Sarb to begin his presentation.
John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, began his presentation on the Nevada Family Academy and introduced Michael McMahon, Social Service Director, Churchill County Welfare, and Robert Ranney, Director, Clark County Juvenile Court Services.
Mr. Sarb stated the Nevada Family Academy is a program of the Council of Governor's Policy Advisors, jointly with the American Public Welfare Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Eighteen months ago there was a competitive bid for states to apply to be members of the academy, and Nevada was chosen as one of the seven states to participate. Mr. Sarb distributed to the committee a packet entitled Nevada Family Academy Vision Statement (Exhibit H). The Council of Governor's Policy Advisors specified what parties were required to participate in the Nevada membership. The list of individuals appointed by Governor Miller to serve on the Nevada Family Academy Team, page 11 (Exhibit H) met the challenge. The first round of states came away with some interesting developments. For example, four states created new coordinating bodies within their state governments, others states are revamping the existing state level coordinating council, and some states are creating innovative budgeting, Most of the states were attempting to implement this program at a time when recessionary impacts on state budgets were dramatic, and the states were forced to come up with programs with little or no money.
Mr. Sarb said the intent is to create a group that can examine policy as it affects families in the state. By design, the council was set up for the long haul. Currently, the Governor has before him an executive order which would expand the membership to include some important interests which were not previously included.
Mr. Sarb explained the packet distributed (Exhibit H) includes an environmental scan of the status of families in Nevada. He stated, for the most part, the majority of Nevada families are functioning well. Members of the council occupationally deal with those families who are not doing well. Mr. Sarb pointed out there are some alarming situations, such as the population growth in the under 18 age group. Nevada's total population increased by 50 percent during the 1980s. During that time, the adolescent population only grew by 8 or 9 percent, while the elementary school (age 6-12) grew faster than the state average as a whole. He emphasized the state must get ready for the problems associated with a doubling of the adolescent population. One of the more distressing problems is the growth in the poverty population, overwhelmingly female headed households with children under the age of 6 years.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell asked Mr. Sarb if his division has anything to do with the welfare end of family services. Mr. Sarb pointed out his division does not, but Myla Florence, the Welfare Administrator, is a member of the Nevada Family Academy. He told the story of a Las Vegas homeless mother of seven children. Family Services has had the seven children in care, because of neglect, for the past 4 years and pays $2,500 per month in foster care. This figure does not include medical care, staff time, or court time. If the division could fund the mother directly with the $2,500, she would be able to make things work at less cost to the state. The example points out the inefficiency of the system. The family academy is looking at family needs versus what the bureaucracy dictates.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell suspended the presentation and reopened the hearing on S.B. 57 as a committee quorum was present. He advised he would accept a motion to have the bill drafters prepare two amendments to S.B. 57, based on the proposed amendments presented to the committee. Vice Chairman O'Donnell stated after the amendments have been drafted, they will be brought before the committee for review and discussion.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 57, INCORPORATING EXHIBIT E, DELETING THE LAST THREE WORDS UNDER (c)(i) OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND INCLUDING EXHIBIT F.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (CHAIRMAN RAWSON, SENATORS NEAL AND GLOMB WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Vice Chairman O'Donnell excused Senators Townsend and Coffin and continued the hearing as a subcommittee.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell then told a personal story of his visit to welfare at a time when his family was in a financial crisis, and was advised by the welfare department to get a divorce in order to qualify for state funding.
Mr. Sarb acknowledged this problem in the welfare department and stated it also happens in aging services when seniors are advised to get divorced in order to preserve assets for the surviving spouse. This illustration captures the essence of the realization which came out of the family academy process. Mr. Sarb stated the only biologically imperative social unit is the family. All other social units in place, jobs, etc., are to support that family. Families have been bypassed and the systems designed to help are actually hurting the family unit. Ninety percent of division funds are spent on families that have been pulled apart in some fashion, and 10 percent on keeping those same families together. It is a disproportionate problem which must be reversed to properly address retention of the family unit.
Robert Ranney, Director, Clark County Juvenile Court Services, and member of the Nevada Family Academy Team, stated that families within the communities should be coming together to tell the systems what they need and help set aside the categorical funding streams which appear to be failing. Mr. Ranney told the story of going into the Las Vegas Meadows Village neighborhood and the 89109 zip code area in Las Vegas to retrieve data as to services available and the needs of those communities. A survey in the Meadows Village community revealed virtually no services were being provided, but did point to it as being a problem area. A group from that community got together and took action. A building was donated and a park was developed, plus other things are currently in the works. Within the 89109 area the crime numbers, drug trafficking, child abuse, and child neglect numbers were frightening, and there were no resources available. A group of community people came up with some action plans which they are actively pursuing. Recreational activities have received a tremendous response from the kids, some provided during peak troublesome hours before or after school. A building has been donated and county services will be provided in the 89109 neighborhood.
Mr. Ranney went on to state the whole problem has not yet been solved, and in particular the categorical funding issues must be addressed. The Nevada Family Academy promotes communities and neighborhoods coming together to meet the needs of their families and children.
Michael McMahon, Social Service Director, Churchill County Welfare, and member of the Nevada Family Academy Team, responded to comments heard earlier in the hearing. The academy allowed the participants to look at human services in terms of policy, and not in terms of specific programs. In many states, a multitude of programs have evolved with no overriding policy to govern those programs. These individual programs have insulated themselves with unique barriers. People seeking services must run all over town to try and get those services. This allowed the academy an opportunity to look at the overall picture and to start making some policy considerations. The main focus should be the child, then the family, the community and the state. Each of these areas has a direct relationship and a direct responsibility as it pertains to that child's growth and development.
Mr. Sarb reiterated how difficult it was for the academy to assess the responsibility. It was able to conclude the family is indeed the best group to be responsible. Very little that gets done by government focuses on the community. It is difficult to craft a statewide policy that deals equally with Las Vegas and Gabbs due to the disparity in size and location. There needs to be a better way to hear what the individual communities need from the state. There are very few community spokespeople in this area. Along those lines, Reno now has the Children's Cabinet, the newly formed Family Cabinet in Las Vegas, plus activity along those same lines in Tonopah, Carson City, Incline Village, and Fallon.
Mr. McMahon commented that his department is starting to see communities reacting to the state's inability to respond to their needs. Policy makers within the communities are beginning to come together and set up programs specifically addressing their individual needs. The idea behind the academy is to facilitate or further empower these groups to address the needs within that community.
Mr. Ranney pointed out that laws and policies are often passed with good intentions to benefit a particular group, such as women or men getting divorced, or children, when in essence that policy, based on the state's method of categorical funding, may have the opposite effect of encouraging families to separate. The state, through a policy statement, needs to emphasize its support of the family and encourage the family to be self supportive and take care of their own problems.
Mr. McMahon declared the vision statement (Exhibit H) involved countless hours of grappling over minute terminology. However, this evolved into a statement that can guide the state for many years to help meet the needs of the state as it grows, to support the families, to empower and keep families intact and strong, and to take care of the next generation.
Mr. Ranney spoke of two practical examples, one being Oregon, and the other Indiana. Indiana took $180 million out of their prison budget, and actually established that the prison population dropped further than the $180 million they invested. In Oregon, the legislature put 10 percent of the general fund budget into a pot. This money was to be used to reduce school dropout rates, reduce low birth weight babies, etc. and anyone could request for proposal (RFP) for the money, which breaks the money out of the categorical funding system. The methodology is to create a strategy and to bring people together who are willing to gamble on the system, to take some the resources and see if it can be more effective.
Mr. Sarb said the members talked about whether the state is abrogating its responsibility in this area. He pointed out it is not the state's intention to do that. The state recognizes it must start spending money on the front end because it cannot afford the back end. With the current budget crisis, Mr. Sarb stated he cannot guaranty he will not be sued, with the proliferating sense of rights that individuals have around different kinds of care, and if sued, there is not guaranty the state will win. Mr. Sarb stressed if that happens, the judiciary takes away the decision making. The reality is if the state can no longer deliver, the court will order it to deliver. In a practical sense, the goal is to begin the prevention process.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell suspended the hearing to present a Bill Draft Request (BDR) 34-1987, as a quorum was present.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-1987: Requires endorsement in library science for teacher who provides instruction relating to use of school library.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 34-1987.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (CHAIRMAN RAWSON, SENATORS TOWNSEND AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Mr. Sarb continued his presentation and pointed out there are a number of projects appearing that reflect the prevention thinking. For instance, Clark County has a program entitled Cities and Schools, a service integration system, which will be putting services in schools so families can look to the school as a community center, as well as an education site. Mr. Sarb recognized this is not a new idea, and the Nevada Family Academy will seek to support this idea. Mr. Sarb stated the goal of the state should be to listen to the needs of the family, which in essence oftentimes is simpler and cheaper than what the state is willing to do.
There being no further business, the Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Susan Henson,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
May 19, 1993
Page 1