The Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order at 1:40 PM, on Monday, March 15, 1999. Chairman Vivian Freeman presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman, Chairman

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Ms. Merle Berman

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. Mark Manendo

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Debra Jacobson, Manager, State Regulatory Affairs, Southwest Gas Corporation

Following roll call, Chairman Freeman opened the hearing on A.B. 280.

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Clark County Assembly District 8, introduced A.B. 280 and told the committee the bill was an attempt to bring civil rights laws into the 21^st century. A.B. 280 addressed specifically civil rights for individuals with disabilities. The legislation was intended to promote the use of positive behavioral supports and to prohibit the use of aversive or deprivation techniques, especially when those techniques were used because of a disability. For example, an individual with a disability who was unable to respond quickly to a command should not be punished because of that inability to respond quickly to that command.

Since introducing A.B. 280 Assemblywoman Buckley said she had received contact from state institutions such as Mental Health and Mental Retardation and Aging Services. The response from those agencies was not concern those

civil rights should be recognized, but concern about the lack of definitions in the bill.

Areas of major concern were use of the words "seclusion" and "restraint," particularly "chemical restraint." If someone was given medication to control mental illness as true treatment protocol, that practice should not be prohibited. The goal was to prohibit use of "chemical restraint" for the convenience of management.

Chairman Freeman asked Assemblywoman Buckley if there were instances of such treatment or if the goal were simply to clean up the statutes. Assemblywoman Buckley responded both circumstances applied. She expressed concern about school settings. In Clark County a new elementary school opened almost every month which left little time for training in the areas addressed by A.B. 280. It could be argued that circumstance involved only Clark County; however, the issues arose in special education classes everywhere, whether or not in a closed classroom setting.

Assemblywoman Buckley presented a rewrite of A.B. 280 (Exhibit C) to the committee. Exhibit C defined prohibitive disciplinary and controlled procedures as well as penalty enforcement for violations or retaliation for reporting such violations.

Prohibitions included:

• using noxious substances or smells;
• water mist or blasts of air;
• corporal punishment such as hitting or pinching;
• verbal intimidation;
• electric shock;
• locked seclusion;
• chemical restraint except as provided further in A.B. 280;
• requiring a person to maintain a painful physical position;
• deprivation of senses;
• deprivation of necessities for sustaining health; and
• using room time out in emergency situations.

Controlled procedures could only occur when the procedure was based on need as defined in the individual service plan and was proposed, approved, and implemented as part of an individual program/education plan. Controlled procedures represented the lowest level of intrusiveness, such as:

• time out room and exclusionary time out which could not be used in emergency situations and could only be used when certain conditions were met;

• physical restraint, which could only be used in emergency situations;
• mechanical restraint to be used only in certain situations; and
• chemical restraint to be used only under certain conditions.

The penalty enforcement section, continued Assemblywoman Buckley, was intended to be similar to that of abuse and neglect. The person guilty of behavior covered in the enforcement section would be guilty of a category "B" felony. A conviction would be grounds for discipline including suspension or revocation on the guilty party’s license.

Finally, there was a section in A.B. 280 which dealt with retaliation and a list of definitions.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated A.B. 280 covered different areas such as mental illness, mental health, mental retardation, and schools. Those areas included many different settings and segments of the population. Working with various agencies should insure a better bill through collaborative efforts.

The original intent of the bill did not change with the amendment submitted, said Assemblywoman Buckley. Adding a preamble to A.B. 280 clarified legislative intent to encourage positive behavioral supports and made clear under what conditions medications could still be administered.

Chairman Freeman stated she was pleased there was a preamble to the bill. She asked if there was a fiscal note attached to A.B. 280. Assemblywoman Buckley responded some agencies indicated if they were to assume a literal interpretation of the original bill they would have to hire one person for every patient. Because of the new interpretation of the bill, it was hoped there would be no fiscal note.

Assemblyman Manendo queried what punishment a category "B" felony carried. Assemblywoman Buckley responded the general definition in truth in sentencing was 1 to 20 years.

Chairman Freeman asked if Assemblywoman Buckley felt A.B.280 should be heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Assemblywoman Buckley stated the bill did not have to go to another committee.

Next to testify on A.B. 280 was Eric Beinineger, member, The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) of Southern Nevada. Mr. Beininger said TASH was a group which advocated for the rights of people with disabilities. Aversive intervention had been around for quite some time, he continued. It used to be thought it was an effective way to deal with people with disabilities, but recent study had shown those techniques might not only be ineffective, they might have negative consequences. From a personal human standpoint, such actions as noxious liquid being applied or sprays put in one’s face tended to tear a person down. Those methods should no longer be used. There were better techniques that allowed a person to get rid of negative behavior but at the same time replace that with positive behavior which enabled growth as an individual.

Stephanie Richter, member, TASH of Southern Nevada, testified next in support of A.B. 280. Ms. Richter said she had a 10-year old son. At the age of 4, her son was diagnosed with a genetic disorder called Huntra Syndrome which did not allow him to be on a level with any normal child of his age. He was mentally and physically challenged. Ms. Richter placed her son in a preschool at the age of 4 and since he had some problems the school introduced Ms. Richter to "Childfind" and after being tested there he was sent to a school for special children. He started kindergarten there and did well until first grade. He would come home from school very upset. As time went on he went to the next grade and things became more and more difficult for him. He had trouble with bowel movements and behavior. The principal met with Ms. Richter and introduced her to a program the school had for children with disabilities. The principal explained if a child did not respond to a command within 5 seconds, the teacher would spray water in the child’s face and put them outside for 15 minutes on a covered patio with a locked door. Ms. Richter was told if she did not agree to that program she would be reported to the state as an abusive mother and in time her son would be institutionalized. Ms. Richter decided she would sign the form presented and just grab her son and take him home. Her son was now 10 years old and in a public school, and was doing much better. Ms. Richter wept as she begged the committee to pass A.B. 280.

Doctor Colleen Thome, Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), told the committee she had once worked in Pennsylvania with children who were considered most challenging. The children had been moved from place to place because it was thought they were too aggressive or out of control to be supported or managed where they were. The agency for which Ms. Thome worked fought for positive behavior supports at the agency level as well as in the state legislature to pass a bill which required the use of positive behavior supports for people with mental retardation. For those reasons, Ms. Thome continued, she urged the committee to pass A.B. 280.

Ms. Thome said she was a member of the operating board of Opportunity Village in Nevada. She quoted from the policy statement of that organization on behavior supports which stated " Opportunity Village strongly supports the development and use of positive behavior supports to meet individual needs in the prohibition and prevention of the use of procedures that may cause physical and/or psychological harm, are dehumanizing and restrict the individual’s right to dignity and self-determination. Specifically the use of aversive and deprivation procedures is in direct conflict with the right of all people to be free from harm. These procedures result in the loss of dignity and inhibit full participation in and acceptance by society". Ms. Thome felt the key was aversive therapy could be used to manage people’s behavior, but people were thereby separated from opportunities to learn new behaviors that would serve the same purpose and would allow them to be contributing members of the community. Positive approaches provided the opportunity to teach people how to replace the purpose of the challenging behaviors.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel commented she had served as a board member of Opportunity Village, and was on the committee that wrote the position paper Ms. Thome had read into the record. Not only was there a problem in Nevada but she had gone to two national conferences for the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) and realized the problem was a national one. Assemblywoman Buckley was hopefully writing a model for national legislation with A.B. 280.

Sara Winter, Attorney, Clark County Legal Services, member of TASH of southern Nevada. Unfortunately, said Ms. Winter, the story of the young boy named Brandon which his mother previously related was not an isolated incident. Brandon was sprayed in the face with cold water if he did not respond to a command within 5 seconds, and due to his disability he was not able to respond. He was physically tied to a wheelchair, dumped outside on a patio and left crying there while teachers inside waited 15 minutes to bring him back into the classroom. Brandon was tied to the toilet for hours due to a toileting problem because of his disability. Brandon’s story was not unique to the State of Nevada. Fortunately there were organizations which submitted position papers that called for the elimination of the use of aversive interventions on all individuals with disabilities (Exhibit D). Those organizations were:

• Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps;
• American Association on Mental Retardation;
• Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States;
• National Association of Private Residential Resources;
• Autism Society of America; and
• Opportunity Village.

Ms. Winter said other states were involved in the same type of legislation. It was to be hoped Nevada could serve as an example of how to pass legislation such as A.B. 280 all across the country. She concluded by way of thanks to Cynthia Pyzel of the Attorney General’s Office for her support.

Assemblyman Manendo asked if Brandon was treated as he was in a private or public school. Ms. Winter told him it was a public school in Clark County Nevada.

Chairman Freeman asked Assemblyman Williams if he had heard of such an issue in the school system, to which Assemblyman Williams responded the issue had surfaced as recently as the 69^th Legislative Session. It was something which had not been addressed. It was mentioned several times during related issues and there had been enough discussion in the past to validate the problem truly existed. He stated he would love to review A.B. 280 in the Assembly Committee on Education.

Jill Smith, National Disability Advocacy and Law Center (NDALC), explained while her organization as a nonprofit law center could not formally take a position of passage or nonpassage of a specific bill, she was all too familiar with many of the abusive situations that gave rise to A.B. 280. NDALC commended

the crafters of the bill for their efforts to eliminate a number of the more horrendous practices of the use of restraints and the inappropriate use of aversive behavior techniques. NDALC received a number of reports of children abused under the guise of discipline or aversive behavior modification at a specific segregated school site in Nevada. Ms. Smith commented NDALC applauded Clark County Legal Services and Ms. Winter in particular in their efforts to stop the abuses by bringing A.B. 280 before the committee for consideration.

Ms. Smith continued because A.B. 280 addressed itself to the Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and testimony had been offered which adequately described aspects related to special education, she would discuss the abuses of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities, regional centers, and county hospitals. Recently, the Hartford Current, a national academic publication, published a five-part series called "Deadly Restraint." The series gained national exposure and revealed an apparent crisis in the nation’s care of adults and children in mental health and mental retardation facilities. The article reported 142 patient deaths over a 10-year period resulting from inappropriate and unregulated use of seclusion and restraint by facility staff. That number could be considerably higher. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis between 50 and 150 such deaths occurred every year nationwide. Facility staff frequently restrained patients using dangerous unregulated techniques and often did so for the wrong reasons, such as for their own convenience or to discipline or punish persons with mental illness or developmental disabilities who were difficult to manage.

Ms. Smith continued "FOX News" broadcast a segment titled "Deadly Restraint" which detailed some of the horrors about which the study sought to chronicle abusive physical restraints. In that broadcast the following personal testimony was highlighted:

According to the same broadcast mental health workers physically restrained Kay Banner. She survived her ordeal, but in the last decade more than 142 people died, one quarter of them children. In little over a year 25 died, among them a 16 year old woman named Rochelle Clayborn. ‘I do believe the people at this facility, Laurel Ridge, are responsible for her death.’ Said Rochelle Clayborn’s grandmother, ‘because I feel like they killed her.’ With little money and no medical insurance Charlene (her grandmother) was forced to make Rochelle a ward of the state in order to get treatment for the girl’s emotional problems, and Texas officials placed Rochelle at Laurel Ridge Hospital. Just 6 weeks after sending her grandmother a plea to send her to another hospital, Rochelle died after being physically restrained, drugged, and then locked in seclusion. Few states had adequate laws governing death by restraint and there were no laws on the federal level. There were no national reporting requirements for deaths from restraint and police were rarely called in. The institutions often removed the victim’s body and cleaned up the scene, destroying physical evidence. Following a death by restraint medical examiners performed a routine autopsy and cause of death was often listed as asphyxiation or a heart attack.

Ms. Smith said the problem existed in Nevada. NDALC and a local Las Vegas law firm had made a pre-litigation demand to cease and desist upon the county hospital in Las Vegas for its illegal use of seclusion and chemical and physical restraints. It was their assertion the county hospital routinely and unlawfully applied physical restraints to individuals identified as having mental illness without following the legal requirements for application of such restraints. Those assertions had not been proven in court and were only allegations at the present time. The appropriate disclaimer having been made, Ms. Smith read sample affidavits representative of a number of those at issue in that litigation.

Following verbatim is the affidavit of "A": "I was taken to county hospital on (blanked out date) in 1997 as an emergency admittee. I was medically examined at county hospital before transfer to a mental health facility. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department initially accompanied me to the hospital. Next I was placed in leather leg and arm restraints by hospital staff members to impede any possible free movement within the facility. Despite the fact that I had given no indication of potential violence or attempted escape on my part I was physically bound. I remained in restraints for an unknown length of time. During this time I was not allowed to use the hospital restroom. Blood was drawn several times which was also very painful. I was told that being physically restrained was standard practice at county hospital for all patients that are medically examined in anticipation of being transferred to the psychiatric hospital. This was sworn under penalty of perjury."

Ms. Smith then read verbatim the affidavit of "B": "I was taken to county hospital by county ambulance on (blanked out date) in 1997. I was not restrained during transport to county hospital but I was wearing a seat belt. Immediately upon arrival at county hospital I was told by a paramedic I would have to be restrained. The county hospital security guard came over to my bed and said ‘we have to restrain you. It’s policy.’ A nurse came and took blood and urine samples. Two county hospital security guards applied leather restraints to my free limbs. Shortly after I experienced physical changes that felt like what I imagine the bends would feel like. I felt very sick. I was at county hospital in either 2 or 4 point restraints for about 12 hours. I was never offered range of motion, food, water, or the chance to use the bathroom. This under penalty of perjury."

Ms. Smith continued the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations set forth the standards to be applied when using restraint or seclusion. In many instances the policies were not followed and people died. Statutory reform with the imposition of penalties if the policies were not followed was desperately needed to stop the abuse.

Chairman Freeman asked Assemblywoman Buckley if A.B. 280 applied to prisons, county or city jails, or group homes situated in the neighborhood. Assemblywoman Buckley replied the bill did not apply to the Department of Prisons, or to city or county jails. It applied to schools, mental health facilities and mental retardation.

Carlos Brandenberg, Administrator, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation, addressed A.B. 280. He said the bill applied to the Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation through Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 433 for the mentally ill and NRS chapter 435 for the mentally retarded. It also applied to the Division of Child and Family Services through NRS chapter 432 (b). The Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation as well as the Division of Child and Family Services were very supportive of the concepts as laid forward in A.B. 280. Both divisions had for many years used the most positive behavior intervention as the preferred ways to shape behaviors. They had made a concerted effort to ensure restrictive intervention procedures were not used on clients in retribution, for staff convenience, or in the absence of positive programming.

Mr. Brandenberg said both divisions were currently in positive negotiations with Assemblywoman Buckley and her constituent, Sara Winters. They were discussing the need to balance the welfare of their clients in the treatment interventions that might be needed and to ensure A.B. 280 did not dictate the scope of clinical practice.

Cynthia Pyzel, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, State of Nevada Attorney General’s Office, said she was in support of the concepts of A.B. 280. The Division of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, as well as the Division of Child and Family Services, had a long history of working within professional parameters to minimize any impact or damage from any type of interventions that would be seen as aversive. It was appreciated those divisions got the most difficult clients the state had and some flexibility was required to treat them. They were well aware of professional guidelines and civil rights interests involved.

Ms. Pyzel stated the preamble language to A.B. 280 called for a lot of training in the areas of civil rights. A lot of support could be given to provide such training and help people understand what types of behaviors could be effective.

The statute as currently read stated the term "client" did "not" include clients of the Division of Child and Family Services. Several agencies were shocked to realize such an error, and A.B. 280 presented an excellent opportunity to clear up the statutes in that regard.

The state mental health and mental retardation system with the Division of Child and Family Services currently had a procedure called denials of rights reviews. Ms. Pyzel said she would like to see something of that nature included in A.B. 280 so if there was an exception needed based on clinical need it could be reviewed.

Ms. Pyzel told the committee there might be a fiscal note attached to the bill if the provisions requiring the attorney general to track prosecutions were kept in A.B. 280.

Chairman Freeman noted on the issue of training the preamble stated training would be made available in school districts and educational centers. She asked Ms. Pyzel if that meant A.B. 280 targeted mainly teachers and the school system. Ms. Pyzel responded the issue was so important it was felt the training should be included in the professional licensure standards with continuing education credits. It should also be made available to advocates of mental health and mental retardation, group homes, and child care people. There was no secure direction as yet for where training would take place, but programs were being discussed for training at little or no cost. Community colleges might be an option for training purposes.

Colleen Thome added the people at UNLV talked with various groups about offering a positive behavior supports training. One was scheduled for the summer of 1999 at UNLV and available to teachers, parents and community support staff.

Richard Siegel, Vice President, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) commended the initiators of A.B. 280. He wanted to underline concerns expressed by Jill Smith in her testimony. In his history with the ACLU, such things as she pointed out had happened from time to time. The ones that came to the attention of the ACLU were from the entire spectrum including private mental health institutions.

Mr. Siegel endorsed the training aspect of A.B. 280. He said no area of the bill would be strong without training efforts. He expressed concern the denial of rights procedure in the bill could lead to actual denial of rights, since he saw the possibility of almost any right being denied as long as the procedure for appeal was in place. He concluded he very much wanted the ACLU to be involved as the bill moved forward. He urged passage of A.B. 280.

Ed Fend, Nevada Representative for the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) spoke in favor of A.B. 280. He said he was glad to hear Assemblywoman Von Tobel mention AARP was interested in the bill. He told the committee he was concerned that there seemed to be a penchant in society to pick on old people and the young. When services were cut, it was usually done to young people who either did not know to what they were entitled , or older people who seemed to think they had already received everything they deserved.

Mr. Fend suggested an inspection of any veteran’s hospital would show terrible conditions, including misuse of restraints and drugs to keep the patients quiet. He likened the atmosphere to that of a morgue. Mr. Fend told the committee he had a grandson who was hyperactive. The first medical response was to put him on Ritalin. Mr. Fend stated that was just one reason he supported A.B. 280.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated her desire to have an amendment to A.B. 280 revised and given to Chairman Freeman for a future work session. Assemblywoman Von Tobel requested to be placed on the bill as a sponsor.

Chairman Freeman closed the hearing on A.B. 280 and opened the hearing on A.B.337.

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, introduced A.B. 337. She explained A.B. 337 proposed to create an emergency assistance fund for needy Nevadans to be funded from the Abandoned Property Trust Fund. Ms. Buckley continued the lack of emergency funds available in Nevada was appalling. There were no funds available for food, clothing, rent, or to stop the termination of utilities.

Nevada had one of the shortest eviction times in the country. In Nevada, if rent was not paid, an eviction notice could be served within 5 days. After the 5 days were up, a lockout could occur within 24 hours. That short process caused a great deal of hardship. If a senior citizen received a social security check late, they could be evicted. The same was true for utilities. Because the winters were very cold in the north and summers in the south were very hot both heat and air conditioning were extremely important. Assemblywoman Buckley was asked by utilities companies to sponsor A.B. 337. Despite programs the various utility companies sponsored, the demand for assistance was so high that every year they ran out of money. People affected were those on fixed incomes who moved into Nevada as well as many who had been here a long time. There were disabled and elderly who earned as little as $466 a month. If they had one unanticipated emergency they could have their power turned off and be evicted. A.B. 377 requested from $100,000 to $250,000 to create the emergency fund.

Unclaimed property funds were such as bank accounts from deceased people without heirs which went back to the state. Instead of returning monies to the general fund, Assemblywoman Buckley said they would be put to better use for housing emergencies such as was done in Ohio and other states.

Assemblywoman Buckley had received input from the Welfare Division which suggested amending eligibility requirements. Since they had a program with eligibility at 185 percent of poverty if the requirements for emergency assistance with housing and power needs were the same it would not be necessary to change the NOMAD computer system. Ms. Buckley wanted to amend the amount in the bill available to each person from $200 to $700 per year. The figure of $200 was probably fine for utility assistance but rent would require a great deal more.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked Assemblywoman Buckley how much money from unclaimed property went into the general fund. Assemblywoman Buckley replied she had requested the amount from the fiscal division but the information had not been received. She would share the information with the committee when she received it. Her belief was the figure was into the millions. A.B. 337 had not asked for all the money from the fund though it could definitely be used, but during the present fiscal crisis asking for only $250,000 appeared to be more prudent.

Chairman Freeman asked who had access to the money at the present time. Assemblywoman Buckley replied she thought the state treasurer collected it and it was then appropriated into the general fund. The money was used to fund the agency staff which looked for errors and published results in the paper. They were self-funded and Ms. Buckley did not propose to change that since the state did not want to part the rightful owner from his or her property.

Chairman Freeman asked if Assemblywoman Buckley was aware that Senator Joseph Neal had a similar bill. Assemblywoman Buckley said she relayed to the senator that she very much supported his bill and if he got the appropriation from Senate Finance she would sign his bill. Chairman Freeman said the difference seemed to be his bill targeted indigent persons with utility bills. Assemblywoman Buckley responded the eligible uses for A.B. 337 were housing, shelter, health care, utilities, food and clothing, and cost of childcare in emergency situations as defined.

Assemblywoman Buckley said Clark County Legal Services had a source of funding from a class action suit against a landlord. It was written into the settlement agreement if not everyone came forward to claim their funds, which indeed happened, those funds would be used to create an emergency fund which was then endowed through the Nevada Community Foundation. It was estimated that unclaimed funds would total $150,000, which if invested would yield $50,000 per year for life available for emergency needs. If such an endowment were possible under A.B. 337 it would not be necessary to continue asking for funds.

Myla Florence, Administrator, State of Nevada Welfare Division, said the fund in question in A.B. 337 would provide for emergency purposes for low-income individuals (Exhibit E). The Welfare Division had recommended eligibility at 185 percent of poverty level standard of need. The Welfare Division operated 2 programs with which A.B. 337 would align. One was the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEA) which used 150 percent of poverty level as a standard. However, as did Senator Neal’s bill, LIHEA dealt only with utilities. A.B. 337 was similar to a supplemental security program the Welfare Division had recommended called the self-sufficiency grant. It was a budget module in the Welfare Division’s budget that would provide for one-time payments for people who were eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF.) so they would not have to enter the welfare rolls. The 185 percent of need addressed in A.B. 337 would be consistent with the TANF program, while the 150 percent of poverty would be consistent with LIHEA.

Ms. Florence continued the Welfare Division was supportive of any program which assisted low-income individuals with their needs. For the Welfare Division to administer those programs efficiently, they should follow the same eligibility criteria of other programs; otherwise, there would be additional programming for front line workers to learn which became a training issue and so forth. The Welfare Division would be happy to work with Assemblywoman Buckley to find a way to ensure there would be no fiscal impact to the Welfare Division. The only issue then before the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means would be the reversion to the general fund.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked Ms. Florence if there would be no additional cost to administer the program suggested in A.B. 337. Ms. Florence replied if the program were aligned with LIHEA or the social security program it could be absorbed.

The LIHEA program funding for utility assistance had been dramatically reduced every year by the United States Congress, and indeed, every year either the president or the senate proposed total elimination of the program. Additional funding on behalf of that program would provide utility payments. The amount of $250,000 would serve about 100 seniors or low-income individuals.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if people would not be ashamed to go to welfare for the assistance they needed. Ms. Florence agreed there was a stigma connected with the Welfare Division which they were working very hard to remove, but she felt when people in true need had a referral to an agency which could provide services, they would swallow their pride and move forward to get those services.

Assemblywoman Buckley pointed out A.B. 337 was written so either the Welfare Division or a charitable organization or agency could administer the emergency fund.

Ms. Florence added when funds were subgranted the state agency had an obligation to do monitoring, financial reviews, and so forth, which could not be accommodated within the 2 percent of the funding used for that purpose. Therefore the most efficient way was to align the funds with current eligibility criteria.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if the cost of housing assistance applied to only persons who had "Section 8" housing. Ms. Florence answered A.B. 337 called for the division to adopt regulations so assistance could be given to help people get into housing with a first and last month rent payment or to stay evictions.

Debra Jacobson, Senior Manager State Regulatory Affairs, Southwest Gas Company, testified in support of A.B. 337. Ms. Jacobson said Southwest Gas Company was a natural gas utility based in Las Vegas Nevada which served approximately 1.2 million customers in Arizona, Nevada, and California. In Nevada they served approximately 435,000 natural gas customers in most communities throughout the state with the exception of Reno. Southwest Gas provided money to the Unclaimed Property Fund every year; most recent figures showed in 1997 about $60,000 was donated to the Unclaimed Property Fund in unclaimed deposits.

Robyn Clayton, Manager of Consumer and Community Affairs, Southwest Gas Company, provided a fact sheet to the committee (Exhibit F) which showed assistance to low-income customer information. Ms. Clayton said each month between 14-to-15 percent of Southwest customers required some sort of assistance for their utility bill. Usually a turn-off notice had been issued. When the company began talking to the customers there was generally more of a problem than just the utility bill, such as rent being past due or the need for food, clothing, or transportation. Southwest Gas Company was able to assist those customers with referrals. To address the utility problem, Southwest Gas Company began a program 2 years ago called "Energy Share" which was a fuel fund program. Donations were collected from customers, employees of Southwest Gas Company and the company itself and placed into a fund administered by the Salvation Army at no cost. Only a certain number of customers could be served in that manner. LIHEA money was available to assist some of the customers.

Al O’Neal, Administrator of Consumer and Community Affairs, Southwest Gas Company, said he dealt with people daily who experienced financial difficulties. He urged support of A.B. 337.

Assemblywoman Buckley wished to publicly commend Southwest Gas Company for asking her to sponsor A.B. 337. Too many times people complained companies did not do enough for the public, and companies like Southwest Gas who saw the needs and put their own money into solutions were to be applauded for getting involved.

Judy Stokey, Consultant for Government Affairs, Nevada Power Company, urged support of A.B. 337. She said Nevada Power had a similar program to that of Southwest Gas Company called Project Lift to help participants who could not pay their bills. Customers were asked to donate and shareholders matched those funds up to $100,000. Unfortunately that money helped less than 1 percent of customers with financial problems. She urged support of A.B. 337.

Susan Miller, Senior Governmental Services Representative, Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPCO), spoke in support of A.B. 337. Ms. Miller said SPPCO had an assistance fund called the Safe Program whereby employees and customers contributed funds and shareholders matched those funds up to $125,000 per year to put back into the community. SPPCO worked with 19 area charitable organizations to distribute the funds where need was found. Some of the funds that went into the general fund which would be accessed by A.B. 337 were unclaimed deposits of from $50,000 to $70,000 per year.

Chairman Freeman asked what percent of needy people were served by the SPPCO fund. Ms. Miller responded she did not have actual figures, but the percentage was very small. Many people did not know how to access funds and when they finally reached an organization that could help, it was very late. Many calls came to SPPCO from outside and SPPCO was able to route them through the proper organizations. SPPCO also accepted payment plans to assist those in need.

Margaret McMillen, Director of Government Affairs, SPRINT Las Vegas, testified the funds addressed in A.B. 337 did not apply to telephone bills. Ms. McMillen said SPRINT contributed to the Unclaimed Property Fund although she did not know the amount. A federal program called Lifeline Service was available to people who qualified for any federal program such as welfare. A lot of eligible people did not know about the program. The Consumer Advocate was introducing a bill to make enrollment for eligible people automatic. Even at the lower rate of $5.25 per month, if the person could not pay, there was no other fund from which to draw. Ms. McMillen urged passage of A.B. 337.

John Van Cleef, Lieutenant, Salvation Army, testified the Salvation Army and Southwest Gas Company had a partnership in managing Project Share throughout greater Nevada. The Salvation Army offices in Carson City coordinated that effort for all the offices and all services outside Clark County. While a tremendous need existed in the form of utility assistance Assemblywoman Buckley was to be commended for seeing beyond just that need. Upon assisting with utility bills, the Salvation Army immediately encountered other needs pertaining to funding for emergency situations. One of the greatest needs was for rental assistance or lodging for transient people and the "motel homeless" who moved from motel to motel. There were no funds available in the area for those needs. Another issue was the need for transportation for people who had jobs and needed gas or busfare to get to those jobs. A.B. 337 addressed those issues and Mr. Van Cleef supported the idea that some of the funds be made available to local charitable organizations like the Salvation Army who had programs in place so those services could be expanded.

Mr. Van Cleef observed 2 percent of funds going toward administration was a fairly slim amount and he asked the committee to consider 10 percent instead. That was still a small amount but would allow for administration to keep people on staff who were better able to serve people in a nonprofit capacity.

Chairman Freeman asked from where the Salvation Army received its referrals and what outreach was being done. Mr. Van Cleef said referrals came from churches, the utility companies, friends referred friends, and so forth. Most outreach involved word of mouth, which was the strongest referral. Many people in difficult situations had friends in the same circumstances. Project Share from Southwest Gas Company was a strong referral source.

Stephanie Hauck, President, United Way Northern Nevada and the Sierras, said she represented both the United Way and her colleagues to the south. She told the committee the United Ways were in support of A.B. 337. She continued every day people who were one step away from being homeless were seen in the United Way offices. A.B. 337 offered the United Way a way to help maximize the nonprofit dollars in the community so they were able to better serve those people.

Ms. Hauck continued United Way instituted a program in the north that allowed them to be sure there was never a person without shelter. Between the agencies and emergency housing funds it was assured that particularly children and the elderly were not left on the streets. The problem then became a need for more permanent housing. There was also a need to keep the working poor from becoming homeless. Followup was coordinated with various other agencies to address those needs.

The United Way in the north was working with the Reno Gazette Journal to take over their Lend-A-Hand program to better coordinate it with existing programs and partner agencies.

The United Way was grateful A.B. 337 raised the amount per year available to each person but feared that was still not enough. Ms. Hauck felt a partnership between government agencies and the nonprofit community created an ability to meet the needs expressed.

Ed Fend, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) said both A.B. 337 and S. B. 29 were a definite requirement. Mr. Fend said the amount of monies being raised from $200 to $700 provided for far greater assistance. If a portion of the money in the Unclaimed Property Fund could be set up as annuities it would provide an excellent opportunity for continual funding. Mr. Fend said he strongly supported A.B. 377 as a method of filling the gaps in need. He disagreed with the statement made earlier that 10 percent of the funds would be required for administration. He felt volunteers could help to keep costs far lower.

There being no further business before the committee Chairman Freeman adjourned the hearing at 3:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lois McDonald,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Chairman

DATE: