The hearing of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance, Sub-Committee on Human Resources/ K-12 was called to order at 8:10 a.m. on Thursday, February 18, 1999. Chairwoman Jan Evans presided in Room 3137 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.

ASSEMBLY MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Jan Evans, Chairwoman

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

ASSEMBLY MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator William Raggio

Senator Raymond Rawson

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst

Cynthia M. Cendagorta, Committee Secretary

Chairwoman Evans announced the committee would undertake a review of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) budgets. She introduced Mr. Stephen

Shaw, Administrator of DCFS, who introduced his colleagues James Baumann, Acting Chief Fiscal Officer, and Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator. Chairwoman Evans asked Mr. Shaw to talk about any particulars in the budget that should be brought to the committee’s attention since the committee had heard an overview of the budget during pre-session.

Mr. Shaw stated the mission of DCFS was the protection and permanency of children, the preservation of families, and the unification of communities. He said DCFS had received compliments during the 1997 legislature on their indicators, although he felt they could be further improved. Mr. Shaw noted Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) would be operational in October, which gave the division a chance to get clearer data on a more consistent basis. The division also had the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) which set indicators for the division on the federal level. Mr. Shaw added he was not sure there was a reason to have different indicators on the state and federal levels. The indicators, he added, were a dynamic process, and could be made crisper. Also, some of the budget indicators were turnstiles, and Mr. Shaw said those were not indicators but instead addressed workload.

Mr. Shaw introduced Budget Account 3145 and said that budget, although titled "administration" was at the heart of what the division did in the child welfare arena. The budget supported Child Protective Services, specialized family assessments, foster care, substitute care, case management and adoption. The budget also supported administration, statewide programs, staff specialists, and fiscal and business support functions. In the Governor’s recommendations there were 324 positions in the first year of the biennium, and 323 in the second. There was a reduction of 3.49 positions in the Family Preservation Program, which were the Victims of Crime Assistance (VOCA) positions. Mr. Shaw introduced May Shelton from Washoe County Social Services (WCSS) and said she could also speak on that topic. The reductions in those positions were due to a change in the Victims of Crime Assistance regulations. The new regulations stated the host agency, which was receiving the entire grant, could only receive 10 percent of the funds. That put DCFS over the 10 percent limit and amounted to 3.49 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Mr. Shaw said he was working with May Shelton on the issue, and said WCSS was going to apply for the VOCA funds for the family preservation positions. WCSS could either contract back with the state, which Mr. Shaw said he thought was close to circumvention of the law, or hire the positions themselves. Either way, Mr. Shaw did not think the division would suffer a loss of those positions. The problem was every year the division tried to get General Fund monies, which he understood would not happen in the 1999 legislature. The VOCA funding was "soft funding" and as soon as the Governor’s recommendations came out the division had four people who found other jobs. He added during the current biennium the division felt it could handle that issue by working cooperatively with WCSS.

Chairwoman Evans asked when the restriction that caused the division to reduce positions took effect. Mr. Shaw responded it was one year prior. Chairwoman Evans asked what impact was expected on the Family Preservation Program, which was a very important program. Mr. Shaw replied the division had seen a decrease in the number of children coming into care in both northern Nevada and rural Nevada, as well as a decrease in the escalation of cases in southern Nevada. He believed the program was partially responsible for that. The family preservation program which was meant to get kids out of foster care and avoid them going into foster care in the first place, was one of many prevention programs. Mr. Shaw said this program was the most observed program in DCFS and had the most thorough ongoing evaluation. Mr. Shaw said he would hate to see anything happen to that program. If the division could not work out a way to contract with WCSS, it would hurt the program, but he did not see a problem arising there. Eventually Mr. Shaw wanted to see that program supported by the General Fund. Since the program was funded with soft money, people were reluctant to take the positions and often bailed out as soon as they could.

Chairwoman Evans asked about Title IV-B, Subpart II and the revenue that was available. Mr. Shaw said that money should continue to be available and was broken up into four parts and passed into the community. One part, which DCFS was going to use, was not passed on to the community. Mr. Shaw added he did not like the way that had been structured, and wanted to see more accountability. He thought there was more accountability in the system currently, and felt there was a greater connection between the fund and the community. Mr. Shaw said the budget reflected a doubling of the IV-E penetration rate, which went from 35 percent in the previous biennium, to 64 percent in what was budgeted for the future biennium. This amounted to roughly $2 million, Mr. Shaw noted proudly. He attributed that to the way the division changed the way it did business. Maximus had something to do with it, but by and large the biggest impact took place when the division centralized the eligibility function under the fiscal staff and took it out from under the social workers. Mr. Shaw said that was not something the division took lightly and for which it had been criticized. He added disconnecting eligibility from social workers was not something that was generally done in the United States.

The division had a net increase in the budget of eight full-time equivalents in the first year of the biennium. Mr. Shaw directed attention to Maintenance Unit 201, which provided funding for five new motor pool cars. The cars were not new, but were those for which the division annualized costs. The funding provided for janitorial service and utilities for new office space. The cost of housekeeping to maintain facilities meant a transfer from the operating to the maintenance category. The important thing about it was the wording "inmate services." In the division’s central complex a prison inmate was charged with doing the division’s janitorial work. That caused the division problems when the prison locked down inmates. The division was operating the cheapest way they could to get the most out of their money. M205 added a full-time equivalent social worker to the second year of the biennium. That would maintain the division’s current caseload of child welfare workers at a 1 worker to 38 cases ratio. M625 allowed for hepatitis B vaccines for the direct service employees, since the division recently discovered it did not pay for them, so the employees had to pay for the shots themselves. As a safety issue for staff, the division budgeted for vaccines for 212 staff for the first year of the biennium with 41 additional staff the second year.

E131, an enhancement unit, simply rectified a long-standing issue left over from the formation of the division. The division was always charged half an FTE for the Tonopah office by the Welfare Division. The budget rectified that, so the division would be budgeted for that position for the first time. E133 was a reduction of Title XX, which was offset with IV-E. A federal highway bill reduced Title XX, and E133 reflected the projected reduction in the Title XX budget. E256 was the enhancement unit which added 16 child welfare staff and associated costs to reduce the caseload from 1 to 38 to 1 to 34. The positions would be phased in beginning October 1, 1999. There were two new vehicles associated with that on a formula basis. The enhancement would supply the division with a total of 19 positions; 15 direct service child welfare line workers, 2 child welfare supervisors, and 2 administrative support positions.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the justification of the new positions was a matter of workload, and if that dropped the ratio. Mr. Shaw replied it was definitely a matter of workload. The division’s workload could not be handled with the staff it had. The division had been unable to articulate that point well enough, but with UNITY they would hopefully be able to get a very clear view of their caseload. That was still somewhat unclear due to the fact most of the caseworkers handled adoption, interstate compact cases, and child protective services, so it was a very mixed caseload. By any reasonable standard the division was understaffed in the child welfare arena. That was Mr. Shaw’s top priority going into the budget, as well as the Department of Human Resources Director’s. Chairwoman Evans asked what was considered a good standard. Mr. Shaw said the Child Welfare League of America had a 1 to 20 standard. Going from a 1 to 38 to a 1 to 34 was a real start for the division, but he would be back during the next session to take another look at the standards. At the same time, the division was seeing a leveling-out of cases, which improved the division’s caseload even further if there were fewer kids coming into care. Given the financial situation of the state, not only was the division satisfied, but very pleased to get the 19 positions. The Chair asked about the vacancy situation, and noted the division was affected by the position hiring freeze. She asked how the division stood on that issue. Mr. Shaw recalled there were 50 vacancies. The state put a freeze into effect one month later. There were, therefore, 50 positions out of a total of 900 positions vacant. Chairwoman Evans asked how many of those positions were social workers. Mr. Shaw was not sure. Chairwoman Evans noted that would affect the ratios, which was an important consideration. On the one hand, the case was made for having a lower ratio, but on the other hand, if there were a lot of vacancies, the ratio would be large.

E261 increased sex offender evaluation and medical evaluation funding. Those were contract dollars which the division placed a moratorium on because it was short of money. The recommendation brought the division up to the FY 1999 level. The division had staff who were able to do sex offender evaluations, but the area was very specialized. Chairwoman Evans asked about the actual expenditures out of the sex offender evaluations category, and noted the 1998 actuals were at the $15,600 level, and asked if the division anticipated doing more. Mr. Shaw said it did, and reiterated there was a moratorium placed on those expenditures. Chairwoman Evans asked what the reason for the moratorium was. Mr. Shaw replied there were financial reasons and the division was not sure if when it contracted out for a specialty evaluation the division would automatically get back a heavy treatment recommendation. That was a legitimate concern along with the shortage of money. The division went back and looked at the moratorium and the recommendations, which did not seem out of line in retrospect.

Mr. Shaw addressed E352, which replaced Title XX with General Fund money, which allowed the division to collect more IV-E funds and redistribute Title XX into Budget Account 3281 and Budget Account 3646, southern and northern Nevada adolescents. Those two budgets were unable to collect IV-E, which was the primary child welfare mechanism. By redistributing Title XX and replacing it with General Fund money, they would collect more IV-E and save on the General Fund.

Sherry Blackwell, Principal Budget Analyst, said the Budget Division took a look at the IV-E entitlement program and said the division could not claim IV-E revenue and some of Title XX because it was "double dipping." When the division pulled that revenue out it could earn additional IV-E revenue. The division looked at the two northern and southern child and adolescent budgets which had a small amount of Title XX revenue. They studied the effect of pulling that revenue into the division’s administration budget, and putting the General Fund back into the budget for match, which allowed the division to earn additional IV-E revenue. Chairwoman Evans asked if they were ahead of the game financially by moving things around this way. Ms. Blackwell said the division saved $1 million in the General Fund by doing that.

Mr. Shaw said that required a change in either the Title XX state plan or the contracting process before the next biennium, although he was not sure which one needed to be changed. Mr. Shaw added he had just been informed it was the contract that needed to be changed, so the division would do that.

E375 provided security for the Belrose office. The Welfare Division had security in its office, which was two doors down from the child welfare office. The next office contained Youth Parole and the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation, which had security. The child welfare office was the next building over and did not have any security. Belrose was not a very nice area, and they needed security to keep the staff safe.

E710 replaced agency-owned vehicles in excess of 90,000 miles. There was a
15--passenger van, 3 four-by-fours and 9 sedans recommended. Additional recommendations included replacing leased copiers, faxes, desks, chairs and cameras. E901 transferred one FTE Nurse Manager from Budget Account 3271, the Child Abuse and Neglect Grant, to Budget Account 3145. Mr. Shaw said he expected to collapse some of the performance indicators with UNITY and make them more meaningful. Chairwoman Evans said the committee appreciated that and asked if the division had a small capital improvement recommendations for the Northern Nevada Children’s Home. Mr. Shaw said yes, it was to remove the bowling alley building. Mr. Alder said the National Bowling Stadium got permission to remove the lanes and reinstall them in the Bowling Stadium in Reno as a part of an historical display, since this was the first bowling alley in Nevada. The rest of the building was dilapidated, and was going to be demolished.

Chairwoman Evans asked about overtime and standby pay in the budget. In the 1997 session the committee had raised questions on that, and was promised a review. They were especially concerned about the impact of standby pay on retirement benefits. Chairwoman Evans asked where the division stood on getting a handle on it. Mr. Shaw replied the division had just issued a memo requiring deputies to sign off on any overtime requests and to review all standby status. Mr. Shaw said in the child welfare arena the division was understaffed and people had to work overtime. There was not an inordinate amount of overtime, and the staff had to get the requests approved by a deputy administrator. Chairwoman Evans said there had been discussion of development of a computer tracking system which would allow the division greater oversight. Mr. Shaw said there were areas that needed improvement, particularly in standby pay. There were some standby slots that reviewed weekend commitments to inpatient private psychiatric facilities. Those paid for themselves even if they diverted one or two patients. Chairwoman Evans added she was concerned with increases in standby and said the committee might ask staff to meet with Mr. Shaw.

Chairwoman Evans asked for a sketch of the division’s efforts along permanency planning and the new Adoption and Safe Families Act. Mr. Shaw said the act was radical child welfare reform, and there was a bill introduced in cooperation with the Supreme Court as well as Mr. Dini’s bill. He said the goals of the act were to change the experience of children currently in foster care by speeding up the process, and starting the permanency planning from the first minute they walked in the door. It also worked to give foster and adoptive parents more rights, in terms of giving them the ability to be heard at hearings. The division hoped to improve the adoption experience in Nevada.

People had both good and bad experiences adopting. The division told foster parents not to get attached to the child if that child was being moved around, but also told them to protect the child and nurture it. Often, the foster parents did get attached so when the division came to reunify the child with family or relatives some amount of heartache was caused. The division wanted to clear up that process, although it would be impossible to eliminate those difficulties altogether. The division had made mistakes in dealing with some adoptions, due in part to staffing problems. About 40 percent of the adoptions the division dealt with were private adoptions, and Mr. Shaw hoped to eventually have the division relinquish those and begin to concentrate on the DCFS special needs children. Ninety-one percent of the DCFS children were special needs children. Senator Porter had a bill in the legislature to address the problem, and Mr. Shaw wanted to work cautiously with the Senator to address the problem in an intelligent way. Mr. Shaw added he would like to see DCFS in an oversight or regulatory role in terms of private adoptions. He did not want to lose staff, and instead wanted to concentrate his staff on the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). ASFA would rank Nevada with every other state in the Union in terms of moving kids out of state care. Mr. Shaw said private adoptions were usually usually easier cases, and generally did not involve minority or special needs children.

Chairwoman Evans asked where the legislation on this issue was in the process, and Mr. Shaw said it was not out yet, but he expected it soon.

Mr. Shaw introduced Madilyn Maire, head of the UNITY project. The budget provided for the completion, maintenance and operation of the division’s automation system. The division had completed the planning, general system design, hardware and software installation phases of UNITY. System modification, development and implementation constituted the final stage. Mr. Shaw said at that time UNITY was on target, with no delays expected, and it was set to be in operation October 1, 1999. M200 recommended the continuation and completion of UNITY, with a part of those dollars amounting to hold backs for existing contracts and charges for Department of Information Technology (DoIT) staff assigned to UNITY. There were also costs for T1 lines and yearly licensing fees for the software. E175 was an enhancement unit which was for 10 FTEs for DoIT staff and associated costs for UNITY. Ongoing programming and maintenance would require six new Information System Specialists. The legislature had told the division it wanted the division to maintain the program and not contract out for it.

E176 was two FTE for a Clark County interface. The Federal Government was requiring the UNITY system to be a statewide system. The division was a partner with Washoe County which would be a user of that system and would be on the division’s advisory board. Clark County was on a different system. It would require two FTEs; a Program Officer and a Computer Information System Technologist IV, who would be DoIT staff. Those positions would be co-located at Clark County Family and Youth Services to help in the relay and transmission of information. E177 allocated funds to relocate the server, currently located on Convair Drive with the contractor, which would allow additional space for the positions the division was requesting. E178 was for two FTE Management Analysts II and two Computer Technicians IVs who would be DoIT staff. This would be effective October 1, 1999.

Mr. Shaw asked Ms. Maire to discuss the help desk, for which those additional staff were needed. Chairwoman Evans asked how long the help desk operated and when. Ms. Maire said the UNITY help desk would not only serve DCFS employees but also Clark and Washoe County employees who needed help. UNITY looked at the experiences of the transfer state, Arizona, which was receiving 350 calls a week on their help desk line. Based on that information UNITY started developing a help desk plan which required the desk be open from 7 A.M. until 6 P.M. Monday through Friday. In addition there needed to be some analysis on how the system was working for social workers and what kind of difficulties they were having in terms of child abuse and neglect reporting. The division would not really know how they needed to staff the desk until the system was operational for some time.

E179 provided for two FTE trainers in the north and south for new and ongoing training. The issues at hand were getting people used to the system and changing the culture of the organization. When the contract started, UNITY attempted to change people’s experiences and their ability to handle the change. E180 provided money for maintenance and repair of network computers. E710 replaced 150 computers which were not year 2000 compliant. Those computers were not purchased with UNITY funds. Chairwoman Evans said the question went back to earlier purchases of computers, since at the time the large purchases were made there was a 75-25 percent state match available to the division. In terms of the 150 computers Chairwoman Evans wanted to know what the match was. Mr. Shaw replied it was a 50-50 percent state match. Chairwoman Evans asked why this wasn’t done under the 75-25 percent match. Ms. Maire said the computers in question were very usable at that time, and it would not have made any sense to replace them then. Chairwoman Evans said obviously someone neglected to check and see if they were year 2000 compliant since otherwise they would be rendered obsolete. Ms. Maire answered year 2000 compliance was not really considered an issue at that point. E720 provided a network connection via the file server for the Pahrump office and provided personal computers and software for the new positions.

Mr. Hettrick asked if the UNITY system was on-line and ready to go, or if they were still in the testing phase. Ms. Maire said the division was testing the system code at this time, and the October date referred to the day when all sites would be activated and the program implemented. Chairwoman Evans asked how the division arrived at the number of positions it needed and asked how comfortable the division was with the numbers reflecting the number of positions needed. Ms. Maire answered the reasonable way to approach the issue was for the division to look at Arizona. For instance, the state had 28 programmers working on the system, while UNITY would have 12. Based on their analysis of the program, the division took Arizona’s numbers and reduced them, since Arizona was serving more users. Chairwoman Evans reiterated the committee wanted to know that October date meant the system was fully functional. Ms. Maire said that was correct. After a pilot program in May, the system would be operational statewide in October.

Mr. Shaw said Child Care Services issued licenses and monitored child care facilities through the development and enforcement of appropriate standards to ensure safety and proper treatment of children receiving out of home care in a child care setting. Services included training, consulting, licensing, monitoring, and investigation of child care facilities caring for five or more children. The foster care licensing portion of the agency was regionalized with 17 FTEs in the budget, 6 of which were in the childcare licensing field, and 11 of which were in foster care. Childcare licensing in the state was in a sort of disarray. For instance, Washoe County did its own licensing and had different rules than other counties in terms of the number of kids a person could care for. Clark County did its own licensing, as did the City of Las Vegas. The division licensed in the unincorporated areas of Clark County and in rural areas. Mr. Shaw said at some point there should be a system-wide response, although there was currently no legislation addressing the problem. All of the entities had different rules and licensed at different levels, which was confusing to the public. Decision unit 710 was an enhancement unit which recommended the replacement of two executive desks and two chairs, for a total of $1, 953 in the first year of the biennium.

Chairwoman Evans said the committee would be interested in seeing some recommendations on licensing, perhaps over the biennium, and perhaps it could be assisted by the UNITY system.

Mr. Shaw noted the account was the division’s largest and paid for substitute care for all of the children the division had in its care. The budget also paid for medical expenses, foster home insurance, transportation and drug testing. It primarily paid for kids in the division’s custody to be placed in care. There were no positions in the budget. Mr. Shaw said the Nevada State Elks provided $52,000 per year in the budget and had done so for several years, as the division’s major fundraiser. This provided emergency shelter care for rural Nevada. Mr. Shaw said the Elks did not get enough recognition, considering the division received in excess of $100,000 over the biennium for emergency shelter care for abused and neglected children. In addition there was a line item for a $40,000 expenditure and revenue from the Dave Thomas Foundation.

The division coupled up with the Foundation, local Wendy’s establishments and Norwest Bank to leverage some money the legislature had put into adoption. Over the biennium there was a recommended increase in the primary placement budget of 8.3 percent in the first year of the biennium and 3.8 percent in the second year, for a total of slightly over 12 percent. M200 funded demographic growth which was based on demographic projections for the first year through 19 years. The large numbers were based on welfare Medicaid Payment Projections (MPP), which the department had heard were pretty accurate, but in retrospect regretted believing. That area was very volatile and the numbers could go up and down dramatically, although Mr. Shaw had never seen them flatten out like he had in the past year. The budget scared Mr. Shaw, since for the most part the "front door" was controlled by the counties so the division did not have a say in who was received into custody. The division was continually trying to find ways to better project this budget.

E350 increased the adoption subsidy to equal the foster home payment, which was a simple thing the division did not do in the previous legislative session. The division increased the foster care rate but did not increase the adoption subsidy. E351 reduced Medicaid, reflected anticipated savings due to the opening of Desert Willow, and reduced six placements. E354 provided for increased collection of adoption fees to pay for in-state travel of the statewide adoption advisory committee. That was based on a projection of what the division thought they could bring in and how many more adoptions it could accomplish. E355 funded a contract for services with providers of childcare and preschool, mainly in the rural areas, and was also for socialization and stimulation following physical abuse. That amount restored the total recommendation to the Fiscal Year 1999 legislatively approved amount. E356 increased Title XX, and E900 transferred in the (TANF) revenues from the Caliente Youth Center. The division contracted out educational services in Caliente, as opposed to Elko, where the division also had TANF, but the schools were run by the Nevada Youth Training Center.

Chairwoman Evans said the committee was concerned with the caseload encumbrance report. In previous sessions, this was a major issue, which may have contributed to how the agency got so far into debt. That report was supposed to be submitted on a monthly basis, which it was for awhile. She asked what Mr. Shaw could tell the committee about getting those reports done, or to tell them the reports did not need to be done anymore. She appreciated the challenge at hand, but the report was one way to stay on top of the challenge. Mr. Shaw said the reports would be monthly from that point on.

Senator Rawson asked about the need to transfer TANF revenues from the Caliente facility. He said it might be that it was easier for bookkeeping, or that the division wanted it centralized, but he was not sure he understood why the division was doing it. Mr. Shaw said he was not sure either, but that Elko did teach more vocational training which was one of the generally accepted TANF requirements. Also, because the division was dealing with younger kids they did not place as much emphasis on vocational education, so it would have a harder time earning TANF. Mr. Shaw added he could understand how Caliente might not earn TANF, but did not understand why 3229 did not earn it. Senator Rawson said he was curious whether the division was meeting its education mission. Mr. Shaw said Chuck Pyle from the Caliente Youth Center would answer any questions about his program in Caliente. Mr. Pyle was one of the newest members of the division’s management team.

Mr. Goldwater asked what the unfunded decision unit 999 was for. Mr. Shaw said E352 expanded the therapeutic foster care beds in southern Nevada. E353 was an increase in the foster care rate. Mr. Goldwater asked if that meant the legislature had decided not to increase the foster care rate. Mr. Shaw said the division had put in for a 20 percent rate increase, but given the state of the economy, had not received it.

Chairwoman Evans asked when the last time the rate was increased for foster parents. Mr. Shaw replied in the 69^th session the rate was increased 20 percent.

Mr. Shaw introduced Larry Carter, a juvenile justice specialist with DCFS, and noted the budget account received federal funds through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention program formula grant. Two-thirds of the grant passed through to nine judicial districts based on a student count. Additionally, the 1997 Legislature approved general funds to be used for county programs. This ultimately reduced commitment of juveniles to state correctional facilities and passed funds through to county probation departments to provide outpatient and in-home monitoring of juvenile sex offenders. There were no positions in the budget, although M200 increased the funding for outpatient treatment of sex offenders to the FY99 previously approved level of $200,000. Mr. Shaw said in the first year of the program (FY 98) not very much money was spent. He did not necessarily want to revert to that but he did. He understood the program would be running at full capacity by the next biennium. In regards to the 69^th session approved funding for juvenile hall detention backup, Mr. Shaw was prepared to take questions.

Chairwoman Evans said the committee needed to see some performance indicators in this budget account. She added two years ago when the M200 program started, the division spent so little, and she would like some justification as to why the division was requesting increases.

Larry Carter, DCFS, addressed the juvenile sex offender subsidies. He said the reason the first year monies were not spent was by the time the division found out the monies would be available to them, it was a late start up. Also, an educational process had to be initiated with the local juvenile probation departments to make them aware of the funds. After the reversion process, and in the current year, the funds were on schedule to be expended totally. Mr. Carter said he had no doubt the division would be able to fully utilize the $200,000 allocated for the next biennium. Of significant importance, those dollars were currently being used for daycare and outpatient treatment programs with kids that were not DCFS custody kids. Mr. Carter said the division did have performance indicators for the probation subsidy monies that came out of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (OJJDP).

Chairwoman Evans asked what sort of feedback the division received in terms of the monies already expended. Mr. Carter answered there were a combination of treatments and around 28 kids had received treatment throughout the state. Those monies were also established on a first-come, first-served basis by the counties. Nye County utilized those funds extensively. Mr. Shaw said the division would be glad to provide the committee with a written summary detailing where that money was being spent and for what purpose.

Chairwoman Evans noted Budget Account 1383 contained the community corrections block grant money, which was something new as of 2 years ago. She added the purpose behind the grant was to reduce commitment to state facilities, and asked Mr. Carter if he felt the division had achieved that objective. Mr. Carter replied the program worked in conjunction with other programs, such as the Transitional Community Reintegration Program. Currently the backlog of kids awaiting placements was down, versus the 1997 levels. The number of kids waiting over 30 days was almost nonexistent. The population at the Nevada Youth Training Center, although still over capacity, was running well under what it operated on in 1998. Mr. Carter also received evaluation data from Washoe County which showed only 85 commitments to state care, reduced from 100. That reduction of 15 commitments stemmed from the intensive supervision programs the county was operating. Mr. Carter said with the continuation of those funds and the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant the division would be able to do more community based programs and keep the rates down in spite of growing populations.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the local expenditures continued to augment the programs, or if any supplanting had gone on. Mr. Carter said when he sent out the original proposals for the community partnership block grant, there were items which were very specific to supplanting. There were also additional requirements based on best practice approaches on developing systems at the intermediate and graduated sanctions. The division also had a capital outlay supplanting prohibition dealing with items the division felt was under the ordinary operations of county probation departments. The programs that were developed included intensive supervision units, residential substance abuse, and extensive community service programs that had not been able to be funded previously. Those programs were new and enhanced, and provided services to hundreds of kids throughout the state.

Chairwoman Evans asked if that did not reduce local commitment to these programs, by local programs just using state dollars to save funds. Mr. Carter said it did not reduce local commitment. He added throughout the 1997 legislature, the programs were all working together towards the same goals. DCFS, through the Juvenile Justice Commission, developed a community-based approach to try to address those issues at the lowest level. There were other factors involved, such as changes in judges, or changes in the chief probation officers. Mr. Carter thought the division’s current working relationships with the various counties were enhanced with those and additional funds that would be coming to the department over the next 2 years.

Mr. Shaw said the A.C.R. 57 Interim Study had done a lot to bring about a cooperative relationship on the state-county level. Chairwoman Evans noticed there was one judicial district which was not participating. She also said there was a high degree of redundancy in the quarterly reports. The committee was serious about accountability in those programs, and one of the reasons they withdrew money years ago was the legislature did not have the money to give. The committee wanted to see any progress at the local level, so monitoring was important. Also, if the division did not feel a program was effective, it did not have to give out the money just because it was there. Mr. Carter agreed, and said he and his new staff were looking at each and every program intently. Chairwoman Evans said the division had a lot of requests for additional work from the interim study on juvenile justice, and asked if the division was getting the kind of cooperation it needed. Mr. Carter replied the A.C.R. 57 committee had effected more changes in the juvenile justice system than he had seen in a number of years. Mr. Carter praised the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and the Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators for the efforts they made, and said the cooperation level was high among individuals and agencies. Chairwoman Evans reiterated how important that cooperation was.

The account was a new account, which allocated $2,166,100 for the period of July 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000. The account promoted state accountability in juvenile justice systems. Seventy-five percent of the funds must be passed through to the units of local government, and of the remaining, 15 percent was retained by the state for state programming, and 10 percent for the administrative cap. There were 1.5 FTEs in the budget, and one decision unit E125, which recommended 15 percent of the funds allocated to the state be transferred to the Youth Alternative Placement budget to help offset costs of-out-of state placement. This was the first time the Federal Government had stepped up the challenge in the juvenile justice program, according to Mr. Carter.

Senator Rawson was unclear as to what happened to the discretionary reserve in that account, and asked for clarification. Mr. Carter said that grant could be extended to June 30, 2000. In the first year, $108,000 of those funds would be utilized for costs relating to the new serious and chronic offender facility that would be in operation at that time. The other $216,000 would be utilized for alternative contract placements to help provide programs for kids who may not be amenable to the Caliente youth center. Senator Rawson asked what would happen to those programs after the reserve was gone. Mr. Carter said in the future there would be additional General Fund money for the operation of the serious and chronic offender facility. Also, the out-of-state placement contract dollars for the more serious and violent juvenile offenders would not be needed as those kids would be placed in the new facility. Senator Rawson asked if he was sure about that. Mr. Carter said he could not say the division would not have a special needs type of offender in the future, but the kids currently in the system would be amenable to the type of program being developed.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the division was getting the juvenile accountability incentive block grant for 1 or 2 years. Mr. Carter replied the funding amounts would be available in April, and the funds would be received by the department by the end of the calendar year. Chairwoman Evans asked if there was an advisory committee that went along with the grant. Mr. Carter said the committee had not been appointed to date, but would be soon. Chairwoman Evans asked what the committee was charged with doing, and who had the authority for the distribution of funds. Mr. Carter said the juvenile crime enforcement council that would be developed would be charged with developing a needs assessment and priorities for the juvenile justice system on a statewide basis. It was their charge to develop a plan to address those issues. Chairwoman Evans asked if they had any responsibility for designating the expenditures of the grant. Mr. Carter said they were to make recommendations for the expenditure of the money.

Mr. Shaw introduced Judge David Gamble from Douglas County and Mr. Steven Thaler who requested to speak on this topic. Mr. Thaler, Director of the China Spring Youth Camp, said he had some concerns about the Governor’s recommendations, as they were much different than what Mr. Thaler had requested in August. He went back to the drawing board and tried to cut back programs to get closer to what the Governor recommended. In doing so, Mr. Thaler came up with a revised budget. The program only went with what they would be required to do by the county to maintain the current levels of operation. Mr. Thaler had included some performance indicators also, and wanted to make sure the legislature had a clear picture of what the China Spring Camp was doing.

Senator Rawson asked if the water problem had been dealt with. Mr. Thaler said both Douglas County and the state had invested a large amount of money into those problems, and the division was in the final stages of finishing up the water treatment facility. At the same time, Mr. Thaler could insure that by the end of June the division would also have a 300,000 gallon tank on the hill to not only provide fire protection but also a potable water supply. Senator Rawson asked if any new programs had been added, since the last time the Senator visited the camp. Mr. Thaler said the division had increased some of the alternative programs, and he emphasized none of those programs were supported by the state or the counties, but were funded through grants or monies donated by outside agencies such as Kiwanis Club. Senator Rawson asked if Mr. Thaler had a sense of how successful the program had been in terms of really changing the lives of the young people. Mr. Thaler replied he believed they had an impact, and that the program’s job was to keep them out of Elko in addition to getting them back into the community to become productive citizens. Senator Rawson asked who was responsible for the education of these kids. Mr. Thaler said Douglas County was responsible, and every child that came into the facility was tested when they entered and when they left. A large majority of the time the kids spent out in China Spring was spent on education, which could be seen from the results that came from it.

Mr. Goldwater noted the budget eliminated the total funding for the contract correctional placements in anticipation of the secure facility for the youth. He inquired as to whether or not there was any question the facility would be open at that time (June 2000). If the facility would not be open, did the division have sufficient reserves to contract out again. Mr. Shaw said those issues had been resolved. In E352 there was money for contracting for the first year of the biennium but none for the second. Mr. Shaw asked that he be able to use that money over the biennium, otherwise he had to pull every kid out of placement on July 1, regardless of where they were in their programming. If he could have some flexibility, he would not have to pull the kids out. Mr. Goldwater asked if the committee should also consider a reserve for the purposes of furthering contracts if the facility was not finished. Mr. Shaw said the division was not carrying any reserve, and with the new money they would be able to contract again.

Chairwoman Evans noted the salary adjustments requested in the China Spring request and added there was no recommendation for increases for state employees. Mr. Thaler said it always seemed the county was in bad shape when the state was in good shape. All of his employees were county employees and were contracted, which put the division in the position of having that money already contracted, yet the money the division received was partially supported by the state. The dilemma was when the state was doing well, his employees did not benefit from that, and conversely, when the state was doing poorly and the county was doing well, the employees did not benefit again. They were almost in a no-win situation. In order for him to maintain current levels, he needed some money to keep the programs going. Chairwoman Evans said the committee would like to take a look at the facility and the program if time permitted.

Mr. Shaw said this account provided funding for the 96-bed facility scheduled to open in June, 2000 in Clark County. E375 provided for 1 month of operations during the first year of the biennium and fully funded the second year of the biennium. The division did have a business plan that was available, if anyone wanted to look at it. Chairwoman Evans said the committee needed a copy of the business plan, and also wanted performance indicators for the Youth Alternative Placement budget. She asked if a revised budget for the new secure juvenile facility was complete or in progress, and if the Budget Division had issued certificates of participation for the financing of the construction of the facility. J. Perry Comeaux, Director of the Department of Administration, said the project would be financed using certificates of participation. Chairwoman Evans asked Mr. Comeaux to define that term. Mr. Comeaux said a certificate of participation was a financial instrument, or security, that represented an undivided interest in project revenues. Those certificates were sold to investors much like bonds were, and then retired with principal and interest payments which came from the appropriations provided by the legislature. The Budget Division knew there was a problem with the amounts included in the budget, but those certificates would not actually be issued until the middle of March. Mr. Comeaux was waiting to see what interest rate the division would receive.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the per-day cost per youth was set at $120 in the contract to operate the facility. Mr. Comeaux said yes. Mr. Alder, DCFS, said in the process of developing a business plan, the division took the American Correctional Association projections from 1998 and compared all of the adjoining states and their facilities in order to get an accurate comparison. The average cost per day of the maximum-security facilities was $133.08 per day for comparable care. Chairwoman Evans asked if those facilities were run by the state or privatized. Mr. Alder said the particular facilities the division looked at were state facilities. The material the division used addressed 1997 figures. The division felt comfortable it had negotiated a good and fair price. Chairwoman Evans asked what it would cost if the state ran the facility. Mr. Alder said the division created comparison budgets, which were very extensive. It had turned out to be cheaper for the private provider rather than the state. The division had two budgets, one based on hiring people at the entry level, and the other on hiring people at the mid-range salary. The latter budget was probably more accurate since this facility would be dealing with the toughest kids the state had. Also, the state would be competing with Clark County on salaries, with which the state usually did not do very well.

Mr. Shaw felt the cost was comparable, but more importantly the division did not have the expertise to run the facility, and that expertise was what they were buying. The division just so happened to get this expertise cheaper than they could do it themselves, but cost was not the only issue. Chairwoman Evans said she would like to know what it cost to run both Elko and Caliente, understanding the facilities were very different. Mr. Alder said Elko cost around $84 per day, per youth, to run, and Caliente was around a dollar or two more expensive. It was incredible to Mr. Alder how Nevada was able to run those programs more efficiently than adjoining states. Chairwoman Evans asked what level of oversight the division would have over the privatized operation. She remembered when Colorado had to close down a privatized facility due to a number of horrible things that were going on. The committee was looking for assurances that would not happen to Nevada. Mr. Alder said there were several protections the division had built into the process. First, the contract was based on the contract used for the privatized women’s facility in Las Vegas. Also, the division recognized any contract was only as good as the people the division was dealing with, so the task force the Department of Administration put together involved a very extensive process. The division ended up getting a private consultant, and arrangements were made through the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (OJJDP) to provide someone at no cost to the state. That was very helpful. The Correctional Services Corporation, which was the successful bidder, was very impressive. One of the other factors was the contract allowed for an on-site monitor who would be working for the division. The monitor would not really have authority, but would act as the division’s eyes and ears and would monitor the situation. This was a full-time position. Mr. Shaw said that position was not put into the budget because the contract was only signed 2 weeks prior. Perhaps though the committee would make it possible to get a position that was funded by the contractor and set the start dates.

Mr. Shaw introduced Charles H. Pyle, Superintendent of the Caliente Youth Center, a staff secure, unfenced, residential correction facility located outside Caliente. The center served youth between the ages of 12 and 18 years of age, and had a capacity of 140, although the center had not been that low in some time. There were seven dormitories, four for males and three for females. There were 68 FTEs at the center, and there were no new programs in the budget. Mr. Pyle said the Caliente Youth Center was the coeducational training program for the State of Nevada, and used a treatment approach known as positive peer culture which was based on the foundation of care and concern, personal responsibility and using the group process. The center had a fully accredited high school on grounds, which the division contracted with the Lincoln County School District each year to provide for the center’s educational needs. The school had been integrated into the program to the extent that its staff were viewed as the center’s staff. Continuing, Mr. Pyle said high school ran a full educational program, and the previous year the youth obtained 2,702 high school credits, for an average of 10 credits per student. The center also had nine graduates through the credit program and 28 youth who obtained their high school diplomas by GED. The academic gains for the youth in reading, math and English were approximately two grade levels. The total number of youth served at the center for Fiscal Year 1997-98 was 436. Although funded for 140 youth, the average daily population of the center was 155. The average length of stay was 6.87 months, average age 15 ½, and average cost per day $74. If the division went by the budgeted amount of 140 youth, the daily cost was $84. The funding granted by the 69^th session of the legislature for the Transitional Community Reintegration Program was utilized by the training center for the placement of girls into two programs, the Center for Independent Living located in Las Vegas, and the Star program located in Reno. Since July of 1998 the center sent 27 girls to those programs.

The center had its first full year of operation of its fire crew last year. The center was able to form two crews and during the last fire season the kids earned a total of $29,000 and received rave reviews from the Bureau of Land Management and the Division of Forestry. The center continued to utilize the Nevada Business Services program to employ two work crews of girls during the summer months in various state parks. These girls built trails, picnic areas, and various recreational facilities to improve park appearance, safety and recreational use. Also, the center received honors from the Governor’s office for a special reading program whereby the center utilized many of the girls in the cottages to go to elementary schools and become reading tutors. That program, like the fire and parks crews, was very good for building self-esteem for the center’s youth.

Mr. Pyle referred to decision unit E-710 and said the center was asking for funding to replace dorm chairs and room wardrobes. The chairs were purchased 20 years ago and the wardrobes were installed in the early 1960s and, like the chairs, were in a state of disrepair. The center was also requesting replacement of one of its 15-passenger vans. There were four vans the center utilized, and the one in question was purchased in 1986 and had approximately 120,000 miles on it. At present, the vehicle was requiring considerable time, energy and funds to keep it on the road.

Under decision unit E-720 the center was asking for funding to replace a lawnmower. The center had 35 acres of lawn which required constant attention. The lawnmower was over 12 years old and the upkeep was becoming too expensive for the division, which created difficulties in keeping the grounds maintained. The center was also requesting funds for two lawn vehicles for the maintenance department. Those vehicles would replace lawn tractors that were handed down by the Northern Nevada Children’s Home when it closed, which were old even at that time. The decision unit also included a flammable storage unit for the maintenance department which was ordered by the state fire marshal, and an oil regeneration system for the center’s food services department by recommendation of the state health department. Under decision unit E-900, the center was requesting the TANF funds in the amount of $199,957 be replaced with general fund appropriation dollars. The reason for that request was that, unlike the Nevada Youth Training Center, which ran and staffed its own high school, the Caliente Youth Center contracted with the Lincoln County School District for academic services. There were other differences in the program which made it difficult to justify the use of those funds under the intent for which they were granted.

Chairwoman Evans said it looked to her like the average length of stay in months was going to decrease slightly, and she asked Mr. Pyle why that was anticipated. Mr. Pyle said the center had real success using the Star program and the Center for Independent Living. As programs became more efficient they would assist the center in terms of shortening the length of stay. Chairwoman Evans asked if there were young women the center could not facilitate. Mr. Pyle said there was only one female in that category, and it was generally not an issue. Chairwoman Evans noted the center was anticipating a higher revocation rate, and asked for clarification. Mr. Pyle answered the revocation rate differed from a recidivism rate, in that youth can be revocated for any number of reasons, and recidivism rates were usually based on a return to any type of criminal activity. At the time Mr. Pyle made those projections, he was under the impression the serious and chronic offender program was gone. If that was the case, the center would still be having difficulty with the girl numbers. Naturally if the number of girls increased, the center would have less effective services. With the serious and chronic offender program coming on line, the center anticipated the opportunity to possibly open up another girl’s cottage by moving some of the boys to the Nevada Youth Training Center.

Chairwoman Evans said she assumed Mr. Shaw was putting together some sort of transition plan addressing how the mix may change when the new facility was available. Mr. Shaw said this was correct, and the division envisioned the possibility of sending boys back to Elko and opening up capacity for girls. Mr. Shaw said the division would have a plan together by the end of the session to address where the division planned to place youth and what that space would free up. Mr. Shaw said he would like to see both facilities operate at the rate of capacity. Chairwoman Evans asked if there was any anticipation with the contractor that unused beds would be utilized for kids from other states. Mr. Shaw answered that was allowed for in the contract and the division had the legal say in terms of who was accepted. Bringing in other kids did decrease the division’s costs, but the division retained veto power.

Senator Rawson noted the last time he was at the center many of the buildings were in disrepair. He wondered how the campus was holding up. Mr. Pyle said the center had a capital improvement project 3 years prior in which parts of the buildings were repaired and a cafeteria was built. Presently, the biggest problem for the center was keeping up with the grounds and the grass, which was the recreational play area. Senator Rawson said he had seen some of the facilities the girls had built at Kershaw Ryan, and said the girls really put themselves into the work and should be proud of their work. Senator Rawson asked if the center had strong security in terms of keeping drugs out. Mr. Pyle said the center was able to do that, due in part to the positive peer culture approach. There were always group monitors around the kids, and they were monitored in such a way the center could almost assure drugs were not an issue.

Mr. Shaw said NYTC was located in Elko, and was a 24-hour correctional facility, for male youth between the ages of 12 and 18. NYTC had 7 living units with a rated capacity of 157 and an actual census of 175. There were 98 FTEs in the budget and no new programs. There were several enhancements, one for textbook replacement and testing materials. There was a replacement of equipment; a lawnmower, weedeater, drapes and couches, for example. The most significant, E805, was changing the classification of a librarian to an academic teacher. The funding would increase programming for approximately 60 students per day. Mr. Shaw said people were usually very impressed with the center schools, but they did not get much credit. Seven of the high schools in the entire state received awards for exemplary programs, of which Independence High School at NYTC was one. That was quite an accomplishment for a correctional institution. E850 was the athletic program expansion, which funded the Academics Olympics as well.

Chairwoman Evans said because of the reduction in federal grants and the impact on the budgets the division was moving some people around. She asked Mr. Shaw to clarify that. Mr. Shaw said E900 transferred 1.5 teacher positions from Budget Account 3286; Chapter I and Chapter II Education Programs. If approved, budget account 3286 would be eliminated. Decision unit 901 transferred a .49 FTE Academic Teacher from budget account 3286. There was a decrease in federal funding which was made up for by the General Fund. Chairwoman Evans asked if the change was a result of the reduction in the federal grant. If so, what was the impact on the program? Sherry Blackwell, Budget Office, answered the grant had not necessarily declined, but was simply not keeping up with the salary increases. The division was in a situation that year where it simply could not pick up the cost of two academic teachers, and it had to reduce that number to 1.51 and have the General Fund pick up the .49. With the associated costs it became simpler to move those costs into NYTC with the other costs rather than have them in a separate budget. This should not have any impact on the program.

Mr. Shaw introduced Bruce Kennedy, Chief of the Nevada Youth Parole Bureau. Mr. Kennedy said there were 38.5 FTE positions continued in the base budget and 2 FTE ending June 30, 1999, for the intensive aftercare program. There was a possibility of that program continuing. Parole performed the parole functions for youth released from the Nevada Youth Training Center, the Caliente Youth Center, and out-of-state programs, as well as delinquent youth who required in-patient mental health treatment. The counselors were stationed in Las Vegas, Reno, Carson City, Fallon and Elko. Mr. Kennedy said M200 continued the Transitional Community Reintegration Program, and in the first year of the 1997-99 biennium base budget the division could not spend all of the money that was allocated. The program was now up and running so M200 maintained the program in the 1999-01 biennium at the work program level. M201 addressed detention costs in Clark County, which had increased to $120 per day. In prior years the division had an agreement with Clark County where there was a set flat rate, which the county gave in kindness to the state since they knew Mr. Kennedy did not have the money to pay full fare. Washoe County was also increasing its detention amounts from $50 to $80 per day. E 126 allowed for contract services so the division could transport youth to and from detention centers, to court, and to the training centers when they were recommitted. Currently youth parole counselors did that, which required a great deal of time. It would be more beneficial to contract for those services rather than utilize youth parole counselors to simply transfer youth. E 175 provided training for youth parole staff in the amount of $110 per year for the 40 employees. E275 was for voice mail for 48 employees, but the division really only needed voice mail for 38 employees.

Mr. Kennedy said E377 funded drug testing, transportation tokens, and electronic monitoring for youth on parole status. Mr. Goldwater asked if the drug-testing program was going to be contracted out to an outside provider or if the division was going to do it internally. Mr. Kennedy responded the division planned to do it internally by purchasing drug-testing kits parole counselors could carry with them in order to test randomly. Mr. Goldwater asked if there was any kind of significant punishment for testing positive. Mr. Kennedy replied if the kids tested positive a second or third time the division would try to find community-based treatment programs for them.

Mr. Kennedy stated E378 allocated funds to buy flashlights, body armor or vests, and hepatitis B shots for employees. Most of the parole counselors were feeling very unsafe working with such a serious population, and would feel more comfortable if they at least had some protection. E379 was remodeling the Las Vegas office to provide for partitions so the general public could not just wander through the division’s office when they came in. The division would like to partition that area off, and install doors that locked. Mr. Goldwater said the Budget Division recommended $30,000 for both offices, Reno and Las Vegas, and since Reno leased its office, he wondered if the improvements could be made by the landlord. Mr. Kennedy said the locks would be replaced in the Reno office.

E710 was to replace current obsolete and inoperative radio communication systems in Las Vegas and Reno. The new system was being designed, and there would be an initial buy-in to a system Adult Parole and Probation and Highway Patrol were putting together. For the first 2 years of the biennium the system in Reno would not be totally on line. E711 replaced 14 desks which were over 39 years old. Also, E721 recommended two safes be purchased and placed in both the Reno office and the Las Vegas office. The safes would be used to store contraband items , such as weapons, taken from individuals. Chairwoman Evans asked if the increase for detention rates was justified by information the division was given. The committee needed to know on what basis the decision was made, but that Mr. Kennedy did not need to give the committee the information at that point. Chairwoman Evans said the committee wanted to know about the progress made by the Transitional Community Re-Integration Program, included in A.B. 464 from the 1997 legislature. Mr. Kennedy said the money was within Budget Account 3263, and there were two components of that program, assessments and day treatment, and residential programming.

Chairwoman Evans said state funds were used to pay the costs of youth who were paroled, picked up on new violations, and were put into detention until the parole revocation hearing. When the 1997 session approved the $257,000 in each year of the biennium for these costs, it was augmented by a transfer of $200,000 from the TCR program during FY 1998. She said that was going to increase to $869,000 in each year of the 1999-01 biennium, and asked if that was the number that went with the increased costs in the two centers. Mr. Kennedy replied NRS 62 stated the Nevada Youth Parole Bureau must pay the reasonable and actual costs of youth in detention in state care. Up until the present there was an interlocal agreement in which the division paid Clark County $100,800 per year, which was just a fraction of the costs of youth that were detained in Clark County who were on parole status. Clark County had about 60 percent of the youth in the state. The $200,000 taken from the TCR program augmented last year’s budget in order to make the payments to other counties, with the increases they were charging. Chairwoman Evans asked if when the county picked up kids and put them in detention the state paid for it. Mr. Kennedy said his staff would pick up the youth, and local law enforcement or the state would reimburse the counties for the costs of placing those kids in detention centers. Chairwoman Evans asked if this went into a detention center budget or into the counties’ general fund. Mr. Kennedy replied the counties billed the division and the division paid.

Mr. Shaw introduced Janelle Mulvenon, Human Resources Director’s Office, and said the Governor recommended that account be transferred to the Director’s Office at the Department of Human Resources with the administrative component moving to the Director’s Office and the Direct Early Intervention Services remaining in the division’s budget. There were roughly 30.5 FTEs which remained in DCFS, and roughly 23 FTE transferred to the Director’s Office. Decision units E900 and E904 made those transfers to the child and adolescent services budgets. Chairwoman Evans asked about the appropriateness of the placement and transfer. Ms. Mulvenon, Acting Administrator of Early Intervention Services, said there were two major parts of 3276. There was Direct Services, where First Step and the Home Activity Program for Parents and Youngsters (HAPPY) programs were. These provided early intervention direct services to children under the age of 3 years who had disabilities. The other major component was the administration of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Grant. That provided administrative services across all divisions in the Department of Human Resources. Those were statewide administrative responsibilities that were set forth in the federal law. Also, there was federal administration of discretionary grants, the Head Start Collaboration Grant and the Respite Grant. It was recommended the direct services programs, First Step and HAPPY, go to the respective child and adolescent services treatment budgets within DCFS. In addition administrative responsibilities of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would be moved to the Director’s Office of the Department of Human Resources under Community Connections. Ms. Mulvenon added the service delivery and revenues did not change. Ms. Mulvenon reiterated the transfer was dividing direct services and administrative services.

Mr. Shaw said the program was responsible for providing mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed and behaviorally disturbed youth and their families. These services included early childhood programs, case management, outpatient counseling, day treatment, family learning homes and an inpatient residential program for adolescents. The Governor recommended 87.25 FTEs for the first and second years, with no new programs added. E128 increased behavioral reinforcements paid to clients in family learning homes. E-350 was a reduction in Title XX, and E352 replaced General Fund with Title XX. E900 transferred 9.62 FTEs from Early Childhood into this budget. E902 transferred equipment from the HAPPY Program to Elko and to Reno from the Early Childhood budget.

Mr. Shaw said this program provided assessment and diagnostic treatment and was a mirror of the Northern Nevada Child & Adolescent Services budget. The program delivered services to seven different locations; West Charleston campus, East Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, East Flamingo, Pecos, Henderson, and Eastern Avenue. There were 240 FTEs recommended in the first and second years of the biennium. E134 was the funding for the training for required certification of Mental Health Technician III status. E350 was a reduction in Title XX and E352 replaced General Fund with Title XX. E710 replaced equipment, included a motor pool car and other equipment. E850 was an additional dietician for 32 beds that the division had to pay to the Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Division which was serving the food. Of the 56 beds, 24 were for 24 kids who were in the adult facility on the second floor. E904 transferred the First Step program to that budget with 20.81 FTEs. Chairwoman Evans asked for an explanation on hiring Mental Health Technicians as under-fills, and if the division was having trouble recruiting. Karen Harbour, Administrative Services Officer for Southern Nevada Child Adolescent Services, said the division did have a great deal of trouble recruiting Mental Health Technician (MHT) IIIs, which was authorized by the budget for the division to fill those empty positions. The division only had one or two positions filled at that level, with most of the positions being MHT Is or IIs. State law required the division provide the certification training for those positions. E134 basically averaged out the number of certification trainings particular people could take within a year. Over the two years the division expected to have those people fully trained.

Chairwoman Evans asked where the division was in terms of transferring youth out of the adult facility. Karen Harbour said the most recent plan was to move the 24 children in the Specialized Adolescent Treatment Program (SATP) and Acute Residential Program (ACRP) units over to the new Desert Willow hospital sometime in the following week. Chairwoman Evans asked if there was Medicaid accreditation. Mr. Shaw said the division did receive its original accreditation, and its contract was in place and it was billing for Medicaid. The division was working with Medicaid on some options and was working with the attorney general to make sure everything was legal in terms of family-of-one reimbursements. The other issue was seeing if it was better to get Nevada Check Up since it had 65 percent federal participation. Chairwoman Evans asked where the division was in the process of getting this resolved. Mr. Shaw said the division would find out on the family-of-one issue the following week. Chairwoman Evans asked what the budget was predicated on, a Medicaid accreditation or not. Mr. Shaw said only the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospital Organizations (JCAHO) accreditation. Chairwoman Evans asked if a budget adjustment would be appropriate if the division was able to go forward with Medicaid. Mr. Shaw said he would get back to the committee on that issue.

Chairwoman Evans asked for any public testimony. Deanne Blazzard, with the Foster Care and Adoption Association (FCAA) of Nevada, said she would like to address the need for additional caseworkers (Exhibit C). There was a great need for more caseworkers in the state. According to the Hornsby Zeller Report there were not enough. The state needed 118 more caseworkers. She said this topic warranted more discussion. Also, with the Safe Families Act the state was looking at additional time and strain on those caseworkers. The FCAA would support making more therapeutic homes state-run, since it was less expensive than a private placement run by the state. Also, the foster care reimbursement rate was always an issue and was always important. The FCAA had been tracking the cost of living and the reimbursement rate of foster care since 1985. Nevada made some strides in that area, but still was not achieving the same level the state was at in 1985. If this issue could be fit into the budget then a foster family would not have to take from its own family’s future to provide a home for a foster child.

Charles Avery, Board Member of the Foster Care Association of Nevada, said he supported DCFS in their request for social workers. He said the work his group was doing was nonprofit work, which they did because they cared about the foster children in the state as well as the foster parents, whose reimbursement rate was very low.

May Shelton, Director Washoe County Social Services, said she would like to commend the administration and see the approval of the 19 positions. The Hornsby Zeller Report recommended 85 to 118 positions. The addition of the 19 positions would reduce the ratio of worker to cases from the current 1 to 38 to 1 to 34. For comparison purposes Mr. Shelton identified Washoe County’s staffing for child protective services. The county had three caseload levels; for assessment/investigations that involved children under the age of 6, the ratio was 1 to 12, for assessment/investigations that involved families with only children over 6 the ratio was 1 to 15, and for ongoing workers who had court and non-court cases the ratio was 1 to 18 families. She said she hoped the state would make a commitment over the next few biennia to work at reducing the rates by adding more staff. One way this could be funded would be to allow DCFS to retain the federal reimbursements it got from Medicaid and Title IV E. Ms. Shelton said the Tuesday before at the hearing of the Human Resources Department Director’s budget, Michael Capello, Children’s Services Division Director, from Washoe County Social Services, testified that the number of child abuse and neglect reports had decreased 23 percent over the past 5 years. Chairwoman Evans said these were very impressive figures.

There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 A.M.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

_____________________________

Cynthia M. Cendagorta

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_________________________________

Raymond Rawson, Chairman

DATE:___________________________

_________________________________

Assemblyman Jan Evans, Chairman

DATE: __________________________