The joint subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources, and Transportation was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Thursday, February 25, 1999. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman, presided in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Bob Price

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen

Senator Joseph Neal

Senator William O’Donnell

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)

Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst (Senate)

Debra King, Program Analyst

Cynthia M. Cendagorta, Committee Secretary

Before the subcommittee began its budget review, Carol English, Budget Division, indicated she wanted to notify the subcommittee that the division had submitted an amendment to the Parole and Probation Division’s budget. That amendment added the module back in to reduce the caseload from the ratio of 1 officer to 75 cases to 1 officer to 70 cases. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the budget anticipated the issue of the "backfill" which had previously been discussed. Ms. English replied it did not.

Carlos Concha, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), said subcommittee members had received a packet entitled "Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety – Division of Parole and Probation," (Exhibit C), which would be reviewed via an overhead presentation. He then explained that the division’s purpose and mission was to protect and serve the public by providing sentence recommendations to district courts through Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) reports for offenders convicted of felonies and gross misdemeanors. The registration and tracking of sex offenders, as well as the effective supervision of offender activity through classification processes were also a part of the division’s mission. Mr. Concha reported that in order to assist in the monitoring of offenders, the division tested for drug and alcohol abuse, which helped to identify the user’s drug of choice, acted as a deterrent, and promoted treatment if appropriate. Additionally, the division collected restitution for the victims of crimes. Also, noted Mr. Concha, offenders were taken into custody when they seriously violated the terms and conditions of their parole or probation. They were then returned to the Parole Board or the court to answer to the violations of their community supervision.

Mr. Concha addressed performance indicators, beginning with supervision fees. He called the subcommittee’s attention to the pages in Exhibit C entitled "Summary and Review of Revenue Performance Indicators." The first chart indicated the division had not collected the necessary revenue from year to year. The division was consistently short in its revenue from supervision fees. As a result, stated Mr. Concha, the division was forced to find money elsewhere to replace the shortfall. The second chart in Exhibit C reflected restitution, which had been collected for victims of crime and indicated that a large amount had been collected. Mr. Concha said the division was hoping to improve the collection share for victims, as well as supervision fees. In fact, he continued, since October 1998 the division had seriously and aggressively sought delinquent fees for supervision in order to fund its budget.

Referring to the next indicator in the exhibit, "History of Felony Prison Recommendations," Mr. Concha reviewed the Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) recommendations to district courts regarding felony cases. In FY 1995, as well as FY 1998, the division exceeded the planned number of recommendations for prison sentences, which in turn drove the prison population up because of the number of offenders being sentenced. He indicated that year-to-date figures were holding true to the planned numbers, as depicted by the chart.

Mr. Concha next referred to the chart in Exhibit C entitled "Percentage of Court Concurrence With Prison Recommendations," which depicted the percentage of cases in which the court concurred with the division’s recommendation regarding a sentence of prison and/or probation. He explained that the chart reflected a decline in the concurrence rate to 80 percent, when historically the division had experienced a concurrence percentage of approximately 85 percent. Mr. Concha said the success rate for probation reflected a higher than expected concurrence rate, which was 97 percent for 1998.

Two programs explained in the exhibit which Mr. Concha believed were successful were the "305" Inmate Residential Confinement DUI Program, and the "317" Expanded Residential Confinement DUI Program. The "305" DUI Program was for those inmates who were incarcerated prior to entering "phase two," which was community supervision. He explained the criteria indicated the inmate had to complete "phase one" within the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP), which was a treatment program of 30 days duration. Mr. Concha said the inmate could not have a history of violence, must have resources to pay costs, and must have an approved plan for residence and programs. Also, there was a 24-hour mandatory alcohol testing program. Mr. Concha referred to the pie chart contained in Exhibit C, which depicted the female/male ratio of those participating in the "305" program, and the total number of participants since the inception of the program. The success of the program had continued to increase since FY 1996 to an actual success rate of 91 percent in FY 1998. According to Mr. Concha, the program was very worthwhile, and the success rate was better than the division had anticipated.

The "317" Expanded Residential Confinement Program had been initiated by the legislature in 1995. He noted the program got off to a slow start, and the number of participants in the program was not as high as the division hoped it would be. Mr. Concha stated the criteria for participation in the "317" program consisted of the offender having incurred no more than one prior felony conviction, displayed no prior history of violence, must have resources to pay the costs, and must have an approved plan such as residence or a program. Mr. Concha said the ratio of male to female participants in the "317" program was approximately 3 to 1. Mr. Concha did not feel the program was as successful as the "305" program, and noted that participants in the "317" program were incarcerated second-time felony offenders.

Mr. Concha referred to the chart in Exhibit C entitled, "Division of Parole and Probation – District and Sub Office Locations," which indicated there were approximately 15 offices throughout the state, with the majority of the caseload (81 percent) being supervised in Washoe and Clark Counties. The "Comparison of Staff Positions by Type" chart in the exhibit indicated the division’s base budget included 439 positions, of which 292 were sworn staff. That represented 51.9 percent of the division’s workforce. Mr. Concha noted the division’s budget was based on a work unit formula with an offender to officer ratio, as indicated by the page entitled "Work Units." He explained the formula consisted of 65 work units for PSIs per month; a supervision ratio of 75 to 1; and for intensive supervision, house arrest and mandatory release, a ratio of 30 to 1. The Pre-Release Unit had a ratio of 150 cases to 1 officer, the Warrant Unit was 150 to 1, and Interstate Compact consisted of a 75 to 1 ratio. With those ratios, remarked Mr. Concha, the division determined how many staff were needed to supervise within the division. Projections of staffing for the budget had been based on projected caseload/activity data provided by the National Council for Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). Those projections were revised periodically, and revisions would be occurring in April of 1999.

Mr. Concha said module M-200 in The Executive Budget needed to be corrected to reflect 10 sworn personnel for FY 2001 rather than the 9 indicated. That module also provided for a total of 21 sworn and 12 non-sworn staff over the upcoming biennium. As previously indicated, the positions were based on the work unit formula with projections provided by NCCD. Mr. Concha indicated module E-376 would move the division toward a more manageable caseload ratio of 70 offenders to 1 officer and provide the division with an additional 7 sworn staff and 1 support staff over the upcoming biennium. The change to the 70 to 1 ratio was the result of a study provided by NCCD, which considered moving from work units to work hours. The initial request by the division was extensive, but due to funding, it was more appropriate to move toward a 70 to 1 ratio, rather than a work-hour standard. Mr. Concha emphasized that was a step in the right direction for the division and its staff.

Mr. Concha related that module E-377 would establish specialized caseloads to supervise sex offenders in Washoe and Clark Counties. Those caseloads would be staffed at a ratio of 45 offenders to 1 officer. More time would be allowed for officers to aggressively monitor sex offenders and increase their involvement in counseling. Also, added Mr. Concha, those officers would attempt to locate sex offenders who failed to register or update their registration. S.B. 325 of the 1997 Legislature mandated sex offender registration and community notification. It was the responsibility of the Parole and Probation Division to administer that program, which was larger than anticipated. As of January 1, 1999, a total of 1,304 offenders had registered with the division’s district offices, and the necessary information had been forwarded to the central office so the division could complete the records of registration. Mr. Concha explained a total of 628 records of registration had been completed and sent to the Criminal History Repository. The module included an additional 3 sworn and 1 support staff. Module E-390 would revise training requirements for new staff if the new DMV/PS Training Unit was approved.

Mr. Concha said module E-710 addressed replacement equipment for computer hardware/software, along with additional items. Modules E-806 and E-807 consisted of a program to downgrade sworn staff to non-sworn staff in the division’s Pre-Release Unit. Currently, he explained, the division had five such positions, two in Las Vegas and three in Carson City, classified as Operation Supervisors, and also sworn peace officers. Mr. Concha remarked that the Pre-Release Unit was responsible for processing, monitoring, and facilitating paperwork for inmates who had been granted parole and inmates being considered for release for supervision under the "305," "317," and "298" Residential Confinement Programs. Mr. Concha noted he had failed to mention the "298" program that had been approved last session and currently had one inmate participating.

Mr. Concha noted the sworn staff who held positions as Operation Supervisors in the Pre-Release Unit were required to participate in ongoing training to remain Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) certified. Also, they were assigned other duties such as armor, range master, and instructors for various training programs. Consequently, he explained, time spent on pre-release duties was reduced, thereby adversely affecting the release of inmates. The division wanted to reduce the time that had been taken away from the function of release of inmates. In order to facilitate releases, the division was asking that those sworn staff positions be downgraded to Program Officer positions.

Mr. Price asked what the difference in time would be between a sworn officer and someone who was not. Mr. Concha replied a sworn peace officer was required to attend a minimum of 24 hours of annual training and, in addition, had the responsibility of qualifying at the range quarterly, which added approximately 6 hours to the training time. In addition, he explained, there were the armor duties, which entailed servicing all weapons throughout the state. There were at least 250 weapons that needed to be serviced on a 6-month basis. Additionally, there were Pre-Release Officers who were range masters, spending 1 to 2 days training staff, which was also time taken away from the release of inmates in the Pre-Release Program. To alleviate that problem, the Program Officer would not be a peace officer and, therefore, would not be required to attend the peace officer training classes, to be POST certified, or to act as training instructors or armors. With those changes, Mr. Concha believed the division would do a better job in the release of inmates.

Mr. Concha said module E-900 would transfer one Parole and Probation Officer to the DMV/PS Internal Affairs Division. E-901 was a correction to reflect one Program Training Manager and one Word Processing Operator, in addition to the one Operations Supervisor. The module would transfer three positions to the DMV/PS proposed Training Unit, if approved by the legislature. Overall, over the next biennium the division was asking for 23 sworn staff and 18 non-sworn staff, for a total of 41 new positions. Mr. Concha said there were two areas not discussed in the budget request—the one-shot request for automation, and a supplemental appropriation the division would request to address a budget shortfall from last fiscal year.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Concha to address the area of alternative sentencing, as it appeared to her the numbers were down. She asked how many revocations were considered technical violations. Mr. Concha responded one of the problems facing the division in the past 2 to 3 years had been high caseloads and high position vacancy rates, which "stretched" staff enormously. For example, the Las Vegas office had suffered position vacancies for many years. From January 1998 through December 1998, the division had 50 new hires attend the POST academy in Las Vegas. Mr. Concha explained when there were 50 new hires attending the academy from the Las Vegas office, which had a total of 144 positions, the division was obviously experiencing vacancy problems. Caseloads were exceeding the offender-to-officer ratio and were far too high. Consequently, problems occurred with monitoring, programming, placement, and referral of offenders to alternative programs. It was found that when supervision was provided to offenders, some might have averted supervision, thereby requiring the preparation of violation reports. There were also problems relating to new arrests and new convictions. Mr. Concha likened it to a child/parent situation, noting that when a child was given space to roam, he tended to forget about the parent. The same scenario would apply to an offender who was not being aggressively monitored. Consequently, more offenses might be committed and offenders were often arrested and returned to court for revocation proceedings. As a result, explained Mr. Concha, the division’s revocation rate had increased tremendously, and most were felony revocations, which in turn impacted the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP).

Chairman Giunchigliani noted the approximately 104 revoked female offenders, asking what had occurred in those cases. Mr. Concha replied he could not specifically identify the reasons for revocation; however, it appeared that historically a number of appearances before the court were required prior to actual revocation for a female offender. Today, however, that trend was changing, due in part to changes in the female/male relationship and the increasing number of female judges who were not as lenient on women. Mr. Concha stated the result was a higher number of revocations for female offenders than in the past. Chairman Giunchigliani wondered if female judges would impact the revocation rate, and if that was a driving force. Mr. Concha stated he believed that was part of the driving force, along with the fact that the number of female offenders under supervision was also increasing, as depicted by the various charts contained in Exhibit C.

Referring to the page entitled "Workload Statistics History and Projections" in Exhibit C, Mr. Perkins noted the projected PSI rate for FY 2000 was less than the projected rate for FY 1999 and asked if that reflected any particular trend. Mr. Concha replied the division was high in its initial projections for Washoe County, and after NCCD reviewed the projections, they were recomputed in December of 1998. According to Mr. Concha, the projections for PSIs varied frequently, either increasing or decreasing. He noted the projected FY 1999 figures had been compiled approximately 1 year before, and when the actuals for FY 1998 were reviewed, it appeared the projections were too high. Consequently, NCCD reviewed the projections, which resulted in a reduced figure for FY 2000-2001. Mr. Perkins noted those numbers would drive the prison population, and perhaps NCCD needed to review the inmate population projections as well. Mr. Concha said he was sending all the division’s statewide reports to NCCD asking for new projections by March 1999.

Mr. Perkins asked for clarification regarding the 50 new officer positions in Las Vegas. Mr. Concha said there were 50 officers hired for the Las Vegas office who attended POST, but the division hired additional staff as well. Mr. Perkins asked what had created the need for those 50 officers. Mr. Concha replied the division had a situation from July 1996 to July 1997 where it experienced problems recruiting and hiring staff. The 1997 Legislature sent the division a letter of intent asking it to provide quarterly reports for the monitoring and recruiting of staff. Mr. Concha indicated at that time the division aggressively started seeking and hiring applicants. Mr. Perkins asked if there was a specific reason officers left the division, and if there was anything the legislature could do to assist in that regard. Mr. Concha replied officers frequently left the division in Las Vegas, and indicated the majority of the Federal Probation Department staff were trained by the Parole and Probation Division. Employees transferred to the federal agency because of higher pay and lower caseloads. The Federal Probation Department had caseloads of approximately 25 or 30, compared to the higher caseload ratio of the division. Further, Mr. Concha explained, employees from the division were also hired by various law enforcement agencies in the area. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was experiencing problems seeking applicants and advised it would hire POST certified applicants; consequently the division lost staff to that agency.

Mr. Marvel inquired about the difference between the salary scales of state and federal probation officers. Mr. Concha indicated he did not know the specific salary range for federal officers; however, he would be happy to provide that information. His guess would be that while the federal salary might be commensurate to that of the state during the first few years, the maximum range was much higher.

Senator Jacobsen asked if the division had adequate space and where its offices were located. Mr. Concha replied the office in Carson City was on Long Street and operated as a district office, with sub-offices in Minden and Fallon. There was only one district office in Reno; the district office in Elko had sub-offices in Ely, Tonopah, Winnemucca and Pahrump. Las Vegas was the largest district, with its main office located in a state-owned building on Bonanza Street. Mr. Concha stated that the Buildings and Grounds Division and Public Works Board were reviewing the possibility of asking for funds via the CIP list to improve the working conditions in the building. There were also two offices in Henderson and an outlying office in North Las Vegas. The division’s administrative offices were located on Hot Springs Road in Carson City. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Concha to consider moving the division to the state-owned Stewart Facility on Snyder Avenue, which currently housed the Department of Prisons. Mr. Concha agreed to review that possibility.

Senator Neal asked for an explanation of the 70 to 1 ratio. Electing to respond was Ms. English, who explained that the current staffing at the Parole and Probation Division provided for 1 officer for every 75 cases. The module included in The Executive Budget would allow that ratio to be reduced to 1 officer for every 70 cases. Senator Neal then referred to the page entitled "Workload Statistics History and Projections" in Exhibit C and asked for an explanation of what those figures represented. Mr. Concha explained the chart represented work units. For example, FY 1998 actuals regarding PSIs depicted the actual number of reports prepared for the courts. The average number of reports for Clark County per month was approximately 500, and Mr. Concha indicated that was how the division determined how many officers it needed to prepare those reports. He indicated approximately 32 to 34 officers would be required to handle the PSI caseload. Mr. Concha noted the actual number of cases the division supervised could be determined by the figures in the "supervision" and "ISU" (Intensive Supervision Unit) columns, which totaled approximately 10,000. The 6,000 cases depicted in the "central" column were cases handled by the central state office, which included the Pre-Release Unit, offenders who were paroled to consecutive sentences, offenders for whom the division had issued warrants, and those who had moved from Nevada to another state. Those offenders were still required to pay restitution to the victims, to enter programs, and basically to comply with the stipulations ordered by the court.

Senator Neal remarked that according to the actual numbers listed in the two columns for total caseload supervision, 145 officers would be required to supervise the caseload. Mr. Concha explained that to arrive at the number of officers for the figure depicted by the "supervision" column, the total of 9,085 would need to be divided by 70. However, to arrive at the number of officers for "ISU" would require division by 30, as the ratio for that unit was 1 officer for every 30 cases. Senator Neal said he was attempting to reconcile the number of officers needed with the projected caseload, and the provided ratio did not equal the number of officers the division was requesting in The Executive Budget. Mr. Concha referred to the page in the exhibit entitled "Comparison of Staff Positions by Type," and explained the total number reflected the entire division staff, including:

• Sworn line staff,
• General support staff,
• Paraprofessional staff,
• Professional staff,
• Administrative staff,
• Managerial staff, and
• Alcohol/drug counseling staff.

Mr. Concha went on to explain that the formula was strictly for sworn line staff, which was composed of 292 officers, or 51.9 percent of the overall staff. Senator Neal then inquired whether or not the division had an organizational chart indicating how the various staff positions were deployed. Mr. Concha answered the division did have such a chart, and he would provide the Senator with a copy. Mr. Concha added the division followed the formula used in the projections by district offices. For example, if Las Vegas averaged 500 PSIs, the division would divide the work units into the number of PSIs to arrive at the appropriate number of officers required.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if there were alternative sentencing programs the division was not using, if there were programs the division should investigate, and if the division could refer offenders to the drug court program. Mr. Concha replied the division could not make referrals to drug courts because the Clark County Drug Court Program was used prior to a conviction. In Washoe County, the drug court was used after conviction, and the division did have some offenders in the program. Mr. Concha believed one of the division’s problems was that it had not used the house arrest or residential confinement programs as much as it should and could have. For example, the division had asked staff to study the option of using the house arrest program in lieu of revocation. Chairman Giunchigliani remarked that would have a direct impact on the prison bed issue, and she wondered if there was any way to track alternative program use.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if there was anything the legislature could do to assist the division in its efforts to increase the use of residential confinement programs. Mr. Concha responded the division needed to reinforce and push the idea of alternative programming. He explained in order for the division to take a parole or probation violator back to court or to the Parole Board on strictly technical violations, the violator would have had to violate those conditions a number of times. For example, an offender who continued to abuse drugs was first placed in an outpatient program; secondly, an inpatient program; and if the abuse still continued, the division had no alternative but to take the offender back to court. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if a third step in the process could be the drug court program, and if the legislature could assist in that area. Mr. Concha stated the drug court program was set up somewhat differently than the process used by the division.

Chairman Giunchigliani said she was attempting to ascertain if there was another diversion program which would assist the division in keeping offenders drug and alcohol free. Mr. Concha replied there was a lack of statewide programs available for referral of offenders, especially those who did not have the means to secure placement in private programs. Chairman Giunchigliani asked where the statutory language existed which allowed the Washoe drug court to refer on the "back end." She also asked him to review the violations for a 6-month period, in order to determine which violators could have been diverted to the house arrest program. Mr. Concha replied he would research that information for the subcommittee.

Senator O’Donnell asked what type of offenders were placed in the house arrest program. Mr. Concha responded when an offender was arrested for a violation, the division could then release him from incarceration and place him in the house arrest program, pending a revocation hearing. The offender would not be placed under house arrest if there was a history of violence in his background, or fear of risk involved. According to Mr. Concha, participants ranged from DUI offenders, first- and second-time felony offenders under the "317" program, and offenders sentenced by the court to the house arrest program in lieu of incarceration. The more violent offenders would not be placed under house arrest by the division, although the court might initially place such an offender under house arrest to monitor him.

Senator O’Donnell asked if the community or neighborhood was provided any notification that an offender in their area was being supervised under the house arrest program. Mr. Concha replied that the community was not informed. Senator O’Donnell stated he felt alternative sentencing was a fancy term for placing violent offenders back into the community without notifying the people living in that community. He did not think the public, if it was known offenders were being housed next door, would be happy about their neighborhoods being turned into "mini-prisons." Chairman Giunchigliani indicated no one was over zealous about placing offenders on house arrest, and the more important issue was to make sure there was bed space for the violent offenders within the prison system. She emphasized that the legislature needed to work with the division to ensure offenders in residential confinement programs were being monitored.

Chairman Giunchigliani remarked the house arrest program was supposed to be tied to the psychosexual evaluation program, which was intended to be self-funded but apparently was not, and she understood the evaluations were not being used. Mr. Concha replied the division had been using the evaluations, but in Las Vegas the division did not have the staff available to conduct the evaluations. Further, he did not know how the court viewed the psychosexual evaluation, which was in addition to the PSI and sentencing recommendations provided by the division. Chairman Giunchigliani said it was her understanding the Parole and Probation Division was not using the psychosexual evaluations, and while she understood the division used an assessment tool, it was not the psychosexual evaluation. Mr. Concha testified the division used a risk and need assessment format for classification purposes, as well as a probation success probability worksheet for PSIs. Once again, Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the division also used the psychosexual evaluation. Mr. Concha replied the division was not using the evaluation to the fullest extent, and one reason was because once the division received the referral from the court to compile a PSI, it had only 30 to 45 days to file that report. He explained the psychologist had to complete his report in the same time frame, and consequently he was required to share the file with the officers. Also, an officer’s report was usually completed prior to the completion of the psychosexual report, so the evaluation was frequently not included in the PSI. Chairman Giunchigliani remarked if the evaluation was not being used, it was not a very effective tool, and once again noted the program was supposed to be self-funded. However, the division was requesting $250,000 from the General Fund for the program, even though it wasn’t actually being used.

Chairman Giunchigliani noted the division reported low supervision fee collections, but had realized an increase in collection activity in recent months. She asked what happened to the money provided to the division from the 1997 Legislature for radios. Mr. Concha replied the division required a supplemental appropriation because of the shortfall in supervision fee collection for FY 1998, and consequently money from the appropriation for radios was used to supplement that shortfall. The division was currently asking for a supplemental appropriation to replenish the radio funding in order to bring a new system on line in April.

Chairman Giunchigliani reiterated the subcommittee’s concern about staffing. She said Mr. Concha had some good ideas in that area, noting that moving positions in order to relieve sworn officers from completing paperwork seemed to make good sense. She asked if there were any other areas where the division could use classified employees to complete administrative paperwork. Mr. Concha replied the division had considered the possibility of moving sworn staff out of the administrative office. There was an enhancement included in the division’s proposed budget that requested a downgrade for positions in the Pre-Release Unit. The division was also contemplating downgrading court service officers, whose functions were primarily paper intensive and included court appearances. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Concha to take a closer look at these options and to study other states that had done this.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the Dangerous Offender Notification System (DONS) program was operational statewide. Mr. Concha replied offenders were entered into a computer program, and officers could retrieve information at any time. Information could be obtained as to whether or not the person was under the supervision of the Parole and Probation Division and if there were special conditions attached to his supervision, such as not being allowed near children, restricted use of alcohol, et cetera. The program was very beneficial to law enforcement, but did create a great deal of extra work for division staff. Mr. Concha added the program was also functional on a statewide basis.

Chairman Giunchigliani then asked what was needed by the division to discontinue use of the 3" x 5" card system. Mr. Concha explained the automated system was due to be completed by the year 2000. Chairman Giunchigliani said the disconcerting part of the automated program was the fact that the state was using Highway Fund dollars to complete the project. Ms. English noted the division had made an attempt to compile a cost allocation for the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), but due to the lack of General Fund resources, the amounts were not added to the budgets. Chairman Giunchigliani asked if there were court assessments the legislature could utilize in the budget. Ms. English answered that was a policy issue.

Mr. Marvel noted that court assessments were not uniformly collected on a statewide basis. He was interested in knowing if there was any uniformity as to how those programs were being initiated or formatted. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Concha to provide the subcommittee with a list of drug and alcohol programs utilized by the division.

Senator Neal asked how many people were under the division’s supervision. Mr. Concha responded there were approximately 10,300 offenders currently under supervision. Senator Neal asked how many of those individuals had committed non-violent crimes. Mr. Concha replied he did not know, and explained the DONS system would be used to procure such information. Senator Neal then asked if officers were aware of the violent offenders on their caseload. Mr. Concha replied the officers did have that information; however, such information was not yet centralized.

Donald L. Denison, Chairman, Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, called the subcommittee’s attention to the packet entitled "Parole Board" (Exhibit D), which would answer questions asked of the Parole Board at the initial January legislative budget overview hearing. Mr. Denison indicated the only enhancement in the budget was module E-710, which would provide funds to replace equipment to enable the board to continue to retrieve information from the NDOP computer system. The total dollar amount was $10,751. Chairman Giunchigliani noted the difference between the parole decisions reached in the north and those reached in the south seemed to be more of a procedural difference. Mr. Denison indicated as soon as the board became aware of that possibility, it started looking into the issue. He explained Joe Ward, Jr., from the Attorney General’s Office, had observed meetings in both the north and south. Also, northern and southern commissioners were assigned parole hearings on a statewide basis. According to Mr. Denison, what was most important was the fact that all commissioners were unanimous in the decisions made. Mr. Denison stated there was a training session scheduled in the near future, and one commissioner from the north would go south to sit in on that session. Also, he indicated the board would have considerable discussion regarding parole violations with the Parole and Probation Division, including the type of violator the division brought to the board and what information the division needed to provide to the board in order to sustain a revocation.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Denison agreed with the projected number of parole releases and revocations. Mr. Denison indicated an amendment to the projected numbers had been sent to the legislature, and the board was reasonably comfortable that the new numbers were on target.

Senator Neal asked how many parole hearings there were, after combining the number of standard parole hearings and mandatory parole release hearings. Mr. Denison replied the chart entitled "Parole Board Actions Regarding all Offenders/July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998" as contained in Exhibit D reflected that information, and represented an 18-month time period.

Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the board’s actuals regarding performance indicators were based on a 1-year time frame. David Smith, Board of Parole Commissioners, replied Exhibit D was an attempt to provide the subcommittee with the most accurate and up-to-date information. Mr. Denison noted the exhibit also responded to questions the board had been asked at its initial budget overview hearing.

Senator Jacobsen stated during the 1997 Legislative Session there had been considerable discussion about notification being provided to victims. He asked if that situation had been corrected and also if the board’s facilities were adequate. Mr. Denison said that as a result of hearings held during the 1997 Session, the victim notification process had been revised. The process currently included notification to all interested persons rather than just victims, and also ensured that adequate notification was provided to district attorneys to inform victims. In terms of facilities, Mr. Denison explained that before the state ran into budget problems, the board had asked for additional space; it would now attempt to "make do" through the upcoming biennium.

Senator Jacobsen asked for clarification on the difference in procedure between the north and south. Mr. Denison replied that commissioners were currently scheduled for hearings in both the north and south, and there was also a training session scheduled in the near future to clarify the procedure.

Mr. Marvel recalled there had been a problem in the past with inmates waiving their mandatory hearing when they became "short-timers," and he thought the legislature had made those hearings truly mandatory. He asked how many paroles were issued as a result of the mandatory hearings. Mr. Denison replied in 1992 there was a drastic increase in all hearings, which was when the waivers stopped. Prior to that, inmates were allowed to waive their parole hearings, wait a few months, and then rescind their waiver, thereby creating much confusion. He reported that situation was presently "cleaned up." At the conservation camps, some inmates would request denial of parole due to the short time left to serve out their sentence. According to Mr. Denison, during the next session of the legislature, the board would undoubtedly put forth a request to strike mandatory parole. He explained the law was necessary at the time it was written; however, it had outlived its usefulness. The board presently saw inmates who had a mandatory parole release date which was prior to their regular release date.

Mr. Marvel asked if legislative staff received notice of parole hearings occurring throughout the state, adding he would like to attend one. Mr. Denison said notification was sent to public libraries, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, district attorneys offices, and the like.

Senator Neal asked if there were any conferences or meetings where parole board staff, district attorneys, and jury members could get together and discuss the system. Mr. Denison said that occurred on a piecemeal basis, and there was continuous interaction between the board and various department chiefs in the state.

Chairman Giunchigliani opened the public testimony portion of the meeting. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employee’s Association, said the hearing on the prison budget raised many questions, but he would focus on general areas of concern. The first was the issue of compensation and staff turnover, and the second was the proposal to close the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) and lease it to a private firm. Mr. Gagnier referred to the packet he provided to the subcommittee (Exhibit E), which contained turnover statistics provided by the Department of Personnel.

Mr. Gagnier indicated correctional job turnover was twice the state average and was really two separate issues—the ability to hire quality employees and the ability to keep the employees performing the work. The budget proposed recognized turnover and difficulty in recruitment at only two institutions and in an insufficient manner. A significant problem at the Ely State Prison (ESP) was hiring employees, but an even greater problem was retaining those employees once they had been hired. Mr. Gagnier thought everyone would agree it was best to fill positions with regular employees at straight time rates. However, when employees resigned as quickly as those did at ESP, the remaining employees were required to work overtime, and double shifts were frequently required. According to Mr. Gagnier, double shifts and massive amounts of overtime had a negative effect on morale and caused staff burnout and increased sick leave use, which led to even greater turnover.

Mr. Gagnier cited an example of a situation that was terribly counterproductive. There had recently been a case at ESP where a correctional officer had been on sick leave and leave without pay due to hypertension. His doctor finally told him he could return to work, but for only 8 hours per day. The prison refused to allow him to return until he could work unlimited hours. Mr. Gagnier said the prison stated it would rather pay another employee overtime than put that correctional officer back to work. SNEA took the case to hearing and won. The hearings officer ordered the correctional officer back to work with full pay and full benefits; SNEA thought the prison would appeal the case.

Mr. Gagnier recalled there had been discussion about turnover during the Ways and Means Committee’s earlier hearing. Much was said about who conducted the exit interviews. SNEA found that most employees did not give an accurate picture of why they were leaving their jobs because they did not want to "burn bridges," and they oftentimes feared receiving a poor recommendation. SNEA wanted to encourage the subcommittee to further explore the idea of anonymous exit questionnaires sent out from the Department of Personnel rather than the state agency. Mr. Gagnier said Samuel Covelli, a Correctional Sergeant at SNCC, could give the subcommittee an idea of what he had discovered regarding employees who left southern prisons.

During the 1997 Legislative Session, Mr. Covelli had provided testimony to the joint money committees concerning the turnover and disparity in pay among the state institutions, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the North Las Vegas Police Department. Since that time, nothing had really changed and the disparity continued. The Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) decided to raise the physical agility standards for correctional officers entering state service at the time, and those officers were now equal with "category one" officers in the other jurisdictions. Mr. Covelli reported SNCC was receiving very bright, young, physically fit applicants who were entering the training programs. However, those applicants were not remaining with SNCC, but were leaving for other jurisdictions. Having spoken with a number of them, Mr. Covelli felt they were leaving primarily for the money. Mr. Covelli said the pay scale for a newly appointed sergeant in other jurisdictions started at $52,000 per year base pay, and a "topped out" lieutenant at SNCC received a base pay of $42,700.

Mr. Gagnier referred to Exhibit E, which contained a partial copy of the special salary survey conducted by the Department of Personnel for correctional classifications. The salary for correctional officers was more than 16 percent behind the average of the western states and Nevada local government. If only Nevada local correctional facilities were surveyed, the disparity would be much greater. Mr. Gagnier referred to salary comparisons (Exhibit E) which showed that SNCC’s commanding officers were from 49 to 53 percent behind the pay scale for principal local government employees. Mr. Gagnier said it had been proposed that employees of the Lovelock Correctional Center begin receiving the remote area differential pay, a separate law which applied only to employees who lived more than 25 miles from Lovelock.

William Stanley, Correctional Sergeant at Nevada State Prison (NSP), said he supervised the day shift, which started every morning eight positions short. Those positions were funded by the legislature but could not be filled by the prison due to the lack of recruitment. The prison had received unfunded mandates from the legislature as well as the federal government, which required staffing by the prison in order to accommodate those mandates; however, the prison could not provide the necessary staff. There were officer positions required for psychiatric panel hearings, parole board hearings, and supervision of garbage trucks, to name a few. Mr. Stanley said he was authorized 80 officers on the day shift, which included himself and the shift lieutenant. After the vacant positions and officers on their regular days off were eliminated, the minimum staffing level was 43 people, and Mr. Stanley had 45. He explained that left him only two officers to accommodate all the unfunded mandates, and did not leave him with sufficient staff to ensure the safety of the public, the inmates, or himself. According to Mr. Stanley, the officers he supervised were trained and motivated to do the job for the state of Nevada.

Mr. Gagnier addressed the proposal to close SNCC and lease it to some other entity that might bring inmates from out of state to Nevada. Mr. Gagnier said there was some experience in that regard at the national level, and he felt the subcommittee might have a better understanding after watching a short video on privatization of prisons.

Joshua Miller, Labor Economist with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), indicated his organization represented 1.3 million employees across the country, including approximately 100,000 correctional officers. Mr. Miller stated the Tennessee legislature had been considering privatizing up to 70 percent of the state’s correctional system. The state did an analysis of that process and not only concluded there would be no cost savings, but also concluded the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) made a 2 percent profit by paying over $1.8 million less in salaries and benefits. Mr. Miller said it should not come as a surprise that in October four inmates escaped from a facility in Tennessee.

Mr. Miller remarked the general trends AFSCME had seen across the country with private vendors were represented by low pay, high turnover, and inadequate training programs. Further, he noted that inadequate training led to inmate abuse, inmates killing each other, and general chaos, raising questions of general accountability, which became difficult to determine when all parties involved were "pointing fingers." Mr. Miller commented he was in Youngstown shortly after the escape, and what he saw dismayed him. The warden did not provide the oversight committee with the documents they requested, and he lied rather than accept responsibility. The CCA was more concerned about protecting their corporate image than they were about protecting the citizens of Youngstown. Mr. Miller said this was typical, because the corporation was usually more concerned with its shareholders in other states than it was with the jurisdiction the prison served.

Mr. Miller said AFSCME had seen more escapes occurring at private prisons. When the escape happened in Tennessee, the governor, who was a big proponent of prison privatization, put forth legislation to reduce prison privatization, especially at prisons that imported inmates from out of state. Mr. Miller added Tennessee was the home of the CCA, which made that development quite important. Increased escapes and chaos in facilities also led to an increase in the number of lawsuits. In general, emphasized Mr. Miller, a jurisdiction could contract out its services, but could not contract out its liability. Regardless of what type of insurance policy was purchased, there was nothing that could realistically cover the damage that could arise if inmates escaped and killed people. Also, Mr. Miller explained, private correction employees lacked qualified immunity, so those employees could be held personally liable in lawsuits, which could lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits filed. Mr. Miller noted that even if Nevada turned its prisons over to a private vender, the state would still be required to provide some "hands-on" involvement in terms of classification and resolving conflict-of-interest issues. In terms of liability, the state would still be involved in the process, which raised some additional issues.

Mr. Miller noted there were a number of studies conducted that found there were no cost benefits to privatization. All of those studies talked about hidden costs, "cherry picking" by the vendors, and caps placed on medical costs, which disproportionately shifted those costs to the public system. Also, there would be a greater propensity for escapes, abuse, and lawsuits. Mr. Miller stated private vendors often did not release information regarding the crimes occurring in their facilities. However, the public would be required to pay for the prosecution of those crimes. Mr. Miller said another concern was that jurisdictions sending their inmates to Nevada would send their most dangerous criminals.

Mr. Miller continued, saying that U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno had commissioned a review of the Youngstown situation, and that review detailed the many difficulties associated with classification of inmates. Another example was found at the CCA processing center in Houston, Texas, where there was an agreement that CCA would only house immigration offenders at the facility. The citizens in Texas did not know there were rapists and other violent offenders housed in the facility until there was an escape. When the offenders were captured, they could not be prosecuted for escape by the state of Texas, since at the time it was not a crime to escape from a private prison.

In terms of legislative trends, Mr. Miller remarked that numerous state legislators were attempting to put curbs on the type of offender that could be brought into their state. Another trend AFSCME was seeing was that instead of private vendors, state and local systems were handling the process of importing inmates. That way, explained Mr. Miller, the state and local systems had more control over the process. Mr. Miller asked the legislature to consider what the contingency plan would be for bringing the prison back under state control after it had been handed over to a private vendor. He added if the state set up the process in-house to begin with, it would not have to worry about the problems associated with privatization. There were not many companies bringing inmates in from out of state and, therefore, there was a lack of experience and competition. CCA had the most experience and managed over 55 percent of private prison beds. Mr. Miller asked the subcommittee to consider what would happen if private correctional officers went on strike.

Senator Neal asked if Mr. Miller was suggesting that a state had a constitutional duty to provide a prison. Mr. Miller answered the most invasive thing the state could do to a person was take away his liberty and freedom. That was an inherently governmental function that should not be contracted out to the lowest bidder. Mr. Miller added even if a private company purchased a liability insurance policy, the state of Nevada would still have the "deep pockets" and would be unable to escape its liability. In his research, Mr. Miller had found that the jurisdiction, rather than the contractor, was ultimately liable for the inmates.

Mr. Price asked if the facility outside of Nashville was the main CCA institution. Mr. Miller said the facility near CCA’s headquarters had some escape problems, which was a concern since it was probably the best kept facility due to its proximity.

Jennifer Clemenshaw, registered nurse, gave the following testimony.

Ruth Hoch, Correctional Nurse, NDOP, testified that she worked in the specialty center at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). Ms. Hoch referred to Exhibit F, and indicated there was information in the exhibit that would help to bring the privatization issue closer to home. Ms. Hoch said she had been the Director of Nursing at ESP for the 18 months prior to privatization of the medical department. She was able to observe what actually transpired through the pre-privatization period, as well as the "fallout" after the privatization. Ely was a remote area with a small population, which meant there were limited jobs available to prison staff who wanted to stay in state service. Consequently, when the threat of privatization was introduced, many employees began job hunting. Ms. Hoch explained when vacancies opened throughout the state, NDOP lost many staff members, which was very costly. Further, she explained, NDOP could not fill the vacant positions because it did not know if state jobs would even be available in future months. That situation caused an incredible drop in staff morale and productivity. Ms. Hoch said after the new corporation took over, there was a critical shortage of officers because many officers’ wives had worked at the prison, but had taken other jobs when privatization was threatened. That could occur again if more prisons were privatized, particularly in the rural and remote areas. Ms. Hoch advised that CMS did not fill many of the vacant positions the legislature had budgeted for its use. She questioned what had happened to the money allocated for the positions that remained unfilled. CMS never filled the pharmacy or lab positions and, to date, had not filled many of those vacant positions they were budgeted for. Also, stated Ms. Hoch, there was an incredible turnover within the staff hired by CMS. There was a considerable period of time before the mental health programs were up and running, which put the prison at risk of being sued. Ms. Hoch noted that of the current staff at ESP, which was budgeted for 43.6 positions, there were approximately 36 filled positions.

Ms. Hoch commented there were many concessions made for CMS as well. CMS never provided a pharmacist, which the state was still providing for them. Also, all of the medications supplied to that pharmacy were provided through NDOP’s central office in Carson City, and whether the state was being compensated was unclear. According to Ms. Hoch, there was a $300,000 cap on outside expenditures, and after that cap was met, the state picked up the tab. In Ely that meant if two inmates were sent by life flight to intensive care in Las Vegas, the $300,000 cap was probably already met. The state of Nevada also provided all of the prosthetics and dental appliances for Ely, which received a 25 percent discount on their reimbursement plan. Ms. Hoch said treadmills were another issue; Ely was asking the state to provide them to inmates who requested them. Ms. Hoch said it was pretty evident that privatization was not really saving the state any money. End-stage renal disease patients and other terminal inmates often became far too sick for the staff at ESP to care for, and the state would have to take care of them for ESP. Ms. Hoch also felt the effects of lawsuits and litigation would have to be considered.

Mary Thompson, Regional Chief of Nursing for Southern Nevada, gave the following testimony.

Bob Hartman, Director of Nursing, Nevada State Prison, made the following statement.

John Stevens, a psychologist at the Mental Unit at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, gave the following testimony.

Mr. Stevens added that a few years ago he was asked by CMS to assist them with a lawsuit, which cost the state $500,000 in attorney’s fees. He worked with the mental health director to develop a three-step system for CMS’s mental health system. Mr. Stevens also met with the warden and other CMS staff members to develop the program at ESP. Mr. Stevens said he was told to keep that a "secret" and not leak the information to the media or the legislature. The purpose was to develop a mental health system at ESP and to not make CMS look bad. Eventually the lawsuit was settled, and CMS returned to the status of not providing a program. Mr. Stevens added CMS called him on a regular basis wondering how to work with problem inmates and severely mentally ill inmates. Mr. Stevens said he had been instructed not to converse with CMS staff, but as they desperately needed help, he would provide information. Mr. Stevens felt that private companies hired inexperienced staff, which caused many problems. He likened working in corrections to a marriage—if the two entities, corrections and mental health, could work together, much could be accomplished.

Cheryl Dressler, Registered Nurse, NDOP, argued against privatization. Ms. Dressler referred to Exhibit G and stated it would allow the subcommittee to track 31 female and 47 male inmates throughout the NDOP. Ms. Dressler indicated the subcommittee could track the costs caused by routing inmates from the privatized prisons to the Regional Medical Facility (RMF) when those inmates were in need of care. Documentation would also indicate when the inmates needed to return to the NDOP Inmate Medical Services for additional care. The number of inmates addressed in the exhibit did not indicate the total medical costs, or the total number of inmates who had received medical care within the RMF. Exhibit G, explained Ms. Dressler, was meant to provide examples of inmate medical costs that had not been covered by privatized medical services within the state of Nevada. As an example, she said that 47 inmates were transferred from ESP to RMF and resided there for a total of 3,381 days for medical care, which cost the state of Nevada $369,591. Additionally, there were the custody costs of $42,616 to provide hospitalization and transportation for those inmates. Ms. Dressler referred to the audit report (Exhibit G) for the NDOP Inmate Medical Services for 1998 by Legislative Auditor, Gary Kruse. According to that audit, accurate data collection of inmate healthcare costs in Nevada was ineffective. Mr. Kruse had informed Ms. Dressler that the private companies could not prove their accountability unless their numbers were tracked. Exhibit G was the beginning of that tracking.

Richard Null, registered nurse, gave the following testimony.

Regina Bahten, Senior Physician at Warm Springs Correctional Center, made the following remarks:

Larry Arnold, Forensic Specialist III, Department of Prisons, gave the following testimony.

Mr. Gagnier said he wanted to relay a few messages to the subcommittee from some other organizations regarding the contracting out of medical services and the closing of SNCC. Both issues were opposed by the Nevada Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Progressive Leadership Alliance, and the Nevada Alliance for the Mentally Ill. The Nevada Chapter of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization had also voiced its opposition.

Mercedes Maharis, Director of the Nevada Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), gave the following statement.

Lloyd Rupp, M.D., indicated he was present to provide information to the subcommittee concerning the American Correctional Association (ACA) accreditation program, which was nationwide. Dr. Rupp stated ACA standards were a national benchmark for the effective operation of systems throughout the United States. Those standards were necessary to ensure that agencies were operating professionally. He explained the standards addressed services, programs and operations essential to good management, including administrative and fiscal controls, staff training and development, fiscal plant safety and emergency procedures, sanitation, food service, and rules and discipline. Dr. Rupp noted ACA standards reflected practical, up-to-date policies. Further, he stated that procedures safeguarded the lives of both staff and offenders. Accreditation improved the professionalism and morale of staff, gave staff a better understanding of the agency’s policies and procedures, and improved staff training and development. ACA standards described a condition, practice or program that must exist in an agency to obtain the minimum level of professional operations. According to Dr. Rupp, the accreditation program was the systematic process of review, evaluation and inspection to verify compliance with those standards. The standards of the ACA were outcome-based standards, so there was a measurement of whether or not the institution was in fact doing the things it said it did.

Dr. Rupp cited the three major reasons for seeking accreditation by states:

• To insure the operation was in compliance with professional standards, which were peer driven;

• To demonstrate to legislators and the public that the organization was operating at the levels the legislature set for its operation; and

• To comply with court orders or legislative mandates.

Continuing, Dr. Rupp said he had been in charge of a correctional facility in Charleston, South Carolina, which had received accreditation in 3 years, which was an unusual accomplishment. He had also been an auditor, so he had seen both sides of the issue and understood it well.

Dr. Rupp remarked that in a 500-bed institution, the accreditation fee was approximately $4.80 per offender per year, or a little over one cent per day per offender. Dr. Rupp believed accreditation was about accountability to the public that paid the salaries, the legislative process, the governor, the administration, the judiciary, and the people. In court cases, the judge usually asked three questions. First, did the facility have written policies and procedures and an established practice to indicate completion of those policies and procedures? The second question was whether the facility trained their staff in the policies and procedures, and third, in the incident before the court, did staff follow the practices? If the department could answer affirmatively to all three questions, it was generally "home free." If, however, the department answered in the negative to any of the questions, it should be prepared to "get its pocketbook out."

Dr. Rupp said a recent survey of accreditation agencies indicated the advantages of accreditation were numerous, and included the following:

• The assessment of a facility’s strengths and weaknesses,

• The identification of obtainable goals,

• The implementation of state-of-the-art policies and procedures,
• The establishment of specific daily operations to aid in the defense of frivolous lawsuits,

• An increase of community support, and

• A higher level of staff professionalism and morale.

According to Dr. Rupp, not only staff, but inmates also, had worked hard for the accreditation of this facility, which he wanted the subcommittee to note. He indicated he was impressed to see an inmate and a staff person both cleaning on the day the inspectors were due to arrive at the facility, which he felt brought staff and inmates together. Dr. Rupp added when he was the Commissioner of Corrections in the State of Alaska, a number of facilities had been accredited in the same manner as the Nevada facility.

Dr. Rupp stated he would address the process itself, indicating there were four status levels for a facility to achieve:

• First was the application status, which involved the initial contact by the agency, the exchange of information and materials, a contract, and fee negotiations.

• Secondly there was the correspondence status, which consisted of the agency completing a self-evaluation, for which the standards, interpretations and technical assistance were provided by the staff of the ACA.

• Next was the candidate status, where the self-evaluation report was completed and a certificate of compliance levels was issued. After that, there was the audit request, which required 6 to 8 weeks notice for the standards audit. That was a pass or fail situation, and if the institution failed, the audit reverted to a training exercise.

• Finally, there was the accreditation, with annual certification and a re-audit every 3 years.

Dr. Rupp recommended NDOP seek accreditation over the next 3 years. He also recommended NDOP begin the process with its central office and one institution. This process was long-term, requiring 3 to 5 years for completion. On the other hand, he felt that would be the most cost-effective decision the state would ever make.

Mrs. Chowning asked what the cost savings would be over the 3- to 5-year period. Dr. Rupp replied that in a 500-person institution the fee was $4.80 per offender per year. Mr. Price asked if the accreditation was system-wide. Dr. Rupp explained accreditation was segregated by the various types of institutions, and each institution completed its own accreditation. He noted NDOP’s central office would require separate accreditation and would be reviewed under a separate set of standards. Further, he explained, the standards ranged from having 140 degree water temperature at the output of the dishwashing machine in the galley, to "The director shall appoint an EEO in writing in the central office." Also, medical services could now be accredited, which was a fairly new concept.

Peter Ernaut, Office of the Governor, stated that he felt people always searched for common ground where there was disagreement, and the previous speakers had galvanized the fact there was something to agree upon. He added the Governor believed the state did need prisons, and it was important to deal with all of the issues "on the table" individually. Mr. Ernaut thought Mr. Gagnier had done a good job outlining the pay disparity suffered by many of the state workers in NDOP, and more specifically by correctional officers. The Governor wholeheartedly agreed; however, the current budget cycle unfortunately did not afford him the luxury of being able to provide those raises that were so desperately needed to address recruitment difficulties and the high turnover rate. Mr. Ernaut said the Governor’s number one priority was to make sure revenue was allocated properly.

Mr. Ernaut indicated there was more than one issue involved in the closure of SNCC. He added it was important to note the Governor’s biennial budget only dealt with "mothballing" SNCC, meaning the savings reflected in The Executive Budget were gained by that action. There were no revenue figures or any detail in The Executive Budget about privatizing SNCC. The Governor was not talking about privatizing the correctional services at SNCC. Further, explained Mr. Ernaut, the savings were very simple. If the state built Cold Creek State Prison (CCSP) and then transferred the inmates and employees from SNCC to the new facility, the state would save money. Mr. Ernaut said SNCC had been a difficult facility both in maintenance and refurbishing. This change would afford the state the luxury of being able to assess those difficulties and review the option of bringing SNCC "up to speed." The Governor did feel the idea of leasing SNCC was something to look at in the future. The current budget, however, only reflected savings by moving employees and inmates from SNCC to CCSP. The savings would be significant, due to the fact that NDOP facilities throughout the state were quite large and required a substantial budget for operation.

Mr. Ernaut commented that the medical services issue was particularly difficult for the Governor because it was not his issue. The legislature had voted to privatize prisons at past sessions and, in fact, the state had one such facility in southern Nevada, as well as privatized medical services at ESP. The idea was not without precedence and was just one possibility in a tough budget year for the state. Mr. Ernaut added if the SNCC and privatization of medical services programs were not adopted, there would be a $14.5 million gap in the budget. He felt that was of grave importance, since in a very tight budget year, every dollar counted.

Mr. Ernaut explained the Governor was well aware that privatizing services in the medical system could bring hardships to employees and their families. The Governor had past experience in running businesses and had managed thousands of employees. He would not direct the head of the NDOP to accept any contract for privatization that did not first allow any existing employees the opportunity to work for that company. Mr. Ernaut stated the Governor would also travel to each NDOP facility, beginning March 8^th and 9^th, to meet personally with medical service employees. Traveling with him would be the Director of the Department of Personnel in order to address any unique problems and areas where the state could offer retraining, relocation, and rehabilitation to employees. Mr. Ernaut emphasized that the Governor wanted to provide those employees with every opportunity to find other employment or secure jobs within the private companies. The Director of Personnel would also inform the employees of their rights and responsibilities. Mr. Ernaut added the Governor’s Office operated under an "open door" policy for state employees.

Mr. Ernaut explained the Governor would review each individual’s case when making the transition from state employment to the private sector. Ideally, the transfer would be fair and as minimally painful as possible. This situation was not an easy one, and Mr. Ernaut indicated he wanted to extend access to the Governor’s Office and all possible information to allow those employees to make the best possible choice.

Mr. Price asked what kind of help the Governor or any state employee could provide to employees in the private sector. Mr. Ernaut replied the medical services employees were presently employees of the state, so the Governor’s intention was to talk with them in order to weigh options and discuss the process. The Governor had every right to put restrictions on a contract with any private company that took over NDOP medical services. These restrictions could, for example, stipulate that current employees would have access to employment in the private facility. Mr. Ernaut added the state was indemnified in a privatized situation, and the Governor’s Office planned to provide human resources and personnel help at every turn during the transition.

Ed Flagg, President, Nevada Corrections Association, said his association was comprised solely of NDOP employees. Mr. Flagg argued that privatized medical care had not worked anywhere in the country. Also, NDOP medical employees could do the job better than a private provider. He asked the legislature to prove that over the next biennium NDOP employees could provide quality medical service and continue to reduce the costs. With the leadership provided by the current medical administration, Mr. Flagg felt NDOP employees could do the job. He reiterated how bad an idea it was to close down SNCC. The one thing Director Bayer had accomplished with his proposal was to unify and energize NDOP staff. Mr. Flagg indicated he was one of the line staff in the trenches who could see what worked or did not work, and he felt privatizing medical services would not be in the best interest of the prison system. He asked that the legislature listen to the NDOP employees in order to make the medical services work better, more safely, and more efficiently.

Steven Barr, Nevada Corrections Association, remarked there were more questions being raised than answered. SNCC was a 600-bed facility, while phase one at CCSP was approximately 1,038 beds. He asked if the proposal would utilize the same number of officers for both facilities. Currently, Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) at Indian Springs had a staff shortage of between 20 and 25 officers. If officers could not be hired for an existing facility, Mr. Barr wondered how NDOP was going to fill the gap between the number of officers transferred to CCSP from SNCC, and what would be needed to fully staff the new facility. Additionally, remarked Mr. Barr, the opening of phase II at CCSP would require even more officers. He thought a lot of the discussion was hypothetical, and the state needed staff and officers to actually do the job or the new facility would sit vacant like the Lovelock facility had prior to its opening. Mr. Barr indicated in Carson City 10 percent of the officer positions were vacant, and Las Vegas was in the same position. No one wanted the job, even though there was a large population base to draw from. He said there was competition developing in the labor market for the new institutions.

Mr. Barr indicated ESP was an excellent facility, but it also experienced staff shortages, which could be readily solved by changing the hours the staff worked. Approximately 1/3 of the officer positions were vacant; however, Mr. Barr felt if the facility went to 12-hour shifts, it would eliminate the need for more staff. The same situation existed at the Lovelock facility, where alternate staffing would also ease the situation. Mr. Barr then asked, "If closing SNCC and privatizing medical services were such good ideas, why were they not included in the original budget?"

Dan Shoup, Senior Correctional Officer at NNCC, said he did not have a political agenda, but was asked to come speak to the subcommittee and present his point of view as a line officer. Mr. Shoup indicated that although it was called a "tight budget year," every year was called the same. He came from Indiana, but chose Nevada because he loved the state and wanted to work here. Mr. Shoup said he had a family of his own as well as a family he worked with every day.

In order to explain the situation, he presented the following:

Joby Aragon, Correctional Officer, testified he had worked at a New Mexico facility that was near a private facility, which always needed help. He said state employees were always held to a higher standard, and they were willing to work when times were tough and the hours long. In private industry, that ethic was lost. Mr. Aragon doubted the Governor was going to reach into his pockets and pay the car payment or house payment for the staff who would lose their jobs. He added there were many employees of NDOP who had worked hard and come up through the ranks and did not even make near the equivalent of employees in law enforcement. Mr. Aragon remarked privatization was creating a situation that would cause employees to depend on social services, or relocate and look for new jobs. He emphasized that the employees were at the mercy of the legislature.

Pat Hines, a member of Nevada Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), People Organized for Psych Reform (POPR), and the Religious Alliance In Nevada (RAIN), said there were some things that needed work in the state. Ms. Hines cited a quote from Patrick Henry that read, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Ms. Hines added the country’s founding fathers realized democracy depended on an informed public, and that government must be accountable to the people, since the people were, after all, the government. Democracy was in jeopardy, however, when those in power could hide the way they conducted business.

One right of the people, Ms. Hines continued, was to review the transfer of funds from the Offender Store Fund and the Inmate Welfare Fund. Also, the legislature should look at current and future federal grants. Ms. Hines first addressed bills created in the 1997 Legislature that allowed discretionary funds to be taken out of the Offender Store Fund and the Inmate Welfare Fund. Some of that money was going to the Director’s Office Fund, in the amount of $83,039. Ms. Hines’ biggest concern was a great deal of money had been taken out of those funds to supplement the medical fund. Her other area of concern was the amount of money transferring from the Offender Store Fund to the Inmate Welfare Fund.

Ms. Hines said if the state was supporting so much of the private facility’s expenses, perhaps the state should also receive a portion of its profits. She was also very concerned that over 6,200 of the state’s inmates worked, but that there were not 6,200 inmates in the system who received pay. When an inmate worked in the computer system in the prison, for example, and had gross pay of $45 per month for over 100 hours of labor, money was still deducted for discretionary funds, leaving the net pay at $27.50. Perhaps that practice should be changed so inmates could be released from prison with enough money to be a success rather than a failure. Ms. Hines indicated part of the money coming out of the Offender Store Fund was generated from collect calls placed by inmates to their families.

According to Ms. Hines, it might be time to push for some federal grant money for sex offender programs. There was a Residential Substance Abuse Grant that had helped start a therapeutic community in Warm Springs. That fund had a holdover fund of over $300,000. Ms. Hines asked the subcommittee to consider taking at least $150,000 of that total to start a therapeutic community for sex offenders, who served the longest sentences prior to being released. She would also like to see the $49,000 that had been allocated for the University of Nevada, Reno internship program applied to training for people who work in the prison system, and for those inmates who needed one-on-one counseling. She did not feel the state should be paying for its prisons to be teaching institutions. Ms. Hines requested that the legislature look closely at all of the above issues.

There being no further business to come before the subcommittee, the meeting was adjourned at 2.00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

_________________________________

Cynthia M. Cendagorta

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

__________________________________

Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

DATE:____________________________

__________________________________

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen,

Chairman

DATE: ____________________________