The joint meeting of the Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12 was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Friday, March 19, 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.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Jan Evans, Chairwoman

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Raymond Rawson, Chairman (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources, appeared before the subcommittee to answer any questions regarding the department’s budget.

Performance indicators were discussed during the prior presentation and Chairwoman Evans asked if those proposed on page 2 of Exhibit C on file at the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) were the proposed performance indicators.

Ms. Crawford introduced Mark Roberts, Chief Financial Officer and Dr. John Yacenda, Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, and stated they had been working on a project to construct performance indicators. Dr. Yacenda said prior requests had been for the department to develop draft performance indicators, which could be utilized to measure the office’s effectiveness in meeting its mission. He explained he had reviewed areas of concern including those that were philosophical and programmatical in nature. The department also evaluated the steps needed to maintain an overall cross-linkage among divisions from which were developed six over-arching goals of the department.

They would be utilized as a basis to develop more specific indicators for areas of concern. For each of those overarching goals, a series of qualitative concerns and quantitative outcomes were addressed, and the success of the department would be expressed through those outcomes. The essence of what goals were being accomplished, and the measures to accomplish those goals, was also reviewed.

Chairwoman Evans said those goals and performance indicators were a good start for the subcommittee in understanding the effectiveness of the office.

Assemblyman Hettrick remarked performance indicator number four stood out the most. He wished to commend the department. The quantitative narrative stated "Number of community partners and percentage increased" and also "Percent of funds available used to administer versus directed services," were very meaningful, and was what the subcommittee looked toward to enable them to compare dollars expended to benefit gained. He encouraged such narrative be developed in the other five indicators. Dr. Yacenda responded those comments would be strongly considered. Dr. Yacenda noted when creating performance indicators over a wide range of programs successful outcomes would generate new performance indicators of their own.

Chairwoman Evans asked for the status of the Maximus contract and in what direction the department intended to go with the contract. Ms. Crawford replied the department had formed several committees to increase effective communication within the department, one committee included each of the chief financial officers from each division and Mr. Roberts. This particular committee was effective in completing assigned tasks with regard to centralizing and processing fiscal activities. One of the tasks assigned to the committee was to evaluate the performance of Maximus against the department’s baseline and to identify if they believed there were still outstanding areas within the department that would benefit by that type of contract. The task was not yet complete. A number of performance areas would have to be examined and an analysis of the contract opportunities performed before a decision to renew the contract was determined.

Chairwoman Evans requested a timetable regarding when a decision might be reached and whether or not it would be productive to continue with the Maximus contract. Ms. Crawford replied information would be formalized and a decision made by the middle of April.

Chairwoman Evans stated the subcommittee would like to have the decision by April 1 and would like to be informed of the status of the monies recovered as a result of the efforts of Maximus. The subcommittee understood the money was to revert to the General Fund. Ms. Crawford replied she would have the decision and information for the subcommittee by April 1. It was indicated to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) several months prior that all the proceeds, other than those specifically obligated to the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) for the Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) project would revert to the General Fund.

Chairwoman Evans asked the amount of the reversion to the General Fund. Mark Roberts, Administrative Services Officer, replied the anticipated amount of reversion would total $5.7 million at the end of the state fiscal year. After discussions with Maximus, it was felt that was still an obtainable figure.

Chairwoman Evans said it appeared the work with Maximus had also benefited Clark and Washoe Counties. She asked if, in deliberations and discussions of whether to continue with Maximus, those benefits had been taken into account. Ms. Crawford replied she was aware of the benefits provided to Clark and Washoe Counties and an analysis of those benefits received had been requested from the counties.

Chairwoman Evans remarked the subcommittee was trying to weigh the value of Maximus to the degree in which they could help the state and local governments recover revenue.

Chairwoman Evans said Senator Raymond Rawson had previously asked that in the establishment of the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (HCF&P) there was an expectation that suggestions would be forthcoming in terms of an evaluation of current policy, and recommendations for a new policy. She noted to-date the subcommittee had not seen much evidence of that policy. The Chair stated in all fairness, she understood the last 2 years were the division’s start-up years and that it took time for the division to become fully functional. She asked what the subcommittee might expect in the way of policy.
Ms. Crawford replied affirming HCF&P was a new division and she considered the Nevada Check-up Program was an area of policy. She commented it was an interesting process to develop and implement a program during the interim and how different that was from a program developed and implemented during session. There had been challenges in trying to build some consensus, construct a budget, and bring up the Check-up Program. There were concerns regarding the level of outreach the division was able to achieve, although relative to other states the division was doing well; however, that did not mean the division could not do better. The division had worked very hard on the business process re-engineering, which was a major component for the division. Unfortunately, the division was unable to fund automation at the present time.

Ms. Crawford said there had been a great deal of unseen activity within the division in terms of identifying efficiencies and inefficiencies. For much of the prior authorization, bill tracking, bringing up new programs and reviewing caseloads was done on a paper and pencil basis. A large amount of time was spent in evaluating and projecting future caseload growth. In terms of policy, caseloads for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and food stamps were areas in which further examination was foreseen, not just within the division, but across the department. In terms of future policy, she believed many of the tasks were yet to be completed. One of those tasks included identifying where the department had the opportunity for expansion of federal participation. Through Maximus, the division worked with the school districts that had also benefited in identifying federal Medicaid matches. The types of policies Ms. Crawford envisioned were those that truly examined programs and their associated financing. Ms. Crawford expressed she was not sure what Senator Rawson envisioned, but she would like to see the division move forward with the health care analysis in Nevada. The department desired a more comprehensive concept of the status of health care, health care provisions, and the cost of health care services available at different levels. Information would be used to craft state policy, state versus county and an analysis of available options.

Chairwoman Evans remarked one of the activities the subcommittee envisioned with the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy was that it would interface and work with all divisions within the Department of Human Resources. She was unsure if that particular division had taken the initiative to contact all other division heads to develop a collective plan regarding in which direction to go with health care policy. It was felt all the division heads had a great deal of experience and knowledge, and division heads needed to be heard from. Ms. Crawford responded there had been activity within the divisions, but not at the desired level. There were instances in which the division was able to change some processes in order to capture additional federal funding, although not to the level she would have liked.

Chairwoman Evans commented the work of the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy could be extremely helpful to Governor Guinn, and the legislature as well in development of proposals for change. She added the subcommittee looked forward to hearing from the division regarding, that which was previously discussed.

On a final note, Chairman Evans asked about Medicaid caseload projections. The legislature was close to closing major budgets and could not wait until after the economic forum met in May to receive information. She asked when the subcommittee would receive information and through what month the caseload projections would cover. Ms. Crawford replied the timeframe for finalization of caseloads in order to run the Medicaid Projection Program (MPP) was April 9. Through discussions within the department, absolute assurance was given that they could not commit to anytime sooner. In addition, MPP took 2 weeks after the finalization of caseloads (April 9) to complete the calculations.

Chairwoman Evans asked what would be the last month of data to be used, to which Ms. Crawford replied March would be the last month included and added the department was also anxious for the caseload results.

Chairwoman Evans thanked Ms. Crawford for appearing before the subcommittee.

Janelle Mulvenon, Acting Administrator, Community Connections, welcomed subcommittee members’ questions regarding Budget Account 3278.

Senator Raggio asked how the program would function with reduced funding, and if there were any plans to close existing centers or limit operations. He was concerned about what would happen in the next biennium with the proposed funding for the project. Information from those who participated in the "Consumer Satisfaction Survey" indicated the program was extremely worthwhile and appreciated. He understood the survey was not yet complete, was unsure what other information was needed, and requested input regarding the evaluation of the program. Ms. Mulvenon replied the survey was continuing, and the initial survey results were based on 217 families who had been interviewed. Recently, the University of Nevada, Reno Center for Applied Research had updated that figure to 240 families and the survey would continue.

Continuing, Ms. Mulvenon said the program would continue through the program collaborators and managers of the Infant Support Districts (ISDs), and the regional boards’ recommendations for modifications, and identification of strengths. Reduced funding would result in the reduction of families and children currently served.

Senator Raggio requested clarification of what was meant by families and children being reduced, and asked if all centers presently in existence would still be operational. Ms. Mulvenon replied the intention was to keep the centers open with modifications in program services for families being served being considered by the different districts. The intent was there would be funding for all 13 ISDs, but not at the same levels.

Chairwoman Evans commented in previous discussions it was indicated to the subcommittee there were adjustments and modifications that would have to be made in the program. At that time the subcommittee had asked for modified figures and projected activity in revised performance indicators. Referring to page 14, Exhibit C, Number 7, Chairwoman Evans stated no adjustments had been made in the requested budget performance indicators. Ms. Mulvenon replied there was an adjustment from 13,000 in the current fiscal year to 7,552 families being served. The third performance indicator on page 8 of Exhibit C had since been added.

Chairwoman Evans commented the figures remained unchanged in the revised budget. Ms. Mulvenon replied performance indicator 8 targeted serving
25 percent of births. The Chair commented she was referring to the number of families provided information and number of families visited. Ms. Mulvenon offered to revisit the figures.

Mr. Hettrick remarked Family-to-Family Connection had never been among his favorite programs and he was dissatisfied with the program’s figures. Referring to the chart on page 10, Exhibit C, he had calculated the highest and lowest service on computers and in calculating the numbers, the money was wasted. He related some of the numbers:

• ISD Number 7 utilized three computers at one site with a total projected birth population of 151, which equated to 50 births per computer. Seventy-seven families were served utilizing three computers equated to 26 families served over a period of 6 months (4 families served per month per computer). The volume of data services provided totaled 111 divided by three computers equated to an approximate volume of data services provided of 31
  (6 per month per computer).

• ISD Number 10 utilized 13 computers at 4 sites with a total projected birth population per computer of 256. Thirty-seven families were served per month over a 6-month period.

Assemblyman Hettrick felt the legislature’s appropriations to provide the ISDs with computer services had been wasted. It appeared to him that those computers should have been sent to another program service besides Family-to-Family. Additionally, he mentioned more than one member of the subcommittee was dissatisfied with the apparent e-mails from the computers purchased by the state received urging legislators to support Family-to-Family. He did not feel it was appropriate to be lobbied by people with state equipment, at the legislature’s expense, to continue a program. In reviewing figures developed by staff and provided to the subcommittee, it appeared that 3,587 families were served for a cost of $1.6 million or $448 per family, to essentially provide them with a list of free services available. His dislike for the program was increasing but he noted he had no wish to "jump on the messenger."

Chairwoman Evans asked Ms. Mulvenon to enlighten the subcommittee about the media plans to inform the community about availability of the program and the services offered. Page 12, Exhibit C, Item 4, indicated $75,000 was recommended for the media services contract, and the information provided was not sufficient to qualify as a media plan. The Chair added the list included coordinating functions, requests for proposals, and receiving presentations from applicants. Ms. Mulvenon said the agency response provided in Item 4 of Exhibit C outlined the sequence of development of specifics of the deliverables. Input and recommendations were needed from the Northern and Southern Regional Boards, the Family to Family Connection and the Block Grant Commission in determining how the media services contract would be delivered.

Chairwoman Evans asked when the plan would be complete and the information provided to the subcommittee. Ms. Mulvenon replied the regional boards had not convened to hear the proposed plan. Ms. Mulvenon offered to convene the boards.

Chairwoman Evans expressed concern on signing off on a budget expenditure and approving a program that had not yet been completed. Ms. Mulvenon stated the Northern Regional Board was meeting the following week and the Southern Regional Board was scheduled to meet the first week of April. Information would be provided to the subcommittee by the middle of April.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated the legislature had appropriated $294,235 for the 1997-99 biennium for the program, and the only detail accomplished for an expenditure of $269,000 was the survey of only a meager 240 families. The subcommittee was also supposed to receive an evaluation from the survey group. The only information the subcommittee received was a survey report that stated positive responses about the program had been received from the recipients. Assemblyman Hettrick said he would like the university to provide the subcommittee with specific information regarding what the program contained and what made it a cost-effective program that should or should not continue. The state had made the appropriation and should receive a proper evaluation of the program for the funds expended. Ms. Mulvenon pointed out that included in the contract with the University of Nevada, Reno Center of Applied Research was the responsibility of developing the data collection and generating the reports originating from the ISDs. A great deal of energy on the university’s part had been expended while working with the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) in the development of the computerized and networked system. The University had also assisted in development of the Interim Finance Committee report in December 1998.

Mr. Hettrick remarked the narrative indicated on page 6, Exhibit C, said the appropriated expenditures were for data collection and program evaluation components; however, very little data had been gathered by a large number of computers. With only 240 families surveyed, there was not much to evaluate. He requested the report of the program evaluation and the cost-effectiveness be provided to him. A detailed report was what the legislature had requested in 1997.

Chairwoman Evans commented in 1997 she had supported the establishment of the Family-to-Family Connection Program. Literature from other states with like programs revealed good outcomes, and she hoped for success with the Nevada program. Some indicators were needed to identify goals and outcomes of the program and substantiate the expenditure. Ms. Mulvenon said the program had only been fully operational for 9 months with tabulated data back to 6 months.

Ms. Crawford said there was a great deal of concern about the program evaluation, but it was envisioned to be a fairly long-term process with the intent of establishing a feedback system. The investment in dollars for the computer equipment was not only for an immediate return of data, but a long-term collection as well. Immediate return expectations were not fair to the program as the program accomplishments were meant to be evaluated 10 to 15 years out. Currently, all the department had to report was process and consumer satisfaction.

Chairwoman Evans commented she had visited some of the new baby centers and spoken with clients, and she had received positive feedback from those utilizing the services.

Assemblyman Hettrick understood the legislature had funded only a 2-year study and if the program evaluation was to extend 10 to 15 years, the department needed to request funds be appropriated for that length of time. He also understood the evaluation was long term, and remarked maybe the legislature should not have appropriated $269,000 in the start-up year and waited a couple of years to fund an evaluation. Based on the concerns of the committee at the time those funds had been appropriated, he felt the subcommittee should receive the current information taken from the survey to review the status of the program. Ms. Crawford said what was established with the university was not an evaluation per se, but a database that would supply the measures and indicators and allow the department to evaluate the program over time. Two of the measures collected by the computer data centers were satisfaction and high utilization. The university contract was to establish indicators that could be continually built on. While, the agency did not have continuation of the indicators, largely because of budget, the data system was in place.

Chairwoman Evans invited representatives from the Infant Support Districts to describe their program for the subcommittee.

Lori Magnante, Manager, Infant Support District No. 3, located at Western Nevada Community College, Carson City, said she would be glad to answer any questions the subcommittee members had.

Chairwoman Evans remarked there was an interest in the effectiveness of ISD’s work regarding the outcomes and reasonable expectations. Ms. Magnante replied within the budget guidelines for the next fiscal year the services would be reduced somewhat. It was known each ISD was developed somewhat differently according to the needs of the community in which it served. All three of the components of ISD—the Resource Lending Center, the visitation component, and the New Baby Center— were all fairly busy, so it was the intent not to cut any of those components but to scale everything down. The ISD would still make home visits, continue the workshops, parent support groups and would continually lend resources to families through the Learning Resource Center. She knew there was a concern about the computers. From her perspective, those computers were operating all day long. Some of the computer products were flyers to the families and a community calendar. One positive detail originating from the organization was that it brought all family service related agencies together on a monthly basis in order to work toward a common goal.

Ms. Magnante said in addition to utilizing the computers for flyers and community calendars that were mailed out, each ISD had their own data collection system and software that aided in translating English to Spanish. Those computers were being used on a regular basis, and she did not feel there was an excess of computers.

Pam Becker, Infant Support District No. 1, Sparks and Reno said she worked at the Children’s Cabinet and was the fiscal agent for the district. The ISD collaborators included the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), which managed the new baby centers and resource lending centers, and the Washoe County District Health Department, which provided home visitation services. The ISD staff was concerned for the upcoming fiscal year and, although the projections for the amount to be funded had been received, there was always hope for more. Staff was aware the legislature had concentrated efforts on continuing services at the new baby center, and it was the intent of ISD to maintain as much of the visitation services as possible because of the relationship developed with Saint Mary’s Hospital and Washoe Medical Center. The hospitals were the first venue available to inform people of available services. Not only were local families aware of the services offered, but so were families from outlying areas.

At a recent managers’ meeting in Winnemucca one concern expressed was that people were not receiving as many cards from ISD offices as they had in the past. Ms. Becker had told the managers it was not because the ISD units were not doing their jobs and making referrals, it was because the program was in a cycle where not a lot of people were going in and delivering at the hospitals.

Chairwoman Evans remarked it was interesting to know about the office operation of ISD in relation to collaboration, networking with other agencies, and coordinating services. She asked what the ISD meant to a family as far as how their lives were affected and the outcomes. In order to determine if the legislature should continue to fund the program, she wanted to know what difference the ISD made. Ms. Becker replied she reviewed the responses of
226 people who provided them with personal information regarding their satisfaction with the program. The survey was strictly optional, but requested as much information as possible from those who chose to respond. Of those 226 respondents, 88 answered the question about marital status with
61 indicating they were married. The bulk of those people responding to services available were middle class citizens having an income level between $15,000 and $74,000 that was a group who normally did not qualify for assistance programs. One of the expressed concerns was that the program would be just another welfare program, and that was determined to be untrue as the bulk of the clientele were of middle-income status.

Ms. Becker explained some of the middle-income people took advantage of home visits or called the home visitors to obtain information. They would talk about their babies and ask questions about parenting and growth progress. Typical middle-income people learned everything from books and suddenly they have a baby who does not come with an instruction manual. The centers provided them with a resource. A lot of developmental information was requested and sent out by mail. Ms. Becker stated she had predicted a number of calls and visits would be made, but it would be 6 to 8 months before people came in to use the new baby centers. It had turned out when parents arrived at the new baby centers their babies were 6 to 9 months old.

The new baby center was available for those women to bring their children for interaction. She said services offered included a movie night: parents could come into the center, watch a movie, and the children would be fully taken care of. Some people even sent their "nannies" in for certain activities. Some of the parents who were separated utilized the center for a "together" time with their child. The center was a safe place, there was no stigma involved, and no one had to know that the parents were not living together.

Ms. Becker said she was concerned with the budget cuts. The ISD could not have as many structured activities as those previously available, although the same hours would be maintained for centers.

Ms. Magnante offered three brief scenarios in explanation of the types of families the Family-to-Family Connection Program had benefited:

Chairwoman Evans commented that was an interesting variety of stories and a wide variety of people at all income levels was covered, and thanked the speakers for their presentations.

Stephen Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, said with him, presently, were Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer and Chief Fiscal Officer, and Madilyn Maire, Administrator, Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) Project.

Chairwoman Evans requested Mr. Shaw address some of the agency concerns.

Mr. Shaw said a concern of his was the Oasis Program in southern Nevada, Budget Account 3646. The Oasis Program was a series of eight group homes in Southern Nevada, four of which were currently vacant. An occupational study was requested but not funded during the 1997 Legislative Session. The problem was identified in 1996 and continued to grow. When the budget for the program was developed, there was no alternative programming built in to compensate for the utilization of the vacant homes. In 1996, only six of the eight homes in Nevada were operational, and the number reduced to five in 1997 and four in 1998.

Mr. Shaw requested an additional 2 weeks in order to complete development of six optional proposals to change the utilization of those eight group homes and maintain the change while keeping the cost neutral. He added at least two of the six options he planned to provide would be revenue neutral. The proposals would utilize at least six of the eight units and possibly all eight. He noted the proposals would not be long-term solutions. It was his belief that at least in the southern part of the state, the long-term solution was to change the utilization of the homes.

Chairwoman Evans stated the subcommittee had recently visited the facility and were surprised at the number of vacancies and noted some homes had been vacant for a long period. It was known that the agency was having difficulty in recruiting and retaining the parents for the Family Learning Homes. Mr. Shaw had only been informed the night before the previous budget hearing that in Reno there were four homes, three of which were operable. They were being staffed by relief parents because no full-time staff was available. Les Gruner was present if the subcommittee wished to hear from him on how the northern units were working.

The Chair stated the question was whether the current approach or model should continue to be used. Mr. Shaw responded his personal opinion was that the particular model being used may have "run its course." The agency was looking at other models to get effective utilization from the facilities. The current budget economics might preclude certain changes for the coming biennium.

Chairwoman Evans stated the subcommittee appreciated the problem would need more work, but the subcommittee had to close the budget. To do that, they needed the agency to provide recommendations regarding budget adjustments. Some of the detail needed was how many homes could be realistically operated. Mr. Shaw stated if he could have an extension to
April 1, 1999, the agency would propose six options of which they would recommend one to work through current budget constraints.

Chairwoman Evans asked Mr. Shaw to provide subcommittee members with the status of the Medicaid eligibility Certification program. Mr. Shaw stated in previous testimony he had discussed the possibility of establishing Medicaid eligibility based on a family of one, which would increase the revenue for Desert Willow. He expected a definitive answer from the attorney general’s office later in the day as to whether that could be done. It appeared 95 percent certain at present.

The Chair commented some subcommittee members were able to visit Desert Willow and it was a very impressive facility. She requested Mr. Shaw to set the stage for the subcommittee on how previously occupied beds were moved.

Continuing, Mr. Shaw said the new Desert Willow Treatment Center with 56 beds was originally scheduled to open in February 1998. Twenty-four beds had been located at the adult facility on the second floor. There was a 12-bed acute psychiatric unit for 12 to 17 year-olds and a 12-bed unit for specialized treatment program for low to moderate risk sex offenders that were transferred to the new facility. There was also an 8-bed children’s psychiatric acute unit, two 12-bed long-term residential units were also included for a total of 56. The occupancy rate was running at 80 to 85 percent, but in the next 15 to
20 days the occupancy rate would rise to 91 percent (the budgeted level). The facility had been open for less than 6 months. Health professionals were present to assist in setting up Medicaid procedures. The Medicaid share built into the budget was 51 percent. For a series of reasons the facility did not take its first client until September 27, 1998. The delay in opening was due to problems in licensure and transitioning of the facility to the division’s custody, and because of the facility’s late opening, the division was missing Medicaid revenue in the budget for 6 months. He remarked he was glad the subcommittee was impressed with the facility because it was impressive, particularly for a state facility. He was fairly positive the division would be able to base Medicaid eligibility on a family of one making virtually every child in the facility eligible, therefore, increasing revenue to compensate for the 6-month shortfall.

Chairwoman Evans requested Mr. Shaw quell the subcommittee’s concern in terms of the status of using the family of one option for Medicaid eligibility, and any shortfalls in the division’s new budget for the coming biennium.
Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Child and Family Services, said the information provided to him by the fiscal staff in Las Vegas regarding the implementation of the family of one, was there would be increases and decreases in other types of revenues, and the projection was for a negative $29,000 for both years of the biennium. However, that amount was calculated before the recent information discussed by Mr. Shaw, and the hope was that the division would realize revenue neutral funds. As far as what amounts were budgeted, there would be an increase in the receipt of Medicaid funds from the Desert Willow facility netted out against the other revenues.

Chairwoman Evans wanted assurance that any information arrived at would be communicated to the subcommittee staff. Mr. Baumann responded affirmatively.

Speaker Dini remarked the division proposed to discontinue Rite of Passage (ROP) in the second year of the biennium, and asked for a report on the rehabilitation status of the youths and the division’s ability to work with ROP. Mr. Shaw replied the reason for the discontinuation of ROP in the second year of the biennium was due to the planned opening of the serious and chronic offender facility, and the excess beds were no longer required. Out-of-state funds placement had also been cut in the second year of the biennium. ROP did not handle the toughest, most hard-core youths that were determined to be suitable for the serious and chronic facility, but they had scholarshiped a few of the students who needed to stay a little longer than the DCFS budget allowed. He said ROP was a professional organization and he did not have any difficulty working with them. ROP had been cooperative in working with the division.

Mr. Shaw said currently the division had been experiencing an issue on the interstate compact for the placement of children, which was primarily a California issue, whereby approval of placements was requested from the division. The division was unable to approve those placements per state law because placements were located on a Native American reservation, which was not covered in the law. The division was working with ROP on California placements.

Mr. Dini asked if there had there been any money reverted because only a few youths had attended ROP. Mr. Shaw replied 15 youths attended ROP during the first year of the biennium. That was approximately the number that had been budgeted for. Placements were stopped because the division had necessary reversions due to the budget shortfall. Money was reverted in out-of-state placements and ROP. He said the division was faced with the option of closing the cottages at Elko or Caliente, or cutting contract dollars which was the only reason for the discontinuance of sending youths to ROP.

Mr. Shaw stated he was satisfied with the rehabilitation of the youths seen thus far; however, the recidivism rate was a long-term 1-year issue, and most of the youths had not been out of ROP for that length of time. The parole officers were also satisfied with the outcome of the youths from ROP. He felt the program was effective. ROP was even scholarshiping youths for college out of their own funds and that said a lot about the organization.

Chairwoman Evans requested Mr. Shaw address the UNITY situation in Budget Account 3143.

Mr. Shaw said the short version of the UNITY situation was that it was not coming in on schedule. The contractor believed the contract would require an additional 7 weeks. The no-cost contract extension was anticipated for a further 90 days because of the volume of paperwork that was required with the federal government for any extension, which would push some of the deliverables across the biennium. He asked for the subcommittee’s help in providing suggestions for either de-augmenting the current year budget or appropriating for the next year, or creating an escrow account.

Chairwoman Evans requested Mr. Baumann work with the subcommittee staff to resolve the situation in order to arrange the budget closing accordingly.

Regarding the DCFS Administration Budget Account 3145, Chairwoman Evans said one of the key concerns dealt with Family Preservation, and she asked if the division was receiving a legal opinion dealing with Title IV-B, subpart II, revenue. The subcommittee was interested in the amount of cost allocation expenses between the General Fund and Title IV-E revenue, and the division’s ability to obtain that federal revenue. An update on the division’s proposed work with Washoe County on Family Preservation and the Victims of Crime Assistance (VOCA) positions was also requested. Mr. Shaw replied an attorney general’s opinion had not been required. As previously indicated to the subcommittee, the Federal Government determined new limits for VOCA of
10 percent on the amount DCFS, or the receiving state, could utilize for their own service, reducing the number of positions available by 3.49 full-time equivalents. The division determined if those same services were contracted with Washoe County, or any entity, they would not be bound by the same
10 percent limitations, therefore, Washoe County had agreed to apply for the money through the VOCA grant process and the services would be provided. He added the attorney general’s opinion regarded whether or not Washoe County could re-contract with DCFS to provide the services. Mr. Shaw felt it was too much of a violation of the intent for use of VOCA funds. Washoe County would apply for the grant, DCFS would grant to the county without a fair request for proposal process. It was a policy issue at Mr. Shaw’s discretion. Every time the Federal Government changed procedures the state was required to adjust.

The Chair said a parallel issue were the Title IV-E eligible cases. Chairwoman Evans remarked the 1999-2001 budget was constructed on a 64 percent penetration rate for the recovery of Title IV-E funds; however, when the activity was examined, the average rate of recovery was almost 70 percent for the last six quarters ending December 31, 1998. The average rate for the last four quarters was almost 74 percent. The Chair stated the subcommittee was delighted with the increased recovery rates and asked if the recovery rate for Title IV-E funds could be increased in the budget from the 64 percent penetration rate. Mr. Shaw replied in his opinion it would be dangerous to do that. Through a great deal of effort, the division was able to almost double the penetration rate. He did not believe the division could match anything higher unless the legislature appropriated state dollars to match, and he was sure the state was close to the match limit.

Mr. Shaw verbalized the dangers of increasing the penetration rate on both a public policy level and a match level, saying it was not advisable. If increased, the state would start targeting the resources to Title IV-E eligible children, which he felt was a mistake.

Chairwoman Evans said the subcommittee would be returning to the issue of Title IV-E funds. She requested comment on the division’s ability to closely monitor employees receiving overtime and stand-by pay. She asked if there was a way in which the job could get done without placing people on stand-by pay. Mr. Baumann replied the division had recently polled the offices to determine what "slots" were available. Those slots were used for a variety of reasons, and the number of people that rotated through was a function of the number of people available in the office. The more important issue was why the agency needed any staff "on call." Prior to appearing before the subcommittee, a directive had been sent out requesting the regional deputies provide information relating to the open positions slots, why and when those were opened in the first place, and continued justification for those open positions. Concentration was placed on the possibility of condensing the number of positions and the need to have another person in the same jurisdiction help out by doing such things as answering phone calls.

Continuing, Mr. Baumann believed the division had responded to legislative staff questions on the stand-by issues, whereby one might conclude the lack of being called back or out from stand-by, was not necessarily a barometer of the necessity of the stand-by. Many staff handled issues over the phone and did not record overtime for those type of incidents. The overtime issue had also been addressed, and the policy currently stood that overtime must be approved at the deputy level, and the function was not to be delegated except in the absence of the deputy. The agency felt that would provide justification and scrutiny in the various regions for stand-by and overtime.

Chairwoman Evans said the subcommittee was concerned with clear policies, follow-through, and if someone was assigned to watch overtime figures to determine if purported overtime was justified, especially in relation to stand-by issues. She requested the division’s assurance that overtime could be monitored. Mr. Baumann replied overtime would be monitored at the deputy level. Mr. Shaw added his assurance and added what concerned him more was the people who worked overtime, yet did not charge for it.

Senator Mathews remarked she was also concerned with overtime and those who did not record overtime, and even more so with those that claimed to have worked overtime but did not. She added unless the overtime was monitored, both for those who did not record it and those who abused it, the state could find itself in trouble.

Chairwoman Evans said the subcommittee’s chief concern in Budget Account 1383 dealt with the amount of money budgeted and expended for the Juvenile Sex Offender Outpatient Treatment Program, and how much was really required for the new biennium. Larry Carter, Juvenile Justice Specialist, responded he had talked with Jerry Clark who was administering the contractual relationships with the individual counties for the program. Mr. Clark assured him full implementation for the program was at hand, and currently it was felt excellent results were being realized.

Mr. Carter stated the last time he spoke with Mr. Clark there had been over
60 juvenile offenders involved in programs paid for through the Juvenile Sex Offender Outpatient Treatment Program, and those offenders had not had to be placed in the custody of DCFS. The start-up of the program was slow due to the untimeliness of the contract development and implementation and training the counties in how to access funding. Currently, the situation had been rectified, and full implementation was anticipated to continue. Chairwoman Evans noted such issues were clearly handled better at the local levels.

Regarding the program costs, Chairwoman Evans asked what amount Mr. Carter thought should be appropriated for the next biennium. Mr. Carter believed the $200,000 in the first year of the biennium was a correct figure. There was $115,000 for the current fiscal year which, was anticipated to be totally expended. He did not foresee any reason the division would not be able to achieve contracts to expend $200,000 for the next fiscal year.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the $115,000 figure was a year-to-date figure.
Mr. Carter replied that figure was not the expenditure, but was the amount remaining in the budget after reversion targets.

Chairwoman Evans requested Mr. Carter to inform the subcommittee on the current status of the figure and if the $115,000 would be expended by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Shaw replied he would have Mr. Baumann work with
Mr. Carter in order to provide the subcommittee with an analysis of the current status and what the projections showed.

Chairwoman Evans referred to Budget Account 3262 and asked what was the status of the appointment of the juvenile correctional council. Mr. Shaw replied a subcommittee of the Juvenile Justice Commission was appointed to form the statewide board and develop a required statewide plan for the expenditure of the federal dollars, and had just recently held their first meeting.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the board would be reviewing the expenditure from the block grant. Mr. Shaw said the board would develop a plan for the utilization of state dollars, and he believed county proposals would also be reviewed. Mr. Carter added by the way the grant was structured, the board was not required to examine each individual county proposal because they were the legislative policy segment of the Juvenile Justice Commission; however, the board would provide technical assistance as to whether they saw the projects follow the best practice approaches.

Chairwoman Evans asked if renewal of the grant was anticipated. Mr. Carter said the application would be submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The projected amount of the grant had not yet been received, but the federal appropriation would be the same. With Nevada’s increasing population, a reduction in the grant amount was not anticipated.

Chairwoman Evans said the subcommittee was concerned with the additional funding that was being requested by China Spring in Budget Account 3147.

Steve Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp, stated when he last appeared before the subcommittee, he had some of his own concerns relating to the budget and increases the county had placed upon the camp for the upcoming biennium.

Those increases would affect the budget of the youth camp. A meeting with Governor Guinn was planned to discuss budget needs versus funding available. Additional funding was requested because of the new buildings and their associated utility costs, and to maintain the facility’s current system. In addition, funding was also requested because some of the employees of China Spring were county employees and under contract. Any merit or cost of living increases that the county passed on, was also required to be passed on to those employees of the facility. Mr. Thaler said due to increased salaries, services were reduced to offset that amount coming from the county. Increases in funding requested were for a psychologist, administration and overhead, and to maintain current services through the biennium.

Continuing, Mr. Shaw added there had been funds appropriated in the first year of the biennium for out-of-state placement and for alternative placement until the serious and chronic offender program became fully functional, and it was the intention of the division to contract with Rite of Passage (ROP) for those services.

Mr. Shaw asked the subcommittee for the authority to spend funds recommended in FY 2000 for Juvenile Contract placements over the biennium, and that no additional funds would be expended. Chairwoman Evans replied the subcommittee would consider the request of making that allowance before closing the budget.

Chairwoman Evans said Budget Account 3148, Juvenile Correctional Facility, was a new 96-bed juvenile facility being constructed, and called attention to the business plan for the new facility (Exhibit D on file at the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB)) from DCFS that contained considerable good information.

Referring to page 5, Exhibit D, Chairwoman Evans indicated the chart at the top of the page illustrated a cost comparison of maximum-security facilities in other states similar to the one being constructed in Nevada. The chart on page 7, Exhibit D showed a cost-comparison for operating the facility with a private contractor, versus two alternatives to operating the facility by the state depending on the step-level of personnel. She asked Mr. Shaw to explain the cost-comparison to the subcommittee so that questions or comments could be raised. Mr. Shaw referred the question to Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, who had prepared the business plan and was familiar with it. Mr. Alder said he would explain the comparison of the state-operated facility versus costs from other states; however, the adjustments were made only recently in the proposed first year of operation.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the chart on page 7, Exhibit D would be adjusted. Mr. Baumann said the figure of $867,000 under the state-run step 7, contained all the facility’s start-up costs and were calculated into the first year. If the figures were spread over the second year, those numbers would have been different.

Chairwoman Evans asked if the figures indicated in the second year of operation should be examined. She understood the facility would only be in operation for 1 month in fiscal year 2000 because the first set of figures reflected only 1 month of operation. Mr. Baumann replied affirmatively.

In responding to Chairwoman Evans question, Mr. Alder explained the state was in the process of developing the contract, and it was understood the subcommittee was concerned with what the figures would reflect if the facility was operated by the state. With that concern in mind, two scenarios were prepared showing an approximate cost if the state operated the facility. One of the scenarios reflected figures showing many employees hired at step 1, and another scenario reflected figures showing many employees hired as step 7. Those figures were calculated under the assumption that a program could be started and employees could be hired at the entry level; however, he said that might not be a valid assumption. In both cases, it was determined to be slightly more expensive if the facility was operated by the state. The contract was built so that only the children in placement would be paid for. Empty beds would not generate revenue. The assumption was that if the program was state-run the agency would fill all the vacancies to run the program.

Chairwoman Evans understood the facility would only be in operation for
1 month in the year 2000, to which Mr. Alder replied that was correct.

Chairwoman Evans asked how many youths were anticipated to be admitted to the facility in the second year. Mr. Alder replied a phased-in admission of youths was anticipated, continuing every month upon the start-up of the facility, to ensure staff preparation.

Chairwoman Evans, referring to the chart on page 6 of Exhibit D that listed several other state’s facilities, and asked if those facilities were state-run or privately owned facilities. She stated the chart showed their capacity and the cost per day. Mr. Alder replied the chart was developed using the actual 1997 budget figures of surrounding states from the directory of the American Correctional Association for 1998. Those facilities were reviewed and determined to be state-run. Currently private companies were not used; however, Colorado was in the process of developing a privately run facility, but it still would not be of that nature. In terms of security level, those facilities used to develop the chart were maximum-security facilities of comparable size.

Mr. Alder said by the time the 96-bed juvenile correctional facility became fully functional, the costs for operating those facilities of surrounding states would have increased. The state’s contract with Correctional Services Corporation for the juvenile facility was locked in since the cost for operating the new facility would not increase.

Chairwoman Evans remarked the cost for Nevada to operate the facility as a state-run facility would be between $148 to $157 per bed per day versus
$120 per bed per day using a private contractor. She asked if only cost figures were examined, would it be less costly for privatization of the facility.
Mr. Alder replied that was the projection by the agency.

Responding to Chairwoman Evans’ question, Mr. Alder said a state employee would be on-site on a full-time basis.

Chairwoman Evans asked for the job description of the on-site employee.
Mr. Alder replied that particular position would be a contract monitor position. The responsibility of the individual was to ensure the provider complied with the terms of the contract such as the staffing ratio being maintained. The purpose of the state employee was also to verify those services purported to be provided to the state were delivered. The contract monitor was a unique position who had no authority with the contractor. The state employee reported back to the Division of Child and family services. When an issue was identified, it would be up to the Division of Child and Family Services to evaluate the nature of the concern and negotiate with the contractor to ensure compliance was accomplished. Money in the contract would be used to fund the position. The contract monitor was a key element of the business plan.

Chairwoman Evans asked who would evaluate the programmatic aspects including education, substance abuse treatment, and mental health counseling and/or treatment. She asked if that would also be the job of the contract monitor. Mr. Alder replied the contract monitor would not be in the position to evaluate all those components. For instance with the education aspect, there was an ongoing discussion with Clark County on how educational services would be provided. If Clark County School District provided the schooling, the evaluation would come under their quality control and oversight. A contract monitor would have a role in verifying if the number of youths in the classroom was at an acceptable level and did not exceed that which was allowed in the contract. Specialists in those areas would evaluate other aspects of the program such as substance abuse programs or other technical programs.

Mr. Alder said a selling point with the evaluation committee when the contract with Correctional Services Corporation was granted, was that the Correctional Services Corporation had their own quality control employees and contract monitors. However, when it came to overall program analysis, such as supervision and care of the children, the state’s contract monitor would be relied upon. He felt it would be appropriate for the state to have staff on site as well.

Chairwoman Evans asked how much input the state had in terms of other programs if Clark County provided the education. Other programs of concern were substance abuse counseling and mental health services, which was a high correlate for juveniles. She asked if those counseling programs and quality assurance were part of the contract. She asked what authority the state had in ensuring program aspects were up to speed. Mr. Alder replied there were quantitative requirements in the contract in terms of the amount of time spent in counseling, and when staff would meet with the youths in order to perform services. Also included were qualitative certification issues. The contract required staff to perform medical services consistent with American Correctional Association (ACA) standards of accreditation and other medical accreditation standards. The contract monitor would verify compliance of services.

Chairwoman Evans remarked the subcommittee felt a deep sense of responsibility for the juveniles’ well being and how services would be performed in order to help them, so many more questions were anticipated to be asked of the division. The Chair stated an overview was sufficient for the hearing but further questioning would be forthcoming because the state felt a deep sense of responsibility for the youngsters.

Chairwoman Evans commented the board of examiners had approved the construction operating contract and the request to sell their certificates of participation for construction funding. She asked if those certificates had been sold, if the interest rates had been determined, how the budget was affected, and if any budget adjustments were needed. Mr. Alder understood the certificates were sold as of the previous day, but would have to defer to the budget office in regards to the interest rate.

Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Director, Budget Division, said the Treasurer’s Office opened bids on that issue and would be preparing a report for the division, but he did not know the interest rate. He understood there would be two interest- only payments for the next biennium. The budget currently reflected both principal and interest payment in the second year. A budget amendment would need to be submitted for the increase of the fiscal impact on the interest for FY 2000, and for the elimination of the principal in the second year. Information would be provided to the subcommittee within the following week.

Chairwoman Evans asked for the location of the proposed new facility. Issues were raised with Nellis Air Force Base (NAFB), and the Chair inquired if those issues had been resolved. Mr. Alder replied the contractor located a site near the air force base and was in the process of purchasing the location site. Finalization of the location would be contingent upon contract approval by the state. Originally, when the site was identified it appeared to be appropriate but later it became apparent the only paved access to the location crossed NAFB. The small road called Range Road had been used for many years by other vendors and had never been a problem. When the possibility that the facility would be constructed on that site was examined, NAFB staff became concerned and came forward indicating if certain levels of security had to be exercised, they would have to close that road. Mr. Alder noted that was a legitimate concern. The state position was fine and the contractor could find another site. The contractor had been working with Clark County.

Mr. Alder said that particular location was actually quite good. Construction of a belt route (access road) was scheduled within the next couple of years that would provide a freeway off-ramp close to the facility. The contractor and the current landowners were consulting with Clark County, which had agreed to pave an alternate access to the facility on a "fast track" and the property owners had agreed to help fund the paving. He said he had spoken with representatives from Nellis Air Force Base, who indicated they would be patient while decisions about access to the facility were made, but it was agreed on by all parties that current access across the base was not desirable as a long-term access route.

Chairwoman Evans said that was an issue the subcommittee would like to see resolved at the earliest possible time if the road mentioned would not be the permanent access route. Mr. Shaw said the access road leading through Nellis Air Force Base was not the same road that everyone had agreed to be paved. The agreement on the non-base access road was done and there would not be a road problem.

Chairwoman Evans said a concern of the subcommittee in Budget Account 3263 was the loss of the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). Mr. Shaw stated he had no new information other than the information that had provided to the subcommittee. Mr. Shaw assured the subcommittee the program would be funded for the first year of the biennium, but he was relatively certain there would be no funding for the second year of the biennium. The department would try to stretch the funding as far as they could.

Chairwoman Evans commented the issue she was concerned with originated from a letter written to Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer on February 16, 1999, from Bruce Kennedy, Chief, Youth Parole Bureau, in response to the subcommittee’s questions relating to the IAP and its associated value. The Chair read from the letter referring to the youth in the intensive aftercare program. Mr. Kennedy had written, "it may be interesting that they (the youngsters) are succeeding or failing on parole at the same rate as youth not intensively supervised." The reason she was concerned was there was a great deal written in juvenile justice literature regarding the continuum of care and services for youth. An important component was helping youths after exiting a juvenile facility in assuring the easy transition back into family, community, and school. That necessary assistance was repeatedly referred to in juvenile justice literature and yet it appeared to her, from the remarks made in the letter, it made no difference whether or not the Nevada program continued. Mr. Shaw believed the comment was a little out of context, and if Mr. Kennedy were present he would agree. The program was developed as an evaluation program with funds from California State University, Sacramento with a very sophisticated evaluation component built in. In any of the state’s programs, Caliente and Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC), etc, information on the recidivism rate and return to the institution would be provided; however, information on how many youths were sentenced to prison was not provided. The surest test of the program’s value was that upon graduation from the facility the juveniles did not become repeat offenders with adult incarceration. Mr. Shaw explained the closer youths were watched, the more likely it was they would be caught doing "something," even if it was just a technical error. The evaluation component would monitor how many juveniles entered the adult system.

He was unsure from Mr. Kennedy’s analysis whether the severity of the data had been shown to be the same, but he knew there had been no analysis in terms of whether those juveniles entered the adult system. Given another year, the evaluation of the program would be complete. A difference in the intensive aftercare program evaluation and value was anticipated. The University funding the program would provide the data, and it was suggested for the program to continue in order to analyze the data.

Chairwoman Evans commented when she thought of IAP, she thought about a variety of support services for youths exiting state facilities, while Mr. Shaw seemed to be thinking about the evaluation component. Mr. Shaw said a combination of components was examined. The state had a small, yet intensive caseload of youths being provided with support services, and the evaluation component was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intensive supervision of a small caseload model. In addition, he said a parole officer worked with the youths upon entrance to the institution. The program consisted of the connection in the institution and on the streets, intensive supervision, and the sophisticated evaluation component that followed the youths. The California State University, Sacramento, which funded the program was interested in completing the evaluation and needed another year of data to complete the study. He said the program was in place enabling a reasonable public policy choice to be made, and if in two years the state did not have the necessary data to show a reasonable public policy choice, or if the data revealed something different, the division could alter their plans.

Chairman Evans asked if funding of positions was the issue in continuing the program. Mr. Baumann responded she was correct. He had recently received an updated decision unit from Mr. Kennedy that indicated the total cost would equal $149,390 and included salaries and benefits for two staff.

Referring to the letter from Mr. Kennedy regarding the success and failure levels, Mr. Parks asked if they were Nevada statistics or national statistics being cited. It appeared to him, Mr. Kennedy was giving a general comment on federal findings. Mr. Baumann replied he was unsure and had to examine the document more closely. Chairwoman Evans commented Mr. Kennedy might have been referring to the findings from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD).

Chairwoman Evans remarked, as an insurance policy on the federal funding, and in order for the program to continue, the state could add authorization or a letter of intent if the additional federal funding was not received. Mr. Shaw responded he would request a letter of intent or instruction if those funds were not appropriated. He felt the program was valuable, the state had maintained the program for some time, and useful data was anticipated.

Chairwoman Evans asked Mr. Shaw to comment from his perspective on the effectiveness of the Transitional Community Reintegration Program (TCR) in alleviating the overcrowding in the detention centers. She commented the program was slated to continue. Mr. Shaw said the division was placed in a position of reverting monies in order to continue the program. He added the program was the best thing that happened to the parole system. It had originated from a crisis in terms of providing placement funds, and an alternative to revoking parole and sending juveniles back to the institution. The state was able to drop the detention waiting lists significantly over the biennium through a combination of programs. TCR provided parole with another alternative and included both a day-treatment and a residential component that the parole system never had. Juveniles previously either had to be placed back in an institution or do nothing at all. TCR provided a successful intermediate sanction.

Chairwoman Evans asked how successful the state was in transitioning youth from the system at the 30-day mark, to which Mr. Shaw said he would review the answer and provide the subcommittee with the information. He wanted Mr. Kennedy present to answer those types of questions, but he was unable to appear. Mr. Carter added currently there were 47 youths awaiting placement. Those youths waiting over 30 days had declined recently to 10. That figure was still significantly lower than those youths waiting placement in March of 1997, which had increased to 107; of that amount, 70 of those youths had waited over 30 days. Mr. Shaw added the waiting list had improved significantly and had been down to zero or one in recent months.

Mr. Shaw said the increase witnessed currently was being isolated in Clark County, and he believed the increase was due to a change in juvenile court judges. The division was working with the juvenile judge and parole staff to monitor the waiting list.

Chairwoman Evans remarked the subcommittee possessed information regarding funding appropriated 2 years ago on the various detention centers, and asked if the progress of those centers had been monitored. Mr. Carter replied on February 16, 1999 he prepared notes and provided them to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the subcommittee on the current status of each facility. The facilities were all progressing nicely. Within the next biennium the state would have additional detention beds at the local level. He believed the collaboration of the individual counties - not only on individual projects, but also with each other - was the most significant matter arising from the progression of the various detention centers. Humboldt County had gone to re-bid on their project because the original bid was high. A change was from "hard-cell" beds to minimum staff-secure beds in order to reduce costs and develop better programming. He added he believed what the legislature sought in appropriating those funds was the development of a community-based resource, which was presently the case.

Chairwoman Evans referred the subcommittee to the attachments in the budget information that indicated the various projects and their associated status, and she remarked in a previous hearing a discussion had ensued on the difficulty of the high construction cost of the facility in Humboldt County.

Mr. Shaw commented that the state’s county partners were vital to the division. He called attention to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 57 in which the state was looking at a continuum of service in all county and state facilities and whatever appropriations the legislature could make helped greatly in terms of bed capacity. Facilities including China Spring and Spring Mountain were examined to determine what types of youths committed offenses, and what was the cause behind the offense committed. In the past consultants only examined the revocation offense, which may have been only a technical violation. The division had spent some funding for a one or two-day snapshot throughout facilities that provided a pretty good picture of who was being dealt with, the sophistication of the people, and the preliminary data indicated the state was not far from their goal, but the counties were a vital part.

Chairwoman Evans commented an interesting point was raised in relation to the partnership between the state and local communities. In regards to picking up juveniles on parole violations, she asked if when those juveniles were admitted back into the detention centers the state was billed for their care. Mr. Shaw replied that was correct. If a parolee was re-arrested and admitted back into a detention center, several counties billed the state.

Chairwoman Evans was concerned with the increase in the funds requested for those juveniles. To Mr. Shaw’s recollection, the increase in funds requested was created from actual bills. The state was given a break by Clark County, which had only billed the state the amount of money appropriated. The state was given a break for a couple of years, but currently Clark County was back to billing the state for the actual total amount spent. There was a variation in the per diem rate that Senator Raggio was concerned with, and there was talk of legislation in order to determine that rate.

Chairwoman Evans said the funds had been increased to $870,000, and she asked when funds were paid to the county, did those funds go to the detention center for operational costs. Mr. Shaw believed some funds returned and other funds reverted to the local general funds. Mr. Baumann added the information provided to the division through the counties was the funds were used for the operational costs for the facilities. Citing a letter provided to the subcommittee, it was determined the funds paid by the state for detention costs were deposited into each county’s General Fund.

Mr. Shaw remarked he would provide the subcommittee with additional information regarding the detention funds. The information received from the chief probation officers indicated the funds were used in the budgeting process to offset the actual detention costs.

Chairwoman Evans said if the increase of funds were used simply used as an augmentation of the General Fund for other purposes there was a problem; however, if those funds returned to the center like they should, the increase was appropriate.

Mr. Parks asked if a county billed the state for direct operational costs or was the state billed for indirect costs such as administrative costs as well.
Mr. Shaw believed the charges varied. Clark County billed indirect costs in addition to direct costs. Nevada Revised Statutes stated "reasonable and customary charges were reimbursed." The amounts billed differed from county to county.

Chairwoman Evans thanked the speakers for appearing, and requested they provide the subcommittee with additional information pertaining to questions asked in the hearing. No further discussion ensued.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Chairwoman

DATE: