The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Christina R. Giunchigliani, at 8:20 a.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Vonne S. Chowning

Mr. John W. Marvel

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Robert E. Price

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Debbra J. King, Program Analyst

Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Giunchigliani opened the meeting on the budget closing for the Division of Parole and Probation.

Parole and Probation – Budget Page DMV-180 (Volume 3)

Budget Account 101-3740

Debbra King, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), referred to page 2 of the budget closing document (Exhibit C) which shows a variety of modifications to The Executive Budget. She indicated that item 13 on page 3 of Exhibit C addresses revisions relating to population projections. She noted the population projections were received from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) in March 1999. Ms. King said the caseload projections require authorization of 3 Parole Officer positions in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, rather than FY 2001, and reduction of the additional staff required in FY 2001 by 4. She declared this resulted in additional cost in FY 2000 of $2,670 and savings of $349,241 in FY 2001.

Continuing, Ms. King said that while the staff was revising the population projections in decision units M-200 and E-376, an error was discovered in the calculation of the number of staff needed to reduce the sex offender caseload from 75 cases per officer to 45 cases per officer. She pointed out The Executive Budget recommended 3 additional sworn staff. She said the staffing calculation, which is the number of supervised sex offenders divided by 45, indicates that 9 additional Parole Officers are needed, plus 1 Operations Supervisor. Ms. King said that in lieu of funding the 70:1 caseload for regular supervision in the 45:1 to 1 caseload for sex offenders, The Executive Budget provided sufficient detail in decision units M-200, E-376, and E-377, to reduce the caseload for all offenders, based upon the December 1999 caseload projections, to 72:1 in the Reno and Las Vegas districts and 71 for all offenders in the Carson City and rural areas. Considering the current caseload projection, the staffing recommended in The Executive Budget is not sufficient to reduce caseloads involving sex offenders, Ms. King remarked.

Senator Neal asked the method by which the caseload numbers are calculated. Ms. King replied the state has a contract with the NCCD. The NCCD carries out the projections by district, type of case, supervision, the intensive supervision unit (ISU), and miscellaneous work units. She explained that a staffing formula is applied. For example, the ratio for regular supervision has traditionally been 75 cases to 1 officer and for intensive supervision, 30 cases to 1 officer. The caseload projections are divided by the staffing workload to arrive at the number of officers.

Ms. King said the caseload developed for the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P) was created in the mid-1980s. She indicated that in response to questions from P&P officers, the 1997 Legislature funded a staffing study which recommended staffing at a level of approximately 65:1. Ms. King said that due to tight budgetary constraints, staffing could not be reduced to that level in The Executive Budget. Therefore, the attempt to go to a 70:1 ratio is a step in the direction of doing the caseload level as recommended by the assessment study that was conducted during the biennium. Senator Neal asked whether a ratio of 65:1 was the maximum and Ms. King deferred to Carlos Concha to respond.

Carlos Concha, Chief, Parole and Probation, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained the study conducted by the NCCD recommended a move from work units to work hours, meaning it takes a certain number of hours for an officer to supervise one offender. He said an officer works 160 hours in a month. Deducted from that number are the hours of sick leave, annual leave, training, and administrative leave, which calculates to 120 available hours a month. Then the "number of types of cases" that can be supervised in 120 hours a month is factored in. Chief Concha said that when the number of available hours was calculated according to the types of cases, the result was an approximate ratio of 65:1. He indicated a time study was conducted on P&P in February and March 1998, and the report was received in June 1998. The P&P budget was presented pursuant to that report and it was determined that to move from a 75:1 ratio to a 65:1 ratio was impossible, but a 70:1 ratio was more realistic.

Senator Neal clarified the 65:1 ratio was the maximum figure. Chief Concha indicated the study reported 65:1 is an ideal ratio for supervision of offenders in a regular-supervision caseload. He said the 30:1 ratio for intensive supervision dates back to the late 1970s. Referring to the 45:1 ratio addressed by Ms. King, Chief Concha said that going to a 45:1 ratio was a compromise between the 75:1 ratio and the 30:1 ratio.

Senator Neal asked the impact on the quality of supervision when the ratio is changed from 30:1 to 45:1. Chief Concha replied, "The ratio for supervising sex offenders was not 30:1, but 75:1. Sex offenders were supervised at a ratio of 75:1, which has been requested to move to a ratio of 45:1." The caseload for intensive supervision will remain at 30:1.

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that although it was intended in The Executive Budget to have the ratio go to 70:1, the staffing for supervision is actually funded for a ratio of 72 or 73 to 1, and no funding was provided for the 45:1 ratio for sex offenders. She pointed out the subcommittee needed to determine what other optimums are available in order to avoid impacting the General Fund by $800,000. Chief Concha indicated the formula demonstrates that with ratios of 70:1, 45:1, and 30:1, the budget would be lacking supervisor support for 6 line officers the first year. He said The Executive Budget makes up for the shortage in the first year by providing adequate staffing the second year if adjustments are not made in decision unit M-200 for revised caseload projections. He noted that in the first 9 months of FY 2000 there would be a 72:1 ratio in Reno and Las Vegas. He stated if he were to "take staff and work on a 45:1 ratio," this would increase the caseload allocation for regular supervision. Chief Concha indicated the bottom line is that P&P would operate for 9 months under a different staffing formula; however, the division would return to a regular 70:1 and 45:1 ratio in July 2000.

Ms. Giunchigliani voiced the understanding that the second year is based upon whether or not the adjustment is made in the M-200 decision unit. She noted there will still be a shortfall if the adjustment is not be made.

Mr. Marvel inquired whether, even with the 45:1 ratio, there would be a "wash" with some other savings. Ms. King replied that implementing the M-200 caseload revised projections would save $349,000 the second year of the biennium. She indicated there are four additional options that will save approximately $296,000 in the General Fund the first year and $529,000 (including the $349,000) the second year of the biennium; therefore, approximately $90,000 would be required the first year to fund ratios of 45:1 and 70:1. Mr. Marvel clarified the second year would "take care of" the deficit. Ms. King stated the second year would be taken care of if the adjustments are made.

Referring to the number of officers required in the second year, Chief Concha explained that existing formulas are confusing and complicated when attempting to calculate projections and breakdowns, addressing the M-200 decision unit, establishing the necessary positions, and eliminating sex offender cases, rather than moving to a 70:1 ratio. He said the bottom-line figure for the number of positions needed for FY 2000, using the Governor’s recommendation of December 26, 1998, was a statewide total of 237 positions.

Chief Concha stated the figures of the P&P show a total of 243 positions needed, which leaves the division short 6 positions, not including the supervisor position. He noted 249 positions were appropriated in the Governor’s recommendation, and the P&P breakdown resulted in 249 positions. The chief pointed out the division was short on positions the first year but made up for it the second year. He reiterated the division would be short 6 line staff the first year, not including additional support staff for those positions.

Ms. Giunchigliani commented the argument is not whether the caseload is the right direction to move, "it is the frustration of not having a properly built budget."

Ms. King addressed the four options mentioned above:

Option 1. Ms. King indicated this option is in regard to the psychosexual evaluation which P&P is required to provide the courts prior to sentencing. She said the division currently has 5 positions authorized for the program. She pointed out that information provided by the division indicated it would be more cost-effective to contract out the evaluations than to retain staff to complete the evaluations in-house. Ms. King noted the division projects it will complete 109 evaluations in FY 1999. She said the payroll cost alone, not including travel and operating expense, is almost $250,000, and the cost to contract would be about $158,500. She declared that should the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation elect to contract for the services, the division requested retention of the accounting position (which is one of the 5 positions) to continue to collect fees where possible for this and other programs. Ms. King said the division indicated the accounting position could be self-supporting and would not require a General Fund appropriation. She pointed out the subcommittee should note the department is currently contracting for psychosexual evaluations in the Las Vegas area because of difficulties in finding qualified staff. She said that should the subcommittee elect to contract for psychosexual evaluations, General Fund savings of approximately $45,000 in FY 2000 and $61,000 in FY 2001 could be expected. Ms. King noted the savings are lower the first year because one currently occupied position would not be eliminated until September 30, 1999.

Senator Jacobsen asked the nature of the evaluation, how it is conducted, and whether or not it appears on an offender’s record. Chief Concha indicated the evaluation is a document that is attached to the presentence report issued prior to the sentencing of a sex offender. He said the psychosexual evaluation is a result of Senate Bill (S.B.) 99 of the Sixty-ninth Session and the bill contains specific guidelines as to what the document will entail. He stated it is quite lengthy and provides a great deal of information to the courts.

Senator Jacobsen queried whether he would be able to understand the evaluation. Chief Concha said that although psychologists use a number of instruments to evaluate the mental status of the offender, Senator Jacobsen would be able to comprehend the document. Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned some judges were not utilizing the evaluation in some instances. In response, Chief Concha indicated the P&P conducted a survey of district court judges which demonstrated a number of them felt the psychosexual evaluation was not appropriate legislation and would not use it, and others thought the evaluation was good and used it accordingly.

Senator Jacobsen stated he had an opportunity to ride along on a shift with a parole officer. He reported the officer possessed a myriad of information regarding the sexual offenders contained in her "book." Chief Concha explained that each officer has what is termed a "fill book" which contains the offender’s picture and relevant information. He said the information is obtained from the presentence report in the psychosexual evaluation and is beneficial to the officers in the field.

Mr. Marvel inquired whether the Nevada version of "Megan’s Law" added to the workload of the P&P. Chief Concha indicated S.B. 325 of the Sixty-ninth Session and S.B. 192 of the Sixty-eighth Session required registration and communication of sex offenders.

Continuing, Chief Concha said the program was placed at the "front door" of the division and has "pretty much" consumed it. He indicated the program is big and entails registering and tracking a number of sex offenders throughout the state. Referring to the 45:1 sex offender ratio, the chief noted sex offenders are required to register with the state, but many do not comply. In that case, the division is required to notify officers in the district and request them to go out into the community, apprehend the offenders, and convince them to register. He said that presently no action is required to be taken when an offender does not register; however, S.B. 515 revises many of the problem areas within S.B. 325 of the Sixty-ninth Session. In answer to Mr. Marvel’s question, the chief said that yes, "Megan’s Law" legislation added a great deal to the workload.

Mr. Marvel inquired whether the workload can be accommodated with the ratio of 45:1. Chief Concha responded that in addition to supervising sex offenders, officers would have the added responsibility of tracking sex offenders who fail to register, as well as processing the required paperwork.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the NCCD looked at the ISU when the study was conducted. Chief Concha indicated the NCCD looked at the ISU, court services, and regular supervision. Asked whether it appeared in the budget, the chief said the ratio of 30:1 is realistic in the ISU area, and the sex offender units were not part of the study.

Option 2. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated this option deals with changing the contracts on residential confinement fees. She said that historically, 62 percent of the costs were paid by the offender and 38 percent by General Fund appropriation.

Ms. King said the change has already occurred. She indicated the division has a contractor who provides residential confinement, and bills and collects from the offender; therefore, the division is basically out of the loop. She said the adjustment can reduce residential confinement cost by $496,453 each year of the biennium, which would save $186,900 each year in the General Fund and the remaining $309,000 would be the reduction in fees collected from offenders. Ms. King noted the adjustment is being implemented in Las Vegas and will leave about $225,000 in that category.

Option 3. Ms. King indicated this option deals with the sex offender registration unit, which is different from the sex offender ratio of 45:1 discussed previously in these minutes. She said decision units E-806 and E-807 in The Executive Budget recommend replacing sworn staff positions with civilian staff positions. She stated this recommendation is for 5 positions for the prerelease function. Ms. King indicated the 5 additional positions are a 100 percent increase in staff assigned. She said that although having additional staff would speed up the workload, it does not appear a 100 percent increase is necessary. She noted the subcommittee may consider taking 3 prerelease staff and moving them into the sex offender registration unit as Program Assistant IVs. She indicated the division testified there is a backlog in that area of over 600 cases wherein the sex offender has registered but the record of registration has not been completed and entered into the criminal history repository. Ms. King said that providing 3 additional people would give the division a chance to address the backlog. She pointed out the subcommittee could direct the division through a Letter of Intent to reclassify the Program Assistant IV positions back to program officers for the prerelease unit should it be necessary after the backlog is caught up. She stated this would generate savings of $16,171 in FY 2000 and $5,229 in FY 2001.

Option 4. Ms. King said information provided by the division indicated the court services unit, which completes the presentencing investigation, is the only remaining area of the division which is paper-intensive and requires little or no peace officer activity. She indicated the subcommittee may wish to consider a pilot program to convert the Parole Officer positions in the court services unit to Program Officer positions, "which would be a grade 35 Program Officer versus a grade 36 Parole Officer." She said that while the salary savings are not significant, time will be saved in this area because officers will not be required to qualify quarterly on the range or have 40 hours of continued education. In addition, the state will not be required to purchase guns, armor, and all police officer equipment required for peace officer status.

Ms. King noted the division also indicates the pilot program could be used as a recruiting tool and should the Program Officer show promise the agency may send the person to Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) and promote him or her to Parole Officer. She said the division indicates it would be able to convert 3 positions in northern Nevada and 4 positions in southern Nevada to Program Officers in order to implement a pilot program. She suggested the subcommittee may wish to authorize the pilot project to place Program Officers in the court services unit and include a Letter of Intent requiring semiannual reports to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to identify the status of the pilot project. Should the pilot program be successful the IFC could include a Letter of Intent to continue the project as sworn staff vacancies occur, Ms. King remarked.

Ms. King said the suggested change for the 7 positions would generate savings of $49,204 to the General Fund in FY 2000 and $23,000 in FY 2001. She noted the higher savings in FY 2000 result from the personnel in these positions not being required to buy guns, vests, radios, and other law enforcement equipment for the new positions recommended in M-200 because the equipment assigned the 7 positions could be assigned to the new positions.

Senator Jacobsen inquired how many square feet of space are occupied in the two P&P locations in Carson City, and whether the square footage is adequate. Chief Concha indicated P&P occupies two buildings in Carson City. The District 1 office on Long Street is approximately 1,300 square feet, and the central office on Hot Springs Road is approximately 15,000 square feet. He pointed out the central office is cramped and will become more so because more staff are being brought in this session as a result of obtaining new positions and the conversion on prerelease. The chief noted that over the last couple of years staff have been moved out of the Long Street facility and into a building in Minden to relieve "the crowding problem."

Senator Jacobsen reflected there is $70,000 in the budget for training both existing and new staff, and wondered whether the POST academy could be incorporated into it. Ms. King indicated the training had been moved to POST. The senator pointed out that training would provide backup to parole officers in the rural areas.

Chief Concha indicated P&P would be sending two "seasoned" supervisors to the department training unit to be housed at the POST academy, to coordinate the department’s training program. Senator Jacobsen said he would like to give the chief a tour of the POST academy after the session. Chief Concha indicated he would contact Senator Jacobsen in July or August 1999 to set up the tour.

In reference to option 3 "wherein the subcommittee is considering assisting the diversion of some of the Program Officers to deal with the backlog [in sex offender registration]," Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the diversion would have an effect on the release of offenders from prison. Chief Concha stated there are currently 5 peace officers or sworn staff assigned to the prerelease program, 2 in Las Vegas and 3 in the north. He said 5 Program Officers will be used beginning July 1999, and 2 more positions will be added to bring the total to 7 officers to help facilitate the release of prisoners. The chief indicated a staff of 10 would be ideal, but moving the 3 positions to the sex offender registration program is probably more important at this time. He said the 2 added positions will speed up the pre-release program and a delay is not anticipated.

Ms. Giunchigliani called for a motion and suggested the following:

• Add the additional positions necessary to fund a 45:1 sex offender caseload and segregate it into E-377.
• Contract out for the psychosexual evaluations.
• Reduce M-200 and base budget to reflect on the residential confinement contracts.
• Replace 3 of the 5 Program Officers in decision unit E-807 with the Program Assistant IV positions in order to reduce the backlog in sex offender registration.
• Prepare a Letter of Intent to reclassify the positions back to Program Officer after the backlog is eliminated should it be justified as needed for the reclassifications.
• Authorize a pilot project to place Program Officers in the court services unit.

Asked the total impact, Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was an $80,000 increase the first year and a $90,000 decrease the second year.

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Barbara Moss,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

DATE:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman

DATE: