The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Room 4401, Las Vegas, 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.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Dina Titus (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Maddie Fischer, Administrative Assistant

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons

Robin Bates, Warden, Warm Springs Correctional Center

Leonard Pugh, Director, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County

Kara Kelley, Lobbyist, Senior Vice President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Angie Wallin, Executive Director, Nevada Arts Advocates

Chairman James opened the meeting with the introduction of three bill draft requests (BDRs).

*****

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 57.

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, spoke on behalf of S.B. 57. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit C) she explained to the committee that she had sponsored legislation during the 1997 session to create therapeutic communities (TC) for substance abusers in state prisons. She said since its implementation, the bill from the previous session has imposed restrictions on the prison participants’ pool and use of state monies. She pointed out the intent of S.B. 57 is to make the necessary changes for use of state monies even more effective.

Senator Wiener said passage of this bill would help Nevada law "mirror" the federal program and assist in the participation in, and administration of, the program in Nevada prisons. The bill would expand the possibility of inmate participation by lifting restrictions on who may participate and their eligibility.

Senator Wiener stressed the first class consisted of 85 inmates participating in the 6-month program, who will graduate in April. To date, not one of the TC inmates had tested positive for drugs which contrasted with a normal prison population where up to 90 percent of inmates might test positive in a random test. The program was more than encouraging to making positive and permanent changes in the lives of substance-abusing inmates who would one day return to Nevada communities.

Senator Washington asked if those prisoners that were about to be released were the candidates for the TC classes and if they would not be paroled unless they attend these TC classes.

Senator Wiener responded the TC classes would not be a condition. The TC classes affect their behavior while they are in prison. She said the reason the bill had the statement "within the one year," was because the prison system does not want to reintegrate them into the prison population. The participants go right into the aftercare program in the community, which is a vital component of the success of this program.

Senator Wiener continued that aftercare was the support system where released prisoners worked with professionals in groups. The aftercare program was similar in what it requires of them in TC, but was not as intensive as the 12-hour day in TC, although the regimen had been built in to help them stay clean and sober and live productive lives.

Senator Washington wondered if the inmates go through this TC program and then were released on parole, what reassurance was made for their continuity.

Senator Wiener commented that the aftercare could be a condition of parole which was something that was discussed when S.B. 57 first came out. She said based on the very restricting limitations as to how the state could get involved in the program, as compared to the federal grant which has a broader base of participation, Nevada has stricter limitations that the federal government does not.

Senator Wiener introduced a letter from WestCare (Exhibit D), Nevada’s largest nonprofit drug and alcohol education, prevention, and treatment agency, written in favor of the program and the bill.

Senator Porter noticed there was an effect on costs to the state.

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons (DOP), responded that the wording of S.B. 57 would bring the funding mechanism into consistent wording with the federal grants. He said DOP intends to footnote their impact analysis. The money built into the budget was specifically referenced as a grant, in other words no fiscal impact. The grant simply mentions it could be used as a match. He pointed out flexibility that was provided in the bill means there will be no impact as to limiting the program.

Robin Bates, Warden, Warm Springs Correctional Center, said he was familiar with the theories and research concerning therapeutic communities (TC) for some time. Initially he was skeptical because he had started his career 25 years ago when there was something called the "nothing works" theory, and programs have come a long way since then.

Mr. Bates said going through the federal training, participating in the implementation and the launch of this program in October 1998, has truly been an eye-opening experience. Actually watching the theories at work had shown him that there was something truly amazing when total immersion in a treatment program occurs. He pointed out that when there are 85 inmates with a common goal in a segregated housing unit with trained therapists facilitating their treatment, a lot of interesting things happen. He elaborated on the WINGS (Willing Inmates in Nevada Gaining Sobriety) Therapeutic Community Rules (Exhibit E). He noticed a dramatic reduction in misconduct and the corresponding disciplinary actions that go with it. Inmates in a TC were virtually trouble free.

Mr. Bates emphasized the astounding results of drug testing through the TC program. Three hundred urinalysis tests were conducted and none were positive. He emphasized it was so remarkable that Abbott Laboratories was contacted to have someone calibrate the equipment and verify procedures to see if there was a problem. The lab conducted a double-blind experiment with five tainted samples. The officer conducting the routine tests was unaware of the tainted samples, and each time the tests were run only the tainted samples came up positive, which confirmed that TC was a virtually drug- and alcohol-free program. He said another bonus was a positive change in the attitude of the correctional officers who were involved.

Mr. Bates explained after this class graduates in April, they will be monitored for outcome analysis as to how well they do in the community. He said DOP is engaged in a joint venture with the University of Nevada, Reno, and other entities to do program evaluation. The program assessment process involves three-stages. The caseworkers in the field would scan the inmate population for likely candidates based upon a preset condition. Those that pass the first stage go through a clinical evaluation, done by the program contractor, Vitality Center in Elko. The contractor would do a more in-depth medical, social and criminal history.

Mr. Bates continued the inmates who pass the second test would go through a battery of clinical assessments to determine the level of addiction, the amenability to treatment, and the level of psychopathology present. The end result would bring in the 85 inmates that had the most likelihood of benefiting from the program.

Mr. Bates pointed out another condition of using the federal money, which was an expression of federal intent, was the need for the State of Nevada to adopt a comprehensive approach to treating the drug-involved offender, which means bridging agencies between public- and private-sector providers.

Mr. Bates summarized that the TC program had representatives involved from the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA), attorney general’s (AG) office, grants administrator, Department of Prisons (DOP), a psychiatrist who specializes in addiction medicine, and a parole commissioner, who serve on a committee established 5 months ago to develop a comprehensive approach.

Mr. Bates clarified the TC that was in place at Warm Springs Correctional Center falls roughly in the middle of the spectrum of treatment options, starting with nothing all the way up to residential in-patient programs in the community. The therapeutic community is an environment where treatment can occur, but it is a unique environment; it is a community. In summary, Mr. Bates said he is very pleased with the program.

Harland Embree, Substance Abuse Programs Coordinator, Department of Prisons, said he was in support of what Director Bayer has said. The three provisions that Senator Wiener has included in S.B. 57 can only give more flexibility in administering the program and make it easier to expand. Mr. Embree emphasized by removing the requirement that an inmate must request the program, people can be assigned who are known to be able to benefit but are reluctant or resistant. As previously mentioned, the research shows those reluctant participants have a similar response and similar success rate to those who volunteer.

Mr. Embree expounded right now out of the 85 participants, only 22 were first-time offenders; limiting how much of that funding can be utilized at this point. He pointed out removing the first-time offender restriction would enable the program to include a greater number of participants.

Mr. Embree insisted the addition of the phrase in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b), "…he is reasonably expected to be released, as determined by the director," more accurately reflects the reality of what was being done. The DOP knows when a person is going to appear before the parole board, but would not know if that person would be granted parole, which had to be a best guess as to when that year before release actually occurs.

Mr. Embree responded to Senator Washington’s question about making completion of the program a condition of parole. He pointed out a letter was sent to the parole commissioners requesting that when inmates already in the program appear for their parole hearing they should be granted a conditional release based on an approved parole plan, to include as a condition successful completion of the program.

Chairman James asked why DOP believed this would be just as effective with reluctant offenders. He pointed out it seems a participant has to give many things to be in the program.

Mr. Bates responded that according to research summarized in two federal training sessions he attended last year, a lot of inmates were reluctant to admit they have a problem based on the influence of their peers. The TC program creates a new positive peer environment. When all their friends and associates were starting to realize they do have a problem and that they could face up to it and deal with it, then that person was more likely to do the same.

Mr. Bayer said at the last session he provided the committee with a document, "What Works," published by the National Institute of Corrections. He can provide an updated version, which summarizes a lot of recent research in the area of therapeutic communities showing the same dynamics in other federally funded programs of this kind.

Chairman James inquired if you had two different types in the program, one who had volunteered and one who was told to be in it, what that effect would have on results.

Mr. Bates clarified that even if this language were changed, most of the people going into the program would be doing so voluntarily. For those who were not voluntary, the structure of the program was such that it was virtually impossible not to be co-opted after the first week.

Chairman James asked if there was really a "nothing works" viewpoint. Mr. Bayer commented that around 1974 there was a book titled the "Nothing Works Theory," which construed the idea of rehabilitation was lying sprawled on its deathbed. Since that time there has been a shift in opinion. He said if you target the right population and follow up with aftercare in the community, there is a real and strong probability that those people can be helped and kept from returning to prison.

Chairman James inquired if Mr. Bates would recommend at this time that the TC program be extended to other institutions, or should the program be worked on and expanded at the (Warms Springs) institution. Mr. Bates responded he had expressed to the director that if the program was to be expanded it should be at the Warms Springs Correctional Center, which would expand from one TC unit to a TC that encompasses all 550 beds.

Mr. Bayer said he and Mr. Bates had similar ideas as to what they would like to see for that facility. By using a footnote in the grant request it was possible to pick up an additional $320,742 from the federal government, getting $3 for every $1 already appropriated to expand the program.

Chairman James wanted to know if by earmarking the money from the store fund that they were currently using to match the federal grant, it would result in not having a fiscal note here. Mr. Bates responded that was correct.

Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Criminal Justice Assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified that the RSAT program (Residential Substance Abuse Treatment) for state prisoners was a program started in 1996, and so far the Department of Prisons has used the first 2 years of funding, which was 1996/97 money. The 1998 money has yet to be used.

Ms. Evans prepared a sheet that gave the committee funding information (Exhibit F). She pointed out there was $597,189 available, which was not obligated. Later in the spring, she alluded, there would be almost $600,000 in additional funds, which totaled $1,165,112 being available. The Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Service (DMV & PS) was waiting to see what happens with the legislation before allocation towards the program. During discussions with the sentencing commission, there was talk of using some of the funds for aftercare. However, Washington, D.C., decided the funds could not be used for aftercare, but was allowing 10 percent of prison construction money to be used for aftercare. It was a different way around for funding, but may accomplish the same thing.

Chairman James asked if Mr. Bates was referring to federal grant money. Ms. Evans acknowledged it was 25 percent cash or a three-to-one ratio. Chairman James commented that it would be sufficient to fund the program as it was currently constituted. Ms. Evans replied that the main thing that was holding back the program from being expanded to its full level was the match. She added the program would end up using whatever the matching funds could buy.

Senator Wiener noted the bold writing on the funding information sheet that the match would be $388,367. There was $500,000 not available because of the restrictions of the earlier bill, which did not allow use of that money. She claimed now with this bill there is a three-to-one return on the funding. Ultimately, the money was an investment in not having victims out on the streets.

Senator Washington said there were some diversionary programs in the truth-in-sentencing structure. The Legislature was trying to divert a lot of the low-level offenders out of the prison system. He asked if there was a requirement that parolees go into an aftercare treatment facility. He also asked if there was a connection between the therapeutic program and the after-care program, to ultimately keep them from abusing substances so they can become productive citizens.

Ms. Evans responded that with the $390,000 DOP could make a fairly good impact. There were a couple of programs around that meet BADA standards which were set up very well for the offender that gets out of the prison setting. She pointed out along with the counseling, these people were also required to have a daytime job to learn life skills. The Department of Prisons (DOP) was looking to set up beds with the $390,000. She said it was her understanding there was nothing to that magnitude in the Las Vegas area, which was an area to target.

Senator Washington commented he applauds Ms. Evans and Senator Wiener for the bill, and all who have spoken highly of it, but he still has a concern. He stated in 1995 the Legislature started down this road with the Community Resource Center (CRC) and the life skills program, and 4 years later we are still trying to put something together that is going to divert or hopefully change the lifestyles of these inmates and users of drugs. He said he did not want to come back 4 years later to make a change because something did not work before. The Legislature put their hopes and best intentions in the CRC and life skills programs and did not get the "bang for our buck."

Mr. Bayer conveyed it was important to remember a couple of ideas. One was no further appropriations need to be made. He said just by footnoting the expenditure, there would be another $300,000 plus to help expand the program at no cost to the state. He pointed out the second thought speaks to Governor Guinn’s statement about looking at the department of corrections in the future. Mr. Bayer surmised right now the moment they leave the prison, be it on parole or discharge, control was lost by DOP, and went to another agency.

Mr. Bayer said he could only speak to the program in place, the start the program was giving the inmates and the results which could be seen in the system, because everything was done to network with parole and probation. He said the parole board helps in making aftercare a mandatory function of their parole. Parole and probation has agreed to track them diligently to give results and feedback on how the program is working. Mr. Bayer said he networks frequently with Washington, D.C., and a lot more money is expected in terms of programming and substance abuse treatment.

Senator Washington asserted he really wanted this program to be successful. He said he did not know if the figures were verified in the paper presented, but the figures alluded that the prison population had increased 7.9 percent for males and 19 percent for females. The hope was that low level drug users, or substance abuse users, could be diverted and thus free up some beds. He maintained if the State of Nevada was going to keep increasing the population of prisons and keep sticking money into programs and not follow up afterwards, the Legislature would be down the same road again.

Senator Wiener responded saying the language of the bill was that the inmate, upon completion of the 6-month program, would go into an active care component while in prison. The discussion has been what to do with the inmates who finish the 6-months program and are still there. The prison facility was already working to build a segregated component of aftercare for follow up. She said according to the law that aftercare component that was started in the prison could be a condition of parole. The participants have to complete the program, but if in aftercare while in prison, that could be a condition of parole.

Senator Titus said she was curious about the numbers in terms of men and women who were in this program.

Mr. Bayer answered that this particular program was an all-male program. There is a substance abuse program operated separately by the privatized prison in Las Vegas. He pointed out he could get the senator information on that program.

Senator Titus said she would like to see that information, because DOP did not seem to be doing very much for the women who were in prison and that number was increasing.

Mr. Bayer restated it was also important to remember the first thing the DOP had to do was get the inmate’s attention. He noted the crime rate had gone down in the state. Now the task was to identify through some of the testing mechanisms, such as the psychopathy test, to identify those inmates under DOP’s control who would benefit from programs. He said the system needs to direct them into programs for follow-up and make sure they do not come back. He stated that ultimately it is hoped the prison population would start to flatten out a little.

Chairman James added that the State of Nevada should not put people in prison that have not committed the kind of crimes that make them belong there. The penal system should be reserving the prison cells for the violent offenders and the people who really deserve to lose their liberty. Chairman James maintained if this kind of program could be duplicated outside the prison for people who do not need incarceration in order to be persuaded that they need to participate in a program like this, then this is what the Legislature should be doing as much as possible.

Chairman James recognized that Mr. Bayer had a lot to do with the truth-in-sentencing bill. He asked Mr. Bayer to share any other ideas about diversions and programs to help people to rehabilitate and get away from crime without prison. Chairman James noted there were only a few more weeks remaining to authorize any bill draft requests this legislative session.

Senator Wiener noted that Mr. Steinberg of WestCare said in his letter his company has a therapeutic community that operated to keep that diversion component in the community, and they have been successfully operating it for about 26 years.

Rob Johnston, Acting Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA), Rehabilitation Division, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, said they supported any effort which makes substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment more accessible. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, substance abuse reported by three-quarters of all prisoners can be characterized as being involved with alcohol or drug abuse at the time leading up to their arrest. In November 1998, BADA published the Nevada Substance Abuse Need for Treatment Among Arrestees (SANTA) (Exhibit G.). (A letter from Mr. Johnston is attached to Exhibit G.) The SANTA study reviewed 1604 arrestees in six jails from Washoe County, Las Vegas, Elko, Carson City, Fallon, and Douglas County. Analysis was done by site, sex, ethnicity, and charge type. Basically, the results of the sample indicated a very high prevalence of substance use and dependence among Nevada’s arrestees. Mr. Jonston emphasized the primary substances of abuse were alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Although the drug treatment is presently available in the prison setting, the first-offender language in lines 27 and 28 of page 2 of S.B. 57 will be eliminated, which increases the number of offenders who would be eligible to receive drug and alcohol treatment. He also pointed out research had indicated that offenders who receive drug and alcohol treatment provided by TC within the prison setting were much less likely to return to prison after their release. The recidivism rates were much lower. The parolees also were more likely to return to society with the living skills necessary to succeed.

Mr. Johnston said he would also like to comment on some of the questions raised today. He stated currently 45 percent of the people who come into BADA-funded programs around the state are criminal justice referrals. Those were people who were already coming into the publicly funded system because they were remanded by the court.

Mr. Johnston also emphasized that research indicates that the inmates succeed just as effectively as those who were coming in as a self-referral. Oftentimes what the researchers showed within prisons and within TCs in general, was part of the nature of that milieu was confrontation. He pointed out part of what happened was those persons who admit or acknowledge they have a problem, were oftentimes able to confront their peers in ways that no therapist could. That is one of the advantages of a TC model. He stressed the program at Warm Springs (Correctional Center) was accredited by BADA. The program at the women’s prison (near Las Vegas), although not accredited by BADA, has certified, licensed counselors.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, said he has been very impressed hearing what was going on with the TCs. He stated he was compelled to commend Senator Wiener for her efforts and the prison officials for their dedication to these programs.

Mr. Morrow said he had been a public defender working with the people, discussed in this meeting, for 20 years. He estimated from experience that fully 80-90 percent of the criminal offenders he had dealt with over the 20 years had some involvement with drugs. He pointed out drug use may not be the offense for which they were arrested, it may not be use, possession or sales, but there was almost always some drug component involved in their conduct. Anything that could be done to straighten these folks out was a welcome addition. He said he would be going to the prison south of town (Carson City) to participate in parole revocation hearings. Up front he had 9 people with which to work, and would bet that 7-8 of them had a drug problem that has contributed to their return to the prison system. If people come out of the system the first time on parole having gone through the TC, it would be a great thing.

Chairman James inquired as to how often the drug was marijuana.

Mr. Morrow responded that frequently there was marijuana use involved, however the more destructive drugs were heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. He pointed out these drugs were the ones that seemed to cause more violent, unpredictable behavior. He said he believed removing the first-offender limitation was an important component. There had been great success in Washoe County’s drug court, and included people who had as many as two or three felony convictions, and they seemed to progress just as well as the first offenders. In fact, there had been good experience even with older people in their 40s and 50s, cleaning up their act.

There being no further testimony Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 57 and opened the hearing on S.B. 77.

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, spoke on behalf of S.B. 77, reading from prepared text (Exhibit H). She said this bill was the outgrowth of a conference on juvenile justice, which utilized the best of a successful program in Brevard County, Florida, and has been adapted for Nevada use.

Senator Wiener stated the restorative justice program in S.B. 77 requires that juvenile offenders understand and become responsible for the consequences of their conduct, to empathize with their victims, and be accountable for and repay the damages they have caused their victims. She emphasized that in this program the offenders develop work ethics and employability skills. The success of this program in Florida, which had been in effect for 5 years, was impressive. Senate Bill 77 would help make the victim whole, provide a healing opportunity for damaged communities, and offer an outstanding alternative to the first-time, non-violent offender. Youths too often are sent home with a slap on the hand. Early intervention would provide a positive mechanism to redirect troubled youths by giving them the necessary tools for their futures.

Senator Washington referred to page 4, subsection 8, and asked if this is primarily for Clark and Washoe counties. Senator Wiener responded the bill is not restricted to the larger counties, but did provide ways to pick up cost of the program through the offender’s working, so it would not restrict any county’s participation.

Chairman James noted that section 3 exempts it from the statute that says there should be no imposition of unfunded mandates on local governments, and asked why it was so stated.

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded the statement was standard because of the lack of surety of the financial impact on a county. The financial impact depends on how the program was run.

Chairman James questioned the reference to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 354.599 that S.B. 77 was an unfunded mandate if a county opts into the program voluntarily. He asserted the bill did not require that language.

Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that the language was put in because, although a judge is not required to order the program, if a county were to set up this program, there would definitely be some costs associated that would not be provided for in any specific appropriation or other funding.

Chairman James commented that this bill was enabling legislation where a county is not required to participate and therefore is not a mandate.

Senator McGinness noted section 1, subsection 2 says, "… the court may order …," and questioned whether language could be added stating, "… in a county that has approved a program, or a county that has instituted a program, the court may …." He stated this language would allow participants of the program to appear before the county commissioners and have their agreement to support this program, which would provide the funding stream.

General discussion ensued. Mr. Wilkinson noted he has not seen any fiscal note for this bill. Mr. Wilkinson stated he was not sure what the fiscal effect would be or if there would be any other funding available for establishing this type of program. If that were shown then the clause could be taken out.

Chairman James queried that if a local government, in particular Clark County or Washoe County, were worried about funding, a representative would be present to testify.

Senator Wiener said the program was presented to the State of Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission, which was represented by large and small counties, and because the bill was enabling, the commission did not express a sense of concern.

Chairman James observed the counties might not have understood, as Mr. Wilkinson pointed out, what would be a judge’s determination by the way this bill was currently written. The Chairman asked Mr. Wilkinson to make a note of the proposed amendment by Senator McGinness and look into the issue raised by section 3 of the bill.

Senator Porter noted on page 5, line 1, reads, "Is 14 years of age or older;" and questioned the limitation by age. Senator Wiener clarified that the hours and restrictions in the program take the child labor laws strictly into consideration.

Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services, testifying from Las Vegas, said he agreed with the testimony and comments made. He stated his program has enormous benefits to get youth involved and keep them out of the juvenile justice system, and also keep them from penetrating further into the system. Clark County has a partial mechanism in place to support this program; the victim witness program, for example, is already in place.

Senator Porter stated there is an assumption among the committee members that there are no problems since there has not been testimony. He questioned the message to this committee that this bill was not a problem financially. Mr. Burgess confirmed that was exactly what was being said. Clark County was willing to absorb the cost of the program within the resources of the department and/or looking for grant funding. The enormous benefits that were out there were so great that he thought they would be remiss not to support this bill.

Senator Care remarked that when he was asked by Senator Wiener to be a cosponsor of the bill, he told her of his experiences as an attorney in juvenile court. He asked Mr. Burgess to elaborate a little on the typical profile of the children who would fall under this program. The kinds of families they come from and the sorts of crimes for which they have been convicted.

Mr. Burgess conveyed that the youngsters the Clark County Department of Family and Youth Service sees are between the ages of 14 and 17. Typically the youngsters commit a burglary or vandalism or crimes of that nature, where the youngsters owe restitution to families. Family and youth services has a program in place where the youngster is required to pay restitution, largely that responsibility falls on a parent. The bill had an added benefit in that it goes a step further in assuring accountability that the youngster starts to understand there was a consequence to his or her actions, and portrays where the job training and life skills come into place. He said family and youth services estimates are in the neighborhood of 1200-1500 youngsters that could potentially participate in this program.

Leonard Pugh, Director, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County, offered his support for S.B. 77. He said in Washoe County the department had been running this program for a few years, and it is called a job training/anti-graffiti program. The program is funded through Washoe County Child Funds and grant funding.

Mr. Pugh pointed out that funding was provided for approximately 75 kids a year, and includes 80 hours of instruction, of which 40 hours are classroom and 40 hours are work experience. The kids do classroom training during the week, and on weekends they go into the community and paint over graffiti for which they are paid a stipend. He said the money earned was then used to reimburse their victims for the crimes that these kids have committed. The data indicates an excellent job in helping victims to become whole in spite of the damage they have suffered. He stated they also benefit in teaching the kids good employment skills, and have done a good job of eradicating graffiti in the community. Mr. Pugh said he does not anticipate there being a strong problem with unfunded-mandate concerns, because it was an existing program, unless judges order things that may make it extreme. Right now the demand that exists in Washoe County can be accommodated.

Kara Kelley, Lobbyist, Senior Vice President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, commended the committee for a very innovative program. She conveyed that the chamber has had a long-standing partnership with education and helping youth through the smart-grad program, "Leadership Las Vegas Youth Smart Card." The chamber sees this as a natural extension for the community, which really is concerned about the crime rate. She stated the chamber is confident that if this bill passes, it would be able to rally members of the business community to participate. The chamber understands that is a key component and would give their commitment to that support.

Chairman James inquired if this had come up as an issue in having kids in the juvenile justice system working with private business.

Ms. Kelley responded that Senator Wiener spoke with her and Mr. Pat Shalmy (President and General Manager, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce), several months ago to solicit their interest and understand where the members may be standing on this issue. She stated the chamber was confident through their ability to contact members that there was the ability to solicit substantial support.

Chairman James inquired as to what kind of work the participants might be doing.

In response, Ms. Kelley said the Las Vegas chamber works closely with the school district on job-shadowing programs, and in the chamber offices there are about 30 juniors and seniors at any time interning. She said the office stressed not just doing menial tasks like photocopying, but actually answering phones, learning how to access the computer, writing basic memos, and other common office tasks. The chamber was confident it could educate its business members to help supply some of those same jobs of not simply making copies and filing, but actually learning basic skills.

Senator Wiener said when she met with Mr. Shalmy and Ms. Kelley, one of the things talked about in terms of employment in the Florida program was the concerted effort to match the young person with something he or she might be interested in career wise. Through their programs, 25 percent of the participants become employees after they have fulfilled their obligations.

Senator Washington wanted to know what kind of participation rate there is with the parents themselves interacting with these youths and the employers in making sure they show up to work on time, and understanding the task they have to do.

Ms. Kelley responded that the chamber had not worked with Mr. Burgess’ internal program, and does not have that kind of information. She said, however in the job shadowing and internship programs the parents were relatively involved. She pointed out that in the school end there was a strong sense of pride on behalf of the students to be able to share what they were doing.

Anne B. Cathcart, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General (AG), said the AG’s office was in support of the bill, primarily for the same reasons given by those who have already testified. She said the bill is supported specifically because it provides accountability and responsibility to make sure victims are made whole wherever possible. This bill gives judges and courts the ability to ensure that an order for restitution was in fact satisfied, which has been a problem in Nevada in the past. Ms. Cathcart pointed out that the orders have been issued but very little has been done about them. The AG’s office believed this would have the added benefit of providing teenagers with a sense of self-esteem, to give them some job experience, and have something to put on the résumé. She surmised that hopefully this program would introduce them to a new group of people who have better values than the youths with which the teenager has been associating. Ms. Cathcart emphasized that this program will reduce the time that the youth was spending with acquaintances who perform destructive acts. She stated the AG’s office has been studying the subject of juvenile justice over the interim and was pleased to see something like this bill, which is thought to be a positive way to address some of these problems.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said that her citizens’ group would like to express their support for S.B. 77, because the personal work and restitution components enforce personal accountability and teach personal responsibility. She elucidated that often concern is expressed about punishment modes that actually fall upon the parent rather than the offender; and the offender may feel there were consequences, but they fall upon someone else. She stated this bill does not do that, this bill places the consequences squarely upon the person who committed the offense. Ms. Lusk pointed out that the offenders should see that among the many consequences of criminal action are the loss of their own money and the loss of their own personal freedom, and more would decide the crime was not worth the consequences. She suggested during participation in this program the skills the offenders learn in their employment may give them confidence that they can succeed in a responsible society.

Larry Carter, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Planning Evaluation and Program Development Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, read from prepared text (Exhibit I) saying this bill follows the concepts of balanced and restorative justice models that provide accountability for the offender, competency development, restitution to the victim, and community partnership in the solution. Mr. Carter stated last week the committee of the State of Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission unanimously passed their endorsement for S.B.77. That recommendation would be going to the full juvenile justice commission (February 18).

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 77, and opened the hearing on S.B. 87.

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, spoke on behalf of S.B. 87, and read from prepared text (Exhibit J).

Senator Care inquired if S.B. 87 was coordinated with S.B. 77. He questioned whether it was conceivable that a child could enter the program for restitution and still be able to participate in the arts program. Senator Wiener said both bills involve first-time offenders, and ultimately it would be up to the judge to determine a creative way to apply the programs.

Angie Wallin, Executive Director, Nevada Arts Advocates, testified from Las Vegas that arts programs for at-risk youths were being used in United States communities to rescue youth and to deter crime. Ms. Wallin voiced that youths account for 18 percent of all violent crimes in the U.S. and 33 percent of all serious property crimes. She said that with hopes of reversing this ominous trend, an increasing number of the nation’s 17,000 community organizations were using art programs to divert youth from gangs, drugs, and the juvenile justice system. The art programs help to provide a more cost-effective approach with better results than traditional programs, such as midnight basketball or juvenile boot camps. She pointed out $7 billion was spent annually to incarcerate young offenders and dropouts cost taxpayers another $71 billion each year.

Ms. Wallin stated that in Fort Meyers, Florida, a multi-faceted arts program for at-risk youth has been in effect for 3 years. The juvenile crime there has dropped 27 percent. She said in San Francisco participants of at-risk Hispanic youths build sets, costumes, rehearse scenes, and produce a public performance. The results are a 90 percent retention rate. This program is being expanded in 16 other cities. She again stressed that in an alternative school in Tulsen, New York, a last chance school for truant youth and dropouts, the graduation rate has nearly doubled to 81 percent since an art partnership was introduced. She urged this was not about coddling our youth; it requires self-discipline to, for example, play an instrument and execute a mosaic wall of art.

Mr. Burgess pointed out that the State of Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission supported the program in Las Vegas, already in place. Mr. Burgess stated currently there is a program called New Directions, which is an intensive supervision program for youngsters aged 10-14. He maintained at Spring Mountain Youth Camp, they also had about 130 kids involved in the program. This arts program has received a lot of local publicity in Clark County and has allowed the youngsters who participate in the program to have self-expression beyond the traditional methods. The arts program is currently in a partnership with the City of Las Vegas Cultural Arts Department. Ms. Burgess stressed that everyone involved sees this as an ongoing effort and certainly supports S.B. 87.

Mr. Carter, read from prepared text (Exhibit K) in favor of S.B. 87 in which he emphasized the results of the program in Clark County. He stated the artwork resulting from the program has garnered national attention and will be displayed at the Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention in Washington, D.C., and also at the Coalition of Juvenile Justice Annual Conference in Bethesda, Maryland.

Mr. Pugh said all too often the juvenile justice system is forced to look at a child’s or family’s deficiencies and focus on those as opposed to what their interests or strengths might be. He stated if we did spend more time trying to enhance the child’s interest in pro-social activities, and were then able to reward that child, we would see a repeat of that type of positive behavior and a decrease in the anti-social behavior that is brought forth in the community. Again, he emphasized his total support of S.B. 87.

Ms. Cathcart stated she was in support of S.B. 87 because it took into account that every young person was different and would respond better to different types of interests and activities, such as those that were aided by this bill. She stressed this bill was an appropriate amendment to the existing statute, because of improving current provisions.

Chairman James reminded Mr. Wilkinson that the committee wants to consider an amendment on the optional language and removal of the exemption on S.B. 87.

Hearing no further testimony, Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 87.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: