MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Health and Human Services
Seventy-First Session
March 21, 2001
The Committee on Health and Human Serviceswas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 21, 2001. Chairman Ellen Koivisto presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Chairman
Ms. Kathy McClain, Vice Chairman
Ms. Sharron Angle
Ms. Merle Berman
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Mark Manendo
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District 8
Assemblyman David Parks, District 41
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marla McDade Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Darlene Rubin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
David Mereaux, President, Street Teens
Johnston Woodard, Teenager
Bob Teuton, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney’s Office
Kathleen Boutin, Program Coordinator, Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth
Kimberly Rushton, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director, Clark County Family & Youth Services
Alicia Smalley, President, Nevada Chapter, National Association of Social Workers
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Stan Olsen, Government Liaison, Las Vegas Metro Police
Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Virginia Cain, Past President, Nevada Silver-Haired Forum
Note: Simultaneous videoconference in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Street, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Chairman Koivisto opened the hearing on A.B. 264.
Assembly Bill 264: Authorizes counties to designate certain shelters as approved youth shelters for runaway or homeless youths. (BDR 38-115)
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District 8, the sponsor of A.B. 264, provided comments on the measure. She commented on the tragedy of homelessness in a country that enjoyed such riches, however, the sad truth was there were many homeless in all parts of Nevada, but homeless teenagers were perhaps the saddest group. If someone made a lifestyle choice to be homeless that was their right, but no one under the age of 18 wanted to be homeless. It was not their lifestyle choice but one they were dealt. The bill aimed to provide some help to homeless teens, some of whom had come to testify.
Mrs. Buckley introduced Kathleen Boutin, the President of the Partnership for Homeless Youth. The bill was requested by the coalition who had worked on it for two years and performed research, as well as consultation with the District Attorney’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, legislators, and in short had built “one of the most incredible coalitions” Mrs. Buckley said she had ever seen, either in her legislative or advocacy career.
Kathleen Boutin thanked Assemblywoman Buckley for introducing the bill on the group’s behalf. She began her presentation with a four-minute videotape. At the conclusion of the video, Ms. Boutin said that Johnston Woodard, who had appeared in the video, had been reunited with his natural father and was living in Phoenix. He had traveled to Carson City to be at the hearing and was available to answer questions.
Ms. Boutin reported that, like Johnston, there were an additional 500 homeless youth living in the streets of Las Vegas. In Nevada, homeless youth were not housed in emergency shelters without placement by court order due to the providers’ fear of liability, both criminal and civil. Because of their age, homeless youth had no options for assistance in obtaining employment and they could not access transportation assistance to continue going to school. Without the passage of A.B. 264, she knew those youth would eventually end up as part of the adult system. That was a tragedy because those children had never been given a chance. To continue to deny those children services, she said, was perpetuating the lose-lose situation that had already been created for them.
The Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth believed in reunification with family when appropriate. However, Ms. Boutin noted, unfortunately many of the children seen could not and should not be reunified with their families. If A.B. 264 was passed, the youth could be brought into programs that would enable them to lead self-sufficient, productive lives. They might not ever be able to rejoin their own families, but when they had children of their own one day they might be more effective, productive parents. She added that every dollar the organization spent, and every child they saw, was dealt with in a manner that promoted higher education and a stronger work ethic.
Ms. Boutin continued stating that by supporting A.B. 264 they could develop programs targeted at addressing the problems associated with being underage and homeless in Nevada. The group could give the teens the tools needed to move forward to rebuild their lives. Ms. Boutin also provided her written testimony (Exhibit C).
Chairman Koivisto noted legislators had heard legislation earlier in the session about extending the time that foster children were taken care of by the system and it appeared the homeless youth were a group allowed to fall through the cracks.
Next to speak was David Mereaux, Founder and President of Street Teens, who provided his written testimony (Exhibit D). He reported he had been operating a 100 percent volunteer nonprofit organization helping the homeless youth in Las Vegas since January 2000. The group conducted street outreach to help bring help to homeless youth at least three nights a week. Also, with the help of the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, in a space provided by Lifeline, they operated an assistance center three evenings a week helping those same homeless youth. Mr. Mereaux had many years of experience working with homeless youth through Children of the Night, in Los Angeles, and other organizations.
Mr. Mereaux testified in support of A.B. 264 however, he was concerned about possible changes to the bill before it was approved. First, data from the National Runaway Switchboard Report on runaway youth under 18 showed there were:
Mr. Mereaux’s experience in Las Vegas over the past year supported and amplified those numbers. Less than half the youth in his shelter were ever reported as runaways, which meant there was a gross under-reporting of runaways, so the 1.3 million above was probably 2 to 3 million. They were throwaways, unwanted by their parents, and their average age when leaving home was 14 and one-half. Although many believed them to be a transient population, in fact 65 percent of the youth he had helped were from local homes in Las Vegas. All of them, he said, had survived by prostitution, stealing, panhandling, or selling drugs, in that order. Most had reported being raped or robbed while living on the streets, and without intervention most would become homeless adults living in Nevada.
Mr. Mereaux noted that few people had an appreciation of the issues faced by homeless minors in general, and even fewer were aware of current Nevada laws that restricted their access to receiving help. A.B. 264 would be a start toward addressing the problems by allowing approved service providers the opportunity to help teens without fear of unjust criminal or civil liability. However, it would not allow homeless minors access to medical or dental services, nor would it allow them to obtain the work permit needed to become self-sufficient.
Street Teens, Mr. Mereaux reported, had reached out to over 250 homeless youths aged 12 to 21 in the Las Vegas area over the past year. Over 80 percent of the youths helped had experienced physical or sexual abuse before leaving their last residence, whether their parents’ homes, foster care, or group homes. Those youths suffered from low trust of any adult or authority figure, they had low self-esteem and survived by focusing on how they would obtain food or where they would sleep that day. They had no long-term plan other than survival day-to-day. They were forced to become criminals in order to survive. He said it had taken Street Teens three months on the streets to gain the trust of just the first five homeless youths last year. Since that time, Street Teens had helped over 130 of those homeless youths in their center gain self-esteem, provided them with basic resources, and enabled them to focus on longer term goals since they no longer had to steal or prostitute themselves to survive day-to-day. Mr. Mereaux said the organization’s successes included:
Mr. Mereaux said that unfortunately those under 18 were still waiting for a legal way to earn a living. Those homeless youths needed and deserved the opportunity that legislation could provide. He added it was impossible for good parents to put themselves in the position of a homeless youth who had suffered abuse to the point that they felt safer living on the streets than at home. Good parents, he said, could look at the proposed legislation and be concerned that it might provide an easy out for typical teenage rebellion that occurred in the best of homes. The reaction to that would be to put as many safeguards and restrictions as possible to prevent the misuse by a rebellious teen of any future shelter that would be built. However, Mr. Mereaux cautioned, one should take the time to look at the changes from the perspective of a homeless youth. Parental notification, in most cases, was actually notification to the abuser of those teens. No one would want a criminal who had sexually or physically abused them to be notified where they could be found. Over-protection of a few rebellious teens that might slip through the system would guarantee that many homeless teens would continue to live on the streets instead of in the shelters the bill sought to provide.
In conclusion, Mr. Mereaux said the state could no longer afford to ignore the issues that faced homeless teens. He urged support and passage of A.B. 264 as an important first step. He also urged the committee to look beyond that bill to eliminate the other obstacles that prevented homeless youths from getting off the streets.
Assemblywoman Tiffany asked if Mr. Mereaux operated a homeless shelter. Mr. Mereaux said he operated a “drop-in” center for those children; it was a combination street outreach three nights a week, and three nights a week a “drop-in” center was open two hours, because that was the only time the space was available. During those two hours the children could go in, obtain basic clothing, food, and hygiene products. During that time, too, the staff tried to build a trusting relationship with the children and begin providing them resources.
Ms. Tiffany then asked about a methodology for distinguishing abused teens from other runaways. Mr. Mereaux answered that when he first met a child he began to build a trusting relationship; unless there was trust the real issues would not come forward. Once the trust developed he tried to find out if there had been abuse, or what were the issues that caused them to be on the streets. If it was a case of typical teenage rebellion, resistance of authority, low grades, or drug involvement, those were the teens that were pushed for reunification with their families. He said the staff tried to intervene with the parents and the teen and convince the teen reunification was a good thing. He noted that nationally the numbers of kids on the streets who were later reunified with their families was about 10 to 15 percent, while at Children of the Night, where he worked for many years, the number of reunifications was only 4 percent.
Ms. Tiffany asked how he made the decision whether to return the child to the home or to try to stabilize them through jobs or education. Mr. Mereaux said his program did not make that decision; it was left to the child to decide whether they wanted to try reunification. If it was a situation where there was no history of abuse, he encouraged the child to contact the parents, gave them telephone cards, and so on, in an effort to reestablish that family link. If there was abuse, however, and the child clearly wanted nothing to do with their abuser then that issue was not pushed. At that point he tried to get the child whatever help was available, which presently was extremely limited because of the laws.
Ms. Tiffany asked if the immunity protected them from parents coming after the child.
Bob Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, Juvenile Division, said that so long as a shelter had followed the guidelines set forth in the bill, and any additional guidelines set forth by ordinance; for example, that the shelter had licensed professionals conducting the assessment, had reported to the local Child Protective Services agency, that should qualify as good faith and the immunity clause would apply. In a situation where a child would come into the shelter and say, “I’ve never been abused or neglected, I just needed time out, I’m here for some unapproved reason,” and the shelter with knowledge of those facts was to accept that child into care, then they could not avail themselves of that immunity from liability.
Assemblywoman Tiffany then asked how they determined when an adolescent was not mentally competent. Mr. Teuton responded that “mentally competent” as referred to in Section 7 of the bill, would be determined by the person making the assessment. What the bill sponsors did not want was, hypothetically, a 15-year-old who was mentally handicapped or incapable of making life decisions to fall within the bill, in which case the parent would be immediately notified. Ms. Tiffany felt the process had been well thought out.
Assemblywoman Leslie thanked Mr. Mereaux for the wonderful work he was doing. Ms. Leslie said she had once operated a runaway and homeless youth program in South Lake Tahoe, California, 20 years earlier, and was very familiar with the issue. She had also served on the board of directors of the Western States Youth Services Network and the National Network for Youth, where she was the Western Region 9 representative for several years and was familiar with what other states were doing. In California, for example, there were homeless shelters everywhere, even in South Lake Tahoe. There was also federal funding available through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to fund those shelters. For years, she said, they could get no one in Nevada to apply for that funding, for some of the same reasons that the sponsor had brought the bill forward. Finally, they had been able to convince West Care, in Las Vegas, and the Children’s Cabinet, in Reno, to apply for the funding to do outreach and counseling, and some of the other things that needed to be done. However, the parental permission issue had been a problem. Mrs. Leslie asked Mr. Mereaux if the bill should pass, did he intend to open the shelter part and, if so, had he looked at the federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Act as a possible funding source.
Mr. Mereaux said Street Teens had not planned to open a shelter. They looked to support others who would do that. His group planned to continue the street outreach and “drop-in” center components that they felt were the first two steps needed in locating the homeless youth and developing the basic trust with them so they would be willing to go to whatever shelter was provided. He said they were looking for other providers in the network they hoped would do that, and if no one did, then the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth was planning to seek funds to open a shelter.
Bob Teuton returned to provide additional testimony. He stated he had been with the district attorney’s office since 1995, from 1988 to 1994 he was assistant and later acting director of the Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services. He became the representative from the district attorney’s office to the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth in 1999, and said he was surprised to learn, after having spent all those years dealing with child and family issues, that homeless youth had been left homeless by the system.
Mr. Teuton and the district attorney’s office urged support and passage of A.B. 264. He also provided a letter (Exhibit E) from Judge Gerald Hardcastle, the Family Court judge responsible for handling the abuse and neglect caseload in Clark County. Judge Hardcastle also urged passage of the bill. Mr. Teuton then discussed the highlights of the bill as follows:
Mr. Teuton noted the minimum mandatory requirements that would have to be placed in an ordinance, should a county decide to do so, included the creation, operation, and oversight of the homeless shelter. Anyone who applied would be required to submit an application fee to cover the cost to the county, therefore it would be a revenue-neutral bill in terms of impact, since the cost would be paid for up front to review the application and make the licensing decision. The requirements would be for the shelter to provide the necessary services and to conduct an interview to determine whether the youth was a runaway or homeless youth qualified to receive the services provided by the shelter. There was also a requirement for law enforcement to be notified in order to clear their runaway reports.
In conclusion, Mr. Teuton said he understood there had been discussion about some opposition to technical aspects of the language regarding parental notification and the timeliness thereof, as well as the procedure in which a youth who was not found to qualify for services in the shelter would be returned to the parents. He said Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, had provided him with language (Exhibit F) that addressed both those issues that appeared to be appropriate. Mr. Teuton, however, felt he was not prepared at the time to commit to language but was prepared to commit to Lucille Lusk, and anyone else with concerns about the issues, that he would work out that language so that both concerns were addressed.
Next to speak was Johnston Woodard, a former homeless youth, who provided personal background and insight into the problem of homeless youths:
He stated he had been adopted at age eight and raised in Las Vegas. His adopted parents had physically abused him. Child Protective Services was notified on several occasions but no action was taken, therefore, he ran away from home every so often. At age 16, he ran away for good because he was afraid and tired of the physical and mental abuse. Once on the streets he was unsure what to do or where to go. He was picked up several times by law enforcement and taken to West Care. Upon release he was taken home and the situation from which he fled before was repeated so he stayed on the streets, sleeping in gullies or washes, and begged for money for food and so on. A year after he ran away he met a group of other homeless youths who taught him to do other things to survive, like prostitution, selling drugs, and stealing in order to make money. He was too afraid to return home for fear of physical abuse. He had been in search of his real parents for many years and just recently found his real father, and then things began to change. He tried to commit suicide nine times in the past. Street Teens, David Mereaux, and the counselors had changed his life. If they had not provided food and clothing and other items, he would have succeeded in taking his own life because of the stress in living on the streets. He had to worry every day about where he was going to sleep, if he would eat, and what would happen to him. He and his friends would go out and steal, prostitute themselves, or sell drugs; they considered themselves a family and looked out for each other. Recently many of Johnston’s friends had cleaned up their lifestyles, and he had been sober over three months from drugs and alcohol because of the intervention and help of Street Teens, without whom he and many of his friends would be dead.
Chairman Koivisto thanked Johnston for his very compelling testimony.
Assemblyman Manendo thanked Johnston for coming before the committee and said he was definitely a survivor. He asked how long he had been on the streets and Johnston said about three years, but he had been running away since he was eight. He would run away for about a week at a time, go home, get food and clothes, and then run again. Mr. Manendo asked where he would go when he was eight. Johnston said usually to his friends’ houses or to an aunt or uncle’s house because they would not tell his parents. As he grew older, he said, around 12 or so, he would stay away for months at a time or every other month, and at that point he was selling drugs so he would stay in a hotel every other night, or with a friend. Mr. Manendo asked, in the three-year span he was on the street, how many kids were out there. Johnston said his own group consisted of about 150 to 200 kids, but that varied depending upon who joined in or left, just disappeared, or were reunited with their family. Mr. Manendo asked where in Las Vegas they stayed. Johnston said they never stayed in one place too long for fear of being discovered. Sometimes friends would get a house or apartment and start to do well then he and others would move in. But it usually fell apart because they did not know how to make it work; there were so many of them and no one person could support the group.
Mr. Manendo said he was under the impression many homeless youths hung out by the university. Johnston said that was correct for the majority, although his group was based around Desert Inn and Maryland Parkway, others were by Eastern and Civic Center. Finally, Mr. Manendo asked how many times was he solicited for sex by other men. Johnston said in the three-year span around 45 times. Mr. Manendo thanked Johnston again for being so open and candid with the committee. Johnston said it was not as easy as people might think to talk about life on the streets, but if it helped others’ lives he would do anything.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if there was a youth shelter in Las Vegas, would his friends go there. Johnston said it would depend on who operated the facility because the kids had to know and trust and believe what they were being told before they would go there. That took a little time, but eventually most everyone he knew would want to go there.
From Las Vegas, Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director, Clark County Family and Youth Services, extended her compliments to the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, and to Kathleen Boutin, for the fine work done in the last few years to develop A.B. 264.
Ms. Cox, who provided a written copy of her testimony (Exhibit G), stated she spoke on behalf of the director of her department, Kirby Burgess, as well as the entire staff in support of A.B. 264. Shelters provided an alternative facility for homeless and runaway teenagers and those who chose to live outside their nuclear family. Without such shelters there was no place for those children to obtain food, showers, or other basic necessities. Those children were usually not delinquent or victims of child abuse or neglect, and therefore inappropriate for placement in juvenile detention or Child Haven, which were already overburdened with other children. However, without shelters many turned to crime to meet their basic survival needs. Ms. Cox echoed the sentiments of other witnesses and urged passage of A.B. 264.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if a runaway youth was a status offense rather than a delinquent offense. Ms. Cox said that was correct. Mrs. Leslie noted that in the northern Nevada area status offenders were sent to the McGee Center, and she asked if southern Nevada had such a facility. Ms. Cox said there was a private nonprofit facility, West Care. The only public facilities were juvenile detention or Child Haven. Mrs. Leslie asked if there was a shelter designated as a result of the bill, would her department refer status offenders. She said “no,” that in instances of abuse or neglect, allegations that required investigation, the referrals would more likely come from the shelters to her department. She added that when out-of-jurisdiction runaway youngsters or others showed up at the juvenile detention center it was her practice to use the West Care facility exclusively, which provided shelter and other basic needs.
Assemblywoman Tiffany said it appeared outreach was the way to reach those kids because if there was a status or warrant, the Department of Family and Youth Services would not do anything. She was confused on how the referrals reached the shelter if there was no cooperation with Metro or Family Courts. Ms. Cox said all the principals had collaborated on the bill and she felt sure there would be cooperation and case management of children who required services. Prompted by further questions about referrals, Ms. Cox said it was probably premature to say whether she would make referrals, first she would have to see who operated the shelter and what they offered.
Assemblyman David Parks, District 41, and a board member of Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, came forward to voice support for A.B. 264. He noted there was a large concentration of homeless youth in his district and he had on occasion interacted with them, although it was rare because they did try to blend in with those in the area of Maryland Parkway and the university. He had been approached by the youth in the grocery store, asking for change, and when he tried to engage them in conversation they were not too communicative, which went back to their feeling a lack of trust with adults.
Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, expressed support for A.B. 264. He also expressed a willingness to work with Lucille Lusk on any amendments to satisfy her concerns. He said he was one of the few people in the room, besides Johnston, who had seen first hand what was going on with the homeless youth in Las Vegas. He had been the area command lieutenant for downtown Las Vegas where many homeless youths and adults congregated. Lt. Olson also developed the first homeless enforcement liaison project to deal with the problem of the great number of homeless youths who were being sucked up into prostitution and crime, and they fell through the cracks in terms of any formal kind of help. The law as currently written prevented those youths from being helped, and Lt. Olsen supported changing the law to insure help could be given.
Assemblywoman Tiffany asked if Metro was the first authority to encounter the homeless youths, would they refer the kids to a shelter, assuming they had not violated any laws. Lt. Olsen said they would do that if the laws were changed because as it now stood they had no choice but to take the child into custody and deliver them to West Care. He noted West Care was a wonderful facility, but after the police dropped them off, if the child chose to leave, then they were back on the street and an active runaway. Ms. Tiffany noted it could be a savings for local government if those children could be diverted from juvenile hall to the shelter where there would be different levels of help. Lt. Olsen said the biggest savings would be in time for Metro, as officers would be free to handle more serious crime. But, he added, if it was just a runaway issue the kids were not booked into juvenile detention, they were taken to West Care. Lt. Olsen emphasized that kids on the street turned to illegal or harmful activities in order to survive; it was either survive or die. The bill would prevent many kids from turning to those activities; it would prevent many from dying. Having a shelter where those homeless youths could be referred would allow those who wanted to do so to contact their parents, have their basic needs met, and allow law enforcement to know what was going on. If there were abuse issues, for example, those could be addressed.
Assemblyman Manendo asked Lt. Olsen to explain what West Care did. Lt. Olsen responded that West Care was a private facility that had beds for alcoholics, homeless or runaway kids. It was a facility that allowed law enforcement to divert the individual from the juvenile facilities, thus releasing a bed for a criminal juvenile, and it cost the county significantly less to house a child in West Care. He called it a “halfway house” between their contact with law enforcement and the end result.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mrs. Leslie who would handle the application process for a shelter in Washoe County. Mrs. Leslie said the bill designated the county commissioners to do that. She added that many years ago there had been a runaway shelter, “CRYS” (Community Runaway and Homeless Youth Services) but it went out of business. That would be the kind of agency that would be designated.
Mrs. Leslie commented, in regard to Mr. Manendo’s question, there was a great deal of concern from the national groups about mixing the detox center and the runaway and homeless youth, because not all runaways had substance abuse problems. But the advantage the bill would bring would be allowing for a separate homeless youth shelter so the services could be focused, which would be preferable.
Mr. Teuton noted, on the issue of referrals between the court and the shelter, West Care accepted law enforcement referrals from juvenile court service, and those agencies were as much a customer as the children West Care served. The impetus of the bill was to enable creating a shelter in which the children were the customers; the shelter attracted the children, rather than the children being chattel referred to the shelter.
Lt. Olsen added that he visited a shelter in Phoenix and realized, as much as he loved Nevada, the state was in the “dark ages” in many areas; the bill would help move the state forward.
Vice Chairman McClain acknowledged A.B. 264 was an “immunity bill” but asked what would have to be done to give those youths access to their records and help with employment. Kathleen Boutin responded that the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth had been acting as a fiscal agent for the Street Teens program, for which they had secured grant funding. For the past year and a half they had purchased food vouchers, paid for general education diploma (GED) scholarships, work card permits for those whose parents would sign, which was difficult, and for health cards. Most of the kids would work if they had the tools they needed to get into the workforce. She added that Johnston, at 17, was no different than an 18 year-old who could go to a Salvation Army or other shelter, and utilize services to help with transportation or job search, those children should also be able to do the same. Ms. Boutin said although her organization had been facilitating those programs, Street Teens was the direct service provider. The Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth had a pending $100,000 appropriation under A.B. 139, sponsored by Assemblyman Perkins. Those funds would be used entirely to expand the Street Teens drop-in center/street outreach programs full time, and also collaborate with Children’s Cabinet, in Reno, to open a part-time drop-in center and expand on their street outreach program. With or without the passage of A.B. 264, she said they should be able to continue the street outreach and drop-in services.
Next to speak was Kimberly Rushton, Deputy Attorney General, appearing on behalf of Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa who could not be present but who sent a letter (Exhibit H) that was read aloud, as follows:
Dear Chairman Koivisto and Members of the Committee:
Assembly Bill 264 (the “Right to Shelter Bill”) would make it possible for
Nevada’s homeless youth to accept services provided by existing facilities
which serve the homeless population.
This law is necessary and long overdue.
I support this bill which will allow the possibility of more help for
those currently living in sometimes hopeless situations. Nevada’s teen-age and
younger homeless population is growing and increasingly becoming more of a
serious issue in the state. This bill
is aimed at those who presently cannot receive any type of assistance due to
their minority.
The Office of the Attorney General supports the enactment of AB 264 and urges the entire legislative body to pass this much needed legislation without any revisions.
Cordially,
Frankie Sue Del Papa
Attorney General
Next, from Las Vegas, was Mark Nichols, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Nevada Chapter, who spoke in favor of A.B. 264. NASW strongly supported the legislation as an important step in addressing the needs of the community’s homeless and runaway youth. Social workers were identified in the bill as one of the licensed professionals who could be called upon to make an evaluation of a youth upon admission to a youth shelter. Mr. Nichols provided a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit I).
Chairman Koivisto reported Jan Gilbert, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) had signed on in support of the measure but did not indicate she wanted to speak.
Joe Edson, Field Organizer, PLAN and NASW, said he spoke for Jan Gilbert as well, and echoed the sentiments of Mr. Nichols and others who had testified earlier in support of A.B. 264.
Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in support of A.B. 264 for many of the reasons previously stated. The youth described in prior testimony did need the assistance the bill would provide, and as she had encountered some of the challenges that had caused the bill to be written, she knew there needed to be a change in the law. She requested two amendments to the bill (Exhibit J), which she had discussed with Kathleen Boutin and the sponsors. Ms. Lusk stated it was very important to find the correct balance in the law, to help those in need of help, and to protect the families who did care about their children even though they might have had some difficulty with them. Some youth did run away, not because of abuse but because they were in rebellion against family and school rules. Parents of those children worried when they did not know where their children were, and they would be frantic if they did not know their child’s whereabouts for three days. The amendments she requested would apply only in cases where no abuse or neglect was suspected. She added she would be happy to work with Mr. Teuton and Ms. Boutin and any others regarding the language. The suggested amendments were as follows:
Ms. Lusk felt those amendments were compatible with the intent of the bill and in no way took away from the ability to serve the homeless and runaway youth that were intended to be the target of the legislation.
Assemblywoman Leslie agreed with Ms. Lusk that the first amendment did not change the intent of the bill. Regarding the second amendment, she asked Mr. Teuton if that was not already required under state law. Mr. Teuton said they had no problem with the suggested amendment regarding “without undue delay.” The issue was the second amendment, and the problem was not that it had to be done but how a law could be written that would insure it was done in a peaceful manner. He offered the scenario of a child taken to West Care but who ran when he found out his parents were notified. Conversely, Mr. Teuton did not want a parent standing outside the door with a baseball bat demanding to take their child back. He wanted language that would not provoke any confrontation. Mrs. Leslie said, in her experience, a good runaway program engaged the youth and the family. Although there were some difficult reunifications, with a child saying he was not ready to go back to the parents, the crisis counselors would deal with that situation in a professional manner. Mrs. Leslie felt the parents’ rights were well outlined in the law and she asked if that amendment was redundant.
Johnston Woodward came forward again to comment that the problem with notification of some parents within a 24-hour period, after Metro had picked them up and taken them to West Care, was illustrated by his own experience. He had been taken to West Care, his adoptive father was called and picked him up, and then drove him around the corner from the facility, punched him and dumped him out of the car, leaving him there. Then, Johnston said, he was back on the streets doing the exact same thing, and all that had been accomplished was that his father found out where he was and hurt him again. The youth’s immediate reaction was to run again to avoid that scenario being repeated.
Vice Chair McClain liked the way the bill was written without the amendment, because the 72-hour period before notification was needed to talk to the child and find out the circumstances, and whether the parent should even be called. She was opposed to removing the 72-hour period, and also opposed to the idea of having a parent just show up at the facility.
Mr. Teuton commented that he did not believe it was Ms. Lusk’s intention but “without undue delay” could be beyond 72 hours. It was on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Lusk’s point, he believed, which he agreed with, was that if it did not take 72 hours to determine the circumstances then notification should be made, whether in 10 hours or more than 72 hours. Regarding Mrs. Leslie’s concern about the redundancy of the second suggested amendment, he agreed that provision was presently in statute but perhaps it needed to be restated to provide a comfort level. However, he added, he did not want it restated in a way that might create problems for that reunification to occur peacefully.
Assemblywoman Leslie felt it might be a good idea to include that in the bill and review it when it came back. Mrs. Leslie then said she liked the language “without undue delay” because it was vague enough. From her experience, a runaway shelter would also provide notification without undue delay, and sometimes that was within eight hours. Often the child came in and said he wanted to go home; in which case the parents were called and either picked him up or the shelter gave him a bus ticket. If abuse or neglect was mentioned or there was a suspicion, the first thing that one did was to call Children’s Protective Services (CPS).
Assemblywoman Parnell agreed with the need for the first amendment; however, felt the second amendment defeated the purpose based on all the conversations that had transpired at the meeting. When the word “require” was used, the parent and the child were both put in the position where there was only one option, and that was to go home together. There were occasions, she believed, where as long as the parent had been notified, the parent knew their child was safe in a shelter, both might decide they needed a couple of days away from each other before they were reunited. When “require” was inserted in statute that would appear to defeat the purpose of having the shelter. Ms. Parnell cautioned against using that word, even when there was not abuse or neglect involved.
Assemblyman Manendo remarked that he, too, had served on the Homeless Youth Coalition Committee, and because many people had worked very hard on the bill language he wanted to make sure how Kathleen Boutin felt about the amendments.
Kathleen Boutin said that the coalition had worked on the bill for ten months. They had some very knowledgeable community child advocates statewide working on the measure; among whom were Chief Justice Robert Rose; Judge Gerald Hardcastle; Victoria Riley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association; the Attorney General’s Office, and the District Attorney’s Office. A.B. 264 was crafted based on research and the “right to shelter” laws of 12 other states. It had not been an easy process and there was a great deal of discussion, mainly because the dynamics of the population were so diverse. She cited the example of a 16-year-old mother of two, who was a “couch surfer,” and who had been asked to leave her home because she was on her third pregnancy, should she be placed with a 16-year-old suicidal drug addict who had been on the streets for a year. The answer was “no.” The challenge then, was to create a bill that was all encompassing, that would meet the needs of the “couch surfer” as well as the street children.
Ms. Boutin continued, in the case of the “couch surfer,” or a “throwaway,” the amendment would not be an issue. The members who had put the bill together had discussed it and concluded the bill already emphasized that the child had to be abused or neglected. Ms. Boutin and her group did not have the financial resources or the desire to work with rebellious children who had run away from home for normal family reasons. The Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth had members who worked in the school systems and churches to act as a third party facilitator for first-time runaways.
Assemblyman Manendo asked Ms. Boutin if she foresaw problems in changing “within 72 hours” to “without undue delay.” She said that, speaking on behalf of the service providers and knowing how they did business, when a child came into the shelter, the first thing the counselor would do was ask if they wanted to be reunified with their family. In a case where a child said no, that he was terrified of his father, the next step was to adhere to the laws already in place. Ms. Boutin did not anticipate that either amendment would create a problem.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, commented that Mr. Teuton was correct that the wording “without undue delay” was actually more open; it encouraged speedy action but if there were legitimate reasons to slow the process it would allow that. Regarding the second amendment, she said Ms. Parnell had raised a valid point and “require” might be the wrong word. Ms. Lusk said she and Mr. Teuton would work on that, and Lt. Olsen had also offered to assist.
Chairman Koivisto closed the hearing on A.B. 264 and returned it to the committee for disposition.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 264 WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT BEING TO ADD “WITHOUT
UNDUE DELAY” AT LINE 19, PAGE 4; AND TO CHANGE THE WORD
“REQUIRE” IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT AT LINE 29, PAGE 4.
Mrs. Leslie asked for the language to be returned to the committee for review before moving on, however, Mrs. Koivisto said time restrictions precluded that.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mrs. Koivisto then turned to the matter of the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum and A.B. 195 discussed at an earlier meeting.
Assembly Bill 195: Authorizes Nevada silver haired legislative forum to operate independently of aging services division of department of human resources. (BDR 38-534)
Mrs. Koivisto said the questions the committee had at the time were answered by the letter from Robert E. Erickson, Research Director (Exhibit G). Also, Virginia Cain would be providing information. Mrs. Koivisto noted there were two approaches that could be taken on the bill to move it from the Division of Aging Services (DAS).
Virginia Cain was next to speak. She was a member of the Governor’s Commission on Aging, a Sanford Center on Aging board member at the University of Nevada, and the former president of the Nevada Silver-Haired Legislative Forum. Mrs. Cain reported that all legislators in the Seventieth Session were given a copy of the report that had been given to Governor Miller, as well as a copy of the updated report to Governor Guinn. The report described what the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum had done since its inception.
Mrs. Cain reported that the tasks outlined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 427A.320 through 427A.410, with the financial restrictions imposed, were impossible for anyone to perform. However, there were 21 dedicated, committed, and experienced members, one for each senate district, who went into the districts to conduct a survey of what seniors needed. She particularly praised Senator Valerie Wiener for her assistance and financial support. Mrs. Cain said the first thing the group had to do was establish an organizational structure. Then they set up committees: finance, legislative, bylaws, and rules committees. The organization developed after a series of meetings and had a budget of only $5,000. They set out to raise money, but it was very difficult to do, because they could not go to the foundations or casinos that viewed the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum as part of a state agency, the Division of Aging. She believed the best part of A.B. 195 was to remove the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum from the Division of Aging. It had not been the forum’s plan, she said, and very little consideration had been given to how it would affect their operations.
As a separate issue, the forum could not go to the Division of Aging for grants but could go to the federal government, and if the bill passed, they could go back to the casinos and foundations. Initially, the forum received assistance from the National Committee for the Support of Medicare and Social Security, who had immediately given $1,000. Thus, the forum had one meeting and one per diem with the $5,000, and they used the other $1,000 for the meetings. They made the budget by having everyone from northern Nevada go to southern Nevada, where the majority of members were located. In that way, travel expense was reduced; also members paid for their own lunch, but there was no per diem. The members were charged with the responsibility of attempting to raise money for the forum.
Mrs. Cain reported the forum was not a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity. Also, her term of office had been for one year, ending at the end of 1998, however, because of several resignations, she stayed on, waiting for appointments from the commission.
Chairman Koivisto asked if Mrs. Cain had seen Mr. Erickson’s recommendations. She said she had and thought his plan was very good.
Chairman Koivisto asked Mrs. Cain if she supported the option in Mr. Erickson’s proposal to put the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum under the Legislative Commission. Mrs. Cain said she supported that option. Further, she said she also supported the two years of office, because it would not call for another group to come in and pick up at the end of the year, it provided continuity, and it brought the forum up to the next legislative session.
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the memorandum (Exhibit K) he prepared was in response to a request from the committee for information on the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum. The way it was structured was not a very workable way to set up such a forum; therefore, he set up the following recommendations:
Mr. Erickson said he was not advocating the commission approach; it was for the committee to decide which approach worked best. He knew how the interim studies were assigned and worked on since the Research Division provided the staff support for most of them. He noted other approaches were possible, and in some states, for example, the Department of Education had been the umbrella for the Silver-Haired Forums. Another possibility was the Nevada Humanities Committee. Or, as the bill proposed, simply allow the Silver-Haired Forum to exist as an independent unit on its own with funding from the state. However, if there was interest in having it go under the umbrella of the Legislative Commission, some changes would be needed in the current state law, such as:
Mr. Erickson felt it was important, if the forum continued to be an ongoing entity, that they get their recommendations finished in time for both the Governor’s Office to react to the proposals, as well as the individual legislators, so that as a result bills could actually be drafted.
An advantage to having it under the umbrella of the Legislative Commission meant the staffing was by the Legislative Counsel Bureau that would provide a research analyst and a committee secretary. That staff would handle the mailings, postings of meetings, and an accounting system to take care of expenses of the members and make sure the budget stayed on track. Also provided were facilities for videoconferencing meetings and other resources not available with another entity.
Chairman Koivisto thanked Mr. Erickson for the information and asked if the committee was to amend A.B. 195 to put the forum under the Legislative Commission, would a fiscal note have to be included. Mr. Erickson answered that S.B. 462 had been introduced for a $5,000 appropriation from the Governor’s Executive Budget to fund the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum over the next two years. Therefore, Mr. Erickson had not felt there would be a fiscal impact if that separate piece went along. Also, he added, for those interim studies the legislature designated, for which no funding had been provided, there was typically in the budget of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Legislative Commission about $80,000 that was divided among the various interim studies to make sure that each entity had enough money to conduct three or four meetings.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mr. Erickson how many bill drafts would the forum be allowed if the forum was under the Legislative Commission. Mr. Erickson said currently there were none, however, they could make recommendations. There were other ways to do that, he said, and the commission had empowered certain groups to get one or two bill drafts. He added that Kim Morgan, Legal Division, could expand on how that would be done, but he felt the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum would be entitled to make two requests each biennium for the drafting of a bill.
Assemblywoman Angle expressed some confusion about the bill. In reading it, she said, it appeared the intent was to take the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum out from under the Division of Aging simply to enable the forum to have its own funding resources and not be encumbered by the bureaucratic red tape. Mrs. Angle felt that the discussion had gone far afield of the original bill, including restructuring the entire forum.
Chairman Koivisto explained there had been concern that if the forum had no umbrella it might fold. Since they were not effectively operating as part of the Division of Aging Services (DAS), the desire was to find a more effective way to allow them to continue operating. Mrs. Angle understood that but asked how that addressed the main purpose of the bill which was to allow them to have easier access to some funding would putting the forum under another commission achieve the desired result.
Mrs. Cain said Mrs. Koivisto had described the dilemma the forum faced. Mrs. Cain had continued as president, out of conformity with the NRS, for two years; she had just resigned a month earlier, because she had been told there would be no money and no help. The forum needed some kind of support. She believed the bill had been very carefully thought out, however more was actually needed, and Bob Erickson had come up with a solution. Mrs. Cain had not wanted the forum under the Division of Humanities; seniors did not belong there. She said the forum would maintain their relationship with DAS and DAS might call upon the forum to assist them in certain things. Perhaps the forum would fit into a plan that would help the seniors of Nevada, for example, obtain a federal grant. However, Mrs. Cain added, the work needed to get done. Further, Mrs. Cain said that although she had resigned as president of the forum, she would continue her work with the DAS and with Sanford Center, and would, if appointed, serve as member of the forum board. She had names of others who would be likely candidates as well.
Mrs. Cain strongly supported the two-year appointments and having the commission as the umbrella. The problems faced by the aging were very serious and the Silver-Haired Legislative Forum was an integral part of making sure those problems found solutions. She said, “for children and seniors, there will never be enough money, but even if it’s band-aids it’s better than nothing.”
Chairman Koivisto wanted to make sure Mrs. Angle was satisfied by the answer: the forum wanted an umbrella and the plan was to take out the amendment and move them from the Division of Aging Services to the Legislative Commission. Mrs. Angle asked if it needed to be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for money. Mrs. Koivisto said that would not be necessary because S.B. 462 funded the forum.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND IN ACCORD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER THE NEVADA SILVER-HAIRED LEGISLATIVE FORUM FROM THE DIVISION OF AGING SERVICES TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, AND MAKE THE CHANGES AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER REGARDING TWO-YEAR TERM AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, AND DO PASS A.B. 195.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mrs. Cain thanked the committee for their support for the seniors of Nevada.
There was no further business before the committee and Chairman Koivisto adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Darlene Rubin
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Chairman
DATE: