MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 8, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:04 a.m., on Thursday, February 8, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson 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:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Greg Brower (Excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Ms. Barbara Cegavske
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning, State of Nevada, Department of Prisons
Fritz Schlottman, Research Analyst, State of Nevada, Department of Prisons
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter
Peter Krueger, Legislative Representative, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association
Robert L. Crowell, Legislative Representative, 7-11, Inc. and Anheuser Busch
Richard W. Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, Henderson, Nevada
Mary F. Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada
Steven Grierson, Court Education Coordinator, Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada
Gemma Greene Waldron, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorneys Association
Roll was called and Chairman Anderson noted a quorum was present.
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented the committee members with updates from the 1999 session on penalties for felonies by category (Exhibit C) and penalties for felonies in chronological order according to the Nevada Revised Statutes (Exhibit D). Chairman Anderson noted the committee members would find this document to be a useful reference.
Chairman Anderson then called upon Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons, and Fritz Schlottman, Research Analyst, Department of Prisons, for a presentation and overview of the Department of Prisons (Exhibit E). Mr. Whorton informed the committee that the Department of Prisons recently underwent a change in leadership and philosophy. Operations were now focused on programs, accreditation and professionalism. Programs were being offered to inmates during their incarceration which benefit not only the inmate, but the community and staff of the Department of Prisons as well. Programs were designed to hold inmates accountable and to create a culture of respect for others and themselves. The Department of Prisons intended to provide inmates with opportunities for productive employment and activities that were designed to control behavior, instill work ethics and allow inmates to make restitution to the community. Substance abuse programs were to be expanded, and programs for youthful offenders were to be developed. Further, the intention of the Department of Prisons was to develop a master plan for the management of the female population, which was a difficult issue for the department because women were a small percentage of the institutional population. Presently, out of 10,000 offenders, only 802 were women, and the department did not have much flexibility as to where to house the women or the programs available for them.
Ms. Buckley inquired whether the Department of Prisons planned to transfer the women from the new women’s prison in Las Vegas.
Mr. Whorton advised the master plan for the female population was still in the development stages and that transferring the women from the prison in Las Vegas was an option being considered, but no decision had been made. Mr. Whorton indicated that transferring the women was “about the last thing we would want to do.”
Ms. Buckley acknowledged the difficulty in managing a small population and indicated she would strongly oppose moving the female population out of the new prison in Las Vegas. She indicated that she had heard good things about the facility and the program offerings for the women.
Mr. Whorton indicated that the Department of Prisons was also pleased with the programming that was being provided to female offenders at that facility and reiterated that the female master plan was a complex work in progress. The department would like to maximize its available resources to the benefit of the female population.
Chairman Anderson requested a copy of the Department of Prisons presentation on CD-ROM and Mr. Whorton indicated he would provide a copy.
Mr. Whorton continued his presentation by discussing the sex offender treatment program which was being developed at the Lovelock Correctional Center. Currently, 500 of the department’s 1500 sex offenders were at the Lovelock facility. Although there remained some skepticism about the impact of treatment for sex offenders, it was the department’s belief they had a responsibility to correct behavior in order to diminish the opportunities for victimization in the future. Expectations that inmates would improve themselves were higher and would be used as the basis for advancing programs. Additionally, a release orientation was provided to help inmates remain crime free.
Mr. Whorton indicated accreditation by the American Correctional Association would be used to advance the department and status of the inmates. Two institutions were budgeted for accreditation. Benefits of accreditation would be: needs assessment, identification of obtainable goals, implementation of policies and procedures, follow-up on daily operations according to established policies and procedures, aid in defense of lawsuits, increase of community support, and an increase in staff morale.
Chairman Anderson indicated his view that the responsibilities of the Department of Prisons were to carry out punishment, protect the community and correct behavior to deter repeat offenders. Chairman Anderson inquired how educational opportunities and incentives, such as credit for good time, were being provided to inmates in order for them to obtain high school equivalency or college credit, and further wondered whether community colleges were being looked to in order to offer a broader variety of programs. Mr. Whorton responded educational activities were given the same value for earning of credits as any other activity. An inmate who was fully engaged in school might earn ten days per month in good time credits, just as an inmate who was engaged in work might earn ten days of work credit. Additionally, inmates could earn meritorious achievement credits for obtaining a general education diploma, high school diploma, or associate of arts degree. It was Mr. Whorton’s opinion that inmates were not engaging in educational activities as much as they had in the past due, in part, to the abolishment of the Pell grant process and the lack of ability to pay for classes.
Chairman Anderson asked if the department was using any other method to entice inmates to participate in programs that would cut back on recidivists. Mr. Whorton indicated he did not have information to answer that question and offered to have someone from the programs area respond to the committee. Chairman Anderson noted that he raised the question because he had been advised by a former assemblyman that a better job could be done enticing inmates to participate in educational opportunities.
Mr. Nolan advised the committee regarding discussions he had with members of the Department of Prisons regarding a similar credit program for vocational training, and requested Mr. Whorton to expound on that subject. Mr. Whorton explained that the Director looked at the potential of a program which would teach building trade skills. Mr. Whorton indicated there was a need for people with building trade skills in Nevada’s communities and such a program would respond to the needs of the community and the needs of the inmates. Mr. Whorton reiterated that the Director was very program-oriented and was sensitive to issues which sought to engage labor and would have a benefit for everybody.
Mr. Whorton explained the department’s intent to increase its professionalism by improving the skills of mid-management staff, reducing vacancies in the department, implementing a drug-free environment, and restructuring and renaming the department to reflect its practice of corrections. Chairman Anderson inquired whether the department had seen a marked change in inmate behavior based on the programs available and asked if the department was doing a better job of improving working conditions for guards. Mr. Whorton replied that the department has taken action to improve working conditions by conducting an employee survey to determine needs, developing an alternative work schedule to reduce absenteeism and turnover, and implementing new job related physical standards to reduce vacancies. New facilities would be designed with a safer working environment for staff; however, the department believed that accreditation would have a positive effect on staff as well as inmates.
Chairman Anderson questioned what effect staff vacancies had on other staff in terms of increased workload, time away from families and the remoteness of the Ely and Lovelock facilities. Mr. Whorton responded that both Ely and Lovelock were efficient, well-designed and well-operated facilities. The department did not have plans to construct more facilities in remote areas but would prefer to build new facilities in communities that have infrastructure to support a facility. Chairman Anderson noted he was concerned about the racial makeup of both the inmate population and the guards at the Ely facility, and wondered if the racial makeup was a factor that helped with control. Chairman Anderson further noted the difficulty in filling vacancies might be the remoteness of the communities and advised the committee that he had received e-mails from guards who were concerned about working conditions. Mr. Whorton indicated the Director was working actively toward improving conditions and reducing vacancies and was sensitive to the issues which would be of concern to staff.
Mr. Collins stated he had recently heard directly from people who work at the Ely facility that conditions were not improving. Mr. Collins relayed his understanding there was a strong presence of the teamsters union in Ely due to the difficulties encountered by prison staff.
Mr. Whorton continued with a discussion of the varied programming offered to inmates including, the WINGS program, recidivism reduction program, literacy program, educational programs, wild horse program, baby barn program, youth offender program, sex offender program, project REACH and the life skills program. In the last year, the department opened the High Desert State Prison, closed the Southern Nevada Correctional Center and converted the Jean Conservation Camp, moving over 3,000 inmates without a single incident.
Mr. Whorton provided the committee with statistical information on the Department of Prisons. Out of 10,000 inmates, 9,000 were housed in 20 institutions and facilities; 8 prisons, 1 private facility for women, 10 conservation camps, and 1 restitution center. The Southern Nevada Restitution Center was closed earlier than scheduled due to troubling life quality issues. Chairman Anderson noted that restitution centers played a key role in preventing recidivists and expressed his concern that restitution programs would not be available in some communities. Chairman Anderson asked if the department would be making a further presentation on how follow-up programs would be handled. Mr. Whorton pointed out that there was still one restitution facility in operation and the master plan for the department proposed construction of a minimum facility in the Las Vegas area that would serve both the restitution and prerelease processes.
Chairman Anderson expressed his concern regarding what might occur during the transitional phase between the closing of the current facility and the opening of a new facility in approximately four years. He inquired as to what would be done with those inmates that did not have a restitution center available to them; would those inmates be held back because there was no program in which they could participate. Mr. Whorton indicated the individuals who were available for the restitution centers were a very small percentage of the institutional population. The department was conducting a major review of administrative regulations and hoped to expand work opportunities for individuals in minimum custody and increase the number of people earning wages and paying restitution. Mr. Whorton noted this would not respond directly to the restitution issue but indicated the department was looking for further opportunities.
Chairman Anderson observed that part of the issue was properly directed to the Division of Parole and Probation and its programs. Chairman Anderson reiterated his concern that Clark County might lose its restitution program for four years, and indicated, although only a small percentage of the inmate population could take advantage of the program, the number was significant. Chairman Anderson further noted the lack of such a program could raise the cost of incarceration and requested assurance by the department that that was not the case. Mr. Whorton indicated he would carry that request back to the Director.
Mr. Whorton provided information on the male population (Exhibit E, pages 15-21). There was no growth in the male population in 1999 despite projections of an increase of over 600. Mr. Whorton indicated he would provide the committee with a chart showing the average cost to house an inmate in each institution and the average cost to house a minimum, medium and close incarcerated prisoner. The male population was projected to grow about 500 inmates every month. Chairman Anderson confirmed that those projections would fall into the custody analysis outlined on page 18 of Exhibit E.
Mr. Whorton continued by providing information on the female population (Exhibit E, pages 22-27). Similar to the male population, the female population did not grow during 1999; however, there was tremendous growth in the female population in the last year. The growth in the female population was not unusual when compared to the growth in the female populations of neighboring states. The reasons for the fluctuations in the female population were unknown.
Chairman Anderson inquired if the projections made for the female population were proving to be generally correct and wondered if the author of the projections could offer any explanation for the fluctuations in the female populations. Mr. Whorton indicated there was not an explanation for the lack of growth in 1999. Chairman Anderson inquired where Nevada stood in the nation in terms of population on a percentage basis. Mr. Whorton indicated Nevada was eighth in the nation. The female custody distribution as shown on Page 24 of Exhibit E was dramatically different from the male custody distribution. Only 2 percent of the women were in close custody and only 27 percent were involved in sex and violent offenses. The female population was a very difficult population to project. Chairman Anderson asked if the female population posed a significantly greater dollar amount for incarceration than a comparable male population. Mr. Whorton indicated the female population did not pose a significantly higher dollar amount and stated it was simply a matter of providing the beds.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether the needs of the institution were under-projected in moving the women’s facility from Carson City to Southern Nevada. Mr. Whorton advised that the original design was wisely expanded to about 500 beds and the population could run up to about 550 without much difficulty. The intake component for the female population, which housed a very short-term population, was moved to the Northern Nevada Correctional Center.
Ms. Buckley inquired as to how many women had participated in the substance abuse program and how the projections for that program aid in reducing the female population. Mr. Whorton advised that the program Ms. Buckley referred to, the “drug court,” had not developed as expected due to difficulties in criteria for selection. It was determined that candidates must be between one and two years from a probable release and must have already spent six months in prison, which made it difficult to find candidates for the program. Currently, there were only about ten people participating in the program and Mr. Whorton indicated the program was not a significant factor in the management of the population.
Ms. Buckley stated she heard there was some reluctance to fully embrace the program and encouraged the current administration to use the program in light of its previous success. Mr. Whorton assured the committee that the department enthusiastically embraced the program and suggested that part of the problem might be that there were not people in prison to select for the program.
Chairman Anderson noted his understanding that the drug court did not rely on volunteers for participation in the program and asked how the department was getting people into the program. Mr. Whorton indicated the fact that an inmate volunteered for the program was not a function of selection. Candidates must meet the criteria for the program and the department was continually grooming the population for the program.
Mr. Whorton provided information from the department on average daily population, incarceration rate, custody distributions, parole and probation populations, inmate cost per day, staff to inmate ratio, and the department report card, (Exhibit E, pages 29-35). Nevada was one of the least expensive states in terms of the cost of housing inmates although other states were significantly lower, due in part to lower cost of services.
Mr. Nolan inquired as to the nature of the assaults disclosed on the department report card. Mr. Whorton did not have any information on the nature of the assaults and indicated he could provide a breakdown as to whether the assaults involved inmates with weapons and injuries or on staff or both. Chairman Anderson requested that Mr. Whorton provide such a breakdown to Mr. Anthony for distribution to the committee.
Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Whorton to address reports of excessive profiteering by the phone company for calls to and from inmates. Mr. Whorton could not provide firm information on the subject, and suggested that the Assistant Director, Jan Johnson, could provide specific information if the committee desired. Chairman Anderson requested that Mr. Whorton respond to Ms. Buckley’s concern and provide the information to the committee. Ms. Buckley recalled the quotes that she saw were excessive and not the community standard. She further indicated that if the issue had not been resolved she might ask the Chairman for a bill draft introduction to correct the problem. Mr. Whorton responded that the Director was sensitive to the issue and created a family services section to respond to those types of questions.
Mr. Carpenter congratulated the department on the implementation of the wild horse program. Mr. Whorton explained the program had many benefits both to the state and the inmate.
Chairman Anderson noted there was a loss of available work programs for the women’s population when they were moved down south and asked if the department had found other kinds of work programs for the women in the south. Mr. Whorton indicated that the department was looking into a couple of promising opportunities for the women and working towards developing community work programs for women.
Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Whorton for his presentation and indicated he looked forward to receiving the information promised.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 16.
Assembly Bill No. 16: Increases penalty for providing alcoholic beverage to underage person. (BDR 15-5)
Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, representing Clark County District 5, addressed the committee regarding A.B. 16. Ms. Cegavske explained that one of her goals as an assemblywoman was to improve the well-being of Nevada’s teenagers and young adults and, as a parent of teenage children, she understood how difficult it could be to grow up in today’s society. Ms. Cegavske indicated that she brought A.B. 16 before the committee in an effort to make the lives of Nevada’s youth happier, safer and more fulfilling. The bill currently before the committee indicated only one change; the addition of the word “gross” before the word “misdemeanor.” Ms. Cegavske provided the committee with a proposed amendment for A.B. 16 (Exhibit F).
Chairman Anderson informed the committee that Ms. Cegavske had spoken with him about the need for an amendment, and Exhibit F was the proposal for that amendment.
Ms. Cegavske advised the committee that A.B. 16 increased the penalty for furnishing alcohol to underage persons. Line 11 of the current bill added the word “gross” before the word “misdemeanor” and Ms. Cegavske wanted to leave the penalty as a misdemeanor, but amend the penalty phase to require community service and/or direct the court to impose a mandatory fine. Ms. Cegavske told the committee she was advised that if the penalty were kept as a gross misdemeanor, cases involving this law would be in the same court as hardcore cases that dealt with felonies. That might diminish the purpose of the bill by allowing more cases to be plea bargained out or not be held to the full intent of the legislation. Suggestions to impart the full intent of the legislation were considered and the result was the proposed amendment contained in Exhibit F, requiring of community service and/or imposition of a mandatory fine. Ms. Cegavske felt the proposed amendment would strengthen the legislation and make it more useful and effective.
Ms. Cegavske informed the committee on the problems of underage drinking. An annual survey of students showed that 26 percent of all eighth-graders, 40 percent of all tenth-graders and 51 percent of all twelfth-graders report they had consumed alcohol during the past month. More than one-quarter of the students in the last year of middle school were drinking at least once a month and by the senior year in high school more than half were drinking at least once a month. Further, 16 percent of all 8th graders, 25 percent of all 10th graders and 30 percent of all 12th graders reported engaging in binge drinking in the last 2 weeks. Within the past year, 80 percent of all high school seniors reported having been drunk or having driven while intoxicated and one-half of all high school seniors reported having been so drunk or hung over they had missed school or work, had been arrested for drinking or had been in a car crash caused by drinking.
Ms. Cegavske continued by stating that binge drinking interfered with the normal transition between childhood and adulthood and made obtaining typical goals such as gaining an education, forming a stable marriage, and becoming financially independent more difficult. Teenage drinking contributed to a variety of social problems such as the planning, attempting and completing of suicide, drinking and driving, and risky sexual behavior. Ms. Cegavske indicated she was aware that problems associated with drinking were not unique to teenagers. However, she felt that the youngest members of society required special care and supervision and further indicated while A.B. 16 alone would not solve the problem, it was an important step in the right direction. Ms. Cegavske urged the committee to give A.B. 16 its favorable consideration.
Chairman Anderson inquired whether Ms. Cegavske had circulated the amendment widely among the courts and others who might be involved. Ms. Cegavske indicated witnesses would testify in that regard.
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, informed the committee that MADD’s mission was to stop drunk driving, support victims of the crime and to prevent underage drinking. Ms. Stadler advised the committee that MADD strongly supported A. B. 16 as amended. MADD conducted a study in rural northern Nevada which revealed that over 75 percent of offenders convicted for driving under the influence (DUI) began driving under the influence while underage. This would suggest that underage drinking was a precursor to DUI offenses. Ms. Stadler suggested that the mandatory sanctions in A.B. 16 might give adults a reason not to provide alcohol to minors and therefore act as a deterrent.
Peter Krueger, Legislative Representative, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, represented convenience store owners and employees statewide. Mr. Krueger indicated he had not had a chance to circulate the amendment to A.B. 16 among his association, but felt it was an improvement on the bill. Mr. Krueger inquired whether the required community service and mandatory fine as contained in the amendment would automatically be imposed together or would be imposed separately at the discretion of a judge. Additionally, Mr. Krueger noted that the existing statute addressed “every person” which would include corporations and other business entities and expressed his opinion that the committee should be aware of the serious problem posed by disgruntled employees. Employees who were dissatisfied with their employment in some way and sought to take their unhappiness out on the employer might engage in behaviors such as selling alcohol and other age-restricted products to minors as a way of getting back at their employer. Mr. Krueger also pointed out that honest mistakes could be made and should be considered. Mr. Krueger indicated the association was supportive of the general concept and would like to see the bill processed in a way that would make everyone happy.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged there were some questions which would need to be answered by the legal staff regarding the amendment and its application to Nevada Revised Statute 484.3792.
Robert Crowell, Legislative Representative, 7-11, Inc. and Anheuser-Busch, advised the committee that his clients were in support of A.B. 16, although he had not seen the amendment until earlier that morning. Mr. Crowell indicated he would like the opportunity to work with the maker on the amendment and, as the legislative representative for the judges association, Mr. Crowell would like to have that association look at the amendment as well.
Chairman Anderson expressed his concern regarding the mandatory sentencing and acknowledged that judges were very sensitive to that issue.
Ms. Buckley asked if the sponsor of the bill had any information on how many times the statute was utilized in its current form.
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, Henderson, Nevada, indicated that Henderson was in support of the concept of A.B. 16 and the amendment as proposed. Mr. Wilkie requested clarification regarding the proposed requirement for the court to impose a mandatory fine and wondered whether the fine would be imposed only on those individuals who knowingly sold or distributed alcohol to minors or on those who had failed to take necessary measures to determine the age of the purchaser. Additionally, Mr. Wilkie asked if the sponsor of the bill was considering a graduated scale regarding the imposition of the fine for repeat offenders. Mr. Wilkie concluded by thanking Ms. Cegavske for bringing this important piece of legislation forward.
Mr. Nolan inquired whether the current legislation addressed the issue of minors providing false identification to obtain liquor. Mr. Nolan commented that false identification could be purchased by minors for about $30 to $50. Chairman Anderson advised that A.B. 25, which would be heard by the committee on February 14, 2001, would deal in part with the issue of false identification.
Mary Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, voiced concerns held by members of the association regarding the word “gross” misdemeanor being added to the current legislation, as well as the requirement for mandatory fining and community service. Ms. Lau also noted concerns regarding the legality of person and the “reasonable person” test of knowingness. Ms. Lau indicated an employee should be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination, for ignoring policies and procedures and the employee should pay a fine. If employers were not enforcing their policies and procedures they should also be subject to this law, but the association was concerned about how that would be determined. Ms. Lau pointed to the immunity given to employers, when they sincerely followed the rules and trained their employees, regarding tobacco issues, and suggested the committee consider the same type of immunity for employers regarding alcohol issues.
Chairman Anderson indicated his intent to put A.B. 16 to the committee’s first work session, but he would like to obtain some clarification from the judges’ association and other groups as to how the bill would actually be implemented. Chairman Anderson asked the sponsor if she felt the requirements of community service and a mandatory fine were a choice of separate punishments or if community service and a mandatory fine were a package.
Ms. Cegavske indicated her view that the requirements of community service and a mandatory fine were an “and/or” situation and was up for other recommendations. Ms. Cegavske advised the committee that the original legislation was enacted in 1967 and had never been amended. Additionally, on a related topic, Ms. Cegavske conveyed her understanding that it was not illegal for minors to possess tobacco; it was illegal for them to buy it. Ms. Cegavske felt that it should be put into law that it was illegal for minors to possess alcohol, so minors could be charged. Addressing the various retail associations’ concerns, Ms. Cegavske relayed that she owned a convenience store for 13 years and only once during that time had an employee sold alcohol to a minor. The clerk, who was a mother of ten, was shocked to learn that she had sold alcohol to a minor. As this was a first offense and an honest mistake, the clerk simply got a hand slap. A.B. 16 would help to punish repeat offenders, both employees and employers.
Chairman Anderson then closed the hearing on A.B. 16 and opened the hearing on A.B. 21.
Assembly Bill No. 21: Requires court to order person convicted of second offense of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance within 7 years to attend program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. (BDR 43-868)
Ms. Cegavske began by disclosing that this was the second time she had proposed this legislation, originally proposing it in 1997. In the year 2000 Ms. Cegavske became employed by a foundation that was affiliated with a company that operated treatment programs. Ms. Cegavske noted that the company’s treatment program would not be treated any differently than any other treatment program that was authorized under the proposed legislation.
Ms. Cegavske provided an overview of the two sections of A.B. 21. Section 1, page 2, line 16, required the court to order a second driving under the influence (DUI) offender to attend a program of treatment for the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Section 2, page 3, lines 43 to 44, changed the statutory timeframe established for such treatment. Current law provided that the length of treatment was to be between 30 days and 6 months, while A.B. 21 provided that treatment would not exceed 1 year. A.B. 21 would ensure that persons found guilty of DUI for a second time within seven years receive the treatment they need. Studies have shown evaluation and treatment have a significant positive impact on DUI offenders, resulting in a 7 to 9 percent reduction in DUI recidivism and accidents involving alcohol. A.B. 21 targeted only second offenders and did not place an economic burden on the court system. The measure carried no fiscal impact, as Nevada Revised Statute 484.37945 already requires those who undergo evaluation and treatment for DUI to pay for their own treatment. Ms. Cegavske urged the committee’s support of A.B. 21.
Steven Grierson, Court Education Coordinator, Clark County, informed the committee that he was responsible for administering DUI and traffic schools, the substance abuse evaluation center and the serious offender program in Clark County. Mr. Grierson advised the committee that research had proven that the best countermeasure for DUI was one which consisted of license sanctions, appropriate education and treatment. Estimates indicated that the most successful interventions occurred with the medium risk DUI offender. Mr. Grierson felt Nevada had adequate administrative penalties but lacked treatment requirements such as those proposed by A.B. 21, which would focus on the repeat offender. Mr. Grierson provided the committee with the results of a research study conducted on treatment provided in the Nevada State Prison (Exhibit G). Inmate participation in the intensive counseling program resulted in a reduction of those who returned to prison by 7.3 percent.
Mr. Grierson then provided the committee with a document reflecting the statistics of the serious offender program, which is a three-year alternative sentencing program for chronic DUI offenders (Exhibit H). The statistics from that program revealed that 60 percent of offenders referred into treatment would be successful and would not return to prison. Finally, Mr. Grierson provided the committee with the 2000 DUI-MIS Report conducted for the Department of Motor Vehicles in California (Exhibit I). The results of the report suggested that when treatment and license sanctions were combined, after 1 year there was a 49.4 percent less likely chance that there would be a re-offense, and after 3 years there was a 22.1 percent less chance that there would be a re-offense. Mr. Grierson interpreted the combined results of the studies presented to mean public policies of mandated treatment significantly reduced the number of people re-offending, which in turn reduced the cost to the state to prosecute and house re-offenders.
Mr. Grierson reminded the committee that the language in A.B. 21 indicated that the defendant must pay for treatment. If the defendant could not pay for treatment he or she could be referred to a state-run agency that may be able to assist. Mr. Grierson noted in his previous experience with the DUI offender, 60 percent of people positively responded to the less costly outpatient groups, 30 percent would be required to increase the level of care possibly to include individual therapy or intensive outpatient care for up to 6 to 9 months, and 10 percent would be required to go into residential treatment for up to 1 year. Costs for the 60 percent referred to outpatient treatment would run
approximately $300 to $400. Costs for the 30 percent referred to individual therapy or intensive outpatient treatment would run approximately $1,900 and costs for the 10 percent referred to residential treatment would run approximately $2,400 to $6000. Mr. Grierson indicated that while treatment sounded expensive to the offender, statistics from the serious offender program suggested that 74 percent were employed at the beginning of treatment and within 2 months approximately 95 percent were employed.
Chairman Anderson confirmed with Mr. Grierson that Exhibit G was published in 1997 and was from the Journal of Guidance and Counseling. Mr. Grierson advised the committee that Exhibit H was a quarterly report by the coordinator of the Employee Assistance Program in Clark County and that he would make the full report available to the committee.
Mrs. Koivisto asked how many offenders paid for their treatment and how many offenders were assisted. Mr. Grierson referred to the serious offender program in which 76 percent of participants paid for their own treatment and after 2 months 95 percent of participants paid for their own treatment, all based on a creative sliding fee scale. The sliding fee scales were used because treatment was for a mandated period of time. Ultimately, Mr. Grierson advised that he expected 20 percent of participants would need funding. Chairman Anderson requested clarification as to whether or not a person who was economically disadvantaged and was a second-time DUI offender had the availability to get into a treatment program. Mr. Grierson indicated that in his experience, such a person could get into a treatment program.
Chairman Anderson wondered, as to those persons who were economically disadvantaged, what percentages were able to participate in such a program. Mr. Grierson indicated in his experience 20 to 30 percent would require a sliding fee, funded-type of programming. Mrs. Koivisto asked who paid for such a funded program. Mr. Grierson indicated that the defendant paid and was assisted by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse for outpatient care if the defendant met certain requirements. Ms. Cegavske added there were some nonprofit organizations which did not charge for treatment programs.
Mr. Manendo asked if the treatment community was able to handle the number of people requiring treatment. Ms. Cegavske referred to a letter she received from the Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs (NASADAP) (Exhibit J). Mr. Grierson advised that NASADAP consulted with its providers and determined that providers were capable of handling the increase of clients that would be generated by the implementation of A.B. 21.
Mr. Manendo informed the committee that he received a letter from STOP DUI and they were in support of A.B. 21 (Exhibit K).
Mr. Carpenter inquired whether requiring treatment for up to a year would cause the matter to fall under the gross misdemeanor category, thereby requiring the defendant to be given the opportunity of a court-appointed public defender and jury trial. Chairman Anderson called on a representative from the District Attorneys Association to answer the question. Gemma Waldron, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorneys Association, reminded the committee that extensive domestic violence legislation was passed in which it was still a misdemeanor for a second offense of domestic violence and mandatory treatment of up to one year. Chairman Anderson indicated he would obtain further clarification from the legal department on the issue prior to taking action on the bill.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Grierson if there were many occasions where a person charged with a first or second DUI offense was “let off the hook.” Mr. Grierson responded there were occasions when people who had committed multiple DUI offenses were only charged with a first or second DUI due to reduction in charges and jurisdiction issues. Chairman Anderson noted that issue needed to be addressed by the courts and their informational systems. Ms. Cegavske related an incident in which a boy was killed by a drunk driver who had DUIs in Utah, California and Nevada, none of which were cumulative. Nevada was focusing on trying to make judges aware when this kind of a situation occurs.
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, informed the committee MADD did not support treatment in lieu of other sanctions but did support treatment in addition to other sanctions. Ms. Stadler felt A.B. 21 would provide an opportunity to intervene with treatment before an offender proceeded to the felony level of DUI.
Chairman Anderson noted that he had long been a supporter of treatment as a primary change in behavior and closed the hearing on A.B. 21.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:06 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: