MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

Assembly committee on ways and means and

the senate committee on finance

JOINT SubCommittee on PUBLIC SAFETY/NATURAL RESOURCES/TRANSPORTATION

 

Seventy-First Session

February 20, 2001

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportationwas called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Tuesday, February 20, 2001.  Chairman David Parks presided in Room 2134 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.

 

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     David Parks, Chairman

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

            Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Chairman

            Senator William O’Donnell

            Senator Joe Neal

 

OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

            Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Clark County District 7

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Carla Watson, Program Analyst

Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary

 

Chairman Parks called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Department of Prison budgets.

 

Chairman Parks commented, in review of the budgets for the Department of Prisons, there were some major issues the committee members would like to discuss.  He listed specific areas of the budget the committee would wish to address:

 

·        The consolidation of accounts into Budget Account 3711;

·        Lack of response to written requests from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal Division;

·        Inmate population projections;

·        General facility maintenance issues;

·        Federal funding;

·        Capital Improvements; and

·        Staffing issues.

 

Ms. Jackie Crawford, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons, introduced Mr. Darrel Rexwinkel, Chief, Fiscal Services, who would present the budget details.  Ms. Crawford also introduced Janet Johnson, Assistant Director, Support Services. Ms. Crawford named other staff members present in the audience:

• John Slansky, Assistant Director, Operations;
• Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning; and
• Carla Padgett, Personnel Officer.

 

Ms. Crawford stated she and her staff would attempt to address the committee’s concerns and if the answers were not readily available, they would be provided at a later time to the committee members.

 

Mr. Darrel Rexwinkel, Chief of Fiscal Services, offered to go directly to the committee’s questions or suggested that questions could be addressed as the presentation went through specific budgets.  Chairman Parks stated questions could be posed individually throughout the specific budget accounts.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel addressed the committee’s concern regarding the lack of response to the Fiscal Division’s written requests.  He noted that was one of his responsibilities and he had no excuse for not having done them.  He promised he would get them done within the current week.  He added the Department of Prisons (DOP) did take such requests seriously.  Chairman Parks acknowledged the explanation.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel referred to a binder that had been presented to committee members containing expanded budget information and noted committee members might prefer to use the information on their laptop computers.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – PRISONS – DOP DIRECTOR’S OFFICE (101-3710) BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-1

 

Mr. Rexwinkel testified the budget included an increase of staff from 141 in FY2001, the base budget year.  Four additional staff were included in maintenance decision units and seven additional staff in enhancement units for a total of 152.

 

Decision unit M-100 included increases for the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and Nevada State Purchasing assessments.  Insurance rates were also included.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Rexwinkel to review the George Washington University inmate population estimates and asked when that information would be available.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained George Washington University conducted a semi-annual study, which was converted into the Master Plan.  The study made population projections into the out-years of the biennium and was broken down by male and female.  The information was then placed in the Biennium Plan and the Biennium Plan reflected the projected populations by institution and by month in great detail.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel added when the Master Plan was written in November 2000, the transfer into the Biennium Plan contained an error that had not been found by the agency until about the same time it was found by the Fiscal Division staff.  He explained the totals of the Biennium Plan did not agree with the totals of the Master Plan.  Figures were off by 42 inmates in the first year of the biennium and 135 in the second year.  Overall, using the amount provided for inmate population projections resulted in a shortfall of approximately $355,000 over the biennium.  The DOP was not proposing a budget adjustment until after the next George Washington University study in March 2001.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated Mr. Whorton could provide greater detail if needed.

 

Chairman Parks asked when in March the next study was due and how quickly the information could be translated into what budget corrections might need to be made.  Mr. Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning, replied he had spoken to Wendy Naro, an employee of the contractor for the population projection project and she had indicated she was ready to accept data from the DOP.  The DOP program analyst was drawing the required data at the present time.  Ms. Naro indicated the next study would be provided on March 15, 2001.  Three to four days would be needed to finalize the data.  The Chair asked if that meant the subcommittee could reasonably expect information by March 20, 2001.

 

Assemblyman Marvel suggested the subcommittee cut directly to what was of concern and asked whether the High Desert Prison would need to be funded in the current biennium or in the one following.  Mr. Whorton replied it would be necessary to fund construction in the current biennium.  Mr. Marvel asked for confirmation that Mr. Whorton’s belief was based on current population projections. Mr. Rexwinkel stated the DOP would validate the transfer of the numbers into the Master Plan and the Biennium Plan right after the study was done in March.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked the DOP to provide the subcommittee with background information on the study contractor, George Washington University.  He asked how the study was conducted.  Mr. Whorton replied the model used was called a stochastic entity model.  The model used historical data and determined probabilities based on certain types of sentences and certain types of offenses.  From that information percentages were drawn for expectations of parole.  He added the model itself mimicked the movement of an inmate through the system.  It also considered such information as paroles denied, and probabilities of remaining on parole or paroles being violated and returned to custody.  Mr. Whorton noted the model had been used since the early 1980s and was originally written by Bill Pannell of the California Department of Corrections, when California totally revised their sentencing structure as Nevada had in 1995.  He noted the model had the ability to adapt to new legislation that might affect prison populations.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if the DOP had found the model to be fairly factual during its use.  He asked if the model provided accurate predictions for the system down the road.  Mr. Whorton replied the model was reasonable and that fact could be seen by the fact that Nevada was not in crisis with its beds like California, Montana, and other states were.  Mr. Whorton noted Nevada never occupied its facilities at design capacity. Nevada was currently managing its prison populations with the opening of the High Desert Prison.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if Nevada projections were above or below normal compared with other states.  Mr. Whorton replied that was a difficult projection to make because each state was slightly different. 

 

Chairman Parks asked DOP representatives to address the consolidation of accounts and compressing the various institutions into one major budget account.  He stated that was a significant problem area and severely limited staff’s ability to monitor the prison expenditures and ensure actions of the department were consistent with legislative intent.  He directed his next question to the Budget Division.  The Chair stated at a previous meeting, the legislature had asked for a reversal of the collapsed accounts, placing them back into their original form.  He asked for feedback of the status of that directive.

 

Deborah Reed, Budget Analyst, Department of Administration, Budget Division, stated her understanding was that Director Perry Comeaux met with Governor Guinn and the Governor had met with legislative leadership.  The Governor had stated his intent to stand by the collapsing of the budgets, thus no further changes in the budget had been made.  The Chair stated the committee would discuss the issue further with legislative leadership.  He expressed his belief that leadership would stand strong on its position and without having the actual agencies directing their funds, it might result in the Budget Office or the legislature establishing an amount for each of the particular budgets.

 

Ms. Reed stated the transfer units in the DOP budget were done as enhancements and she understood the legislature had the ability to deny the enhancements if they chose.

 

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Clark County Assembly District 7, noted he was not a regular member of the subcommittee; however, he had wanted to hear the update on the decompression of budget accounts.  He added he and Senator Raggio had not supported consolidation of the accounts.  They had hoped the Budget Division would break out the accounts as requested.  He understood Mr. Comeaux had met with Governor Guinn; however, the legislature did not plan to change its position.  He asked Ms. Reed not to discuss the budget as though the legislature had accepted the change and noted budgets would be placed back in their original accounts.  If not, the legislature would direct its staff to make the changes for the Budget Office. 

 

Chairman Parks moved to maintenance of institutions and facilities.  He noted the budget included a line item for $125,000 for extraordinary maintenance expenses.  He asked how the DOP had arrived at the requested amount and requested background information.  Mr. Rexwinkel responded a preliminary review of the budgets had been done to determine what amount would be needed.  He noted the department had been fortunate in the current biennium that savings had occurred in the medical budget, which could be drawn from for budget shortfalls.  He explained the DOP had done a specific review of extraordinary maintenance expenses that had occurred in FY2000, which had reflected $91,552 in such expenses.  The figure had been less in previous bienniums, however, the institutions were aging and of the 20 institutions, some were very old.  Southern Nevada Correctional Center had been closed because of its age and the lack of ability to maintain the facility.  He named Nevada State Prison, Northern Nevada Correctional Center, and Southern Desert among other aging institutions.  He explained the DOP would prefer to have specific funding in a separate budget account to care for unexpected large expenditures.

 

Chairman Parks asked for confirmation the DOP had a preventive maintenance schedule that tracked prevention activities.  Janet Johnson, Deputy Director, Support Services, responded that earlier in 2000, the DOP was audited under the Governor’s fundamental review process and the focus of the audit was facility maintenance.  At that time the auditors mandated creation of a maintenance plan for each institution.  The DOP had been working on the plan since 2000 and some issues were in place.  With the legislative and Governor’s request for a maintenance plan, the DOP had tried to accelerate the process to have the plan finished by the end of March or mid-April 2001.  She explained the maintenance plan would assist in identifying needs.  She noted some of the institutions had maintenance plans but there was no uniformity throughout the department; she hoped the new plan would provide uniformity.  Extraordinary expenditures represented things that had not been budgeted for.  Ms. Johnson stated such expenditures were currently being addressed by using routine maintenance funding to make repairs. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel added he likened the issue to preventive maintenance on a vehicle.  Routine maintenance could be done properly and yet a large item such as the engine or transmission could fail and that involved expensive repairs that were not planned for.  He added perhaps the maintenance plan would reveal a need for a replacement plan on some equipment similar to what was used for vehicles. Chairman Parks stated he had seen advertisements for software packages that might assist in such tracking.

 

Senator Neal stated he was confused as to the difference between preventive maintenance and maintenance as they related to prison institutions.  Institutions should have an ongoing maintenance program either for protection of inmates or prevention of escapes.  He stated when the DOP staff referred to preventive maintenance in terms of some type of equipment, he thought in terms of a consideration of obsolescence.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied there were a number of types of maintenance.  Preventive maintenance usually pertained to such things as oiling standby generators, cleaning grease traps, pumping septic systems, or checking fire alarm systems.  Other maintenance, such as changing light bulbs and replacing furnace filters, was also considered.  Senator Neal stated those types of maintenance were ongoing and should be part of a total maintenance program.  It should not be separate.  Mr. Rexwinkel responded that was correct and that was why the DOP was developing a maintenance plan to establish those kinds of ongoing schedules.  Senator Neal asked why additional funding was needed.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted some maintenance funding was in place, but other types of maintenance could not be planned for.  He gave an example that currently there were problems with the heat exchanger at the Southern Desert Correctional Center.  The institution had two heat exchangers.  One was operational and on-line, but the backup was currently down and needed replacement. The DOP was considering requesting an appropriation from the Emergency Fund for replacement.

 

Senator Neal asked if the DOP had funds for defective locks in the prison.  Ms. Johnson replied the DOP had maintenance staff and the current budget requested a locksmith for northern Nevada institutions.  There was currently one locksmith in the south.  Senator Neal asked for clarification that, if a lock was defective, there was a fund from which to make the repair.  Ms. Johnson stated that was not necessarily the case.  The money was not budgeted specifically for locks if it was not anticipated locks would break.  Budgeting could only be done for those things that were done routinely or for equipment anticipated to break.  Senator Neal noted one of the objectives of a prison was to keep inmates incarcerated, thus there should be a maintenance fund to deal with locks.  Ms. Johnson rebutted, the DOP did deal with broken locks, but it left the budget short in other areas.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning commented that in her legislative tenure, the DOP budgets had funded for roofs, grease traps, locks, and radios for the guards.  She noted those things were part of preventive maintenance for overall safety.  She stated her confusion was that every item requested for maintenance in the past had been approved.  The subcommittee needed to see the maintenance plan before they could make a decision on the $125,000 request.  Preventive maintenance was good business.  She added if the DOP was looking at an overall preventive maintenance program, $125,000 would not appear to be sufficient.  If an emergency did occur, the DOP had the option of appearing before the Board of Examiners to make a request from the Emergency Fund. 

 

Ms. Johnson stated she understood the concern of the subcommittee.  She noted a series of problems were a part of the current discussion, some of which were not budgeted for in the maintenance category.  Some issues required approval of a Capital Improvement Project.  She added, a request from the Emergency Fund would be made for items such as the heat exchanger needed for the Southern Desert facility.  Ms. Johnson stated previous appropriations to the DOP budgets were for routine maintenance items, but when a large item such as a compressor or ice machine broke, those were not anticipated expenses.  She stated the institutions had tried to stay within their budgets and as a result, because of a specific large item replacement or repair, routine maintenance did not always get done.  One request in The Executive Budget was for separate maintenance contracts to ensure routine maintenance was performed.  She concluded the institutions were just getting old and what was happening had a cumulative effect.

 

Senator O’Donnell commented he was very concerned about the prison budgets in terms of the legislature being able to properly fund the DOP in May after the Economic Forum projections.  He noted the key word would be frugality.  He predicted the May Economic Forum forecasts would not be pleasant.  He added the DOP was doing as good a job as possible.

 

Chairman Parks closed the issue, moving to the allocation for a one-shot request of approximately $388,000 for maintenance of buildings and grounds.  He asked how the $125,000 correlated to the one-shot list.  Mr. Rexwinkel commented the DOP budgets were fairly frugal, however, there were one-shot requests for maintenance of buildings and grounds and slightly over $1 million for equipment replacement.  He noted the $388,000 included things such as painting, cable linking for telephone communications, and heating and air conditioning maintenance and repairs.  The items were needed, but were not for equipment.

 

Chairman Parks referred to previous discussion concerning requests to the Board of Examiners.  He asked if the DOP had made requests to the board previously.  Ms. Johnson replied the DOP had not approached the Emergency Fund as often as they should have.  She added the DOP had tried to live within its budget and avoid Emergency Fund and Contingency Fund requests, but that could no longer be done.

 

Senator Neal referred to the controversial consolidation of accounts and asked if that proposal had been promoted by the DOP, the Governor, or by whom.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the DOP believed there were several good reasons to consolidate the budgets and perhaps one good example was the maintenance budget.  In the current budget, each institution had a maintenance category and the institution held back some funds until the end of the fiscal year for routine maintenance, then encountered purchasing time constraints.  Sometimes items were required to be paid from stale claims.  Approximately 11 percent of maintenance funding was typically reverted.

 

If budgets were combined, all the maintenance money would be in one budget account and holding of funds would only be necessary in one account rather than in fragmented funds.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked what justification had prompted the consolidation of the accounts.  He noted his concern was the Governor was taking away the prerogative of the legislature to analyze individual budgets through fiscal staff.  He added as a businessperson, budget justifications were necessary.  He affirmed the legislature had never turned a deaf ear to the DOP.  He commented it was not realistic for the DOP or the Governor to ignore the wishes of the legislative body.  Audits would have no value.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the decision had not been made lightly and legislative committees had been very accommodating.  The issue came down to things such as maintenance, travel, or training needed to be in one budget account so that budgeting was not fragmented, especially near the end of a fiscal year.  The DOP had been meeting with Integrated Financial System (IFS) staff and the DOP felt IFS would be the tool to track budgeting.  Reports could be retrieved from the IFS regarding revenues and expenditures of individual institutions.  Allocations to the various institutions would be made and recorded in IFS.  If changes were needed, the DOP would report to both the Budget Division and the legislature.  Nothing would be hidden.  Some on-line features would not be present in the beginning when the system was established on July 1, 2001.

 

Speaker Perkins commented he did not intend to “beat up” on the prison system.  He stated there were reasons for accounts to be broken out, because constituents of the legislators sent them to Carson City to set public policy.  That policy was set by placing budgeted funds in specific accounting systems.  If all funding was in one budget account, a legislator had a desire to see something happen in one conservation camp as opposed to another, and the DOP decided, while the legislature was not in session, to shift those monies and move the inmates, that would be possible without any legislative oversight.  Certainly a reporting would be in place, but public policy could not be set through the budget process in that instance.  He noted there was a partnership between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch of government.  The legislature had an oversight responsibility.  He added flexibility was needed, but flexibility to the point where there was no accountability would not work.  Mr. Perkins noted disagreements had occurred, and in the present budget process the Fiscal Division staff had not received answers to requested information.  He stressed it was too much to expect the 2001 legislature to have the faith that everything would be just fine with an IFS system that was not completely rolled out yet.  He stated a complete collapsing of the budget would not have his support, but perhaps a middle ground could be found.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated his concurrence with finding a middle ground from which to approach the problem.

 

Chairman Parks requested DOP representatives to explain the methodology of how inmate population projections were computed.  He also asked for assurance that current projections were accurate for budgeting needs.  He expressed concern over funding for food supplies.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the DOP also had concerns over inmate population computations.  He noted “inmate drivens” were a substantial portion of DOP budgets.  He noted a schedule had been done for the base budget year of FY2000 and about $9.5 million was expended in “inmate driven” categories.  He explained some of those categories included:

·        Operating supplies (about $1.6 million);

·        Food (about $6.5 million);

·        Bakery;

·        Clothing (about $375,000); and

·        Inmate labor ($230,000).

 

When inmate population projections were made there was always a real issue of how to proceed.  In FY2000 and FY2001 the DOP under spent the budget by a substantial amount.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted under-spending in those categories made it difficult to project for the next biennium.  FY2000 actuals could not be used because some inventory needed to be on hand.  There had been a lack of funding for clothing at the end of FY2000.  Inflation was not automatically built in without being included in an M-100 decision unit.  The amount budgeted for all the institutions, the actuals for FY2000, and the amount in The Executive Budget reflected a $144,000 increase.  If the figures had been based on what would have been budgeted for FY2000, the requested budget would have been short by $632,000.  He commented food costs were approximately $2.70 per day, per inmate, and clothing costs were also fairly low.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted it was impossible to determine what percentage of inflation would affect the budget.  He gave an example of recent inflation of utility costs.  He noted if a shortage occurred it created a bad situation because inmates did have to be fed and clothed.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted the rural warden was very concerned about some of the camps having a low budget for operating supplies.

 

Chairman Parks stated the subcommittee’s concern was whether or not DOP staff was comfortable with the inmate projections in The Executive Budget.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied it was difficult to say they could ever be comfortable with the numbers, but on the other hand, a four-year average had been used.  He added the approximate 8 percent increase might be seen as some by a hefty increase, but inventory had to be rebuilt.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the DOP felt sufficient funding had been projected for utility costs to include inflation.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied a great deal of discussion had occurred between the Budget Division and the Governor and the DOP had built a figure in the M-100 decision unit for inflation of 16 percent each year for electricity costs, and 15 percent each year for natural gas costs.  The actual increase would be unknown.  Heating oil was used extensively in the southern Nevada facilities.  No inflation increase was built into M-100 for heating oil.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted over the years crude oil prices had driven the costs of heating oil.  He asked how that could be determined.  Propane was also used in some facilities and no inflation increase was built into the budget for propane.  If a request for inflation was included and it did not happen, then money was put aside needlessly.

 

Senator O’Donnell noted utility costs would likely be an issue in all budgets under consideration throughout the session.  He opined it was difficult to decide what the best solution was.  Money could be allocated to the Contingency Fund or individually allocated to specific budgets.  He noted he would not like to see excess funding placed in budgets and never used.  The volatility of the energy crisis made such decisions difficult.

 

Chairman Parks observed there had been a decrease in federal funding from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) and asked for clarification of the effect of the loss of that funding.  He asked how the funding shortfall could be offset and if there were other federal programs that could possibly be used.  Mr. Rexwinkel concurred that there had been a substantial decrease in SCAAP funding.  He explained the funds were allocated from the United States Department of Justice for institutions that housed aliens.  He compared the funds to receiving a General Fund appropriation.  He added the grant was recorded in the revenue of Budget Account 3710.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated a formula change had occurred in how the amount allocated was computed.  The formula used to be figured using 27 different components and had been changed to being figured simply on Correctional Officer salaries.  He added under the new formula Nevada Correctional Officer salaries were lower than in other western states and other Nevada employers.  He added some states had experienced up to an 80 percent increase in their funding.  It was hoped the DOP could work with the formulas and better reporting to get some of the funding back.  He noted Washoe County had received a large share of the amount allocated for Nevada. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for discussion on the possibility of other federal programs that might be accessed and what other federal legislation or appropriations might be available.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied, the SCAAP program was special due to the fact that no matching funds were necessary, nor did specific services have to be offered.  The only requirement was that the prison system house aliens.  He commented Director Crawford had been working very hard on acquiring additional federal funds.  A literacy grant of $1.2 million over three years had been received.  Other grants had also been obtained, however, most were tied to the provision of specific services and required matching funds.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted some match funding had been requested in the budget to conduct a certain program in the south.  He added most other grant funds provided program money rather than basic care and maintenance of inmates.

 

Chairman Parks asked for an explanation of the closure of Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) and what future plans for the facility were in place.  He noted in initial hearings, testimony had suggested the facility could be converted to a women’s facility.  Ms. Crawford replied the closure of the Southern Nevada Correctional Center had been done for structure rehabilitation purposes.  The intent had been to lease the facility until such time as it was once again needed in the prison system.  Unfortunately, no one came forward to request a lease of the facility.  That had resulted in an appearance before the IFC to request funding for rehabilitation.  Simultaneously, the female population projections began to spike, so it had been proposed to use the SNCC for additional female beds as needed.  However, a solid female program was in place at the Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) facility that should not be disrupted. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated the DOP was looking at some reentry and other types of community programs to decrease tremendous amounts of funds necessary for facilities.  Ms. Crawford stated the plan for SNCC was somewhat of a “work in progress” and the status would be reported back to the committee in the 2003 legislature.  A master plan had been formed with regard to female offenders.  She added only a small amount of funds were requested for women inmates. 

 

Ms. Crawford noted federal funding was available for reentry and community-based programs.  She had met with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had a considerable amount of funding to offer.  She noted the DOP would not be eligible, however, the Division of Parole and Probation would be.  Her intent was to look at policies regarding female inmates entered into transition programs and that might begin to reduce some of the prison population.  Ms. Crawford stated one alarming fact appeared when she had asked how many female inmates had violated or been revoked from their parole.  The number of female inmates in that category had doubled and statistics indicated the paroles were being violated primarily for multiple dirty urinalysis and prostitution acts.  It would seem to indicate a need existed to address such issues and bringing the inmate back to a “hard bed” was not the answer.  She stated her intent to inform the legislature of the status on the search for a solution.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the current plan was to use SNCC as a female detention center and use CCA as a female intake facility.  Ms. Crawford replied the DOP was looking into the possibilities of CCA as a women’s facility and using SNCC as a male intake center rather than disrupting the female population. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked where space would be found for additional female beds if the female population was not expanded to the SNCC.  Ms. Crawford replied the DOP staff was looking more at community-based programs for some of the population rather than revocating them all back into “hard beds.” 

 

Mr. Marvel asked Ms. Crawford to speculate on how quickly federal funding for such reentry programs might be expected.  Ms. Crawford replied the DOP would be bringing before the committee a request for approval of a $300,000 grant from the Welfare to Work Program.  It would assist tremendously in transitioning some of the women back into the community.

 

Mr. Marvel asked what percentage of the current female population had been revoked from parole.  Ms. Crawford replied approximately 40 percent of female parolees had been returned to custody.  She added drug use was the primary cause.

 

Chairman Parks expressed his understanding that the Female Master Plan was scheduled for an update by April 1, 2001.  He requested the update be expedited to benefit the budget review process.  Ms. Crawford replied she would work as diligently as possible.  She had a person on site from the National Institute of Corrections reviewing alternatives, meeting with individuals, and compiling data as quickly as possible. 

 

Mrs. Chowning noted the planned use of the SNCC had been completely turned around within the past two weeks.  She asked if the $3.8 million was still being requested to rehabilitate the SNCC, and rather than the original stated plan of housing females, it was planned to be used for males.  Her concern was how many more times the committee would be presented with different plans for the facility.  She noted the CCA facility, in her opinion, was not as safe a facility as it should be.  She opined it made more sense for the CCA to become an intake center, rather than a detention center.  Mrs. Chowning commented legislators were all supportive of a less costly, more effective means of helping the female inmate population.  She commented a large amount of funding was being spent that could be used in a more cost effective manner by offering retraining, or use of honor camps.  The current strategy did not seem to be working.  She echoed the Chair’s request to have the Female Master Plan delivered as soon as possible for the budget review process.

 

Chairman Parks stated concern of the impact on the budget to move High Desert Prison, Phase III, up by approximately five months from January 2005 to August 2004.  He asked why the escalation of the time frame was necessary.  Ms. Crawford deferred to Mr. Whorton who had met with the Public Works Board (PWB).  Mr. Whorton referred the committee to the initial hearing of the Public Works Board budget where a discrepancy on the opening of Phase III of High Desert Prison had been discussed.  He noted the committee had specifically requested the DOP and the PWB to meet and reconcile the opening date.  The meetings had occurred and a determination was made that there was a difference in process.  The planning process proposed by the PWB was much longer than what the DOP felt was appropriate.  The agencies had made a commitment to each other to conduct an efficient and expeditious planning process for Phase III. The intent was to use a different type of unit that was a softer, less costly, and more appropriate type of medium security structure.  The Phase III proposal also included a gym and a prison industries building.  The DOP had committed to provide a quick turn-around on plan review for those facilities.  Given the commitment on the part of both agencies, the opening date of Phase III had been moved up to August 2004.  The expedited date was important because it allowed the DOP to open the facility without using beds in excess of capacity at the Nevada State Prison.  The prison Master Plan, in the biennium 2004-2005, proposed to close the cell house of Nevada State Prison.  At that point, the facility would be over 80 years old.  The cell house was not appropriate for contemporary correctional practice, not efficient, not program oriented, and not corrective.  It was merely a prison.  An opening of Phase III at the High Desert facility in August 2004, would help decrease the pressure on the Nevada State Prison facility.  Chairman Parks noted committee concern that an early opening of Phase III required budgetary adjustments that much sooner.

 

Chairman Parks asked the DOP staff to discuss recruitment and retention efforts.  He noted several bills had passed in the Seventieth Legislature in support of the DOP in those efforts.  He asked for a status report and projections for future recruitment and retention.  Ms. Crawford responded that the DOP’s initial recruitment efforts had been difficult because some of the required standards were not job related.  As a result of that, the DOP went back before the Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission (POST) to request a job-related standard.  She expressed pleasure that the recruitment efforts had been more successful with the more balanced job standards.  Ms. Crawford commented that at one time the Lovelock Correctional Center had 60 staff vacancies, however, with recruitment changes there were 11 vacancies as of February 1, 2001. 

 

Ms. Crawford noted retention was more difficult because the DOP was not able to offer competitive salaries.  The primary DOP priority was to raise correctional staff salaries to compete with Clark County.  She stated Clark County was opening a new 1,000-bed facility and recruiting 400 correctional staff. She added the county was processing a number of lateral transfers.  She explained once the DOP had recruited a correctional staff person and trained them, they were then eligible to make a lateral transfer to the county without additional training.  She commented that process made the DOP a training ground for Clark County staff.  Ms. Crawford added, more importantly, the DOP recognized that the working environment was important to staff.  The DOP offered alternative work schedules of four days on and three days off and then rotating to three days on and four days off.  She stated that flexibility had helped tremendously, because many staff commuted a long distance to their place of employment.  A significant reduction in sick leave had been observed.  Ms. Crawford summarized, the DOP was pleased with the POST certification and flexible work schedule changes.  She added it had gotten to the point where some of the officers were younger than the inmate population, which had created problems.

         

Senator O’Donnell reiterated the state trained new officers and then they were lost to the various counties nearest to DOP employment.  He noted the state of Nevada collected money for local governments through the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS).  He asked if it would be feasible to back-charge the counties for training provided to officers who ultimately transferred from the state to the county early in their service, if the DOP could quantify the number of staff leaving.  He explained vehicle privilege tax was collected by DMV/PS and sent on to the counties. The state kept only $2.40 for every registration.  The remainder went to the school districts and to the counties.  He suggested it might be time for the state to subtract training costs for employees lost to the counties.  He added those revenues could then be used to augment the DOP officer salaries.

 

Assemblywoman de Braga commented that part of the positive change in retention was due to changes in the working environment and attention to needs of correctional officers.  She asked if the prison system still enforced a policy of mandatory overtime, and if so, how the issue could be dealt with if an anticipated bill made overtime optional.  She asked how the system would staff places such as Ely State Prison where there was still a shortfall of employees.  Ms. Crawford responded mandatory overtime had caused some consternation with staff.  She opined alternative policy could be established to set up a list of volunteers for overtime.  She stated she was doing further research on the matter.  Consideration was also needed for security of a facility if critical posts were vacant. 

 

Mrs. de Braga stated her concern was that if the optional overtime bill passed, it would be difficult to maintain security in institutions such as Ely State Prison.  Ms. Crawford replied some people simply did not want to work overtime and other types of alternative schedules and some flexibility might be needed.  A piece of legislation driving the issue would place the DOP administration in a difficult position, where perhaps a better solution could be found through policy.

Mrs. de Braga noted she raised the issue to draw attention to the problems of how adequate staffing could be maintained.

 

Mr. Marvel stated he did have a Bill Draft Request that effected a payback to the state from the counties that was not yet in final form.  He added he was aware that Senator Raggio also had a Bill Draft Request regarding the issue.  He expressed hope that something could be done to stop the drain of staff trained by the state who ultimately transferred to city or county positions. 

 

Senator O’Donnell commented he had talked to Governor Guinn regarding the issue.  He added vehicle privilege tax was collected by the state, the state received any blame associated with privilege tax assessments, and yet all the money went to the counties.  He offered his support for legislation charging training of transferred staff to the counties.

 

Chairman Parks asked for an explanation of The Executive Budget decision unit requesting a one-grade increase for the Correctional Officer series as well as a two-grade increase for engineers.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied custody staff had received a one-grade increase effective January 1, 2001.  Another one-grade increase was scheduled to begin July 1, 2001.  He noted the cumulative 10 percent increase and the requested cost of living increase should help with recruitment and retention of staff.  Mr. Rexwinkel provided the committee with a copy of an article in the Reno Gazette Journal on February 20, 2001, (Exhibit C).  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the article discussed the State of Nevada 2000 Salary and Benefits Survey prepared by the Department of Personnel.  He noted in the category under western states employers, salaries for mid-point correctional officers, Nevada was down by 13 percent.  Looking at all Nevada employers for the same classification, DOP correctional officers were down 52 percent.

 

Senator O’Donnell asked if personnel in rural locations were paid a location differential of some kind.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied southern employees were given a rural area differential of 5 percent and a similar formula was in place for employees in Lovelock and Ely.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated such differentials were in place to recruit and retain employees in those areas and he opined perhaps 5 percent was not sufficient.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated he had heard of a gentleman in Lovelock who was willing to perform chaplain duties in the prison system for about half the salary of a chaplain position.  He asked the status of that offer.  Ms. Crawford responded chaplain positions were very vital in a correctional setting and staff had reviewed several options.  She noted she had held several conversations with Father Kelly, Supervisor of Chaplaincy Services.  Lovelock did not have a chaplain on staff so Father Kelly commuted to the Lovelock facility.  She noted volunteer chaplains could only be asked to do so much, but the idea of hiring a chaplain on a contractual basis might be viable.  No interview had been done as yet.

 

Senator O’Donnell requested Ms. Crawford to interview the individual offering his services in Lovelock and determine if the offer presented a viable solution.  He commented prison chaplains, as Ms. Crawford said, had a calming effect and they also had the ability to change people’s minds and behavior.

 

Chairman Parks asked for an explanation of the request for a new classification of Correctional Assistant.  He asked how the positions would be used, what the long-term role would be, and what impact those positions might have relative to overtime costs for other employees.  Ms. Crawford replied the Correctional Assistant proposal had come from the time when the prison system was desperately looking for people to fill vacant custody positions.  At the time, the DOP had not been able to change the POST certification, so the Correctional Assistant classification was used as an alternative for staff who could not  pass physical agility tests and would not require POST certification.  She noted the classification was a “band-aid” approach until the POST certification could be changed. Those positions would begin to phase out.  Ms. Crawford commented some concerns had been raised by the employee associations regarding the classification. 

 

Chairman Parks referred to a budgeted position of an existing Computer Network Technician I that had been vacant for nearly three-quarters of a year.  He asked if the position should be eliminated.  Mr. Whorton replied the position was within the Classification and Planning Division.  He explained it was very difficult to recruit and retain data processing people.  There were four data processing positions statewide.  Two positions were currently vacant.  The DOP had attempted to fill the position several times, however, the hiring lists provided by Department of Personnel had not been the best.  People had been hired and almost immediately moved on to other positions.  He added there were other requests in the budget for computer development staff.  The positions were absolutely necessary if DOP Information Systems was to continue into the future.  Mr. Whorton noted DOP had an employee who had been trained to fill some of the functions of the position and would probably achieve qualification for the position under Personnel Division rules within the next two months.  Mr. Whorton commented if the position was deleted from the budget, he would be required to have a Computer Analyst position fulfill the duties of a Computer Technician position.

 

Chairman Parks asked for input on the Purchasing Technician II position, the Management Analyst II, and the Management Analyst IV under the Director of Operations.  The Chair referred to decision units M-202 and M-203, which requested funding of $145,000 for one Management Analyst I and one Training Officer.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied there was considerable discussion regarding training staff.  In FY2000 there was an average of 9,242 inmates, which was projected to be 10,382 in FY2002 and 10,952 in FY2003.  That did not necessarily translate into more staff, but it was incumbent on the institution to train their staff to meet all requirements.  A request for a Management Assistant was made to care for clerical operations and an additional training officer to keep up with the training needs.

 

Chairman Parks moved to decision units M-204 and M-205 requesting funding of $109,000 for a Purchasing Technician II and a Management Assistant II.  Mrs. Chowning stated two positions were proposed to replace four inmates.  She asked why and what the difference in funding would be.  Ms. Johnson confirmed the two purchasing positions did replace four inmate clerks.  She explained inmate clerks could not perform all the functions necessary because of confidentiality and release of information restrictions.  Inmates could only work until 3 p.m.  The department was growing and the purchasing area currently contained one contract employee, one purchasing supervisor, a manager of the purchasing section, and a clerk.  The remaining staff were inmates.  Current staff was working overtime every night and most weekends because they could not keep up.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked how long employment of inmates in the purchasing area had been going on.  Ms. Johnson replied she was not sure when inmate labor began in that area, but they had been there for at least the three years she had been employed by the DOP. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel elaborated, the DOP was beginning to computerize some of their operations such as access to the State Purchasing Division.  There were very stringent rules about inmates using computers and/or having on-line access.  He added in the previous discussion regarding facility maintenance, when the end-of-the-year crunch occurred, it was nearly impossible to ask still more of the employees.

 

Senator O’Donnell commented computers had been considered a luxury,  but they were becoming a necessity.  High tech staff needed to be employed in every agency for government to remain efficient.  The problem in the prison system was it had always been in the background of technical development. 

 

Mrs. Chowning restated her question of what the difference was in funding between employment of a technical position versus inmate labor.  Ms. Johnson replied she could not provide an exact dollar amount, but employment of technical staff was obviously considerably more.  She added the inmates would probably be employed in another area.  She noted the director had been working diligently to keep inmates employed and busy and indirectly provide another source of revenue.  She stated she would provide the salary breakdowns for the committee.

 

Chairman Parks requested clarification of the Management Analyst IV position designated to assist the Assistant Director of Operations.  He asked if the recommendation was consistent with other staff appointed to Assistant Directors.  Ms. Crawford replied the DOP had moved from a relatively small department to what she likened to the “eighth largest city in the state.”  As a result the management infrastructure had not grown with the inmate population or additional institutions.  Ms. Crawford explained that John Slansky, Assistant Director, Operations, was “the” person responsible for 18 facilities.  She asked Mr. Slansky to explain the need for the position. 

 

Mr. Slansky summarized the volume of work in his office was overwhelming.  He stated at any one time he might be dealing with:

 

• Eight to ten inmate lawsuits involving all kinds of legal paperwork;
• Ten inmate grievances per day;
• Five staff grievances per day;
• Processing 15 requests for information from the Governor’s Office, the Attorney General’s office, other elected officials, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the Budget Office, district judges, and local law enforcement;
• Working with the internal investigations office on seven to ten investigations at any one time;
• Responding to an average of five letters per day from inmates and five letters from inmate families;
• Averaging two to three meetings per day;
• Discussing institutional operations with each of the eight wardens on a daily basis;
• Assisting in resolution of approximately two institutional problems per day;
• Meeting with employee representatives frequently;
• Meeting frequently with Mr. Whorton to discuss, coordinate, and plan inmate movement and classification;
• Attending settlement conferences routinely in magistrate courts in Las Vegas and Reno;
• Discussing inmate and staff litigation with deputy attorney generals on nearly a daily basis;
• Reviewing and assisting in preparation and sometimes directing preparation of Specificities of Charges against inmates;
• Frequently representing the department in the United States District Court regarding inmate lawsuits; and
• Receiving or placing 65 telephone calls daily.

 

Mr. Slansky explained he had requested information from the telephone computer to determine how many calls were sent and received through the central office since January 1, 2001.  The report indicated 63,000 calls were recorded.  He added that total did not include internal calls within the prison system.  The volume of work was overwhelming the resource – him. 

 

Mr. Slansky noted a Management Analyst IV was requested to ensure the position would have the rank, experience, and training to assist with the more detailed office tasks.

 

Chairman Parks asked whether other Assistant Directors had Management Assistant IV positions working for them.  Mr. Slansky replied he currently had no staff working for him. Assistant Director Johnson had a fiscal management staff (Mr. Rexwinkel) working for her. 

 

Ms. Johnson stated Mr. Rexwinkel was Chief of Fiscal Services, which was classified at the Administrative Services Officer (ASO) IV level.  Mr. Rexwinkel also had an assistant at the ASO III level.

 

Chairman Parks directed discussion to the Nevada Wild Horses and Inmates in Life Development (WILD) Program.  He noted a General Fund loan appropriation for $200,000 was requested and asked why the appropriation should come from the General Fund.  Ms. Crawford replied the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had approached the DOP to begin the wild horse program.  One requirement to bid for BLM contracts included the need for corrals to meet federal government standards.  The program would create a revenue stream for the state of Nevada.  A one-shot request was included in the budget to meet the requirements, which would ultimately need to be paid back from the revenue stream over a protracted period of time.  The current budget did not contain sufficient funds to establish the program.  The DOP saw WILD as an opportunity that would need to have an established foundation and preparation to enter the bid process.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the program would be managed through Prison Industries and noted his assumption that the Prison Dairy was a part of Prison Industries.  Ms. Crawford replied affirmatively.

 

Senator Neal asked what benefit to inmates was expected from the WILD Program if it was approved for the prison.  Ms. Crawford replied several outgrowths from programs such as WILD could be expected.  The initial value was a therapeutic process that had been tried with inmates in other states and the management of the horses created a job with responsibility.  The horse gentling aspect was important, as was the fact that a community college in northern Nevada was creating a curriculum that allowed some college credit.  The curriculum included horse management, horse gentling, and also horse grooming.  Those and other functions allowed released inmates to work on ranches or in stables with a substantial salary for skilled and trained workers.  The intent was to certify individuals to perform the needed skills.  The DOP viewed the program as having therapeutic value for inmates while creating a job opportunity.

 

Senator Neal queried whether the DOP expected the therapeutic value being that of an inmate who worked with gentling a horse becoming more gentle with fellow inmates.  Ms. Crawford replied at the Warm Springs Correctional Center she had witnessed a transformation of some very hard core inmates to being involved in something besides themselves and giving of themselves.  She invited committee members to visit the facility.

 

Senator Neal asked what classification of inmates could be expected to participate in the program.  He asked whether the inmates would be those from the camps or from the high security facilities.  Ms. Crawford stated the program at the Warm Springs Correctional Center was the first program conducted “inside the fence” where space was available.  She explained the inmates there were longer term and the program had done exceptionally well.  She noted the WILD program proposed in the budget would be placed adjacent to the honor camps.  She added the BLM felt the Stewart Honor Camp was an ideal location because it was close to Palomino Valley from which the transfer of horses could be made.  Ms. Crawford noted classification was one of the considerations, however, at the Warm Springs Correctional Center, inmates in the program were more long-term.  Program-directed facilities were ideal locations for WILD.  She concluded the program provided an opportunity for inmates to learn a skill and to earn some money.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked whether the WILD program proposed with BLM would only include feeding or whether it included gentling as well.  Ms. Crawford stated the intent of the program would be a full program to feed and care for the animals until they could be adopted or transferred.  It was hoped the program could evolve into a gentling program as well.

 

Chairman Parks asked for clarification of whether it was possible for Prison Industries to support the $200,000 in funding requested.  Ms. Crawford replied DOP staff had explored all avenues and she had appeared before the Prison Board and shared the plan with Governor Guinn.  Prison Industries did not have sufficient funding to support the WILD program.

 

Senator Jacobsen suggested it would be wise for committee members to make a visit to the Warm Springs facility to better understand what the program consisted of and what benefits could be expected.

 

Chairman Parks referred to decision unit M-525, and asked if the DOP was aware of any new federal mandates currently planned.  He requested comment on random testing for Commercial Drivers’ Licenses.  Mrs. Chowning noted funding was approved in the 1999 session to randomly test 40 employees and asked if that funding had been utilized. Ms. Johnson replied she could not answer the question, but the DOP would provide the information to the committee.

 

Chairman Parks requested comment on decision unit M-625 that requested funding for Hepatitis-B testing.  He noted the budget requested $15,930 and asked how many employee tests that amount would cover.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied Hepatitis-B testing was a new mandate from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  Discussions were underway with the Risk Management Division concerning requirements.  He noted he was not sure of the number of tests to be provided.  He added an employee could waive the test in writing if they wished.  He stated providing such tests made good sense. Chairman Parks concurred that testing and immunization were important.

 

Senator Neal asked what circumstances generated the mandate.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the requirement was mandated by OSHA and he was not sure when it had first been required.  He added a number of new health safety standards and requirements had been promulgated in recent years.  He stated the DOP estimated 295 staff would need the testing at $54 each, totaling $15,930 as requested in M-625 in both years of the biennium.

 

Senator Neal asked if there had been an outbreak of Hepatitis-B, or whether the requirement was simply a mandated regulation of OSHA.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the regulation was generated because of nationwide problems and an attempt to prevent the spread of Hepatitis-B.  Senator Neal asked for the specific rule or regulation that included the mandate.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the prison system had no outbreak of Hepatitis-B he was aware of; the mandate was simply an OSHA mandated rule.  The Chair requested the DOP to provide the specific OSHA rule to the committee.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comment on module E-225, in-state travel for the Director’s Office.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the department had appeared before the IFC to request additional travel funds.  As a result, $29,500 had been added to the budget in FY2000 bringing the total to $72,257.  Decision unit E-225 would increase the total to $79,611 in FY2002 and FY2003.  The department was expanding with 18 institutions throughout the state, including some in rural areas.  Staff needed to travel to the various locations to manage the business of the prison.  Detail of the planned trips had been provided to the committee.

 

Chairman Parks referred to decision unit E-228 requesting $19,042.  The module was not in the agency’s request and no detail had been provided.  The Chair requested backup information on the module.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the department had the backup information.  The DOP believed strongly in training, as did the Governor, so the module had been added to the budget.  Fiscal staff had been provided with detail on priorities for supplemental funding. 

 

Senator Jacobsen stated one of the greatest assets to the fire services throughout the state were trained inmate and youth crews to fight any fire within Nevada.  Without those, the state would suffer great loss.  He indicated his support for decision unit E-225 stating it was necessary for the director and other staff to move around to the institutions on a regular basis unannounced.  He added he personally visited every inmate camp once a year and found the visits fundamentally a good practice.

 

Chairman Parks requested comment on decision units E-235, Relocations and Transfers, and E-298, Relocation of Director’s Office Administrative Staff.  He noted the units covered the department’s move from the Maryland Parkway office in Las Vegas and vacating Building Number 6 at Stewart.  Ms. Crawford addressed the Maryland Parkway proposal.  Once the High Desert Prison had been opened she had reviewed how to best maximize the use of staff.  Positions such as an Investigator General or Investigator and others could not operate from remote control.  The intent was to downsize the Maryland Parkway office and relocate some staff on-site at the High Desert Prison. 

 

The Chair noted E-298 requested a remodel of Building 17 at Stewart and the subsequent vacating of Building Number 6.  Ms. Crawford replied the department space allocation for staff was not good, at the very best.  She noted some offices contained four staff per room.  The layout of the building was old and in looking at sick leave use and other stress indicators, it was determined adequate work environments were a must.  The request was for relocation funds until such time as the renovation of Building 17 was complete.  She estimated the renovation would be a three-year project and space was needed in the meantime.  She opined most of the staff had been very patient.  There had been a couple of reports to OSHA and the department had reported back that they were looking for more space and planned relocation of staff.  Conditions needed to be addressed to enhance the workplace for employees.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated, there had been an error in the initial request under decision unit E-298.  A request had been sent to the Budget Division in November 2000, discussing the error.  As time moved along, the Building 17 renovation and plan to temporarily relocate some staff from that building in the short-term, had not proved feasible.  The second revision was what had finally been included in The Executive Budget  to obtain 19,000 square feet of space at an outside location.  The intent was to provide space for approximately three years until the renovation of Building 17 at Stewart could be completed.

 

Senator Jacobsen stated from a somewhat selfish point of view, he would hate to see the department move away from the Stewart facilities.  He suggested perhaps additional space in another unit could be rented at Stewart.  He stated there was approximately 60,000 square feet of un-utilized space at the Stewart Complex.  There was a clinic with 24 offices that was old and needed some repair, but that could be overcome.  He added rent costs at Stewart were probably one-third of what they would be any other place.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the request was not for a long-term lease, but for a temporary relocation until renovation work could be completed.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comment on decision unit E-401, the Drug Court Program.  He noted the Governor had recommended reestablishment of the program with funding for approximately $139,000 in each year of the biennium.  Mr. Whorton replied the Drug Court Program was established through S.B. 184 of the Seventieth Session and had not been productive.  The apparent reason for lack of success was that the candidate pool for the program was limited.  The agency had not wanted to impact residential confinement programs currently in operation.  Those programs, the “305” and “317” Programs, as they were known, related to non-violent, driving under the influence offenders.  The requirements set by the drug courts were for offenders who were within 12 to 24 months of release.  A person who met that time criteria was probably not a good candidate otherwise. The budget request would provide a direct appropriation to allow the DOP to use the drug court in addition to the “305” and “317” programs and perhaps expand use of the program.  Mr. Whorton stated there were currently eight inmates in the Drug Court Program and ten more had approval for release.  The Chair asked for confirmation that getting the inmates out of a prison institutional environment would produce significant savings.  Mr. Whorton replied if a savings did exist, the amount would be minimal because the candidate pool for the program came from minimum-custody inmates for which the care costs were already less than those for full-custody inmates.

 

Chairman Parks noted in decision unit E-710 fiscal staff had requested copies of work sheets that had been approved by DoIT and they had not yet been received.

 

The Chair noted decision unit E-720 requested 15 new personal computers and he asked for justification for the request.  He requested comment on anticipated in-kind revenue from the movie industry use of the High Desert facility.  Ms. Crawford stated it was her understanding that the DOP was not allowed to receive any type of in-kind funding.  The only payment she was aware of was that of salary reimbursement for officers’ time needed to supervise inmates.  She noted she had thought the Tom Selleck movie set a precedent many years ago, but had been told the request to receive in-kind revenue was not permissible.  Chairman Parks stated the committee had understood the DOP would be acquiring nine personal computers and two laptop computers from undisputed in-kind funds related to the movie production and asked if that had changed.  The Chair stated he was well aware of the recreation and public purpose transfer of property that Ms. Crawford had referred to.  Ms. Crawford responded the transfer would no longer occur.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comments on decision unit E-805, reclassification of nine positions in the Director’s Office.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied reclassifications were part of the classification and planning section in the expanded budget explanations.  He noted one of the requests was to reclassify Mr. Whorton from a grade 41 to a grade 45.  The intent of the other reclassifications was an attempt to stem turnover in the section due to classification within the section.  He noted if the reclassifications were approved by the legislature, they would still need to be reviewed by State Personnel.  The Chair asked for confirmation of whether State Personnel had already reviewed the requests.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated, currently, only an agency review had been done.  The Chair asked staff to follow up on the question.

 

Chairman Parks noted a request for a position transfer from a non-General Fund to a General Fund allocation.  He explained the reference was from a Program Officer I in the Offenders Store Fund (non-General Fund) to a Management Analyst IV from the General Fund.  He asked why the position should be transferred to the General Fund for the Director’s Office.  Mr. Rexwinkel responded the position had been reclassified to the Management Analyst series within the Offenders Store Fund budget and the agency felt the duties of the position included duties that would otherwise be funded from the Director’s Office budget.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained $8,200 per year associated with the law libraries remained with the Offender’s Store Fund or the Inmate Welfare Fund.  The remaining functions of the position were more associated with Budget Account 3710. 

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on Budget Account 3710 and stated in the interest of time the committee would proceed through as many of the remaining budgets on the agenda as possible.  He noted there might be some questions for which the committee would request further information be provided.  The Chair opened the hearing on budget Account 3717.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – PRISONS – NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (101-3717) BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-44

 

Chairman Parks noted Budget Account 3717 appeared to contain a funding shortfall and asked how the agency planned to address the shortfall.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied if the reference was to the inmate population projections that were not correct in the Biennium Plan, the agency was still reviewing how that would affect the entire Department of Prison budgets.  Some institutions had a reduction in population and others had an increase as a result of the overall shortfall.  The agency planned to revisit the issue when they had the new projections in March.  The Chair stated as quickly as new projections could be provided, the committee would review the issue further.

 

Chairman Parks noted decision unit E-277 recommended funding for one Electronic Technician III position to address maintenance weaknesses and asked for agency comment.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the position was requested for the Northern Nevada Correctional Center.  He explained more and more areas of the institutions involved use of electronics such as closed circuit television monitors, control panels, and electronic thermostats to help manage utility costs.  Currently, contracted services were being used at approximately the same cost as that requested by decision unit E-277.  Response time would be better and having their own technician would assist in keeping up with requirements.  He explained the requested amount had not been moved out of contracted services because the agency believed it would take a period of time to get a newly hired person familiar with the systems and transfer some of the contracted services in-house.  The agency expected to realize a savings beyond the upcoming biennium.

 

Chairman Parks requested comment on module E-900, which recommended funding of $203,809 and $230,593 respectively in each year of the biennium to transfer five newly reclassified Correctional Officer positions from the Medical Division and requested comment.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the request related to five forensic positions in the Medical Division budget.  The intent was to transfer those positions in the Northern Nevada Correctional Center budget and reclassify them as Correctional Officers.  The agency felt it was a more appropriate use of the positions and the Forensic classification series had proven difficult to fill. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for an explanation of what a Forensic Specialist III was.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the position had a certain correctional officer status, but also had a certain level of medical training.  Some qualified candidates for the positions would rather be part of the nursing staff, than of the correctional staff.

 

Chairman Parks asked why uniform allowances were not included in E-900 for the Correctional Officer positions.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated uniform allowances for new positions were included in the base budget and decision units M-150 and M-200.  He offered to research further.  The Chair asked Mr. Rexwinkel to review module E-902 as well.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied the two Correctional Officer positions in that module would remain at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center and at the High Desert State Prison, although the funding would be transferred to the Classification and Planning Section.  The job duties would change.  They were not required to perform as correctional officers.  The Chair questioned whether the positions would still wear uniforms and Mr. Rexwinkel replied they would not. 

 

The Chair closed the hearing on Budget Account 3717 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 3718.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – PRISONS – NEVADA STATE PRISON (101-3718) BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-52

 

Chairman Parks noted the budget recommended adding 211 beds above the emergency capacity of the Nevada State Prison facility in 2003.  He asked the agency to comment on that issue and also the need for additional custody staff for any periods the prison would be operating above the emergency capacity.  Mr. Whorton referred to earlier discussions regarding a change in the Prison Master Plan with the opening of Phase III at the High Desert Prison in August 2004.  Because of that request, it would not be necessary to exceed the emergency capacity at Nevada State Prison.

 

Carla Watson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the change was not reflected in the biennium plans provided to the Fiscal Division and requested updated biennial plans.

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on Budget Account 3718 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 3759.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – PRISONS – LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER  (101-3759) BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-81

 

Chairman Parks noted Budget Account 3759 also showed 210 beds needed above the emergency capacity in the Lovelock facility and perhaps the revised Biennial Plan would address that as well.

 

The Chair asked for concurrence that the agency appeared to have stemmed the high turnover rate with use of an alternative-staffing program.  Ms. Crawford replied the alternative-schedule program had been implemented throughout the state.  She explained when she became director, she had surveyed all staff to determine what issues were most important to them.  At that point Lovelock Correctional Center had been the role model and as a result the program had been implemented statewide.  Feedback she had received was that staff had been very pleased with the alternative-staffing program.

 

Chairman Parks referred to a report dated July 17, 2000, and solicited comments on the Sex Offender Certification Panel audit.  He noted the budget contained a request for three additional Psychologist IIs and asked if Lovelock was the facility in which the agency planned to incarcerate the majority of sex offender inmates.  Ms. Crawford replied the DOP had accepted the audit recommendations, and as a result, they had chosen to pool their resources and determine where they could best locate the sex offender population. Lovelock had been chosen as that facility.  The intent was to use existing staff and have some of the psychologists from Northern Nevada Correctional Center commute to Lovelock to conduct group therapy and to establish a solid program. Ms. Crawford stated she was not aware of a request for three additional staff, but there were currently three Psychologist IIIs at the Lovelock facility.  Chairman Parks thanked Ms. Crawford for the clarification.

 

Senator Jacobsen stated he had a copy of the audit report and thought the Sex Offender Certification Panel was a very important aspect of incarceration and the issue should be addressed carefully.  Ms. Crawford assured the committee extensive planning had gone into the present plan and she opined the committee would be  pleased with future reports.

 

Chairman Parks stated his primary concern was that, in light of previous recruitment for the Lovelock facility, trying to recruit professionals of that caliber in that location might not be successful.  Ms. Crawford replied, the difficulties in recruitment for the Lovelock Correctional Center were those of a correctional staff capacity.  Most professional staff preferred to live in Lovelock and seemed to enjoy the “wide open spaces.”

 

Mrs. Chowning expressed her confusion that because of the sex offender population planned for Lovelock, it had been stated that three Psychologist II positions would be needed and yet they had not been requested.  Ms. Crawford replied three psychologists were on site and the plan was for additional psychologist staff from Northern Nevada Correction Center to conduct sporadic group therapy, thus, all that would be needed was transportation costs. 

 

Mrs. Chowning referred to the October 20, 2000, report in which the DOP indicated three additional professional staff would be needed.  She asked for clarification that the positions would be transferred form Northern Nevada Correctional Center.  Ms. Crawford replied the initial proposal to consolidate the sex offender inmate population focused the level of training and groups in one facility and allowed utilization of existing staff.  Other staff needed for follow-up groups would commute from Northern Nevada Correctional Center twice weekly. 

 

Chairman Parks concluded the review of budgets and opened the meeting to public comment.  He noted there were a number of unresolved issues and offered to provide the DOP with a list of previous requests for written information that had not been answered.

 

Mrs. Chowning stated her appreciation to DOP staff, especially “Ann” in the Director’s Office, for assistance to her regarding responses to constituents.  Ms. Crawford stated she would forward the compliment to “Ann.”

 

Pat Hines, representing Nevada CURE (Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants), testified her primary concern was revenue to the state generated from phone commissions on inmate collect telephone calls.  She noted time constraints at the present meeting would not allow her to explore the issue thoroughly and asked permission to return to the next meeting of the committee.  She noted the issue was part of the Offenders Store Fund account.  She asked if earlier testimony regarding “inmate generated revenue” included that revenue derived from inmate collect telephone calls.  She also asked for clarification of whether the Offender Store Fund and Inmate Welfare Fund budgets had already been heard.  Mr. Parks stated those budgets had not yet been heard, but she would be invited to provide comments at that time.

 

Ms. Hines thanked the committee for hiring Ms. Crawford for the position of director.  Ms. Hines stated it was the first time in her 16 years of dealing with prison reform in Nevada that decisions were thoroughly thought through. 

 

Ms. Hines stated at the February 8, 2001, Board of Examiners’ meeting she had requested the contract for the telephone commission be reconsidered because of the 51 percent commission to DOP received as revenue.  Ms. Hines commented in light of the progress Ms. Crawford was making, she hated suggesting the removal of $2 million-plus from her budget.  She stressed the issue that the revenue needed to come from somewhere else than the backs of inmate families who paid for the collect calls.  She stated other alternatives were available.

 

Ms. Hines opined, currently there were many parolees who were not being released on time and added in 1998, the cost of housing an inmate was $43.50 per day.  She stated whenever parolees were not released when scheduled, the DOP budget lost $43.50 per day, per such inmate.  She suggested the problem occurred with the Parole Board and the Division of Parole and Probation.

 

Ms. Hines suggested the budget should include funding for a statistical position and gave an example of the budget request of $18,000 per year for cremations. She noted a statistical analysis would help determine exactly what was needed in the budget based on how many inmates historically died on a yearly basis.

 

Ms. Hines noted the medical budget contained funding for catastrophic illnesses and asked how many inmates were actually served under catastrophic illnesses.  She expressed the seeming unfairness that statistics were not available for budgeting based on the actual number of inmates that received the service, rather than on the backs of all inmates.

 

Ms. Hines stated Ms. Crawford had some excellent ideas for inmate transitions back to communities, but perhaps if there were more alternatives such as had been discussed for drug and alcohol, some other category inmates would not be revoked from parole either. 

 

Ms. Hines stated her concerns regarding Ms. Crawford’s proposed sex offender program.  She suggested that the program and the duties of the certification panel were too intertwined.  Another concern was that the budget for the Psychiatric Panel had been reduced when it really should have been increased.

 

Seeing no further business before the committee, Chairman Parks adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Cindy Clampitt

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

David Parks, Chairman

 

 

DATE: