MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

SENATE FINANCE/ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON Ways and Means

JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY/

NATURAL RESOURCES/TRANSPORTATION

 

Seventy-First Session

February 27, 2001

 

 

The Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportationwas called to order at 8:16 a.m., on Tuesday, February 27, 2001.  Chairman Lawrence E. Jacobsen 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.

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

            Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

            Senator William R. O’Donnell

            Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. David Parks, Chairman (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst

Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst

Carla Watson, Program Analyst

Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary

 

Senator Lawrence Jacobsen noted that the committee would not be following the order of the agenda. 

 

PAROLE AND PROBATION – BUDGET PAGE PS-113

 

The Chair recognized Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS).  Mr. Kirkland stated that the Governor had directed all agencies to prepare a flat budget.  This had been a struggle, but Mr. Kirkland noted that the agency had been successful.  All additional costs would be explained as the budgets were presented.  Mr. Kirkland noted that there was no request for additional personnel, as there had been in previous sessions.  Mr. Kirkland introduced Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation.

 

Mr. Lutzow introduced Kathy Thompson, Management Analyst, who would be conducting the PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C).  Mr. Lutzow gave an overview of the Division of Parole and Probation, and noted that the division had 15 offices, which were located throughout the state.  The offices were located in four districts, with 65 percent of the work being done out of the Las Vegas office.  The Division of Parole and Probation was a division of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, under the Public Safety branch with Dave Kieckbusch as the Deputy Director of Public Safety.  He noted that the division was empowered by the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), which allowed the division to perform their primary functions, including preparing pre-sentence investigation (PSI) reports, case management and monitoring, house arrest and intensive supervision programs, victim restitution collection and disbursement, and lifetime supervision of sex offenders.  The division was funded at 306 sworn positions, and currently had 267 sworn staff.  Mr. Lutzow noted that the growth of the work of the division had remained fairly flat over the past few years, and due to that, and the fact that there were currently unfilled positions, the division had decided not to request additional staff positions.  Over the next few years the division would attempt to fill those vacant positions, and Mr. Lutzow indicated that the Governor’s recommended enhancements dealing with salary increases, and the change in training with going from Category I to Category II, would assist with the hiring process. 

 

Mr. Lutzow stated that one of the primary functions of the agency was to collect supervision fees and victim restitution.  The supervision fees were mandated by the NRS and were at a rate of $30 per month for each offender.  Those fees were used to help defray the cost of supervision.  The collection of restitution was ordered by district courts or the parole board, and those monies would be given to the victims.  The division had been exceeding their predicted fee collection, except in FY1999 when a shortfall occurred.  If the division’s collections for the rest of FY2001 were similar to January 2001, then actual collections would be 15 percent over the predicted collections.  Mr. Lutzow indicated there was a similar situation in restitution collections.  The division had exceeded or been close to matching predictions, with the exception of FY2000.  If the collections continued with January’s pattern then the agency’s actual restitution collection would be 6 percent over the predicted collections.  The division had increased their emphasis on the collection of restitution without having an adverse impact on the collection of fees. 

 

Mr. Lutzow explained that on average 70 percent of people who fell under the supervision of parole and probation successfully completed their term of probation.  This meant that they did not return to the county jail or state prison.  Information from the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that nationwide, 41 percent of offenders that left the criminal justice system without being placed under supervision would be reincarcerated within three years.  Mr. Lutzow stated that in Nevada approximately 70 percent of people on parole had a successful parole exit, and approximately 70 percent of people on probation had a successful probation exit. 

 

In previous sessions the Division of Parole and Probation had asked to replace some sworn positions with civilian positions.  The division had received the authority to do this.  Mr. Lutzow stated that these included positions in the interstate compact unit, the special services unit, and the pre-release unit.  He stated that there had been no adverse effects of moving those duties to non-sworn staff, and that it allowed for the division to return those sworn positions to offender supervision duties. 

 

Mr. Lutzow noted that in the 1999 Legislative Session the division requested and received funding for specialized sex offender caseloads.  These caseloads were established at a 45:1 ratio of offenders to officer.  This could only be done in the Reno and Las Vegas area, due to the size of the caseloads.  The officers involved had received specialized training on three separate occasions over a two-year period.   Concentration had been placed on supervision and the division had taken a proactive stance.  Mr. Lutzow explained that unlike other officers, officers that worked with sex offenders worked very secretively and spent many hours in the field.  The division had discovered that there was a larger number of sex offenders than was originally anticipated.  To compensate, the division moved positions from areas where they were not needed to the Las Vegas and Reno offices. 

 

Mr. Lutzow explained that from 1995 to 2000 the legislature had provided funding to implement an automation system.  The system had been completed in December 2000.  All of the division’s offices were currently automated, and the division was working on automating some paperwork.  Mr. Lutzow opined that this had been a well-done project, and noted that it had remained within the projected time line.  He then stated that the division had proposed a one-shot allocation to provide personal computers for each sworn officer.  The initial thought was that the division would be able to be functional with a 2:1 officer to computer ratio, but that was not working as well as anticipated.  Mr. Lutzow stated that the division was working with a real-time system, and officers completed fieldwork and returned to the office to find that there was not a computer available to enter the data.  Another problem was that if an offender or victim called into the office the officer had to write the information by hand and then wait for a computer to become available in order to enter the data.  Mr. Lutzow stated that the staff had been provided the backup documents on the number of PCs requested and the infrastructure information.  He then deferred to Ms. Thompson to explain the specifics of the automation system.

 

Ms. Thompson indicated that she would follow along with the PowerPoint presentation to present the aspects of the automated system.  She stated that if any committee member desired to see the system in the ”live sense” she would be willing to provide that service.  She noted that the premise of the system was to complete case management that encompassed the entire division.  The programmer completed a business process review of the entire division, throughout the state, and the system was based on his findings.  Currently the officers worked through and Parole and Probation Case Management window.  The window contained tabs at the top of the screen, and the first item that the officer would see was the offender’s identifiers, current balances due, and the supervising officer’s name and status.  The criminal history record provided more details about the offender, including scars, marks, tattoos, social security number, date of birth, and provided immediate access to photos of the offender.  These images could also include tattoos, vehicles, and other objects that would assist in case management.  The system had automated three scoring instruments that were previously done by hand, calculated out, and than submitted to a centralized location to be entered into a mainframe computer.  With the new system, the officers were able to complete the scoring within the system so that it would be completed in real-time, and the process could be expedited.  Ms. Thompson noted that the division was now storing documents, including the PSI report, restitution and victim information, and violation and incident reports in the computer system.  All of those documents previously needed to be forwarded to several locations, and now were currently accessible on the system.  She showed how the scoring system appeared on the system. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if this capability was available at all the division’s locations.  Ms. Thompson answered in the affirmative. 

 

Ms. Thompson continued with her testimony on the automated system.  She noted that another portion of the case management view was specific information about accounts, such as restitution.  It would list victim information, payment information, and monies that were waiting to be paid to the victim.  Previously this information was only available by having the officer call the central office.  Ms. Thompson noted that every record of an instance that an offender might come under supervision was included in the system.  She explained that offenders might be under more than one type of supervision and one might close while the other remained active.  The system carried all of the historical data, and all active data.  Chronological notes that historically were handwritten by the officer and maintained in the district file that had not been accessible to the entire division could now be kept on the system allowing all parties to access the information upon entry into the system.  Ms. Thompson stated that the system also included a contact and audit portion to ensure that officers were meeting their contact guidelines.  This allowed the time-consuming audit process to be streamlined.  On the system, an officer entered all contacts for a specific date, and this data allowed the officer to have an easy-to-read overview of contacts.  This information was readily accessible to anyone within the division.  Ms. Thompson noted that on the system there was a screen that allowed supervisors to easily access all of an officer’s caseload and perform an audit.  She continued by stating that the accounting process had also been streamlined by the system.  Multiple stand-alone data bases, multiple internal process, and duplicated work had been eliminated.  A payment could now be taken, receipted, and allocated in one system at one time.  Ms. Thompson showed how the screens would appear for support staff that received payments.  All information entered was updated immediately so that any central office or district could access the information immediately. 

 

Senator Jacobsen thanked Ms. Thompson for her presentation.  He then asked if the agency was comfortable with the amount of collections.  Mr. Kirkland explained that the statistics showed the agency was online with the collections technology and showed the agency’s ability to track what was happening.  He stated that he was confident the agency would meet and exceed their performance requirements.  He noted that this was a positive reflection on the conduct of the parole and probation officers and staff because, although there were vacancies within the division, the current staff was completing the job satisfactorily. 

 

Senator Jacobsen indicated he was concerned that the division was not requesting any new positions.  Mr. Kirkland explained that there was no sense in requesting new positions when the division constantly had 30 to 40 vacancies.  He stated that the Governor’s recommended salary increases would assist in helping the division to lower the numbers of vacancies.  Currently the division was losing employees for two reasons.  The first was that salary and benefits were not competitive, and the second was the stress of the working conditions.  Mr. Kirkland opined that if the benefits and pay issue was resolved then the working conditions could be dealt with.  He acknowledged that the salary and benefits gap issue could not be deleted with one increase, and added that as the legislature debated the recommended pay increases, Clark County and Washoe County were currently granting substantial pay increases. 

 

Senator Jacobsen noted that the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit had been less than superior, and stated that there were 28 recommendations made that had not been complied with.  Senator Jacobson asked for comment.  Mr. Kirkland indicated that the audit was very accurate in most cases, but the agency disagreed with a few of the recommendations.  The audit was “on target,” and identified the problems of the organization, but that did not mean the employees were at fault.  Mr. Kirkland stated that after the recent high rate of turnover in management, there was currently a good management team in place.  The agency had guidelines from the audit, and the agency was ready to progress.  He then noted that the system Ms. Thompson had explained would allow the agency to provide information regarding restitution and performance goals to the legislature and the management staff on an hourly basis.  Mr. Kirkland stated that although the audit was painful it had been beneficial for the agency.

 

Senator Jacobsen noted that it would behoove the committee members to take a tour with a parole officer. 

 

Mr. John Marvel complimented the agency on their progress from the time of the audit to the present time.  He explained that he was on the audit subcommittee, and that he was pleased to see the improvement in collections because previously the agency had been fairly derelict in collections. 

 

Mr. Bob Beers asked how and where the data was stored on the automated system.  Ms. Thompson explained that the data was stored on a server at the DMV office, was supported by the Oracle Corporation, and was written in USoft.  She noted that she did not have information on infrastructure, but stated that the DMV server was manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Mr. Beers inquired as to whether there was a temporary server for immediate storage in Las Vegas that would then transport the information to Carson City.  Ms. Thompson explained that the information from the entire state went directly to the DMV server, and then worked with an individual’s PC.  Any time an individual started up the program, the information was updated from the DMV server.  Mr. Beers noted that in the course of the GENESIS implementation there had been a bug discovered either in Windows or in the programming language that caused lock-ups.  He stated that if this new system experienced similar problems then Ms. Thompson should advise the subcommittee on Project Genesis. 

 

Mr. Richard Perkins asked what effect the vacant position would have on the agency’s caseloads.  Mr. Lutzow stated that the caseloads, specifically in the Clark County region, were adversely affected.  Some of the caseloads in the North Las Vegas office were currently at 144, which was twice what the agency was budgeted for at a 70:1 ratio.  He explained that when an officer left the division his caseload was divided up among the remaining officers and their caseloads were increased.  Mr. Lutzow explained that one of the items that came from the audit was that the agency had allowed high risk offenders to be on open caseloads, and that was determined to be a negative situation and those offenders had to be moved to alternate caseloads.  The lower end offenders were placed on banked caseloads. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked if the turnover rate was lowered did the agency expect a lower caseload ratio.  Mr. Kirkland stated that the agency had taken several steps that they hoped would lead to that conclusion.  The first step was to stop hiring and training at a Category I status.  He noted that some of the parole and probation officers were not pleased with that step, but the agency had found that people the agency trained at a Category I level would look for positions with other employers.  Mr. Kirkland explained that the agency was attempting to refocus on the parole and probation type of work and hire people who were interested in that type of work, rather than people who would like to become more involved as police officers.  He noted that the agency also saved time and money by training the officers for 10 weeks rather than 16 weeks.  Mr. Kirkland also noted that the agency was reviewing the entire caseload issue, to determine whether having an officer knock on a door and talk to an offender once or twice a month was effective.  The agency was looking at whether there was a classification of offenders that had a lower tendency to get into trouble that could be supervised in a different way, to allow a more intense focus on those people that would have a tendency to be repeat offenders.  Mr. Kirkland noted that there were several proposals that might remedy the caseload issue.  The increased salary and benefits proposal was one; the proposed increased numbers of computers, and resolving the space issue for Clark County, should help to alleviate the turnover issue, in turn alleviating the caseload issue.

 

Mr. Perkins asked if the increase in revocation rates was attributable to the caseload issue, or could it be addressed in another manner.  Mr. Lutzow noted that if the caseload was high, and there was a violation, an officer would write the violation report rather than spend the hours to find the appropriate treatment.  There was an underlying factor also, in the fact that the offenders that were currently on the streets were not the same offenders that were on the street ten years ago.  Due to changing drug laws, and other laws that had changed, offenders who would have automatically gone to prison ten years ago were now being placed on probation.  This provided a risk factor for the community, and if the offender violated his probation he was sent to court or the Parole Board, because he was considered a high-risk offender.  Mr. Lutzow noted that drug courts had begun to work with the lower risk offenders.    Mr. Kirkland noted that from a larger overview, the agency was investigating changing to non-traditional ways to increase supervision.  The agency was working with the Department of Prisons, and the Parole Board.  These groups were discussing sharing data bases, to allow everyone to receive a higher caliber service and product.  Mr. Kirkland indicated that the next steps were to increase partnerships with local law enforcement agencies and repeat offender programs; and to increase involvement of other agencies, including social services agencies.  He opined that these steps would better assist the agency in completing their mission, rather than “throwing more people at it.”

 

Senator Jacobsen noted that there was no mention of space issues in the presentation, and surmised that the agency appeared to be “covered up.”  He indicated his desire to have the agency move to Stewart.  Mr. Kirkland stated that the agency would love to expand to Stewart, but the Governor had stated that he did not see the funding to permit that move.  The agency did have space needs, especially in the Clark County area, but the agency recognized that there was limited funding.  In the next two to four years something was going to need to be done regarding the space issue.  Mr. Kirkland stated that in his opinion it was currently not the time to deal with the space issue.  Senator Jacobsen noted that times were changing, and the requirements were different.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for comment on the required vehicles.  Mr. Kirkland stated that the vehicle situation was something that needed constant attention.  He explained that the rules and regulations about vehicle assignments needed to be changed, and the agency was working to complete that.  He stated that there needed to be a better understanding that one vehicle assignment system was not going to work for the entire state.  Mr. Kirkland explained that in his first trip to the rural areas, the parole and probation officers said that they were told by state officials, that they were exceeding their authorized mileage and they would need to stop driving.  When an officer located in Winnemucca had to drive 140 miles one-way to see one offender, being ordered to stop driving was detrimental to the completion of the officer’s job.  Mr. Kirkland then deferred to Mr. Lutzow.

 

Mr. Lutzow indicated that the vehicles that were being requested were only for officers performing fieldwork.  In the overview it appeared that the vehicles would be for every officer, but that was not the agency’s intention.  The agency acknowledged that court services positions needed only one car to every four individuals, but the agency was requesting the cars to ensure that field officers could make contact with offenders.

 

Senator Neal asked how many parolees and probationers the agency supervised.  Mr. Lutzow noted that there were approximately 18,000 under the jurisdiction of the division with 11,000 of those residing in Nevada.  Senator Neal confirmed that there were 480 staff in the division.  Mr. Lutzow stated that the number of  filled positions was at 440.  Senator Neal asked how often the officers had contact with an offender.  Mr. Lutzow indicated that it would depend on the level of risk an offender was deemed to be to a community.  A high-risk offender would be seen twice a month, a low risk offender would be seen once a month, and at the lowest end of the risk spectrum, an offender might be seen once every 90 days.  Senator Neal confirmed that the ratio of offenders to officers was 45:1 for sex offenders and 70:1 for all other offenders.  Senator Neal asked if this ratio had increased or decreased in relation to previous ratios. Mr. Lutzow stated that in the 1999 legislature the ratio had gone from 75:1 to 70:1, but the reality depended on the number of vacancies in the office.  In the Las Vegas office the ratio was currently at 93:1.  Senator Neal confirmed that the agency was not requesting any additional positions, despite those numbers.  Mr. Lutzow stated that if the agency was able to fill all of the currently funded positions then all offices in the division would be fairly close to the 70:1 ratio.  Senator Neal asked why the agency was unable to fill its vacancies.  Mr. Lutzow responded that due to competition from other governmental agencies, the division was currently unable to fill all of its positions.  He gave the example of Clark County Juvenile Services that had hired 17 of the division’s sworn officers with an average experience of 4.5 years each. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Lutzow to discuss the privatization of the PSI reports.  Mr. Lutzow indicated that the Department of Administration, in cooperation with the Governor’s Office, looked at the division to decide if there was a better way for business to be done.  One of the ideas that was examined was that Utah had gone to a system of contracting for PSIs furnished to their district court judges.  The Department of Administration and the Governor’s Office had asked the division to consider this option for their procedures.  The division was working closely with the Department of Administration and had done some parallel studies concurrently.  The result was that the division had proposed to eliminate two existing PSI officer positions and asked that the funds for those be utilized to seek contractors.  Mr. Lutzow stated that during the studies he had spoken with private contractors, and there was no one interested in completing the PSIs for $165 each.  The division was proposing that a request for proposal be placed to determine if anyone would be willing to complete the work within the parameters that the division required.  Mr. Kirkland indicated that the division probably would not be able to start contracting those PSI duties until October 2001, at the earliest. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for comments on the Sex Offender Registry Program.  Mr. Lutzow noted that the proposal that was in the budget was to make the current system more efficient.  When the director examined the way in which the Sex Offender Registry Program worked, it was discovered that the agency was duplicating some of its work.  The criminal history repository was where the information should reside, stated Mr. Lutzow.  Parole and Probation was funded originally because they were in every field office in the state, and had access to the offender community.  The proposed plan was to involve local law enforcement agencies.  The agency had already moved the staff to the Criminal History Repository, and found it to be substantially more efficient than being housed with parole and probation. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for comment on the Drug Court Program.  Mr. Lutzow noted that in the budget there was approximately negative $138,000 for drug court.  He stated that this was a problem for the Division of Parole and Probation.  Mr. Lutzow explained that the plan was to allow inmates from the Nevada State Prisons to participate in established drug courts in Clark County and Washoe County.  He stated that the division had worked with the Department of Prisons and the drug court, and currently had a few individuals participating in that program.  Unfortunately, a number that exceeded 100 would probably never be seen on the street receiving treatment from a drug court at the same time.  The negative to the budget could have an adverse effect.  This had been brought to the Governor’s attention through the Budget Office, and they were discussing this problem in the overall scheme of what funds were available. 

 

Mr. Kirkland commented on the PSI.  He noted that due to the problems that Mr. Lutzow discussed earlier the division was proposing that the two PSI officers positions to have a sunset of the proposed date that the contract system would be established.  The belief was that it would take until October to have a contract system in place, and PSIs would need to be completed during those preparation months.  Mr. Kirkland stated that this issue would be talked about again.  Mr. Kirkland proposed that the two positions be funded until October, and then because the contracting system would have begun those positions would no longer need to be funded. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for further discussion on the one-shot appropriation.  Mr. Lutzow stated that the one-shot was going to be used for two items.  The first was that the division would purchase 94 PCs.  This purchase was related to the real-time needs of the new automated system that was discussed earlier.  The other item was for an upgrade of existing equipment.  Senator Jacobsen asked for a list of the division’s current equipment, and its age.  Mr. Lutzow agreed to provide that to the committee.

 

Mr. Beers asked that the list include what was meant by an upgrade of the existing hardware.  He noted that in his experience it was a gamble to upgrade hardware.  Sometimes the end product would be a machine comparable to what was aimed for, cheaper than it would have been to buy it, but many times the end product would be a machine comparable to what was aimed for, but more expensive than it would have been to buy it.  Mr. Lutzow noted his appreciation of Mr. Beers’ comments and stated that the division would be relying on their technical people. 

 

Mr. Perkins confirmed that Mr. Lutzow had stated that the 100 people predicted to be enrolled in the Drug Court Program from the prison program had not been reached, and asked if Mr. Lutzow would be able to reproject how successful the Drug Court Program might be, and what the savings might be.  He noted that there had been savings written into the programs based on the 100 person proposed enrollment in the Drug Court Program, and if that was not the case then the committee would need that information in order to make proper decisions.  Mr. Lutzow stated that the division would work with the Department of Prisons in order to furnish those numbers to the committee. 

 

Mr. Kirkland noted that the division would respond to all questions in a timely manner and provide the information that was requested.  He thanked the committee for the opportunity to make the presentation.

 

PAROLE BOARD – BUDGET PAGE PS-177

 

Mr. Kirkland introduced Dorla Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners.  He then stated that the Governor had asked for a flat budget, and added that there was a minor increase requested. 

 

Ms. Salling introduced David Smith, Management Analyst I, State Board of Parole Commissioners.  Ms. Salling gave an overview of the Parole Board responsibilities.  The mission of the Nevada Parole Board was:

 

1.      To evaluate eligible prison inmates.

2.      To determine their suitability for parole.

3.      To grant parole to those inmates who show promise for becoming contributing members of society.

 

She stated that the Parole Board also conducted parole revocation hearings for those parolees who were alleged to have violated their parole.  The board consisted of a chairman and six commissioners, each appointed by the Governor.  The chairman was responsible for the administration and management of the board.  The commissioners traveled to 21 different locations throughout the state each month to conduct parole hearings with inmates.  Ms. Salling stated that the board had one office in Las Vegas and one in Carson City.  Three commissioners were housed in Las Vegas, and the remaining three plus the chairman were housed in Carson City.  She noted that there were 15 full-time employees, including the commissioners, 8 unclassified, and 7 classified. 

 

Ms. Salling stated that the agency believed the budget presented was a prudent budget.  The base budget contained actual expenses for FY2000.  There were adjustments to the base budget, the largest being a request for increased funding for rent for non-state owned buildings.  For FY2002 an additional $14,176 was requested and for FY2003 an additional $14,836 was requested, which was to pay for an additional 1,017 square feet that was added to the Carson City office.  This space was used to house 50 file cabinets that contained inmate records, which were previously not housed with the agency, a conference room, and the office for the chairman, which was previously housed in Las Vegas.  Also included was lunch per diem for the Las Vegas staff, which previously had gone unclaimed, training costs for the parole hearing representatives, and increased alarm system charges. 

 

Ms. Salling noted that decision unit E-225 was a request for additional funding to train commissioners with the Association of Paroling Authorities, as well as monies to fund workmens’ compensation insurance that was not previously required. This decision unit included a request for $3,500 in both FY2002 and FY2003 for the workers’ compensation insurance.  Funds were also being requested for hand held recording equipment to record Parole Board hearings.  This figure could be higher if the board was required to go with the Attorney General’s recommendation and if S.B.121 passed and the board was not exempted from the requirement to record all hearings. 

 

Decision unit E-275 requested funding for travel costs for hearings, due to the shift in inmate population in the High Desert Prison.  Ms. Salling noted that once the prison was opened in the south and the prisoner concentration was shifted,  the commissioners in the north would be required to travel to hearings in Ely and Tonopah, which were previously handled by the southern commissioners. 

 

Ms. Salling noted that decision unit E-710 was replacement equipment and E‑720 was new equipment.  This new equipment included file cabinets and a radio link for the prison network so that data information could be shared.  The radio link was at the prison’s request. 

 

Ms. Salling stated that she would discuss the performance indicators, and then presented the information she had given to the committee (Exhibit D).  She explained that there were 21 facilities in the state of Nevada that commissioners traveled to, in order to hold parole hearings.  Ms. Salling stated that she was new to the Parole Board, and had previously worked for Parole and Probation.  She noted that although she had worked closely with the board in her previous position it was surprising to see the workload of the commissioners.  She restated that the commissioners traveled to 21 institutions each month, and there was no time allowed for illness or vacation.  Ms. Salling noted that on the second page of her handout was the number of miles that the commissioners traveled each year.  In 2000 the commissioners drove 40,332 miles in the board’s three vehicles.  The following graph was a comparison of the average prison population and the number of hearings that the board conducted.  The fourth graph was a comparison of the number of inmates released on parole and the number of parolees returned to prison for a parole violation.

 

Mrs. Vonne Chowning asked for the breakdown of the number of inmates released and the number of parolees returned to prison for a parole violation in terms of males and females.  Ms. Salling noted that those were the final two graphs in the information she had given the committee.  In 2000, 2,313 males were granted parole and 842 males were returned; 369 females were released and 83 females were returned in 2000.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if the meeting rooms where the parole hearings were held were adequate.  Ms. Salling answered in the affirmative.  She noted that the prisons worked cooperatively with the Parole Board, and that the board appreciated Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons.

 

Senator Jacobsen inquired as to whether the attendance of Parole Board members was excellent.   Ms. Salling answered in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Perkins noted that for the upcoming biennium the parole revocation prediction was 72.7 percent, and asked how that compared with the assumptions used by The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections to project the prison populations.  Mr. Smith stated that the revocation projections were derived from the prison populations, which came from The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections.  The projections that were provided did not necessarily show the number of hearings, but rather the number that would be released and how many would be returning as parole violators.  Mr. Smith indicated that the Parole Board had worked with the Department of Prisons to establish percentages of the population to determine the number of inmates the Parole Board would see.  The numbers did coincide with the projections. 

 

Mr. Perkins stated that the revocation rate for the previous biennium had been 74.4 percent, and the 72.2 percent prediction for the upcoming biennium represented the first decrease in recent history.  Mr. Perkins asked for an explanation for the decrease.  Mr. Smith stated that Parole and Probation controlled when an offender was brought to the board for a revocation hearing, and not the board.  When the division looked at the type of sentences that were given by the courts and the recommendations that were given by Parole and Probation and the sentences that the offenders were serving, Mr. Smith noted that they were looking at long-term analysis and he would not want to contradict what their assumptions were.

 

Mr. Kirkland stated that one of the changes that the board was going to begin to see had been due to the recent attention by judges from the north and the south and, correspondingly, the media.  He noted that the board had been criticized in the audit for not paying enough attention to people who were put on parole or probation with a series of stipulations, such as to pay restitution, or fees.  Mr. Kirkland said that some of these offenders might have finished their parole or probation without completing the conditions of their release.  In response to that criticism the division gave instructions to both the Parole Board and Parole and Probation to bring the matter to the sentencing judges or the Parole Board.  Mr. Kirkland also noted that the division was now automatically requesting a conversion of restitution to a civil judgment, if an offender did not complete the payments by the end of probation or parole then the victim would be able to go to civil court to receive the money.  He opined that this would have an impact, and noted that Mr. Lutzow had been visiting a judge in the south and explained this idea to him.  The judge stated that the division was placing this matter “back on the judges.”  Mr. Kirkland stated that this was where the collection of restitution belonged because sometimes judges would order an offender to pay restitution in the amount of $1,750,000, when the offender was working at McDonalds, and then the division would take the criticism when the restitution was not paid. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked if the revocation rate might increase due to the scrutiny of the conditions placed on the offenders.  Mr. Kirkland answered in the affirmative.  Mr. Perkins inquired as to what the anticipated increase would be, because that would be important for the committee to consider in budgeting.  Mr. Kirkland stated that the Parole Board and Parole and Probation would be better qualified to make an estimate of the increase.  He continued to say that because of the increase in attention paid to the payment of restitution, more offenders were completing their payments.  Mr. Kirkland stated that the division would do its best to get the requested information to the committee in a timely manner. 

 

Mrs. Chowning noted that decision unit E-710 included replacement computer costs, and asked if the Parole Board could work with DoIT to find a way to eliminate the need for two computers per worker, one for Windows and one for DOS.  Ms. Salling stated that the board was beginning to talk with the Department of Prisons and the Division of Parole and Probation about this problem.  The Department of Prisons was currently on a DOS system, and Parole and Probation and the Parole Board were on a Windows system, but the groups were talking to try and get one system to talk to the other.  Mrs. Chowning asked for the board to work with the staff on this issue.

 

Mr. Marvel asked for an explanation of probation.  Mr. Kirkland explained that when an individual was placed on probation, rather than being sentenced to prison, they were given conditions of probation.  Those conditions might include not being allowed to drink, not committing additional crimes, or restitution.  If those conditions were completed then a person could be on probation for four years and be supervised.  If those terms were not met then the probation officer worked with the offender, but finally the probation officer would return the offender to the judge.  The judge would make a decision on whether or not to send the person to prison for failing to follow the judge’s conditions of probation.  Mr. Marvel asked what percentage of people on probation was sent to prison for failing to follow the conditions of their probation.  Mr. Kirkland stated that he would provide that information to the committee.

 

Mr. Kirkland, Ms. Salling, and Mr. Smith thanked the committee for the opportunity to present their budgets. 

 

Senator Jacobsen suggested that the division contact the staff with the meeting dates of the parole hearings.  He also suggested that committee members attend a parole hearing.  Ms. Salling stated that they would send that information and would be happy to have a committee member attend a hearing. 

 

PRISON MEDICAL CARE – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-17

 

The Chair recognized Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons.  Ms. Crawford noted that this was a continuation of the Department of Prisons’ budget hearings.  She gave an overview of the budgets.  Ms. Crawford noted that the first priority was the salary increases for the staff, and the essential tools for officers and staff to carry out their duties.  The Governor had set up parameters, which the department followed, and this made the department look closely at the budget, be creative, and be frugal.  Ms. Crawford stated that the proposed budget was one that the department could work with.  Ms. Crawford introduced Ted D’Amico, M.D., Medical Director, Department of Prisons.

 

Dr. D’Amico stated his pleasure at being able to present the medical budget to the committee.  He said that he would be as brief and specific as possible.  Dr. D’Amico would have medical administration testify on the decision units individually, and if there were questions they would try to answer them completely.  Dr. D’Amico introduced Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, Department of Prisons.

 

Dr. Reed began his testimony with decision unit M-200.  This decision unit provided funding for demographic and caseload changes in inmate-generated revenue and expenditures.  Decision unit E-275 was the Governor’s recommendation to convert seven Correctional Nurse II positions to per diem positions.  A per diem position was where the department would take one FTE position and divide it into five slots.  Those five slots would be marketed and the prisons would hire one nurse for each slot.  In essence each nurse would be filling 0.2 FTE.  This would create a pool, so that if the division was in need of additional nurses, the department would go to the pool to fill that need.   Dr. Reed stated that the proposal included three per diem positions in the Carson City area, one in Lovelock, and three at High Desert and Southern Desert Correctional Center.  This would be a total of 35 slots. 

 

Mrs. Marcia de Braga inquired as to how the change to per diem nurses would affect the pay and benefits.  Dr. Reed stated that the per diem nurses would earn retirement, but would not be entitled to insurance benefits.  Mrs. de Braga stated that the current people in those slots would be affected in their pay because they would no longer be full-time employees, entitled to full-time benefits.  Dr. Reed explained that the positions that were being proposed to be converted to per diem positions were vacant. 

 

Dr. Reed continued with decision unit E-277.  This decision unit was requesting 1.6 FTE Correctional Nurses to staff Jean Conservation Camp.  Jean Conservation Camp had been converted to a high population, minimum security, female facility.  The total population would be up to 240 inmates.  Due to the population size and the programs offered at the camp, the Governor was recommending the 1.6 FTE positions. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked how many inmate workers the Jean Conservation Camp would furnish for outside work.  Dr. Reed stated that he would not be able to say how many additional work crews the Jean facility would have.  Senator Jacobsen explained that the reason he asked was that with the new chapel at the Southern Nevada Veteran’s Cemetery there were increased janitorial positions, and he was wondering if there were more inmates available.  Ms. Crawford stated that the division intended to employ every possible opportunity for the women at the Jean facility.  She acknowledged that the prison had the vehicles and equipment that was used when the males were housed at Jean, and the division intended to fully utilize this work force.  Senator Jacobsen stated that the cemetery was appreciative of the services offered.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked for comment on the women being transferred to Jean Conservation Camp.  Dr. Reed restated that Jean Conservation Camp had recently been converted to a female camp, and for that reason there was the proposal for 1.6 FTE nurses.

 

Dr. Reed continued with his testimony on decision units.   Decision unit E-278 was a request for additional training funds.  This decision unit would fund continuing education for the medical staff.  Decision unit E-284 was for travel funds to the new High Desert facility.  This request was based on the experiences of opening other correctional facilities.  Dr. Reed stated that decision unit E-285 was a request for an increase in the funding to match a federal increase for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program at the Warms Spring Correctional Center.  Decision unit E-286 proposed the elimination of four unnecessary positions.  The positions were unnecessary due to the close proximity of the affected institutions.  The request for replacement equipment was found in decision unit E-710, and included a dental chair and accompanying light for Warm Springs Correctional Center. 

 

Decision units E-805 and E-900 recommended the conversion of ten forensic specialist positions.  Five would be converted to correctional officers and the remaining five would be converted to nursing staff.  Dr. Reed explained that the division was having difficulties hiring forensic specialists, because this was a unique combination of a custody staff person and a medical professional, most often a nursing professional.  The recommendation was to take the one position with two responsibilities and changing it to two positions with one responsibility.  Dr. Reed stated that the division was receiving the same coverage and was simply manipulating the way it hired its staff.  Dr. Reed noted that the five correctional officer positions would be located at Northern Nevada Correctional Center.  The proposal was to shift staff from the medical division to the custody side at Northern Nevada Correctional Center.  Those five custody officers would be responsible for the custody needs of the Regional Medical Facility (RMF).  Dr. Reed explained that there was one forensic staff position in the southern region, and that was being proposed to convert to a Correctional Nurse II.  The remaining four slots would be converted to licensed practical nurses.

 

Mr. Perkins asked for further comment on inmate driven costs, specifically on why the recommended amount for the biennium was less than the previous biennium when, in general, the Governor’s recommended budget had provided for 9.5 percent to 11.2 percent inflation over the biennium.  Dr. Reed stated that the overall reason that the inmate driven costs had decreased was that the division was saving due to a better and more efficient management of the medical division.  The outside costs and pharmacy costs had been driven down substantially.  Dr. Reed stated that when that fact was included in the equation used to predict inmate driven costs it provided for the decrease.  Mr. Perkins confirmed that the funding requested in the inmate driven medical costs was adequate in Dr. Reed’s opinion.  Dr. Reed stated that the people who calculated the inmate driven costs used actual expenditures and the projected population.  These actual expenditures were less than what was predicted for the previous biennium due to better management within the division. 

 

Mrs. de Braga explained that while the legislature encouraged reductions in expenditures, when it occurred with an inflation factor it caused the committee concern.  She expressed concern about whether or not the medical care was maintaining its previous level, and where the efficiencies were coming from.  Dr. D’Amico explained that medical costs had increased, and continued to increase, and this was something that the division could not predict.  He stated that one item the division could predict was what was done within the prisons.  Dr. D’Amico stated that there were excellent medical facilities within the prisons.  There was a regional medical facility in the Carson City area, and there were plans for the future completion of a regional medical facility in the southern area.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the division had an exceptional staff of doctors and nurses, and the division was able to bring professionals to the facilities.  Although outside costs might increase, the division attempted to bring as much medical treatment as possible into the facilities and cut down the length of outside hospital stays.  He explained that there had been a ward developed specifically for the prisoners at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas.  The tendency to complete much of the work on-site, and to make contractual agreements with consulting professionals, was why, the division opined, they were able to steady their costs. 

 

Mrs. de Braga acknowledged that this was what the committee had asked the division to complete, and asked if Dr. D’Amico felt that there had been nothing sacrificed in terms of care.  Dr. D’Amico stated that there would be increased costs in various areas of medicine, and although there was a new pharmaceutical system in place that would reduce some of the costs, the division was not able to predict that there would not be some rise in the costs.  He restated that the division had an excellent staff of doctors and nurses that were used to practicing in a managed care atmosphere.  Dr. D’Amico restated that he did not expect the costs to increase. 

 

Mr. Perkins thanked the division for the savings that they had provided the state, and noted that there was a debate last session about whether or not the legislature was going to privatize the prison health care.  He stated that over the last biennium the assumption was that a majority of those management changes had been implemented, and with the recommended budget there was an additional 10 percent in savings to be accounted for.  Mr. Perkins asked where the division planned to find the additional savings, and how would the savings happen without sacrificing the level of medical care.  Dr. D’Amico stated that many of the ideas expressed in the plan had not been completed in a timely manner.  The division was currently completing those items.  The results of those plans would begin to show in the upcoming year, so that savings that the division had had would be augmented by the implementation of the procedures, such as the per diem nurse positions, the shifting of positions, and use of the hospital ward at University Medical Center in Las Vegas.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the savings would come from the implementation of those proposals. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked about how the increasing level of vacancies was affecting the medical care, and whether those vacancies accounted for some of the savings.  He also asked if the number of vacant positions stayed where it currently was, and the level of care remained consistent, was there the possibility of reducing the number of positions within the budget.  Dr. D’Amico stated that he had discussed vacant positions in the past, and noted that currently the division had almost completely filled its nursing staff, and the physician staff was completely filled.  He stated that there were two or three doctors in both the north and the south that were waiting to have a position on the physician staff.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the division had not had to use mid-level practitioners with the exception of two instances throughout the state, and the division was not having a decrease in the ability to hire people in the medical division.  He acknowledged that the division should examine their staffing and the allowed positions through the next biennium and then could possibly have discussion on what was needed or any savings that could be found.  Mr. Perkins asked if this was a discussion that could happen relatively quickly.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the division would examine that information with their fiscal staff and provide that information to the committee.  

 

Dr. Reed stated that the question of vacancies had been raised in previous hearings, and he had researched the number of vacancies within the division.  It appeared that there were 74 vacancies, but under further examination there were only 32 vacancies.  This discrepancy appeared because the division was holding some positions open due to the proposed conversions, or the proposed elimination of some positions.  Dr. Reed stated that there was paperwork currently being processed for 10 or 12 of the positions, so they would be filled quickly.  One position was being held open for administrative purposes.  Dr. Reed restated that although it appeared that there were 74 vacancies, 42 of them could be explained. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked for comment on the private contract with Correctional Medical Services (CMS) for the medical services in Ely State Prison, which would expire in June, and noted that there was an increase of $217,000 built into the budget.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the contract would expire in June and explained that the division would be writing another contract.  He was unaware of whether that contract would be with the current company or whether the division would be placing a request for proposal (RFP) for a new contract.  Dr. D’Amico was unable to explain the increase in the budget other than inflationary increases.

 

Senator Jacobsen stated that the committee had been informed that the current contractor, CMS, had submitted a Letter of Intent to the division stating that the company would be terminating their contract, and then rescinded that Letter of Intent and continued their contract.  He asked if there was any reason that the company would have desired to terminate their contract.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the letter had been received in September 2000, and it said that CMS was going to discontinue their services and break their contract.  The division conferred on the matter and created several different action plans, which included bringing the medical efforts in-house, or solving CMS’ problems in order to continue the contract services.  The division entered into an action plan with CMS and promised better dialog, more availability of the Nevada Department of Prison’s facilities at the usual and customary costs, and to prevent hospital stays.  Dr. D’Amico opined that the action plan was working, and noted that CMS had rescinded their intent to terminate and the division had not heard any negative comments regarding this matter.  Senator Jacobsen asked if the Ely warden had been satisfied with CMS’ service.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the warden was delighted with the services, and was pleased with the newly hired physician. 

 

Dr. Reed responded to Mrs. Chowning’s question regarding the contract.  He stated that she was correct in the fact that the contract would expire June 30, 2001.  He stated that there was a renewal contract written, but the agency was reviewing all options.  Mrs. Chowning thanked Dr. Reed, and stated that the committee needed all relevant information.  She said that if the division was unsure about why the additional $217,000 was being recommended then it may not need to be included in the budget. 

 

Mr. Perkins stated that it was scary to hear that the division did not know why the additional funding was included in the budget.  He asked for a schedule of the RFPs, so that the committee would be able to plan for that.  He confirmed Mrs. Chowning’s statement, and said that if the division did not know why the additional $217,000 was built into the budget then it could be one of the places where the committee could find savings.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the division would respond in writing and attempt to explain the increase.

 

Senator Jacobsen stated that anyone in the audience who had a comment would be heard.  He recognized Pat Hines, lobbyist for Nevada Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), and an advocacy group named Criminal Justice Reform.

 

Ms. Hines inquired about whether or not there was a request for additional dental medical equipment in the budget so that preventative dental care could be completed rather than pulling teeth.  Dr. D’Amico stated that there were currently nine dentists in the division, and the division was working with the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) to bring on a dentist once a month to work in the Las Vegas area for a week at a time.  He noted that with the addition of the new dental staff and the reorganization of the division, he believed the dental capabilities would be enhanced.  He acknowledged that dental care had always been a problem because it was difficult to encourage people from the community to work in the prison system.  The financial capabilities were not equal.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the division was in a position to enhance the dental capabilities and the division would examine the administrative regulations that were currently being prepared.  Senator Jacobsen stated that he was pleased to hear the division was working with WICHE.

 

Ms. Hines repeated a suggestion from one of her clients that dental clinics similar to the RMF be opened in the Carson City area and in the Las Vegas area, in order to transport inmates to facilities where they could get their teeth filled.  She noted that in talking to two dentists who had worked in the prison system, she was told that one problem was that the dentists did not have the proper equipment to fill the teeth and all they were able to do was pull teeth.  Ms. Hines asked about inmates who entered the prison with chronic illnesses and had their medicines changed.  The families of those inmates felt that the amount of medication or care was not equal to what the inmates had previously received.  Ms. Hines asked if there was any way this could be prevented or if the families could consult with Dr. D’Amico on this issue.  Dr. D’Amico stated that prison medical coverage was currently at a low level in comparison to the community.  The division was able to complete cardiac workups, gain admittance to the hospitals, and complete consultations in a more timely fashion than the heath care maintenance facilities in the community.  He stated that the division would always respond to concerns about specific cases, and noted that he was available to families at all times.  Dr. D’Amico stated that currently there were two internists working in both the south and the north, there was cardiac consultation on-site, as well as eight other consultants on-site in Carson City.  The standard of care provided within the division was at a high level, but there might be instances where families were concerned about changes in medication and Dr. D’Amico would be willing to discuss that issue with any family that contacted his office.  Senator Jacobsen noted that Dr. D’Amico was maintaining an open door policy. 

 

Ms. Hines asked if there was a reason that the psychology panel budget was decreased in comparison to previous bienniums.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the Sex Offender Program was currently under a great deal of flux.  There was currently a bill that would allow the division to own the Sex Offender Panel.  The division was in the process of developing a Sex Offender Treatment Program in Lovelock that would produce approximately 500 inmates in an intense program of treatment and observation.  The division would also match a smaller program in the south.  Dr. D’Amico stated that with the ownership of the Sex Offender Panel and the treatment program the division was developing, there would be a more accurate and objective evaluation of sex offenders when they were either eligible for parole or to expire from the prison system.  This was currently in process, and Dr. D’Amico noted that the treatment program would probably begin in the next month.  Once there was a decision made on the bill, then there would be specific procedures and protocol for how the panel was run.  Dr. D’Amico noted that the division had also requested monies for the transfer and training. 

 

Ms. Hines stated that her concern was that the evaluation portion for sex offenders and the programming portion would be too closely tied together.  She stated that she felt there needed to be outside evaluation.  In the previous legislative session, Ms. Hines had requested that the psychology examination panel be rescinded and that the decision for the release of sex offenders be given to the Parole Board as was done for other offenders.  She repeated her concern that if the Department of Prisons had too much control over the release of sex offenders there might be problems. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that the program that was currently being designed was designed to answer some of the questions that the audit had raised.  One of those questions dealt with complete objectivity from the panel as opposed to the treatment facility.  The members of the panel would not be part of the treatment staff.  They would receive information from the observation and treatment portion of the process, but the panel members would have an objective view.  He noted that at one point there was discussion regarding the Parole Board being involved with the Sex Offender Panel, but this bill was being submitted to give the division an objective and efficient way of observing the individuals while they were incarcerated. 

 

Ms. Hines stated that she felt that from the families’ position the observation factor was not the issue.  The issue was that there was no standardized and objective testing and evaluation being completed.  In the current budget, Ms. Hines could not see any monies allocated towards standardized testing.  Ms. Hines opined that if the evaluation was contracted out, the contract people would have the appropriate qualifications and would complete the appropriate testing.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the division had investigated private organizations that provided this service, and had discussed the matter with the in-house mental health staff.  The division felt that the program that could be provided in-house without additional cost to the state was adequate to provide the most up-to-date treatment program.  Dr. D’Amico noted that the division was interested in investigating any source of outside aid that would be available to augment the program.  He stated that the in-house mental health staff was capable of providing this service at a high level. 

 

Ms. Hines asked if the professionals providing the program and the evaluation were licensed personnel, and noted that currently there was a law that stated that psychologists working in the prison system did not have to be licensed.  Dr. D’Amico stated that this law was in effect, and noted that in the prison system there were psychologists that were not licensed although they had all the necessary qualifications.  He noted that there was a licensed psychologist that would sit on the panel; there were licensed psychiatrists that would sit on the panel; there were licensed psychiatrists that would manage the program.  The division did not feel that the law Ms. Hines mentioned would affect the caliber of the treatment program that the division could provide.

 

Senator Jacobsen indicated that the committee needed to move forward with the budgets on the agenda, and stated that Dr. Reed would answer Ms. Hines’ first question regarding dental care.

 

Dr. Reed stated that in the budget request there was a decision unit that dealt with replacement equipment.  The primary use of those requested monies would be for replacement dental equipment.  In regard to the matter of drills, Dr. Reed received every purchase requisition, and was sure that the division had the necessary drills.  He stated that the division had had a non-functional compressor, and the drills were not functional until the compressor was repaired. 

 

Ms. Crawford opined that the division’s health and medical care had improved.  She stated that in the previous year there had been a tremendous response from people who were interested in working for the medical department, and Ms. Crawford stated that in her opinion this was contributed to the care and professionalism the department had demonstrated.  Having worked in Lovelock, Ms. Crawford indicated that the medical professionals were to be commended for a wonderful job that she foresaw as continuing. 

 

SOUTHERN NEVADA WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY –

BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-39

 

The chair recognized Ms. Crawford.  Ms. Crawford introduced Darrel Rexwinkel, Administrative Services Officer IV, Nevada Department of Prisons, and Janet Johnson, Administrative Services Officer IV, Nevada Department of Prisons. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that Budget Account 3761 was a simple budget, with all services contracted out to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).  The contract with the corporation was for 20 years from the time the facility opened.  There were rate increases built into the contract at a rate of 3 percent per year.  The base rate for FY2000 was $42.77 increasing to $45.05 in FY2002 and $46.40 in FY2003.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that there were slight increases in the maintenance decision units, and there was one new equipment request for a file cabinet. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked about the funding shortfall.  Mr. Rexwinkel indicated that he believed that the senator was referring to the shortfall in the current fiscal year.  He noted that in FY2000 there was an average inmate population of 552, and in the budget for FY2001 the population was estimated to be 420.  Year to date there was an average population of 538, well over the estimated 420.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted that the population had decreased and currently the population was approximately 502.  The difference between the actual population and estimated population accounted for the shortfall.  For FY2002 the projected population was 524 inmates and for FY2003 the projected population was 538. 

 

Senator Jacobsen stated that from the committee’s viewpoint it appeared to be more effective to utilize cheaper beds in camps.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the division was utilizing the camp beds, and indicated that there was a substantial number of women at Jean Camp and at Silver Springs. 

 

The Chair recognized Glen Whorton, Chief of Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons.  Mr. Whorton stated that there were 502 women at the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility (SNWCF), 168 at the Jean Conservation Camp, and 90 at the Silver Springs Conservation Camp.  He noted that the division utilized the lower cost beds to the highest possible degree, and the population at Jean was slightly higher than expected.  This increase in Jean was to be expected due to location of the population, and the fact that most of the inmates were from Clark County.  He stated that if there were minimum custody female inmates then they would be moved to the camps, and there currently was the space to complete the possible transfers.  Mr. Whorton stated that the transfers depended on the inmates’ eligibility, the criteria, and their medical conditions. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for the highest and lowest possible populations at Silver Springs.  Mr. Whorton stated that Silver Springs had an operating capacity of 112, but could house 160 if necessary.  The division did not like to house 160 inmates, but would probably have to over the course of the division’s master plan.  He stated that during the “out years” of the master plan there was a 56-bed expansion at the Silver Springs facility.  Mr. Whorton stated that this was a cheap expansion, and if there were not the inmates to place in the additional beds, the division would not complete the expansion, as that would be a waste of state monies. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked why there was a spike in the female population. He noted that the master plan included a Phase II expansion of SNWCF for 156 beds that was not included in The Executive Budget.  Mr. Perkins asked if there had been discussions with CCA, what were the estimated costs, what funding was required, what custody level was being discussed, and would there be able to be cheaper beds.  Mr. Whorton stated that the expansion being discussed would be a medium security expansion.  He noted that discussions concerning the configuration of the expansion had taken place.  There would be cells, and no dorms.  The cost of this expansion was being worked on.  Mr. Whorton stated that this was a plan, and noted that, “Plans are written in sand and goals are written in stone.”  The goal was to house inmates appropriately, but plans changed based on the climate, the environment, and what the population presented.  The director had made a commitment, and was actively working to develop a specific female master plan.  The influence of the master plan and the initiatives resulting from that plan would influence the expansion.  Mr. Whorton noted that these plans were created every biennium, and they changed every biennium.  He explained that February 1, 2001, there were 811 female inmates in-house in the Department of Prisons, and today there were only 789 female inmates.  That was approximately a 3 percent decrease in less than a month.  Mr. Whorton opined that the decrease indicated how volatile the female population could be.  He noted the difficulties that the division had managing the female population might encourage people to look at the alternatives that the director would like to explore. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked what funding would be needed for this expansion.  He asked if it would require increased spending for the bed space, and where the additional money would be found.  Ms. Johnson stated that there was no money in the budget because the plan was not in the budget.  The expansion was being looked at as a possibility for the future.  The plan was looking ten years in the future and would not be completed this biennium.  Mr. Perkins confirmed that the division was not planning to utilize the proposed 156-bed expansion this biennium. 

 

Mr. Whorton explained that the 156 beds did not currently exist.  If the division decided to go forward with this expansion then it would be on a private basis.  He stated that one of the benefits of the private sector was that it was capable of bringing projects online very quickly.  Due to this there was a little bit of time before a commitment would be needed on the part of the state. 

 

Ms. Johnson stated that there was currently the $44 million authorized by statute in the NRS that the division had not completely used.  If the division decided to proceed with the expansion it would not happen without the division coming before the committee.  The authority was in the statutes, so it was not necessary to add it to the budget at the current time. 

 

Mr. Perkins noted that the authority was nothing without funding to accompany it.  He noted that he was concerned because June 4 was approaching, and the committee needed to know if there would be any impact in this biennium by the proposed expansion.  Ms. Johnson stated that the necessary monies, if the division decided to proceed with the expansion, could increase the debt retirement.  The actual construction would be absorbed by CCA, or another construction company, and that would be added to the debt retirement.  Ms. Johnston was unsure of the timing of the proposed expansion and stated it was an item that the division needed to examine and then return to the committee. 

 

Mr. Whorton restated that the timing for this expansion was not set for the current biennium, but for the following biennium.  This would allow time for the division to further examine the proposal’s monetary needs. 

 

Mr. Perkins asked if there were projections for when the expansion would be completed.  Mr. Whorton stated that the projected finish date was in August of 2003.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked for information concerning communication with the CCA.  Ms. Crawford stated that there was a monitor on-site that completed reports to the division immediately, if there were any issues.  There were also monthly reports outlining the population and any major issues.  Ms. Crawford noted that she had toured the facility three separate times and she was hands-on with those issues because, although the prison was run by a private contracting firm, they were state of Nevada prisoners and the division wanted to ensure that the contract was being fulfilled.  She stated that the inmates were active, and programmed, and the CCA appeared to be doing a good job.  Ms. Crawford noted that when this facility was built it was so inmates could be closer to their children in Las Vegas.  The CCA had fulfilled its contract. 

 

Mrs. Chowning stated that in regard to the proposed expansion the committee needed the information because if that project went online then another project would have to go off-line.  She also stated that there was previously one position in this budget and now it appeared that there were no positions.  She requested assurance that there would be constant monitoring of the facility.  Ms. Johnston stated that the August 2003 date would not affect this biennium’s funding.  She stated that there was contract monitoring in this budget, and what Mrs. Chowning may have seen was the transfer to the collapsed budget.  The position had not been removed. 

 

Senator Jacobsen noted that there had been no escapes or employee turnover related to the SNWCF.

 

SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-58

 

Ms. Crawford continued her testimony with Budget Account 3738.  She stated that the opening of High Desert State Prison had allowed the division the opportunity to complete partial classification and partial movement of inmates.  It also allowed the division to examine its programming, and make Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) a programmatic-driven institution.  She stated there was also the opportunity to increase effectiveness in managing inmates and in the rehabilitation mode. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that in this budget there were maintenance decision units related to standard inflation, inmate population changes, occupational studies, and salary increases.

 

Mrs. Chowning stated that the committee had heard that in dealing with electric costs there was the possibility of a 17 percent above budget inflationary increase, and inquired as to whether the recommended $83,434 for FY2001‑2002 and $180,217 for FY2002-2003 was enough to cover this possible increase.   Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the division was concerned about the utilities category, and the division had received a 16 percent increase each year for electric and natural gas.  SDCC did use heating oil for all of its heating, and oil prices had risen.  He indicated that the division was examining the utilities category in all of the budgets and was working with the budget division to predict where the division might be in 2002-2003 in comparison to what was in the budget. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that in decision unit E-275 there was a request for a new position to implement a preventative maintenance program and to perform welding tasks.  Maintenance had historically been based on an emergency basis when staff was unable to perform a detailed analysis of maintenance needs.   The requested position would be dedicated to developing and implementing a preventative maintenance and welding program.  At SDCC there were currently 10 skilled staff and this request would increase that number to 11.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that although it was hard to compare institutions because newer ones had different needs, the High Desert facility had 15 skilled craft positions and the division was requesting 2 additional positions, Ely had 14, Lovelock 15, and Northern Nevada Correctional Center had 8 positions with a request for 1 additional position.  He opined that the position requested for SDCC was needed and that was why it was in the Governor’s recommended budget.

 

Decision unit E-276 dealt with the Therapeutic Community Program at SDCC, which was similar to the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program (RSAT) in the north, said Mr. Rexwinkel.  This decision unit saved some General Fund monies because it proposed to eliminate 13 correctional officers and add 11 program staff positions.  The division would also be receiving grant funds from the Department of Motor Vehicles; 75 percent of these new 11 positions would be funded by non-General Fund monies. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked about a roving maintenance crew.  Ms. Johnson stated that the preventative maintenance plan was progressing, and the division hoped that it would be completed by the time the budget was closed.  She indicated that the division would keep staff apprised of that on a continuing basis.  The roving maintenance person was the camp maintenance man, and he was in the field constantly.  Ms. Johnson noted that this maintenance man was the sole repairman for all of the camps. 

 

Mrs. Chowning noted that the Therapeutic Community Program grant, which required a 25 percent funding match, would continue.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the grant would continue.  The program in the south was being funded with additional available RSAT funds from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the 25 percent state funding match was built into the decision unit.  He explained that the reason there was a net savings in General Funds was because the first decision was to eliminate the 13 correctional officer positions, and then to add in the Therapeutic Community Programs which did include a 25 percent General Fund match. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked what the anticipated ongoing costs would be.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that there would be a savings in the second year of the biennium.  There was a decrease of $279,000 in General Fund monies, and an increase of non-General Fund monies of $220,000, so there was a net savings on an ongoing basis for the implementation of this program.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that this all resulted from the elimination of the 13 correctional officer positions and the addition of 11 program staff positions.  In implementing this program, there would remain a correctional officer on shift in each unit for security purposes.  Mrs. Chowning stated that she was nervous when the ongoing costs resulted in General Fund savings.  Mr. Rexwinkel reiterated that the savings was occurring because of the elimination of the 13 correctional officers, which were funded only by the General Fund, and the implementation of 11 therapeutic staff positions, which were 25 percent funded by the General Fund.  Mrs. Chowning asked for this issue to be examined further. 

 

Senator William O’Donnell asked if the potential chaplain for the Lovelock Correction Center had been interviewed.  Ms. Crawford stated that the interview was currently in process. 

 

Mr. Perkins stated that it was his understanding that the savings was a one-biennium occurrence, and asked what the costs would be for future bienniums.  He also noted that there was a similar program at Warm Springs, and asked if a similar savings could be found there by reducing the number of correctional officers at that facility.  Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Rexwinkel was correct in what he had previously said, and noted that if the Therapeutic Community Program was not started this budget would continue to cost the General Fund infinitely for the correctional officer positions.  By reducing the positions and beginning a Therapeutic Community Program the budget would save General Fund dollars through the same period of time.  She noted that in actual cash dollars there was between a $75,000 and $90,000 per year in General Fund match that was in the budget.  The primary funding source for the Therapeutic Community Program was from a Department of Motor Vehicles grant from the Office of Justice Assistance.  Ms. Johnson said that the program at Warm Springs was funded by the same grant.  There were additional federal monies available and those monies were being applied to the southern program.  The reason that the division was requesting General Fund monies for the necessary matching funds was that the division could not afford to add matching funds from the Offender Store Fund monies, which was providing the match for the Warm Springs program.

 

Mr. Perkins inquired as to why, if the reduction of 13 correctional officers could be made in SDCC, the same reduction could not be made in Warm Springs.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the program at Warm Springs was an ongoing program, and initial reductions had already been made.  When the program was instituted if there were reductions to be made, they would have been completed then.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that he believed, but would have to verify, that the program at Warm Springs was similar to what the end result at SDCC would be. 

 

Ms. Johnston stated that she believed that the therapeutic community had begun at Warm Springs before any staffing had been put into place there.  In the SDCC the division was proposing to take an existing unit and make changes to implement the therapeutic community.  She noted that there was a difference between the two programs.  At Warm Springs it was a contractual program, and the program at SDCC would be run by the division. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that decision unit E-277 provided for a Youthful Offender Program at the SDCC, to divert young inmates into a separate program.  The division had only requested funding for a single year.  This funding would cover initial costs, and once the program had begun it should not require any additional funding for the current biennium.  He said that funding might be needed in future bieniums for replacement equipment for the program.  The additional requirements would be operating supplies, special clothing and uniforms, classroom equipment, and exercise equipment.  In the first year of the biennium the division had requested $220,937. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if the division had contacted the Department of Education to ask about equipment that this program could use.  Ms. Crawford stated that there was a conversation with the Department of Education concerning this program.  She noted that the age in this program was between 15 and 17, and there would be specific needs.  The Department of Education was receptive to the idea of assisting the program. 

 

Decision unit E-710 was a request to replace seven radios and to replace the maintenance gas cart, used for trash removal.  Senator Jacobsen asked if the gas cart was a piece of automotive equipment.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the current gas cart was similar to an old golf cart. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel noted that decision unit E-903 was a proposal to transfer the boot camp from Indian Springs Conservation to SDCC.  The facilities that the boot camp was in were not inhabitable.  The boot camp had been eliminated from the Indian Springs budget, and the current staff of eight was reduced to one that was transferred to SDCC to oversee the boot camp program.  The remaining staffing needs were completed by the existing staff at SDCC. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if the division was planning on informing the committee about how the transfer would affect the budget because the Indian Springs Boot Camp Program was more expensive than the proposed SDCC Boot Camp Program.  She asked for the division to work with staff on this matter, to which Mr. Rexwinkel answered in the affirmative. 

 

Mrs. Chowning inquired whether the turnover rate would be lessened due to the Governor’s proposed salary increase.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the division was hoping that the increase would positively affect the turnover rate.  He noted that the custody staff received a one-grade increase on January 1, 2001, and the proposed budget requested an additional one-grade increase on July 1, 2001.  Mr. Rexwinkel expressed the hope that adding the step nine and the inflationary adjustment would assist in decreasing the turnover rate.  He noted that earlier the committee had heard that although the Governor was proposing an increase, the competing counties were also proposing a salary increase.  He stated that it was hard to “keep up with the competition,” but what the division was hoping for was to pay their staff a reasonable wage, and The Executive Budget would assist in that. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked the division to work with the staff on the issues of the radios.  She noted that during the interim, she heard from the workers regarding the radios, and whether there were enough or if they were the most efficient radios. 

 

ELY STATE PRISON – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-67

 

Mr. Rexwinkel testified on Budget Account 3751.  He stated that decision unit M-100 was related to increasing the funding for electricity costs.  This facility used fuel oil for heating.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the maintenance decision units in this budget were similar to previously discussed budgets.  Decision unit E-710 was a request for $8,895 for 14 replacement Inside Light Duty Protective Vests and 5 replacement Correctional Response and Transport Protective Vests. 

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if the vests were used on a daily basis.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that he was unsure about the exact amount of time and frequency the vests were used, but his notes stated that the light duty vests were used 24 hours a day by three working shifts.  The correctional response vests were needed during violent encounters. 

 

RESTITUTION CENTER – NORTH – BUDGET PAGE PRISONS-88

 

Mr. Rexwinkel continued with Budget Account 3724.  The projected inmate population for this institution was 88.  He noted that there were the inflationary adjustments and the custody grade increase in this budget.  Decision unit E‑710 was requesting replacement equipment of four industrial chairs, one secretarial desk, and one refrigerator.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked if the furniture would be Prison Industry furniture.  Mr. Rexwinkel answered in the affirmative, and stated that the Prison Industry made quality furniture. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that decision unit E-720 was a request for a new lawnmower.  He said that the facility did have a lawnmower that was donated several years ago, and was currently inoperable. 

 

Senator Jacobsen indicated that due to time constraints the committee would hear the additional budgets on the agenda at a future meeting.  Senator Jacobsen adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Andrea Carothers

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman

 

 

DATE: