MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

JOINT Subcommittee on HUMAN RESOURCES/K12

OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON Finance

AND THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

Seventy-First Session

May 3, 2001

 

 

The Meeting of the Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K12 of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson at 6 p.m., on Thursday, May 3, 2001, in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio (Excused)

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Barbara K. Cegavske

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Sandra J. Tiffany

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. David E. Goldwater

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst

Georgia J. Rohrs, Program Analyst

Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer IV, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Sherry Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration

Michael J. Capello, Director, Department of Social Services, Washoe County

Kirby Burgess, Director, Family and Youth Services, Clark County

Fritz Reese, Assistant Director, Family and Youth Services, Clark County

Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director, Department of Family and Youth Services, Clark   County

Susan Laveway, Assistant Finance Director, Clark County

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Donna Husted, Children’s Advocacy Alliance

Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Human             Resources

Janelle Mulvenon, Administrator, Administrative and Fiscal Operations, Community             Connections, Department of Human Resources

Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human             Resources

 

Senator Rawson indicated the committee was scheduled to continue a review of budgets for the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).  He announced the Governor has recommended cuts in the budget, which will affect the DCFS budgets.  He pointed out the budgets would have to be closed in about a week.

 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

 

Division of Child and Family Services

 

Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, reminded the committee the division had been instructed to meet with the counties to resolve duplications in both ongoing budgets and “one‑shot” appropriations.  He reported that has been accomplished, as set forth in a handout (Exhibit C) distributed to the committee members. 

 

Mr. Shaw explained the first page of the handout shows the ongoing budget items, and approximately $1 million in duplications were found.  He said the second page shows a total of approximately $7.9 million in “one-shot” projects. Of that amount, he said, the division has been able to cut approximately $2.7 million. 

 

Senator Rawson suggested the legislative staff work with the division to fully understand the specifics of the Governor’s cuts and the division’s recommendations.  He acknowledged a tremendous effort has been made, and he declared he did not want anyone to fail to understand that the state continues to have a full commitment to the Division of Child and Family Services.  He cautioned against making mistakes.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed, saying the state did not want to impose difficulties on the counties while the transition is underway.  She asked whether changes to the ongoing budgets depicted on page 1 of the handout (Exhibit C) include all of the state’s counties, and whether the funds cited would be derived from the General Fund.  Mr. Shaw replied, it would all be General Fund dollars and the budget covers the entire state.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked where the division and the counties determined cuts could be made.  Mr. Shaw admitted they did not know.  Senator Raggio commented it would be necessary to know just where the cuts would be made.  Mr. Shaw replied the group would work as fast as possible to provide the information. 

 

Senator Rawson proposed comparing the cuts identified by the division with those recommended by the Governor, and then having the staff work with the division on the matter.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether Mr. Shaw had documentation to show the detail on the proposals listed in Exhibit C.  She said she was unsure to what some of the items referred.  As an example, she drew attention to the first recommendation on the page called “Recommendation #1 & #2.”  She asked whether the line item, “Estimate to Transition Services,” refers to staffing.  Mr. Shaw replied that it does.  He asked Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer III, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, to explain.

 

Mr. Baumann said a package containing detail was delivered to each Legislator that showed the backup information for each item on the list.  Senator Rawson expressed hope that the information contained a time line.

 

Mr. Shaw repeated his willingness to work with committee staff and conclude the process as rapidly as possible. 

 

Sherry Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said the list just received by the Legislators showing cuts in the DCFS transfer should only be considered as ideas being discussed between the Governor and legislative leadership.  She stated a final determination has not been made on the child welfare transfer.  Senator Rawson said the budgets must be closed soon, and it would be best to have the information before the budgets are closed.

 

Michael J. Capello, Director, Department of Social Services, Washoe County, related the last time he appeared before the committee he only had time to go over about half the costs.  He said that, since that time, some of the costs have shifted.  He drew attention to page 24 of a document handed out previously (Exhibit D ) that was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff entitled “Integration of State and Local Child Welfare Services.” He directed attention to page 24.

 

Mr. Capello said the intention is to have 18.55 full time equivalent (FTE) employees transferred to the county in the first year of the biennium.  He said the funds in the DCFS budget for the 18.55 FTE are indicated at $704,801.  He said the cost to the county for the 18.55 FTE plus two new positions as part of infrastructure needs is $983,377, leaving a gap of $278,576.  He commented a similar pattern was evident on line 10 of page 24 showing the operating costs.

 

Mr. Capello drew attention to page 28 of the packet depicting a breakdown of how the operating costs were calculated.  He said that, at the last meeting, a percentage to salary had been applied and he was asked to provide a more detailed breakdown of how operating costs were calculated.  In response to that request, he referred to page 28, lines 1 through 29, which provide the costs associated with operations. 

 

Returning to page 24, Mr. Capello indicated the operating cost for year 1 is $128,739, with a gap of $59,407, based on what the division would transfer in that year.  He said line 26 is the indirect Washoe County cost-pool allocation, and page 28, lines 32 through 45, show a detailed breakdown of the cost-pool amount for each year. 

 

Referring to the operating cost of $128,739, Senator Rawson inquired whether the figure was up or down from what was originally budgeted.  Mr. Capello answered operating expenses and the cost pool were combined and 24.6 percent was applied to the salary cost.  He said operating expenses and cost-pool amounts are somewhat higher than the 24.6 percent applied previously.  Senator Rawson said he was attempting to derive whether these new numbers indicate a General Fund savings or additional cost to the General Fund.  Mr. Capello said that on year 1 in the previous submission, it was anticipated the General Fund cost, not including one shots, was approximately $740,000.  He referred to page 24, line 56, and said $435,251 was General Fund; therefore, from the early submissions, the General Fund is down significantly.

 

Referring to page 24, line 6, Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the $704,801 includes the 4 percent salary increase recommended by the Governor.  Mr. Capello answered that it does, and the amount transferred would be the amount budgeted in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the difference between the $704,801 and the $983,377 are two FTEs.  Mr. Capello clarified that it is two FTEs plus the salary differential.  She commented it is 24.6 percent more.  Senator Rawson asked whether Washoe County had collective bargaining, and Mr. Capello answered that it does.  Ms. Giunchigliani queried whether the amount represented straight salary or salary and benefits.  Mr. Capello answered the amount is salary and benefits combined. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired whether or not employee issues had been resolved, and Mr. Capello responded he was unsure.  Mr. Capello said it was his understanding the policy decisions made in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary were basically passed, but he was unsure whether employee groups were pleased with current decisions.  The senator inquired whether communication was still taking place in an effort to resolve the issues.  Mr. Capello said Washoe County had communicated with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) regarding some of its policy decisions.  He indicated he had not been part of any discussion in the North and was unsure whether or not there had been any dialogue in Clark County.  Senator Rawson indicated there would be a chance to “flush it out” at this meeting.

 

Continuing, Mr. Capello said, in regard to the purchase-placement costs on page 24, line 28, approximately $1.9 million is anticipated from the division.  He added that the costs are slightly over $2 million and the difference is $118,000.  He noted that at the last meeting there had been a question regarding legal-counsel cost.  He explained, currently in Washoe County, there are approximately two FTE attorneys general assigned to represent child welfare for the division.  Referring to column B, Mr. Capello pointed out the division’s cost allocation to pay deputy attorney general salaries is $16,651; therefore, just under $8,000 will be transferred in the partial year.  The Washoe County estimate to pick up the costs at the district attorney’s (DAs) office in that year is $126,393.  He said no attorneys will be added; however, when the budget was put together they never discussed transferring positions from the Attorney General’s (AGs) office.  Mr. Capello said it was assumed money would be obtained from the division to allocate legal counsel costs, and later request it be supplemented to hire two DAs to replace the two AGs who, it is assumed, will remain with the AG’s office. 

Further, Mr. Capello, referring to page 24, line 35, Other Placement Costs, said the division proposes to transfer $162,909 the first year. He said the costs will be approximately $169,000, the primary difference being costs to do drug testing. Consequently, he said, there is a $6,000 gap.  Line 45, Other Costs, Placement Prevention, he indicated, shows the division will transfer slightly over $76,000, and the cost is $142,000. The carry over is just under $66,000.  Mr. Capello said the total gap, or unmet need, for the first year, will be $669,617, and it is anticipated $234,000 will be received in federal revenues, leaving a net unmet need of $435,251 to come out of the General Fund. 

 

Mr. Capello indicated the cost in year 2 is for a full year.  The net need for the General Fund in year 2, shown on page 25, is slightly over $1 million.  Senator Rawson asked how it compares with what was originally budgeted.  Mr. Capello answered the original figure was approximately $1.6 million. 

 

Moving on to page 26, Mr. Capello explained “one-shot” appropriations were requested.  He pointed out the grand total need for the first year is just under $196,000, which projects approximately 35 percent federal reimbursement and a General Fund need of $127,000 in the first year and a General Fund need of $126,000 in the second year.  Senator Rawson inquired whether the “one shots” would be the responsibility of the county, or would recurring “one shots” be needed.  Mr. Capello said “one shots” would apply to the initial needs of staff moving over to the county; therefore, if all staff transition to the county in 2003, no additional one-time appropriations would be required. 

 

Mr. Capello said there is little difference with respect to the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) compliance and Washoe County’s computer infrastructure.  Referring to page 27, he pointed out Column B identifies the amount the Division of Child and Family Services and DoIT advised is the state cost for the level of equipment and service they would approve.  He said Column C represents Washoe County’s Information Technology (IT) Department level of equipment needed to make the new system the same as the current system in terms of speed and capacity.  Mr. Capello noted there is actually a net difference of $33,300, which is already included in the “one-shot” allocation request on the previous page. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Capello said the last page of the packet (Exhibit D), pertaining to Washoe County, was referenced earlier and details the operating cost and the county cost pool. 

 

Kirby Burgess, Director, Department of Family and Youth Services, Clark County, introduced three of his colleagues:  Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director of Operations, Susan Laveway, Assistant Director of Finance, and Fritz Reese, the Assistant Director who currently oversees automation compliance issues.  Mr. Burgess applauded the efforts of the members of the Senate Committee on Finance on their understanding regarding the needs of the integrated child welfare system in Washoe County, Clark County, and throughout the state.  He pointed out there is a sense of urgency about transition of services because a seamless, efficient system is greatly desired to cater to the best interests of children and families.  Mr. Burgess said he wanted to keep the momentum going and everyone throughout the state understands and agrees with the direction being taken.  He mentioned he would like to see an expanded pilot in Clark County in order to not lose current gain and support.  Mr. Burgess indicated a pilot program had not been “costed out” and, until he was told otherwise, he would function under the assumption the operation would be fully supported financially with services and programs provided.  Therefore, he said, the program must be “costed out” and the results brought back as quickly as possible.

 

Senator Rawson asked Mr. Burgess to answer, frankly and with candor, whether it would be more feasible to go ahead with a full conversion, or to consider a pilot.  In response, Mr. Burgess indicated the department was geared to go “full bore;” but he realized there were aggressive time lines, particularly with SACWIS compliance.  He pointed out the department was committed from the beginning to bring the Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) system from the state of Nevada and train respective state staff, and then train existing county staff.  He said they were committed on all fronts, including receiving support and buy-in from the Board of County Commissioners in Clark County.  Mr. Burgess indicated this would be his preference, but recognizing budget constraints and other issues, he said he is also prepared to go along with a pilot project.  He expressed concern and advocated retaining momentum, which he emphasized is the bottom line.   

 

Senator Rawson wondered whether a pilot project could be done without losing momentum.  Mr. Burgess said he believed it could be done, but he would have to confer with his colleagues in the state to work out logistics.  He noted they must be cognizant of Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) time lines in regard to the way families and children will be referred through the system.  He said it must be decided how state and county staff will be integrated to work together, and whether or not state staff will become county staff or remain state staff in the short term.  Mr. Burgess pointed out a feasible plan must be created to ensure everyone works together and learns from Washoe County’s experiences during the process.

 

In regard to significant change, Senator Rawson reflected Margaret Meade stressed it is often better to engage an entire change rather than adapting slowly because it may never happen or will become too complicated.  He said people adapt to one quick change better than having it dragged out over a long period of time.  The senator indicated Mr. Burgess’ opinion must be relied upon to a certain degree.  Rather than pleasing the state, making it convenient, or saving money, Senator Rawson said the focus must be on what will provide the best results.  He pointed out, should there be concern regarding the time it will take to accomplish computer compatibility, perhaps setting more reasonable time lines would be advisable.  He proposed setting time lines by what can be practically accomplished, not by budget implications.  He expressed comfort with establishing time lines in a manner to make the project workable, and then moving on to the next phase fully prepared.  Senator Rawson said regardless if the project costs more, the issue would be dealt with one way or another.  Noting it is not a blanket invitation, the senator stressed the decision would not depend totally upon the budget.  

 

Mr. Burgess deferred to Fritz Reese who was working closely with state of Nevada employees regarding SACWIS compliance.

 

Fritz Reese, Assistant Director, Department of Family and Youth Services, Clark County, said the key threshold to making the project work is for Clark County to become SACWIS compliant.  He indicated the plan has been revised.  He said that with things going simultaneously, the initial plan was to bring UNITY on to the county system and at the same time develop an interface for when the entire program was going.  In that event, they would be able to drop information out of UNITY right into Family Tracs, either in real or batch time.  Mr. Reese said it is important for the committee to understand Family Tracs is the official database, not only for Child Protective Services (CPS), but also for juvenile justice in Clark County.  He noted there is inherent risk in having two systems going in opposite directions, which could jeopardize the integrity of both. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Reese indicated one of the phase-in opportunities is to bring UNITY into Clark County for Clark County’s workers, as it already exists for state workers.  In addition, he said, provide training and simultaneously bring Family Tracs on the county network for staff who will be assimilated into the county “family.”  He noted it is being considered to accomplish that effort first with a possible trigger date of April 2002 and then, over the next 90 days, put training in place to assimilate staff and programming by July 2002.  He explained that would be notwithstanding doing any work on an interface. 

 

Further, Mr. Reese pointed out, phase two would involve the requirements document, obtaining a vendor, and downloading the interface into Family Tracs.  He said the issue, and part of the trigger for federal Title IV‑E money is to have workers actually performing direct entry into the SACWIS compliant system.  Therefore, the whole transition of the hot line, CPS workers, investigators, and so forth, would be working out of UNITY.  He explained it is important to keep Family Tracs running because it interfaces with the DA and the courts.       

 

Mr. Reese said that for the one-time appropriation, the expenditure was revised from $3.5 million to about $1.9 million, which is a substantial difference.  He explained there were duplications between state and Clark County presentations numbers.  He noted there would be a “one-shot” for the next fiscal year.  Mr. Reese said:

 

It is somewhat convoluted and to sit here at this moment and say, okay, if we are going to run a pilot, how best to do that.  I would probably have to sit down with my colleagues with the state, as well as the experts we have with the county, to say if we did do a pilot, what would be the size of that pilot and how robust would it need to be.  If we kept them as state staff then, therefore, we would not have to bring Family Tracs onto them, they could work out of UNITY.  The urgency I would recommend to the committee is that to fund us in order to start moving forward in whatever direction the federal government . . . because now we also have this other part . . . not only do we have the counties and we have the state, we have the federal government in terms of their acknowledgment and approval for us moving forward in whatever strategic direction we are going to take. 

 

So, what we would like to do is when the session convenes, is to be able to try to get some direction from them and have the monies in which to . . . in fact, if we are going to use a pilot to move forward on that . . . but I think to move forward, as well as to have the monies to develop and work on an interface would be very key for the success of the whole . . . and certainly, I can speak for all of Clark County.

 

Senator Rawson requested a review of the existing time line and asked the current plan for moving ahead.  Mr. Reese answered, based on current numbers, UNITY would be brought to Clark County to be SACWIS compliant.  He said the infrastructure for newly assimilated employees would have to be worked out with the county network in order to use Family Tracs to perform searches and so forth.  It is anticipated to be completed by April 2002, Mr. Reese remarked. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired how much was budgeted and whether or not there was a time line for the project.  He explained he was attempting to ascertain whether there would be budget implications to the dates mentioned and whether the time would be earlier or later than predicted.  Answering, Mr. Reese said there would be no interface work during the upcoming fiscal year.  He indicated the expenditure for the project would be approximately $1.4 million, a little over $1 million for the interface, and another $400,000 for contingency resource money.  Mr. Reese said he realized resources for the project might be scant; however, additional programming and consultant time may be needed to assist the state.  Senator Rawson asked whether Assemblywoman Buckley was in agreement with the date. 

 

Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director, Department of Family and Youth Services, Clark County, said the time line addressed by Mr. Reese relating to SACWIS and other program pieces coming to Clark County from the state, were shared with Assemblywoman Buckley and members of the ACR 53 subcommittee (Study of the Integration of State and Local Child Welfare Systems).  She noted the time lines proposed in January had not slid.  They were discussed at that time and remain the same as of this date, Ms. Cox remarked.

 

Senator Rawson suggested it might be more realistic and practical to move the time line to July 1, 2002, rather than April, for the UNITY compliance infrastructure.  He noted it would provide a cushion in order to not be crowded into the next phase. 

 

In response, Mr. Reese said it would buy a cushion.  He explained he was committed to the original time line given to Assemblywoman Buckley, but to meet that time line, UNITY would need to be brought on, and the infrastructure provided for Family Tracs, notwithstanding the interface.  Senator Rawson inquired whether Mr. Reese had worked with UNITY, and Mr. Reese answered yes.  The senator asked whether Mr. Reese thought the system would be compatible and the differences with the interface could be worked out.  Mr. Reese said it is important to understand there are two issues; the first is to bring UNITY on to the county network.  He indicated the logistics had been worked out and he felt fairly confident it would work.  He noted UNITY and Family Tracs would be able to more or less toggle back and forth while running off the county network.  Mr. Reese said the second issue is building the interface.  He pointed out he has a tremendous working relationship with UNITY staff and he saw no hurdles in regard to the project. 

 

Senator Rawson further explained he was not suggesting the project be stalled; he was recommending target deadlines be met.  He indicated he was providing Mr. Reese an opportunity to state it would be helpful to have a couple of extra months to meet deadlines.

 

Mr. Burgess indicated it would be helpful to have extra time.  He emphasized they want to accomplish the project correctly, and many things hinge upon that goal, mainly federal funding for the entire state.  He stated extra time would be appreciated.

 

Senator Rawson asked committee staff whether there would be any negative budget implications to easing the time line.  The answer was, “We do not think so.”

 

Senator Rawson inquired what the next step is after July 1, 2002.  Mr. Reese said the next step would be training staff; the next 90 days would be spent on the pilot, and then the project would go forward in October. Therefore, he said, the time line would be allowed to “creep” 90 days.  

 

Ms. Giunchigliani commented perhaps the terminology “pilot” had thrown the committee off track.  She suggested maybe they should not be prohibited from moving forward, but allow a little extra time for possible problems.  She noted, perhaps it is not the pilot envisioned by Washoe County and extensions should be considered. 

 

Senator Rawson said, “We may well achieve what is needed in an orderly progression with no negative implications.”  He explained he was trying to sense whether it would be possible.  He noted the old timeline had SACWIS compliant April 2002, and a little more time had been given on that.  The senator said, “Maximize the federal reimbursement that works in conjunction with the compliance.  Basically you expected to be able to maximize that by October.  And do we now need to say it will be December or January, or is it still realistic in October?”

 

Ms. Cox indicated eligibility functions would follow SACWIS compliance because Clark County cannot receive reimbursement until the goal is achieved.  Therefore, assumption of the eligibility function would also slide until October, 3 months after SACWIS has been achieved.  Senator Rawson inquired whether sliding the time line to October would have a negative budget implication.   

 

Susan Laveway, Assistant Finance Director, Clark County, indicated there would be no negative financial impact. 

 

Continuing, Senator Rawson asked when implementation strategies for neighborhood-based partnerships, geographically-based teams, and so forth, would begin.  Ms. Cox answered the effort is now commencing.  She pointed out it is a partial start because, included in the budget, are lease costs to colocate all the services for each of the five neighborhood centers in Clark County.  Senator Rawson inquired whether anything is gained by having a pilot program essentially run a state and county program. 

 

Mr. Shaw stated much had been learned from the Washoe County pilot.  He explained Washoe County employees are sitting next to state employees who are performing the same work and making 24 percent less money.  He noted it cannot be done in Clark County.  He explained, should a pilot be run, there must be pay equity or it will demoralize the staff and doom the project from the beginning.  With that caveat, Mr. Shaw said the dollars can be controlled by controlling the size of the pilot.  He said, “I am talking about only having to pay those who participate in the pilot while they are participating in the pilot.”  Mr. Shaw said it was his considered opinion a pilot cannot be run without pay equity in Clark County for employees who are participating in it. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired whether savings would be derived by going with a full‑blown program at a later date, rather than trying to divide it by starting with a pilot.  He requested the help of Mr. Shaw, the committee, and staff, to make this kind of decision.  He remarked their counsel and advice was needed because the decision should not be a mandate. 

 

In response, Mr. Burgess said he agreed with Mr. Shaw.  He noted, should something different be done, particularly with the disparity in pay of state and county workers in Clark County, it could be demoralizing.  He affirmed he would like to have a full-blown effort.  Mr. Burgess said, “Sometimes it is best to jump off the cliff and go through change process and bring all those services to bear so we can provide better services to families and children.”  He asked what kind of time line is considered.  He said as long as the sense of urgency is upheld and the timeline does not slip too much, the program should be all right.  Mr. Burgess suggested proceeding with the full-blown program at this time. 

 

With regard to employee issues, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a number of county employees might be close to retirement, and as transition takes place, state employees could begin absorbing empty jobs rather than the county hiring new employees.  She inquired whether a procedure had been discussed regarding the issue. 

 

Ms. Cox pointed out it already occurs to some degree.  She said that because the county pays more, it is able to take the best and brightest from the applicant pool.  She noted, however, the fallacy is that, should the state hire state foster care and adoption workers into the county system as currently structured, they would be doing county front-end functions only.  In that event, Ms. Cox said, the county would not be piloting the whole continuum of services, which is the goal of the integration. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for suggestions on how to integrate staffing.  Ms. Cox answered she would have to collaborate with the state partners before any action could be taken, but she affirmed it was Clark County’s goal to create five neighborhood centers.  She said that once the infrastructure is created related to SACWIS and eligibility, perhaps taking over one neighborhood center could be considered, which would be roughly 20 percent of the workload in southern Nevada.  Ms. Cox indicated it is a thought to be explored.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired, “Are those the neighborhood centers that we currently have for the commissioners to do?”  Ms. Cox answered, it is somewhat different than that, and explained there are seven commissioners.  Ms. Giunchigliani commented, “It is more a one-stop shop where people could go.”

 

Mr. Burgess expressed appreciation for the difficult job the committee has undertaken.  He encouraged the committee to allow them to proceed with the agreed upon initial program, given the constraints.  He said he believed it is the right thing to do for children.  He pointed out there are still hurdles to overcome, including SACWIS compliance and ensuring federal requirements are met for federal funding.  Mr. Burgess indicated they are working on employee issues and meeting jointly with state and county staff to address concerns.  He noted they have gone as far as they can go at this time. 

Senator Rawson stated the Governor needs to be fully informed of the discussions because decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. 

 

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), echoed Mr. Shaw’s comments that, should a pilot be done in Clark County, state employees must be brought over at the same salary as county employees.  He said it was very demoralizing in Washoe County when that pilot was done.  Senator Rawson inquired whether Mr. Gagnier had concerns about the project being full blown, delayed, or a pilot program.  In response, Mr. Gagnier said those are budget issues more than anything else.  He pointed out that before such integration can be started in Clark County, new classifications must be created.  He referred to a joint letter from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1107, and SNEA, dated April 9, 2001, in which some suggestions were made to Assemblywoman Buckley.  Mr. Gagnier said the letter contained suggestions for new classification titles because Clark County does not have foster care social workers, although Washoe County does.  Consequently, before any integration can be started, classifications must be created and matched, regardless of whether or not there is a pilot program.  Mr. Gagnier indicated SNEA proposed two amendments to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 343. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 343:  Provides for integration of state and local child welfare             services. (BDR 11-325)

 

Mr. Gagnier said the first amendment would not cost anything.  He explained it is a policy issue and a matter of to whom DCFS would make the annual leave payment when employees transition from state to county.  He encouraged the committee to study the amendment.

 

Mr. Gagnier said the second amendment deals with salary and would cost money.  He stated transitioning employees should be compensated the same as county employees with the same length of service, and paid for their longevity as well. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired whether Clark County has any concerns with the time line in regard to personnel issues and classification.  In response, Ms. Cox said the social worker classification exists in Clark County’s human resource system, although it is not currently assigned to the Department of Family and Youth Services.  She opined it would not take an extraordinary length of time to create a similar classification in her department.

 

Further, Senator Rawson inquired of May Shelton, should she be faced with the current situation, would she want to proceed with a pilot in her county or with “full‑bore.” 

 

May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County, indicated Clark County currently has a different operation in which county workers investigate and assess at the front end, and then transfer the case to the state if they cannot reunify the child.   She clarified that, if they have to petition to keep the case, it is transferred to the state.  Ms. Shelton pointed out Washoe County has a middle group with on-going foster care workers.  She said state and county workers are merged to do on-going foster care, and are expanding into termination of parental rights, and so forth.  Therefore, integration in Clark County is a little different.  Referring to Ms. Cox’s testimony, Ms. Shelton said the pilot is done by centers, which makes better sense.  She noted one of the main things desired by Washoe County, by integrating employees in October, is to stop transfer of cases to DCFS.  She pointed out everyone needs to be aware of the requirements of ASFA and retaining the cases, and expressed the opinion Clark County could do it.  Ms. Shelton commented, “Because Clark County operates in geographic areas with neighborhood centers, they would keep from investigations on, if they could have state workers who would work the long term and termination of parental rights in adoptions.”

 

Senator Rawson remarked he was seeing something more dynamic than simply a pilot program.  He said he was thinking in terms of phasing.  He noted when one center is complete another center could be taken on.  The senator said details and decision points would have to be worked out with leadership.     

 

Ms. Cox indicated the decision plan promulgated approximately 4 months ago was the result of an extensive amount of work involving southern region DCFS staff.  She said it speaks to the geographical assignment of responsibilities and appears to be the smartest way to go for Clark County.  In regard to Senator Rawson’s question of the time frame, Ms. Cox noted their aggressive transition plan would begin the assumption of foster care and adoption employees July 2002.  Should SACWIS be extended an additional 3 months, the time line would be pushed out until October 2002.  Ms. Cox said the original plan brought on new geographical centers at 3 month intervals, to be completed in July, but now it will be October 2003.  It is doable and consistent with their plan, Ms. Cox remarked.

 

Senator Rawson clarified they had it “clicked down” to once a quarter, and asked whether bringing in another center every 4 or 5 months would create a problem or be wasteful.  Responding, Ms. Cox said she did not believe so; however, she suggested Ms. Shelton’s caveat always be kept in mind that there must be compliance with the ASFA mandate of permanency for a child within 12 months of coming into care.  She pointed out it will take extraordinary coordination to achieve that goal if there continues to be a hand-off process in four of the five geographical areas of Clark County.          

 

Donna Husted, Children’s Advocacy Alliance, testifying from Las Vegas, said her organization has been working toward ending bifurcation.  She cautioned the committee to fund it properly.  She pointed out an underfunded system already exists and another one would be undesirable.  Senator Rawson assured her the committee was working with that in mind.

 

Senator Rawson directed attention to Closing List #6 (Exhibit E.)

 

HR, Purchase of Social Services – Budget Page HR Admin-13 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3237

 

 

Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst, indicated the budget was heard by the subcommittee on March 9, 2001, and there are several technical adjustments for the committee’s consideration.  He said the first one in the base budget recommends an adjustment to properly align the funding source for 20 percent of the cost of a Social Welfare Program Specialist III position in this budget.  He noted 20 percent of the position’s cost is paid for by a transfer from the Children’s Trust Account in the Division of Child and Family Services.  Using the upgraded salaries recommended in the budget by the Governor, Mr. Peri said the amounts recommended to be increased and transferred into this account are $1,291 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,932 in fiscal year 2003.  It would increase as a transfer in from the Children’s Trust Account and similarly reduce Title XX revenue by those same amounts. 

 

E-250  Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page HR Admin-15

 

Mr. Peri said the staff recommended adjustments eliminate the E-250 decision unit.  This decision unit would abolish this budget account as recommended in The Executive Budget and provide for its transfer to the Grants Management Unit.  He said that during budget closings on April 19, 2001, the subcommittee did not approve the Grants Management Unit.  This adjustment would comply with that action and restore the budget account, Purchase of Social Services.  Mr. Peri indicated the decision unit in this budget is all negative numbers; therefore, all the adjustment numbers are positive to “zero out” the E-250 decision unit. 

 

E-800  Cost Allocation – Page HR Admin-16

 

Mr. Peri recommended an adjustment to increase the administrative cost transfer to the State and Community Collaborations budget (101-3276).  The recommended transfer in the budget is to partially support administrative and accounting support provided to this budget by positions in the State and Community Collaborations budget.  He said the recommended increase of $423 in fiscal year 2002, and $838 in fiscal year 2003, would match the adjustment approved by the subcommittee when it closed the State and Community Collaborations budget on April 24, 2001. 

 

Regarding subcommittee issues, Mr. Peri said there are several state agencies that receive transfers from this budget of Title XX revenue.  In matching up the transfers out of this budget to the revenues that come in to the other state accounts, there were two that did not match.  The first was the Homemaker Programs budget account in the Division of Aging Services.  He indicated the budget shows Title XX revenue collection authority of $2,383,526 in the first year of the biennium, and $2,373,429 in the second year, FY 2003.  Those numbers compare to the transfer amounts that are shown to come out of this budget of $2,433,492 in both years of the biennium.  Mr. Peri said the difference, or understatement, is $49,966 in the first year of the biennium, and $60,063 in the second year.  The homemaker budget does include $14,633 in each year in General Fund.  An option the subcommittee could consider would be to increase the Title XX in the homemaker budget by $49,966 in the first year, and $60,063 in the second year, eliminate the General Fund amount of $14,633 in each year, and direct the balance toward increased services. That balance would be $35,333 in the first year, and $45,430 in the second, which could be placed in the homemaker account to increase direct services. 

 

Mr. Peri pointed out a similar mismatch in the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (SNAMHS) budget.  The Title XX budget shows transfers out of $368,092 in each year of biennium, and the SNAMHS budget shows collection authority of Title XX revenue of $334,486 in each year of the biennium, a difference of $33,606 each year.  He said, as an option, the subcommittee could increase the Title XX amount in the SNAMHS budget to equal the transfers out of this budget and reduce General Fund in the SNAMHS budget by that amount, $33,606 in each year, or $67,212 over the biennium.

 

 

E-350  Service at Level Closest to People – Page HR Admin-16

 

Mr. Peri said another issue the subcommittee could consider is in decision unit E‑350, which shows Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) transfer authority coming in to supplement this budget from the TANF budget.  The latest actual federal fiscal year 2001 grant award for Title XX revenue is $11,086,782, which compares to the current Title XX authority in this budget, after some recommended technical adjustments, of $9,955,267 in FY 2002, and $9,955,179 in FY 2003.  He said that if the subcommittee were to increase the revenue authority to the latest grant award of a little over $11 million in each year, the difference in increased Title XX could be utilized to offset the General Fund in some of the other budget accounts that receive Title XX revenue. 

 

Senator Rawson said he perceived this budget as too simple, and remarked the more services that are increased, the more savings there are to the General Fund.  He asked whether there were any comments from the subcommittee. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie commented the non-state allocations of Title XX has not been increased in years.  She explained she was referring to the Title XX portion that goes out to the community to fund programs; the communities compete for it, and the programs are community based.  Ms. Leslie suggested perhaps a small portion, $131,515 each year, could be dedicated to the non-state Title XX allocations, which would go directly to direct services. 

 

Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Human Resources, commented that in developing this budget, a 10-year analysis was done of Title XX funding.  She noted in the first 5 years it increased, but the last 5 years it decreased every year but one.  She indicated the funding proposal was studied and the recommendation, developed through the department with the Budget Division, was to budget the cut in funding about 10 percent to reflect that proposal.  Ms. King pointed out the most current federal budget proposal reflects a cut in Title XX funding.  She said, “We do not know what that actually means to us because the federal fiscal year 2001 total federal funding was cut, but the state still got about $39,000 more.  So, when you (the subcommittee) make your decision, I urge you to consider the fact that if you put this $1.1 million each year into the agency’s budget and it is not appropriated by the feds, those are actual cuts to services.”  She encouraged the subcommittee to consider Assemblywoman Leslie’s recommendation to give part of the funding to non-state agencies.  She pointed out that all the cuts that have occurred in the past have been absorbed by state agencies.  Ms. King indicated, “The Department of Human Resources worked very hard to do TANF to (Title) XX transfers, backfilling with other MAXIMUS funds, whatever could be done to still provide the services.”  She said that, should a portion of it be allocated to non-state agencies and if it comes in, they get a bonus; if it does not come in, they will not be hurt. 

 

Senator Rawson asked whether there is anything being built in this budget that might set the stage for financial disaster, such as caseloads increasing or funds decreasing.  In response, Ms. King said the recommendation on E-350 to increase the grant award to $11.1 million each year is of concern.  She noted one of the options that was discussed is using it to fund increases in the homemaker program.  She said if that does not come in, services would not be provided to Aging Services Division clients.  Senator Rawson said it might be more appropriate to use anticipated Title XX increases to adjust rates or extend services, rather than substituting it for other funding sources. 

 

Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), said the numbers obtained from the Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS), which are used by the Fiscal Analysis Division to ascertain federal allocations to the states, must be considered.  He noted FFIS is the existing grant authority to the state of Nevada.  Mr. Stevens indicated, if the committee approves it, then it is “guesstimating” the Title XX allocation to the state of Nevada will not increase or decrease.  He said it is true that Title XX allocations have decreased in recent years. However, there is more funding than was planned, and the FFIS reported it to be a little over $11 million.  Mr. Stevens pointed out that Title XX allocations are based in part upon population; therefore, even when the total decreases somewhat, Nevada might increase a small amount because of its high population growth.  He said that if the committee picks this particular option, it is counting on the allocation for the state of Nevada from the federal government for Title XX remaining basically constant over the biennium.          

 

Senator Rawson asked whether Mr. Stevens was expressing some level of comfort that it would be safe to assume the Title XX allocation would remain the same.  Mr. Stevens said the current grant level is not $9 million, but rather is closer to $11 million.  He said nobody can predict what the federal government will do.  He said the FFIS indicated the allocation would hold if Congress approves the President’s Budget; however, nothing is known in regard to the second year.  Mr. Stevens pointed out there is no guarantee Congress will approve what is in the President’s Budget. 

 

Senator Rawson asked whether Mr. Stevens would prefer to see action taken now or by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) during the interim.  In response, Mr. Stevens indicated it is a judgment call that must be made in committee.  He said if an assumption is made that the Title XX allocation will not decrease, General Fund dollars can be saved because the Title XX dollars may be allocated to state agencies, reducing the General Fund need.  Senator Rawson commented that the committee probably needs to make that judgment call now.  Mr. Stevens agreed, and said, should Title XX allocations decrease, it is money that would not be available to state agencies.  He noted the department has done some innovative things in recent years to ensure state agencies do not “get hurt” by the reduction in Title XX.  Mr. Stevens stated the job of the Fiscal Analysis Division staff is to point out options to the committee, but said staff cannot guarantee the funding level will continue through the biennium. 

 

Senator Rawson asked Ms. King whether the current level of programs would be impacted should the committee accept the recommendation and then the Title XX allocation is less than estimated.  Ms. King answered that if $1.1 million is added to the budget and the budgeted Title XX allocation does not occur, it would impact direct services.  She confirmed Mr. Stevens’ comment that the Department of Human Resources had been fairly creative in the TANF to Title XX transfers pursuant to budget cuts that occurred in federal fiscal year 1999.  She said federal regulation initially allowed for transfer of 10 percent of TANF grant funds, which was decreased to 4¼ percent in federal fiscal year 2001 and increased again to 10 percent. However, it is currently proposed to drop back down to 4¼ percent, and that will impact how much money can be transferred.  Ms. King indicated MAXIMUS funding in state FY 2000 was approximately $3 million, and it is currently about $130,000. 

 

Senator Rawson asked the staff whether it would be over simplifying the issue to suggest taking the option that would save $2 million.  Mr. Stevens clarified it would save $1.1 million per year.  Assemblywoman Leslie commented Assemblywoman Tiffany’s program for the homeless would be Title XX eligible.  Senator Rawson entertained a motion.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS             RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.         

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie queried whether or not there would be an appetite on the part of the committee for putting some funds into the nonstate Title XX pool of money.  She clarified the pool has already been created and the committee would just be adding to it.  Senator Rawson asked the cost to do so.  Ms. King indicated there is currently, between $700,000 and $800,000 passed to local community agencies in Title XX funds.  She pointed out, as Ms. Leslie previously indicated, the amount has not been decreased or increased for at least 5 years.  Ms. Leslie suggested rounding the offset to $1 million, and $131,515 would be put into the nonstate Title XX pool.  Senator Rawson remarked, “We are not supposed to be in a spending mode.”  Ms. Leslie stated it is important for the committee to realize the nonstate agencies provide direct services on an ongoing basis. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned that in past years Assemblyman Larry Spitler pointed out a certain percentage of funds had to “start going out of Title XX because they were not being allocated.”  Mr. Stevens clarified it started and then faltered because funding was not there at that time.  He noted the department protected the nonstate agency areas and state agencies took the cuts.  Consequently, the nonstate agencies did not receive an increase in those years, but neither did they take a reduction.  Ms. Giunchigliani said Ms. Leslie’s suggestion was to take the option in decision unit E-350 of $1 million and $1 million, which would leave a little extra to be allocated to the nonstate agencies.  She asked for what other use that money would be used.  Ms. King said she assumed the recommendation, should projected Title XX money be decreased, was the General Fund would be cut by $1.1 million; therefore, under Ms. Leslie’s proposal, General Fund would be cut by $1 million and nonstate agencies would be increased $131,000. 

 

Assemblyman Dini mentioned he read in a National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) bulletin there is a movement in Congress to cut the growth bonus.  Ms. King indicated it referred to the TANF high-growth state bonus, which is funded for federal fiscal year 2001. 

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Community Services Block Grant – Page HR Admin-18 (Volume 2) 

Budget Account 101-4864

 

Mr. Peri indicated the subcommittee heard this budget on March 9, 2001.

 

E-250  Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page HR Admin-20

 

Mr. Peri said this decision unit would have abolished this budget account and allowed for its transfer to the Grants Management Unit.  On April 19, 2001, the subcommittee did not approve the Grants Management Unit; therefore, all the staff recommended adjustments shown in E-250 reverse the negative adjustments recommended in the budget and restore this budget account.

 

E-800  Cost Allocation – Page HR Admin-20

 

Mr. Peri said this decision unit makes the same adjustments discussed in the Title XX budget.  The administrative cost transfers to the State and Community Collaborations budget and the adjustments to reflect the latest salaries as recommended in The Executive Budget, would result in an increase in the amount of transfer to the State and Community Collaborations budget.  The increase is $423 in FY 2002, and $838 in FY 2003. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED   BY THE STAFF.

 

            SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Family to Family Connection – Page HR Admin-22 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3278

 

Mr. Peri indicated the subcommittee heard this budget on February 13, 2001.

 

Mr. Peri said the first technical adjustment in the base budget illustrates the elimination of $505,089 in Childcare Development funds in each year of the biennium.  The funds were utilized to support four Child Development Specialist positions that are recommended to be transferred to the Welfare Division’s Childcare Assistance and Development Program budget.  In addition to the elimination of those four positions, it is suggested the remaining costs, supported by the funds also be eliminated.  The subcommittee accepted the recommendation to transfer the four positions out of this budget into the Welfare Division, which would also provide assistance to the Family to Family Programs.  The reductions in the $505,089 also included a reduction in the grant category to the infant support districts of approximately $185,437 in the first year and $175,019 in the second year.  The positions are gone and the supporting revenue would also have to be removed. 

 

 

M-300  Fringe Benefit Changes – Page HR Admin-23

M-301  Adds Step 9 and 4% COLA – Page HR Admin-24

 

Mr. Peri said the adjustments are attributable to the elimination of the four positions.  They adjust fringe benefit costs by $927 in FY 2002, and by a decrease of $57 in FY 2003, and also reduce the proposed salary increases in the budget by $6,096 in FY 2002, and by $11,254 in FY 2003.  He said the positions are gone; therefore, the recommended salary increases in the budget are reduced. 

 

E-250  Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page HR Admin-24

 

Mr. Peri indicated this decision unit would have eliminated the budget.  He said the negative numbers are eliminated and the budget is restored. 

 

E-251  Eliminate Duplicate Effort – HR Admin-25

 

Mr. Peri said the suggested adjustment would restore the M-303 decision unit.  It is an occupational study recommendation and M-303 would implement it.  He indicated E-251, if not adjusted, would eliminate that decision unit since the budget is being restored.  He suggested the committee consider it as well.

 

E-800  Cost Allocation – Page HR Admin-25

 

Mr. Peri said E-800 is the same administrative cost transferred to the State and Community Collaborations budget.  The recommendations would increase the transfer from this budget to that account by $598 in FY 2002, and $1,762 in FY 2003, to match the adjustments approved when the State and Community Collaborations budget was closed. 

 

Referring to page 6 of Exhibit E, Mr. Peri said when the subcommittee directed staff to restore this account, it was restored to what the Governor recommended prior to considering its transfer to the Grants Management Unit.  He said if the budget is approved as it stands at the amounts recommended in the grant categories, which are $2,019,523 in the first year and $2,029,941 in the second year, compared to the Governor recommended amounts of $627,489 in each year of the biennium in the Grants Management Unit, it would cost $712,797 in General Fund the first year and $673,899 in the second year.  Mr. Peri pointed out it would take roughly $1.4 million in additional funds above and beyond what the Governor allocated for the director’s office accounts. 

 

Pointing out the second paragraph under “Subcommittee Issues” on page 5 of Exhibit E, Mr. Peri said as an option the subcommittee could consider holding General Fund support at the level recommended by the Governor for the accounts in the director’s office.  The figures are approximately $3.9 million in the first year of the biennium and $4.0 in the second.  He indicated it would reduce the Family to Family grants to approximately $1.3 million in each year of the biennium.  Those amounts would still be significant increases to the Governor’s recommended amount of $627,489, roughly a 108 percent increase the first year and 116 percent increase the second year.  Mr. Peri said this option would also allow for continuance of the Family Resource Centers programs with slight reductions to its grant funding.  The grants would change from $1,320,792 each year as recommended in the Grants Management Unit to approximately $1,302,000.  He pointed out the only reason the Family Resource Centers Program is mentioned here is it similarly was to be included in the Grants Management Unit.  Mr. Peri said it was not, but was restored, and the restored figures are a little over $1.3 million, not $1,320,000. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Peri said the other suggestion on which the department was requested to follow up was the potential for both Family to Family Connection and Family Resource Centers Programs to pursue additional funding, either TANF funds or Child Care Development Funds, even though the four positions are not in this account any longer, and fees for services.  The department provided several responses (which are attached to the closing list). 

 

Summarizing, Mr. Peri said the department did not feel any of those funds should be considered to be placed in this budget and create another level of administration. However, he said, the department encourages and suggests the local Infant Support Districts pursue TANF and Child Care Development Funds, as an example, directly from the Welfare Division.  Fees for services are currently being charged in some of the Family Resource Centers and would not require statutory changes to similarly consider that in some of the Infant Support Districts to implement sliding fee schedules.  Mr. Peri indicated those are several alternatives for the subcommittee’s consideration.

 

Senator Rawson expressed comfort with holding total General Fund support at the level recommended by the Governor.  He said it gives a nice grant level with slight differences and restores a program that essentially was perceived as gone.  The senator indicated if General Fund is held at that level, the programs should pursue additional funding sources, and he suggested recommending a sliding-fee scale. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said, by uncoupling everything, the subcommittee got as close as it could and the interested groups would be happy.  She indicated she would entertain some kind of program policy change to direct the Department of Human Resources to develop some kind of regulation to, in some cases, allow programs to continue by implementing a sliding fee scale, ensuring that any of the groups could do so.  She offered it as an amendment with staff recommendation. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie indicated she was happy with the recommendation.  She requested clarification as to whether Family to Family Connection would continue to be administered as it is currently, and not run it through the local governing board as proposed by the board.  Mr. Peri said that was his understanding.  He said consideration had been given to allowing Family to Family Connection to use the 15 percent administrative portion, but it was determined they would not be eligible for that portion.

 

Ms. King said she wished to make sure, in closing the Welfare Division budget, the committee moves the four Child Development Specialists back.  She noted the positions had previously been used for training and quality control in Family to Family Connection.  Ms. King stated through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Family to Family Connection and Welfare, they would continue to have those positions and do those functions in Welfare instead of Family to Family Connection.  Senator Rawson said that was appropriate. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS             RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

HR, Family Resource Centers – Page HR Admin-27 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3294

 

Mr. Peri indicated the budget was heard on February 13, 2001.

 

E-250  Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page HR Admin-29

 

Mr. Peri said the staff-recommended adjustments would eliminate this decision unit.  The decision unit would have abolished the budget.  The positive numbers simply reverse the negative numbers that were recommended in the Governor’s budget.  He indicated grant expenditures would be restored at $1,302,722 in the first year and $1,301,445 in the second year of the biennium.  He explained the reason the grant expenditures decrease a bit from $1,320,792 is to provide for the administrative cost transfers to the State and Community Collaborations budget.  The Executive Budget recommends a little over $17,000 for each year.  Mr. Peri said staff recommends adjusting it to equal the current salaries as recommended by the Governor and would be increased by $598 in the first year and $1,762 in the second year, and that would be transferred to the State and Community Collaborations budget. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie said she received complaints from the field there would be less money available for direct grants to Family Resource Centers, and she assumed E-250 was the reason.  Mr. Peri agreed.  Ms. Leslie said that, from the perspective of the Family Resource Centers, there had not been an increase in their budget from this program for several years.  She said she would now have to tell them the reason there is less money is because the state is receiving more. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED   BY THE STAFF.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Janelle Mulvenon, Administrator, Administrative and Fiscal Operations, Community Connections, indicated an impetus to do a cost allocation is to receive federal grants.  She said Community Connections was advised by the United States Department of Education that they must do a cost-allocation plan to continue to receive the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grant.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie stated this budget is totally state-funded.  She asked whether the cost allocation must be done because of other budgets.  Ms. Mulvenon indicated it allocates administrative costs across various budgets within the structure of Community Connections; therefore, they are administrative costs that benefit Family to Family, Family Resource Centers, Community Services Block Grant, Title XX, and so forth. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired whether administrative costs could be charged to federal grants.  Assemblywoman Leslie said it makes sense but predicted some Family Resource Centers would experience confusion in the next 2 years.  Senator Rawson asked whether there was any credit to try to save them and keep the programs alive.  Ms. Leslie indicated each one is its own thing.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE             VOTE.)

           

*****

 

HR, Aging Older Americans Act – Page Aging-4 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3151

 

Georgia J. Rohrs, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, indicated the first item for consideration by the subcommittee is a new issue since prior hearings:  a severe mold problem in the Las Vegas office.  She said the subcommittee must decide whether to approve a request by the Aging Services Division to amend its budgets to increase the Title III administrative allowance $26,477 for each year of biennium, and use part of the increase to fund the rent increase in the Las Vegas office.  This is not in the budget, it is a new situation, and the staff was advised of the problem last week.  Ms. Rohrs noted the Aging Services Division located other office space, but there is a 50 cents per square foot increase in price, which will be allocated among three of the Aging Services Division budgets: this budget, the Senior Services Program budget that will be heard next, and the Homemaker Programs budget, which has been closed and will have to be reopened to allow for this. 

 

Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, expressed concern about the mold issue.  She pointed out there had been 13 or 14 workers’ compensation claims filed.  The problem is throughout the entire building and the Cannon Center would like everyone to move out for 4 months to completely renovate the building.  Ms. Liveratti indicated there was insufficient money to move twice.  Senator Rawson commented there is no question about this budget issue.

Continuing, Ms. Rohrs noted the Homemaker Services budget would have to be reopened to allow payment for the office move and the rent increase.

 

M-200  Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page AGING-7

 

Ms. Rohrs said the subcommittee would have to determine whether to fund a Long-Term Care Ombudsman Position, which was described as a Compliance Investigator in the Governor’s Budget, for Reno-Sparks and outlying areas.  It is to be funded 75 percent by General Fund, and 25 percent by Title III; the cost would be $39,136 in FY 2002 and $48,705 in FY 2003.  She said the position investigates allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation in long-term care facilities.  More than 40 percent of investigations are urgent and must be responded to within 3 days.  She pointed out that funding the position will allow another 2000 responses to complaints during the biennium.  Ms. Rohrs called attention to the table on page 14 of Closing List Number 6 (Exhibit E), which gives projections and actual figures.  Projections are 14,000 investigations per year for the upcoming biennium.  She said there are currently six ombudsman positions; therefore, it would equate to approximately 2,000 complaints per investigator.  Senator Rawson asked whether it would be primarily for the rural areas.  Ms. Rohrs answered it is for Reno-Sparks and outlying areas. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Rohrs said a technical adjustment was made on computer costs for a savings of $91. 

 

E-275  Working Environment & Wage – AGING-8

 

Ms. Rohrs said the subcommittee must decide whether to fund four new administrative positions to enhance management functions.  Funding is recommended from the General Fund, Medicaid, State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), and Title XX.  She pointed out a table on page 14 of Exhibit E breaks down the costs for percentages of funding, and a portion of personnel costs would be funded from each source.  In-state travel, operating costs, equipment, and information services would be paid from the General Fund. 

 

Ms. Rohrs indicated the first position recommended for the division is a Personnel Technician.  The staff studied comparables with other agencies of a comparable size.  The division currently has approximately 160 full time equivalents (FTEs).  She said other agencies similarly sized have a personnel position available; therefore, the position is recommended.

 

Continuing, Ms. Rohrs said the second position is a Management Analyst I for budget analysis, development, and maintenance.  It appears reasonable based upon rapid growth, both in the number and dollar amounts of the Aging Services Division budgets. 

 

Further, Ms. Rohrs pointed out, the third position is a Management Analyst III for policy, planning, and analysis.  Information was not presented by the division to sufficiently justify this position.  The division was asked to prioritize its positions in this account; however, a prioritized list was not provided. 

 

Ms. Rohrs said the fourth position is a Computer Systems Technician, which is for support and maintenance of the division’s personal computers (PCs) and technical support to division staff in the Las Vegas area.  Another Computer Systems Technician position was requested for the Carson City/Reno/Elko area in the Senior Services Program budget.  She noted one position is recommended by staff and probably should be in the Carson City/Reno/Elko area since there is an Information Systems Specialist position currently in Las Vegas. 

 

E-275  Working Environment & Wage – Page AGING-8

 

Ms. Rohrs indicated the computer price adjustments in the budget in this decision unit are for current contract price and the savings are $964. 

 

E-300  Maximize Internet & Technology – Page AGING-8

 

Ms. Rohrs said the subcommittee must decide whether or not to fund the wide-area network for the division.  There are decision units in three of the division’s budget accounts to share the cost and this budget’s share would be $9,957 in FY 2002 and $6,547 in FY 2003 in General Fund.

 

E-450  Reward Self-Sufficiency – Page AGING-9

 

Ms. Rohrs indicated the recommendation is to increase the federal grant amounts and General Fund match in the amounts of $17,264 for FY 2002 and $25,385 for FY 2003.

 

E-451  Reward Self-Sufficiency – Page AGING-9

 

Ms. Rohrs said adjustments have been made to eliminate the General Fund component in this decision unit.

 

E-710  Replacement Equipment – Page AGING-10

 

Ms. Rohrs pointed out equipment amounts were adjusted for a General Fund saving of $2,095 and $1,001 for the biennium respectively. 

 

Ms. Liveratti testified the Management Analyst III for policy, planning and analysis will examine policy issues that cross all units.  For example, there are issues with the community-based care unit in keeping frail elderly at home; there are issues with elder protective services and keeping people in independent housing or assisted living housing; and there are issues with the elder rights unit.  She said no one is looking across these units and coordinating the big policy issues.  Ms. Liveratti indicated mental health is another issue in each of the different programs and settings, including grant programs.  She pointed out the Management Analyst III position was not recommended by committee staff.  However, she said, the division had foreseen the position coordinating the issues that cut across all the functional units in the division. 

 

Senator Rawson remarked that all four new requested administrative positions have shared funding; therefore, very little General Fund would be saved by cutting a position.  He asked whether it would cause serious problems should the Management Analyst III position be authorized and vacancy savings increased.  Ms. Liveratti answered, “No, I do not believe so.”  

 

In regard to decision unit M-200, Senator Coffin expressed concern that one additional person could handle 2000 complaints during the biennium, which averages out to five complaints each day.  Ms. Liveratti noted there are currently six long-term care ombudsmen who handle almost 12,000 complaints, and that works out to be approximately 2000 complaints per worker in 1 year.  Senator Coffin inquired how, and to whose satisfaction, complaints are handled.  Ms. Liveratti answered a performance indicator is used to ascertain the satisfaction of the complainant.  Ms. Liveratti indicated many times complaints are made by family members who are concerned about a loved one in an institution.  She explained the complaints are tracked and followed-up after the investigation is concluded and resolution is reached to ascertain whether complainants are satisfied with the outcome of the investigation and mediation.  Ms. Liveratti noted the performance indicator for FY 2000 was 85 percent, and 96 percent were satisfied with the resolution at the conclusion of the investigation.  She pointed out the percentage of satisfaction was higher than was anticipated.  Senator Rawson inquired whether the measurement of satisfaction is submitted in a written document from the family.  Ms. Liveratti indicated there is a verbal follow-up with the complainant, either with the person, a family member, or a friend.  She added sometimes complaints come from staff members, but follow-up is done with the originator of the complaint to ascertain whether they are satisfied with the investigation and conclusion.  Senator Coffin expressed discomfort with adding the Long-Term Care Ombudsman to handle 2,000 complaints.

 

Senator Rawson said, it seemed to him there is a decent formula, the track record is good, and there is no alarm signal. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET             ACCOUNT 101‑3151 INCLUDING STAFF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPROVAL             FOR A LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN POSITION, ONE PERSONNEL             TECHNICIAN II POSITION, ONE MANAGEMENT ANALYST I POSITION, AND    ONE COMPUTER SYSTEM TECHNICIAN III POSITION, AND MOVING THE             GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE WIDE-AREA NETWORK COSTS INTO             THE “ONE-SHOT” BASED ON THE PASSAGE OF A.B. 528. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 528:  Makes appropriation to Aging Services Division of             Department of Human Resources for wide-area network for offices in Reno   and Las Vegas. (BDR S-1366)

 

Ms. Rohrs pointed out that another Computer Technician position was recommended in the Senior Services Program budget; therefore, if one Computer Technician position was to be approved, it was an issue of which funding would be preferred.  She said the position in the next budget is funded by Tobacco Settlement money, whereas this position is a split among different funding sources.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she would prefer the split among various funding sources.  Ms. Rohrs said Ms. Giunchigliani may wish to designate which areas would be served by the new position.  In response, Ms. Giunchigliani said testimony indicated the Carson City office. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she would offer the prior motion and take up the issue of the Management Analyst III as a secondary motion. 

 

Senator Rawson asked, since there are four administrative positions, if the Management Analyst III is included and the vacancy savings increased for one position, whether that solution would be tolerable.  He remarked it would provide flexibility and not cost any more.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she would add that to the motion if the person who seconded the motion would agree.  Ms. Leslie agreed.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

HR, Senior Services Program – Page Aging-13 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3146

 

Ms. Rohrs indicated this is the Community Home-Based Initiative Program (CHIP), Adult Group Care Waiver Program, and the Caregiver Training Program.  The new issue with regard to the mold problem affects this budget.  She said she was unaware whether there had been a blanket approval for paying it.  Senator Rawson indicated it would be dealt with in each budget.

 

Ms. Rohrs pointed out a table on page 18 of Exhibit E, which provides caseload and wait lists in various offices. 

 

Ms. Rohrs said the subcommittee must decide whether to fund for caseload growth in the Medicaid CHIP Program through Title XIX (Medicaid) and Tobacco Settlement funding.

 

M-200  Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page AGING-14

 

Ms. Rohrs said $3 million is recommended for the biennium for CHIP caseload growth.  The positions would be funded 50 percent from Tobacco Settlement money and 50 percent from Title XIX.  She indicated a Program Assistant III is recommended for Las Vegas for technical support for five social workers.  The Program Assistant position appears reasonable and will maintain the ratio of 5.25 social workers to 1 Program Assistant in Las Vegas. 

 

M-200  Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page AGING-14

 

Ms. Rohrs said the technical adjustments for M-200 are in the area of operating expenses to adjust for start dates and contract prices for computers.  The cost savings are $2,780 for the biennium.  She indicated this will not impact or cause delays in services.

 

Expansion in the Medicaid CHIP Program

 

E-429  Nevadans With Health Insurance – Page AGING-16

 

Ms. Rohrs noted the issue for the committee to decide regarding E‑429 is whether to fund an expansion in the CHIP program through Title XIX with a General Fund match.  She said E‑429 is to fund seven positions and provide additional services to reduce the waiting list, adding 160 CHIP clients.  Senator Rawson inquired whether there would be General Fund implication.  Ms. Rohrs responded the decision unit is funded entirely by Medicaid with a General Fund match in the Medicaid budget.  The positions include a Social Worker Supervisor to supervise five social workers in Las Vegas, a Program Assistant for technical support, an Accounting Clerk, and four Social Workers.  Ms. Rohrs said the Social Work Supervisor and three Social Workers would be located in the Las Vegas office and one Social Worker would be in the Reno office.  She said the Program Assistant, Accounting Clerk, and four Social Workers appear reasonable based upon caseloads. 

 

Ms. Rohrs recommended adjustments to start times of positions and changes in contract prices for computers.  Total cost savings amounts to $30,451.

 

E-430  Nevadans With Health Insurance – Page AGING-16

 

Ms. Rohrs said decision unit E-430 is to expand the Adult Group Care Waiver Program to allow for 100 more seniors by adjusting the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility level to 300 percent of the SSI income level.  The two Social Worker positions requested in this decision unit appear reasonable and are supported by the current average caseload.  She noted, however, that another Program Assistant in the Carson City office would reduce the ratio of Social Worker to Program Assistant to 3:1.  Ms. Rohrs noted the current ratio is 5:1, which is in line with other offices; therefore, approval of the position is not recommended. 

 

Ms. Rohrs said the adjustments in E-430 are for start dates and contract amounts for computers.  Total cost savings amounts to $21,564. 

 

E-300  Maximize Internet & Technology – Page AGING-16

 

Ms. Rohrs said the committee needs to decide whether to fund the wide-area network (WAN). E-300 represents this budget’s share in the amount $22,360. 

 

E-450  Reward Self-Sufficiency – Page AGING-17

 

Ms. Rohrs indicated the committee needs to decide whether to increase contract rates for service providers by 3 percent, to be funded by General Fund, Tobacco Settlement monies, and Medicaid. The cost is approximately $575,000 over the biennium, she added.

 

Ms. Rohrs said other adjustments recommended by staff are for contract prices and information systems and General Fund savings in fringe benefit charges.

 

Referring to page 20 of Exhibit E, Assemblyman Dini requested further explanation of the duties of the Program Assistant in the Carson City office.  Ms. Liveratti explained the Program Assistant is a support position, which is part clerical and part technical support for the Social Workers.  For example, she indicated, Medicaid must be billed for the time of each Social Worker by client.  The Program Assistant helps with billing by entering the number of hours into the computer, ensuring numbers are accurate, and reflecting the documentation in the case file in order to bill correctly.  Ms. Liveratti clarified the reason a Program Assistant is requested for the Carson City office is because the Supervisor supervises eight employees.  She said it was determined that the Supervisor could use more assistance with some of the clerical functions.  She pointed out that, although the ratio is low, the Supervisor is supervising Social Workers in three different program areas: the CHIP Social Workers, the Homemaker Social Worker, and an Elder Protective Services (EPS) worker, all in the Carson City office.  Mr. Dini commented that, due to the function of the position, it should pay for itself.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET             ACCOUNT 101‑3146, INCLUDING DECISION UNIT M-200 WITH STAFF             ADJUSTMENTS AND PROVIDING TWO NEW SOCIAL WORKERS BUT NOT             APPROVING THE ADDITIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN; TO     FUND EXPANSION OF THE CHIP PROGRAM THROUGH TITLE XIX AND             GENERAL FUND MATCH IN DECISION UNIT E-429; TO APPROVE THE             RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PROGRAM ASSISTANT IN CARSON CITY AND             TWO ADDITIONAL SOCIAL WORKERS IN DECISION UNIT E-430; AND TO             ELIMINATE THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE WIDE-AREA NETWORK             (WAN) FUNDING IN DECISION UNIT E‑300, BUT APPROVE FUNDING FOR             CONTRACT RATE SERVICES FOR THE SERVICE PROVIDERS.    

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted Tobacco Settlement dollars have been consistently used for much of the Aging Services Division budget.  She said she anticipates that the Aging Services Division will find other funding sources next Legislative Session.  Senator Rawson expressed his disappointment that it has been necessary to use Tobacco Settlement funding for the Aging Services Division budget.   

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Rawson indicated the Homemaker budget (101-3252) also needs to be adjusted for the mold problem. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE HOMEMAKER BUDGET AND TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-3252 INCLUDING APPROPRIATE STAFF ADJUSTMENTS FOR MOLD             PROBLEM RESOLUTION.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Indian Affairs Commission – Page Indian-1 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-2600

 

Mr. Stevens indicated there are no recommendations other than to close the budget at the Governor’s recommendation.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS             RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Public Defender – Page PubDef-1 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-1499

 

E-710  Replacement Equipment – Page PUB DEF-4

E-720  New Equipment – Page PUB DEF-4

 

Mr. Stevens recommended reducing replacement equipment by three personal computers (PCs), work station installation charges, and three printers, with an upgrade to the remaining printer.  He recommended revised prices for computers and file servers. He said the issue had been discussed with the agency and they agreed.  Mr. Stevens noted, the funding would be split 52 percent General Fund and 48 percent county revenue. 

 

Senator Coffin pointed out most prison inmates are defended by the public defender, and asked whether the subcommittee would be in error by reducing any of their requests.  In response, Mr. Stevens said the only things reduced were computer prices, three PCs, and three printers.  He reiterated he had spoken with the agencies to make sure there were no major objections to the closing recommendations of this budget.  Senator Coffin remarked, “They will have their hands full over the next 2 years if this committee comes about . . . and I do not know the status . . . but there is a lot of politics involved in this thing at this moment.  Maybe we can get a hearing . . . it has passed house . . . and how is it doing on the Assembly side?” 

 

Senator Rawson declared when the staff reduces computers they do not cut them arbitrarily; rather they consider what they are, when they were bought, and what is being replaced. He said such items are not allowed to be duplicated or wasted.  Senator Coffin indicated the price of computers has been cut by reducing three printers, which he approved.  Mr. Stevens again reiterated he discussed budget closing with the agencies this afternoon and no objections were voiced. 

 

Assemblyman Dini said, as a point of information, not all public defenders can defend a death penalty case and must be qualified by the Supreme Court.  He noted a circle of attorneys is hired to handle “tough” cases. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS             RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

 

            SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO, ASSEMBLYMAN             GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE            VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Addressing Senator Coffin’s concern, Ms. King said when the public defender is doing post-conviction relief, should the cost exceed what is budgeted, there is access to the Reserve for Statutory Contingency Fund.  She indicated the public defender has accessed the Reserve for Statutory Contingency Fund regularly over the past few years.  Ms. King pointed out The Executive Budget “pumps” it significantly from what was budgeted in 2000 and 2001.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Barbara Moss for Judy Jacobs

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE:           

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani

Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: