MINUTES OF THE MEETING

OF THE

JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE on HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND THE

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

 

Seventy-First Session

February 22, 2001

 

The Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson at 8:08 a.m., on Thursday, February 22, 2001, in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building.  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 William J. Raggio

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Barbara K. Cegavske

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Mr. David E. Goldwater

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Sandra J. Tiffany

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT

 

Senator Bob Coffin

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst

ElizaBeth Root, 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

Madilyn Maire, Social Welfare Program Chief II, UNITY Project, Division of Child   and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Patricia J. Hedgecoth, Chief, Bureau of Services for Child Care, Division of Child   and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Dorothy S. Pomin, Lobbyist, Sierra Association of Foster Families

Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child   and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Larry Carter, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Planning Evaluation and Program             Development, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (OJJDP),             Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Steven J. Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp, Douglas County

Judge David R. Gamble, Ninth Judicial District, District Courts of Nevada

Les Gruner, Acting Deputy Administrator, Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent             Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human             Resources

Christa Peterson, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator, Southern Regional Services,             Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, Community Unity Coalition of Nevada          

Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Chapter, National Association of Social             Workers

 

DIVISION OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Children and Family Administration – Budget Page DCFS -1 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3145

 

Chairman Rawson:

This is an important budget.  We created this agency through reorganization in 1991.  It has been an interesting evolution to see the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) come together under one roof.  That continues to progress as we go.  I see a 19.3 percent increase over the two years in funding, but when you look at the General Fund portion of that, it is 36.5 percent.  So, this budget is becoming more dependent on General Fund.  We need to ensure we are maximizing revenue sources from other areas.  We ought to always be maximizing revenues whenever we can. 

 

This committee has a concern about performance indicators in this budget.  The performance indicators are unmanageable for us and there is a great deal of information there.  There are about 35 separate indicators.  Some of them are current; some are not really usable to us now.  Do you have any comments about those before I continue?

 

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

I do have comments regarding the performance indicators.  Senator Raggio also had questions during the last session.  Our performance indicators are in good shape in 15 of our 17 budgets.  Our two big budgets, 101-3145 (our main administrative budget) and 101-3229 (the placement budget), are mainly the ones that require new indicators pursuant to federal mandates.  The instructions we were given by the federal government were to place the old indicators in with the new indicators.  So, rather than collapse the numbers of performance indicators, we ended up expanding them.  There are over 70 indicators in these budgets, which is entirely too many, and I would like to work with your staff on an agreement as to which indicators to use.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Mr. Shaw, I also suggest you work with our staff.  Let us develop fewer than a dozen performance indicators that tell us whether you are able to do the job, or are meeting the basic expectations.  You may keep a list of 70 indicators to tell you how you are doing internally.  But for purposes of the budgets, let us narrow that down to fewer than 10, if we can.  We will ask you to work with staff on completing that task.  I think with some agencies, we have come to the point that session enhancement money is not going to flow until the indicators are in.  That is punitive, and I do not think we have to take that kind of tone with you.

 

Mr. Shaw:

I appreciate the opportunity, Sir.

 

Chairman Rawson:

There are a number of major issues in this budget that require clarification because we have no explanation or understanding.  For example, M-100 shows an inflationary adjustment of $778,000 in the first year, which is comparable to the second.  This is basically explained as inflationary costs for payments to the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), but it is a 2000 percent increase. 

 

To be true in our budgeting, I think we need to deal with this issue.  We know that we do not have inflation to that extent, and so it should not be going into a maintenance budget.  If this is an enhancement, let us deal with it as an enhancement.  I am not questioning whether you need it, or whether DoIT needs it, although we may question that later.  But for the integrity of the budgeting, we really ought to deal with that properly.  Do you have any comment on that?

 

Mr. Shaw:

I believe the Budget Division, Department of Administration placed that item there.

 

Chairman Rawson:

We have the impression there are a number of things in the budget that are plugged in to make the numbers work out, and it may be just a function of how we put our budget together.  I am not sure about the whole cost allocation concept, when a percent or two is taken from many hundreds of budgets, it looks like a small amount.  We lose the ability to track totals, or to evaluate what is going on with this or any other service that may be funded through cost allocation.  I have some personal reservations about doing things that way and we need a better understanding of all of this. 

 

E-250 Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page DCFS-9

 

Chairman Rawson:

In E-250 there is a transfer of program costs and grant funds for the U.S. Crime Victims Grant Program.  I have questions about the whole grant management concept, specifically, about moving all of these from the various budgets into one area.  Do you have any concerns or comments about that?

 

Mr. Shaw:

I do not have any concerns about it.  My comments are these funds go to essentially the same organizations.   We report to the Commission on Mental Health and Developmental Services on the domestic violence portion of that fund.  I believe this was recommended by the Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government.  In addition to these funds there are several other sources of domestic violence funds that flow through to essentially the same group of agencies.  This can be coordinated better from the viewpoint of the director’s office.  There is no reason we should be reporting to the Commission on Mental Health and Developmental Services on the expenditure of these funds.  Putting them all in one place, being able to see whose getting what, and being able to manage them would be advantageous. 

 

Chairman Rawson:

I do not think there is any management savings by putting them all together.  So, that is not an issue.  If it works better for you, it is something we seriously need to consider.  If it confuses or makes it any more difficult for you to do your job, we should disallow it. 

 

Mr. Shaw:

It does not make it any more difficult for me.  On a policy level it is better to have it managed from a central location.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

You said you believe that “essentially” the same dollar amount will be going to the grantees.  That leads me to believe that money may be diverted, be it administrative or otherwise.  Did I write that down wrong, or was that the phrase you used?

 

Mr. Shaw:

I am not sure if I used that phrase, but you are correct.  There is a bill before this legislative body to take an administrative portion of the domestic violence funds.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

We are concerned about the whole grants issue, and that is what Senator Rawson is talking about.  If this actually reduces what is going to the grantees to create a centralized budget, then I do not think we want to do that.  We want as much money going to the grantees as possible.  Who says you have to report to the Commission on Mental Health and Developmental Services?

 

Mr. Shaw:

The agency’s duty to report to the Commission on Mental Health and Developmental Services is statutory and stated in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Then why would we not recommend cleaning that up, if it is a burden, rather than centralizing and making this entire change based on a single procedure that is no longer working.

 

Mr. Shaw:

That is an issue, but it is a side issue.  The policy issue, again, is where to take the administrative funds.  Do we take them from the funding source or from the General Fund.  In the past, we have bled off other grants that have nothing to do with it.  So, you have to decide whether you want to take it from the funding source, the General Fund, or another grant.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

That is something we will ponder.  I do not think we have a good understanding on what the grants management unit is intended to do, or how they will do it.  A lot of grants have different rules, depending on the type of grant.  So, I do not know that you are going to be much more effective or efficient to have them managed all in one area.

 

Chairman Rawson:

This grant was previously managed in the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services and then it was transferred to DCFS, but the mental health commission maintained the oversight and approval of how money was spent.  Even if this is moved to the grants office, I am not sure we have cleaned it up unless we deal with the mental health commission approval process.  I have heard nothing on that, nor have we really considered that point.  If we are going to move this budget, we need to consider the method so it works appropriately.

 

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DCFS-9

 

Chairman Rawson:

Decision unit E-275 is essentially an increase in payments for leased office space for the Belrose building in Las Vegas.  This is the concern I have:  all the discussions regarding the consolidating or bifurcating of the child welfare system have been based on existing budgets.  The Governor has “thrown in” a significant amount of money to try to make the counties whole.  That was probably figured at the 61 cents per square foot.  We are now considering raising that to $1.20 per square foot. 

 

If we move ahead with the recommendations of the Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 53, the Interim Subcommittee on Child Welfare Integration, the county has already indicated they do not want to take over the Belrose building.  They do not want to deal with it.  We ought to be leaving the same cost per square foot in the budget that was used for calculation during the interim.  You may have additional insight on that issue.

 

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 53 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:             Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of integration of         state and local child welfare systems in this state. (BDR R-1712)

 

Mr. Shaw:

That is there because bills on the integration of child welfare services have not been introduced.  Chances are they will get passed, and if they do, we should revisit this before we close this budget.  I do not know whether you have been to the Belrose Office lately, but it requires renovation.

 

Chairman Rawson:

I think there is probably a message in that.  If the county does not want it, and we do not want to take care of it, maybe we ought to be looking somewhere else.

 

Mr. Shaw:

I think we will know later in the session before we close this budget.  You are right, we do need to revisit this budget in light of A.C.R. 53 and we are not trying to sneak anything in.  We just wanted to put this out there.

 

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page DCFS-10

 

Chairman Rawson:

This is just a straightforward request for more cars.  I think you have a number of positions that are being added.

 

 

 

Mr. Shaw:

The major issue with this decision unit is replacement of cars.  In the past, DCFS had bought and owned their cars.  This decision unit will change that practice.

 

Chairman Rawson:

So there will be a corresponding decrease in the number of agency cars?

 

Mr. Shaw:

That is correct, Sir.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Let us go to budget account 101-3143. 

 

HR, UNITY/SACWIS - Budget Page DCFS -13 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3143

 

Mr. Shaw:

Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) is a major system and one of the few in this state that has come up without controversy and under budget.  We were delayed in terms of time, but not that much.  We are in the implementation phase right now, and it should be fully implemented in the near future. 

 

The contractor is gone and the division is in maintenance and warranty.  We are partners with Washoe County in this endeavor and UNITY is almost fully functional.  The issue is the payment mechanism.  Checks are issued to foster parents by way of UNITY.  So, learning from past mistakes of others, we are running parallel systems until we are absolutely sure every check will be there on time.  We are running the child welfare action form payment, which is our Legacy system, parallel now, and we will do that until we are 100 percent confident checks will be issued by the new system. 

 

Chairman Rawson:

When you say it is fully operational, I am curious whether it is fully functional.  Is it free of “bugs” and is it processing information the way we thought it would?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Mr. Chairman, it is doing everything we thought it would, with the exception of issuing checks.  As I said, we are being very careful about that.  I want to thank you and, if you will recall, the bids came in over the budgeted amount and several people on this subcommittee had enough faith to increase the budget.  Yes, UNITY is functional.  We have 900 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions; the majority of those positions are using it with more coming on every day.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

When you say it is functional, that means fully operational.  All your deliverables have been completed.  Everything is on-line.  The only part not taking place is the writing of the actual checks.  When will the check-writing part come about?

 

 

 

 

Madilyn Maire, Social Welfare Program Chief II, UNITY Project, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:

The system has been fully tested, and is fully operational on the case management side, as Mr. Shaw indicated.  We are doing additional testing, running parallel tests to ensure the checks that would be issued from UNITY through the Integrated Financial System (IFS) would be the same as they are in the Child Welfare Action Form (CWAF) system.  When that testing is completed, and we have been testing for a very long time, we will be able to cut away fully from CWAF.  We do not want to give a target date at this point because we want to have flexibility to ensure the system works accurately and customers are served effectively.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

What we want is a date.  Is it six months, next year?  Is that costing anything?

 

Ms. Maire:

No, much sooner than one year.  At the end of the month we do claims runs, and we compare the functionality of the two systems, CWAF and UNITY.  It looks good right now, but we are moving cautiously.  The contractor is gone, so we are running the system with state staff, which was the legislative directive and our goal.  So, it is not costing us any additional dollars.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

We will not see you coming back when this date comes about for more money?

 

Mr. Shaw:

We have never come back and asked for more, and we never will.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

What was the final total on UNITY?

 

Mr. Shaw:

I believe it was $17 million. To correct the record, we have never been to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to ask for more money for UNITY over the original appropriation.

 

Senator Mathews:

You said you had been testing for a long time.  What is a long time, and how long before UNITY is fully functional? 

 

Ms. Maire:

We were determined to have a long pilot program with UNITY.  So, we chose one pilot site and we ran the pilot in Fallon for about five months.  We have had the case management portion, which is the major portion of the UNITY system, running since December 2000.  Washoe County is using UNITY as their sole source.  The major difference between the state and Washoe County is that we actually make our payments through the Integrated Financial System (IFS).  They make them through their county system and the types of payments they make are different from the types the state makes.  We are trying to be very cautious about switching over.

 

Senator Mathews:

It will be outdated before you get it on line. 

Ms. Maire:

I understand your concern, but I do not believe that is the case.  We are looking at a short period of time to do this work and be sure we can accurately switch over to UNITY without fear of having child welfare payments fall through the cracks.

 

Senator Mathews:

With the vendor gone and your use of staff to test this system, what duties are you taking staff away from to do that?  Also, ten months seems to be a long time to test a system.

 

Mr. Shaw:

One issue we learned was to run a pilot until you get it right.  We have thousands of checks that will go out on this system.  About six months ago, we had a glitch in the old system where foster parents did not get paid for 6 or 7 days.  Do you know what that cost us in telephone calls and time trying to explain that?  It would also cost us if we cut over from CWAF to UNITY without being absolutely sure those checks will get there.  We are being extra cautious and not spending any more money.  The staff we have on this are not taken away from any other positions.

 

Senator Mathews:

It seems to me that ten months is long enough to practice on a system and you just made that point, by saying your old system crashed.  Why not allow this one to crash once.  You never know if it is going to work if you do not get out and issue the checks.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

You talked about case management being fully implemented in Washoe County.  Is it fully implemented in Clark County?

 

Ms. Maire:

Clark County does not use the UNITY system for their child welfare system.  They have their own system, the “family track system.”  A.C.R. 53 may make some changes in the way those systems are used.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Was it the original intent that Clark County be allowed to use their own system?  Do they share case management information so that it can be aggregated at the state level?

 

Ms. Maire:

Right.  We have an interface from Clark County to the state and they send over Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) information, which is federally required adoptions, foster care, and child protective services information. 

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Is there a piece of this case management information that is missing that we may need to have aggregated at the state level so we know what is going on statewide?

 

 

 

Ms. Maire:

At this point we really do receive a lot of information from them with AFCARS and National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).  We do have a positive relationship with them if we need additional information.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

I assume that A.C.R. 53 means there will be greater local involvement.  What will happen to our systems for reporting on case management or cutting the checks?  What federal information does the state need to ensure we know what is going on?

 

Ms. Maire:

With A.C.R. 53 Clark County will be required to use the UNITY system as their primary system for child abuse and neglect, foster care, and adoption information.  So, they will actually become UNITY system users and we will be on one system.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Will that cost the state or the county?

 

Ms. Maire:

We have provided preliminary information to the A.C.R. 53 based on the plan Clark County has provided regarding the number of users, the type of functionality, and the need of the users.  We have also provided estimates to the A.C.R. 53 based on their initial project plan as to what the costs would be for the state.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Would that be funded by the federal government, by us, by the county, or by all three?

 

Mr. Shaw:

The Governor’s budget recommends $3 million in state funds for Clark County to become compliant with Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS).  They are not eligible for federal reimbursement until they have a SACWIS system.  When this originally started, Clark County was invited, but chose not to go with this system for their own legitimate reasons.  Washoe County chose to go with the system because the federal reimbursement was 75 percent of all hardware and 50 percent of ongoing costs. 

 

Ms. Tiffany:

So, if Clark County goes that way, will we get federal reimbursement?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Clark County will not initially be eligible for federal reimbursement for the process of coming into compliance with SACWIS, but after they come in compliance, they will be eligible for 50 percent of maintenance from there on out.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Is that reflected in the budget?  I am assuming it will happen in the next two years.

 

Mr. Shaw:

That is reflected in the Governor’s budget and we will get to that.  I am not avoiding the question, but the Governor has placed money in the budget in the event A.C.R. 53 passes.  There is over $3 million for Clark County to become compliant and to integrate with SACWIS.

Ms. Tiffany:

Is that sufficient for hardware, software, data hookup, lines, and so forth?  Some of our systems that have been on line for three years or have Legacy systems are now looking at converting these functions to server-based systems.  Do you see this happening in some of your system design?

 

Ms. Maire:

At this point our system uses the mainframe as the server.  We transferred the system from Arizona.  Arizona is very progressive and we have been fortunate that they have been working closely with us.  As they are building enhancements to their system or making improvements in the network structure, they are sharing that with us.  For example, they are now considering web-based systems.

 

At this point, our goal is to bring in the baseline system and have it stabilized, so we do not get into a cycle of making one change after another.  In the future we will be exploring options and moving forward.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Almost everybody is moving toward web-enabled software, and I am sure you will be too.  I do not know who has the plan, whose following it, what the timeline is, and whether you will implement it at all.  That is going to be important when decisions are made on SACWIS and how it affects this budget.  No one wants you not to do that; it is just that we want to know what you are doing.

 

Ms. Leslie:

Steve, my concern for Washoe County’s perspective is, if A.C.R. 53 does move forward in Washoe County, who is responsible for paying for enhancements if the software warranty runs out and we have to make adjustments in the software: Washoe County or the state? 

 

My second question is, are there going to be any UNITY positions available to help with the UNITY system? Is that going to be rolled into the money coming to Washoe County?  How are we handling that?

 

Ms. Maire:

At this point we have 12 programmers permanently assigned to UNITY from DoIT.  We are conducting a pilot project for moving those positions into DCFS and integrating them into the team, as they have been in the last couple of years.  These programmers live with us and work on the project team.  They have been in training for the last couple of years to learn the software and they will be responsible for enhancements. 

 

Mr. Shaw:

Moving those DoIT programmers was recommended by the Governor’s fundamental review committee.  It is a $153,000 savings to have them in the UNITY budget.  We are glad to be a pilot project.  Again, there were criterion for that to be a stable project and the pilot programs chosen were UNITY and one other project.

 

Ms. Leslie:

Will those programmers be state positions and will they be available to Washoe County after the transition?  What is the timeframe?  I am worried that once the transition occurs in Washoe County, the state will be on its own without any support.

 

Mr. Shaw:

At this point we support enhancements, although we have not had many.  Most of the enhancements considered since Washoe County became part of the team involve determining whether they should be assigned as enhancements.  Once that is decided, they are assigned to the programming group.  We will continue to support Washoe County as they bring enhancements to the table, discussing and prioritizing those enhancements and working with the county.

 

If Clark County becomes SACWIS/UNITY compliant, our UNITY staff can support UNITY statewide.  That resource is not going to be reserved for DCFS in the rural area.  I understand your concern and our commitment is that we will support UNITY statewide.

 

Senator Mathews:

What kind of warranty do you have now that the vendor is gone? 

 

Mr. Shaw:

We have a one-year maintenance warranty, which ends in September 2001.  We have holdbacks in our contract and we also require them to fix anything that is a legitimate bug that is not a result of the system design.  We have had a good relationship with the contractor, and they have been good about complying so far.

 

Senator Mathews:

You have no relationship with a person when their contract runs out.  Let me tell you from this businesswoman’s point of view.  Once they go home, you can forget them.  I am concerned about that, given you have not relied on the UNITY system entirely.

 

Ms. Maire:

That is a major concern to us, making sure the system is running properly before the vendor is released from that maintenance warranty period.  We are looking at that very closely.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Not to beat a dead horse, but you have 12 positions in this pilot program.  We have not even decided if we are going to do this pilot program because after the DoIT hearing the other day, quite a few of subcommittee members have questions.  If you are fully operational, why do you need these 12 positions?

 

Ms. Maire:

The 12 positions will be for ongoing maintenance.  There are already some changes in federal requirements in the near future for the SACWIS systems.  So, it will be for ongoing maintenance, enhancements, and necessary adjustments to the system.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I think we are going to need additional background and backup information.  At some point, with no disrespect to the local governments, if we do this child welfare split, we will need to “sever the purse strings.”  I am trying to figure out where the costs may come and where the state obligation should end. 

Steve, could I just clarify you said there is $153,000 in savings?  Where would I find that?

 

E-225 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page DCFS-16

E-903 Transfer from DoIT – Page DCFS-17

M-100 Maintenance – Page DCFS-15

 

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

In E-225 there is a negative decision unit, which backs out the amount of money that UNITY had in the budget initially to pay for the DoIT staff.  The transfer decision unit E-903 transfers in the 12 positions and associated costs.  What Mr. Shaw was referring to was the difference between the $911,408 deduction in both years against the $812,028 and $857,689 in E-903, which is approximately $150,000.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

If I might, Mr. Chairman, can we skip to the DoIT/UNITY issue.  Is the UNITY portion of the DoIT charges included in decision unit M-100?

 

Mr.Baumann:

The agency did not submit an agency request in M-100.  There were several general ledger items the Budget Division determined to be appropriate for inflation and they added the inflation package to our budget.  As Senator Rawson pointed out earlier, some of that may have included the DoIT charges, but that was not our agency’s request.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

We will need information as to what issues there were, and then we will need to hear from the Budget Division, regarding how they came up with the inflation amounts in the previous budget, as well as this one, because they are huge in comparison.  I do not think we have a handle on what the amounts were intended to cover.

 

Chairman Rawson:

I am going to ask staff for a reconciliation of all this so we understand it.  Also, we would like to see a plan for the transition of these positions, and the assurance there is ample oversight to ensure the quality we need. 

 

Would you comment on the request in decision unit E-710?  Do you have a schedule on that and do you have worked out what you will need and when?

 

E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page DCFS-16

 

Ms. Maire:

This is for equipment replacement to replace older computer equipment purchased several years ago.  We will replace a portion of it in the first year of the biennium and the balance in the second year of the biennium.  Eight laptop personal computers (PC) are for our network technicians who do diagnostics out in the field.  File servers and routers are also antiquated.  When we first put in the system, there were areas where T-1 lines (transmission wiring) or 56K lines (56K modem, 56,000 bits per second) were not available.  Now, we are looking to upgrade those PC’s for greater speed for the division’s field agents. 

Ms. Tiffany:

These PC’s were bought how many years ago?

 

Ms. Maire:

They were bought in early 1996, approximately five years ago.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

What are you going to do with them?

 

Ms. Maire:

We notified state purchasing that we have equipment that has been excessed and they usually give us directives about what we should do with the equipment.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

So they go into excess.  Are they reusable by anybody, or do you just let the Purchasing Division worry about that?

 

Ms. Maire:

The Purchasing Division usually lets us know whether there are agencies or any entities that would like to use the equipment.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

What do you use as a guideline when you upgrade?

 

Ms. Maire:

Right now DoIT has a guideline for upgrading PC’s.  I believe it is every three years and we have tried to use this equipment as long as they are functional.  Now they are getting old.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

What is old?

 

Ms. Maire:

The PC’s are too slow, especially with the new applications. Initially we were running primarily just office products on them. Now we have the UNITY application, which slows the PC down. 

 

Chairman Rawson:

One of the rural counties is undergoing a big computer upgrade from Macintosh, and I do not know whether these are too slow and too old, but we should keep our eye open for that type of thing.  It would save $1 million somewhere and we ought to pass these computers on.

 

Child Care Services - Budget Page DCFS -19 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3149

 

Chairman Rawson:

The only issue here is that we have an estimated number of new licensees.  I believe 471 in the first year and 67 more in the second year.  I am curious whether this new group will be relatives that are currently providing foster care that will just be licensed under this new proposal, or if it will be new people added to the system.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 158 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Makes various changes in             statutory procedures for protection and placement of children. (BDR 11-475;             Approved by the Governor on May 31, 1999.  Chapter 435).

 

Mr. Shaw:

Mr. Chairman, I believe it will be both, but under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), we are required to fully license relatives as foster parents.  Heretofore, we did not have to do that.  We gave a safety check, which amounted to a criminal background check and a walk-through of the home, but there were not the strict requirements that apply to licensure.  With the state adoption of A.B. 158 last session, we are required to do that or lose funding.  So, this amount would be to license existing relatives.  Relatives are the first choice for foster care placement.  If the child has a relative, we would like to place that child with a relative, because it is traumatic enough being removed from your home.  So, that is the projection for the increase we are going to see in the future.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Committee staff had some question on the performance indicators relative to the percentage of applicants who will receive their license within 30 days.  We have various figures from 77 percent and so on.  One place for child care is shown at 100 percent for each year. 

 

Patricia J. Hedgecoth, Chief, Bureau of Service for Child Care, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:

The child care figure is down.  We were down staff and that is why that figure was reduced.  Now we are fully staffed, statewide.  So those indicators are going straight up.

 

Mr. Shaw

Those indicators were also projected to go down if we did not get the increase in staff, which we did.  So, those indicators will go up.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Do you have positions that have been held open longer than six months or a year?

 

Mr. Shaw:

I do not believe we have had positions held open that long.

 

HR, Youth Community Services - Budget Page DCFS -24 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3229

 

E-475 Effectiveness of Family Service – Page DCFS-30

 

Chairman Rawson:

Is this the budget that contains the increased payments for foster kids?

 

Mr. Shaw:

The Governor recommended increases in foster care payments of 47 percent, which was badly needed.  We did a market study on what was happening in foster care and found we were turning over foster homes in excess of 100 percent a year.  We had a small number of core homes that continued to be foster care homes, but by and large, we were turning over those as fast as we could license them.  In fact, we tracked the number of licensed homes versus the ones that cancelled.  We were doing ourselves no favor, nor were we doing foster parents a favor by paying the rate we paid.  You will also notice in this decision unit what is happening currently to keep siblings together.

 

Because of the lack of foster homes, kids are escalating into category 13.  Our category 13, higher levels of care, is going up.  We gave up $1 million in category 13 in the coming biennium to go towards this foster care rate increase because we believe if we get the rate increase, we can stabilize the foster care situation.  We will literally go from the bottom third tier in the United States to the top third.  The rates for children 0-11 years old will increase from $12 a day to $18.22; for children over 11, they will increase from $14.40 a day to $20.57.  These are decent foster care rates.  We believe we can stabilize the situation and are pleased the Governor recommended the increases.  The Foster Parent Association is here and would like to comment on that.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Would you track that so the committee knows what the true effect is?  We also expect to see stabilization, but do not know how to predict how much, so we ought to keep some data on that.

 

Mr. Shaw:

We were confident enough that we reduced category 13 by $1 million.  When we tracked that monthly in years past, the number of foster care changes stabilized when there were foster care rate increases.

 

Chairman Rawson:

If there are any foster care organizations that would like to comment on this issue, please come forward.

 

Dorothy S. Pomin, Lobbyist, Sierra Association of Foster Families:

This is wonderful as far as foster families are concerned.  Our attrition rate is incredible.  Keeping foster families has been extremely difficult, and that spills over to difficulties for children.  It has actually cost foster families money to provide foster care, and this increase should make this a true reimbursement for the cost of care for children.  It will certainly make a difference in the attrition rate.  We are very encouraged.  There are probably a few more areas that could be worked on to address the retention issue, but this is major step towards stabilization.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Mr. Shaw, not knowing what the A.C.R. 53 bill will look like, I want assurances, if we are truly getting rid of a bifurcated system, that would mean all levels of care would go with local governments.  Correct?

 

Mr. Shaw:

According to the agreement, A.C.R. 53 conceptually envisions that the lower level of care, category 11, with the general foster care, will be the responsibility of the counties, as would adoption subsidies, but the higher levels of care will be DCFS responsibility, at least for the biennium.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

That means we still have a bifurcated system, which allows people to “cherry‑pick.”  I would like to know what assurances there are that we are going to truly get rid of a bifurcated system.  Secondly, how do we prevent a situation in which the state continually has the higher cost of care dumped on us?

 

Mr. Shaw:

As you may know, I was in favor of A.C.R. 53 from the very beginning.  There are unresolved issues with A.C.R. 53, which are “deal-breaker” issues.  What about the funding formula for the out-years?  That is a must in my opinion.  What about how our employees are treated, as well as other issues?  I do not like the fact the state has the higher levels of care.  That is not a permanent solution because it sets up conflict.  We have to control the door to the higher levels of care.  We have a hard enough time trying to control it right now.  The issue regarding A.C.R. 53 is how big a piece of the pie do you want to bite off, and that is a big bite.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Exactly.  So, are you saying this plan is still fluid?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Again, I have not seen the bill draft request (BDR).  Conceptually, we keep the higher levels of care for the biennium and that was not seen as a long-term solution. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

We will have to get a handle on this issue.  There are huge amount of dollars here, and I think we have to massage them to some extent.  At this point, it appears the committee did anticipate the higher level of care going to the local governments.  That is why some of the budget dollars are as high as they are in some cases.  If we want to make this work, we have an opportunity to do so and I hope we can accomplish that this session.

 

Mr. Shaw:

I hope we can too, and we are doing everything we can to make that happen.  A.C.R. 53 is a very complicated issue.  It was how big a chunk the counties wanted to bite off.  They did not want to take the higher levels of care.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

We have to have some assurances that it is not going to continue.  We have seen the same thing happen in the juvenile court system.  The state has the higher levels of care there, too.  If they felt they could do it better, then let us figure out how to do it the right way so that the kids and the families are not impacted.

 

E-225 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page DCFS-28

 

Chairman Rawson:

In decision unit M-225, you are recommending the replacement of $250,000 in General Funds with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) revenue.  It appears that amount could be doubled or tripled.  Are you willing to re-estimate that?

 

Mr. Shaw:

We would be glad to revisit that issue.  What that would pay for is to get federal IV-E (Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) dollars from the federal government for relative foster homes, which requires licensure.  There is a small number of relatives that would not qualify for licensure.  An example is if a relative has a 22‑year-old criminal record and all other indicators are the person has been upstanding in their community.  The relative has a relationship with the child and the child may have gone back and lived with the relative a long time.  Even though we do not get federal reimbursement for that placement, there is a reason we want to keep that child in that home, as long as we can assure the child’s safety.  With TANF dollars, we could pay for that whether we are assured the child is safe in their own home.  I do not know whether we have that many of these kinds of relatives that are not eligible for licensing. 

 

Chairman Rawson:

We just had a sense that figure might be conservative, so please look at that again.  I recommend you talk with committee staff.  The budget recommends a supplemental General Fund appropriation of $2.7 million to meet anticipated child welfare expenditures in fiscal year (FY) 2001 and then the total, with federal reimbursement, comes to $4.8 million.  I understand you have a caseload encumbrance report and your agency tracks that monthly, but we have not seen a report for a number of months.  This could be a good management tool and we would like to see those reports.  Is that something you have had difficulty getting?

 

Mr. Shaw:

That is correct, Sir.  I have three such reports on my desk right now.  There has been turnover in the fiscal unit and the person we hired to do the job left after 60 days.  We will get those out as fast as we can.  Our first priority was building the budget.  Now that we have that submitted, we have time to work on the reports and keep them updated.

 

Chairman Rawson:

I believe Dorothy Pomin wanted to make one additional comment.  If you would like to come forward, we would be happy to take that now.

 

Dorothy S. Pomin, Lobbyist, Sierra Association of Foster Families:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Something I did not mention that is another big issue for foster parent retention.  That is, the ability for them to get respite.  The demands of fostering are high.  These are children who have been traumatized; therefore, they often have demanding behavioral or emotional problems.  Respite is an issue, which is not adequately addressed in this budget, and I would like to see that be an issue that becomes as important as an appropriate reimbursement rate.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Thank you.  We will make sure that is a part of the record.  I appreciate your comments.

 

Ms. Leslie:

I would like to hear about the S.B. 288 pilot project.  I am confused about whether staff for this Washoe County pilot project is in the budget, or whether you think this pilot project is going to continue.  Where is that staff position?

 

SENATE BILL 288 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:  Authorizes certain counties to             enter             into agreement to establish pilot program to provide continuity of care    for children who receive protective services. (BDR S-1028)

 

 

 

Mr. Shaw:

The failure to include that in the budget was an oversight, brought to my attention a few days ago.  Depending upon what happens with A.C.R. 53, it is my understanding the author of S.B. 288 was going to submit something.  We certainly do not want to lose that position.  There is a possibility of that floating over into another vacant position.  I do not think we will need General Fund revenue, but we simply forgot that in the rush of things.

 

Ms. Leslie:

Has the pilot worked well?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, it has, in my opinion.  It is also Thom Reilly’s opinion.  The idea was to cut the number of moves for kids and to move them to permanency faster.  We are not going to have the final data until sometime next year or the year after that, but we have reduced the number of moves.  This has primarily been due to the cooperation of the leadership in Washoe County that allowed us to move in this direction.  The blending of cultures has created tremendous problems, but we have been able to deal with that.  It has been a good pilot program if integration does come.  This is a 50‑year-old bifurcated system without any new dollars except for one position, we were able to blend it to treat kids and families better, and it has been a tremendous success.  Again, I want to publicly thank Washoe County for their leadership and efforts to do that, and to “pump our own horn a little bit.”

 

HR, Victims of Domestic Violence - Budget Page DCFS-36 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3181

 

E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DCFS-37

 

Chairman Rawson:

I would like to make a comment.  I realize I am just one legislator and I have not polled or talked to other people about this, but we have the saying here that you cannot bind future sessions of the Legislature.  And so, there is this sense that everything is up for grabs in the future.  This is a budget funded by a collection of $15 from the marriage license fees, and it was very important to Jan Evans and Sue Wagner, as well as a number of other people. 

 

In decision unit E-275 there is a recommendation for a 2 percent reduction of the marriage license revenue to make it available for administrative costs.  It is kind of a tax on the tax.  It would be a reduction of $93,000 over the biennium for the grants that are actually used for victims of domestic violence.  For me, this is an important issue and I know this is going to come in as a bill draft, but I am not going to look kindly at adjusting this when, at the same time, we are honoring Jan Evans in a number of ways in our Legislature.  So, like it or not, we are going to have to find revenue.  Other than that comment, I do not have any questions on this, and if some of you disagree, we probably ought to talk about it.  I am not saying it is not needed or worthwhile.  We just have to find a different source.

 

 

 

 

 

HR, CFS Juvenile Justice Programs - Budget Page DCFS-45 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-1383

 

Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:

In budget account 101-1383 we have a number of grant programs.  We probably have over $2 million to $3 million of federal grant money.  Larry Carter is at the table with us and he directly manages those programs.  We funded over 100 programs across the state.  I would prefer to defer to Mr. Carter, as he is involved in those programs on a daily basis.

 

Larry Carter, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Planning Evaluation and Program Development, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (OJJDP), Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:

Currently we have eight federally-funded grant programs going plus one community correction partnership block grant that is a state-funded program.  A multitude of these programs have come into play since the 1997 Legislature.  Prior to that, the state had been receiving $380,000 in federal juvenile justice money.  During this next year, with the state-funded community corrections partnership block grant, our office will be administering approximately $4.3 million in grant funds.

 

Since 1997 the state commitment rates for juvenile justice in Nevada have declined.  Our commitment rates are based on the percentage of student population and are approximately 23 percent less than in 1997.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Is the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) evaluation on the effectiveness of the program complete?

 

Ms. Smith:

The evaluation from the NCJJ is still in progress.  On January 18, they did submit to us a three-page document that outlined why they have not gotten the report to us as yet, as well as an outline of the improvements in our system and areas they will recommend still need work.  As recently as this past Tuesday, I received 30 pages of a now 180-page draft.  In the last two weeks they have been sending us copies of the draft, but it gets cumbersome reading 50 pages today and another 50 pages tomorrow.  My plan is to consider the completed draft, and then Larry Carter and I will read the draft to make the appropriate corrections and get that back to them.  So, we are making good progress.

 

Chairman Rawson:

If there is anything that is damaging to us, or that is a glaring oversight on our part?  We would like to know about that before we read about it.

 

Ms. Smith:

Mr. Chairman, there is not going to be anything in the report that is going to be a surprise to us.  The report is an update of the 1992 study that was done by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD).  Nevada has made tremendous progress in juvenile justice by accomplishing some of those recommendations made in 1992.  We still have work to do, but I am very proud of what we have done.

 

 

 

Chairman Rawson:

We have appropriated $60,000 for an update of the correctional needs assessment.  Is that the same report we are talking about, or is that another assessment?

 

Ms. Smith:

That is the same report, Mr. Chairman.  We have paid $50,000, and the final $10,000 will be paid upon receipt of the completed report.

 

Mr. Shaw:

While you are honoring Jan Evan’s memory, when you read this report you will see progress in juvenile justice that is nothing short of amazing.  Much of that progress belongs at Ms. Smith’s doorstep, and it was her initiative that made the change.  The draft report is just an update of the 1992 report in order to see where we are and where we have come from.  There are some areas we need to work on, but I think you will be pleased with the progress juvenile justice has made in the last ten years.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Larry Carter and a couple of others are being transferred.  Is it into this area from Youth Parole?

 

Ms. Smith:

Mr. Chairman, when we first received money from the federal government in 1987, that amount of money was very small, about $300,000.  So, those positions were placed in the Youth Parole Services budget account 101-3263.  Today we have close to $5 million in federal money and we are bogging down budget account 101-3263 with categories that do not apply.  Our request is just to shift to an appropriate budget account.

 

Mr. Shaw:

There was one other issue that may not be appropriate to bring up, but I will anyway.  The current statute for a bureau chief, the Youth Parole Bureau, requires that person be certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.).  What Ms. Smith is requesting is to have that be an option in filling the position of Bureau Chief – to be P.O.S.T.-certified or not.  It is primarily an administrative position, which does not do searches and arrest kids.  That may be something where the budget committee can help us out, as there is no current BDR to that effect.  That severely limits the pool Ms. Smith can pick from.  That position has a history of being a long-term position once you get it, and she wants as much latitude as possible.  So, if there is any way you can help us out, I would appreciate it.

 

Ms. Smith:

One other comment on this budget account, I do have a copy of the three-page outline the NCJJ submitted relative to the report we are waiting for.  I know Assemblywoman Leslie had some concerns about that.  That copy is for public knowledge right now.  I would be happy to leave it with staff.

 

 

 

 

 

HR, Juvenile Accountability Block Grant - Budget Page DCFS-49 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3262

 

Chairman Rawson:

I do not have questions on budget account 101-3262, the juvenile accountability block grant.  Unless others have questions we will move to the next budget.

 

HR, Youth Alternative Placement - Budget Page DCFS-53 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3147

 

E-402 Reduce Recidivism & Juvenile Violence  – Page DCFS-54

 

Chairman Rawson:

This has been a slower project than we expected.  It appears that we can take out the first year money, simply because the program will not be on line at that time.

 

Mr. Shaw:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Steve Thaler.  This is his budget item and he is here to respond to that.

 

Steven J. Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp, Douglas County:

I passed out a budget proposal summary earlier (Exhibit C).  Eight months ago, when we originally prepared our budget, we looked at the Aurora Pines project coming on line January 2002.  This project will actually open July 2002.  That caused a surplus of money in the first year of the biennium. 

 

The second thing we did, through discussions with the heads of juvenile justice administrators and the work-study group, is to look at opening in the second year of the biennium.  We will open with 16 girls, instead of opening with 24 girls, even though it is built for 24 girls.  That created a surplus of money on the girls’ side. 

 

I believe what is important is that, on the boys’ side, it shows a flat rate, not only from the first biennium, but also into the second biennium.  As we look at both budgets (the Aurora Pines Girls’ facility and China Spring Youth Camp), one of the matters discussed in that short summary, if you combine the request on the boys side and on the girls, is there would be a surplus of approximately $500,000. 

 

My request would be to look at increasing the rate for boys.  We talk about what the state gets and what the county gets, and it is always an issue.  Actually, I am in a good situation because there is a surplus of money; but on the other side, I am looking at a flat rate for the boys and that concerns me.  There are demands placed on me because all of my employees are county employees.  That cannot be avoided.  They are going to come because they are all county employees.  I was hoping that some discussion would be generated on that resulting in a final discussion.

 

Judge David R. Gamble, Ninth Judicial District, District Courts, Nevada:

You folks have been kind enough to create Aurora Pines Girls’ Facility and authorize construction of it.  We are at the point now we are ready to build it, and begin having an alternative placement for girls who do not need to go to Caliente.  The “Catch-22” we are experiencing is these are actually not just Douglas County employees, but judicial employees within Douglas County.  We have agreed with Douglas County that judicial employees will be treated as county employees.  We try to reflect those necessary increases accomplished through county contract in the bargaining units for certain Douglas County employees.  Because of that, the increases are necessary to pay the county judicial employees. They are not state employees, so they do not get the benefit of the state employee pay increases.  The budget stays flat until we get here, so we can explain to you the fact that we are caught up in the county employee/judicial employee requirements, but do not have funding for them as the rest of the state employees will get.

 

I have talked about the Aurora Pines Girls’ Facility.  It is important we have a parallel facility for girls.  If there is an area where juvenile offenses are increasing, or staying the flattest it is among girls who need to be placed temporarily outside the home.  This gives us a wonderful regional alternative to the Caliente program, which is great, but it is not for everybody and it is far away.  So, for western Nevada and northwestern Nevada, this is a really important alternative placement for young ladies.

 

Chairman Rawson:

We will weigh that carefully.  This changes the scope of the project.  It looks to the people that are working out there, that we are in fat city; that there is a budget surplus, and there is lots of state money.  You overlook the whole budget picture, which is the worst picture I have seen in a decade.  So, I will not dismiss it, and I appreciate what you are asking.  The subcommittee will consider it carefully.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Judge Gamble, we have heard from the prison department there is a rise in women prisoners.  Do you see this as a trend in the youth, in the girls?  Do you know what is causing it?

 

Judge Gamble:

Yes, absolutely.  I believe one of the necessary downsides of gender equality is that girls at younger ages are becoming more empowered, and therefore, do not see themselves as reticent to commit offenses as they have been in the past.  Some of the good things that flow from gender equality are weighed against some of the bad things that happen.  I see bolder girls, girls that are much more bold about committing offenses than I have ever seen.  We actually have a huge reduction overall in juvenile crime in Douglas County and in all the counties. 

 

Ms. Smith:

Yes, Ms. Tiffany.  There is a reduction in juvenile crime overall; however, even on a national level, we see there is an increase in female crime, as well as a trend that females are becoming more involved in felony-type offenses.  The distinction is, 15 years to 20 years ago we were basically dealing with status offenses. 

 

Judge Gamble:

That is a good point. The character of the offenses is changing dramatically.  They used to be pure status offenses, e.g., runaways, incorrigibles, outside of parental control, and those kinds of offenses.  Now we are seeing thefts, batteries, and a greater amount of girl involvement.  I will tell you this is the importance of addressing additional facilities for girls.  If you look around at what we have in Nevada, it is limited.  We do not have the breadth and range of treatment for girls that we have for boys.  As with most issues in this area, we need to catch up.  Aurora Pines was started five years ago, and it is just now coming to fruition.  It is necessary we have a breadth and range of treatment for girls just like we have for boys.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Do you think if we implement this it will impact a reduction of the women that end up in prison? 

 

Judge Gamble:

That has been the theory for years about boys’ correctional justice.  It is true.  There have been many young men that we have been able to turn away to a different life that have not been incarcerated.  I have no reason to believe that is not going to be the same for girls.  If we can get them early and if we can get their attitude adjusted early, and show them the benefits of living within the law early, then they do not statistically and anecdotally graduate to prison.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Have you seen the outward-bound program for girls?

 

Judge Gamble:

Yes.  We actually have quite a few out-of-state programs we send girls to.  But they are expensive and not available to most kids.  The funding is not available, and that is the benefit of having in the state a shorter-term program than Caliente as an alternative placement.

 

Ms. Tiffany:

Do you see drugs involved, too?

 

Judge Gamble:

Absolutely.  My guess is drugs and/or alcohol are involved in more than 80 percent to 90 percent of the juvenile offenses I see.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I have a couple of budget comments, and then some philosophical comments.  I think I have heard the term “flat” twice; then I have heard the term “oh, but we do have an increase.”  But then it was clarified it was based on federal statistics.  So, I would like to understand whether, overall, there is a reduction in juvenile crime in the state of Nevada.  Yes or no?

 

Ms. Smith:

Overall there is a reduction.  On a federal level we see females conduct a higher percentage of crime.  We have a slight increase in female crime in Nevada.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

If you have that report, please provide it to the staff.  I have a concern about the comment, “We have a surplus of $500,000 because of budget dates, so let’s do something for young women.”  That bothers me.  Did I hear that correctly?

 

Judge Gamble:

No you did not.  The Aurora Pines program has been in development for more than two sessions now.  You funded the construction last session.  The budget we are talking about is the budget for Aurora Pines.  The girls’ facility has a surplus in it because of a delayed start date. 

 

By the way, there is a typographical error in the summary you have.  The facility was never intended to open January 2001.  The delay is from January 2002 to July 2002.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

You also talked about an array of matters that were needed for girls and that Aurora Pines is not going to accomplish that.  I guess my secondary frustration is we have not planned for a wide array of needs for young women.  That is my concern.

 

Judge Gamble:

It is an excellent question.  We should all have anticipated this.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Being a middle school teacher, I have not seen them change that much in 22 years of teaching.  I believe that gender equity is not the issue.  I believe it is based on a societal change, a family change.  My fear is a lot of it has to do with the court system and how it operates.  A lot of the women are being sentenced for prostitution and drug use.  We have destroyed families rather than look at rehabilitation and other programs that focus on those types of things.  We may have a commensurate increase occurring in the prison population for women, but the types who are taking up bed space in our prisons and jails reflect the societal failure we are responsible for.  We are still not dealing with that end of it.  We need to prepare to deal with young women and young men in alternative placements, rather than prisons.

 

Ms. Smith:

We have a federal challenge grant and the division has required the jurisdictions that receive those dollars to focus on gender-specific programming.  I think you will be happy to know that Nevada recently received a federal grant, as we were one of seven jurisdictions across the country to study the issue of gender-specific training for staff and developing programs.  We will be implementing that particular grant within the next several months.  We are going to conduct staff training around the state as well as look at best practices to implement programs in Nevada.  We are hoping this discretionary funding will lead to even more federal funding, so we can focus on that issue.  I hope to provide you with more information the next time we appear.

 

Ms. Leslie:

I was going to ask you about that grant.  The question I have been mulling is the substance abuse connection.  We have had that budget in this committee and I am trying for money for substance abuse treatment.  I am still concerned we are not providing adequate substance abuse treatment for these boys and girls while they are in our institutions and that just leads to prison.  Can you comment on whether you are having a hard time getting these kids into treatment?

 

Ms. Smith:

Getting the youth into treatment is limited by the dollars we have to purchase that treatment.  For those programs that receive state or federal funding for treatment, it is limited by the number of placement slots.  We are now looking at applying for additional money through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called “Reclaiming Futures.”  This program looks at the connection between substance abuse and delinquency.  Hopefully, we will be successful in acquiring that funding to enhance programming for the very area you mentioned.

 

Also, we have attempted to get Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) money to substance abuse treatment programs in our institutions.  However, it requires a 25 percent match of money.  We simply do not have that money to match.  So, the last time I spoke with those handling those dollars, they said they had money they were willing to put into juvenile programs, but we could not access those dollars because we do not have the matching money.

 

Ms. Leslie:

Did you request match money in your budget?

 

Ms. Smith:

Given the budget instructions I did not.  The reason is there was nothing in my existing budget I could do without to generate unobligated funds to use for the match.

 

Ms. Leslie:

Give us an idea of how much money would have been available if the state had been able to come up with matching funds.

 

Ms. Smith:

It is about $150,000 to $200,000.  We submitted a proposal through the Caliente Youth Center for those funds, but it was the matching dollars that kept us from moving forward.

 

Mr. Thaler:

Within the last 6 months we have applied for a grant through the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA), which specifically deals with hiring two drug counselors for the drug treatment component.  Prior to that time, we dealt solely with prevention.  We were in the business of preventing, but we know that treatment is prevention and prevention is treatment.  We received $102,000 from BADA to support two positions, which were added to the China Spring program.  This is something we have been pushing for over the years.  Again, the committee does not see that because it shows up on the revenue side for the county.   These are grants we go after to enhance our program.  We are hoping this grant will continue year after year.  Ninety percent of kids in the camp are users, and they are there for a reason.  We know that is a stepping-stone into their behaviors.  Not only do we deal with the prevention component, but we currently deal with the treatment component.

 

Judge Gamble:

We now have the Silver Springs facility running, which is directed at drug and alcohol treatment, and that is for both young men and young women.  It has been a short history so far, but it is a very effective tool for us.  So, the treatment aspect is of utmost importance to all of us, because it is not difficult to see whether you are in prison for prostitution or for assault and battery.  In many cases that started with substance abuse.  It is nearly always a component in placements at prisons and at youth camps.

 

 

 

Ms. Smith:

As you know, BADA funds are in place at the Nevada Youth Training Center for substance abuse treatment and counseling for boys.  In BADA’s recent cycle, a position was funded at the Caliente Youth Center, so we will have someone on board.  I believe we are still recruiting for that position, but we will have someone on board in Caliente to provide services to the youth there.  As part of our contract at Summit View, one of the positions they have to hire is a certified substance abuse counselor.

 

E-475 Effectiveness of Family Service – Page DCFS-54

 

Chairman Rawson:

In decision unit E-475 there is $131,000 in each year set aside for three contract bed days per year for kids that cannot be dealt with at Summit View.  There has been some expression that should be left in the budget to give the agency more flexibility.  Any comment on that?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would like that left in the budget for Summit View to have the flexibility to use that revenue.  The reason we budgeted for that is in the event we could not program for a child.  There are numerous reasons a facility cannot program; e.g., there are two conflicting gangs in there at one time, and it is dangerous for the child’s health and safety.  It may be the child is deaf and has other issues we cannot program for.  As a safety valve, we wanted three slots we would contract for out of Summit View.  We do not know if we are going to need those, but we do not know we are not.  If we could just have the flexibility to use those funds in the event we had to move three kids out in any given year.  We may not even need that, but caution demands keeping this money in this budget.

 

HR, C&FS-Juvenile Correctional Facility - Budget Page DCFS-56 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3148

 

M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page DCFS-57

 

Chairman Rawson:

In budget account 101-3148, are we talking about the same situation here?  Is this the other side of the transfer?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman, as found in decision unit M-200.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I thought we built that facility so we did not have any out-of-state placements; so, exactly what are we doing here?

 

Mr. Shaw:

You are absolutely correct.  We may not need it.  For instance, we have a child right now that, because of gang affiliation, there is some danger there.  We have this facility seven miles from downtown Las Vegas.  Gangs are an issue in Las Vegas where they are not in Elko, or Caliente.  We have not used it yet, but we would like that prerogative. 

 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Have you had that problem arise?

 

Mr. Shaw:

We have that going on right now.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I teach in an atmosphere where there are quite a few gangs, but unfortunately that is the reality.  I know in the juvenile system you are going to have the same mix.  I would want to deal with the safety side of that, although I do not understand the budget piece of it.

 

Ms. Smith:

Relative to the safety side of this issue, we currently have a young man who is heavily affiliated with gangs and we were under threat rival gang members were going to come out to the facility with guns in an attempt to break this young man out.  That threat was emphasized by the fact there was an unauthorized vehicle on the perimeter road.  Staff was successful in identifying that vehicle, and with the assistance of the Nellis Military Police, the vehicle left the property.  That caused us great concern, not only for the young man in the rival gang, but also for the other youth and staff.

 

There has been no repeat of that incident.  When kids are at Caliente and Elko, people generally do not drive that far to do something like this. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Is that why you are budgeting to keep three beds open?

 

Mr. Shaw:

That is correct.  For that incident, and similar circumstances where we would need those beds.  Again, it is not new dollars.  We would like the flexibility for caution’s sake for staff and youth.  We would not mind reporting to IFC, if the need arises.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

The only thing I am questioning is that three beds is quite a lot.  It is the cost factor I am concerned about.  We will take a look at that.

 

HR, Caliente Youth Center - Budget Page DCFS- 59 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3179

 

Chairman Rawson:

Is the director representing the Caliente Youth Center present?

 

Mr. Shaw:

No, Mr. Chairman.  We did not think there was anything that significant in this budget that required his attendance.  We do not have the Elko director here, either.

 

Chairman Rawson:

If the Senate Committee on Finance is looking around the state this session, it would be nice to see some of these facilities again.  I was impressed with the Caliente Youth Center ten years ago, and I know that facility has had maintenance problems.  I would like to know that facility is still in good shape and is still doing the job for us.

Ms. Smith:

Mr. Chairman, we can confirm that the Caliente Youth Center is quite impressive in terms of the maintenance of the facility.  You need not worry about the maintenance of the facility and the program that is being operated.  They do have enhancements they are going to be working on to continue to ensure the facility adequately provides for young people.

 

Chairman Rawson:

We see they are asking for the creation of a “time out” room, and my question is, whether we will lose bed space because of that.

 

Ms. Smith:

We will not lose bed space, Mr. Chairman, because the “time out” room would simply be for a youngster in a regular living unit.  If that youngster goes into a “time out” room, it frees up the other room the youngster was in.  Therefore, we will not be losing any space.

 

Mr. Shaw:

Mr. Chairman, there is one program I would like to highlight.  The first female firefighting team in the United States came from the Caliente Youth Center.  The first male, juvenile firefighting team came from Elko.  Since then, several have joined.  Under Ms. Smith’s leadership, the first female firefighting team was deployed the summer of 1999.

 

Chairman Rawson:

I was up some time ago to Kershaw-Ryan State Park to see how it was developing.  A team of young women from Caliente had done a wonderful job up there.  They had gone into some of the tough areas to work.  They leveled it, created a volleyball playing field and it was all grassed in.   

 

Mr. Shaw:

Again, there is nothing else like that in the United States. 

 

HR, Nevada Youth Training Center - Budget Page DCFS-63 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3259

 

Chairman Rawson:

I do not have any questions regarding this budget.  Any questions from the subcommittee on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding issue?  I believe TANF rules do not allow juvenile justice expenditures. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

There is a decrease in your average daily population.  What is causing that to go down?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Summit View.  The Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) had been historically overpopulated.  Conceptually, the idea was to decrease the population at both NYTC and Caliente Youth Center to the intended capacity. 

 

We also have some information on waiting lists.  If you will remember that was a tremendous issue in the 1997 Legislative Session.  There were a variety of programs put in, which cut down that waiting list substantially.  The decrease in the waiting list has been brought about through facility placement at Silver Springs, Spring Mountain, and China Spring.

 

HR, Youth Parole Services - Budget Page DCFS-69 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3263

 

Chairman Rawson:

Do you have any comments on this before we look at specifics?

 

Mr. Shaw:

Mr. Chairman, we did receive a Letter of Intent on this budget that gave us authority to go to IFC in the event our intensive aftercare program was not funded by the federal government.  If you will recall, this is a three-or four-year project funded by the federal government for a study on the effectiveness of lower caseloads.  Probably for the first time, we did not come back to IFC when that program terminated on the federal level.  The reason was we could not show its effectiveness, nor could the federal government.  There was no statistical information that it was having any positive effect, so we did not appear at the IFC for those positions.

 

 Chairman Rawson:

We have questions from committee staff, which are complicated.  So, I will have committee staff deal with you directly on fine-tuning a few points.

 

There is a request for a potential new position to monitor the longitudinal study system.  Is that correct?  Does that make sense? 

 

Mr. Shaw:

I am sorry.  I am not familiar with that.

 

Chairman Rawson:

There had been a request, not funded in the Governor’s budget, for someone to monitor a matter relating to A.C.R. 13. 

 

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:             Directs Legislative Commission to continue study of system of juvenile             justice in Nevada. (BDR R-224)

 

Ms. Smith:

I believe you are referring to a project we had been involved with early on.  Senator Weiner may have requested an appropriation that includes an evaluation for a project that was not included in The Executive Budget.  So, I think that is what you are referring to.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Senator Wiener is feeling that some of the recommendations she fought for last session have not been carried through.  There may be a number of reasons for that, but I do not think she has given up the intensity of pursing some of these matters.

 

 

 

 

 

HR, Northern Nevada Child & Adolescent Services - Budget Page DCFS-76 (Volume 2) Budget Account 101-3281

 

Chairman Rawson:

Do you have any comments on this budget?

 

Mr. Shaw:

I have none, Sir.

 

E-901 Transfer From 3276 Infant Enhancement – Page DCFS-80

E-903 Transfer From 3276 Happy Program – Page DCFS-80

 

Chairman Rawson:

There is a question whether the transferred positions for the Infant Enhancement Program and HAPPY program will affect the waiting list.  Any comment on that?

 

Les Gruner, Acting Deputy Administrator, Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.  We do not see those particular program transfers impacting waiting lists.  The HAPPY Program did transfer into our budget the last session.  This is the remainder of those positions transferring in.  The Infant Enhancement Program is a program that has 2.5 staff, and this program deals directly with families in a hospital setting.  These people are housed in hospitals in Washoe County, and we see this as an addition to our Early Childhood Services program, which provides greater resources for our Early Childhood Services program.

 

Chairman Rawson:

When we see a waiting list of 59 clients on the Infant Enhancement Program, what does that translate to?  How long do they have to wait?  Or, if we see 106 shown in the HAPPY Program, what does that mean?

 

Mr. Gruner:

Unfortunately, all our programs do have waiting lists.  We triage those on the lists on a constant basis.  So, when they are referred to us they do not necessarily have to sit on a waiting list.  It depends on how severe the problems are.  So, we are constantly triaging to get the kids most in need to those services.  If kids on the list are not high priority, we will try to refer them to other resources so they can get assistance.

 

Ms. Leslie:

As Mr. Gruner knows, this is one of my favorite topics.  So, what you are essentially saying is that people on the waiting list do not get served until they get bad enough to rise to the top of the list.

 

Mr. Gruner:

Well, yes.  Our feeling is we have limited slots and a great number of children needing assistance.  We are trying to deal first with those children who have the most severe problems.

 

Ms. Leslie:

I understand you have budget constraints, but it is a tragedy to place people on waiting lists when they are in critical need of assistance.  Then, while they are waiting, their problems get worse.  I am talking about adolescents rather than infants, although I think that is the same issue.  They wait on the waiting list, they get worse, and we treat them.  What is the waiting list for the outpatient program right now?

 

Mr. Gruner:

Currently, the outpatient program is about 161 days.

 

Ms. Leslie:

That is so discouraging. 

 

Mr. Gruner:

It is, but since the last session, that waiting list has been cut almost in half. 

 

Ms. Leslie:

I understand, but I am still not satisfied, especially since we have the highest suicide rate in the nation for adolescents.  Some of those kids are on the waiting list waiting for services. 

 

I would like your honest opinion on this question, as much as you feel free to give it.  If we change the Medicaid plan so outside providers, such as social workers and marriage and family therapists, could provide services for these kids and get reimbursement through Medicaid, would that positively impact the waiting list?

 

Mr. Gruner:

I believe it would.  It was demonstrated last session when the addition of the Mojave program in the North was beneficial.  That is now a statewide program.  It has been functioning longer in the South, but the impact of that program since the last session has reduced the waiting list, because they deal directly with Medicaid.

 

Ms. Leslie:

I appreciate that.  My issue with Mojave is it is an exclusive contract and there are many other therapists, social workers, and marriage and family counselors in the community that would like to have access to provide these services.  When we get to mental health, we are going to look at the Mojave issue, because I have a problem with the noncompeting aspect of how that works.  Mr. Chairman, I would like for us to look at this because we are sentencing these kids to stay on a waiting list until they get worse – and then we wonder why we have the highest suicide rate in the nation.  If there is a way to open up Medicaid, and it may cost the state money, I think these kids are worth it.  That could be part of the solution, and I know there are many marriage and family therapists and social workers who specialize in adolescents who could provide top quality services if we would allow them to have access to Medicaid reimbursement.

 

Mr. Shaw:

I understand your feeling about waiting lists.  But, for the first time ever, the Governor has added $6 million to take care of 100 percent of the child welfare needs.  I know that is half a pie, but it is a big half and one we have never had before.  We need to acknowledge there are more resources in this budget for children’s mental health than I have seen in 18 years.

 

 

 

Ms. Leslie:

I certainly acknowledge that, but again, those enhancements are for kids in the child welfare system.  We need to take care of those kids.  But, many kids are not in the system and it is wrong for us to say that you have to be in the child welfare system to get mental health care in this state.  I do not accept that.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Rawson:

One of the performance indicators we look at is the size of the waiting list, and how long it takes someone to get assistance.  It is one of the measures that indicate whether we are effectively meeting the public need.  We must continually make progress on reducing these lists, and continually find ways to address it.

 

Mr. Shaw:

I agree, and as Mr. Gruner says, we have cut it in half from the last biennium.

 

HR, Southern Nevada Child & Adolescent Services - Budget Page DCFS-83 (Volume 2) Budget Account 101-3646

 

E-475 Effectiveness of Family Service – Budget Page DCFS-88

 

Chairman Rawson:

There are a number of new staff needed and decision unit E-475 has 9 new FTE for Desert Willow Treatment Center.  There is some indication the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) surveyed this and indicated there was insufficient staffing for the facility.  We would like to know more about that: how the survey was done; what some of the findings were; and whether the loss of Health Care Financial Administration (HCFA) certification is an issue we have to worry about.

 

Christa Peterson, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator, Southern Regional Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:

Desert Willow Treatment Center (DWTC) is one of the programs I oversee.  DWTC sought JCAHO accreditation to be able to collect Medicaid reimbursement.  That is one of the primary sources of revenue to fund the facility.  The facility has now undergone three JCAHO surveys, the most recent in May 2000, which was an unannounced survey. 

 

Before I get into the problems cited by JCAHO, I mention that, in all of those surveys, the facility received significantly above-average scores, which indicates the program is a good program.

 

However, in the last two surveys, JCAHO noted the facility is serving a disproportionately large number of very acute children and adolescents.  The facility was established primarily to bring our “most severe children” back from out of state.  So, it is not unexpected the most severely and chronically ill children and adolescents in our state are in the facility.  Even though they do not prescribe a particular staffing standard or ratio, JCAHO indicated, based on the acuity levels of the patients, that we needed additional staff to deal with acuity episodes. 

 

There are three types of episodes that are common with children and adolescents: first, is the need for one-on-one monitoring; second is the need for suicide monitoring and precautions; and the third is the need for restraint and seclusion. 

In addition, medication monitoring is very high with this population, even though they are children and adolescents.  JCAHO was seriously concerned and cited the facility, as did the state Health Division, for not meeting the acuity needs of these particular clients.  That is the basis for the staffing requests.  We need staff to provide additional supervision when those acuity episodes occur. 

 

Chairman Rawson:

It sounds as if it was not the 5.6-hour nursing standard.  Am I understanding that correctly?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Staffing for the facility was originally budgeted in 1997.  It was consistent with the staffing standard that has been in place for some time and was established by the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services.  JCAHO is not prescribing a particular staffing standard or addressing that standard.  What JCAHO is looking at is the individualized needs of particular patients who have acuity episodes and  being able to supplement the normal staffing ratio to take care of those acuity episodes.  JCAHO requires that we track the acuity level of each individual patient and that we staff to that acuity level.  They do not prescribe any particular staffing standard.

 

Chairman Rawson:

With the costs of our beds, is it cheaper to contract?  If so, are there significant advantages to doing things with the facility versus contracting?

 

Dr. Peterson:

We did that analysis when we initially requested funding for staffing the facility.  As you know, it just opened in 1998.  We have not done a recent analysis of that.  We could certainly do that for you.  We probably need to point out, however, that many of the children and adolescents we accept into the facilities are those that no other facility, within or outside Nevada, will accept.  For example, there is one individual who has been in several out-of-state facilities and in-state facilities that we will be accepting at DWTC.  This is one of our kids in custody for whom there is literally no other place.  So, we need to keep that in mind when we look at the cost effectiveness of the facility.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Is it underutilized?

 

Dr. Peterson:

When we were surveyed in May 2000 by JCAHO and June 2000 by the Health Division and cited for not addressing the acuity needs of the patients, we temporarily reduced the capacity of the facility until we could determine how many staff were needed and how best to use those staff until we could develop a staffing request.  As soon as we get the additional staff, and Mr. Shaw is reviewing an IFC request for that, we can look at increasing the capacity.

 

Chairman Rawson:

We will ask the same thing about waiting lists.  Has that affected the waiting list?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Actually the waiting list has been reduced this year by 40 percent, which has to do with the fact individuals referred to the facility are either very acute or have a severe problem.  We are not comfortable leaving them on a waiting list.  We need to find other solutions for them and that is what we do.

 

Mr. Shaw:

The only comment I have is Charter Hospital closed down in Las Vegas, and that really put the pressure on.  I believe that is ready to open up again.  For those children in our custody that have a payment source, it is going to take some of the pressure off.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Along those lines, you said you temporarily reduced the census back in June.  How do you define “temporarily?”

 

Dr. Peterson:

Back in mid-July we temporarily reduced the capacity.  “Temporarily” is until we can find the additional staff to meet the acuity levels of the patients.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

On what did you base your need for nine new positions?  What nursing standard was used?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Again, we did not look at a different nursing or staff to client ratio standard.  We did a detailed analysis of what each of our staff did for patients in the facility, what their duties where, where they performed those duties, and how those duties related to the supervision of the client.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I do not understand, then, what you based the budget on.

 

Dr. Peterson:

When we did that analysis, we looked at the number of staff and the amount of time that had to be dedicated to supervising children during these acuity episodes.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I believe that 22 to 24 of those kids came from the mental health hospital where they had the same acuity and where staffing is based on the 5.6-hour nursing standard.  So, why would that not be an acceptable standard to use, now that they are with you?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Again, when we opened the DWTC one of our specific goals was to reduce the number of children we had to send out of state.  Those children are considerably more severe and more chronic.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

And how many of them are more severe and more chronic, versus what I just asked about?

 

Dr. Peterson:

We have an additional 32 beds.

 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

And they are all filled with those from out of state?

 

Dr. Peterson:

That was our original target population.  Now, we are not sending them out of state, but directly to DWTC.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I still do not understand this, Dr. Peterson.  You brought 24 over from the hospital.  How many children are actually in those beds that were intended to be brought in from out of state?

 

Dr. Peterson:

The original plan capacity for the facility was 56.  Twenty-four beds were brought over from the old facility, and 32 beds were added.  Currently, with the reduced capacity, we are running a census of about 40.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

So, less than half of the others are actually filled, but they are filled with youth who are more acute than the ones you brought from the hospital?

 

Dr. Peterson:

We have two new programs we did not have at the old facility.  They are long-term residential care facilities, and have a plan capacity of 12 each.  We are currently running them at 10 each.  So, it is about 20 children.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Again, what standard or formula was used and why did you not use the one that apparently had been working for those acute individuals previously?

 

Mr. Shaw:

It is my understanding the adult facility did not need, nor did it have JCAHO accreditation.  It was only required for inpatient psychiatric services for patients under 21 years old.  They did not have JCAHO visits and they were not accredited by them. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

This JCAHO report recommended that your acuity levels were not being properly administered.  Did they recommend some formula?  What have we done based upon the 5.6-hour nursing standard?  Was that ever based on a JCAHO formula, regardless of whether the hospital was certified?

 

Dr. Peterson:

The original formula has been in place for quite a long time, and I do not know the origins of it, but the mental health division could tell you that.  What we have to consider is the population we are serving now is much more acute than the original population even in the 24 beds that came over.  When we were housed in the adult hospital, we were licensed as a group-care facility.  Now, we are licensed as a hospital.  We are able to take more acute children and adolescents.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

When it was a group home, was it JCAHO certified?

 

Dr. Peterson:

No, the JCAHO certification was something we built in when we developed the hospital side of this.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

What is the average cost per bed?

 

Dr. Peterson:

The average cost per bed for DWTC varies.  We have two types of beds: our acute beds and our long-term beds.  The average cost across the two is about $350.  I will have to get the specific information for you.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Yes, I would like that, acute versus the long term cost, and the actual census in the acute versus the long term.  That would be helpful.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Rawson:

There are a few capital improvement projects (CIP), which would not be helpful to go into at this meeting.  We would, however, like a status report on the family learning homes and we will have staff request that from you. 

 

Ms. Leslie:

Steve, I have read the report by Dr. Thom Reilly, Professor, School of Social Work, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on foster care in Clark County.  It has some discouraging news, so I know we are going to have several bills come forward through A.C.R. 53.  What is happening with the new federal Independent Living Grant?  It is my understanding we can use some of that money to help these kids as they transition out of foster care.  Is that in the budget?  Do you have a plan for that?  Where are we on that?

 

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 53 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:             Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of integration of         state and local child welfare systems in this state. (BDR R-1712)

 

Mr. Shaw:

I am going to have to get back to you.  It is in the budget.  Elizabeth Breshears, Family Program Officer, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Services, is responsible for the expenditure of the independent living money and the design of that.  I would be glad to get back to you or the body as a whole.  I have read Dr. Reilly’s report.  We commissioned Dr. Reilly in his endeavors.  We wanted to see what was going on.  I appreciate your bringing that up, and I will get back to you.

 

Ms. Leslie:

It would be helpful for the committee members to look at that.  Also, Dr. Reilly’s report is not very long, 5 or 6 pages.  Please provide a copy of it, along with how we are going to address the issue.  It is worth taking up the committee’s time for us to look at it, especially in light of A.C.R. 53 and where we are going to go regarding foster care.

 

 

 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

The family learning homes generated tremendous concerns last session, and now I see it is back in the budget.  It does not appear they are fully occupied or even utilized.  Is that true?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Regarding the family learning homes, there were 8 homes budgeted the prior biennium and 7 homes budgeted by the Legislature.  The maximum capacity is currently 40 beds, and it is running at about 50 percent of the capacity.  There are three variables that have affected the occupancy rate or capacity over the biennium.  First is the physical condition of the buildings.  The buildings are over 20 years old and in the first year of this biennium, we underwent a major CIP project.  That closed about half the homes at any given time.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Did you have a waiting list at that time when those home were closed, and how many were on the waiting list?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Yes, we did.  The waiting list has varied from 4 to 8 beds over the biennium. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

Where do those individuals go?

 

Dr. Peterson:

Again, we have contracts with private facilities and they were accommodated. 

 

The second variable that has affected the capacity of the program is the difficulty in recruiting staff.  About half of these homes are staffed with professional teaching parents, and they are very difficult to recruit.  The third variable that has affected the occupancy rate is the target population.  With the opening of DWTC, and the fact we have many more children within the community who were previously sent out of state, this particular program serves as a step down facility for those children.  In many cases, their symptoms are severe and chronic, particularly in the area of “sexual acting out problems,” which requires a single room.  The facility is built with three bedrooms in each cottage to house five or six children sharing a room.  What reduces the capacity is when individual clients require individual rooms.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I understand that, but there are four homes with about 20 beds open.  So, what we need to do on the budget side, if they are not being occupied, is to back out that staffing formula contained within the budget.

 

Chairman Rawson:

We reviewed the size of the budget we had to go through and were a little intimidated by that.  This is just the hard work of the session, going through this.  We appreciate your attendance today, Steve.  We consider you a capable and trustworthy administrator. 

 

If there is anyone here today who has input, please come forward. 

 

 

Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, Community Unity Coalition of Nevada:

I am representing the Community Unity Coalition of Nevada (CUCN).  I am also the state president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada and am a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno. 

 

I want to second the comment the chairman just made about the competent leadership of this division.  Our CUCN is dedicated to promoting the programs throughout the Department of Human Resources.  It has been developing over a 5 to 6 year period and I wanted to communicate a political message more than anything else this morning.  That is, there is a constituency out there, a substantial constituency, that wants to defend the best human services budget the state of Nevada has received so far, thanks to Governor Guinn, and other people in this room, who have had a lot to do with that.  We are very pleased with many of the elements of the budget for this division and other divisions.  For this division, certainly, in terms of foster care, it is a big advance forward.   

 

Our group does have requests and will be making requests at future hearings and future work sessions.  We have put in 100 hours before the session to prepare and educate ourselves about the entire range of services in the Department of Human Resources.  One of the most pervasive concerns of our group is when agencies like this have private, nonprofit providers, there are payment rates that would provide for excellent services by those contract providers.  It is something that is of great concern to our group.

 

Another concern to our group is the enhancement of substance abuse treatment that Assemblywoman Leslie mentioned.  We saw $41,000 of the state’s money going towards substance abuse prevention.  I do not know if that is still accurate.  We are concerned about elevating both prevention and treatment funding of substance abuse throughout the system.  We want to see no waiting lists, except those that are of administrative necessity, but not from funding deficits.  The Governor said in his message that we are going to eliminate waiting lists in programs like these, and we want to monitor and see those waiting lists eliminated.  There are many people in our group, which includes social service providers, who believe it to be a civil liberty in this state to get mental health care when you need it, and to get appropriate juvenile services.  

 

One last point about juvenile justice issues is that we want to see the best possible juvenile programs, because the state is failing at the adult level. The Executive Budget said the state would increase its rate of incarceration from 4.3 per thousand to 4.8 per thousand.  States from New York to California are beginning to reduce their overall rate of adult incarceration.  This is not a population issue.  It is a rate of incarceration per population.  If better funding and resources for juvenile justice, along with mental health and substance abuse, can do that, the ACLU and the CUCN wants to see that happen.  If you find yourself in a crunch where you need a little more money this session, adult prisons are still going up in Nevada as a percentage of the General Fund, with new prison construction and so on.  This is an area I hope you will look at, and consider holding the line on building adult prisons and putting more resources into the juvenile side, as we just talked about.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Thank you.  Steve, there were a number of people here who left, including Kirby Burgess.  I do not know whether they had anything they needed to express to us.  So, if you would, please express our interest in any concerns they may have, or any support they may have.  We did not mean to overlook them.  Please relay our thanks to Judge Gamble for his attendance.  We understand the strong champion he has been for the youth. 

 

Mr. Shaw:

I will be sure to pass that along.  I want to thank you for your respect and for this hearing. 

 

Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Chapter, National Association of Social Workers:

I would like to piggyback something Assemblywoman Leslie said.  That is, social workers are able to provide mental health services, as well as marriage and family therapists.  We worked with them last session on a bill to provide mental health services.  Social workers are the largest providers of mental health services across the country.  This is something we would like to see happen. 

 

Another matter of concern is we brought Mojave Mental Health into the Reno area and of our private, nonprofit agencies, which are now being threatened because they are able to undercut them for services because they can bill Medicaid.  I wanted to bring that to your attention.  We have nonprofit organizations in northern Nevada that have been so wonderful as to take whoever comes through the door and they are able to write it off and figure out how to raise money.  Then a private, for profit group has come in and undercut that, because they are allowed to bill Medicaid.  I have a problem with that and I do not want to lose our organizations in the North.

 

Chairman Rawson:

We also lose some of the safety-net effect when that happens because they cannot pass the cost along to anyone.  We understand that and appreciate your comments.  I also have not talked to you about A.C.R. 53 and the effect on social workers, but if you have concerns we need to know about that because things are moving fast.

 

Ms. Smalley:

I have an appointment with you this afternoon, Chairman Rawson.

 

Chairman Rawson:

Good. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani:

As you deal with mental health issues, are you aware of any of the schools having any components?  We have talked about it, but I do not think anyone has put it in place.  As a special education teacher, I find there is a trend now to dump truly mentally ill children into a program for emotionally disturbed children, and that is not serving their needs.  We need to talk about some kind of pilot program, because there are other states that have mental health components built in.  That leads into a prevention piece at some point.

 

Ms. Smalley:

Not that I am aware in the North.  It is common practice for licensed clinical social workers that are school social workers to work in the schools and get reimbursed from Medicaid.

Ms. Giunchigliani:

I know Chicago and other places did research on that.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 10:31 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

ElizaBeth Root

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                        ______

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                        _______

 

 

 

                        _______

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

 

DATE:                        ________