MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
March 7, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:45 p.m., on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend (Excused)
Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah D. Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources
Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Human Resources
C. E. Edwin Fend, Lobbyist, American Association of Retired Persons
Bev Kling-Hesse, Concerned Citizen
Mirium Ditmanson, Concerned Citizen
Paul Gowins, Concerned Citizen
R. Alexis Miller, Lobbyist, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada
Dr. LeAnn P. Truesdale, Concerned Citizen
May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Andrea Dresser, Concerned Citizen
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Ann P. McCarthy, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Lovee DuBoef Arum, Concerned Citizen
Virginia Payant, Concerned Citizen
Donald G. Nelson, Lobbyist, Nevada LIFE
V. Robert Payant, Lobbyist, Catholic Legislative Liaison
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Raymond (Rusty) McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources
Janelle Mulvenon, Program Administrator, Community Connections, Department of Human Resources
Toby Hyman, Program Coordinator, Family Resource Centers, Community Connections, Department of Human Resources
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing and invited testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 167.
SENATE BILL 167: Expands program of subsidies for provision of prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services to senior citizens to include persons with disabilities who have modest incomes. (BDR 40-827)
Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources:
Our testimony will provide information regarding senior prescriptions and coverage of the disabled. This is an area that is part of the review and funding to develop policy under the federal Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. Along with our comprehensive strategic plan, this is an area in Medicaid policy that if we were to look at increasing income levels for Medicaid and the working disabled individuals, the pharmacy coverage would be part of that policy.
Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Human Resources:
In our current senior prescription contract, we do not include the disabled as covered individuals. The prescription cost for disabled persons is generally much higher than the prescription drug cost for aged persons for whom the program was designed. For Nevada state Medicaid, the average monthly Medicaid expenditure is $118 per month for a senior citizen, and $131 per month for a disabled person. In order to implement the provisions of this bill, it would be necessary for the department to either negotiate an amendment to our existing contract or go out to bid and ask for a another contractor to bid on the provision of these services. It may not be possible to get the same level of services for the same dollar amount premium.
Chairman Rawson:
How long is the contract?
Ms. King:
It is currently a 1-year contract and is renewable for 2 more years.
Chairman Rawson:
Could it be phased in when the contract opens?
Ms. King:
This could be phased in before the contract opens, however, we would need time to negotiate a contract amendment. I noted the bill had an effective date of July 1, 2001. We would need 3 months to get a contract amendment through, and the contractor to provide coverage. If the contractor did not agree to provide coverage for the disabled, then we would need to put the contract out to bid, which would take approximately 6 months.
Chairman Rawson:
Senate Bill 167 does give the authority to begin the process on July 1, 2001.
Ms. Crawford:
We recognize individuals with disabilities, particularly those that are working and who do not qualify for Medicare coverage, have pharmacy needs. It is a different cost profile for these individuals and therefore, just adding them to the senior population would change how the risk is spread across that population. What we are looking at is a mechanism to procure an insurance coverage, but that would be a different product, so that we could separate the cost for seniors from the cost for disabled persons. Then, the risk is not spreading across the senior population and increasing their premium costs.
Chairman Rawson:
Am I correct that you are not advocating for or against S.B. 167, just informing the committee what needs to be done if it is put into place?
Ms. Crawford:
That is correct. We recognize the need and commend the recognition and efforts to deal with this issue. The mechanism is not one that you could simply add, or blend the two populations, because it may cause some cost shifting.
Senator Washington:
Could you repeat the monthly cost of prescriptions for seniors and disabled?
Chairman Rawson:
It is $118 for seniors and $131 for disabled persons.
C. E. Edwin Fend, Lobbyist, American Association of Retired Persons:
I recognize the need for disabled people to have this program, but if they are included in the existing program, it may fail because of the expense. That is why they were not made part of the original program.
There is a bill, if passed, that will make the existing legislation for seniors very attractive because seniors will have no monthly premium, a $100 deductible, and their generic drugs will be $10 per month.
There are 196 seniors currently in the program, and over 1000 applications, so the program is starting to become known; but there is a need to continue to advertise and explain the program to seniors. We will have a workable program once this legislation is passed; but if the disabled are included, there will be a very expensive risk rate attached and the program may fail. The disabled require specific medications and the program does not cover them completely, therefore, the current program will not benefit them. The people on disability that do not work are covered under Medicare and a working disabled person cannot earn more than $547 a month. To take care of the working disabled, there should be a separate bill to provide the services and funding for the disabled without bankrupting the senior citizen program
Senator Wiener:
Ms. Crawford or Ms. King, would it be possible to get us a number of how many people would be affected?
Chairman Rawson:
I can provide you with that information.
Bev Kling-Hesse, Concerned Citizen:
I am an independent living advocate with the Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living. I am here on behalf of my clients and myself.
(Ms. Kling-Hesse emptied a bag onto the table, which contained her daily medications.) These are the drugs I take so that I can walk, talk, and function each day. My disabilities are secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, and metastases inflammatory breast cancer. Due to those conditions, I have developed depression and high blood pressure. None of these medications are optional except for the chloral hydrate. Chloral hydrate is what is known as a “Mickey Finn.” It is my one luxury and only costs $1.44. The pharmacy price for my medications is $2733.44 a month. I am working and have excellent insurance but I pay $342.50 a month, which is 25 percent of my take-home pay. Ninety percent of my clients received less than $900 a month. Most of them are on Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). If they are on SSDI, they will not take their medications because it will be choice between their medications and food. Whether it is seniors or disabled, you are talking about a high-risk factor. This bill is for those individuals who need expensive medications, regardless if they are seniors or disabled individuals. Without my medications I could not work, that is why I am in favor of S.B. 167.
Chairman Rawson:
The committee needs to understand that if you are not working, you would need a program that the state would fund for your medications.
Ms. Kling-Hesse:
Medicare does not pay for many of the prescriptions I need, but Medicaid would. Even the money I would receive on Medicare would not cover the expense of my medications.
Senator Mathews:
How many medications do you take each day?
Ms. Kling-Hesse:
I take 16 medications per day, plus 3 that need refrigeration. In addition, I need shots of cortisone and I visit the emergency room during the spring and summer months.
Mirium Ditmanson, Concerned Citizen:
I am a dialysis patient. There are medications that I should take but cannot afford. One is a binder that a dialysis patient must take every time he or she eats. That medication is $112 a month. I receive $770 on Social Security, which I need to pay for my rent. I also work, but cannot afford the other prescriptions that are necessary.
My doctor says I am a perfect candidate for a kidney transplant, but I would need to be on medications for the rest of my life which would cost $2000 to $3000 a month. Medicare will pay for the first 3 years, but without a secondary insurance, they will not give me a transplant because I will not be able to continue with those medications. My current treatments, supplies, and medications cost $11,000 a month. This expense could be eliminated with a kidney transplant. There are others in the same situation, where the money could be spent elsewhere. I am in favor of S.B. 167.
Paul Gowins, Concerned Citizen:
I am here representing the Health Care Reform Project and the 93 different groups that joined the project. We support S.B. 167. Drug costs are increasing about 18 percent a year and the drug industry has a high profit ratio, which concerns everyone. Nevada has responded to the affordability problem for senior citizens by developing the “Senior Rx program” (Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 439.665). Nevada’s Governor is concerned not only about senior citizens but about people with disabilities in the prescription program. People with disabilities need their medications, which are expensive, but they use them more than the elderly population on Medicare. Through various retiree health plans, people over 65 years of age have even better access to help with their medications. Senate Bill 167 identifies a need and will provide service to disabled people who have no access at all.
What has not been addressed is what individuals should pay for drugs. If you have a disability and earn more than $540, you do not have medication coverage. It will take 2 years before an individual receives Social Security Disability after he or she acquires a disability; during that time you do not receive health care or drug coverage. This is an opportunity to deal with the needs of those individuals and move forward in a positive direction. We urge the committee to address this issue.
R. Alexis Miller, Lobbyist, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada:
I am speaking on behalf of the Nevada Women’s Lobby and voice support of S.B. 167.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 167 and introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-538.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-538: Abolishes bureau of alcohol and drug abuse of department of human resources and transfers powers and duties of bureau to health division of department of human resources. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 300.)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-538.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS WASHINGTON, TOWNSEND, AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill 191 and introduced Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5.
SENATE BILL 191: Makes various changes regarding possession, care, custody and disposition of and liability for certain newborn infants. (BDR 38-736)
Assemblywoman Cegavske:
I believe S.B. 191 begins addressing the complex issue of infant abandonment. Senate Bill 191 will develop a greater network of resources for a parent who has abandoned a baby. This bill will help to reduce the risk of death for an infant by giving a parent or parents the option of leaving their newborn with emergency service professionals rather than leaving the child on the side of the road or in a dumpster.
The issue of infant abandonment was brought to my attention when I learned of a project in California called the “Garden of Angels.“ It is a burial plot in Calimesa, California, and is a final resting place for 44 abandoned children. The children vary in age from newborn to 5 years old. Each child is given a name and wrapped in a handmade quilt or afghan. Their presence in the “Garden of Angels” has given them a voice. I believe that we have the responsibility to respond to the cry of these children and others who do not have the good fortune to have such a burial.
I trust that Senate Bill 191 will have a positive impact on the number of babies abandoned in dangerous or life-threatening situations in our state. However, we should provide a solution if a parent does not make use of this opportunity and provide a burial for the infant.
I have been working with Palm Mortuaries and Cemeteries and the other cemeteries in Las Vegas to establish a form of the “Garden of Angels” in the Las Vegas area. Palm Mortuary and Crematory has donated space for approximately 130 burials and is donating a statue in memory of the abandoned children that are laid to rest. I believe S.B. 191 will help to ensure this crematory plot remains empty.
California has respectfully asked Nevada and other states not to use the “Garden of Angels” name.
Chairman Rawson:
The Junior League, First Lady of Nevada Dema Guinn, and Assemblywoman Cegavske should work on the issue of naming the children’s plot.
Dr. LeAnn P. Truesdale, Concerned Citizen:
I am representing the Junior League of Las Vegas, and we join Assemblywoman Cegavske in support of S.B. 191. This bill describes the essence of the Junior League’s vision to provide every child with an adequate opportunity for success. I have presented the committee with a packet of testimony, news articles and criticisms to this bill (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
There are 14 states that have enacted legislation and 23 states with pending legislation. The first legislation was passed in Alabama in 1998. Last year, in Alabama five babies were placed with adoptive parents and two babies were saved and retained by the biological mothers who received counseling and education.
In Las Vegas, a baby was found in a dumpster on Atlantic Avenue and was named Baby Boy Atlantic. Business people rallied to provide this child with a burial service and resting place. This bill is a beginning of a program to educate, inform, and prevent this from happening again. Senate Bill 191 not only will give the baby a chance, but the mother a chance to do the right thing. Last year, 12 of the nation’s 200 abandoned babies were in Nevada, and already in 2001, there have been 3 abandoned children.
May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County:
We support S.B. 191 for all the reasons previously stated. We do have some proposed amendments (Exhibit D) to make the program more workable. In section 1, subsection 3 of S.B. 191, we would substitute the word “parent” for “person” to be consistent with the preceding language, and include a new section 1, subsection 3, paragraph (a), “waives the right to notice of the 72-hour, hearing, provided pursuant to NRS 432.470, unless an address is provided.” The reason is, hearings are held within 72 hours and there may not be adequate time to put a notice in the newspaper. However, in subsequent hearings, there would be time to follow the publication notice requirement.
The second change is section 3, change the original paragraph (a) to paragraph (b) and insert “abandoned the child.” Nevada Revised Statutes 424.080 prohibit parents from voluntarily assigning or otherwise transferring their rights unless a court of competent jurisdiction terminates the parental rights. The section is a presumption of parental rights; therefore, the agency will still have to pursue a court order to terminate the parental rights. The presumption should be one of abandonment.
The next change we propose is in section 7, subsection 2, paragraph (d):
If the child was delivered to a provider of emergency services pursuant to section 1 of this act and the location of the parent is unknown, add, “notice of the 72-hour hearing is waived.” In section 12, subsection 2, bottom of page 3 of Exhibit D, delete, ”. . . location of a parent is unknown. . . “ and insert, ”parent has failed to enter an appearance.”
Chairman Rawson:
When a person takes their baby to an emergency unit, they can leave their name if they want to be notified, or they can walk out. The bill states that a person cannot be detained, therefore, you have dealt with that issue.
Ms. Shelton:
That is correct. Also, the changes that we are requesting on page 6 (Exhibit D). We would not have to put subsequent notices in the paper after placing the required notice before the adjudicatory hearing if no one appears. We still would have to seek the termination of parental rights. The notices in NRS 432B.530 do not apply to NRS 128.097, in the termination of parental rights. The changes that are proposed will not erode the intent of the bill.
Chairman Rawson:
The amendments will be submitted to our staff analyst.
Andrea Dresser, Concerned Citizen:
I am the maternal/child health coordinator for an HMO in Nevada and the Nevada state coordinator of Postpartum Support International, which deals with mood and anxiety disorders surrounding childbirth.
(Ms. Dresser asked to present a video on child abandonment to the committee but it malfunctioned. She proceeded to explain the video.)
Ms. Dresser:
This is a public service announcement video from another state that shows a teenage mother abandoning her newborn infant until she sees a poster about child abandonment. The teenage mother then relents and retrieves her baby from the dumpster. In that state, they have posters on child abandonment in many locations.
I became involved in Postpartum Support International, an organization that offers help to women who experience this disorder. I have presented you with a packet of pertinent materials, articles, and statistics relevant to Nevada, (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.). I support S.B. 191.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
The Nevada Eagle Forum is in favor of this bill. Florida’s Senator John Grant, cosponsor of the “Safe Haven Law,” said, “This bill is not pro-life and it is not pro-choice, it is pro-baby.” What we should be doing is thinking about the babies. Last year in Houston, 13 babies were found in dumpsters. This bill would have stopped this from happening. We support S.B. 191.
Ann P. McCarthy, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association:
We are in favor of S.B. 191 and the amendments presented to you by Ms. Shelton. Senate Bill 191 will bring the Nevada Revised Statutes in line with the best interest of the child. One concern is, parents who think they will be prosecuted or held for any reason will still be putting children in dumpsters, and there are parts of the bill where parents still could be prosecuted. Also, this bill only affects children up to the age of 30 days. Most statistics show children are abused after that time. I urge you to consider that issue. I would suggest an amendment that would require an emergency services agency to hand out a statement of parents’ rights and what this means under this bill.
Chairman Rawson:
Would you draft any potential amendments you have for S.B. 191?
Ms. McCarthy:
Are we speaking about the statement of parents’ rights under this bill? I will do that and get back to you.
Chairman Rawson:
Yes. Ms. Dresser’s video is now ready to be viewed.
Chairman Rawson:
I invited testimony from Las Vegas.
Lovee duBoef Arum, Concerned Citizen:
I have lived in Nevada since 1963, and am the mother of two children. I have strong feelings regarding this bill. The day before I read in the paper that Baby Boy Atlantic was found in the trash, I witnessed the birth of my first grandchild, a baby boy. We must ensure that every newborn can get a chance at life and we must put an end to the dumping of unwanted newborn babies. As a sustaining member of Junior League, I am proud the League has taken a position in support of this bill. Your enactment of this legislation will demonstrate the compassion, caring, and commitment the Legislature has for the citizens of this state.
Ms. Miller,:
Planned Parenthood serves over 20,000 women and families annually in Nevada. We work to ensure women’s health care needs are met and protected, and that every child is a wanted child and every family a healthy family. I am here strongly supporting S.B. 191. It is a very important option for women and families.
Women need to be made aware they will have a safe haven for their babies and themselves. The legislative intent should be made clear. The intent of the bill is not to prosecute women but to protect the babies. I am concerned about a public awareness campaign and how women are going to be made aware of what is available to them. This is a valuable piece of legislation, but is only a band-aid on a larger problem. Nevada needs medically accurate, age-appropriate sexuality education in all Nevada schools. Nevada needs state funding for family planning, so women and men can access reproductive health care services. This could significantly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and unwanted children, thereby eliminating the problem of these abandoned babies.
Virginia Payant, Concerned Citizen:
I am testifying today as president of the board of trustees of Casa De Vida, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide a home away from home for pregnant, unmarried young women. Many of our clients are teenagers who are frightened, disillusioned, and desperately in need of kindness and emotional support. They often have no place to live and have had no counseling or compassionate assistance. We offer a safe haven where they can live in security during their pregnancies and provide them with good nutrition, access to medical care, and counseling. This bill would provide these women with a choice to give up theirbaby but provide a safe and secure life for the child. Every child deserves this type of security and if the mother is unable to provide it but willing to place the child into a situation where compassionate care can be given, then we need to make that choice available to her. I urge you to support this bill.
Donald G. Nelson, Lobbyist, Nevada LIFE:
Nevada LIFE (Life Issues Forum and Education) is in support of S.B. 191. I presented you with a photo of a billboard in Houston, Texas, called “Don’t Abandon Your Baby!” (Exhibit F). We support this bill because it addresses a growing and heartbreaking problem in our nation this legislation will prevent. We support this bill because we believe that each one of these babies is “. . .endowed with certain inalienable rights. . . .” Each of these babies possesses transcendent resources and unique gifts for all of humanity. In many states, this is called the “Baby Moses Bill,” named after the biblical figure, Moses. The story of Moses illustrates the value of every human being. That is why we are in favor of this bill.
V. Robert Payant, Lobbyist, Catholic Legislative Liaison:
The Nevada Catholic Conference joins in support of S.B. 191.
Ms. McCarthy:
I would suggest an amendment (Exhibit G) to S.B. 191, adding the following language to section 1, subsection 2. After, “A provider of emergency services who takes possession of a child pursuant to subsection 1 shall: (a) Provide the parent of the child with the following information: (1) By allowing this provider to take possession of your child, you are presumed to have abandoned the child. (2) No notice will be provided to you of the mandatory hearing, which will take place in 72 hours. (3) Unless you contact Child Protective Services, action will be taken to terminate your parental rights.”
Then re-letter the next two subsections.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
I commend the Junior League for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. We also support S.B. 191. We would request, before you act upon the amendments, they be available in writing to all those concerned for review.
Raymond (Rusty) McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada:
We are in strong support of this legislation, but do have some concerns. As one of the emergency services providers in this bill, a question has arisen concerning a domestic dispute situation. If the child is delivered to a law enforcement agency or to a hospital, there is armed security on premises, whereas at the fire station there is not. After a child is delivered to a fire station by one parent, the other parent may show up and become irate. We are not equipped to handle that type of situation.
The other concern is getting the child to a proper care facility immediately. The main concern is the child. Allowing us to transport the child to a health care facility and treat it as a medical emergency would free up emergency units that could go back into service and respond to calls.
We wish to submit an amendment in section 1, subsection 2 add a new paragraph. “In the case when a public fire-fighting agency is the recipient of a delivered child pursuant to subsection 1, the fire-fighting agency shall cause the child to be delivered immediately to care facility as defined in subsection 4, (a).” The addition of this language would allow us to do an assessment and transport the child to the nearest pediatric facility.
Chairman Rawson:
Would there be an objection to the language, ”. . . in the case that a public agency that is not care facility is the recipient . . . “
Mr. McAllister:
That language would be agreeable.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 191 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 7.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 7: Encourages Family Resource Centers to work closely with the Aging Services Division of the Department of Human Resources to provide information to public regarding services available for senior citizens. (BDR R-503)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3:
Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 encourages family resource centers to work closely with Nevada’s Aging Services Division to provide information to the public regarding services available for senior citizens. I conferred with Mary Liveratti, administrator of aging services, to determine what legislation might help seniors throughout the state.
There are 38 family resource centers throughout Nevada offering information and referrals for people to social service agencies and organizations. They provide assistance to community members of all ages and on-site response to local needs, including problem facilitation, job readiness training, and crisis intervention for families. Upon review of the resolution, you will find the theme of encouragement throughout and the opportunity to appreciate the great contributions that family resource centers are making to the communities. I urge your support of S.C.R. 7.
Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources:
The division for aging services supports the concept of this bill and has been working with the family resource centers to increase the availability of information for older persons and their families. Last year the division developed a plan of services for Nevada’s elders, which covers the period of October 2000 through September 2004. One of the objectives of our plan is to strengthen the collaboration of the statewide senior services network with the family resource center network.
Janelle Mulvenon, Program Administrator, Community Connections, Department of Human Resources:
We support this resolution because it promotes and strengthens the linkages and the collaboration among senior citizens, the family resource centers, and the division of aging.
Toby Hyman, Program Coordinator, Family Resource Centers, Community Connections, Department of Human Resources:
The 38 family resource centers throughout Nevada offer citizens and their communities information, referrals to social services, and programs that improve their quality of life. Family resource centers provide services to anyone in their communities who needs assistance. Partnerships between family resource centers and the division of aging have existed for quite some time. In June 1999, the Laughlin Family Resource Center assumed physical and program responsibility for the senior center in that community. Last year, the division of aging accepted proposals from family resource centers to install Web television units in their centers to aid senior citizens in accessing Medicare and other pertinent information from the Internet. Eight family resource centers submitted proposals and the three centers chosen are Lyon County Family Resource Center, Community Chest in Virginia City, and Miguel Ribera Family Resource Center in Reno.
In 2000, family resource centers referred 750 senior citizens to services in their communities. The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), using Social Security Administration Title IV, Part B funds, awards grants to family resource centers to provide programs designed to strengthen families, such as parenting classes and home visitation programs. Title IV, Part B also funds a differential response program in four rural family resource centers, Churchill County, Carson City, Pahrump, and Elko. In this program, DCFS refers families who have been reported for neglect or nonphysical or sexual abuse to family resource centers for home-based services.
The Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse has provided funds to three family resource centers, Wells, Las Vegas, and a collaboration between the Sparks and Reno family resource centers. Each of the 38 centers throughout the state has played an important role in signing up eligible families for the Nevada Check-Up program. The two local governing boards of the family resource centers support S.C.R. 7.
Chairman Rawson:
I now close the hearing on S.C.R. 7 and begin a work session on S.B. 191.
Chairman Rawson:
Do any members of the committee have a problem with the amendments presented for S.B. 191? Do you feel comfortable if the amendments are prepared as a document and inserted into the bill so that we can review them? (The committee responded in the affirmative.) The amended bill will then be made available for those interested in reviewing it, and we will take action at our next meeting.
Chairman Rawson:
I adjourn the meeting at 3:12 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Di Domenico,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: