MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 13, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas. 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 Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert W. Teuton, Chief, Juvenile Division, Office of the District Attorney, Clark County
Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Kirby Burgess, Director, Department of Family Youth Services, Clark County, and President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators
Leonard Pugh, Assistant Director, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender
Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County Juvenile Probation
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Kendall R. Stagg, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Mary Valencia Wilson, Political Action Chair for Reno/Sparks, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and Advocacy Chair, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Senator James opened the hearing with a request to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 3-1343 and Bill Draft Request (BDR) 41-1105.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-1343: Adopts the revised Uniform Arbitration Act. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 336.)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 3-1343.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 41-1105: Enacts provisions pertaining to problem gambling. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 335.)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 41-1105.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator James indicated the committee would consider a series of bills that emanated from the Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 13 of the Seventieth Session study chaired by Senator Wiener. He opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 230.
SENATE BILL 230: Revises provisions relating to juveniles who violate parole. (BDR 16-575)
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to continue study of system of juvenile justice in Nevada. (BDR R-224)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, gave her written testimony (Exhibit C) seeking support for S.B. 230, which revises provisions for juveniles who violate parole. She submitted a document entitled, “Study of the System of Juvenile Justice in Nevada” (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.), which encompassed the final recommendations and actions of the juvenile justice study subcommittee.
Senator James requested further information regarding the testimony that came before the juvenile justice study subcommittee which created the recommendation. Senator Wiener said there had not been extensive testimony and S.B. 230 was created from the work session document. The recommendation was reviewed by the subcommittee regarding a concern voiced by the administrator regarding a “gap” that needed to be addressed. Senator James asked whether the gap was the inability to confine a juvenile. Senator Wiener responded there was no provision for parole violation. Senator James queried what was done currently. Senator Wiener expressed uncertainty and explained that was the reason the legislation was requested.
Robert W. Teuton, Chief, Juvenile Division, Office of the District Attorney, Clark County, testifying from Las Vegas, expressed support for S.B. 230, as written. He pointed out that current law allowed juvenile court when a person over the age of 18 is adjudicated a delinquent for a probation violation which occurs after the eighteenth birthday. In that situation the court could place an individual in the local adult jail facility for a period of time. For those who violate parole after their eighteenth birthday there is no corresponding provision under current law to allow parolees from either the state, county, or regional facilities, to be placed in the jail. He declared the importance of S.B. 230, first and foremost, was to allow the court to sanction offenders who are under the jurisdiction of the court and over the age of 18.
Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, testifying from Las Vegas, explained that the DCFS supported the aspect of S.B. 230 that would allow young people on youth parole, who are 18 years of age, to be placed in the jail. She said there were concerns and a desire for further discussion on aspects of the bill that dealt with interstate compact youths. Ms. Smith indicated it was her understanding of the interstate compact on juveniles that their jurisdiction could return a youth to the original jurisdiction of the sending state. However, the courts could not suspend, modify, or do anything with the parole of a youngster who came from another state. Should the youngster commit an offense in Nevada, a new charge could be filed and taken through the court process, but there could be no modification of the parole from an ascending state. Ms. Smith said that aspect of S.B. 230 needed consideration.
In reference to the aspect of the bill that addresses the state paying for youngsters who are confined, Ms. Smith noted the language was somewhat confusing in terms of what period of time the DCFS might be required to pay, what types of hearings would be required, and so forth.
Kirby Burgess, Director, Department of Family Youth Services, Clark County, and President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators, testifying from Las Vegas, commended Senator Wiener and the juvenile justice study subcommittee for their diligence in perusing juvenile justice issues. He indicated that Nevada had come a long way. Mr. Burgess said Ms. Smith captured the essence of what he planned to say. He expressed support for S.B. 230, as did his colleagues. Mr. Burgess was concerned about how payment would be made for children confined in the detention facility. He said he believed all the issues could be worked out and requested an opportunity to help resolve any problems. Mr. Burgess asserted that S.B. 230 had merit and attempted to do the correct thing.
Senator Care asked what could be done to fix the jurisdictional issue and rectify the bill, as written, in regard to a parolee who comes to Nevada and violates the terms of parole in Florida. The senator asked how the state could avoid going through the drill of returning the 18-year-old to Florida to modify the terms of parole, and then perhaps send him back to Nevada. Senator Care asked, “What jurisdiction does this legislative body have to address that?”
Although he had not paid close attention to the language regarding the interstate compact, Mr. Teuton noted S.B. 230 states, “ . . . the court, in accordance with the interstate compact, suspend, modify or revoke . . . ” Therefore, within the bill itself, should there be a conflict between the interstate compact provisions and the ability S.B. 230 would provide judges in Nevada to revoke or modify a sentence from another jurisdiction, the interstate compact would prevail. He indicated that should there be changes in the compact in the future, S.B. 230 would trigger unauthorized local courts to do those things.
Mr. Teuton said quite often in the juvenile system judges from differing states who have a parolee with situations in common are permitted to have conversations with one another. It is possible that should there be a parole violation locally, the committing judge in Nevada could have contact with the judge from the sending state and they could agree to allow the Nevada court to proceed with modification of the sentence; or with some sort of interim sentence for the parole violation itself, as opposed to modification of the original sentence from the sending court.
Mr. Teuton indicated Ms. Smith had perused the issue more closely than he because she was responsible for interstate-compact issues. He said the saving language in S.B. 230 was the statement, “in accordance with the interstate compact,” that the local court could do those things.
Senator James requested an explanation of what was paid for by the state.
Mr. Burgess answered that the state paid for confinement pending a hearing. He explained there are numerous hearings in juvenile court proceedings and the length of time a youngster spends in custody could vary. He declared that the issue should be defined more clearly in regard to requesting payment during the time a youngster is confined in the juvenile detention facility.
Mr. Teuton submitted a proposed amendment to S.B. 230 (Exhibit E). He said currently under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 62.020, if a child was merely charged with parole or probation violation, even if they were over the age of 18, they were still considered a juvenile and must be housed in the juvenile detention facility. The bill, as written, remedies the situation in which a parolee over the age of 18 is merely charged with parole violation. The bill would allow the juvenile court to order temporary housing in the adult jail facility pending the hearing, Mr. Teuton declared.
Commenting further, Mr. Teuton said his proposed amendment would apply the same ability to any juvenile over the age of 18 who the court felt should be detained. Therefore, under current law, should a 20-year-old juvenile sex offender be charged with probation violation, pending the hearing and adjudication as a probation violator the individual would be held in the juvenile detention facility. Mr. Teuton indicated his proposed amendment would allow a 20-year-old person charged with probation violation to be held in the county jail pending the hearing and a determination of whether or not probation was violated. Similarly, any other juvenile who happened to be over the age of 18 who the court felt should be detained, could be detained by court order in the jail pending a hearing on the matter, rather than being held in the juvenile detention facility.
Mr. Teuton recalled a recent situation where a 15-year-old child had been charged with trafficking in controlled substances and was returned to Mr. Teuton’s jurisdiction at age 20. Since the individual was merely charged with the offense, under current law he had to be held in the local juvenile detention facility. The court felt that since he was chronologically 20 years of age, he should be held in the county jail separate and apart from the minors who were locked up in the juvenile facility. Mr. Teuton declared his proposed amendment would address situations that S.B. 230, as written, does for parolees. In regard to individuals who are simply charged pending the hearing and a finding on the charge, the proposed amendment would allow the court discretion to place them in a jail facility, as opposed to contaminating the local juvenile detention population with people over the age of 18.
Senator Wiener asked whether or not Mr. Teuton’s intent was to provide temporary housing in the adult facility for the probation violator or the parole violator. In answer, Mr. Teuton indicated he amended Chapter 62 of NRS; therefore, it could be applicable to a parole violator, as well as a probation violator who was merely charged with no judicial finding of guilt. He said, more importantly, his amendment went beyond those two classifications. He pointed out the juvenile court has jurisdiction over anyone under the age of 21 who commits an offense before their eighteenth birthday. Therefore, a 17½-year-old who commits robbery, sexual assault, or any serious crime, would be worthy of detaining if he was not apprehended until after his eighteenth birthday. Mr. Teuton said, under current law, once a person is apprehended he would be held in the juvenile detention facility.
Under Mr. Teuton’s proposed amendment, the court would have authority to order an individual over the age of 18 to be housed in the adult jail pending the outcome of the proceedings. He clarified his amendment would address parole and probation violators prior to adjudication, a person who absconds when a bench warrant has been issued who is not apprehended until after his eighteenth birthday, or an individual against whom an arrest warrant has been issued who is not apprehended until after his eighteenth birthday. Mr. Teuton declared his amendment would not require automatic detainment in the adult-jail facility, but only following a hearing and a detention order issued by the judge would they be housed in that facility. There would be flexibility. A judge could find in a particular case that, although over the age of 18, the person should nevertheless be housed in the juvenile detention facility. It would basically be judicial option. Mr. Teuton said his proposed amendment would address all four situations, whereas S.B. 230 was limited strictly to parole violations.
Mr. Burgess declared S.B. 230 a good bill with much promise which would address some important issues.
Senator James asked whether or not a fiscal note was included with S.B. 230. There being none, he noted a fiscal note must be requested.
Leonard Pugh, Assistant Director, Department of Juvenile Services, Washoe County, provided his written testimony (Exhibit F) in support of S.B. 230. His understanding was that several revisions would be proposed at the hearing. He expressed the desire to ensure the language in the bill would provide the juvenile detention operator authority to approve or request a review hearing should the placement create an unsafe and/or overcrowded situation in a detention facility. Mr. Pugh reported that his department had control over probation violators. In an overcrowded situation alternatives are sought to avoid incarceration in any way possible, perhaps utilizing electronic monitoring or something similar. In that way space is saved for children who require the detention facility and unsafe situations are avoided. He pointed out the Department of Juvenile Services would not have authority over parole violators and would appreciate an opportunity to review a situation, before it goes to court, to present its side of the story and declare whether or not an unsafe situation would be created.
Further, Mr. Pugh recommended that any language in S.B. 230, referring to compensation, be amended. Currently the Youth Parole Bureau pays an agreed-upon cost for each day of confinement, both pre- and post-adjudication. Hearing dates are not applicable and there is compensation for each day the child is in the facility. He said the amendment would maintain the current agreement and not place an additional financial burden on the facilities.
Senator James inquired whether the amendment would deal with the unfounded mandate problem mentioned in sections 10, 12, and 14 of S.B. 230. Mr. Pugh answered, “I believe it would.” He indicated the current agreement in the contract with the Division of Child and Family Services allowed compensation for each day a child on parole is in the facility, but not children committed for 25 or 30 days until they were transported. The county carries the burden for the cost at the present time. Mr. Pugh clarified that he was referring to children brought in for parole violation.
Senator James asked Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, whether the unfunded mandate was in the bill because compensation would not be covered under the current agreement. Mr. Wilkinson said, “I believe that is correct. We would lose revenue with the new language.”
Senator Washington inquired how much money is reimbursed from the state to the Division of Child and Family Services. Mr. Pugh said the current contract is $80 per day, but actual costs are $105 per day. Senator Washington queried whether the compensation is for housing, or services as well. Mr. Pugh answered the children are given complimentary access to the nurse and things of that nature, but, basically it is just housing.
Senator James inquired about the cost of reimbursement in Clark County. Mr. Burgess pointed out the cost of reimbursement in Clark County is $120 per day to house a youngster in the juvenile detention facility. Answering the question of whether reimbursement is $80 per day, Mr. Burgess said there is a flat rate of $110,000 annually, which is the base rate the state provides Clark County. There is an additional allocation of a little over $200,000 to be used for community-based programming to keep children out of the state institutions; hence, there is a total of slightly over $300,000 annually.
Senator James requested a breakdown in terms of recovery of costs. Mr. Burgess remarked the state is charged the true value of incarcerating the children. The cost of holding children in the detention facility pending the outcome of court hearings is approximately $1 million annually. The Clark County Department of Family Youth Services receives about one-third of the cost received by the state for the children in custody, Mr. Burgess declared.
Ms. Smith added that the current detention costs budget of the DCFS does not cover the charges from Clark County. From the state perspective, the children receiving services live in the counties where they are detained and their families pay taxes there. That aspect must be considered because the children are entitled to the services. She indicated that S.B. 230 puts a new twist on interstate compact youth which will raise the dollar signs in terms of actual cost. Ms. Smith supported Mr. Burgess’ request to be allowed to attend the work session to clarify issues relative to cost. In reference to the Executive Budget, Ms. Smith said funding expectations may be unrealistic this legislative session.
Senator James deemed Ms. Smith’s point well taken. He pondered the theory behind the state paying for the services, and asked whether it was because the job was given to the Youth Parole Bureau which made it a state responsibility. Ms. Smith said she was uncertain when the provision was placed in the law. In response, Senator James pointed out it had not been amended since 1981; therefore, it was put into the law before that time. He asked why the law was there, and whether it should be. The senator suggested perhaps the county should shoulder the responsibility.
Ms. Smith said as counties increase their costs for services more will be expected from the state relative to paying for the detention of these young people. She expressed the opinion that counties should carry the cost because the parents of the children live and pay taxes there. Ms. Smith explained that the counties are required to take any excess money paid in fiscal year 1998. However, DCFS committed the money from current detention funds to provide services and keep children out of state institutions, and did not revert the funds back to the General Fund. She said the committee should be aware that the counties had worked diligently to accomplish such a commendable action.
Mr. Burgess stated he and Ms. Smith did not agree on the issue. He asserted it was a jurisdictional issue and the state was saved a lot of money, whereas capital costs would have to be expended to bill a facility to hold children. Consequently, it is a “hit” to the counties, particularly Clark County and Washoe County. Mr. Burgess affirmed that the state should pay its fair share in housing children in youth-detention facilities.
Senator James recalled a bill regarding non-juveniles who violate parole and are incarcerated in jail. In that case the state reimbursed the jail and paid the transportation costs to the prison. He said the theory behind it was “commit a crime and you are out on parole from a state institution,” and asked whether this situation was the same.
Mr. Pugh pointed out a provision in the law that said parole violators could be sent back to the institution for parole violations. Detaining them in a local facility is more convenient for the state because they are kept shorter term and do not take up a bed in the prison which, up to a few months ago, was extremely overcrowded. He said the law provided an opportunity for the entities to work together in dealing with overcrowded issues at both levels. Mr. Pugh’s understanding was that, pursuant to the law, the court could send the parole violator back to the institution.
Although he understood the theory, Senator James asserted there was a lack of funds, which was stark reality.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, expressed concerns regarding S.B. 230. The larger concern was in regard to housing a person, under juvenile charges, who had attained the age of 18. It was his understanding the person was not required to be housed separately, or in a different configuration or classification, than the manner in which a normal 18‑year-old would be housed in a detention facility. It would be of concern if a person under juvenile charges had a different housing arrangement. Captain Nadeau said currently a juvenile (under the age of 18), housed in an adult-detention facility, is required by law to be sight and sound separated. Should an 18-year-old be sentenced to Washoe County jail, he would be classified as any other adult inmate regardless of the charges. Recalling a statute dealing with parolees, Captain Nadeau pointed out that compensation commences if a person is held over a certain time period. In any event, he indicated the Washoe County Sheriff would like to be reimbursed in a similar fashion.
Senator James suggested perhaps a compromise could be reached regarding compensation commencing after a certain period of time. Captain Nadeau was uncertain how Mr. Burgess and Mr. Pugh would view it; however, from the perspective of the Washoe County Sheriff, that was the manner in which the other parole law operated. He expressed hope that section 10, subsection 3, of S.B. 230, would include county jails. In any aspect where there is a parolee housed in a county or city detention facility, there would be compensation, Captain Nadeau remarked.
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, indicated the interstate compact did not permit the public defender to modify, suspend, or revoke a juvenile parolee from another jurisdiction. He suggested section 10 of S.B. 230 was not needed. Should the interstate compact be modified to allow that procedure, it would not be needed in S.B. 230 because it would be authorized by the compact. Therefore, in the interest of saving ink and making statute books lighter, Mr. Morrow suggested the provision was not required as enacted by the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Senator James indicated Mr. Morrow’s suggestion would be considered and said the committee would like to peruse the interstate compact. Mr. Morrow pointed out that a provision in the interstate compact said the governor could negotiate for changes; therefore, it could be done.
Senator Washington inquired whether there was much difference between the adult supervision compact and the juvenile interstate compact. Mr. Morrow answered there was not a great deal of difference. He explained that when parole is violated by an adult-system violator, if the receiving state decides to be finished with the person, it simply closes interest in the case, notifies the sending state, the sending state decides whether or not to take the person, and the person is returned to his own jurisdiction. Mr. Morrow maintained it was sensible because there are many different sentencing schemes that vary from state to state. Senator Washington asked whether this procedure concerned juveniles. Mr. Morrow answered he presumed it concerned juveniles, but knew it was a fact in the adult system.
Senator James said the formerly mentioned provision, found in NRS 213.15103, was added in the Legislative Session of 1993 and was 5 working days. He noted this Legislature is perusing issues in which the state reimburses counties.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 230 and opened the hearing on S.B. 231.
SENATE BILL 231: Revises provisions relating to detention homes for temporary detention of children. (BDR 5-574)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, provided her written testimony (Exhibit G) to seek support for S.B. 231, which revises provisions relating to detention homes for the temporary detention of children.
Senator Porter asked, “Why do we need this?” Although she deferred to the administrators who requested the bill, Senator Wiener said her understanding was the bill gave a little more leeway regarding efficient use of space while still monitoring supervision and separation. She stressed that it did not allow collocation of a juvenile facility and a prison, but would allow it with a lock up of jail. Senator Porter clarified that it referred to two facilities side by side, but separate. He inquired whether there were similar facilities in Carson City. Senator Wiener again deferred to the administrators.
Kirby Burgess, Director, Department of Family Youth Services, Clark County, and President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators, testifying from Las Vegas, said Senator Wiener was correct in her assessment. He indicated S.B. 231 was sought to allow collocation of facilities for efficiency and economy of scale, especially in rural areas. It would allow the staffs of juvenile and adult facilities to use common laundry and food-service facilities which would lower cost. Mr. Burgess affirmed S.B. 231 was a good bill and he urged the committee to support it.
Robert W. Teuton, Chief, Juvenile Division, Office of the District Attorney, Clark County, testifying from Las Vegas, concurred and said S.B. 231 should be passed because it contained the economic efficiencies referred to by Mr. Burgess.
Senator James asked why the provision formerly contained a county limitation which had been removed. Senator Washington pointed out, due to its limited resources and facilities, Elko County provided testimony on S.B. 231. He indicated Elko County’s population was approximately 35,000 which was the reason for the bill.
Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Juvenile Probation, Douglas County, said when the Juvenile Justice Amendments of 1977 was initially created (15 to 20 years ago) the Code of Federal Regulations did not allow for collocation. Nevada law was changed at that time and the state decided to join the “feds” and pursue the policies of the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (OJJDP) which was changed to not accept collocation as well. He indicated that 3 years ago the Code of Federal Regulations was changed to allow for collocation and the sharing of certain facilities, such as kitchens and laundries, which made it more practical for small counties to operate those facilities. Mr. Scott said should S.B. 231 not pass, detention facilities in Douglas County, Humboldt County, and Elko County, would be operating outside Nevada statutes. The bill states Nevada will operate within the Code of Federal Regulations regarding sight and sound separation and collocation.
Referring to section 1, subsection 3, lines 3-5 of S.B. 231, “Any detention home built and maintained under this chapter must be constructed and conducted as nearly like a home as possible, and must not be deemed to be or treated as a penal institution,” Senator James asked how the provision could be complied with when facilities are collocated. Mr. Scott answered, “That’s a tough one.” He said in reality most detention homes are correctional facilities; however, they include lounge areas with a home-like atmosphere where children do not feel constantly locked down. There are programs within the detention facilities to keep the children occupied. He indicated there had been internal discussion within his organization whether “deemed” is an applicable term and some people felt it should be eliminated.
Senator James commented the language is “constructed and conducted,” to which Mr. Scott remarked that the counties work hard to make a child’s experience in a detention home beneficial. He said children do not sit in a cell 24-hours a day, but receive counseling and education.
Leonard Pugh, Assistant Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, (WCDJS), indicated he agreed with Mr. Cook. He noted that the WCDJS is currently designing a new juvenile detention facility. They toured Clark County and several facilities in the Pacific Northwest which are operated more like high schools in terms of education. The facilities provide skill building, including decision-making skills, preemployment skills, and so forth. Close attention is also paid to the nutritional needs of the children.
Mr. Pugh drew attention to the fact that the profile of offenders has changed since the legislation was enacted. To ensure the safety and security of the residents, juvenile facilities have begun to resemble adult facilities. He maintained that what is being designed, and what he has observed throughout the state, is along the lines of what is happening nationally. Mr. Pugh stated that “home like” refers more to operation and environment, as opposed to construction of the facility. Senator James asserted the provision stated “as constructed,” to which Mr. Pugh suggested an amendment.
Senator James requested further explanation regarding Mr. Pugh’s comment that the profile of the offender had changed. Mr. Pugh said when he was gathering information in Clark County to justify the need for new juvenile detention facilities, the types of offenses were studied. He noted there was a 90 percent increase in person-related crimes, and a 200 percent increase in drug-related offenses in Washoe County over the decade; therefore, the type of behavior for which children are being detained is of a more serious and violent nature. Mr. Pugh claimed that things are starting to “flatten out a little bit”; however, it is a significant difference compared to 25 years ago.
Senator James expressed concern that some youth offenders are of the more serious profile and require a harder facility; however, some do not. He speculated perhaps three different types of institutions are needed. The theory is that children who have gone astray must return to the right road to prevent them becoming adult criminals. The way to accomplish it would be to provide counseling and the kinds of things required to get their life back in shape. The senator suggested hard prison experience would be detrimental to those children. He suggested three levels: the adult system, a harder facility for tougher children, and a home-type facility for less-hardened children.
Mr. Pugh stressed that in Clark County and Washoe County the majority of housing units are built in separate 12-bed units, as opposed to adult facilities wherein there might be 64 inmates in one area. He said children can be segregated based on their sophistication and level of need, and specific programs offered them. That is the benefit of having smaller living units.
In addition, Mr. Pugh remarked that based on safety to the community or themselves, the children cannot be released. He indicated day-reporting centers are used wherein children report at 3:00 p.m. and are supervised until 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. Intensive supervision programs and electronic monitoring are utilized as well. The children receive counseling and skill development from their parents, but a great deal of their time is occupied during the course of the day or weekends. Mr. Pugh also mentioned shelters where lightweight delinquent children are provided programs. He pointed out the McGee Center for Adolescent Programs is such a home. There is a continuum of services, Mr. Pugh declared.
Senator James remarked that some of the things are accomplished with non-detention-type programs. Mr. Pugh said he is attempting to obtain more community-based intervention and limiting incarceration only for children where there is no option. He pointed out that day-reporting centers are not used because children need guidance for a few days, it is because the child is unable to live in his own neighborhood. Senator James suggested perhaps the language should be updated to provide the tools needed to move toward community-based guidance. Mr. Pugh indicated that Mr. Burgess is dealing with the problem in Clark County and he (Mr. Pugh) is dealing with it in Washoe County. He emphasized that a juvenile detention center should not be designed as the single place to heal and rehabilitate children. Community and community-based programs must be used in order to do that. Mr. Pugh pointed out that was the direction the WCDJS received from the A.C.R. 13 of the Seventieth Session and A.C.R. 57 of the Sixty-ninth Session subcommittees. He said community-based alternatives are being expanded and additional funding sources are always needed.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 57 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of system of juvenile justice in state of Nevada. (BDR R-1869)
Senator Wiener declared she worked with several administrators and introduced Senate Bill 87 which addresses alternatives to incarceration of minors. Due to the fact it would expand community-development block-grant dollars, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. Senator James said perhaps the bill should be heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, particularly in light of the testimony heard today.
SENATE BILL 87: Provides that court may order that psychological evaluation and necessary counseling be provided to child affected by battery which constitutes domestic violence. (BDR 15-854)
Senator James stressed the importance of Mr. Pugh’s efforts and offered the committee’s help. He expressed a desire to peruse S.B. 87. Senator Wiener mentioned a program entitled “Reclaim Ohio,” the Nevada version of which is “Alternatives in Incarceration of Minors” (AIM). The group that was working on the issue felt it would come as an appropriation bill to expand upon dollars in place for community programs. She said Ohio had similar concerns to the ones expressed by Senator James, including overcrowding of state beds and major concerns at federal level regarding violations. Nevada has been exposed to issues of overcrowding and beds have been expanded; however, due to the rate of growth, the state may again be faced with the problem. Senator Wiener indicated the administrators approached her seeking assistance in coming forward with a personal bill which would accomplish what the committee had addressed for two interims. It would be a parallel program, similar to the Ohio plan, to find alternatives to incarceration with a community-based program. She affirmed that she would be glad to see S.B. 87 come before the committee.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 231 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 232.
SENATE BILL 232: Requires certain state and local agencies to assess whether children of racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately taken into custody, detained or referred to the system of juvenile justice. (BDR 5‑573)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, provided her written testimony (Exhibit H) to seek support for S.B. 232 which requires certain state and local agencies to assess whether children of racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately taken into custody, detained, or referred to the juvenile justice system.
Senator James inquired whether the bill explained “disproportionate to what.” Senator Wiener said it was disproportionate to what the general population would show. Senator James declared proportionality a relational concept. Senator Wiener indicated a concern regarding overrepresentation of people of color and different ethnic backgrounds compared to the juvenile population as a whole. Senator James asked whether it was relational to complaints filed. He said the problem would be exposed to show, with respect to criminal incidents, complaints filed, or police reports, that there is a disproportionate referral.
Senator Wiener said when the issue was discussed for recommendation for legislation, the initial recommendation was for detention forward. She related Mr. Pugh’s concern that it would be out of their hands once there was detention forward. Consequently, there was a concern to include prior activity involving the law-enforcement community so the entire continuum of issues addressing the juvenile justice system and children would be addressed. Senator Wiener pointed out that the hands of juvenile services would be tied once the children were given to them. It is an issue regarding assessment. She pointed out Senator Washington’s concern about proper training, which would be part of the assessment and plan. There is language wherein certain children may be selected based upon ethnicity or color which was one of the concerns for the assessment and plan.
Senator Titus suggested two different problems were being addressed. One problem was how many children would be brought into custody in comparison with the total population. The second problem was what happened to those children once they were in custody, which would be a comparison within that population. Senator James recalled a debate during a discussion in regard to the truth-in-sentencing law, in which it was alleged there were too many people in prison in Nevada, or the highest incarceration rate, which was the same thing. He noted that the incarceration rate as a percentage of the general population is not a relevant concept. The rate to study is how many people are put into prison for crimes committed. The same concept is true in this case. If there is more crime committed, more people will be put in prison; on the other hand, if less crime is committed, there will be less people in prison, regardless of the population. Senator James said that concept won the day.
Addressing the problem voiced by Senator Titus, Senator James explained that if there is a criminal incident and people of color and ethnic minorities are taken into custody and referred to the juvenile justice system at a higher rate than people who do not have those qualities, then the discrimination problem in the system has been pinpointed. Statistics regarding the amount of people in the community versus the amount of people in jail does not indicate anything, Senator James asserted.
Senator Wiener said she may have misspoken the issue and perhaps the concept should be distinguished more carefully. She pointed out the issue was of consistent concern to Dr. James “Buddy” Howell. The senator speculated that should there be an assessment proving discrimination does not exist, it would be wonderful; however, if it does exist, something would need to be done about it. She recalled Senator Washington’s concern regarding making everyone along the continuum aware of its occurrence and ways to avoid it.
Senator James indicated S.B. 232 addressed the developing uniform standards and procedures to be used by agencies to conduct the assessment, but suggested a definition of proportionality would help the process. Senator Washington recalled that he and the late Assemblywoman Jan Evans attended a presentation with Dr. James “Buddy” Howell in which a story was related about a young man who had been in and out of juvenile detention, reached the age of 18, and entered adult detention. The senator indicated the genesis of S.B. 232 was the fact that the young man received no continuum of care. Senator Washington explained that the bill attempts to address the problem of catching children at an early age to address and assess their situation and break the cycle. He said perhaps the bill was not worded correctly; however, preventative measures could take place in the life of a family to break the cycle of crime and prevent it from being perpetuated into the adult system. He indicated that was the reason for the request for a report and statistical analysis.
Senator Wiener indicated she would be happy to work on the language.
Senator Titus said although Senator Washington’s comments were commendable, she doubted S.B. 232 would accomplish what he proposed.
Senator James clarified that S.B. 232 would gather information and then proceed forward, and Senator Wiener concurred.
Mr. Pugh expressed support for the intent of S.B. 232; however, he said every aspect of the problem must be perused. The perusal must include the availability of community-based programs, arrest rates and trends, and what is done in juvenile justice agencies and the courts. Every entity should be included in the study. He pointed out the second part of the language in S.B. 232 infers there may be some sort of unfair practices or policies being conducted at the present time. While he said he could not unequivocally assure the committee that was the case, he maintained efforts were being made to ensure people were treated fairly. However, unfortunately life’s conditions sometimes create inequality.
Continuing, Mr. Pugh said a large number of Hispanic children migrated to Washoe County at the beginning of the decade. Language barriers created situations causing problems with their assimilation into the community. The children had difficulty in school, making friends, and so forth. Consequently, they were ripe to be recruited into criminal youth gangs as a result of those problems. Mr. Pugh declared it incumbent upon the system, not just to make plans to revise policies that might be unfair, but to make programs available to help children become involved in pro-social activities which would prevent them from choosing to be involved in delinquent activity. He said once a child has committed a criminal act, it is sometimes too late to correct the situation. Mr. Pugh noted that large numbers of Hispanic and/or African-American children who live in poverty, poor socioeconomic situations, and deprivation, will be recruited by youth gangs and commit “dumb acts” which cannot be rectified. He asserted it is the “our” job to get them involved in the right activities at the start. There should be language in the bill that speaks to that issue, Mr. Pugh emphasized.
Senator Washington agreed that the language of S.B. 232 did not do what was intended. He stressed the fact that help must be available for these children at an early age. Should they become involved in crime there should be a continuum for after care to break them out of the cycle. The senator said statistical information would assist the state, county, and local levels, to appropriate funds for programs to help break the cycle of crime.
Kirby Burgess, Director, Department of Family Youth Services, Clark County, and President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators, indicated he agreed with the testimony and supported S.B. 232. He added that until recently there had not been a direct focus on issues relating to children of color who are involved with, and incarcerated in, the juvenile justice system. He said the bill goes a long way toward focusing attention on the problem and bringing about additional enhancements, such as community-based programs. Mr. Burgess concurred with Mr. Pugh on his comments regarding the societal and systemic challenge facing the system, and the manner in which the problems have risen. In his juvenile detention facility, on a daily basis, at least two-thirds of the children are of color, and the situation is similar at Spring Mountain Youth Camp. Mr. Burgess stressed that the system must confront the issue and provide community-based programming, parent training, and other efforts as well. He expressed willingness to work with all entities to modify the bill in order to accomplish the intent. In any event, however, Mr. Burgess maintained S.B. 232 was a step in the right direction.
Senator James expressed concern that the results of the study not be turned into a self-fulfilling situation. Rather than trying to create a study which might be interpreted as malevolent or discriminatory on the part of authorities involved with the juvenile system, the study must truly assist communities to address the problem before it starts. The senator said:
Questions must be asked. Do we have the right kind of programming and other activities? Are we doing a good enough job assimilating people with language barriers before they become diverted into crime? Conducting a study informing us that more racial and ethnic minorities are being referred to the juvenile justice system does not tell us much. We want to know why, and then attempt to address the problem, rather than conduct a study that would be bandied about with allegations of discriminatory purpose or intent on the part of officials involved in the juvenile justice system. I think that is what we need to do.
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, referred to page 2, line 39, of S.B. 232, in which the office of the district attorney is included in an agency of juvenile justice. She pointed out that the district attorney does not collect statistics based on race, but rather based on types of crimes that are prosecuted. There would be a great deal of difficulty in attempting to segregate different racial profiles among the statistics. Ms. Waldron requested the district attorney be removed from the bill in terms of an agency that is required to collect those statistics.
Senator James asked what would be studied if the district attorney’s office were removed? Ms. Waldron declared the district attorney’s office the “middle man.” She explained that law-enforcement agencies arrest people, the district attorney’s office determines whether or not there is a crime on which to move forward, and other people detain individuals should they be convicted. Senator James proclaimed that the district attorney’s office decides who does, or does not, get prosecuted. Ms. Waldron countered that it was not based upon race. Senator James said he appreciated her concern but expressed doubt as to whether a meaningful study could be done without the participation of the district attorney’s office. He pointed out there was a systemic intent to accomplish the intent of the bill. As Senator Washington said, there must be a continuum in the community to take care of people who are in a disadvantaged position. Senator James asserted the study would show whether or not there is a continuum of services for those people and the data would be utilized to address the problem.
Ms. Waldron pointed out that the district attorney’s office does not collect data by way of race; therefore, all data-gathering systems would require retooling in order to accomplish it. Senator James said the problem would be addressed.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, indicated his concern was not the intent to track the particular type of intervention mediation; however, implementing or putting together the statistical base, and the means by which it is collected, would have a cost. He expressed concern regarding who would pay, where it would start, and certain definitions. The captain asked whether data collection would begin with initial contact on the street and reiterated those were the kinds of definitions that needed clarification. He expressed support for the intent of S.B. 232 and the attempt to work within the system to provide a continuum. However, there would be a fiscal impact in developing the tracking systems, Captain Nadeau remarked.
Senator Washington recalled that several legislative sessions in the past a gentleman from Colorado gave a presentation regarding proliferation of gang violence and juvenile crime. They embarked on a similar endeavor and came up with a number of creative ideas that were implemented in the City of Denver to curb juvenile crime. The senator suggested revisiting that information.
Captain Nadeau emphasized that law enforcement desired to be part of the solution and implementation.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, indicated his testimony would echo many of the statements made by Captain Nadeau, particularly the issue of cost. He lamented that METRO was barely keeping abreast with the rapid growth in southern Nevada. The lieutenant expressed concern that should S.B. 232 pass, there would be a need to hire more personnel and extra time would be required for the officer on the street to fill out a special racial/ethnic report for each contact. In addition, Lieutenant Olsen noted cost would be an issue. Senator James indicated he understood the concerns.
Because a great deal of work needed to be done on the bills, Senator James expressed the intention to appoint a subcommittee.
Robert W. Teuton, Chief, Juvenile Division, Office of the District Attorney, Clark County, concurred with former testimony. He said there would be some problems in terms of definition; however, he emphasized that the study needed to be done. It should be a study in which the results would point toward addressing the issues. Mr. Teuton pointed out the study should not just focus on race and ethnic background, but should also view family composition and economic status to ascertain whether or not the issue is, indeed, race, ethnic background, or economics.
Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, expressed support for S.B. 232 and said the League of Women Voters of Nevada viewed it as an issue of social justice. She deemed the study important to understand what was going on in Nevada in terms of racial profiling. Should there be a disproportionate makeup of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, there is a need to be aware of it and adjust the causes.
In regard to proportionality and the manner in which to determine it, Ms. Pederson submitted an article entitled “New Facts on Racial Profiling” from the Christian Science Monitor, March 13, 2001 (Exhibit I). She pointed out that the justice department, in a study conducted on the juvenile justice system, discovered that minorities were more than twice as likely to be arrested for crimes as their white counterparts, even though their criminal records were similar. Consequently, perhaps there is an issue of over-policing. Ms. Pederson indicated there were two other studies cited in the article (Exhibit I) which stated in New York City, even though blacks are only 25 percent of the population, they are 50 percent of the population of people stopped for random searches. There was also a study on the United States Customs Service which showed black women were nine times more likely to be x-rayed after a “pat down,” but actually found to be less than half as likely to be carrying contraband as white women. Therefore, she said you must ask yourself, is it that minorities are disproportionately committing crimes, or are they are over-policed and found to be disproportionately committing crimes. Ms. Pederson voiced the opinion that the study would do a lot to address the issue.
Ms. Pederson affirmed that this, in no way, insinuated law enforcement did any of this purposely, or with malevolent intent. She stated she admired law enforcement officers and believed they did the best they could; however, it was important to be aware of what was happening.
Kendall R. Stagg, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, indicated he was present in strong support of S.B. 232. He said his organization believed the bill was a positive and practical approach to dealing with a potentially significant problem in the juvenile justice system. As a private citizen, Mr. Stagg pointed out that he managed the day-to-day operations of the Senator Allen Bible Center for Applied Research for 7 years, and had a significant background in research. Mr. Stagg emphasized that no major concern was raised that should prohibit the study from going forward. Although there were some methodological concerns and considerations to be taken into account, Mr. Stagg said he could develop a sampling frame and methodological protocol that would largely satisfy the needs of the committee. Mr. Stagg urged the committee to support the legislation and offered his services should it be referred to a subcommittee.
Senator James expressed appreciation for his testimony and willingness to help.
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, indicated there was much anecdotal information about racial profiling; therefore, her organization supported S.B. 232 in whatever form the subcommittee deemed it should be brought forth. She said it appeared there was misinformation, or possibly correct information, in regard to what was happening in the juvenile system and S.B. 232 would move forward with plans to correct it.
Mary Valencia Wilson, Political Action Chair for Reno/Sparks, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and Advocacy Chair, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), indicated both organizations supported S.B. 232.
Senator James appointed a subcommittee of Senator Washington, Senator Wiener, and Senator Porter, to study S.B. 230, S.B. 231, S.B. 232, and S.B. 262, with Senator Washington as the Chairman.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 232 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 262.
SENATE BILL 262: Creates legislative committee on juvenile justice. (BDR 17‑572)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, gave her written testimony (Exhibit J) to encourage support for S.B. 262 which creates a legislative committee on juvenile justice to assure accountability and continuity.
Senator James requested the subcommittee to consider the omnibus criminal justice committee pursuant to another senate bill that consolidates all the criminal justice committees into one for fiscal reasons, as well as, ease of broadening the jurisdictions.
Mr. Burgess expressed support for S.B. 262 and conveyed the support of Mr. Teuton as well. He said when he became the Director of the Clark County Department of Family Youth Services he also became involved with the Nevada Justice Administrators, of which he is now President. At the time of his involvement the juvenile justice system was in a state of disarray. The counties and state did not agree, there were no standards in place nor coordination of efforts statewide. Many of the issues led to an overcrowding situation which was addressed by the Legislature in 1997. Mr. Burgess said the Legislative Session of 1997 provided many reforms and changes that enhanced the juvenile justice system and allowed it to move and be progressive in viewing the issues discussed earlier in this hearing.
Further, Mr. Burgess said he supported the bill because it went a long way toward continuing the study. Without a committee like this in place the juvenile justice system could eventually lapse into its previous condition. The juvenile justice study is a complex issue that needs to stand on its own merit and not get lost in studies of any other kind of issues relating to criminality or other similar things. Mr. Burgess recommended the committee continue to stand on its own under the leadership of Senator Wiener. He noted that before Senator Wiener, Assemblywoman Jan Evans made a lot of progress in this area. He affirmed that he would continue to work with the Legislature and the subcommittee to address the issues.
Continuing, Mr. Burgess recommended adding an ex-officio member with experience in juvenile justice to the subcommittee.
Senator James asked Mr. Burgess to peruse Senate Bill 286.
SENATE BILL 286: Revises provisions relating to certain committees that review issues pertaining to criminal justice. (BDR 14-774)
Senator James explained that the criminal justice committee for all criminal justice issues has the exact legislative membership as that proposed by Senator Wiener. It also has an advisory committee which includes the different law-enforcement agencies and could be revised to include an ex-officio member.
Mr. Burgess asked whether a parent and/or a juvenile could be included in the mix because they could be of value to the group. Senator James said it would be considered when S.B. 286 is heard. He said the Legislative Committee on Criminal Justice includes members from: victims of crime, a law-enforcement agency member appointed by the Governor, the State Bar of Nevada, the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, the Nevada District Judges’ Association, the Nevada Association of Counties, the Department of Prisons, the Division of Parole and Probation, and the Central Records Repository. Although it is well represented, Senator James said another member could be considered.
Mr. Pugh said he was unaware of the omnibus bill. He again applauded Senator Wiener’s efforts to bring continued light to the juvenile justice system and provide an opportunity for continued improvements. He recalled Mr. Burgess saying a tremendous amount of improvement had taken place as a result of the emphasis and focus provided through A.C.R. 57 of the Sixty-ninth Session and A.C.R. 13 of the Seventieth Session. As a result, many people are on the same page in terms of the direction the system must go and the types of improvements that are needed. Mr. Pugh indicated the “motor is started” and we are headed in the right direction; however, more energy is needed to reach the finish line. He said he would support those efforts.
Senator James revised his earlier direction and indicated S.B. 262 would not be part of the subcommittee. He reiterated that S.B. 230, S.B. 231, and S.B. 232 would comprise the subcommittee. The senator stated that S.B. 262 would be considered with S.B. 286.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 262 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 5-424.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 5-424: Revises the release of education records to certain persons under certain circumstances. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 339.)
Captain Nadeau indicated the BDR was brought forth by some members of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office who were advised by their district attorney that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) limits access to school records. He explained that an investigating officer cannot obtain parent or student information from school records without a search warrant. The captain said an attempt was being made to allow access to those records without a search warrant on a criminal investigation.
Senator James asked whether it was Assemblywoman Buckley’s amendment and Captain Nadeau pleaded ignorance.
Senator Washington mentioned the Buckley amendment was heard in the Legislative Session of 1997 in the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. He said it addressed protection of children’s records in school, which are held confidential, not passed from one school to another, and prevented counselors and nurses from reviewing the records.
Senator James entertained a motion from the committee to introduce BDR 5‑242.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 5-242.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
There being no more business to come before the committee, Senator James adjourned the hearing at 10:34 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: