MINUTES OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 26, 2001
The subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Maurice Washington, at 9:39 a.m., on Monday, March 26, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Maurice Washington, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Howard Haas, Violence Prevention Consultant, AH-HA Consulting Corporation
Alex Aitcheson, Violence Prevention Consultant, AH-HA Consulting Corporation
Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Robert W. Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Clark County
Leonard Pugh, Director, Juvenile Services, Washoe County
Kirby Burgess, Director, Family and Youth Services, Clark County, and President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Senator Washington opened the subcommittee hearing with a presentation by Howard Haas and Alex Aitcheson, founders of “Children’s Crusade.”
Howard Haas, Violence Prevention Consultant, AH-HA Consulting Corporation, Mission Viejo, California, submitted three documents entitled: “A.H.C.C.: The Children’s Crusade” (Exhibit C), “Get Connected” (Exhibit D), and a brochure entitled, “Listen To Our Children” (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.)
Mr. Haas explained that he and Mr. Aitcheson left their administrative positions soon after the 1999 shooting incident at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado because they had always been committed to young people. Mr. Haas said they could not understand why children were killing one another, and wondered whether young people had become numb to violence. They pondered whether a generation of young people had been raised to be able to kill another young person, walk away, and not feel a thing.
Further, Mr. Haas said, after the Columbine incident all the blue-ribbon committees, government experts, educators, and psychiatrists pontificated upon why “kids were killing kids.” Those entities pointed to rap music, a lack of role models in the home, and drugs as the reasons. However, nothing rang true to Messrs. Haas and Aitcheson, because they realized no one was asking young people why they were killing each other.
Continuing, Mr. Haas pointed out he interviewed young people from Nevada to New York, living in various circumstances, in an attempt to discover the reasons children were killing one another, and why there was such violence in America. He said after forming The Children’s Crusade, Mr. Aitcheson and he worked in communities to bring them together on their vision for youth, as well as to share their various resources.
Mr. Haas observed that the pictures of Columbine High School were the same as those in the March 5 San Diego County shooting incident at Santana High School in Santee, California. He said the thrust for meeting higher academic and testing standards was prevalent in public schools in all communities throughout the nation. He said the emphasis on higher standards caused incredible rage among youth in this country because their needs were not met. Discussing the issues with city councils and principals of schools, Mr. Haas said he was told that, while violence was an important issue, the onus was on making certain that test scores were up. From a political standpoint, schools were pressured to ensure that children rise to a particular skills level, which was causing a generation of young people who experienced rage, and many of them were “falling through the cracks.”
Mr. Haas pointed out the Columbine High School incident did not have to happen. He noted that communication was a critical issue in Littleton, police were not talking to schools, school resource officers (SRO) on campus were not talking to teachers, and teachers were not talking to their principals. This dysfunction was reflected when the mother of one of the killers sued the principal for not informing her that her child was violent.
Across the nation, Mr. Haas said no young person had said to him, “Dad is making $100,000, and Mom works part time bringing in $40,000. Life is great.” Rather, the young people he spoke with were crying out for more adult attention in their lives. He concluded many young people felt disconnected, needed role models, and required more programs to help them out.
Alex Aitcheson, Violence Prevention Consultant, AH-HA Consulting Corporation, stressed the importance of listening to our children. He indicated that educators were not taking time to hear the voices of youth and involve them in finding solutions to violence. A great job had been done nationwide cracking down on crime and violence and making young people aware of the consequences. Questioning young people about the causes of their anger, Mr. Aitcheson said he discovered recurring themes they would like to see addressed by adults. He noted the youth stated they lacked guidance and attention, not only from their parents, but other adults as well, and were seeking opportunities to build relationships. He pointed out mentoring programs, such as “America’s Promise,” were taking place across the country and were helping young people. The youth were asking for programs such as job shadowing and internships. Programs in the inner cities had brought young people off the streets and given them purpose. Mr. Aitcheson said peer and cross-age tutoring had also helped young people in their desire for adult relationships.
Further, Mr. Aitcheson indicated, young people nationwide had said their parents were their role models. Many came from single-parent families where their mothers worked 14 hours a day, and the youth asked, “Where will we learn appropriate parenting skills?” He said more programs were needed to address the problems before a child was 18 years old and bringing more children into the world.
Continuing, Mr. Aitcheson noted youth pointed the finger at themselves, as well, saying their greatest burden was dealing with the pressure to fit in, and then, many admitted, they made it difficult for one another to do so. In communities where the culture was basically the same, young people would find an article of clothing that would set them apart. He said the question must be asked by adults as educators, “Who is teaching young people respect for diversity, different cultures, race, poverty, haves and have nots?” He affirmed it was “our” (everyone’s) responsibility to answer and address that question.
Mr. Aitcheson proclaimed the most common issue heard from children in the inner city, among the homeless, in the suburbs, and on rural farms, was the lament that they had nothing to do and were seeking more programs. He emphasized the need for after-school programs. Noting the juvenile crime rate was highest from 3 p.m. until 7 p.m., Mr. Aitcheson emphasized after-school programs were very important. Mr. Aitcheson maintained, not only sports, but other programs were needed, because not all children were athletes. Programs were needed to help with academics, including reading and writing, as well as the arts. He stated the youth need and want to get off the streets, and children with single parents need a place to go and experience interaction with other young people and/or adults.
Commenting further, Mr. Aitcheson said many communities had taken on the concept of collaborative models and pondered the manner in which they could bring law enforcement and schools together. He pointed out that schools could not address all the problems and needed the support of outside resources. Collaborative models were established which included community youth task forces and councils that brought resources to the table, for example, he said, should there be a problem with teen pregnancy in the community, everyone would work on it, not just the schools. The problem would be addressed by law enforcement, clergy, social services, and tackled by the community as a whole. He noted, the young people surveyed stated that community involvement would make a difference.
In conclusion, Mr. Aitcheson remarked that young people wanted to be part of the solution, should be represented on councils to provide guidance, and consulted before programs were created.
Additionally, Mr. Haas said it was becoming tiresome to “talk the same talk” and pointed out the children who were doing the killing were those who had fallen through the cracks. Perusing the paper trail, he said, agencies were unable to handle the workload. Purposely not pointing a finger at any particular agency, Mr. Haas noted studies of model cities showed that city councils, school boards, police, clergy, business communities, and Chambers of Commerce met once a month to discuss what was happening in their communities. There would be less chance for children to fall through the cracks in the model cities.
Mr. Haas pointed out in the San Diego County incident the young man was crying out to adults for help. There is a code of silence in regard to bullying across America, he said. When asked what they would do if a friend threatened to kill a person, the majority of the young people interviewed said they would maintain the code of silence, and stressed the importance of protecting their friend. Mr. Haas questioned how to educate youth that the old code of silence, emanating from the streets, from back “when kids just boxed it out,” was obsolete in present society. “We need to teach our kids responsibility,” Mr. Haas emphasized.
Mr. Aitcheson interjected the importance of the relationship between youth and law enforcement. Based on his experience as an administrator and principal, he said, a school resource officer was of great benefit in preventing trouble and creating relationships based on trust. Quite often, young people turned to law enforcement before confiding in a school counselor in order to address problems outside of school as well as inside school. Mr. Aitcheson pointed out that violence was not new, but had changed. It now hit suburbs where young white males were going into schools and shooting at random. He said the needs of youth in those neighborhoods and communities should be addressed to prevent violence. Mr. Aitcheson indicated that young people were beginning to realize they would be tried as adults in cases of violence. He noted the two young men in the Santana High School incident would be tried as adults, and their lives were over. He asked what could be done in communities to reach young people between the ages of 15 and 18, and prevent those types of tragedies.
Senator Washington pointed out Senator Wiener chaired the interim study group mandated by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 13 of the Seventieth Session, which dealt with analyzing the disproportionate share of juveniles, based on ethnicity, life style, and family life, in regard to crime.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to continue study of system of juvenile justice in Nevada. (BDR R-224)
In their interviews and surveys, Senator Washington asked, had Messrs. Haas and Aitcheson observed a continuum of care from the beginning to the end, or until a person reached 18, or was there a breakdown of collaboration between agencies.
Answering, Mr. Aitcheson said the young people communicated that their first priority was at home. If their needs were met in the home with good parenting and support, the odds were greater they would make it through all right. He recalled a young man in El Paso, Texas, who was first in his class and a star athlete. When asked his greatest need, the youth answered he needed support from other adults as well as his own family. Mr. Aitcheson stated that a relationship with other adults was an ongoing theme among young people. He noted he once was principal of a school with a population of 1,500 children, and 2 counselors. The first priority of counselors serving 750 children is academics. Mr. Aitcheson indicated more resources must be brought in, including social services, to help support children and their families.
Mr. Haas said there exists a territorial tendency among agencies, which is manifested among youth. While an attempt is made to create an environment for young people in a collaborative manner, the reality is that an enlightened community was not territorial. He said it was rare when members of a community sat down at the table with children as their major interest and did not backslide into “who was doing what and who received funds to do it.”
Remarking there was an ideal concept that somewhere on a mountain top a community existed unaffected by drugs, divorce, and/or alcohol. Mr. Haas lamented that, unfortunately, it was not reality. However, there were communities working together, collaboratively, to care for children from broken homes and poor backgrounds. In those communities people were not afraid to grab “little Alex” by the ear, take him home, and work on the problem with his parents. Due to our litigious society, Mr. Haas said, most communities remain aloof and close their eyes to the problems. He said communities must have the courage to be responsible for their children.
Senator Washington expressed kudos for late Assemblywoman Jan Evans, who, he noted, embarked “on a bold and ambitious plan for the State of Nevada to break down barriers, build collaboration, and observe the whole spectrum of continuum care.” The senator noted he worked with Ms. Evans during several interims using an Ohio plan as a model.
Senator Porter recalled a cartoon entitled, “The Family Circle,” in which a broken cookie jar was observed and everyone was saying, “Not me. It’s not my fault.” He noted there were not only turf problems, but a lack of accepting responsibility. Senator Porter said we not only create turf, we give turf; because parents blame schools, schools blame the Legislature, and the finger pointing causes consternation while youth are the affected parties. He pointed out that turf is reinforced when parents deposit their children at 8 a.m. and leave everything up to the school. Senator Porter affirmed it is frustrating for policy makers to create one or two solutions that are impossible to fund. He indicated that Messrs. Haas and Aitcheson’s program and backup material were invaluable. He indicated he requested additional funding for school counselors and would ask for Messrs. Haas and Aitcheson’s help in preparing his arguments during the current session. Senator Porter said the Legislature would like to find a “magic answer,” but confessed one did not exist, other than to listen to young people. He asked whether a model city was available to be studied.
Mr. Aitcheson pointed out the State of Maine began a program entitled, “Communities for Children” in 62 communities, some of which were counties. He said “Communities for Children” had been a great model and information about it could be accessed on the Web, and he would provide resources and contacts as well.
Mr. Haas said he and Mr. Aitcheson had the good fortune to meet Governor Angus King of Maine, who he described as a passionate human being who was doing wonderful things for children. Mr. Aitcheson noted that Governor King had established a youth cabinet that met once a week to address the needs and programs for youth in Maine. He said he and Mr. Haas had observed many states and communities that tapped into the concept of “building assets for youth” which emanated out of the Search Institute (an independent, nonprofit, nonsectarian social research organization which focuses on healthy development of all children and youth), in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Senator Porter remarked many children were at the other extreme, with so many activities they were “programmed to death.” Unfortunately, they never saw their parents and/or did not have a family. He added, although the children attended many events and programs, they had no one at home to love and care for them.
Mr. Haas agreed, and recalled an affluent community in California where a 14‑year-old girl, with fear in her eyes, said extraordinary pressure was put upon her to be involved in everything, as well as achieve academic excellence. Asking young people why their parents wanted them to go to college, Mr. Haas said their answer was, “To make money.” Therefore, youth in the inner city were dealing with stress, and youth in wealthy communities were dealing with stress. Schools were emphasizing academic excellence, children were pressured to accomplish all activities, but nobody was at home for them. Mr. Haas maintained whether rich or poor, kids were stressed out, and nobody could judge which stress was more onerous.
Concluding, Mr. Haas said he recalled an African-American man in Texas who, without anger or animosity, said children in the inner city had been killing one another for a long time, but now the killing had moved to the suburbs and had become an important issue. Mr. Haas proclaimed the solution involved parents taking responsibility for their families, as well as outside the family. Although an uphill push, the problem could be turned around, Mr. Haas remarked.
Mr. Aitcheson acknowledged his experience had forced him to look inward. After working with at-risk children for 25 years, he said he took violence for granted. His attitude was, “When the chair is empty, bring in another body, help that one out¾but nothing ever changed on the outside.” Listening to youth and hearing what they had to say, he no longer accepted violence and had changed his behavior and attitudes. He mentioned an African tribe that greeted one another with the phrase, “How are the children?” In order to contain violence, Mr. Aitcheson declared, our whole society must study its attitude as a culture, and how we communicate with and relate to our youth.
Senator Porter said, at times, Americans see everything as a 30-minute sitcom that is turned on at 8:30 p.m., turned off at 9:00 p.m., and everything is okay. He emphasized this attitude could not continue. Mr. Haas agreed and said solutions were long-term.
Senator Wiener pointed out a movement in the state entitled “Raising Nevada,” which was built around the assets-development model and was active in the south. Adults from non- and for-profit organizations, local business, and law enforcement, teach one-on-one in interactive environments with children. When she participated in the training program, it was interesting to reflect upon her life as a sophomore in high school. The Senator said adults must create awareness and place themselves in their children’s shoes in order to determine what they could bring to the table. Adults should become aware of their weaknesses and strengths, grow from both, and bring them to the marketplace.
Having studied the assets, Senator Wiener noted that the solution must include more than collaboration between agencies and organizations, because that is often an excuse for failure. She stated, “We do not have the entire United Way on our side, nor do we have the entire school board.” One very strong asset is one adult helping one child and growing an asset. Recalling the asset developers in her life, Senator Wiener declared they were her accordion teacher, her creative writing teacher, her journalism teacher, and her bowling instructor, because her parents were missing from the home. Those individuals not only filled a void, but added to her life. Senator Wiener pointed out an entire organization was not needed to grow an asset in a child who, even when coming from an intact, healthy household, might need another adult. A neighbor could play catch for an hour every other day to grow a relationship. She stressed that entire communities involved one person at a time. Mr. Haas said, “If we can help in any way . . . We’re neighbors.”
Senator Washington expressed appreciation for Messrs. Haas and Aitcheson’s presentation. In regard to the problems, the Senator said he tried to hold his passion back because he is a minister and did not want to get “revved up.” He confessed that youth and their families were a part of his daily life. He said he attempted to stabilize families, not just from the standpoint of the children, but for the parents as well. There are many problems such as transience, low wages, poor job skills, lack of education, and trying to make ends meet. He pointed out the problems cross the spectrum of the well educated and those with good jobs. They, too, can be disconnected and have little or no stability in the family.
Senator Washington continued, saying he embarked on a bold and ambitious program to counter the division between church and state. He proclaimed that sometimes the church and state must be brought together. The Senator said when one aspect of human life is dealt with while another is negated, a void is created. Children are attempting to cross the void and find answers about the value, importance, and reverence of life. He agreed that mentoring, respecting, and sharing our lives with children were positive aspects.
While helping to launch a charter school movement, Senator Washington said he met a second-grade girl from a single-parent family with five children. The mother was contemplating removing the children from school. He explained to her that, although her daughter was struggling, she was building confidence and self-esteem and had a passion to learn. Senator Washington convinced the girl’s mother to leave the child in the charter school where class sizes were smaller and she would be afforded a better opportunity to learn. The Senator emphasized that unless something was done at an early age, children became disconnected from society.
Continuing, Senator Washington recalled a young man whose family he had known since childhood. When the youth was in sixth grade he was placed in a charter school. Because he was behind and reading at second-grade level, his mother removed him from school against the advice of Senator Washington. He explained to the mother that the boy had drawing skills, but was disconnected from reading and arithmetic. He told her if the boy was removed from school and placed in the same situation, which had not worked in the past, the boy would drop out of school, likely be in and out of detention centers, and end up in jail if he did not get killed or kill someone. Senator Washington said he had observed the pattern time and again. He counseled parents to take time to help their children, but remarked that parents were more interested in programs, such as Pop Warner Football, rather than teaching their child to read. No matter how athletically gifted a child might be, a person cannot enter college or professional sports without being able to read, Senator Washington emphasized.
In conclusion, Senator Washington said the issue was not just social programs and parents, but also faith-based organizations connecting together with schools to make an impact. When asked to identify their heroes, Mr. Haas stated that 99 percent of children across America answered, “Moms and grandmothers, because they listen.”
Senator Washington welcomed representatives of the Nevada Women’s Lobby to the hearing and invited them to participate.
Senator Washington opened the subcommittee hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 230.
SENATE BILL 230: Revises provisions relating to juveniles who violate parole. (BDR 16-575)
Senator Wiener explained that S.B. 230 was one of four bills emanating from the A.C.R. 13 of the Seventieth Session interim study as recommendations. This particular recommendation was proposed by juvenile justice administrators. One concern was that juvenile courts could impose sanctions on juveniles who violate probation, but not on those who violate parole, which seemed to create a loophole in the law. Another concern raised by the bill drafter was interstate compacts which address parole violations, and was also a subject of concern to state officials. Therefore, the purpose of S.B. 230 was to close the gap. Senator Wiener pointed out the bill was discussed at the work session; consequently, there was insufficient dialogue and hearing time dedicated to it.
Further, Senator Wiener indicated she received a memorandum from the Governor’s office, dated March 25, 2001 (Exhibit F), addressing the three bills to be heard by the subcommittee.
Referring to section 10 of S.B. 230, Senator Washington proceeded with the interstate-compact issue.
Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, said the state can detain a juvenile probationed or paroled from another jurisdiction and send him/her back to the sending state. The issue was whether or not the judiciary in Nevada has the authority to amend, modify, or revoke the parole of a youngster who is under interstate supervision. Currently, should a youngster being supervised under the interstate compact commit an offense in a Nevada jurisdiction, there were two options: (1) send the youngster back to the sending state, or (2) file a new charge in a Nevada jurisdiction and proceed through Nevada’s juvenile justice system.
Ms. Smith pointed out that the interstate compact not only dealt with youth that came to Nevada on the interstate compact on parole, it also dealt with youth who came to Nevada on probation. That issue was not addressed in S.B. 230.
Senator Washington clarified Ms. Smith’s concern regarding section 10 of S.B. 230 was the modification or revoking of the paroles of youths supervised under the interstate compact when they violate conditions of their paroles or re-offend.
Ms. Smith explained that should a youth who is supervised under the interstate compact, either on parole or probation, commit an offense in Nevada, new charges could be filed and the juvenile could be dealt with in the Nevada juvenile justice system or be sent back to the sending state. She said those decisions were usually made based on the seriousness and nature of the new offense.
Senator Washington pondered, should the bill be amended, language would be required reflecting that should a juvenile commit a new offense the state could either charge the juvenile or return him/her to the sending state.
Robert W. Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Clark County, indicated at the full Senate Committee on Judiciary meeting John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Public Defender for Washoe County, suggested that section 10 in its entirety be removed from S.B. 230. He said the options mentioned by Ms. Smith, in terms of either filing the new substantive criminal offense or sending the youth back to the sending state, exists under current law. Therefore, there was really no reason to address youth that happen to be in Nevada under provisions of the interstate compact.
Senator Wiener asked whether removing section 10 of S.B. 230 would respond to the issue of probation violators as well, and queried whether the interstate compact covered it in the same way.
Mr. Teuton answered the only current provision for probation violators, whether they were placed on probation by a local court or another state and sent to Nevada, applied equally to both. He added that a probation violator over the age of 18 could be held in the county jail.
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, concurred with Mr. Teuton’s assessment and Mr. Morrow’s suggestion that if the desire was not to address suspension, modification, or revocation of parole, it would be more appropriate to remove section 10 of S.B. 230. He noted Mr. Teuton pointed out at the first meeting that the current language of the bill said it was to the extent permitted by the interstate compact; therefore, it would not authorize anything that could not be done under the compact. However, Mr. Wilkinson said it was his understanding the interstate compact did not allow it to be done at this time, and should it be amended in the future, there might be a purpose for section 10 of S.B. 230.
Leonard Pugh, Director, Juvenile Services, Washoe County, said his organization’s involvement related to probation violators and the rules were the same; therefore, he saw no reason to change it.
Senator Washington proclaimed it was the consensus of the subcommittee to remove section 10 of S.B. 230, which also dealt with reimbursement of the county from the state.
Mr. Pugh commented the reimbursement did not necessarily relate to the interstate compact, but related to the youth parole bureau booking a child into a local juvenile detention facility for parole. Senator Washington pointed out that aspect was addressed in section 12 of S.B. 230. Mr. Pugh indicated the current contract with the Division of Child and Family Services provided reimbursement for the cost of each day of confinement. However, the language in section 12 of S.B. 230 indicated reimbursement would be received until the hearing, but the language did not indicate what sort of hearing.
Continuing, Mr. Pugh explained several hearings were required when a child was brought to a juvenile detention facility. The first was a detention hearing, which typically occurred the day following booking, and addressed the decision as to whether or not there was probable cause to hold the youth any longer, pending a further hearing. Additionally, Mr. Pugh said there would be a plea or adjudicatory hearing (or a revocation hearing for a parolee), which would typically (in the Nevada system) take place 2 to 3 weeks later. He said sometimes the hearings could be expedited, but that was the average amount of time.
Mr. Pugh pointed out young people had to wait for an available opening at the juvenile detention facility. He said, years ago, it would average 7 to 10 days for a committed youth to gather his/her clothes, undergo the necessary physical examination, and so forth. At present, approximately 30 days was required for a youth whose probation is revoked, or a parole violator, to be committed to a juvenile detention facility, depending upon when they were placed on the waiting list. He indicated those children were not tracked in his system. Mr. Pugh said it had always been his position that the law provided for the youth to return to the institution, pending revocation. The juveniles had been allowed to remain in the local area, as opposed to traveling 350 miles to Elko (Nevada Youth Training Center), or 550 miles to Caliente (Caliente Youth Center). Based on that, over the years a working contract had been negotiated and there was no need to change it at this time, Mr. Pugh remarked.
Senator Porter asked the average reimbursement rate. Mr. Pugh said the average reimbursement was $80 per day in Washoe County, but the actual costs were $112 per day to hold a youth in a juvenile detention facility.
Kirby Burgess, Director, Family and Youth Services, Clark County, and President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators, pointed out the Clark County reimbursement rate per day was $120, and the county received a capped amount from the State of Nevada of approximately $110,000 annually for incarceration of juveniles. Therefore, the number of bed days a youth spent in the facility was nothing near what the cost would be if the actual amount were to be charged.
Questioned about the capped amount, Mr. Burgess reiterated that Clark County received $110,000 annually from the state for housing juveniles in the juvenile detention facility. He said there was an additional amount of approximately $258,000 allocated by the state to Clark County, with the criteria the funds were to be used to keep youth out of state institutions. In both cases, the funds were used to assist the state house youth and keep them out of the state facilities. Mr. Burgess estimated the cost would be approximately $1 million should the full amount be charged for incarcerating juveniles.
Mr. Pugh commented a provision was added to the law capping the reimbursement rate in the 1997-1998 budget year; therefore, any funds exceeding the cap must be placed in programs designed to keep youth out of detention or correctional institutions.
Asked the amount of the present cap, Mr. Pugh said it was $158,800 in Washoe County, and anything exceeding that amount annually must be earmarked for programs to keep youth out of juvenile detention facilities. He said the overage was used to supplement the intensive supervision program, the day reporting center, electronic monitoring, and services applying to assessments and evaluations. Therefore, the money goes toward keeping youth out of the institutions.
Asked the actual cost to the state if a youth whose probation was revoked was confined in a state institution, Ms. Smith answered it was difficult to compute the cost because the three institutions had different costs per day. She asked the subcommittee to observe the escalating cost to detain youth, and the part of S.B. 230 that allowed the judge to detain a parolee up to 30 days as a sanction (penalty) for an offense. She claimed it did not allow her division to provide a solution that might be less costly to the state than keeping a child in detention. Ms. Smith asked the subcommittee to consider that possibility.
Senator Washington pointed out Ms. Smith’s observations referred to section 12, subsection 6, of S.B. 230, and suggested discussing section 2 of S.B. 230 first. The Senator affirmed Mr. Pugh’s suggestion not to change the current funding formula. Mr. Pugh reiterated his opinion the funding formula worked. He commented a certain amount of incoming revenue went back to the programs specifically designed to keep youth out of correctional institutions, thereby keeping a lid on overcrowding as experienced 3 years ago. Mr. Pugh said the funding formula helped both sides offset costs and kept youth from escalating further in the system where they need more expensive, long-term correctional care.
Senator Washington queried whether or not Mr. Burgess concurred with Mr. Pugh. Mr. Burgess indicated his organization had a good working relationship with the state and he would like to retain the status quo. He said the administrative details would be worked out. Senator Washington said he assumed that Mr. Burgess would approach the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate Committee on Finance, or the Interim Finance Committee, should he require additional funds.
Senator Wiener pointed out she had submitted a bill draft request for additional funding to help alleviate the burden on the state, retain local programs, and keep juveniles out of the system.
Mr. Pugh indicated there was a need to broaden the coverage for those types of programs. At the present time, he said, the small amount of money exceeding $158,800 supported already existing programs, but did not add much to the population that could be accepted into the programs in Washoe County. He indicated service delivery had improved within the program itself. The funding emanating from Senator Wiener’s bill would allow creation of new programs and emphasize substance abuse and mental health issues, which were the significant causes of youth incarceration, Mr. Pugh remarked.
Referring to section 12, lines 36 through 38, of S.B. 230, Senator Washington asked if the proposal was to reinstate the language that was deleted, and delete the new language. In response, Ms. Combs explained Mr. Pugh was concerned about the type of hearing, as well as reinstatement of language regarding a parolee in a local juvenile detention facility and which entity would pay for the confinement. Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that section 12, lines 24 through 26, of S.B. 230 showed the law stated that, pending a hearing, the committing court may order confinement in the local juvenile facility. Therefore, it may just be restating what is currently in statute.
Ms. Smith pointed out the cost paid by the state for detention services depended upon the contract entered into with the seven jurisdictions that have juvenile detention facilities. She said once they reached the limit of the contract, the State was no longer in a position to continue paying, which somewhat addressed Mr. Burgess’ earlier comments. Senator Washington asked how often that situation occurred. Ms. Smith indicated it happened annually in Clark County; however, in fiscal 2001, it would occur in Humboldt County as well.
Senator Porter queried whether Clark County would run out of money in October, November, or the middle of December. Mr. Burgess noted that Clark County would run out of money by the end of December, consequently, for the remainder of the fiscal year, juveniles would be housed free of charge at the expense of Clark County taxpayers. He said if the amount of money due Clark County were actually charged, it would be approximately $1 billion. The additional funding of $258,000 allocated by the state to Clark County, Washoe County, and other districts, was to be used to keep youngsters out of local juvenile detention facilities or state institutions. Mr. Burgess said the $110,000 capped, exclusively, youth-housing detention and the $258,000 allocated by the state for community-based programming provided Clark County approximately $368,000 per year.
Senator Porter responded that Clark County would be funded through December, which was 5 months; hence, there would be a 7-month shortfall. Mr. Burgess concurred, and said up until 5 years ago, Clark County received no funding; therefore, the proportional amount received by Clark County was lower than other jurisdictions. He emphasized Clark County could use the revenue to enhance its programs.
Senator Porter clarified Clark County was not funded per individual. Mr. Burgess answered, “No sir, we are not. Clark County is bearing the burden of that expense.”
Mr. Pugh indicated the current contract in Washoe County covered $80 per day. He called attention to the issue regarding who would cover the cost if S.B. 230 allowed the court to order a parole violator into the Washoe County juvenile detention facility, or jail, for up to 30 days. Although the situation did not necessarily occur, parolees might go to a hearing and if placement was unavailable, and they could not be placed in jail, they would remain in the juvenile detention facility for 30 days or longer. In that event, Mr. Pugh stated Washoe County was reimbursed at the present time.
Referring to sections 1, 2, and 3 of S.B. 230, Senator Washington queried whether any specific part of the language would prohibit receipt of funds based on the cap for detaining juveniles. He requested the guidance of Messrs. Burgess and Pugh regarding which language should be amended and/or omitted.
Mr. Burgess suggested the language be left as is. He expressed concern about the word “hearing” and explained there was a multiplicity of hearings in the juvenile justice system from which a youth could be detained in a juvenile detention facility from admission to release.
Senator Washington asked Mr. Wilkinson whether or not S.B. 230 would be affected by amending the new language, and whether it would be consistent with the desires of Messrs. Burgess and Pugh. Mr. Wilkinson expressed uncertainty about what language should be omitted. He noted the language “pending a hearing” was current law and presumably referred to a hearing regarding revocation and/or suspension or modification should the bill be enacted. Mr. Wilkinson said, “I do not know if we need to clarify what the hearing is, specifically stating it is the hearing at which the court is going to determine whether parole was going to be revoked, suspended, or modified.” He said it made no substantive change to the actual reimbursement.
Senator Washington appointed Messrs. Burgess and Pugh, as well as Senator Wiener, to work on sections 1, 2, and 3 of S.B. 230 to determine the language needed to retain the current formula structure under the cap, or with the cap. The determined language would be taken before the full Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Mr. Teuton said it occurred to him the only substantive financial change between existing language and proposed language was the proposed language would authorize post-adjudication or post-hearing commitment either to the juvenile detention facility or, if the offender was over the age of 18, to the jail. Neither current law nor S.B. 230 provided any provision for payment for those two items. Regarding the pre-revocation hearing, the language was substantially the same. The question was the ability to fund (should funding be necessary) the sentence portion of the bill which was the sentence to a juvenile detention facility. If funds were available and the contract in place, the language of the bill would authorize the juvenile facility to receive payment for a parolee sentenced to 30 days confinement; however, there was no language in the bill authorizing the state to contract with local jails to fund the cost of confinement for a person over the age of 18. That, he said, was his “legal take” on the language; however, in terms of his own philosophy, Mr. Teuton expressed uncertainty whether the taxes were coming out of his pocket to the state and returning, or coming out of his pocket to the county and returning. He stated, programmatically, both things were necessary. A parole violator over the age of 18 must be confined in a jail, and a parole violator under the age of 18 in a juvenile facility, no matter whose dollar was spent.
Senator Washington asked Ms. Smith for her comments in reference to section 12, subsection 6, of S.B. 230, dealing with court hearings and findings, and the confinement of parolees for 30 days. Ms. Smith responded the state may have options for parolees that would be just as beneficial and less costly, and they could use whatever detention funds were appropriated for other youngsters.
Senator Washington asked the type of options. Ms. Smith indicated the state had a transitional reintegration program, funded in the 1997 Legislative Session, which could be used to keep a youngster in the community while still on parole, and provide intensive services.
Senator Washington asked whether section 12, subsection 6(c), of S.B. 230, “Take any other appropriate action,” answered Ms. Smith’s concern. Ms. Smith declared it was permissible without the language in the statute. She said placing the language in the statute seemed to put additional confines on the ability to work with counties and the court that do not appear to be necessary. The original request directed to the A.C.R. 13 of the Seventieth Session committee was for language to allow for 18-year-old parolees to be placed in jail and removed from detention centers, should it be necessary under certain circumstances. Ms. Smith pointed out the language included so many issues that it had became convoluted.
Senator Washington pointed out new language was needed that stated “under certain circumstances” an 18-year-old-parolee should be confined or detained in a local jail.
Mr. Teuton said the language requested by Ms. Smith, and the only place in the bill the language appeared, was on page 4, lines 3 and 4, section 12, subsection 6, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2), of S.B. 230, where the court was authorized to commit a parolee over the age of 18 to the county jail. Mr. Teuton said that was the language requested and was the only thing actually needed.
Senator Washington asked Mr. Wilkinson’s guidance regarding changing the language in section 12, subsection 6, paragraphs (a) and (b), and keeping the language the same in section 12, subsection 6, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b), and its subparagraphs (1) and (2), and in paragraph (c). Mr. Wilkinson said he did not advise removing the provision that allowed confinement of a parolee in a local or regional facility for children if it was someone older than 18 years of age. Senator Washington asked whether the language could be reworded to fit Ms. Smith’s parameters. He said the intent was to be able to place juveniles in a detention center at the age of 18, based upon certain circumstances.
Mr. Wilkinson queried whether there was a desire to remove the language regarding suspension or modification of parole, and simply make it a question of revocation. Senator Washington concurred and asked for Ms. Smith’s opinion.
Ms. Smith said it was her belief that someplace else in the statute the judiciary was allowed to suspend, modify, or revoke parole and allowed her organization to recommend it. She deferred to Mr. Teuton.
Mr. Teuton clarified the issue was whether or not specific language was needed to authorize the court to commit a parolee under the age of 18 to a juvenile detention facility, and said the answer to that question was no. Chapter 62 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) authorized the court, upon a finding of adjudication of delinquency, to commit anyone under the age of 18 to the local juvenile detention facility for a period of up to 30 days. This applied to a parolee or someone charged with commission of a substantive crime. Therefore, the only substantive new language that would be absolutely necessary to carry out the intent was “youth over the age of 18 being confined in a local jail.” Mr. Teuton indicated current law provided the ability to do so for probation violators over the age of 18, but not for parole violators over the age of 18.
Mr. Pugh clarified the specific heading on the section of NRS Chapter 62 was probation violators, and indicated that probation violators could be sentenced to a local juvenile detention facility or jail for up to 30 days. Mr. Pugh declared, “There is no language for parole violators, which is what started the whole mess in the first place.”
Mr. Teuton said Mr. Pugh had refreshed his memory and indicated that the section of NRS Chapter 62 addressed parole violators committed to local juvenile detention facilities. In response, Senator Washington said the parole violator should be included. Mr. Pugh interjected that the initial request was to add parole violators everywhere the language mentioned probation violators; however, from the standpoint of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), NRS Chapter 210 addressed parole, and NRS Chapter 62 addressed juvenile court and probationers. “That was where the confusion began,” Mr. Pugh exclaimed.
Senator Wiener pointed out the bill drafters found this a proper chapter of law because of the parole/probation issue, and also dealing with the state institutions for juveniles.
Mr. Pugh offered the following guidance:
Chapter 62 of NRS, that section of the law that allows probation violators to be incarcerated up to 30 days, is about 10 lines. If the same section was created for chapter 210 of NRS, and used the same language, but included parole violators versus probation violators and left the rest alone, I think we would all go home happy.
Senator Washington requested Ms. Combs to reflect NRS Chapter 210 in NRS Chapter 62.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, noted, due to changes in the law and the extension of probation and parole to individuals 18 years of age and older, it was becoming more likely those individuals would be sentenced to the county jail. He said the Washoe County Sheriff would like the ability to “charge off,” particularly on cases where pending hearings were similar to the language of the statute regarding adult parolees when placed in county jail. He indicated hearings needed to be expedited, as well as recovery for some of the costs of the county jail for those kinds of circumstances. Consequently, there was concern individuals 18 years of age and older would financially impact the county jails, Captain Nadeau remarked.
Senator Washington duly noted Captain Nadeau’s remarks. He expressed uncertainty regarding the amount of legislative authority there might be concerning those issues. The Senator said if S.B. 230 passed out of the subcommittee with the recommendations, Captain Nadeau should bring his concerns to the full committee. The bill would then be required to be returned to the Senate Committee on Finance.
Captain Nadeau indicated his concerns had been brought forth at the initial full committee hearing. He expressed comfort with language that mirrored the adult-parolee type situation. The captain repeated, for the record, “Even though they are adjudicated in the juvenile setting, if they are 18 years old, we are not going to treat or classify them differently because their offense was as a juvenile. They will be placed in an appropriate classification within the jail facilities.”
Mr. Teuton stated at the initial committee hearing he proposed one other amendment that was not in the current text. Due to time constraints, Senator Washington asked Mr. Teuton to state the amendment quickly or fax it to him. In the interest of time, Mr. Teuton said he would fax the amendment to Senator Washington.
Senator Washington requested Ms. Combs to summarize the amendments. Ms. Combs said the first amendment, as discussed, would eliminate section 10 of S.B. 230 in order to delete the provisions dealing with the interstate compact. She indicated that Messrs. Burgess and Pugh and Senator Wiener were requested to work on language, if needed, for section 12 of S.B. 230, addressing the issue that would ensure the current payment schedule would not be changed, and reimbursement would be provided in the statute. With regard to subsection 6 of S.B. 230, Ms. Combs said there was a request to make sure it simply applied to parolees over the age of 18 to allow confinement in the county jail; however, Mr. Pugh suggested perusing NRS Chapter 62 and mirroring the current language for probationers. It is something the staff could work on with the parties who requested the amendment. In addition, there was an amendment forthcoming from Mr. Teuton, who would fax it to the subcommittee. Senator Washington noted Captain Nadeau’s concern as well.
Senator Washington said the amendments would be brought back to the full committee, the committee would vote on the bill, and it would probably be referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
Senator Washington closed the subcommittee hearing on S.B. 230.
Due to time constraints, Chairman Washington indicated that Senate Bill 231 and Senate Bill 232 would be rescheduled to a more convenient time, and placed the subcommittee in temporary recess until further notice.
There being no further business to come before the subcommittee, Chairman Washington adjourned the hearing at 11 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice Washington
DATE: