MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
February 5, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Wednesday, February 5, 2003. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. David Brown
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Sabina Bye, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jackie Crawford, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Program Administrator, Mental Health and Program Services, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Rex R. Reed, M.P.A., Ph.D., Offender Management Administrator, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Darrel J. Rexwinkel, CPA, Assistant Director, Support Services, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Charles H. Schardin, Chief of Medical Fiscal Services, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Fritz Schlottman, Research Analyst, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Howard L. Skolnik, Assistant Director, Industrial Programs, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Glen Whorton, Assistant Director of Operations, Nevada Department of Corrections, Carson City, Nevada
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and made opening remarks. He acknowledged Judge Bunch, listening in Battle Mountain via the Internet. He welcomed and introduced Ms. Jackie Crawford, Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), who made a PowerPoint presentation about the Nevada Department of Corrections (Exhibit C). He said he was pleased two years ago when she stepped up to the position of Warden of the state’s prison system. He said he felt that new, enlightened leadership and programs were important to the state, and he said he was hopeful that the part of the correctional system that was supposed to correct behavior had an opportunity to work.
Ms. Crawford introduced her staff: Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director for Prison Industries; Glen Whorton, Assistant Director of Operations; Darrel Rexwinkel; Assistant Director, Support Services; Rex Reed, Offender Management Administrator, who presented the projection statistics that drove their budget and decision-making; Charles “Chuck” Schardin, Medical Division; Dorothy Nash Holmes, Program Administrator; and Fritz Schlottman, Research Analyst, who prepared the slide presentation.
Ms. Crawford said they were pleased to provide an informative presentation and encouraged questions from the Committee.
Chairman Anderson advised the Committee that a compact disc (Exhibit C) had been distributed to each member of the Committee that contained the information and slides of the NDOC presentation.
Ms. Crawford offered an analogy that if the NDOC were a city, it would be the eighth largest in Nevada. She said there were 17 facilities spread throughout the state, and that affected NDOC workload. She encouraged questions about the NDOC and told the Committee that tours were available.
Ms. Crawford began her presentation by noting that the Legislature had changed the Department name last session from “Department of Prisons” to “Department of Corrections.” As a result, several workshops had been held in concert with the National Institute of Corrections including staff, employee associations, and community leaders, and had established a new mission.
The new mission was described in three concepts:
Ms. Crawford said the mission was achieved by specific goals and outlined them as follows:
She said the Department did not believe in coddling inmates; they believed in setting up conditions whereby offenders became accountable and responsible, so when returned to the community they realized that their role was to become productive.
Ms. Crawford explained the future of NDOC, and its vision was simple: leading Nevada corrections into the future. She said that when Governor Guinn appointed her, he asked that balance be brought to the correctional system. He asked her to look at preparation and management of resources and the individuals that were returned to the community.
Ms. Crawford said that the Department’s values were clear as follows:
Ms. Crawford related that in June this last year, the budget crisis hit, and the Governor mandated budget cuts for the NDOC. She said they painfully absorbed 3 percent reductions totaling $5.1 million for this year. She noted that this was the first time in ten years that the NDOC had had to reduce its operating costs.
Ms. Crawford said that this year there were budget positions authorized, but they were not filled due to budget constraints. For 2004 and 2005, 124.94 full time equivalent (FTE) positions were eliminated, 77 custody officer positions and 47.94 non-custody officer positions. Those positions were vacant and no person lost his job; however, those positions were lost because there just was not enough money.
Ms. Crawford continued with 2002-2003 accomplishments, citing various cost reductions and sources of revenue as follows:
Referring to an earlier comment about the “eighth-largest city in Nevada,” Chairman Anderson asked what the actual population was. Ms. Crawford responded that the prison population figure was slightly over 10,000, and the current count was 10,103.
Chairman Anderson asked if her presentation would include information about the classification system. Ms. Crawford responded that her staff would detail classifications later in the presentation.
Assemblyman Mabey asked Ms. Crawford to explain what the acronyms were, such as SNCC. Ms. Crawford apologized and said SNCC was the acronym for Southern Nevada Correctional Center, located in Jean, Nevada.
Referring to “Reduced Lawsuit Payouts,” Assemblyman Oceguera asked Ms. Crawford what the breakdown was on the reduction of lawsuits, and if the lawsuits involved prisoner versus facility or guard versus facility. She responded that although some of the lawsuits were officer versus the NDOC, most of the lawsuits were inmate versus the NDOC.
Assemblyman Mortenson wanted to know if the presentation included more information about the 17 facilities. Ms. Crawford said that Mr. Whorton would include information and photos of the facilities later in the program.
Assemblyman Horne asked if the nature of the lawsuits were a matter of the facility not providing proper care, or of the physical abuse type, and if there was a breakdown for these. Ms. Crawford confirmed that the ranges often involved medical grievances or disciplinary actions, such as use of force.
Chairman Anderson expressed his concern about the Wyoming contract and whether hard-core criminals were dropped into the Nevada system. Ms. Crawford responded that the classification for the Wyoming contract was medium security and NDOC had screened those inmates.
Assemblywoman Buckley commented that one of the great things about serving on this Committee had been the opportunity to be involved with the prison system. She recalled touring the various facilities and seeing very young inmates in the yard. She was concerned about seeing 14-year-olds mixed in with the hardened population. She elaborated that even some of the prisoners expressed concern about younger inmates’ treatment by the adult inmates. She commented that she was glad there was a current effort, as with the Youthful Offender Program, to change that.
Another concern of Ms. Buckley’s was officer safety; she had noted on one tour that the locks had not worked. She expressed concern about the morale of the correctional officers because they did not get the pay increases that other law enforcement officers got at the county level. She thought it was important that the administration treat the officers well. She said she was gravely concerned about the complaints she had received. Ms. Buckley said although she was impressed with the direction of the new programs after Ms. Crawford came on board, she was still concerned about the morale of the correctional officers. She asked if Ms. Crawford was going to address this concern in her presentation.
Ms. Crawford said that she would be addressing this issue further in the presentation, and also noted that NDOC had also received some grants to provide education for the officers. She said she was equally concerned about low morale, but emphasized that low morale was mostly the result of several cutbacks, specifically overtime. She said she had had to decide whether to cut overtime or cut staff. She pointed out that she did not want bad morale, but saving jobs was the number one priority.
Ms. Buckley said that over the last 10 to 15 years there had been budget cuts that had affected the prisons, but she still had not seen the drop in morale or the number of complaints she had seen currently. She mentioned personnel problems, protests, and complaints, and said she thought the guards deserved, even when there was no money, to be treated well. She noted that there were more hardened inmates in the system now, and the correctional officers put their lives on the line every day. She wanted to do all she could in her leadership position and as a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to ensure that the correctional officers were treated well.
Ms. Crawford invited Assemblywoman Buckley to visit any of the institutions and talk to the staff. She assured Ms. Buckley that there were many people who enjoyed their jobs and felt safe. Ms. Crawford asserted that she was not a “hard-core” administrator who abused employees, inmates, or the community. She said that Mr. Whorton would explain later in the presentation what had been done to address these issues. She said that she anticipated some good changes by the end of the 2003 Legislative Session.
Chairman Anderson noted that it was unfortunate that there was not enough time for the new legislators to tour the facilities and see the physical environment in which the guards had to work. He related what he saw during a tour of the prison during a prior session. He said he had observed a 16-year-old inmate who was in prison for life, and was told that it was the inmate’s second year of incarceration. Chairman Anderson also related how he saw an inmate quickly open a cell door while the guard was watching; he thus understood Ms. Buckley’s concern for the correctional officers’ safety. He indicated that he looked forward to Mr. Whorton’s comments.
Assemblyman Sherer mentioned he had received calls about a safety fence and guard towers not being manned, and asked Ms. Crawford to explain the situation.
Ms. Crawford asked Mr. Whorton to come forward. She said that they had not had a staffing analysis in 20 years; they were looking at ways to accomplish reductions while saving jobs. She said that much of the dissatisfaction came from employees who relied on overtime for living expenses and that the NDOC had created the problem by initially allowing overtime. She acknowledged that it was difficult to turn that around.
Chairman Anderson said it was not his intention to take Ms. Crawford off track with the presentation and welcomed Mr. Whorton.
Mr. Whorton said he understood Ms. Buckley’s and Mr. Sherer’s concerns. He stated that he had been with NDOC for 28 years and was its “corporate memory.” He related that some of the difficulties NDOC had experienced resulted from changes occurring within the NDOC. He reported that years ago the prisons were “human warehouses,” and that had since changed to a “Department of Corrections,” because one of their missions was to correct behavior. However, that was difficult to do in terms of managing change, and it was made even more difficult when fiscal problems arose. Mr. Whorton reminded the Committee that the NDOC was not an agency that controlled its own resources. The NDOC did not control the number of people who came through the front door, nor did it determine when inmates left or the amount of money managed. He emphasized that refusing to accept inmates was a crime in this state, and that the administrators were responsible to not overspend their budgets.
In response to Assemblyman Sherer’s concern about unmanned guard towers, Mr. Whorton explained that there were five perimeter towers and a yard tower at the High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs. Some of the towers had been unmanned because there was a lethal fence at the facility. Guards were kept in two of the perimeter towers where there were pass-throughs in the fence. This approach was consistent with practices of the California Department of Corrections. He added that the towers the guards had been removed from did not overlook the yard or the areas where the inmates had their activities; those towers were away from the core of the facility. The yard tower was manned and overall security had been improved at the High Desert State Prison.
Mr. Whorton addressed various concerns, such as loss of overtime, reduction in the staffing, and changes in the culture of the Department. However, he emphasized that the public expected the NDOC to correct behavior, and not just warehouse offenders. He stressed that in order to control inmate behavior it was necessary to occupy the inmates with something positive, and that meant more programs. Referring to his past experience, Mr. Whorton said that if inmates were simply locked up, they would have too much time to get into trouble. He went on to say that conditions were changing; they were getting better, but change was often hard to manage.
Mr. Whorton related that there were issues between the administration and employee organizations, and he said the Director had solicited input from staff and the employee organizations on how they should resolve those issues. He said that previous administrations had not worked with employees to resolve issues, and that this administration was working hard to do the best it could with the resources that were available. He concluded that operations within the NDOC were currently safe and under control.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Sherer if he was satisfied with the information about the guard towers. Mr. Sherer responded that he now had enough information to answer calls and e-mail about the towers and the safety procedures in place.
Chairman Anderson advised the Committee that Ms. Crawford and her staff had always been available to answer questions at any time, and encouraged the Committee members to call the Department when they had questions.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was only one facility with a tower problem, or if there was a general problem with towers. Mr. Whorton responded that the only institution where there were specific questions about towers was the High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs, but that was the only facility where they had a lethal fence. The other institutions had manned towers; however, the Warm Springs Correctional Center in Carson City was in the process of being converted to a minimum-security facility so there was no longer a tower issue there.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was a protective fence before the lethal fence on both sides. Mr. Whorton answered in the affirmative and added that the fence was labeled and secured, and the inmates had been oriented to this as well. Mr. Whorton reiterated that the lethal fence was only at the High Desert State Prison, the only facility where the towers had been augmented.
Ms. Crawford resumed with the “Accomplishments” segment of the presentation, and outlined the remaining accomplishments as follows:
Chairman Anderson asked if there were problems recruiting and retaining guards and security personnel for particular facilities in isolated areas such as White Pine County and Ely, Nevada.
Ms. Crawford answered that the Ely facility’s retention rate was 7 percent, and that, in general, the turnover rate had been reduced from 30 percent.
Chairman Anderson asked how staff salaries compared to those of other states. Ms. Crawford said that, overall, NDOC salaries were currently higher than most in the western states, and she commented that NDOC correctional officers had received an approximate 27 percent salary increase to bring them up to standard.
Ms. Crawford continued with the challenges facing NDOC. She said they had 90 officers who could be called to military service if war were declared, and she had therefore formulated a plan to fill such vacancies with temporary personnel. She also indicated that people who had retired were willing to come back to work part-time.
Assemblyman Horne asked where the 90 officers were located, and if one facility would be affected more than another. Ms. Crawford said that they were scattered among the facilities. Additionally, Ms. Crawford mentioned that overtime would be permitted for coverage of those positions in that situation.
Ms. Crawford continued with the next segment of the presentation, and described the “Size and Scope of Operations” as follows:
Assemblyman Carpenter said communities in rural Nevada relied on the honor camps that provided the workforce that repaired and erected buildings. He said it was rewarding to know that the NDOC was available to help those communities and did not think that there was a better program going than the honor camps.
Chairman Anderson commented on the “man-hours” put in by the female inmates from Silver Springs who were the cook groups that supported the firefighting efforts of the NDF. He said the community was indebted to the program, and mentioned that in 1995 there had been talk about cutting the program. He said the inmate workforce helped with many projects in the community and cited the work done on the Veterans’ Cemetery in Fernley as one.
Ms. Crawford also pointed out that the Boot Camp inmate workforce had built 16 homes for “Habitat for Humanity.” She suggested that anyone could drive by one and see what an outstanding job they had done. She said that the inmates had been very pleased with their work, and that some of the released inmates had come back to participate in the open house because they were so pleased and proud of their work.
Ms. Crawford concluded the “Size and Scope of Operations” segment of the presentation by noting that NDOC vans had driven over 406,000 miles in a year and buses over 71,000 miles.
Ms. Crawford continued with the next segment: “The Future of NDOC.” She indicated that Governor Guinn had appointed a committee to perform a study, “A Report to Governor Kenny C. Guinn,” presented by The Study Committee on Corrections (The Study on Corrections) (Exhibit D). She said the committee was a cross-section of individuals that diligently worked towards what the NDOC could do better, how it could manage resources better, and what was missing in the process. The committee consisted of Ms. Crawford, Senator Mark Amodei, Assemblyman Greg Brower, David Friedman and Andy Abboud of the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino, Richard Kirkland of Public Safety, Jack Lehman of the Drug Court, Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Dorla Salling, Chairman of the Parole Board, and Senator Valerie Wiener, all of whom she commended for their contributions towards the study and their findings. She highlighted the study findings and requirements as follows:
Ms. Crawford said that managing inmates at a more cost-effective level allowed more resources for employees. She indicated there was little money for programs in the past because the priority had been building jails, and she related by the time they had started with Ely and concluded with High Desert, the Department had spent $294 million on new prisons. The cost at the High Desert State Prison was $96,000 per cell. She said that that was very expensive, and it was extremely important that the NDOC looked at how they used its resources. Ms. Crawford said she thought that was part of the reason why some of the staff felt disenchanted. She continued that building at that magnitude left little money for anything else. The prisons had to be built and staffed; there were really no additional resources. She said she hoped the Legislature would support the NDOC in finding alternatives, so the NDOC could avoid coming before this body each time and asking for $150 million to build a hard cell.
Ms. Crawford continued with her presentation and talked about the NDOC’s Re‑entry Partnership Continuum. She explained this concept was new to the state, and it included institutional staff, community staff, Parole and Probation staff, and law enforcement staff that worked together to integrate the non-violent property offender back into society. This was accomplished by teaching inmates to read and by building self-esteem, and also through community projects, such as the Casa Grande low-cost housing project. Ms. Crawford mentioned that Chairman Anderson had been an advocate of the Casa Grande project a few years ago. She added that they had been exploring a drug treatment program practiced in Mexico where the recidivism rate was 10 percent, and that they had been requested to do so by Assemblywoman Angle. Ms. Crawford said NDOC was also exploring possible grants for a vitamin-driven drug detoxification program.
Ms. Crawford also said that by building self-esteem and teaching literacy they were looking at a new way of managing some of the non-violent property offenders. It was a lot easier to let them lie in a hard cell all day and watch TV. She said that saving tax dollars and being tough on crime at the same time was not easy. She said she was optimistic, however, that some of the changes would attest to the new philosophy and direction in Nevada of being tough on crime and successfully re-integrating inmates back into society.
Ms. Crawford next talked about the bill draft requests that NDOC supported as follows:
Chairman Anderson was called out of the Committee room. Vice-Chairman Oceguera took over the meeting.
Ms. Crawford continued with a brief description of NDOC programming:
Assemblyman Conklin commented on the Youth Offender Program mentioned in The Study on Corrections (Exhibit D) and asked if there were plans to house 700 youth offenders to get them equipped to continue through the system, and had money been put in the budget that would allow for that. [Chairman Anderson returned to the meeting.]
Ms. Crawford responded that Southern Nevada Correctional Center, which was being refurbished, had an ideal setting for a youthful offender facility, and had planned to ask the Legislature for money to open and operate it. The small group there was very young; the 700 were 21 years of age or under. Some of the youthful offenders were already in the system when she came on board and basically grew up there, but her plans for SNCC in Jean would have made it an ideal location for the youthful offender. She said the program had much merit and was pleased the Legislature was supportive of it.
Chairman Anderson apologized for any redundancy and asked if, by concentrating the juvenile offender in a single location, there was a chance of losing the educational opportunities at the other facilities and how would that be counteracted.
Ms. Crawford said that would be addressed later in the presentation, but stressed that educational opportunities would be enhanced, not lost. She assured him that the youthful offender would have a well-rounded high school education.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged that the NDOC had adopted some of the recommendations of the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s Study on recidivism conducted between the 1993 and 1995 Legislative Sessions, and although he had chaired the Committee, his predecessor was the visionary who had decided that the study needed to be done. He opined that being tough on crime meant changing behavior, and the more that could be done to educate and train offenders to do real work, the more it would make a difference in their lives when they got out. He said that people expected their tax dollars to be spent making sure “the bad guys were in prison forever,” and making sure that those who could go back into society did so with the tools necessary to be successful. He concluded by stating his educational philosophy: “Educate the children when you have them in school, or put them in prison and it will cost ten times as much to do it.” He said he appreciated what the NDOC was doing.
Dr. Rex Reed, Administrator, Offender Management Division, came forward to present the NDOC population projections and provided a short description of the inmate profile. He acknowledged Dr. Fritz Schlottman, the Department’s research analyst, who had collected and analyzed the demographics and statistics used in the presentation. Dr. Reed first defined the terms. There were two types of population projections. One was the current population projection that was tied to this biennium’s budget. He said it was about two years old, and, as of the first of this year, it had projected a population of 10,133 men. The actual population at that time was 9,311 men; therefore, it was under by 8.1 percent, or 822 inmates. The current population for females was projected at 925; the actual population was 790 women; therefore the projection was off by 135 inmates, or about 14.5 percent. When talking about the proposed population projection, Dr. Reed explained that it was the one tied to the Governor’s current recommended Budget and was more on target; this was the one that was used for the agency’s recommended budget. It was a more recent population projection, and therefore was more accurate. As of the first of the year it had projected a population of 9,415 male inmates, only 104 or 1.1 percent off from the actual of 9,311. The female inmate population was projected to be 791 and was actually 790 inmates.
Dr. Reed claimed that the historical data determined the population projection. He indicated that slide 32 of the presentation represented 11 years of data. Over the past 10 years the population had grown by 3,671 male inmates, which was an average of 367 inmates per year, or about 5.5 per cent per year and 62 percent over 10 years. The female growth was 345 inmates, or about 35 per year, which was about a 5.9 percent growth per year, or 77.5 overall. He explained the growth was due to more overall intakes than releases, but also pointed out that the growth had been slower during the past two years as opposed to the early 1990s. He posed an analogy to explain. If the prison system were a bathtub in which there was more water going into it than the drain allowed out, there would be an increase in the water volume; conversely, if there were a larger drain than a opening to let water in, there would be a shrinking volume of water in the tub; this was the way the prison population growth worked. He pointed out that in all but one year, there had been a larger intake population than a release population, and that explained the growth over the past ten years. He next pointed out that from 1999 through 2002, the release population and the intake population were starting to approach equilibrium, and that was why over the past three or four years there had been a slower rate of growth in the prison population. He said that the average intake was about 4,500 per year; the average release over the same time was 4,075, so the average difference over the ten years was 430 inmates per year. Still, the result was a growing population.
Chairman Anderson mentioned that the “three strikes legislation” was implemented in 1995, and 100 percent of the population was, at that time, outside the repeat offender legislation, who had moved out of the prison population and would be returning if the predictability of recidivism was 100 percent. He noted that the best chance of one coming back was that he get there in the first place. He commented that the projected increase in inmate population did not seem as dramatic as originally thought, and asked what effect the “three strikes legislation” had on the population growth. He asked what effect there was if the repeat or third-time offender population had not followed the projections of 1996 and 1997 and had not increased as dramatically as anticipated, and what was the reason for the slight decrease in population.
Dr. Reed clarified that Chairman Anderson was asking why there was a slower rate of growth now than there was in the early 1990s. Chairman Anderson responded that in light of the repeat offender program put in place in 1995, there was the great fear that if that legislation was passed, the prison population would escalate at a very dramatic rate, and statistically, that rise had not proven to be quite as dramatic as predicted, at least with the male population. Dr. Reed said that he thought what had happened was when the law passed in 1995, there was a faster rate of growth at first, but it was a “bubble;” it was not something that would have continued indefinitely, and what resulted was a temporary fluctuation in growth that tapered off.
Chairman Anderson said that this was a policy committee, not a money committee, and since this Committee had put the repeat offender program in place, the chances of predictability went up once that “bubble” was past. He asked Dr. Reed if that was a fair statement to make. Dr. Reed said he thought that it was easier, now that the bubble had gone through the time frame, to get a better handle on what the population might look like in the future.
Dr. Reed continued his presentation and talked about releases (Exhibit C, slides 34-39). He explained the two types of releases:
Dr. Reed called attention to the male and female population growth charts and said that it was expected that there would be a 3,149 male inmates, or about 315 per year, which was a 2.9 percent growth per year in the male population.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked why there was a large fluctuation in female population growth projections between the years 2008 and 2009. Dr. Reed explained that the population model was based on various historical data that had been input into a complicated computer model, and it jumped so much in the female population because there was a smaller number of females in the system; because of the small female population, it did not take a dramatic increase or decrease in number to see a large percentage difference in the total population.
Chairman Anderson tried to clarify and told Mr. Carpenter to think of the B and C category felons and how long they had been in the system. The fact that that would zero out, and they would have been released at that time, would have produced that fluctuation from 1995. The fact that they would be getting out in 10 to 20 years down the road would cause that slight part of the “bubble” mentioned earlier to hit at that time.
Continuing with the explanation of the female population growth chart. Dr. Reed said that from December 2002 to December 2012, a total gain of 292 female inmates was expected; that was an average of about 29 female inmates per year, or approximately a 3.19 percent growth per year.
Dr. Reed briefly explained NDOC’s “Ten Year Capital Improvement Plan” and the capital improvements needed to support the population projection (Exhibit C, slide 40). He pointed out three entries that represented new physical plants. In October 2003, and in November 2004, NDOC was asking for funds to complete two more phases of Casa Grande, a transition center, which would be detailed later in the presentation. He said for November of 2006 they were proposing a Northern Re-entry Center, which would add another 200 beds. The third facility, referred to as Facility #8, would be built in September 2010; this new correctional facility would add 1,008 beds.
Chairman Anderson referred back to the capital improvement slide and asked if either the Casa Grande or the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City would require any change in state policy relative to release. Mr. Whorton responded that no changes would be necessary to implement a low-cost housing area for inmates.
Dr. Reed briefly discussed the “Inmate Profile,” (Exhibit C, slides 41-56). He said that the average age of inmates was 37, and that the statistics shown in the slides were based on averages.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was more information about the average inmate population profile forthcoming, and Dr. Reed affirmed there was.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked how the prison population over the past 30 or 40 years compared to the general population growth of Nevada. Dr. Reed responded that there was basically a positive relationship, and that as the state population had increased, so had the prison population.
Dr. Reed offered more general information about inmates and said it was interesting to him that the average inmate served four or five years in prison. He also noted the high recidivism statistics and cited alcohol as a contributory factor.
Chairman Anderson commented on the percentage of crimes committed by intoxicated offenders. He asked if alcohol was the number one drug or was it a combination of drugs. Dr. Reed answered that alcohol was number one, but counting all drugs nationally, 69 percent of all crimes were committed while the offender was under the influence of some sort of drug.
Assemblyman Conklin asked if the percentage was higher in Nevada. Dr. Reed agreed that the rate was 90 percent in Nevada.
Chairman Anderson commented that while conducting the recidivism study in 1995, the impression was that about 70 percent of the overall prison population had an addiction problem of one type or another, but now, because of the filter by the drug courts, one would have anticipated those with “hard-core” drug problems to become a larger percentage because those with less severe drug problems were being filtered out. He asked Dr. Reed if the population the NDOC dealt with now was comprised of people with serious drug problems.
Dr. Reed claimed that the prison population was at the high end of drug abuse; the number of inmates with alcohol and/or drug problems tended to be at the high end of the 60 to 90 percent range.
Ms. Buckley asked for more detailed information on the population that was incarcerated for more than one sexual offense, rape, or sexual assault of children. She commented that during the 2001 Legislative Session “appalling” information was received about the number of inmates released when they had been convicted of two, three, or four rapes and/or sexual assaults. She related that during the 2001 Legislative Session, the Committee had considered an amendment whereby a second sexual assault would have resulted in a penalty of life without the possibility of parole; however, the amendment did not get through the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Buckley commented that she would like to “take another run at that” this session.
Chairman Anderson responded that they were only 8 of the 15 members who had been through this discussion before, and he doubted the Committee was going to change its stance on sexual deviant behavior and release that particular part of the prison population. He commented that the money and the policy committees did not share the same attitude about money, and asked if Ms. Buckley’s request was going to be addressed in the presentation. Dr. Reed agreed to get information on that to the Committee.
Dr. Reed continued with the “Male Offense Group” segment of the presentation. He said he wanted to point out that in slide 44, the majority of offenses in the male population were violent and sex offenses; 58 percent of all inmate offenders were incarcerated for either a sex offense or a violent offense. Looking at the “Female Offense Group,” slide 45, Dr. Reed said that drug and property offenders added up to 59 percent of the total number of inmates; this was the largest segment found in the female population. The reason he wanted to point this out was twofold. First, it showed that the female inmate population tended to have a larger percentage of lower custody levels, which tended to be made up of drug and property offenders. Second, the male inmate population did not turn over as quickly as the female inmate population.
Dr. Reed began the “Race Distribution” segment of the presentation, and, in the interest of time, skipped to the female portion. Chairman Anderson asked if there were statistics for race distribution, and Dr. Reed asked Fritz Schlottman, research analyst with the NDOC, to proceed with the next segment of the presentation.
Mr. Schlottman said that the state demographer indicated that the distribution of the Nevada population was approximately 7 percent black and 7 percent Hispanic, and surmised that black people were overrepresented in the prison population.
Dr. Reed then referred to a previous question about the distribution of the age groups in the system, and explained the next two slides dealt with age distribution for male and female inmates (Exhibit C, slides 48-49). He said that he came to the Department in 1995 and since then the population among inmates had been aging; the distribution was shifting. He noted that the population was experiencing problems associated with aging, such as less mobility, softer bones, more fractures, and senility. He said that the administration had been talking about developing a unit that would serve the geriatric inmate.
Dr. Reed continued the “Custody” portion of the presentation and described the male and female custody distribution in the system as follows:
Next, Dr. Reed talked about computed and assigned custody. He defined computed custody as the classification tool that indicated at what custody levels inmates should be placed. Each individual was examined, and the three-part classification instrument took into account the following information:
Dr. Reed reiterated that the third element had the state policy written into it; it screened out sex offenders and did not allow them to go to a minimum-security facility.
He elaborated that when an inmate entered the intake center, the inmate was given a computed custody level, then Department staff looked at the custody level and determined if there were any exceptions before an actual custody level was assigned. He went on to explain the first two graphs in the presentation, slides 51 and 53, showed the computed custody of the male and female inmate population, and the next two graphs, slides 50 and 52, showed the actual assigned custody for males and females.
Continuing with slides 54 and 55, “Prior Offenses,” Dr. Reed said that most inmates came in on their first offense; however, the next largest group had three or more prior felonies.
Dr. Reed went on to explain “Capital Sentencing” (Exhibit C, slide 56), and noted that the largest portion were those who were sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.
Referring to Mr. Carpenter’s question about the female population statistics, Dr. Reed explained the model was developed at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The model tried to emulate the real world, and if one looked at real-world populations of female inmates, there was a large fluctuation because the female inmates tended to be a small population. Thus, when there was a small fluctuation of raw number, it showed up as larger percentage fluctuation. He repeated that the model actually reflected what happened in the real world, so the female population fluctuated “wildly” if compared to the male population.
Chairman Anderson asked about the use of George Washington University services, and how long had Nevada used this particular model, and was this the same gentleman who used to come and make this presentation. Dr. Reed said that the model had been the same for years, was actually developed in California, and had not always been presented by George Washington University. Dr. Reed assured Chairman Anderson that the original model developed by Dr. Jim Austin was the same model currently used.
Assemblyman Conklin asked for clarification about total priors (Exhibit C, slide 54), with 23 percent noted to have had three or more prior offenses, and asked if those priors were for offenses committed in Nevada or total record. Dr. Reed responded it was total record. Mr. Conklin asked if that was an indication of the ability to rehabilitate people and be successful in terms of releasing them and not having them return to the system. Dr. Reed responded that that would be expected, given the transient population there was in the state. There were a lot of people who came from outside Nevada for a weekend and committed crimes; they were now in the NDOC system.
Chairman Anderson commented he was under the impression, from his reading of a recent document from the NDOC, that relative to the overall prison population, it had been the conjecture that people who were native to Nevada, or who had been here for two years or longer, made up the largest percentage of the overall prison population, rather than those who had casually visited and had committed a crime. Dr. Reed agreed that the largest part of the prison population were people who resided in Nevada, but said his previous comment was to point out why there was a larger percent of inmates who committed crimes outside of the state than inmates who were actually from out of the state.
Chairman Anderson asked if the statistical model looked at the recidivist population as a separate statistical value, and if it indicated what percentage might have been people who were now residents. Dr. Reed said it was his understanding that the model inputs did not distinguish whether the population resided in or out of the state, or whether the offenders were recidivists or not. The model just took a raw number, without looking at backgrounds, and placed them into the system.
Chairman Anderson commented that knowing whether there were recidivists or not was of value in terms of program observation.
Mr. Whorton interjected that recidivism was an extremely difficult concept to grasp from both a statistical and an operational standpoint. If one measured an individual that came back into the NDOC, one was measuring the performance of the former Department of Prisons. For example, the activities and programs of an organization kept changing because that organization had evolved over time. Therefore, to have understood why a person was or was not successful in the community based upon the programs there was very difficult to do. Mr. Whorton went on to say that no one lived in vacuum, and he was skeptical about people who attributed the success of an individual in the community to one specific program. He said that the situation was hard to relate to when there were “multi-problem” people out there who had trouble with alcohol, drugs, employment, education, and relationships.
Chairman Anderson commented that the recidivist problem was an issue that the Committee tried to assess on economic and policy levels.
Darrel Rexwinkel, Assistant Director, Support Services, began the overview of the Nevada Department of Corrections budget for fiscal years 2004-2005 (Exhibit C, slides 58-64).
He said that approved budget for the current biennium was $348 million in General Fund money and $52.6 million in other funds. The upcoming biennium budget was to be $372.6 million in General Funds and $58 million in other funds, which indicated an increase of $24.6 million over the 2002-2003 biennium. Although that appeared to be a nice increase, the base budget of $358 million in General Fund dollars was $10 million over what it was for 2002-2003. He said that most of the increase in the base was attributed to salary adjustments; correctional officers received a one-grade increase; all employees received a 2.4 percent inflationary adjustment; and there was also a step-9 increase. None of that money had been appropriated into the NDOC budget, but would be transferred later. He said that most of the $10 million increase was due to salary-related issues.
Mr. Rexwinkel went on to describe the other adjustments that brought the total budget request up $372 million. The first set of adjustments were the inflationary-type adjustments, over which NDOC had little control; some were charges from other departments, such as the Department of Information Technology and the Purchasing Division. There were also caseload growth adjustments and a very large fringe benefit increase of $10.9 million, which covered health care benefits and worker’s compensation insurance costs. These costs, which the NDOC had little control over, came to about $15 million. He said this was more than the enhancement request, so actually, the budget was decreasing a little.
Chairman Anderson asked if the health insurance issues were the same as for other state employees. Mr. Rexwinkel said the heath insurance benefits were the same, but there might have been slight adjustment because of pension contributions. Correctional officers, like fire and police, had a higher pension contribution than the general retirement employee. Worker’s compensation insurance costs were higher for correctional officers. Chairman Anderson wanted to emphasize to the Committee that the correctional officers were not treated differently than other state employees who fell into a similar category of police officer and correctional staff in terms of SIIS (State Industrial Insurance System) or health insurance.
Mr. Rexwinkel reiterated that the total adjustments from the base of $358 million to $372.6 million was about $14.2 million, and $15 million of that was related to inflation, caseload growth, and fringe benefits, which really meant that the enhancements were a negative number, a net reduction.
Mr. Rexwinkel noted that the anticipated operating costs per inmate were dropping. He broke the costs down into three categories: medical, administration, and correctional programs. A subtotal was drawn in under these because in the correctional programs budget, there were no new items. Costs were transferred from another place. Basically, costs were coming out of the medical budget. In the year 2000, the operating cost per inmate was about $4,100; it went up to $4,500 in 2002, and in 2005, the cost per inmate would be $4,395 per year. Chairman Anderson asked why the decrease in the medical budget, and Mr. Rexwinkel responded that the main reason for the drop in 2004-2005 was that in the correction programs budget much of the staff was from the medical budget. He indicated that Ms. Nash Holmes would cover this later in the presentation.
Chairman Anderson said, after taking into consideration the correctional population statistics presented on the aging population, it seemed there would have been greater medical costs anticipated. Mr. Rexwinkel responded that they did what they could to decrease costs. He said Dr. D’Amico, who headed the medical unit, was very cost-conscious and had instituted such measures as consolidating the mental health at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, reducing drug and prescription costs, and implementing clinics at the facilities that would save spending on outside provider care, correctional officer time, and transportation. He indicated that management continually looked for ways to reduce costs. Mr. Rexwinkel also related how forensic positions were reclassified from medical to correctional officers and transferred out to other NDOC institutions, resulting in large savings to the medical budget as well.
Mr. Rexwinkel continued with the “Budget Overview” at the institutional level as follows:
Chairman Anderson said money costs were an important factor in the discussion, and, as a policy Committee, it was important that the Committee knew that Mr. Rexwinkel supplied the cost estimates and fiscal information. Mr. Rexwinkel replied that the “bottom line” on the budget reductions was that 84 positions would be cut.
Chairman Anderson asked if the presentation was going to include a cost comparison among facilities. Mr. Rexwinkel said he could get that information. He noted that Ely was remote and things cost more out there; other institutions were less efficient because costs varied quite a bit by facility because of layout, configuration, and age of the facilities. He said that overall there were quite a few reductions.
Mr. Rexwinkel concluded the “Budget Overview” segment of the presentation with the “Enhancements” (Exhibit C, slide 64) and commented on the major requests:
Mr. Whorton began the next segment of the NDOC presentation, “Resources” (Exhibit C, slides 64-69). Citing staff as the most important resource, he showed that out of 1,589 authorized custody positions, 1,458 were filled. Out of 878 non-custody positions, such as caseworkers, nurses, and maintenance staff, 722.5 were filled.
Chairman Anderson commented that in the past the state had implemented a hiring freeze for a certain period of time in order to save money, and the prison system and Highway Patrol were often caught up in this cycle. He asked if the positions were held open to bring about budget savings. Mr. Whorton responded that they were exempt from some of the budget freezes earlier on in the budget crisis, and some of the positions were left open to take care of staff that would be moved when the planned downsizing of the Warm Springs Correctional Center took place.
Mr. Whorton next explained slide 66, the “Inmate to Staff Ratio,” and noted that NDOC was very lean. He explained that the table compared the western United States to Nevada. In the West, the non-uniformed average ratio was 5.31 inmates to 1; the uniformed average was 4.23 inmates to 1. Nevada had 11.74 inmates to 1 non-custody staff member and 6.66 inmates to 1 custody staff member. Nevada had the worst ratios and was very thin when it came to administrative and non-custody staff.
Chairman Anderson remarked that it was interesting to see Nevada compared to other states, and he voiced his concern for the safety of the officers. He asked if staff was placed at risk when running operations at that level and especially when days were lengthened by overtime. Mr. Whorton agreed that safety was paramount and stressed that the institutional wardens had orders to lock down if they reached a certain minimum level of staffing. He also stated that overtime was authorized, and they could not operate without it. Because of the close environment, illnesses spread through the Department as they did in grade schools. But in spite of emergencies, staff illnesses, and the close and challenging environment, he said NDOC considered safety first.
Chairman Anderson asked how many days were spent in lockdown last year. Mr. Whorton answered that there were lockdowns at the High Desert State Prison based on incidents, not shortage of staff. He said that Northern Nevada Correctional Center had a couple of days of lockdown because of staff shortages.
Continuing with “Staff Age and Experience” (Exhibit C, slide 67), Mr. Whorton noted that as the inmate population was aging, so were the staff. He indicated that there might be a lot of turnover in the future because of this.
Mr. Whorton next explained that 73 percent of expenses went to payroll, and said NDOC was working hard to manage that because it had not been managed well in the past. NDOC had recently implemented an administrative regulation to govern and control staffing in the Department.
Mr. Whorton continued with the final slide (Exhibit C, slide 69) in the “Resources” segment, which showed that the average salary in Nevada corrections was $47,231, which was higher than salaries in the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Utah.
The next segment of the presentation focused on “Institutions” (Exhibit C, slides 70-85), and Mr. Whorton explained that NDOC administered facilities covering a landmass 20,000 square miles larger than the combined landmass of England, Scotland, and Wales. NDOC institutions were spread out over 110,000 square miles throughout the state as follows:
Mr. Whorton went on with a brief explanation of the Nevada Department of Correction conservation camps as follows:
§ DUI Treatment Program
§ Boot Camp
§ Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF)
§ Institutional support functions
Mr. Whorton concluded this segment of the presentation by reiterating that the Northern Nevada Restitution Center had been a very successful program, and that the Boot Camp, located at Indian Springs, was a resource for the Habitat for Humanity program. The Boot Camp was also the major program in support of the Nevada Division of Forestry. It engaged in fire suppression and conservation contract activities and was the state’s major human resource when it came to firefighting crews.
Mr. Whorton talked about staffing and relief. He said the NDOC had 1.6 people to man a 7-day position, and explained that there was 1.0 position for the standard number of days, 0.2 percent of a position for annual and sick leave and 0.4 percent of a position for regular days and training days off. This data helped management prepare for the budget, indicated how to employ staff, and determined who was covered under the relief factor. The relief factor was the amount of time or the number of people needed when a regular employee was out sick or on vacation. Mr. Whorton said that they only had three days of training authorized in the relief factor, and he noted that an individual who came into the Department got about four weeks of classroom training. Additionally, every employee received about 40 hours of training each year. He said that it was not sufficient to do that and the Department had to “make that fit” without using overtime. He added that the relief factor did not take into account vacancies, military, administrative, catastrophic, and educational leave. He said this was a challenge for the Department, and, in the future, the NDOC would provide the Legislature with specific information on how it should be staffed.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked about an earlier slide of the Southern Nevada Correctional Center for women (Exhibit C, slide 81) depicting a child in a playroom. Ms. Nash Holmes responded that the women in all the facilities were allowed to visit with their children. She said they had toys and movies that were donated for children to play with while they visited with their parents. Mr. Mortenson asked if the children ever stayed overnight and Ms. Nash Holmes answered no, they could only stay for the day.
Ms. Nash Holmes said the Committee should have all received “A Report to Governor Kenny C. Guinn” presented by the Study Committee on Corrections (Exhibit D) and published in October 2002, after a 6‑month study by individuals in criminal justice, business, education, and industry. She said that the Director had asked the Governor to appoint the Study Committee; this was NDOC’s part of a fundamental review. The Study Committee identified four major issues to be addressed.
1. Better management of the prisons
The Study Committee suggested delaying further hard-bed construction to focus on more community-based programs. NDOC was not asking, at this time, for a community corrections division, but that was the future of Nevada. Ms. Nash Holmes related that Nevada was one out of four or five states that did not put enough emphasis on community corrections. NDOC needed to stop building hard beds, and to start managing and classifying inmates better. She said representatives from the National Institute of Corrections would be arriving at the end of the month to help with the classification process that would bring NDOC into the mainstream with the rest of the country.
2. A separate Correctional Programs Division
Currently, Ms. Nash Holmes said she was the “one-person programs division.” After Ms. Crawford became Director, she appointed Ms. Nash Holmes to a vacant position in the Medical Division and asked her to start working with the 19 different institutions to organize and coordinate programs, write grants and find money, pull things together, and find out what programs worked. The Study Committee looked at this and recommended that NDOC form a separate Programs Division like the other prison systems in the country. Ms. Nash Holmes related that currently, an inmate might start at Northern Nevada Correctional Center and take some of the programs offered there, and six months later, he might be transferred down to Southern Desert where those programs were not offered. Thus, the inmate could not finish the program or receive credit for it.
Ms. Nash Holmes said the budget requests related to the Programs Division were transferring existing positions, such as chaplain and mental health positions, into the new Programs Division. She emphasized that the transferred positions were substance abuse counselors, social workers, and the psychologists who took care of the outpatient mental health. This would not affect the medical staffing; Ms. Nash Holmes referred to the Chair’s concern about reducing medical staff when there was a growing geriatric population. She said the medical care would not be reduced; the outpatient mental health division would be reorganized as part of the Programs Division.
The Study Committee suggested that “A Correctional Education Authority” in the state Department of Education be established. Ms. Nash Holmes said that NDOC was not in charge of the educational system in the prisons. There were four different school districts in four different counties running high school, GED, and other education programs in the prisons. Each school district ran its own programs in its own way, and while there was some continuity and similar policies, many of the classes were not transferable; methods were different; there was no single person or office in the state Department of Education that had the authority for correctional programs. She said that there would be a BDR this year, sponsored by Senator Valerie Wiener and endorsed by the state Department of Education, which would designate one person in the state Department of Education’s Adult Education Office as the person in charge of correctional education. She added that the NDOC was missing out on program money because the individual school districts had not applied for the funds.
The Study Committee said there should be more work opportunities for inmates. Currently, only about one-third of the population had jobs. There were approximately 10,300 inmates, and those inmates needed to work. When the inmates were paid the Department took money out of their bank accounts for room and board and medical expenses.
3. Transitional assistance
Inmates needed transition centers, such as Casa Grande, which was an apartment complex available for released inmates.
Re-entry assistance had been provided in the form of a $1.4 million federal grant. There were 31 providers who would be working with the NDOC on a pilot project in Las Vegas for three years to provide re-entry assistance.
The Study Committee suggested working with Parole and Probation to set up administrative sanctions against the “hook ‘em and book ‘em” approach for technical violations, such as not having a job. Ms. Nash Holmes related that if a parolee was found not to have a job, he was booked back into prison and took up another hard bed. What he really needed was a job instead of being thrown back into prison when something went wrong. She indicated that Parole and Probation had the authority to do that; they simply needed to start using that authority. She said she thought that everyone had recognized the cost and were willing to do this.
4. Resources to better serve the public and be more cost-effective
Ms. Nash Holmes said that there were two budget requests in this area. One was for a grant writing unit. The NDOC had already managed to bring $5.9 million worth of services into the prisons in partnership with nonprofit organizations. However, there was still a lot of money out there; hundreds of foundations and resources on the Internet could be checked daily if there were a full time grants person available to check.
The second request was for a victim services unit to help victims. The NDOC was one department of corrections out of five in the country that did not have a victim services unit. NDOC did the minimum required by federal law, which was that, if a victim called and gave his name, he would get a letter telling him when the offender was getting out or whether a parole hearing was pending. Ms. Nash Holmes indicated that there were many more services that should be provided to those victims. Sometimes victims were not aware that they could ask for information; it was shocking when a victim ran into her assailant in the grocery store. There were a number of services that could be offered to victims.
The last resource the Study Committee suggested was a public affairs unit. Ms. Nash Holmes said this was not going to be pursued at this time because there was not enough money for it in this year’s budget.
Ms. Nash Holmes indicated that the appendices in the back of the “The Study on Corrections” answered many of the questions the Committee had. She said it included a map of all the institutions, an outline of the racial breakdown of the prison population compared to the state, and statistics about the type of offenders that were incarcerated. She concluded with a statement that this was where the NDOC wanted to go. Whether all of the recommendations were passed this year or not, this was what the NDOC was asking for in the future.
Chairman Anderson thanked and commended Ms. Crawford and the NDOC staff for the presentation. He said becoming more knowledgeable of the Department of Corrections was important to the members of the Committee. Understanding the physical surroundings of the institutions and dedication of the staff was always impressive. He said he appreciated the offer of cooperation with the Committee, and it was important to keep in mind that while this was a policy Committee that seemed to fill the beds, it sometimes “put everybody in harm’s way” and sometimes got carried away in the process. He said he wanted to make sure the Committee was comfortable with the information, and reminded them that they were going to hear Parole and Probation on Friday, as well as Criminal Repository, and noted that all the pieces fit together in a “master puzzle.” He asked Ms. Crawford and her staff to come back the next day to finish the presentation, and again commended them for an excellent presentation. Ms. Crawford said the entire team would return the next day.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sabina Bye
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: