MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
JOINT Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources
Seventy-Second Session
February 20, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources was called to order at 8:13 a.m., on Thursday, February 20, 2003. Chairwoman Sheila Leslie presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Sheila Leslie, Chairwoman
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Barbara Cegavske
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Chairwoman Sheila Leslie called the Subcommittee to order and asked Edward Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, to begin his budget presentation.
Mr. Cotton offered a few introductory remarks. He said he was happy to have the opportunity to present the budget. As it was his first session in Nevada presenting a budget, Mr. Cotton asked the Subcommittee to inform him if his presentation was too detailed or if additional information was needed. Mr. Cotton said his division was presenting a fairly thorough budget that tried to develop the best possible programs for children while making the requested reduction of 3 percent. The budget had been prepared by looking at what could be done, what could be maintained, and what needed to be developed; he felt the budget fit together to create a good continuum of care for children in Nevada.
Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Cotton to explain the materials that had been provided to the Subcommittee. Mr. Cotton explained that the larger book, titled “Presentation to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources” (Exhibit C), contained information relating to statutory authority, the Division’s mission statement, a description of programs, performance indicators, and details for each of the budget accounts for the Division of Child and Family Services, with the exception of Budget Account 3142, Child Welfare Integration. Mr. Cotton explained that the second book, titled “Nevada’s Integrated Child Welfare System” (Exhibit D), provided the details for Budget Account 3142. It had been placed in a separate book because it was a unique account and a major undertaking.
Chairwoman Leslie indicated the Subcommittee was ready to hear the first budget account.
HR, CHILDREN AND FAMILY ADMINISTRATION (101-3145) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-1
Mr. Cotton presented Budget Account 3145, HR, Children and Family Administration. He explained that BA 3145 supported the operation of the Division Administrator’s Office, the Deputy Administrator positions, the statewide program specialist staff, the principal fiscal and business support functions of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and the child protective services and child welfare services for rural Nevada. Mr. Cotton pointed out that the service provider payments for the child protective services and child welfare services were made from the Youth Community Services Budget, and the costs associated with the child welfare services transfer to Clark and Washoe Counties were reflected in the Child Welfare Integration Budget.
Mr. Cotton mentioned that the mission/program description was on page 2 in Exhibit C. The performance indicators and workload statistics were presented at the top of page 3. The indicators were for rural Nevada. Mr. Cotton called attention to the number of finalized adoptions and stated that 39 adoptions had been projected and the actual number had been 38 children. He said the DCFS expected a 20 percent increase in finalized adoptions as the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 were put in place. Mr. Cotton said the goal of the ASFA legislation was to have a permanency arrangement for each child within 12 months of his entrance into the system. A permanency arrangement meant the child would either return home or be adopted and placed in a new home. Mr. Cotton said that would increase the number of adoptions over the next two years. He indicated that the adoption figures for Clark and Washoe Counties were in another budget account.
Mr. Cotton continued his explanation of Budget Account 3145. Below the performance indicators each of the items was explained. Mr. Cotton gave the example of the child welfare average monthly caseload indicator and explained that, below that item, there was a brief explanation of how that number was calculated. Mr. Cotton directed the Subcommittee’s attention to a chart on page 3 that showed the funding sources for the account. He said that approximately 60 percent of the funds were federal and the rest were state funds.
Mr. Cotton continued with the highlights and pointed out that the base budget contained 150.12 positions on average over the year. He explained that decision unit M-303 was a result of an occupational group study of social services and rehabilitation class specifications done by the Department of Personnel. That study had upgraded 61 positions in BA 3145 by one pay grade, effective July 1, 2003; the $165,000 in M-303 reflected the cost for the upgrade. Mr. Cotton said decision unit M-501 recommended one full-time privacy officer associated with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.
Chairwoman Leslie remarked that the HIPAA privacy officers had been discussed previously and she wanted to clarify that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) had asked for three privacy officers originally and had lowered that number to one. Chairwoman Leslie asked if that one position was the one that Mr. Cotton wanted to keep in the budget. Mr. Cotton replied that the other two positions had been eliminated and only one position had been left in the budget.
Mr. Cotton described decision unit E-475. He said that the DCFS was requesting two additional professional staff and an additional support position to perform functions that he felt were very important. Those positions would perform several duties. Mr. Cotton said his division had been working with the child welfare departments in Clark and Washoe Counties to improve child protective and child abuse standards around the state. Three other functions of the positions were outlined on page 6 (Exhibit C). Mr. Cotton explained that there was a central register of names of people who had a substantiated abuse or neglect charge. Thus, if an individual on the register, also known as the CANS list, applied for a certain job, such as a position at a child care center, a background check would yield that information. Mr. Cotton said it was important that there be a standardized appeals system and those on the register be notified of their right to appeal, which was in accordance with federal law. Mr. Cotton said the current appeals system was fragmented; Clark County, Washoe County, and Carson City had different appeals systems. The three new positions would be able to address those problems and work to standardize the process.
Senator Rawson asked if currently there was an appeals process, and he asked how that process worked. He commented that the new standards seemed to indicate something new was being created.
Mr. Cotton explained that currently appeals that came into his office were handled by one of the central office specialists as an additional duty to his regular duties. When federal legislation had started requiring this appeals process several years earlier, the state of Nevada had no one to perform that duty and no one had been assigned specifically to do that job. Mr. Cotton stated that a lawsuit had been filed alleging that the state had conspired to develop a system that failed to notify or disclose the right of appeal to persons on the CANS list. The plaintiffs were seeking substantial damages from 41 different defendants. Mr. Cotton said that other states had been involved in class action lawsuits, and he pointed out that many of those states had had a more developed appeals system in terms of notification. Mr. Cotton said Nevada needed an organized system that would be fair and legally defensible. The alleged perpetrator needed to have the right to appeal in order to ensure a thorough hearing. He voiced his concern that, if the system failed and the cases were not heard thoroughly, the cases could be thrown out and an abused child could be returned to the person who abused him.
Senator Rawson asked for the number of current appeals, and Mr. Cotton replied that he did not have the exact number. He explained there were approximately 15 cases per year in rural Nevada. Clark and Washoe Counties handled their appeals separately, so Mr. Cotton did not have those numbers either. He had spoken with Clark and Washoe Counties with regard to centralizing the appeals function, and that discussion would continue if the positions were approved.
In response to a question from Senator Rawson regarding the scope of Mr. Cotton’s plan, Mr. Cotton explained that it would start in the rural areas, but Clark County and Washoe County had expressed an interest in standardizing the process as well. One of the problems with the current system was that people might not have received the proper notification to appeal because there were three separate systems in three different places. Mr. Cotton said the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and Clark and Washoe Counties wanted a standardized process to make sure that notification could be monitored. He pointed out that lack of notification was one of the major complaints in the lawsuits.
Senator Rawson said he did not want to prolong the process of standardizing procedures, but he wondered if the process could be delayed as the budget situation was extremely difficult. He wanted the Subcommittee to consider waiting to implement Mr. Cotton’s plan.
Chairwoman Leslie confirmed that Washoe County and Clark County had their own appeals process. Mr. Cotton verified that and Chairwoman Leslie asked if the DCFS had jurisdiction over the counties’ appeals processes. Mr. Cotton replied that the DCFS did not. Chairwoman Leslie asked if the budget had been developed in anticipation of Washoe County and Clark County sending their appeals to the DCFS for the two designated employees to examine. Mr. Cotton said that had been a factor and explained he had had discussions with the counties, but he was unsure if that situation would occur. One of the other issues he would be addressing was that the roles of those positions had been expanded in order to work with Clark County and Washoe County to determine whether or not it was feasible for those two positions to handle the additional work from the two counties. Chairwoman Leslie assured Mr. Cotton they would be taking that into consideration and asked him to proceed.
Mr. Cotton explained that the second duty those positions would perform was the establishment of a unit that would respond to calls, complaints, and issues from foster parents, consumers, citizens, community partners, and others with specific questions or problems that needed to be addressed. The DCFS would work with local offices to follow up and resolve issues. While many of those services were being provided and would continue to be provided by Clark County and Washoe County, many calls were still routed to the state agency in terms of resolution. Mr. Cotton explained that he had one clerical person to work on those calls. That person had to gather the information and relay it to Mr. Cotton because she was not a social worker and could not make the necessary evaluations and decisions. The types of calls his staff received were typically people who, for example, might have been told that their child was being moved from their foster home and they disagreed. The people calling in were primarily concerned about the services a child received and were unhappy with those services and did not feel they were being addressed properly through the regular line of authority.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if those positions were related to the results of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) investigation and if the ombudsman would deal with some of those complaints as well. Mr. Cotton replied that those positions could deal with the problems mentioned in the CRIPA report, but he said the third function was more directly related to the CRIPA report. Mr. Cotton said he would explain that third function later, but the ombudsman function could also mean receiving calls from parents of children who were incarcerated and who had issues regarding visitation or the treatment of the children. It would allow parents an outlet to call outside of the facilities in order to have those matters examined.
Chairwoman Leslie said she would like Mr. Cotton to work on the details and resubmit the enhancement request to the Subcommittee for examination.
Mr. Cotton explained that the third function of the positions was related to the CRIPA report, which had pointed out the need for a grievance system with a component outside the institution itself. The two positions would hear grievances from incarcerated youth when the issues could not be resolved locally. The grievance process had been changed so that grievances went directly to the superintendent of the facility, and if issues could not be resolved they would be referred to the DCFS unit. Chairwoman Leslie opined that the unit had merit, but it had not been fully developed and more detail was needed.
Chairwoman Leslie questioned the transfer of 21 positions from the Child Welfare Integration budget into Budget Account 3145. She stated that the Legislature had established Budget Account 3142 in order to monitor all of the integration efforts; moving the positions into a different account undermined the integrity of Budget Account 3142. Chairwoman Leslie conceded that it might be easier for the DCFS to do cost allocation by moving the positions, but she reemphasized the need to track costs in terms of the integration effort.
Mr. Cotton requested clarification as to which 21 positions the Chairwoman had been referring to in her previous comments. Chairwoman Leslie responded that she was referring to the positions indicated in decision units E-900, E-902, and E-903 on page 8 (Exhibit C). Chairwoman Leslie commented that a similar problem had occurred in another budget account with the transfer of positions and she wanted the positions returned to the proper budgets.
Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Cotton to address decision unit E-477, the proposed centralized pilot project. Mr. Cotton explained that decision unit E‑477 was a request for one social worker position to pilot a centralized intake process for Carson, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey Counties, with potential to expand. The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) wanted to set standards and make the investigative process more consistent. As the system currently operated, an incident in one area of Nevada would be investigated, while a similar incident in another area that might merit investigation, would not be investigated depending on the volume of cases. Mr. Cotton stated his belief that all families in Nevada had the right to have the same things determined to be abuse or neglect. The centralized process, by having one telephone number for people to call, would make it easier for mandated reporters and others to call to report child abuse or neglect. Mr. Cotton explained it would be the same individual answering the telephone and so results would be more consistent. The new position also would allow those current social workers who had very high caseloads to devote their time to their cases rather than spending time answering the telephone.
Chairwoman Leslie pointed out that one individual could not possibly answer the phone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and she asked how those telephone calls would be handled when the person was not working. Mr. Cotton explained that those calls received after regular business hours or on weekends would be referred to other agencies, including the local police department in emergencies. Mr. Cotton said he had made it clear in the Committee on Children, Youth, and Families that he felt the state should have a statewide hotline. However, as that had not been feasible with the budget situation at that point, this project could show that it was a valuable function and might merit expansion in the future.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if E-477 was more for the benefit of people who wanted to report child abuse or for the social workers who currently handled telephone calls. Mr. Cotton replied that it was of benefit to both. He pointed out that people who called to make a report would have one number to call and they would get a consistent response rather than speaking to a different person each day of the week. It would be advantageous to the social workers as well because many of the calls received were not related to abuse or neglect. Those calls could be screened and the social workers would be able to devote more time to cases of abuse and neglect. Chairwoman Leslie clarified that E-477 would add a social worker, and Mr. Cotton indicated that was correct and said it would be a new position in the Division.
Senator Rawson asked if the 211 system that had been discussed in a previous meeting of a different committee would include the proposed centralized intake program. Mr. Cotton said he had attended some of the meetings in which the 211 system had been discussed and he was concerned that the 211 system would have to divert calls rather than answer questions or take reports. Having one number to dial, such as 211, would simplify matters and prevent confusion about which number to call, but the 211 operators would not be qualified to assess whether a report should be taken or a social worker should be assigned.
Chairwoman Leslie asked for additional questions on Budget Account 3145. There being none she asked Mr. Cotton to continue with Budget Account 3142.
CHILD WELFARE INTEGRATION (101-3142) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-11
Mr. Cotton introduced Diane Comeaux, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, and said she would be presenting the Child Welfare Integration budget to the Subcommittee. Mr. Cotton pointed out that Budget Account 3142 was in a separate booklet (Exhibit D).
Chairwoman Leslie informed the members of the Subcommittee and the audience that Ms. Comeaux would be pointing out the main points of the budget account as time was short. Chairwoman Leslie said the Subcommittee would have the opportunity to examine the budget account in more detail at a subsequent meeting. She directed Ms. Comeaux to begin her presentation.
Ms. Comeaux explained that the Child Welfare Integration Budget Account 3142 had been created to administer the funds appropriated by A.B. 1 of the 17th Special Legislative Session. The account would continue to be used to reflect the costs of transferring child welfare services to Clark and Washoe Counties, as well as the costs associated with the new wraparound service model of care for children with severe emotional disturbance (SED).
Ms. Comeaux directed the Subcommittee’s attention to page 3 of Exhibit D, which detailed the base budget. Ms. Comeaux noted that there was an adjustment to the base as an error had been discovered in the amount budgeted for Clark County salaries. A memorandum had been written and would be sent to the budget office with the correct information; the budget office would then send that information to the Subcommittee.
Ms. Comeaux explained that the base budget continued funding for 23 full-time equivalent positions as approved in A.B. 1, as well as the services for children with SED and the cost for transferring child welfare to Clark County and Washoe County. Ms. Comeaux said that the initial budget reductions in fiscal year 2002 had slowed down the schedule for the SED services pilot project. The initial schedule had called for the pilot project to begin April 2002 with 10 percent of the 327 children with SED identified as “unserved,” and was to increase by 10 percent in November 2002, 10 percent in December 2002, 20 percent in January 2003, 30 percent in February 2003, and the remaining 20 percent in March 2003. Ms. Comeaux explained that, although the pilot project had not been delayed, the implementation had been delayed and had changed to an increase of 5 percent in January 2003, and 10 percent in each of the following months through June 2003. The base budget recommended that the implementation schedule be continued at 10 percent per month until fully implemented in October 2003.
Ms. Comeaux said the transition of programs to Washoe County had started in April 2002 and had not been delayed. There were 18.51 full-time equivalent positions transferred to provide the full range of child welfare services. Ms. Comeaux reported that in January 2003 that transfer had been completed with the remaining 34.55 positions transferred to Washoe County. Ms. Comeaux explained that Attachment A (Exhibit D) was the budget for Washoe County for FY2004 and FY2005.
Ms. Comeaux explained that the transition of programs to Clark County had been delayed due to budget reductions. The base budget reflected the transfer of 10.51 positions in October 2003, which would provide family preservation services. An additional 42.04 full-time equivalent positions would be transferred in April 2004, which would provide licensing and recruitment, adoption, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), and the Children’s Resource Bureau services. The remaining positions would transfer in October 2004 and would provide case management and eligibility services.
Senator Rawson commented that he and the other senators did not have a clear understanding of what the transfer to Washoe County had cost, and they did not know what it would cost to transfer services to Clark County. Senator Rawson asked if Ms. Comeaux knew how much it would cost in terms of new dollars spent that would not have been spent otherwise. He said he understood the process was very complicated, but he hoped Ms. Comeaux had a simple answer for him.
Ms. Comeaux replied that she did not have a simple answer. She explained that the DCFS had been asked to estimate what it would cost to continue the transfer of those services to Clark County and compare what it would cost to annualize the cost for Clark County. Ms. Comeaux said it was very early in the process and informed the Subcommittee that the DCFS staff would be meeting the next day with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff to discuss integration. There would be several meetings to address the cost question. She reiterated that she currently did not have a simple answer.
Senator Rawson verified that there was no formula to use to determine the ongoing costs or the possible growth in costs. He asked if any estimation had been done, to which Ms. Comeaux replied that for budgeting purposes, the Division had estimated only FY2004 and FY2005.
Senator Rawson said the decision to transfer had been made. He had served through the interim and worked on that decision, and he had been very supportive of the transfer, but he felt that he spoke for the Senate when he said questions needed to be answered regarding costs. Senator Rawson indicated that he had spoken to staff in terms of suggesting particular formulas to determine ongoing growth and costs. He asked if the trade of long-term care was still an option and was still being discussed. Ms. Comeaux said she believed the trade was not an option as the Governor had been very uncomfortable with that option.
Senator Rawson emphasized that he had been supportive of the transfer, but he still had unanswered questions. He said it was time to have those answers because the senators would want to know. Ms. Comeaux said the Division would work with staff to answer those questions.
Chairwoman Leslie said she had also served on the Committee in the interim and had reviewed the long-term funding plan. She mentioned there had been a “swap” plan brought to the Committee by a consultant. Ms. Comeaux explained that the consultant had helped the DCFS work through various options, but the recommendation had been developed by the state and Washoe County and Clark County.
Chairwoman Leslie said that she was trying to remember the process. She said that the DCFS had brought the plan to the Committee, the Committee had reviewed it, the DCFS staff had reviewed it, the LCB staff had reviewed it, and the counties’ staff had reviewed it, a process which had taken almost a year. Chairwoman Leslie said the plan had been close to approval, it went back to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for additional information in November 2002, and then the plan was abandoned. Chairwoman Leslie asked what the alternatives were if that plan was no longer an option. Ms. Comeaux said that plan was what the DCFS had proposed, but the Governor did not recommend it.
Chairwoman Leslie requested more information about the Governor’s position and if the plan was completely “off the table.” Ms. Comeaux apologized and said she did not have that information.
Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, responded to Chairwoman Leslie’s question regarding the Governor’s position. Mr. Willden explained that the proposal from the Committee on Children, Youth, and Families had been to trade the costs for child welfare integration, or at least a portion of the costs, with the costs for the county match program, and then for the portion that was not swapped, a formula was proposed that the state and the counties would share in some determined percentages of both the front-end and the back-end costs of the child welfare system. There was a phase-in period because Clark County wanted to get some additional experience before those percentages were established. The concern in the Governor’s Office was that, although there was a fairly comprehensive history of the growth rate in the long-term care system and that growth rate had been in double digits for many years, it was not as clear what the growth rate for the child welfare system would be in the future so there was concern as to whether the swap could be made so as to be at an even point in time in 2004.
Chairwoman Leslie said she remembered that the Governor had those concerns and asked if more analysis was needed to allay those fears or if the Governor simply did not want to pursue that avenue. Mr. Willden responded that there needed to be more information on the future growth rate of child welfare costs.
Chairwoman Leslie said she agreed with Senator Rawson that there needed to be a contingency plan. She pointed out that the legislative session had started and decisions needed to be made, particularly in regard to the Clark County transfer. Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Willden if he would be able to present some alternative plans within a few weeks. Mr. Willden told her those plans were in development. He said he shared Chairwoman Leslie’s concern that a year had been spent working on the “swap” funding plan and now they had to start over and try to find a way to fund the transfer in the future.
Chairwoman Leslie reemphasized that alternatives were needed in order to make a decision or the process would come to a “grinding halt.” She asked again if those contingency plans would be ready in two weeks. Mr. Willden replied that he would make every effort to have those plans, but it would require some additional policy discussion at a high level as to what amount of funding the state and the counties would be willing to commit to in the future. Chairwoman Leslie responded that she understood, but the process needed to be expedited so a decision could be made. She stated emphatically that it was unacceptable to do nothing.
Senator Raggio commented that he shared the Governor’s concern regarding the future cost of the child welfare integration to the state. He stated that it was a wonderful project, but it had been approved with a firm understanding that the counties, not the state, would assume any additional costs that would occur as a result of that integration. Senator Raggio declared that he did not want to lose sight of that initial agreement. The Governor was not the only person concerned about future funding, he was concerned as well. The future cost of long-term care, which was going to be swapped to the state, was uncertain.
Senator Raggio voiced his support and reiterated that he did not blame the Governor. Senator Raggio wanted the program to continue, but a program with that much uncertainty could not be approved in the current economic situation. He opined that the Legislature might have to “put the brakes on” the project until there was a firm understanding of the cost to the state, and he felt that the state was in a worse financial situation than both Clark County and Washoe County. Senator Raggio declared his support for the Governor once more and said it needed to be determined as to whether or not the state could afford to fund any further extension of the program.
Chairwoman Leslie thanked Senator Raggio and asked if there were any further comments. She admitted that it had been a frustrating process, spending a year working on a plan that was no longer an option and having to start over.
Chairwoman Leslie returned to an earlier discussion and asked Ms. Comeaux when the memorandum regarding the adjustment of Clark County salaries would be available to the Subcommittee. Ms. Comeaux said the information would be provided as soon as possible.
Ms. Comeaux continued her presentation and explained that Attachment B, a summary of the costs for Clark County’s ongoing transfer, and Attachment C, a report of annualized costs that had been requested at the original budget hearing, were both in Exhibit D. She asked if there were any further questions or if the Subcommittee wanted further details on the previous material presented. Chairwoman Leslie confirmed that the higher placement costs would be paid by the state for the next biennium. Ms. Comeaux indicated that was correct.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if Ms. Comeaux had understood the earlier request to move positions back into Budget Account 3142 so that the Subcommittee could examine the positions and what they would cost within the context of the Child Welfare Integration budget. Ms. Comeaux replied that she understood, but she explained that it was very difficult to do that. The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) had requested that those positions be transferred to the appropriate budget accounts because it was difficult to manage a small budget starting with 30 positions. It had been assumed that it would be better to place the positions in a larger budget account, so if costs came in at a higher rate, those costs could be absorbed. For that reason, the DCFS had requested the transfer of positions as well as additional cost allocation.
Chairwoman Leslie reiterated the Subcommittee’s concern about tracking the costs within Budget Account 3142 and asked that the positions be placed into that budget account. Ms. Comeaux said she had been aware of the Subcommittee’s concern and pointed out that the new Integrated Financial System (IFS) made it possible to track costs in other budget accounts. She would like to suggest leaving the positions in other budget accounts and using IFS to track the costs. Chairwoman Leslie stated she would like to see the positions back in Budget Account 3142.
HR, UNITY/SACWIS (101-3143) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-20
Mr. Cotton presented the UNITY/SACWIS budget. He explained that SACWIS was the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System and was required by the federal government. He directed the Subcommittee to page 9 of Exhibit C for details regarding the program description and the laws that required the program. The Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) was Nevada’s version of SACWIS. The UNITY system was used by child welfare managers within the DCFS and Washoe County and it would be used by child welfare managers in Clark County when child welfare services were transferred from the DCFS to Clark County.
Mr. Cotton explained that the UNITY system had been developed in several stages. He indicated that the performance indicators were on page 10 of Exhibit C, and he pointed out that the actual activity had matched the projected activity in most cases and so the DCFS had accomplished what was needed in the UNITY system budget. The funding for Budget Account 3143 was approximately 53 percent from the state’s General Fund and approximately 47 percent from federal funds.
Mr. Cotton mentioned the first three decision units and said those units dealt with staffing, inflation, and fringe benefit changes. He directed the Subcommittee’s attention to the first enhancement in the budget, decision unit E-475, which was a request to add two additional positions. The UNITY system was currently operated on a maintenance basis and had not been funded to provide enhancements. The system’s primary focus had been managing cases; however, the federal Department of Health and Human Services had been requiring additional comprehensive data each year from states to improve their monitoring abilities in that field. Mr. Cotton said that his division would be doing its own studies, and the federal Department of Health and Human Services would be conducting additional studies. As a result of those reviews, Mr. Cotton thought it was likely that system improvements would be required, but those improvements would be impossible to make with current maintenance staffing levels. He indicated that the last paragraph on page 12 of Exhibit C addressed that problem. Mr. Cotton explained that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) was requesting funding for two professional positions to form a design and development unit that would work to implement modifications to the system as requested by the federal government.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if the two positions in decision unit E-475 were in addition to two positions requested in A.B. 1 of the 17th Special Session. She asked if that meant the DCFS had requested four additional positions. Mr. Cotton confirmed that was the case, and said the other two positions Chairwoman Leslie had referred to were in decision unit E-901. Chairwoman Leslie clarified that the positions in E-901 were not in the child welfare integration budget and Mr. Cotton said the positions had been moved from Budget Account 3142 into the UNITY budget. Chairwoman Leslie said those positions should be moved back into Budget Account 3142 and asked why two more positions were needed and when those positions would begin. Mr. Cotton explained that the positions would start July 2003, and he reminded the Subcommittee about the federal review. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would request extensive data and the DCFS currently did not have the staff to gather that data.
Mr. Cotton asked Madilyn Maire, Social Welfare Program Chief with the UNITY project, to address questions regarding the positions in more depth. Ms. Maire explained that the two positions in the integration budget would support integration activities. One position was a training officer who would be needed as the addition of Clark County would add approximately 600 users to the UNITY system. Currently there was only one training officer in the Las Vegas area and the new position would support additional training activities for the new Clark County users. The second position was a network specialist who would work on designing a network to coordinate network activities and security between the counties and the state. Ms. Maire explained that the two positions for the design and development unit would be working to develop new functionality in the UNITY system in order to comply with the federal review. Ms. Maire reiterated that the UNITY system was currently funded at a maintenance and operations level and the skills of the current staff were very different from the skills of the design staff, who would be working with users and the technical staff to design and test the system modifications to ensure the system met the federal, state, and local requirements. Chairwoman Leslie said that those positions currently were not filled, which Ms. Maire confirmed.
Chairwoman Leslie asked for an explanation of the 47 percent increase in the charges from the Department of Information Technology (DoIT). Ms. Maire said the charges in M-100 were based on an estimate from DoIT. The UNITY system’s staff met with DoIT on a monthly basis and discussed projected utilization on the DoIT mainframe. The Department of Information Technology provided the estimates for the budget. Chairwoman Leslie commented that the increase seemed excessive. Ms. Maire agreed that it was a large increase.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if there were any other questions or comments. Mr. Cotton said the Child and Family Services review would be discussed in more depth at a later date. Chairwoman Leslie agreed and said the Subcommittee would return to that. She asked if there was any public testimony regarding integration from Washoe or Clark Counties.
Michael Capello, Director, Washoe County Social Services, addressed the Subcommittee. He said Washoe County had approached the integration process with the assumption that the state system, before the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, had been barely adequate to meet the children’s needs in the child welfare system. Once the ASFA legislation had been approved the state part of the system was, in his opinion, woefully inadequate.
Mr. Capello informed the Subcommittee that part of the integration agreement had been that the state portion of the system had to address those inadequacies in order to ensure the program would be reasonably successful. Mr. Capello explained that there were costs agreed to through the four-year process in order to do that. There were some costs that ultimately the state would have had to put into the system in order to meet the ASFA standards. There were some increased costs for Washoe County to run the system, and Mr. Capello said he could demonstrate to the Subcommittee that many of the costs were incurred as a result of the system being underfunded. The program had already been transferred to Washoe County and the county had incurred costs to improve the system and operate it in such a way as to meet the federal requirements.
Mr. Capello stated that Washoe County was working to make the system more effective, and in the long-term, there would be savings. For example, there would be savings as there would be a reduction in the amount of time children spent in foster care. Mr. Capello pointed out that those savings were in the long-term, but currently the county was still in the “catch-up” period. The program had been implemented in stages, so the county had not had the opportunity to experience a full year of operating the entire system. That had created difficulties in building the budget because Mr. Capello had been unsure what full implementation would mean to the budget. He opined that the funding plan for the future incorporated reasonable estimates. He remarked that Mr. Willden had told him that the funding for the current biennium was essentially a “straight-up” funding situation. Washoe County continued to fund the front-end of the system and had taken over the services in the back-end. The state would continue to fund the back-end costs until the state and the county would be able to reach an agreement on a formula to apply the costs of the program to both entities. Mr. Capello said that Washoe County had never been interested in taking on a program that was underfunded nor was the county interested in taking money from the state to run a program that would require more state funding as a county program than the funding needed to run the program as a state program.
Susan Klein-Rothschild, Director, Clark County Department of Family Services, said the Clark County Board of County Commissioners had identified a strategic priority to secure legislative funding during the session for the integrated child welfare system in the upcoming biennium. To achieve that priority, Clark County supported the Governor’s recommended phased-in budget, understanding the current fiscal situation in the state and working to move forward in a positive way. The county recognized there were some elements that were essential to the foster care and adoption program that were not currently funded. Ms. Klein-Rothschild said the County anticipated continued dialogue with the state and the Legislature regarding ongoing funding to support an effective and successful integrated child welfare system, placing the priority on the children. That would include reductions detailed in annualized costs and for future bienniums. Throughout the process, Clark County had requested that assumptions for funding for Clark County and Washoe County be similar as outlined in documents and worksheets that had been worked on throughout the process. Clark County also requested that the federal financial participation percentage be validated in the south and adjusted accordingly in the budget. Chairwoman Leslie thanked the representatives of Washoe and Clark Counties for their remarks and asked Mr. Cotton to continue his presentation.
HR, CHILD CARE SERVICES (101-3149) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-25
Mr. Cotton presented Budget Account 3149 and said the Bureau of Services for Child Care, under the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), was responsible for two major functions: licensing and monitoring child care facilities under provisions granted in the Nevada Revised Statutes. He explained the DCFS provided initial licensing and continued monitoring of child care facilities. Those facilities included on-site centers, special needs centers, preschools, nurseries, and centers for the care of ill children. Before a child care provider could be licensed in the state of Nevada, there had to be a background check done by the state through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mr. Cotton explained that licenses were renewed annually and the DCFS conducted at least two unannounced visits during the year to child care facilities to ensure that standards were maintained. The DCFS was also responsible for foster care licensing as well as monitoring and providing technical assistance to foster families and group homes. That licensing also dealt with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) for people moving from other states and wanting to provide foster care in Nevada, as well as Nevada residents who wanted to provide a home to children from other states, particularly in the case of relatives of those children. The FBI background checks were conducted on all applicants and residents 18 years or older.
Mr. Cotton explained that the foster care licensing function would transfer from the DCFS to Clark County in April 2004. That function had already transferred to Washoe County on January 6, 2003, which had been the final step in the child welfare integration. He noted that the performance indicators were in a chart that detailed the projected percentage and the actual percentage for 2002 on page 15 of Exhibit C, and explanations were included at the bottom of the page. The funding for Budget Account 3149 was approximately 72 percent from federal funds, 25 percent from state funds, and 3 percent from other funds.
Mr. Cotton continued his presentation and addressed two decision units. Decision unit M-303 (Exhibit C) was a cost related to an occupational study that required that four positions received a one-grade increase. Decision unit E-475 was a request for funding of an additional administrative support position and associated costs in order to improve and expedite the processing of state and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint background checks on individuals who wanted to provide child care, and individuals who were 18 years or older and lived in the homes of those child care providers. There were offices in Elko, Las Vegas, and Carson City that processed background checks; the additional position would be placed in the Carson City office and the background checks would be sent there. Fingerprint background checks had to be renewed every six years, and the DCFS had to process the renewals as well as the initial applications. Mr. Cotton mentioned that child care centers had a high employee turnover rate, which increased the number of background checks. In addition, child care centers increased staff in the summer when school was out and then decreased staff when school was in session, so that meant individuals were moving from one position to another and had to be rechecked each time. Mr. Cotton explained that the duties of this position would include coordinating with law enforcement agencies to expedite background checks so as to receive results as soon as possible so that individuals with serious criminal backgrounds would not be working with children. Mr. Cotton said that the Welfare Division and the child care and development fund had supported that position as well.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if the position was related to the performance indicator for licensing or the performance indicator for monitoring child care facilities. Mr. Cotton responded that it was related to the performance indicator for licensing. Chairwoman Leslie inquired as to how the new position would affect that performance indicator, and Mr. Cotton replied that the new position was necessary to maintain the current level of performance as the workload increased.
Chairwoman Leslie noted that there was travel budgeted in the first year for the position, but not in the second and she wondered why. She also said she was unfamiliar with the expenditure category “community coordination” and she asked for an explanation. Patricia Hedgecoth, Social Welfare Program Chief, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), responded to the travel question, and said the position would coordinate with rural areas and law enforcement agencies to conduct the background checks. She explained that each county did background checks differently—some counties issued work cards, some did not, some sent the background checks directly to DCFS, some did not. Chairwoman Leslie reiterated her questions regarding the first year of travel and the community coordination expenditure. Ms. Hedgecoth explained that the position would travel to the rural areas and to Clark County in order to coordinate efforts, and she verified that the travel was only in the budget for FY2004. In response to a question from Chairwoman Leslie regarding the position, Mr. Cotton stated it was a new position.
HR, YOUTH COMMUNITY SERVICES (101-3229) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-29
Mr. Cotton continued to Budget Account 3229 and stated that the Division of Child and Family Services was responsible for providing services to children and families under various state statutes and federal regulations. Mr. Cotton explained that the youth community services budget supported out of home placement services for abused, neglected, and/or emotionally disturbed youth through services of contract community placements. Contract community placements included: substitute care for children who must be cared for outside of their home, adoption recruitment, subsidized adoptions, foster home recruitment and training, emergency foster care placement, respite care for foster parents, day care services for children who might otherwise be placed in foster care, and an independent living program for teenagers. Mr. Cotton pointed out that the performance indicators (Exhibit C) were similar to those in Budget Account 3145, with the addition of an indicator for the statewide average of higher levels of care. The funding for Budget Account 3229 was approximately 65 percent federal, 34 percent state, and 1 percent other funds.
Mr. Cotton addressed various decision units in Budget Account 3229. Decision unit M-200 requested additional funding to meet projected caseload increases for subsidized adoptions in rural Nevada. Mr. Cotton said there had been an increase of approximately 20 percent in adoptions, and the additional funding reflected that increase at the current average subsidy rate of $591 per month. Mr. Cotton indicated that federal rules permitted adoptive families to negotiate those monthly stipends based upon the amount of foster care maintenance, which meant food, clothing, shelter, incidentals, or other needs.
Chairwoman Leslie said she was concerned about decision units E-910, E-911, and E-912 dealing with Medicaid and remarked that typically the DCFS had returned to the Legislature every year and asked for an additional appropriation for that area of the budget. She asked how the program was doing and if that would continue to be a problem. Mr. Cotton replied that the program was doing better than it had in the past.
Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer, DCFS, addressed the question and explained that the three aforementioned decision units related to Category 17, the Title XIX Medicaid Medical program. He explained that the program consisted of children receiving medical cards by virtue of being in the DCFS system and eligible for those services. Mr. Baumann conceded that it was an area in which the Division struggled, but the DCFS did not control the costs. The children became sick, the families took them to the doctor, and the DCFS did not control that process but paid the state match for it. Mr. Baumann explained that the proposal was to transfer the base Category 17 budget, as well as the inflation factors for the Medicaid payment projections, to the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. Thus, that Medicaid money would be disbursed like other Medicaid money and would not be the responsibility of the DCFS.
Chairwoman Leslie commented that she thought that was a good idea. She asked if Mr. Baumann was still doing a monthly report on caseloads and encumbrances as a management tool. Mr. Baumann informed the Subcommittee that he was still doing those reports, but in a different form due to difficulties with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program software and syntax files. Chairwoman Leslie asked if an alternative could be used so that the Subcommittee and the staff could receive a report. Mr. Baumann responded that he could supply that report, and he explained that Category 17 and Category 11 (Substitute Foster Care) were cash-based and so those reports could be generated immediately after the end of the month disbursement. He said that Category 13 (Child Welfare) reports were more difficult because that required the SPSS software. That report provided data on the levels of care numbers, and Mr. Baumann assured the Subcommittee that he would provide dollar projections. Chairwoman Leslie said she would like a status report on a regular basis.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if there were any other questions, there being none, she directed Mr. Cotton to continue.
TRANSITION FROM FOSTER CARE (606-3250) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-37
Mr. Cotton presented Budget Account 3250. He explained that it dealt with A.B. 94 of the 2001 Legislative Session and authorized county recorders to charge and collect additional fees to assist persons making transitions from foster care to economic self-sufficiency. He referred the Subcommittee to page 23 of Exhibit C for details of disbursement. Mr. Cotton explained that because the program was new, currently there were no performance indicators. The funding for Budget Account 3250 was 100 percent other funds; there were no state General Fund monies in that account. The recommendation was for a base budget of $1 million per year.
Mr. Cotton explained that the money was given to three entities: the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) for the rural region, Clark County Family Services, and Washoe County Family Services. Mr. Cotton mentioned that the process had proceeded more slowly than he would have liked. During the spring of 2002, the DCFS had met extensively with county staff and other advocates and drafted regulations for the use of those funds. There had been public hearings in June 2002, and in July 2002 the regulations had been approved. Those regulations allowed the funds to be used for services designed to promote economic self-sufficiency and required that at least 90 percent of the funds be spent on direct, concrete services, such as job training, rent, education, health care, and other concrete services specifically for the children. Mr. Cotton said that the regulations also required the establishment of the three oversight committees in Clark County, Washoe County, and the rural region.
Those oversight committees had been formed and had developed plans, which were included in Attachment A (Exhibit C). Those plans had been approved, and the money was given to the DCFS, Clark County Family Services, and Washoe County Family Services. Mr. Cotton said he expected those three entities to spend $500,000 in the current fiscal year. He explained that the $1 million was an annualized cost of what they would receive, and the money was divided by using a formula based on the number of children that were about to “age out” of the system. Mr. Cotton informed the Subcommittee that currently the DCFS had given signed agreements to the counties stating that their plan had been approved and that they would be receiving the money. Mr. Cotton said he did not think the counties had spent the money, but they could spend it at any time.
Chairwoman Leslie commented that Mr. Cotton had anticipated her question, but she confirmed that the money had been sent to the counties according to the plan. Mr. Cotton offered further explanation and said the counties had been given the agreements to sign at the beginning of February, and he did not know if those agreements had been returned. Chairwoman Leslie asked if those counties would be able to spend $500,000 by the end of the current fiscal year. Mr. Cotton admitted he was not sure, but that had been the original plan. He reminded the Subcommittee that the process had taken longer than anticipated. There had been a substantial amount of citizens involved in the planning and some of the plans had been very creative. Chairwoman Leslie agreed that the plans were different and she felt the plans were good, but she wanted to voice her concern that the money needed to be given to the foster children who needed it.
Senator Cegavske said there had been some discussion about the children “aging” out of the system. She asked if there had been any study to examine the cost of instituting a program that continued to pay until the child graduated from high school even if he had already turned 19. Mr. Cotton replied that two bills had been submitted with fiscal notes regarding similar situations. One of the bills allowed children to maintain medical care until they turned 21. The other bill allowed the children themselves to receive the amount paid to foster care providers as long as they were in high school or some other type of educational program. Mr. Cotton said he did not have those fiscal notes, but he said those bills had been heard in the Committee on Health and Human Services, and he thought the bills would be presented to the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with the fiscal aspects. Senator Cegavske asked if Mr. Cotton knew the number of high school children those bills could affect. Mr. Cotton replied that he did not have those numbers, but he would be able to provide them.
Chairwoman Leslie remarked that the Committee on Health and Human Services had had a good discussion regarding those same topics and she thought that Senator Cegavske would be pleased with the results.
HR, VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (101-3181) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-41
Mr. Cotton presented Budget Account 3181 on page 25 of Exhibit C. He explained that the Victims of Domestic Violence program awarded funds to nonprofit agencies statewide to provide direct services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Those services included shelter, crisis phone access, emergency assistance, advocacy, and counseling. There were viable programs in all 17 Nevada counties with trained staff and volunteers. Mr. Cotton stated that the DCFS was responsible for monitoring programs to ensure compliance in granting funds and maintaining financial records of those funds. A.B. 94 of the 71st Legislative Session established that $20 of each marriage license, $5 from each marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace, and $5 from each marriage solemnized by a Commissioner of Civil Marriages would go toward the provision of services to victims of domestic violence and their dependents. The various performance standards and performance indicators were explained on page 26 (Exhibit C). There were no enhancement units. Mr. Cotton said the budget was very straightforward and was 100 percent other funds; there were no federal funds or state funds in the account.
Assemblyman Goldwater asked if the DCFS did any media advertising and if those costs were included in the base budget. Mr. Cotton replied that he did not believe so, and Mr. Baumann addressed the question in more depth. Mr. Baumann said that recently a similar question regarding advertising had been asked by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Fiscal Analysis Division and the requested information had been sent to Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division. Mr. Baumann explained that the report provided information on any amount over $2,000 spent in advertising and public relations, and he would be happy to provide that same report to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Cotton interjected that he was currently working with two advertising agencies to procure pro bono work. He pointed out that the advertising agencies had pro bono money in their accounts, and he was hoping the agencies would divert some of that money toward services for victims of domestic violence and the prevention of child abuse.
HR, DCFS—JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT (101-3262) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-46
Mr. Cotton explained that the Division of Child and Family Services received funding under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) to develop accountability-based juvenile justice projects. The program assisted communities in juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and accountability functions in juvenile justice. Mr. Cotton explained that 75 percent of the grant was given to units of local government, 15 percent was transferred to Budget Account 3148, the secure juvenile facility budget, and the other 10 percent was used for support within the DCFS. The performance indicators and workload statistics were explained on page 27 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Cotton informed the Subcommittee that there was one major item he needed to point out with regard to funding. Currently 96.29 percent of the funding came from the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG), but in the President of the United States “Federal Funds Information for States” budget brief, which was Attachment B of Exhibit C, the President’s budget for FY2004 eliminated the funding for the program. Mr. Cotton explained that since 75 percent of those funds were given to the counties to implement programs, it could create a problem for the counties. Also, the 10 percent of the funds, which supported 2.5 full-time equivalent positions and related expenses in the DCFS, would be gone. Mr. Cotton directed the Subcommittee’s attention to the criminal justice section on page 5 in Attachment B (Exhibit C) and pointed out that it said the President’s proposal would eliminate the JAIBG funding as it had been deemed ineffective. Mr. Cotton commented that the DCFS had shown the program to be very effective.
Chairwoman Leslie agreed that was a very big concern. She asked if 25 percent of the funds paid for state positions and state operating costs. Mr. Cotton explained that 10 percent of the funds were used to pay for those things.
Chairwoman Leslie asked for clarification of the status of the JAIBG and wanted to know if the funds had been eliminated or if Mr. Cotton thought they would be eliminated. Mr. Cotton explained that the funds were not gone, but the elimination of those funds had been proposed in the President’s budget. In that event, the DCFS would have to decide quickly what course of action to take.
Chairwoman Leslie asked to be kept apprised of the situation and noted that the situation would have a dramatic impact on the counties as well.
HR, YOUTH ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT (101-3147) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-49
Mr. Cotton asked Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, to present Budget Account 3147. Ms. Smith identified herself to the Subcommittee and said Budget Account 3147 was designed to give money to Clark County for the Spring Mountain Youth Camp and to Douglas County for the China Spring Youth Camp and Aurora Pines Girls Facility. Ms. Smith explained that there was a percentage of General Fund dollars the state gave to those three facilities and the additional funds for Aurora Pines and China Spring were based upon the county participation of all the counties, with the exception of Clark County.
Chairwoman Leslie asked for clarification of the salary costs increase. She wanted to know whether it was based on a cost of living increase or a merit increase. Ms. Smith explained that that increase was a result of the cost for a new maintenance person at China Spring. The director of China Spring Youth Camp intended to allocate the entire cost to the 16 counties; it would not be state General Fund dollars. Chairwoman Leslie clarified that the counties would be paying for that as part of their assessment, and Ms. Smith confirmed that. Ms. Smith informed the Subcommittee that the director of the China Spring Youth Camp and the Aurora Pines Girls Facility was present to address the Subcommittee if there were questions. Chairwoman Leslie indicated she would like him to speak, and she said she would like to recognize former Nevada State Senator Lawrence Jacobsen in the audience.
Steven Thaler, Director of China Spring Youth Camp and Aurora Pines Girls Facility, addressed the Subcommittee. Mr. Thaler began with a summary of the background of the two facilities and said that after the Aurora Pines project had been developed, the Legislature had funded the building costs in 1999 and the operating costs in 2001. Mr. Thaler wanted to speak regarding the budgets of China Spring Youth Camp and Aurora Pines.
Mr. Thaler addressed the facility for boys, China Spring Youth Camp, and said there were currently 41 boys in the camp. It was meant to be a 40-bed facility, but there were 41 beds. There were also 37 boys on the waiting list to get into the camp. Mr. Thaler explained that the average length of stay for a boy was five to six months, which meant that he could release the current 41 boys, admit the boys on the waiting list, and then it would be another five to six months before another boy would be able to enter the camp. Mr. Thaler mentioned that because he felt it demonstrated that the camp was highly regarded by the probation departments in the state. Mr. Thaler repeated that there were 37 boys on the waiting list. Twenty-five of those boys were currently in detention and two had been in detention since late November 2002.
Mr. Thaler then addressed Aurora Pines, the facility for girls. He said there were currently 20 girls in the facility, which was a 16-bed facility. There were rooms for 24 girls as the facility had been built with the intention of expanding at a later date, but Aurora Pines was only staffed for 16. There were 10 girls currently on the waiting list, which meant that a girl placed on the waiting list would have to wait until late May or early June of 2003 to enter the camp due to the length of the program. Mr. Thaler stated that 37 girls had participated in the program, which included the 20 currently in the program. The original projection had been for 32 girls to go through the program in a year period, and that had already been exceeded. Mr. Thaler emphasized that the increased number was due to the high demand for those services.
Mr. Thaler said he would like to address two areas in the budget. The first was maintenance. He explained that in years past the maintenance work had been contracted out or the staff of the facilities did the maintenance work. That had worked well; however, the installation of a heating and air-conditioning system required a maintenance person to take care of those needs. Mr. Thaler indicated that one of the recurring budget problems had been an increase in personnel costs of 10.5 percent. Douglas County had recently changed to a merit system, rather than giving a cost-of-living increase. Mr. Thaler reminded the Subcommittee that that had been an issue between the state and the counties, so Douglas County had changed to a system where there was no cost-of-living increase. The county had expanded the merit system from zero to seven, and the county employees worked on a pay-for-performance system. Thus, the better employees performed, the higher the increase. Mr. Thaler indicated that the average merit increase for an employee staying on from year to year would be approximately 4 percent. He said that actually put costs below what would have happened previously. Mr. Thaler said that workers’ compensation insurance had increased 25 percent, which had affected the current budget. He said he expected a 20 percent increase in medical insurance costs to the employees and the counties. The biggest problem he foresaw was the cost of utilities, which had increased 25 percent and would most likely continue to increase over the next biennium. Mr. Thaler reiterated that the only enhancement in the budget was the addition of a maintenance person. He indicated he would be happy to answer any additional questions.
Chairwoman Leslie thanked Mr. Thaler for his comprehensive presentation. She commented that she was pleased to hear that the program was being fully utilized, but she was concerned about the length of stay on the waiting lists, which was causing a longer wait in detention for the children. Mr. Thaler agreed that was a cause for concern and said that he had recently discussed that with Washoe County, who was their biggest client and had sent 20 out of the 41 boys to the camp. Mr. Thaler admitted he was not sure how to address that problem, but he pointed out that there were some parole and probation officers in attendance who might be better able to respond to that concern at a later date.
Assemblyman Hettrick asked Mr. Thaler to address the problems with the water well at the facility. Mr. Hettrick said it was his understanding that the well was failing and water was being hauled into the facility daily. Mr. Thaler said that was correct. He reminded the Subcommittee that the well had been dug in 1997. It was the fourth well for the camp, and it had been used longer than the other three, but it had gone dry. Mr. Thaler explained that, three years before, he had contracted with Douglas County to operate the water system, which at the time had caused an increase in the maintenance portion of the budget.
Mr. Thaler opined that Douglas County would be asking, or had already asked, for a bill draft request for the appropriation of funds to drill another well. Mr. Thaler said he had met with the county manager and key staff from Douglas County to set priorities: the first had been to fill the current 300,000 gallon water tank, which Douglas County had done, and the second had been to build another well, which would require funding. Mr. Thaler reemphasized that the youth camps had been operated with funds from the state and the counties, but the state had always picked up the costs of capital improvements, and he could provide a report of how much state money had been used. Mr. Thaler repeated that there would be a bill draft request, and it would cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000 to drill a new well. Douglas County was working to obtain a grant to help with that cost, but the county was also examining the possibility of extending a water line from Ruhenstroth, which was six miles from the facility. The county was hoping to be able to do that in 2005. Chairwoman Leslie thanked Mr. Thaler for addressing the water issue.
HR, C&FS—JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (101-3148) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-53
Mr. Cotton presented Budget Account 3148 on page 33 of Exhibit C. He explained that S.B. 45 of the 1997 Legislature, gave the Department of Administration statutory authority over juvenile correctional services. The Summit View Youth Correctional Center was a 96-bed structurally secure facility designed to segregate serious and violent juvenile offenders from lower level offenders in the program. Summit View would provide a maximum-security sanction to hold male offenders accountable for delinquent behavior. Unlike the two staff-secure state training centers located in the rural communities, Summit View would be located near Las Vegas, which would allow greater access to community support services, such as psychiatric, substance abuse, and sex offender treatment programs.
Mr. Cotton said that because a significant number of the youth would be from Las Vegas, it increased the opportunities for family involvement. In addition to essential juvenile correctional management and operation, other services would be provided including a comprehensive admission assessment, screening, orientation, an academic program that met the requirements of the Nevada Department of Education, vocational training, substance abuse counseling, group, individual, and family counseling, and growth skills. On-site medical, dental, psychological, and psychiatric services would be provided as well.
Mr. Cotton said the availability of Summit View would reduce the backlog of youth in local detention centers and eliminate chronic overcrowding of the Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko and the Caliente Youth Center in Caliente. He said Summit View was part of Nevada’s continuum of care of graduated sanctions for juveniles, and it would help maximize accountability options and provide protection to the public and victims.
Mr. Cotton emphasized that the program had been developed to allow for growth and development, rather than to simply hold children until their sentences had been fulfilled.
Mr. Cotton pointed out the performance indicators on page 33 (Exhibit C). He explained that the baseline data was very limited. Summit View had opened on June 1, 2000. The previous private contractor had experienced numerous administrative and operations problems, which had affected the program’s development and led to its closure in January 2002. Prior to that closing one of the 48-bed units had been closed from July through August 2001 due to structural damage to the air-conditioning system. Mr. Cotton explained that the unit’s closure meant the facility was limited to 48 residents during that time period. On September 5, 2001, the private contractor notified the state it was going to terminate the contract early, and as a result of that, admissions had been curtailed, eligible youth had been paroled, and other youth had been transferred to other locations.
Senator Raggio remarked that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) was estimating the cost per day per resident to be $141 once the facility was operating at full capacity in 2005. He said he was concerned that the Legislature had previously denied the Executive Branch’s request to reopen Summit View as a state facility, and he was concerned about the relative cost per day. Senator Raggio indicated that staff had provided figures. Prior to the termination of its contract, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) had been operating Summit View at a cost of $122 per day and that had increased to $124 per day in FY2003. Senator Raggio said that the estimated cost to operate the facility with state staff in November 2001 had been as high as $150 per day. He stated that was one of the reasons why the Interim Finance Committee had not wanted to operate Summit View as a state facility. Senator Raggio asked if, when the Request for Proposal (RFP) had been produced, there had been an attempt to reopen Summit View with a contractor. Mr. Cotton indicated that was correct. Senator Raggio said it was his understanding that companies would have submitted a proposal if the state had been willing to provide the security for the facility, and he asked if that had been the case. Mr. Cotton said he had heard of that discussion, but no one had approached him directly. He indicated that Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, might be better able to respond.
Senator Raggio said he was concerned about undertaking Summit View as a state-operated facility because of the cost. He commented that it appeared that private contractors were willing to run Summit View at far less cost to the state, if the state would provide the security for the facility. Senator Raggio wanted to know why that option had not been considered.
Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, said the RFP for the operation of Summit View had not been designed to have a private provider provide support services while the state provided security. Senator Raggio said he understood that, but he wanted to know why that had not been an option. He said that several private contractors had expressed interest in submitting a proposal if the state would provide security, and he understood there was a high potential that the overall cost would then be less than what the DCFS was submitting in Budget Account 3148.
Ms. Smith responded that she was vaguely familiar with the discussion, but no one had approached her directly with that scenario. She said her recommendation to the Subcommittee and to her superiors would be to subcontract counseling and things of that nature, but not the security. Ms. Smith said the security cost more than anything else because most of the staff were group supervisors. Ms. Smith stated that if security were not done right, it could be a continued recipe for disaster in that program, and she suggested caution in pursuing that course. She explained that any operator could subcontract approved services. Senator Raggio said his concern was that costs would escalate out of control in the years ahead if Summit View were a state-run facility.
Chairwoman Leslie asked how Rite of Passage (ROP) was working. She asked how many children in Rite of Passage and in Tennessee had come from Summit View when it closed or would go to Summit View if it were opened. Ms. Smith said there were currently 10 youth in Tennessee at Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and there were 22 youth at Rite of Passage. She explained that those youth might or might not have gone to Summit View. She explained that youth had to be moved around in the system based upon the admission criteria used for contract placements. Youth from the admission list were matched to specific programs, which meant that children that might have gone to Summit View most likely had been placed in Tennessee or in the Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko.
Chairwoman Leslie remarked that there were 32 kids in Tennessee and ROP, but those youth would not necessarily have gone to Summit View. She said the Summit View youth were in Elko and asked if the youth currently backed up in detention would be going to Elko. Ms. Smith explained that an assessment would be done, and the youth would be assigned to one of the two training centers in Elko and Caliente, ROP, or CCA in Tennessee. That assignment was based upon the juvenile’s prior record as well as other assessment criteria.
Assemblyman Goldwater asked if the state was pursuing action against the previous private operator at Summit View for events that occurred and lack of performance. Ms. Smith said the final negotiations regarding damages to the facility had been completed and no further action was being considered. Mr. Goldwater asked what the outcome of the negotiations had been. Ms. Smith said the outcome was that the state had not paid for the last two months of service nor had the state paid its share of the medical costs for some of the youth. That offset the amount owed for damages to the facility and the relationship had been terminated without money changing hands. Mr. Goldwater commented that was good news.
Senator Rawson asked if the estimated cost per day was $141, and Mr. Cotton said that was correct. Senator Rawson pointed out that Summit View was a small unit which made it difficult to amortize or develop a cost and he asked if that had been considered during the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Senator Rawson said that Summit View had 90 beds; Mr. Cotton interjected that there were 96 beds. Senator Rawson said, because it was a small unit, a small unit addendum should be included in the RFP. Senator Rawson asked if Mr. Cotton had considered setting the cost per day at $130 and seeing if any contractors were interested in providing services for that amount. Mr. Cotton explained that bids had been received, but the bids were not in a daily rate format due to variables. He said that at the time of the budget crisis, the state had already started negotiations with the bidders to try and determine a daily rate, but setting a rate and asking a contractor to match it had not been considered. Mr. Cotton said that Willie Smith or Diane Comeaux might be better able to address those concerns.
Senator Rawson inquired as to whether it had been decided that the state would run the facility and there was no possibility of bringing in a contractor regardless of the cost. Mr. Cotton said that had been the decision reached in discussions with the Governor’s Office and the Department of Human Resources.
Senator Rawson said he thought the Subcommittee would want to discuss that decision. He asked if Rite of Passage (ROP) had the capacity to take the youth in the Summit View facility or in the ROP facility, and he wanted to know if ROP had expressed any interest. Ms. Smith asked Senator Rawson to which youth he was referring, and Senator Rawson answered that he was referring to the youth for whom Summit View was being opened.
Senator Rawson said the issue being discussed was that there were not enough placements for youth. He asked what was going to happen to the Summit View building, and Mr. Cotton replied the plan was to open the building as a state-run facility and admit youth. Senator Rawson stated that he was asking about the youth who would be admitted to Summit View and he wanted to know if ROP had been considered as an option.
Mr. Cotton replied that ROP was one of the three agencies that submitted a bid on the RFP. The subsequent budget crisis resulted in the RFP being canceled, but when the bids had been examined prior to that, negotiations had started with a different bidder, not ROP.
Senator Rawson asked if the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) was pleased with ROP or if ROP did not meet the needs of the state. Mr. Cotton said that there were certain kinds of youth that could be housed at Summit View that ROP would not accept.
Assemblyman Hettrick interjected that he had met with representatives from ROP and they had expressed interest in opening the Summit View facility and running it. ROP was running a similar facility in Colorado, and the bid that ROP had submitted, according to what Mr. Hettrick had been told, was $126 per day per resident. Mr. Hettrick said he did not understand why more was not being done to facilitate the process. Mr. Hettrick commented that he would like to have a meeting with ROP, the DCFS, and the Subcommittee to work out details. Mr. Hettrick repeated that ROP was running a facility similar to Summit View in Colorado with great results; however, according to studies that had been done, he thought the results had not been as good for the contractor from Florida whose bid was being negotiated. Mr. Hettrick commented that he did not understand why there appeared to be an ongoing dislike for ROP because of an incident that had occurred six or eight years before, where a young man had been restrained because he had been disobedient in some way, and the technique used had caused brain damage. The incident had been investigated and there had been no findings against ROP. Mr. Hettrick pointed out that ROP had since changed its procedures, and there had been no more incidents. Mr. Hettrick said that ROP was Nevada-based with facilities in Yerington and Douglas County, and he did not understand why ROP could not run Summit View.
Mr. Cotton said he was not familiar with the incident Mr. Hettrick was referring to because he had not been living in Nevada at the time. He said that part of the problem was that the bidding process was confidential, although the bidding information had been provided to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff. An independent panel of five members had reviewed the bids and had chosen, based on costs and other items, to begin negotiations with a different bidder. Mr. Cotton emphasized that the decision had not been an internal decision, but rather the decision of an independent panel.
Senator Rawson said he felt like he was the only person who was unaware of the real situation. He said he sensed that Mr. Cotton had reasons why he wanted the state to run Summit View, but it seemed that Mr. Cotton did not want to address that in public. Senator Rawson pointed out that the state facilities had had problems as well, and he did not want to expand the discussion to include reports and charges made against the state, but he wanted to know if there was some other factor of which he was unaware. Senator Rawson said if that were true, he would like to speak to someone who could explain why there was a driving need for the state to run Summit View.
Mr. Cotton said he would be happy to meet with Senator Rawson and claimed he did not have a hidden agenda and would be very open about why he believed Summit View would be best run as a state facility. Mr. Cotton said Summit View fit into the continuum of care, and gave the state a great opportunity to build a state-of-the-art program. Its proximity to Las Vegas allowed more services to be brought to the youth. Mr. Cotton indicated that he had spoken with many of the people who had taught in the facility when it had been open, and he said they were very anxious to teach there again. People liked working at the facility because they had seen the growth and development in the children. Mr. Cotton reiterated that a state-run Summit View facility made it easier to fit the facility into the state’s continuum of care for children.
Mr. Cotton stated that it was difficult for him to respond to what had happened at the facility when it was privatized because he had not been present. However, he had toured Summit View after the decision had been made to close it, and he had been appalled at the condition of the facility and the treatment of the children. Mr. Cotton said those were situations that he did not intend to allow to happen to children under his jurisdiction. He reiterated that running Summit View as a state facility would ensure that what occurred at the facility would promote the DCFS philosophy of growth and development rather than maintenance. He repeated that he would be happy to meet with Senator Rawson to discuss that.
Senator Raggio said he would like to reiterate the questions that were asked, particularly the question regarding the cost per day. He requested clarification on a few items in the budget. The first item was the debt service payments. Senator Raggio said there was a cost in 2002 for debt service payments and then there was nothing for the next biennium. He asked if the bond had been refinanced and wanted to know what would happen in subsequent biennia when there was a large cost for debt service payments.
Ms. Smith responded that the DCFS fiscal staff might be better able to answer that question, but she said that it was her understanding that the debt service payment had been transferred from Budget Account 3148 to the Department of Administration, which was why there was no cost for the next biennium. Senator Raggio clarified that the debt service payment had not been considered when the per day costs had been computed. Ms. Smith replied that that was correct because that was no longer in Budget Account 3148.
Senator Raggio questioned the amount shown in The Executive Budget as a transfer from education. He asked if that meant distributive school account (DSA) money was being used in the budget account. He pointed out that The Executive Budget showed a transfer from education of $93,696 in 2004 and $145,463 in 2005; Senator Raggio requested clarification regarding the source of that money. Mr. Cotton commented that he believed the money came from the school breakfast and lunch programs, but he would ask Mr. Baumann to address that. Mr. Baumann said that Mr. Cotton had been correct—the money came from the federal school breakfast and lunch programs.
Senator Raggio asked if Clark County School District would provide the aforementioned educational services at Summit View. Ms. Smith indicated that was correct and Senator Raggio asked if that would cost $43,000 each year as was shown in The Executive Budget. Ms. Smith replied that that amount was for summer school only. Clark County School District would fund the regular school year. Senator Raggio verified that the school district would receive the guaranteed pupil support funds, which Ms. Smith indicated was correct. Senator Raggio repeated that the $43,000 was for summer school, and Ms. Smith explained that the school district did not provide a regular summer school program in correctional institutions, so the state would have to pay for that portion.
Mr. Goldwater said that, with all due respect to his colleagues on the Subcommittee, he did not believe the state did a bad job or would do a bad job or did not provide an efficient per day cost of service. Mr. Goldwater said he thought Mr. Cotton had outlined the reasons why Summit View was in Las Vegas and he wanted to see the state resume service at the facility. Mr. Goldwater questioned the state of the equipment and furniture at the facility as Mr. Cotton had said the condition of the facility was poor. Ms. Smith explained that Mr. Cotton had been referring to a situation where the contractor had not kept the facility clean, but the furniture was still there and had reverted back to the state with the original contract. She mentioned that some of the furniture would have to be replaced, but there were computers at the facility. Ms. Smith said she was not sure if the computers would have the capacity to maintain state operations, but there were computers and there was a server. Mr. Goldwater asked if there was an inventory of what was there and what was usable. Ms. Smith said there was an inventory and any additional equipment was detailed in the submitted budget request.
Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, said he would like to clarify a few points. With regard to the debt service payment, he said it was his understanding that the Department of Administration was not taking over that debt; it had been refinanced so there would not be debt service payments for several years, and those payments would resume at a later date. Chairwoman Leslie said The Executive Budget showed a cost of $500 per year, and Mr. Willden responded that those costs were payments to the Treasurer’s Office for a transaction fee.
Mr. Willden commented that several figures had been discussed with regard to the costs submitted in the RFP request. He said he wanted to clarify that the state’s cost was $141 per resident per day to run the facility at full operational capacity. The bids received had ranged from $149 per day to $160 per day. Mr. Willden explained that when a bid was submitted, a selection committee of state employees and juvenile justice professionals chose a bid. After a bid was selected, the cost per day could have been lowered through the negotiation process, but it had not reached that stage due to the fiscal crisis because there was no money to run the facility. Mr. Willden emphasized that the state’s $141 cost per day compared to the bid range of $149 to $162 cost per day.
Chairwoman Leslie commented that that was interesting information, but pointed out that the Tennessee facility cost $113 per day and Rite of Passage (ROP) cost $124 per day, amounts which were significantly lower than the state’s cost of $141 per day. Chairwoman Leslie expressed confusion regarding which children went to which facility, as she had thought Elko was less secure than ROP.
Mr. Willden explained that there were different levels of security. There were staff-secure facilities and top-secure facilities. The Elko and Caliente facilities were staff-secure facilities, which meant there were not certain security measures, such as wire fences surrounding the camp. Mr. Willden said that Tennessee and Summit View were more secure, and that security raised the cost per day. Mr. Willden commented that there was no doubt that the for-profit or nonprofit private sector could hire people at a lower pay range, whereas the state had a higher pay range, which increased the state’s costs substantially. Mr. Willden told the Subcommittee that his analysis of Summit View was that the primary security staff had had a very low pay scale, approximately $19,000 a year, compared to the state’s primary security staff pay scale, which was approximately $30,000 a year, and it was his opinion that the lower pay meant lower quality. Mr. Willden said he did not want to jeopardize the youth at the juvenile correctional facility by having a low-paid staff and a “shoddy” facility. He believed a state-fun facility with tight controls over the policies and practices at the institution would be the best option.
Chairwoman Leslie said she shared those concerns; she did not want to see another contractor with the same problems at Summit View. She said that it would be helpful if Mr. Willden and Mr. Cotton could provide a better analysis of which kinds of children needed which kinds of facilities. She mentioned the children in detention and wanted to know where those children would be placed as well. Chairwoman Leslie reiterated that she wanted a better analysis detailing the “pros and cons” of the state proposal.
Mr. Cotton said he wanted to make two additional points. First, he wanted to clarify that the ROP and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) contracts expired June 30, 2003, so those were being renegotiated and those costs might change. Second, he had asked Ms. Smith to describe the types of children the facilities would not take. Chairwoman Leslie interrupted and said there was not time to address those issues, but she asked him to present that information at a later date.
Ms. Smith offered an additional comment and said that Chairwoman Leslie had indicated that she was under the impression that ROP and CCA were taking the most serious juvenile offenders and Ms. Smith wished to correct that. Chairwoman Leslie interjected that she thought they were taking the youth who would go to Summit View. Ms. Smith said that was not necessarily true and explained that CCA was a secure facility with a similar design to Summit View. ROP did not have that type of security at the facilities in Nevada. She said children were placed according to admissions criteria. Chairwoman Leslie requested that information in writing.
Mr. Hettrick commented that the point was that ROP would be running Summit View, which was a secure facility. Thus, ROP would have that type of secure facility and would have the capability to accept those children. He emphasized that the debate was about who should run Summit View. Chairwoman Leslie added that the debate might also include whether Summit View was even needed. She said there might be better ways to contract out those services as well as better alternative placements. Chairwoman Leslie said she had thought Summit View was needed, but like Senator Raggio, she now wondered if it was needed, as it appeared the state had gotten along without it. Chairwoman Leslie emphasized the need for more information, and she asked Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, to speak to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Pugh introduced himself for the record and added that he was the president of the Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators. He said he did not want to enter into the debate as to who should operate Summit View, but he wanted to address the question of the need for Summit View. He said that as a result of some recent problems that had occurred within the state facilities, 30 beds had been eliminated between the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) and the Caliente Youth Center (CYC). There were 10 children in CCA in Tennessee and 25 children in ROP, but because of the loss of those 30 beds, there had essentially been no increase in the number of beds since 1996 when the Legislature had determined that more beds were needed at the correctional facilities to add to the continuum of care for juvenile offenders in the state of Nevada.
Mr. Pugh opined that Nevada had taken a giant step backward in the previous two years rather than growing to meet the demand. Mr. Pugh said he operated a juvenile detention facility and noted that there were usually 10 children in his facility awaiting transport to a correctional facility. An agreement had been entered into 6 years before as a result of children spending 30 to 45 days in detention rather than the usual 7 to 10 days after appearing in court and being committed to a correctional facility. The agreement had been made that the detention facilities would hold children up to 30 days and during those 30 days the state could assess those children and determine placement. Mr. Pugh said that agreement was still in force, but he pointed out that in the previous year, there had been 75 children in Wittenberg Detention Center that had stayed an average of 10 days beyond that 30 days, which had added to the overcrowding problem on a daily basis.
Mr. Pugh informed the Subcommittee that there were 76 beds in that detention facility, but there had been one day in the previous year when 106 children were being held. Many of those children were awaiting transport to state training institutions or to China Spring Youth Camp, which Mr. Thaler had informed the Subcommittee earlier was a four-month wait. The juvenile detention facilities were not designed or equipped to provide long-term programming for those children. Mr. Pugh pointed out that children were in the detention facility for two to three months throughout the court process, which was the purpose of the facility, but after being committed, children were waiting an additional month, or even two months, before being placed in a facility that was supposed to aid in their rehabilitation and change their behaviors. The end result was that children were experiencing months of “dead time” where they were not being helped. Mr. Pugh emphatically stated that he believed that the Summit View facility needed to be reopened.
Chairwoman Leslie said that Mr. Pugh’s perspective was very helpful, and she noted that the Subcommittee had not received a report with the information that Mr. Pugh had provided. She voiced her concern about children being held in detention and said more alternative placements were needed. Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Pugh to work with Ms. Smith and Kirby Burgess, Director, Clark County Juvenile Court Services, to provide the Subcommittee with a short analysis of exactly what the problems were and what kind of care was needed for the children. Chairwoman Leslie said that would be very helpful.
Mr. Pugh said that there were high-risk offenders that needed that level of high security care. He said that in regard to community-based resources, there was an intensive supervision program with 45 children that was constantly at capacity, there was a day report center with 32 children that was constantly at capacity. Mr. Pugh said that all of the community-based resources were operating at capacity. He explained that all of the children had been given several opportunities to benefit from those programs, unless the offense had been serious enough to warrant immediate commitment. Mr. Pugh emphasized that the demand for community-based resources was growing and was simply not being met.
Mr. Cotton interjected and informed the Subcommittee that on page 36 (Exhibit C) the paragraph under decision unit E-350 provided some information on the number of children waiting in detention. He conceded that it was not as detailed as Chairwoman Leslie wished, and he said he would provide additional information regarding the types of children and the types of facilities. Mr. Cotton pointed out that from July 2002 to December 2002 there was an average of 42 youth per week on the admissions list waiting to be committed and, on an average weekly basis for the same time period, 6 of the 42 children had waited over 30 days for placement. From January 2003 to February 13, 2003, there had been an average of 68 youth per week on the admissions list. Mr. Cotton commented on the reduction of beds to which Mr. Pugh had referred and said that the Nevada Youth Training Center and the Caliente Youth Center had been operating above capacity for the staffing levels. Because of the issues raised by the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) report, those centers had been reduced by 30 beds as there was not enough staff to run the facilities at capacity. Chairwoman Leslie said she understood that and said those issues would be addressed in those budgets. She indicated it was time to move to Budget Account 3179.
HR, CALIENTE YOUTH CENTER (101-3179) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-58
Chairwoman Leslie said the Subcommittee was aware of what the Caliente Youth Center (CYC) was. She mentioned that there was a significant staffing request in the budget and she wanted to know if that was a result of the CRIPA report. Chairwoman Leslie said that the United States Department of Justice had not investigated the Caliente Youth Center but she was under the impression that the additional staff were requested because the same problems that had occurred at the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) were likely to be found at the CYC. Mr. Cotton agreed that there had been no investigation at the CYC, but the staffing levels at both facilities were similar. He said he was not sure if the Subcommittee wanted to address the CRIPA report in depth, and Chairwoman Leslie interjected that she had spoken with Senator Rawson and they had agreed to hold a meeting specifically to address the CRIPA report. At the current meeting, the Subcommittee wished to address budget requests and issues.
Mr. Cotton said that many of the issues raised in the CRIPA report were a result of the lack of staffing. He explained that the facility had had a ratio of children to staff of 15:1 and at times as high as 30:1. The recommended standard was 8:1. Mr. Cotton indicated that the budget recommendation for the Nevada Youth Training Center would change that ratio to 10:1 during waking hours, and 16:1 during sleeping hours. That same recommendation was part of the budget for the CYC because the facilities had the same staffing level issues. Mr. Cotton said this would address issues raised in the CRIPA report, such as being unable to have a two-person response to a child when there was only one person in the room. Mr. Cotton indicated that the superintendents of both facilities were present if the Subcommittee had any questions for them.
Mr. Cotton reiterated that the U.S. Department of Justice had not visited Caliente and Caliente was not referenced in the CRIPA report, which had been given to the Subcommittee (Exhibit C). He emphasized that the staffing level issues were the same at both facilities and in order to meet the standards, he was recommending 19 staff at Caliente and 23 staff at Elko.
Chairwoman Leslie pointed out that in decision unit E-400 there was also a request for a new assistant superintendent, a position which had been eliminated in a hiring freeze in 1976. She asked if that was a result of the CRIPA report. Mr. Cotton explained that the CRIPA report had not specifically recommended that, but it had mentioned that the assistant superintendent position at NYTC had been frozen, and that many of the functions valuable to the operation of the facility in terms of quality assurance could be performed by an assistant superintendent. Mr. Cotton said that, in response, the position at NYTC had been unfrozen and the hiring process had been initiated. He felt that same position was needed at CYC for the same reasons. Chairwoman Leslie commented that the CYC position was a result of the CRIPA report, and Mr. Cotton agreed.
Chairwoman Leslie indicated she had a question on decision unit E-710. She pointed out there was a request for $40,936 to replace commercial dryers and other equipment. Chairwoman Leslie said there was a capital improvement project (CIP) M27A request for $300,000 to replace the original water heater systems. She asked if that was a duplicate request. Mr. Cotton referred the Subcommittee to page 41 (Exhibit C) and said that the $40,936 request had included $25,000 to replace the water heaters. The CIP included that replacement, and so the request would be reduced by $25,000 to $15,936.
Ms. Smith interjected that the superintendent of Caliente Youth Center (CYC) had prepared a packet of information for the Subcommittee. The packet (Exhibit E) provided additional information and detailed the services and programs offered at CYC. Chairwoman Leslie asked the superintendent to briefly explain the packet. She explained that there would be a separate meeting to discuss the CRIPA report and the problems at CYC, so the Subcommittee would be able to read the provided information before the next meeting. Chairwoman Leslie emphasized that the Subcommittee was focusing on the budget accounts. Mr. Cotton suggested that the next meeting should be held at one of the facilities.
Chuck Pyle, Superintendent, Caliente Youth Center, addressed the Subcommittee. He explained that the packet of information (Exhibit E) detailed the biennial report, the CIPs, and the various components of the program, including education and psychological services. Mr. Pyle said it provided a complete overview of the entire operation. The packet also referenced Caliente Youth Center’s involvement in several innovative applications, the performance‑based standards, and attempts to be accredited by the American Correctional Association (ACA). Chairwoman Leslie asked if CYC was not accredited, and Mr. Pyle said it was not. Chairwoman Leslie asked when Mr. Pyle anticipated CYC becoming accredited. Mr. Pyle said that CYC was at the point where it could be “rubber stamped,” but revenue was an issue. The other issue was meeting ACA standards, which were non-mandatory standards regarding statutes and ratios. ACA recommended that there be more staff in order to have sufficient staff adequate to perform the job. Chairwoman Leslie verified that the additional positions were needed in order to be accredited. Mr. Pyle indicated that was correct.
Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Cotton if the institutions were monitored by an entity outside of the Division of Child and Family Service (DCFS) as without accreditation there was no national group that did that. Mr. Cotton explained that he himself visited the facilities, but there was no one outside the DCFS that did that. Ms. Smith said that CYC was participating in a national performance-based standards project, which was funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Through that project, CYC provided data for a national database, which was then monitored by the staff of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) who made site visits. Other than that, there was no formalized monitoring system. Ms. Smith indicated that might be a project for a future date. Chairwoman Leslie asked if there were any other questions, then indicated the Subcommittee would hear the next budget account.
HR, NEVADA YOUTH TRAINING CENTER (101-3259) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS‑63
Mr. Cotton said that the Nevada Youth Training Center budget was very similar to the budget for Caliente Youth Center. He indicated that figures for the projected lengths of stay were outlined as were the funding patterns. There was one decision unit, M-502, that he wished to address and that was a request for a staffing increase. Chairwoman Leslie stated for the record that Mr. Cotton was asking for 23 new staff positions to address the recommendations from the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) report. She assured the Subcommittee that report would be revisited at the next hearing, then indicated Mr. Cotton should present the next budget.
HR, YOUTH PAROLE SERVICES (101-3263) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-68
Mr. Cotton directed the Subcommittee’s attention to page 46 of Exhibit C and indicated that the second paragraph described the components of youth parole services. It detailed the types of activities, the placement, and the counseling provided to youth. Mr. Cotton stated that Budget Account 3263 consisted almost entirely of state General Fund money. Decision unit M-502 requested funding for psychiatric consultations and the costs for medications in order to assist youth correctional services in addressing the needs of youth in residence who had been diagnosed with mental health disorders or mental health and substance abuse disorders. M-502 was in response to the CRIPA report. Mr. Cotton indicated those services would be provided by contractors rather than by staff. Chairwoman Leslie thanked Mr. Cotton for pointing that out and asked if there had been any separate funding previously or if the $113,520 was a new cost. Ms. Smith explained that there had not been separate funding, but M-502 was not a request for new money. M-502 would use existing money in Budget Account 3263, but it would use it differently in order to provide those services. Chairwoman Leslie thanked Ms. Smith for the clarification.
Senator Rawson commented that Nevada usually had a high percentage of adults in the criminal justice system compared to other states, and he wondered if there was a similar rating system relating to youth. Ms. Smith offered to provide that information at a later time. She opined that Nevada was not the best state, in terms of per capita, but she would provide the specific information later.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if the DCFS would be contracting with local professionals in Elko to provide the psychiatric services. Ms. Smith responded affirmatively. Chairwoman Leslie noted that the budget also contained the continuation of funds for the Transitional Community Reintegration (TCR) program, and she asked if that helped alleviate the overcrowding in the youth detention centers. Chairwoman Leslie asked if more money should be allocated to that area. Ms. Smith explained that the design of the program allowed children to be moved from institutions earlier and then provided community support services to prevent parole revocations. Ms. Smith said that in a sense it helped with overcrowding, as the children might not have to return to detention pending parole revocation if that parole revocation could be avoided through community support services. Chairwoman Leslie asked if the program had been working well, and Ms. Smith confirmed that it had. Chairwoman Leslie asked if there were any further questions. There were none.
HR, NORTHERN NEVADA CHILD & ADOLESCENT SERVICES (101-3281) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-72
Mr. Cotton presented Budget Account 3281, the budget for Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services (NNCAS). Mr. Cotton indicated the program description was on page 50 of Exhibit C. He said he would be willing to answer any questions regarding that description. Page 51 (Exhibit C) contained descriptions of the types of programs and the strengths of those programs. Mr. Cotton noted that the residential services program had two components: family learning homes and the Adolescent Treatment Center (ATC). He acknowledged the time constraint and offered to provide more details if the Subcommittee requested them. Mr. Cotton said he would like to point out that the DCFS was not adding any positions in Budget Account 3281, due to the budget situation. He added that there were three positions being eliminated—a personnel analyst position and two administrative support positions. There was an enhancement unit for needed equipment replacement, and there were two decision units to transfer the Infant Enhancement Program and the Home Activities Program for Parents and Youngsters (HAPPY) to the Health Division in order to incorporate the early childhood programs into one division.
Chairwoman Leslie asked why there was no Medicaid revenue in Budget Account 3281. After a pause, Chairwoman Leslie indicated that staff had provided the answer and that the Medicaid revenue was in a different budget account.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) was asking for a new information systems specialist position. Les Gruner, Program Manager, DCFS, addressed that question and said he believed that position had been taken out. Mr. Baumann interrupted and said that was incorrect.
Mr. Baumann explained that several years earlier when the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services was still in the Mental Health Division, the Mental Health Division had contracted with Advanced Information Management System (AIMS) to provide patient billing and tracking services. That system had been used in the south and was then transferred to the north to the Nevada Mental Health Institute; however, it was not used by the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services. AIMS had notified Mental Health and Developmental Services (MHDS) that they were no longer going to support the AIMS product; AIMS had been sold to another entity. That had created problems for the DCFS in supporting the billing system, which created most of the revenue in the adult program in Nevada and the child program in the south. Mr. Baumann pointed out that the changes would take the DCFS out of compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1997. The company that had purchased AIMS had provided a needs analysis for the adult and child programs, and the budget reflected the cost that would be borne by the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services. Mr. Baumann said that the budget for mental health contained the majority of the expenses and the Mental Health and Developmental Services’ (MHDS) budget included the cost for the AIMS system as a whole, including staff. Mr. Baumann explained that MHDS had staff in its budget that the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services had been using to run billing processes and reports. Mr. Baumann said that the requested systems specialist position would manage the system.
Chairwoman Leslie asked why General Fund money was being used for this position. Mr. Baumann said there had been a previous meeting with the Department of Administration, and it had been determined that in the MHDS budget there were portions of the contract money that had been transferred to Budget Account 1325. Chairwoman Leslie expressed confusion and asked Mr. Baumann to work with Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff to clarify why General Fund money was being used as opposed to Medicaid. Mr. Baumann replied that MHDS had a quality assurance unit that received Medicaid administrative money. The DCFS did not have such a unit. Chairwoman Leslie questioned the possibility of accessing Medicaid money through the DCFS to pay for that position. Mr. Baumann said that there would eventually be Medicaid money. He said that any kind of cost borne by a facility eventually made its way into the costs with the cost analysis, but that process would take time. Chairwoman Leslie reiterated her request that he speak to LCB staff to justify the funding source for the position.
Mr. Cotton pointed out that there were 2 positions shown on page 55 in Exhibit C and one of those positions, the privacy officer, had been eliminated. Chairwoman Leslie thanked him for pointing that out and asked if Mr. Gruner had any additional comments with regard to the waiting list.
Mr. Gruner said the waiting list for the outpatient program consisted of approximately 173 children. He said that, as Mr. Cotton had pointed out, in order to meet the 3 percent budget cut and the flat budget parameters, the decision had been made to cut two support positions as well as a personnel analyst position. Mr. Gruner explained that in order to increase positions in the outpatient program, there would have had to be cuts made in other programs, which was decided against as those programs were operating at full capacity. Chairwoman Leslie said she understood that, but she voiced her concern for the children on the waiting list who had to be suicidal or extremely sick before they were treated, which then moved another child further down the list. Chairwoman Leslie declared that she was looking forward to the day when Nevada provided basic mental health care to every child who needed it. Mr. Gruner agreed and emphasized that if a child was suicidal or in need of acute care, that child received those services whether through the DCFS programs or through contract requests. Chairwoman Leslie acknowledged his point and repeated that her concern was that children had to wait on the list until they were extremely ill rather than receiving treatment that would prevent them from becoming that ill.
Chairwoman Leslie asked if there were any other comments, and as there were none, she indicated the Subcommittee would hear Budget Account 3646.
HR, SOUTHERN NEVADA CHILD & ADOLESCENT SERVICES (101-3646) – BUDGET PAGE DCFS-79
Chairwoman Leslie indicated that Senator Coffin had expressed interest in Budget Account 3646 and might be attending the meeting in order to ask questions. Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Cotton if he would like to comment on the budget account. Mr. Cotton said he was aware of the issues, and he commented that the discussion at the end of Mr. Gruner’s presentation was a good segue into the issues involved with Budget Account 3646. Mr. Cotton felt that all the programs operated by the DCFS were good programs; unfortunately, maintaining and increasing all the programs had not been an option and some programs had been cut. Senator Rawson said he had several questions regarding the closing of units in the Desert Willow Treatment Center. Senator Rawson remarked that therapeutic foster care could be beneficial, but he expressed his concern about the closing of a 12-bed specialized unit for adolescent sexual offenders. Senator Rawson said that the DCFS had been trying to add beds in that area for ten years, and he wanted to know how those children would receive treatment with the closing of the unit.
Christa Peterson, Deputy Administrator, Southern Region, said she appreciated his comments. Ms. Peterson said the DCFS had fought very hard to have treatment options available for adolescent sexual offenders. The program that would be cut had been serving those children for approximately 13 years. There were private facilities that provided the same level of residential treatment for adolescent sexual offenders, both in northern and southern Nevada. Ms. Petersen explained that, as the majority of the referrals to the program were from Clark County Juvenile Probation and from Youth Parole Services, there was funding available through the Medicaid budget and also through the DCFS Budget Account 3229 to fund the cost of private facility placements for those adolescents.
Senator Rawson commented that the program had been cut for budget savings, but he wanted assurance that there would be adequate resources available to provide the needed treatment. Ms. Peterson said she could not guarantee that there would be enough beds to service the population of children that had been in the program, but the DCFS would work with the private facilities to increase their capacity as necessary pending the closure of that unit at Desert Willow in a year.
Senator Rawson questioned whether it would be better to continue with the state or to use the private sector. He asked if there were problems of which the Subcommittee was not aware which would make the private sector a better choice. Mr. Cotton stated that he believed it was a good program, but during the budget deliberations the DCFS had examined programs that were underused or services that could be provided in a different way. He said he felt the DCFS could handle the current capacity; the closure had been planned for FY2005 rather than FY2004 to allow time to work out capacity issues. Mr. Cotton assured the Subcommittee there were no underlying problems with the program.
Chairwoman Leslie commented that she shared Senator Rawson’s concern about the closure of the unit for adolescent sexual offenders and she requested that Ms. Peterson, with input from the counties, provide more detail in writing regarding the reasoning behind the closure and alternative treatment for those children.
Chairwoman Leslie noted that Senator Coffin was present and as he had expressed great interest in this budget account, she recognized him for questions.
Senator Coffin said he appreciated the indulgence of the Subcommittee. He said that Mr. Cotton had indicated there was no underlying reason for the closure of the pediatric unit at Desert Willow, and he thought that indicated the unit was functioning the way it was supposed to, although subject to the customary problems that any pediatric unit had.
Mr. Cotton explained that the Subcommittee, prior to Senator Coffin’s arrival, had been discussing a different unit for adolescent sexual offenders, but he felt the comments regarding that unit’s closure could apply to the pediatric unit’s closure as well. Chairwoman Leslie explained for Senator Coffin’s benefit that there were two units being closed, the pediatric unit and a unit for adolescent sexual offenders. Chairwoman Leslie allowed Senator Coffin to address the pediatric unit closure.
Senator Coffin said he wanted to make sure his feelings were known to those in attendance at the meeting. He had visited the pediatric unit at Desert Willow in the past, and he had made two recent trips to the outside provider that had been mentioned most often as a potential safety net. That provider was Montevista, a medical center, which Senator Coffin felt offered good care and had a good medical staff. He opined that there was nothing wrong with Montevista as far as treatment went, but his concern was that the state had an obligation to offer mental health care for the state’s citizens. He said that mental health care was a controversial topic, but the pediatric unit helped children under the age of 12 who were suicidal or who had serious problems and had nowhere else to go. Senator Coffin said that those children needed something other than an institutional setting of a large commercial nature. Senator Coffin commented that Mr. Cotton had mentioned foster care as an alternative to the pediatric unit, but there was a cut in the budget for the training of foster care families who would be caring for mentally ill children.
In response to those comments, Mr. Cotton said that the therapeutic foster care program had expanded. He said he had received a report the day before which had shown a large number of beds available in therapeutic foster care homes. Mr. Cotton felt that fit into his ultimate goal, which was community-based services with wraparound care. He indicated that the pediatric unit was being closed because it was being underused; the unit had been created to fill a void that no longer existed.
Senator Coffin remarked that there was a high turnover rate in foster homes, and he asked if there was a similar rate in therapeutic foster homes. Ms. Peterson said that there had been a great deal of success in placing children in therapeutic foster homes, particularly in southern Nevada. The contractors had taken some of the most difficult children, children who had been placed out of state for many months or even years. Ms. Peterson explained that in the late 1980s there were no therapeutic foster home contractors in Nevada, and the state had been unsuccessful in attracting any to Nevada, despite having funding. In response there had been a collaborative effort between the Division of Mental Health and the Division of Welfare to develop a state-run therapeutic foster care program. There had been 30 foster care providers, and 3 positions had been moved from BA 3646 to provide training and support for those 30 homes. Those homes remained full and were very successful for many years. However, there were now 4 therapeutic foster care private providers in the state who were providing several hundred therapeutic foster care beds, as well as the infrastructure and the staff to train, recruit, and provide support to those homes.
Senator Coffin asked if that meant a family setting in a residence. Ms. Peterson responded affirmatively and explained that those were individual family foster homes. The families had been specially trained and recruited by the provider and received ongoing support from professionals who came into the home and helped them design intervention strategies for the children. Senator Coffin questioned whether the level of care was less because there was not 24-hour nursing care. Ms. Peterson said that was correct, there was not 24-hour nursing care. Senator Coffin asked if the homes had lockdown to prevent the children from escaping. Ms. Peterson replied that the level of care was not the same as that provided by the pediatric unit. There was not 24-hour supervision or 24-hour nursing care. Senator Coffin verified that the existing facility was being used, indicating that six of the eight beds were in use. Ms. Peterson said that currently there were four beds in use, and there were five vacant positions in the unit. Senator Coffin pointed out that the number of children in the unit fluctuated, and Ms. Peterson agreed that there was a range from three to eight children at any given time.
Senator Coffin repeated his earlier question and asked what the turnover rate was in those 30 therapeutic foster care homes. Ms. Peterson responded that the state‑run program had only been able to maintain 20 family foster homes as the state paid less than the private providers. Senator Coffin asked again what the turnover rate was. Mr. Cotton expressed his confusion and inquired if Senator Coffin was asking about turnover of the families who provided foster care or of the children being moved. Senator Coffin asked how long the children stayed at those homes before the families gave up and sent them somewhere else. Ms. Peterson replied that she could not give him the exact length of stay, but it was normally 9 to 18 months, a fairly long length of stay. Ms. Peterson pointed out that many of the therapeutic foster care parents actually adopted the children, if they were eligible for adoption. Some of the children returned to their biological families and others were moved to long-term family foster care.
Senator Coffin asked if any of the children were retarded. Ms. Peterson explained that many of the children were dually diagnosed. The day before a child with an IQ of 46 and severe emotional disturbance had been placed in a therapeutic foster care home.
Senator Coffin asked what the total cost of maintaining the program was and how that compared to the amount saved by closing the Desert Willow pediatric unit. Mr. Baumann said that the savings for closing the unit in the first year were $844,000, and $491,000 was General Fund; the second year savings were $877,000, and $523,000 would be General Fund. Chairwoman Leslie interjected and inquired if the money was being saved or if it was being transferred from the pediatric unit into the therapeutic foster care budget. Mr. Baumann replied that there was no transfer in the budget. Chairwoman Leslie asked if there was an increase in the therapeutic foster care budget. She asked where the money generated from the closure of the pediatric unit was being used. Ms. Peterson said that the program closure was necessitated in the budget account in order to meet the flat budget request. Chairwoman Leslie clarified that the therapeutic foster care budget would then be funded under the regular budget cycle. Ms. Peterson confirmed that and indicated that was Budget Account 3229.
Senator Coffin asked how much money was going to be saved for the current fiscal year. Mr. Cotton asked if he was inquiring specifically about the children’s acute unit. Senator Coffin replied that he wanted to know how much money would be saved by closing the pediatric unit. Mr. Baumann misunderstood the question and replied that the amount would be $491,000. Ms. Peterson interjected that she could give Senator Coffin an estimate of $101,000 for the last quarter.
Senator Coffin voiced his concern that the problem was that the closure was set for the middle of the fiscal year before the Legislature had a chance to vote on taxes that could be used to maintain the program. Senator Coffin opined that money from the Rainy Day Fund or money from increased taxes could go toward that budget. Senator Coffin commented that it seemed another budget had not been supplemented, and another budget would have to be drained to care for those children. He suggested that perhaps there was a way to delay the closure until July 1, 2003, so the situation could be investigated further.
Chairwoman Leslie thanked Senator Coffin for his comments and reminded the Subcommittee there would be another meeting to address those issues in more depth. Senator Coffin thanked Chairwoman Leslie for inviting him to the meeting. Senator Mathews interjected that she was concerned about children who did not receive the proper care, particularly children with mental illness. She commented that there should be an appeals process to delay the closure until July 1 because there were children who needed the care.
Mr. Cotton commented that there were people in attendance at the meeting who could have testified regarding the rural step-down program, which had been very successful. In August there were 96 children with severe emotional disturbance in higher levels of care; the step-down program had been implemented and there were currently 65 children in those higher levels of care. Mr. Cotton wanted to emphasize that the program was working.
Chairwoman Leslie commented that she was not necessarily against the proposal, but she felt there were questions raised that needed to be addressed. Chairwoman Leslie apologized to the public for not having time for public testimony, but she assured the audience there would be another meeting and all who wished to testify could do so at that time. Senator Cegavske offered one last comment and said she was concerned about the lack of counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists coming into the state. She opined that the biggest problem in all of the budgets was appropriate staffing and she felt that salary and benefits and incentives needed to be examined. Chairwoman Leslie thanked the Subcommittee for their comments and Mr. Cotton and his staff for their presentation. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Susan Cherpeski
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Chairwoman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: