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

March 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 3:33 p.m., on Thursday, March 20, 2003.  Assemblywoman 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

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Barbara Cegavske

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator William J. Raggio

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary

 

 

Chairwoman Leslie called the Subcommittee to order and advised that Edward Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), was unable to attend the meeting in person and would participate via conference call.  She instructed Mr. Cotton to join in whenever he wished to address an issue under discussion, and he indicated he would do so.  Chairwoman Leslie advised that Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources (DHR), would provide the history surrounding the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) and the resultant investigations.  The Subcommittee would then hear recommendations from persons involved in the juvenile justice system regarding the status of the state’s response to the CRIPA report of November 12, 2002, pertaining to the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) in Elko.  Chairwoman Leslie announced that the Subcommittee would also hear testimony from the public regarding the situation at the NYTC. 

 

Mr. Willden introduced Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services; Dale Warmuth, Superintendent, NYTC; Chuck Pyle, Superintendent, Caliente Youth Center (CYC); and Edward Cotton, who would participate via conference call.  Mr. Willden voiced appreciation to the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the aforementioned CRIPA investigation and indicated he would provide an overview.  His staff would then address key findings in the investigation and explain the state’s response to those findings.  He indicated that he would also like to address the budget impact and requests associated with the CRIPA investigation.  Mr. Willden reiterated that he would present the history of the CRIPA, and his staff would then discuss the key findings of the CRIPA investigation and the state’s response to those findings.  He remarked that he would also like to discuss the budget impact and budget requests associated with the CRIPA investigation. 

 

According to Mr. Willden, notice of the CRIPA investigation was provided on December 6, 2001.  At that time the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) advised Governor Guinn that it intended to open an investigation, and the purpose of the investigation would be to determine whether conditions at the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) violated any of the inmate’s civil rights.  On December 20, 2001, the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office was given notice by the DOJ that representatives would tour the facility in February 2002, and the DOJ also requested that certain records be provided.  Mr. Willden reported that the requested records were provided, and were either reviewed in the DOJ office or on-site at the Elko facility. 

 

During the week of February 11 – 13, 2002, the DOJ conducted an on-site visit to the NYTC, and also conducted an exit conference, which would be discussed by Ms. Smith.  Mr. Willden advised the Subcommittee that he had read press coverage and had received inquiries from legislators regarding the reaction of the DHR during the time frame between the DOJ visit in February 2002 and the ultimate report dated November 12, 2002.  Mr. Willden remarked that he wanted to dispel any rumors or ideas that the DHR had not reacted to the conditions at NYTC until November 2002.  He emphasized that the minute the investigation was completed and verbal findings had been conveyed, the DHR initiated corrective action planning, and following the exit conference, any issues that had been identified in that conference were immediately addressed. 

 

According to Mr. Willden, the DHR had not received the report from the DOJ until November 12, 2002, and six findings were outlined in that report.  He reiterated that a great deal of work had gone into addressing the issues identified during the visit and the exit conference prior to receipt of the DOJ report.  Following receipt of the official DOJ report dated November 1, 2002, Mr. Willden indicated that the DHR was provided copies of the reports from two independent consultants that had participated in the investigative process.  The DOJ took those consultant’s reports into consideration in development of the overall report for Nevada, however, the DHR had not been provided the details of those independent consultant reports until approximately November 24, 2002.  Mr. Willden advised the Subcommittee that the DHR had been granted a set amount of time to respond to the DOJ report, which had been completed. 

 

Per Mr. Willden, the Governor sent a letter to the DOJ dated January 10, 2003, Exhibit C, which detailed the actions that had immediately been implemented once notification was received from the DOJ after its visit to the facility.  Mr. Willden stated those actions ran the entire gambit from changes in procedures to termination of employees, and the Governor was very clear that he was committed, as was the DHR, to correcting the issues even prior to receipt of the DOJ reports. 

 

As the Subcommittee was well aware, Mr. Willden explained that the budget presentation for the DHR had been due at the Budget Office of the Department of Administration in the latter part of August or early September 2002.  Mr. Willden indicated that the DHR had clearly worked through several issues pertaining to the NYTC which dealt with staffing, the need for additional counselors, nurse staffing hour ratios, grievance procedures, and medication issues.  Mr. Willden pointed out that those issues were all reflected in The Executive Budget within four different decision modules in four separate budget accounts, and had been identified prior to receipt of the DOJ report; he remarked that receipt of the report had not changed the budget recommendations.

 

It was Mr. Willden’s understanding that representatives from the DOJ would be in Nevada again on April 8, 2003, and would be working with state staff to either accept, finalize, or modify the DHR’s proposed corrective action plan.  Mr. Willden hoped the Subcommittee understood that the DHR had taken the investigation very seriously, and staff had been working diligently to make the necessary corrections.  The DOJ visit to the NYTC had not come as a total surprise, and Mr. Willden noted that issues had arisen which were indicative of some areas of concern as early as July 2000.  He emphasized that prior to the DOJ notification action had been taken by management at the facility and the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) within the Department of Human Services (DHR).  Mr. Willden pointed out that it had been an ongoing process, which would continue until pending budgetary requests had been addressed by the Legislature. 

 

Mr. Willden asked that the Subcommittee take under consideration and review the positive aspects that occurred at both the NYTC and the Caliente Youth Center (CYC), as pointed out in the briefing report provided to the Subcommittee, Exhibit D.  Per Mr. Willden, the findings of the DOJ and the independent consultants reflected many of the beneficial programs and elements within both facilities and, hopefully, the Subcommittee would not lose sight of those positive elements.  

 

Chairwoman Leslie made it clear that the Subcommittee had not met just to discuss how awful conditions were at the facilities, and did recognize that good work had been done at both the NYTC and the CYC.  When the CRIPA report was read, many “red flags” were raised regarding some very serious issues, and Chairwoman Leslie opined that the Legislature had a duty to ensure that children under the state’s jurisdiction and charge were well cared for.  She hoped that no one would be defensive regarding the issues discussed at the hearing, and explained that the Subcommittee wanted to ensure that the problems would be addressed if budget requests were granted. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie noted that on April 8, 2003, the DOJ would return to the NYTC for an interview and progress report, and she asked how much impact legislative action would have regarding whether the DOJ believed the problems could be addressed in terms of budgetary requests.  Mr. Willden advised that Ms. Smith would respond to that question, however, he did believe legislative decisions would have significant impact, as there were three key findings in the DOJ report that the DHR could not ultimately resolve without appropriate legislative action.  The nursing staff ratio was one issue, and Mr. Willden pointed out that each facility had only one nurse on staff.  That equated to 21 shifts in a week where problems could occur, and the nurse could only cover four or five of those shifts, depending on the schedule for the nurse.  Mr. Willden emphasized that additional nursing hours were imperative, which was one of the budget requests. 

 

Mr. Willden acknowledged that the DOJ had not specifically recommended a staffing ratio in its report, however, did indicate that the facilities had to have adequate staffing after having made the determination that the staff ratio was not adequate at the NYTC.  Mr. Willden reported that the DHR needed to address the issue of adequate staffing, and had included a 1:10 and 1:16 staffing ratio within the budget request for both facilities.  According to Mr. Willden, the counseling positions were also a significant issue, and he believed the DOJ would review the progress made to date regarding those problem areas.  He stated the DHR would be able to report to the DOJ at the meeting on April 8, 2003, that the items had been addressed in the budget request, which was still under consideration.  Mr. Willden wondered if perhaps the budget would be closed prior to that date.

 

Chairwoman Leslie was not sure how likely it would be that the budget would be closed by that date, and asked whether there were any questions from the Subcommittee for Mr. Willden.  Hearing none, the Chair recognized Ms. Smith.

 

Willie Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources (DHR), stated she would address the question regarding the purpose of the upcoming DOJ visit.  Ms. Smith announced that the DOJ’s contact with the state was via the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office, and the DHR had been notified by the AG’s Office that April 8, 2003, would be the date of the next DOJ review.  The DOJ had indicated it would furnish the DHR with a written reply to the state’s response to the CRIPA report prior to that date in order to provide sufficient time for review and preparation for the April meeting.  Ms. Smith stated at the present time, she was not in receipt of that written reply from the DOJ, and doubted that it had been sent.  It was Ms. Smith’s understanding that the purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for the DHR to negotiate the state’s response and the DOJ’s recommendations, and she believed the meeting would take approximately four hours.

 

For the purpose of clarification, Chairwoman Leslie indicated that a written response had not been received from the DOJ regarding whether it found the state’s response to the CRIPA report acceptable, however, a response would be provided to the DHR prior to the April 8, 2003, meeting.  Ms. Smith stated that was correct.  Chairwoman Leslie advised that she would like a copy of the written response from the DOJ when it was received by the DHR. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie explained that the Subcommittee would like to review each of the six major findings of the CRIPA report separately as contained in Exhibit E entitled, “Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services, Nevada Youth Training Center, Review of Findings and Recommendations from the Investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).”  

Senator Raggio advised the Subcommittee that the Senate Finance Committee would be meeting at 5:00 p.m., and he would ask that the Subcommittee conclude its meeting by that time.  Chairwoman Leslie stated she was cognizant of that time constraint.

 

Chairwoman Leslie asked Ms. Smith to briefly outline the CRIPA report findings and the problems observed by the DOJ investigation, beginning on page four of Exhibit E.  Ms. Smith stated she would read the actual finding, and Mr. Warmuth would report to the Subcommittee regarding the measures that had been put into place to correct the problem.

 

According to Ms. Smith, the first finding, and probably one of the most serious, was “Excessive Force,” and the DOJ found that, “NYTC must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the youth in its custody and to protect them from harm from the use of excessive force.  In particular, the facility should: 1. Limit the use of force to situations in which youth pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.”  Ms. Smith noted under that particular finding, the DOJ listed seven issues, and Mr. Warmuth would address each of those seven issues, beginning with number one. 

 

Senator Rawson stated it had been approximately two years since he had visited the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) in Elko, however, during his last visit there had been several gang members from Las Vegas among the population.  Senator Rawson remarked that in his opinion, those juveniles had been “scary” individuals, and the staff at the NYTC appeared to be afraid of those gang members.  He wondered whether such juveniles should be placed in a medium security or higher custody facility rather than at the NYTC.  Senator Rawson surmised that would have some influence on how often, and to what degree, force was used.  He asked whether the population was within the appropriate classification at NYTC at the present time, i.e., juveniles that really belonged in a training center rather than a prison or an out-of-state facility.

 

Ms. Smith believed that issue would involve the proposal to reopen the Summit View Youth Correctional Center in Las Vegas.  She noted that some youths currently in residence at the NYTC should be sent to a much more secure facility, perhaps because of gang-related issues, or because they had failed the NYTC program on other occasions.  According to Ms. Smith, the first choice of Youth Correctional Services would be to place those juveniles in other facilities, however, such a choice was not currently available in Nevada.  Therefore, explained Ms. Smith, juveniles in need of more secure housing were transferred to the Memphis, Tennessee, facility run by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). 

 

Ms. Smith advised the Subcommittee that Mr. Warmuth would address the first issue of the CRIPA report regarding the use of force.  Dale Warmuth, Superintendent, NYTC, indicated that he would first address Senator Rawson’s observation, and reported that the population at the NYTC continued to contain youths with strong gang affiliations.  He explained that staff did tend to react more quickly to those juveniles in order to avoid confrontational situations or out-of-control behavior that might involve several youths; he reiterated that the situation had not changed over the past two years. 

 

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Warmuth reported that the DOJ had requested that the NYTC limit the use of force to situations where youths posed a risk of harm to themselves or others, and he concurred with that request.  However, Mr. Warmuth explained that the NYTC also had retained the ability to use force to control youths who were physically resisting institutional rules.  An example would be a youth refusing to get out of bed in the morning, and Mr. Warmuth explained that if such behavior were allowed to continue, there would soon be four or five youths refusing to get out of bed in the morning and attend school.  Other than that, Mr. Warmuth stated the NYTC had changed its policy to indicate that force was not to be used unless it was to protect a youth from harming himself or others, or escorting a youth to his room.

 

While Assemblywoman Giunchigliani appreciated and recognized the problems caused by gang membership, her concern was centered on the issue of excessive force, and the degree of training received by staff at the NYTC.  If staff were trained to de-escalate a problem, there were takedown maneuvers that would be safe for both youths and staff.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that issue had been briefly addressed, and the CRIPA report included testimony from current and former staff who indicated that, “. . . youths frequently were subjected to verbal abuse, in which their race, family, physical appearance and stature, intelligence, or perceived sexual orientation were aggressively attacked.”  Ms. Giunchigliani stated it appeared that incidents were provoked, and asked what was being done to ensure that staff was properly trained in dealing with such situations, as the reported abuse was uncalled for.

 

Mr. Warmuth agreed that the abuse was uncalled for and would not be tolerated, however, he could not guarantee that abuse had not occurred in the past at the NYTC.  He noted that such incidents did occur in institutions, and the NYTC attempted to take corrective action when such incidents came to light.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked what type of training was provided for the NYTC staff, for example, what training courses were staff required to take prior to assuming staff duties at the NYTC.  Mr. Warmuth explained that currently a 40‑hour orientation period was provided for staff where persons were assigned to cottages, but were not responsible for the actual supervision of any youths.  A 40-hour training program was then initiated where staff members were once again assigned to cottages and participated in maintaining the structure and rules of the cottages, however, were still not completely responsible for the actual supervision of youths.  According to Mr. Warmuth, a national physical restraint process called “Non-violent crisis intervention” was taught by two staff instructors; staff were also taught the de‑escalation process and how to set limits. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that restraint training was included in the 40‑hour orientation for staff, and Mr. Warmuth replied in the affirmative.  He explained that the program had been included in staff training since the DOJ investigation and subsequent report.  Prior to that time, staff had been trained in restraint procedure, but it had not been a part of the orientation process.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether staff were assigned to cottages, but not in a supervisory position, during orientation.  Mr. Warmuth explained that new staff members were assigned with senior staff such as shift supervisors, to learn the appropriate techniques.

 

Chairwoman Leslie asked for clarification regarding the situation with a youth who did not want to get out of bed in the morning, because it was mentioned in the CRIPA report that several youths were “yanked” out of bed and had sustained injuries.  She asked what procedure was used at NYTC in such a situation.  Mr. Warmuth explained that the situation referred to in the report was not a case where a youth simply refused to get out of bed, but rather was a situation where a youth was becoming out of control.  He remarked that there were some youths that had been at other treatment centers where such behavior was tolerated, whereas an entire dormitory at NYTC might be scheduled for morning classes, and a youth would not be allowed to remain in bed. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated she was confused about the current procedure to remove a youth from bed if the youth did not want to get up.  Mr. Warmuth explained that staff would encourage the youth to get out of bed, if that did not work, a shift supervisor would be called, and if the behavior continued, the youth would be removed from the bed.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether staff used physical force to remove a youth from bed.  Mr. Warmuth replied in the affirmative.  Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Warmuth to continue with his presentation regarding complaints contained in the CRIPA report. 

 

Ms. Smith stated that before Mr. Warmuth continued, she would like to address Ms. Giunchigliani’s question about staff training so the Subcommittee could ascertain the reality of the situation.  Per Ms. Smith, the NYTC’s training budget was approximately $3,000 for 98 staff members, which was not an excuse, but was merely part of the reality of the situation.  Ms. Smith indicated the NYTC had managed to train the instructors of the “Non-violent crisis intervention” program through use of grant funds from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).  She explained that much of the training accomplished at the NYTC was provided internally by senior staff, and perhaps through partnerships with other agencies.  Ms. Smith emphasized that the NYTC did not have the luxury of significant outside training. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani voiced appreciation for that clarification and asked how long the NYTC had been in operation; Ms. Smith replied that the facility had been operational for at least 30 years.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that if the training budget was only $3,000, shame on the DHR for not requesting additional training funds, and shame on the Legislature if additional funds were requested but had not been granted.  That aside, Ms. Giunchigliani commented that training should have been part of the very structure that created the program in the first place.  Now, it appeared that training had not been provided because there was no funding, however, she could not recall a request for additional funding for that purpose during the 2001 session.  Ms. Giunchigliani believed that training should have been set up as a separate program, and perhaps what would be garnered at the current hearing was that the situation could not be viewed as simply “sticking youths away.”  She stated there was structure needed in order for youths to re-enter society at some point with skills and attributes that were not abusive, even though they might have been abused within the system that the state sentenced them to in the first place. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that she would like to know how the NYTC had reached the point outlined in the CRIPA report, and whether there were senior staff members involved in any of those incidents who now provided training to new staff; she stated she would have a problem with that scenario.  Ms. Giunchigliani revealed that at some point in time, she would like to know whether anyone was disciplined based on the abusive behavior. 

 

Ms. Smith stated she had not meant to imply that training had not been provided because of a lack of funding, but rather, she wanted to convey that there was only a certain amount of training that the NYTC could afford, and the training provided appeared to be the most significant for staff.  There was other training that the NYTC would like to expose its staff to, however, it had been unable to do so.  Ms. Smith concurred with Ms. Giunchigliani’s statements, and had not offered an excuse, but rather wanted to shed additional light on the situation. 

 

Continuing her presentation, Ms. Smith referenced the second issue in the CRIPA report, as depicted in Exhibit E, “Ensure that, regardless of position or seniority, all staff are held accountable, through meaningful disciplinary action, for the use of excessive force and verbal abuse used to provoke youths into confrontations.”  Ms. Smith said it appeared administrative staff had not used appropriate discipline when it was alleged that staff had used excessive force, or any other violation of facility guidelines.  In order to emphasize the situation with staff, Ms. Smith reported that policies were reissued and staff meetings had been held at which staff received policy training.  She emphasized that each staff person had received a copy of the policy manual.  Also, stated Ms. Smith, to ensure that appropriate disciplinary measures were being used, whenever a staff person was in violation of use of force, or a child abuse investigation occurred relative to an incident, the discipline measure was referred to the Personnel Office of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and personnel staff worked with the NYTC prior to issuance of the final disciplinary action.  Ms. Smith referenced Exhibit E, which indicated the NYTC was currently dealing with two incidents that were being handled in the aforementioned manner.  The NYTC wanted to ensure that discipline was being issued to staff in an appropriate manner and measure.

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated that every person who worked at the NYTC was a mandatory reporter of child abuse, however, it was noted that the reporting procedure for child abuse and neglect had not been revised.  She asked why that procedure had not been followed, and why staff had not reported the apparent abuse at the NYTC.  According to Chairwoman Leslie, that was also one of the issues that she had found most disturbing about the CRIPA report.  Ms. Smith stated the issue was disturbing, and the 98 staff members at the NYTC were well aware that they were mandatory reporters.  That information was provided to staff in their personnel packets, and Ms. Smith stated she did not know why staff had not reported the incidents of child abuse.  If staff did not trust the administration at the NYTC, they could report directly to Child Protective Services (CPS) within the DCFS, and Ms. Smith stated staff also had access to her office. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated that anyone working with youths understood the parameters of mandatory reporting, and she would like to ascertain whether action was being taken to change the culture at NYTC where staff would not report child abuse when it was observed.  Ms. Smith stated one issue was that staff had previously reported to the superintendent as mandatory reporters, however, during training, staff had been instructed that such a report was not sufficient, and staff could not simply report to the superintendent and relieve themselves of that responsibility.  Ms. Smith indicated that staff also had to report to CPS; there had been several training sessions regarding that issue, which had been provided prior to the DOJ investigation.  She further explained that a Deputy Attorney General and the manager of CPS in Elko had visited the NYTC in 2000 and provided training to staff regarding the reporting issue.  Ms. Smith indicated that since the DOJ investigation, training had been provided to staff, and would continue to be provided at least semiannually; staff was also made aware of that provision during the hiring practice. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated review of the procedure outlined in Exhibit D, page 24, indicated that, “When an employee has reason to believe that possible abuse or neglect has occurred, he/she is to submit a written report to the Superintendent’s office. . . .”  However, noted Ms. Giunchigliani, that was not the procedure as stated by law.  According to Ms. Giunchigliani, an employee was to personally call within a 24-hour period if there was a suspicion of abuse, which Ms. Giunchigliani could verify as a former mandatory reporter, and the person responsible for making such a call.  Some staff might not be supported by their administration, which would lend itself to the failure to report abuse, and Ms. Giunchigliani believed that policy should be reviewed by the NYTC.  It would be fine if staff wanted to inform the superintendent, but they were also required to provide a direct report to the appropriate agency. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the information on page 24 of Exhibit D also directed that a mandatory reporter was required to report child abuse or neglect to the DCFS in Elko or the appropriate law enforcement agency, however, failed to address the 24-hour rule.  Per Ms. Giunchigliani, the wording of that policy made it very clear that it would not release a person from duties as a mandatory reporter, however, the premise of the first step did not seem to flow in the correct direction statutorily.           

 

Mr. Warmuth stated the written policy might give that impression, however, all training instructed staff to call the DCFS in Elko to report abuse.  The only reason abuse would be reported to the superintendent would be to ensure the safety of the youth, and to ensure that if a youth were abused by a specific staff member, that staff member would not continue to work with the youth.  Mr. Warmuth reiterated that was the reason for reporting such incidents to the superintendent, however, staff were responsible for placing a call to the DCFS to report an abuse incident.  According to Mr. Warmuth, the proper reporting process had been emphasized at all training sessions held since the DOJ investigation.

 

Mr. Cotton added that the procedure also indicated, “The report to the Superintendent does not relieve you of your responsibility as a mandatory reporter.”  (Exhibit D, page 24.)  According to Mr. Cotton, that was the same language used in schools to ensure that staff would not think that reporting to the principal would be sufficient notice.  He believed that perhaps the order of the wording for the procedure could be changed to meet the concerns that had been raised.  Ms. Giunchigliani opined that the language was misleading because a teacher was not required by law to report anything to the administrator, but rather was required to report directly to Child Protective Services (CPS) within a 24-hour period.  Ms. Giunchigliani appreciated the language that was included in the procedure, which very clearly stated that reporting to the superintendent would not relieve staff from the responsibility as a mandatory reporter; however, there were often persons who were fearful of reporting to the superintendent or administrator, believing that the report might be blocked at that point. 

 

Mr. Willden testified that the order of the wording in the procedure would be changed to emphasize the requirements for mandatory reporters, and advised the Subcommittee that there was also a 72-hour CPS investigation rule.  According to Mr. Willden, Mr. Cotton had made it very clear to the CPS office in Elko that staff would react within a day in response to any institutional report.  Mr. Willden reiterated that the procedure had also been strengthened on the CPS side.  Chairwoman Leslie stated she appreciated that change in procedure.

 

Continuing her presentation, Ms. Smith announced that the third issue of the CRIPA report under “Excessive Force,” was, “Maintain staff ratios that will permit staff to supervise, and maintain control of, youth without resorting to excessive use of force.”  She explained that it was difficult to maintain staff ratios when the NYTC did not have adequate staff to maintain what was recommended as the national standard for staffing ratios.  Ms. Smith noted that additional staff had been requested in the budget to improve the staffing ratio at the NYTC and the CYC.  Currently, said Ms. Smith, the staff ratio at the NYTC at best was approximately 1:15, and at worst, the ratio was 1:30, which would not be suitable under any circumstances, particularly for an institution such as the NYTC.  According to Ms. Smith, supervising youths with problems in a group setting did not work well without adequate staff, and she explained that additional staffing had been requested which would increase the ratio to 1:10 during waking hours and 1:16 at night. 

 

Ms. Smith reported that along with the issue of the direct care staffing ratio was the NYTC counselor staff ratio, which was currently at approximately 1:53.  That ratio signified that the NYTC did not have adequate professional counselors to address issues which might cause youths to act out more frequently, such as problems relative to family issues, issues with peers, or issues with staff.  Ms. Smith stated that was the reason additional staff had been requested to reduce that ratio to 1:27. 

 

Per Ms. Smith, the NYTC was currently recruiting for the psychologist position.  She advised that the budget request also sought a reallocation of funds so that consulting psychiatric services could be provided for youths at the training centers, and for youths on parole who did not have access to such services, in an attempt to address that particular issue.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the number of teachers on staff at the NYTC.  Ms. Smith stated she would defer to Mr. Warmuth for the answer to that question.  Mr. Warmuth explained there were 12 academic teachers and 6 vocational instructors.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether academic classes were handled through the school district or whether the NYTC was an independent system.  Mr. Warmuth stated it was an internal system.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the accreditation for that system.  Mr. Warmuth indicated accreditation was through the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the grade levels were set at junior and senior high school.  Mr. Warmuth stated the NYTC included a junior/senior high school.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked about middle school; Mr. Warmuth explained that there were a few eighth grade students in the NYTC population.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the needs of those students were addressed.  Mr. Warmuth replied that the NYTC education program was accredited as a junior/senior high school, and could provide programming for all the youths at the facility.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the teachers were licensed; Mr. Warmuth replied in the affirmative. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many special education teachers were on staff, and Mr. Warmuth explained there was one special education teacher at the present time.  Ms. Giunchigliani then asked how many special education youths with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) were currently housed at the NYTC; Mr. Warmuth stated he did not have that number at the present time.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would be curious to find the number, because A.B. 280 of the Sixty-ninth Session would also come into play for the purpose of reporting any possibilities of disciplinary action if there were any special education youths on the NYTC campus.  She reiterated that she would be curious to discover how the special education youths and their IEPs were handled, and how A.B. 280 of the Sixty-ninth Session had been applied by the NYTC.

Chairwoman Leslie asked Ms. Smith to continue her presentation.  Ms. Smith explained that the fourth issue under “Excessive Force” was, “Ensure that all instances of use of force are immediately, thoroughly, and reliably documented and investigated,” which would be addressed by Mr. Warmuth. 

 

Mr. Warmuth explained that the NYTC currently utilized its shift supervisors to conduct the initial inquiry into all use of force incidents.  If there was substantial reason to believe that abuse had occurred, Child Protective Services (CPS) would be called immediately.  Mr. Warmuth noted that CPS was currently responding within a few hours of such calls; in the past, the response time had been measured in days before CPS responded.  He remarked that the NYTC also utilized its Board of Review, which consisted of the various department heads, to review every use of force incident, as well as other incidents that might have taken place, in order to analyze the situation and determine exactly what had occurred.  Mr. Warmuth said that would alleviate the possibility of one person, either the superintendent or assistant superintendent, making those determinations.

 

Chairwoman Leslie noted that Exhibit E indicated, “Since February 2002, we have had three incidents referred to CPS.  All of these were found to be unsubstantiated.  We are currently working with the DCFS Personnel Office in taking disciplinary action against two of the staff members for the antecedent events surrounding the incidents.”  Chairwoman Leslie requested clarification.  Mr. Warmuth explained those incidents were found not to be abusive, however, some of the actions taken by staff prior to the incidents appeared to have caused the use of force, which was inappropriate action on the part of those staff members.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether that appeared to be a failure of training, or whether there were staff members at the NYTC who needed to be retrained, and why was the NYTC still experiencing such problems.  Mr. Warmuth stated it could be a combination of both training and retraining, and the emotional response to a situation might also come into play.  Retraining would be a significant part of the correction for the entire problem, and Mr. Warmuth emphasized that the NYTC had initiated that process.  Staffing was a major issue in training programs, because the NYTC required 24-hour staffing which made training difficult. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated she understood that aspect, however, she believed the issue of excessive use of force should rise to the top of the training list.  Mr. Warmuth stated it was at the top, and the NYTC was conducting a “Non‑violent Crisis Intervention” training course on a quarterly basis.  Mr. Warmuth reported that three or four such courses had been conducted to date, and the NYTC planned on four more courses through the remainder of the year, as well as training in other types of behavior management techniques. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie noted that the assistant superintendent position was under recruitment, and the CRIPA report recommended that the superintendent be recruited from outside the institution; she asked about the status of that recruitment.  Mr. Warmuth replied that the NYTC was fully aware of the recommendation, however, the Subcommittee should keep in mind that under the current Nevada Department of Personnel recruitment policy, a candidate could not be pre-selected.  Therefore, he explained, all qualified applicants would be screened with the institutional needs in mind, and the most qualified candidate would be selected.  Mr. Warmuth reiterated that the NYTC could not recruit while sending a message through the Personnel system that no current employee of the state or the NYTC would be qualified for the assistant superintendent position.  While the CRIPA recommendation would be considered, Mr. Warmuth stated that the NYTC would hire the most qualified candidate.  Chairwoman Leslie stated she could appreciate that, but also believed that some “new blood” at the NYTC would be good.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether teachers received the same level of training as other staff.  Mr. Warmuth replied in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Smith stated that the fifth issue of “Excessive Force” was, “Ensure that quality assurance mechanisms are in place that adequately monitor and analyze incidents where force is used, identify corrective action, as appropriate, and ensure that such action is successfully undertaken.”  Ms. Smith explained that additional duties had been added to the Board of Review, the membership of which consisted of the department heads and the nurse from the NYTC.  The Board of Review evaluated all incidents involving use of force, and Ms. Smith referenced page 23 of Exhibit E, “Attachment B,” which was the form that the Board would utilize relative to its weekly meetings.  That form would be used in an attempt to monitor and track the areas where additional training might be needed, which staff appeared to be experiencing problems, and which unit might be experiencing problems.  Ms. Smith remarked that additional staff to provide quality assurance, and the ability to track and monitor incidents appropriately, had not been requested in the current budget, however, she believed that was an area that should receive further review.  Per Ms. Smith, within decision unit E‑475, Budget Account 3145, Mr. Cotton had requested a position that would be assigned four functions division-wide and statewide.  Ms. Smith remarked that one of those functions would be quality assurance regarding grievances and incidents that occurred in the training centers. 

 

Continuing her presentation, Ms. Smith indicated that the sixth issue under “Excessive Force” was, “Ensure that all allegations of abuse are investigated in a timely and thorough manner.”  Ms. Smith stated she would fall back on her previous comments, and indicated the NYTC was referring incidents to CPS as they happened.  Staff were aware that they were mandatory reporters, and Ms. Smith emphasized that tracking would continue to ensure that staff reported incidents properly.  Once the assistant superintendent position at the NYTC was filled, Ms. Smith advised that the ability to manage that particular area of the CRIPA report, and other areas of the institution, would be greatly improved.

 

Continuing, Ms. Smith stated that issue number seven of “Excessive Force” was, “Provide appropriate behavior management/crisis intervention training to staff before staff may work in direct contact with youth.”  Ms. Smith believed that point had been discussed earlier relative to the “Non-violent Crisis Intervention” training that staff members were required to attend.  She explained that the NYTC was also exploring the possibility of another type of intervention technique called, “Handle with Care,” and were attempting to seek funding to send staff to that training in order to become “trainers of trainers.”  Ms. Smith reported that the NYTC was also researching additional training provided by the course entitled, “Working With Youth with Mental Health Diagnoses.”  Many times a youth with those types of issues became very difficult to manage, and Ms. Smith stated the NYTC staff should be trained regarding how to manage those cases effectively.

 

Chairwoman Leslie noted that at a recent budget hearing, it was determined that a significant budget request had been submitted for the Caliente Youth Center (CYC), and she assumed some of the same problems might be occurring at that facility in terms of staff ratios and culture problems.  Chairwoman Leslie referenced an article from 1974 that had been included in the presentation at the earlier budget hearing, which indicated physical restraint was “time out in therapy,” and she asked Mr. Pyle to explain the purpose of including that article for the budget hearing regarding the CYC. 

 

Chuck Pyle, Superintendent, Caliente Youth Center (CYC), advised the Subcommittee that the referenced article had been included in the presentation by the psychologist, who wanted to demonstrate the philosophy and trends in mental health hospitals and in the area of juvenile corrections at that time, where staff placed youths in restraints and left those youths in restraints because staff was upset.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether it was a trend from 1974.  Mr. Pyle stated it had been a trend for years in many programs, and it was his understanding that nurses in mental health facilities used restraints after becoming aggravated with youths, and would often leave youths in restraints longer than necessary.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether that occurred at the CYC.  Mr. Pyle stated that did not occur at the CYC, and the article had been used to demonstrate the philosophy of the CYC in removing youths from restraints as soon as possible.  The article had been included in the budget presentation to mirror that philosophy, and Mr. Pyle emphasized that if restraints were used at the CYC, either physical or mechanical, the objective would be to remove youths from those circumstances within 15 minutes max.  Chairwoman Leslie observed that the article argued in favor of physical restraints.  Mr. Pyle stated that Dr. Edwards, the staff psychologist at the CYC, had authored the article, and was present at the hearing; he could possibly shed more light on the issue. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated she would like a response to her questions, because she did not understand the intent of the article, whether it was being used to depict action that should not be taken, or whether it was to depict a trend that should be considered at the CYC, which she believed would be problematic. 

 

Dr. K. Anthony Edwards, Licensed Psychologist I, CYC, stated the purpose of the article was not to advocate for restraint but rather, as stated by Mr. Pyle, it was an effort to show how to reduce the amount of time a youth spent in restraining conditions, and to provide the least restrictive alternatives as quickly as possible.  Dr. Edwards indicated that the article did not advocate for the use of restraints and, in fact, he had been totally opposed to the use of restraints at that time.  The article was written because nurses were placing patients in restraints and indicated that they would leave the patient in restraints “forever.”  Dr. Edwards stated that was inappropriate and he wanted to demonstrate how to remove a patient from restraints so that treatment would be permanent.  Chairwoman Leslie stated she wanted to “cut to the chase” and asked whether restraints were used at the CYC.  Dr. Edwards indicated that the CYC did not use restraints as depicted in the aforementioned article. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated the former budget presentation had also included a report from the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) dated April 30, 2001, which discussed both the positive and negative aspects regarding the use of the positive peer culture program at the CYC.  She asked whether the CYC allowed girls to “take down” other girls.  Mr. Pyle stated that policy was not in use at the CYC at the present time.  Chairwoman Leslie asked if that policy had been in use at the time the article was written.  Mr. Pyle noted that at the time of the study, the practice at the CYC, along with programs in other states, had been utilization of non-violent crisis intervention as a methodology to demonstrate “care and concern.”  According to Mr. Pyle, the CYC had taken issue with that practice many years ago, and the only time youths would be involved in such a practice would be if there were two or three youths “going after” one staff person.  Mr. Pyle emphasized that the restraint utilized in such an incident had been minimal, however, after the NCJJ conducted its review and the report was received, the CYC had ceased all youth involvement in any type of restraint or physical control by June of 2001.

 

For the purpose of clarification, Chairwoman Leslie asked whether the CYC no longer allowed girls to “take down” other girls as of June 2001; Mr. Pyle stated that was correct, and the policy also applied to boys.  He explained that the non-violent crisis intervention process utilized at the CYC was reviewed each quarter by staff members and youths.  Mr. Pyle pointed out that the reason the youths were involved was that the process taught proxemics, kinetics, defusing, and other things of that nature. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie acknowledged that there were several judges and juvenile probation officers present at the hearing.  She asked whether those persons would like to come forward and voice their concerns regarding the state’s response to excessive use of force at the juvenile facilities, along with recommendations regarding how to prevent the problem.

 

Frances M. Doherty, District Judge, Second Judicial District Court, Family Division, stated she was present at the hearing at the request of Chairwoman Leslie.  She was also present to represent the views of those concerned with the juvenile justice system in Washoe County, and the views of the Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission, on which she served as a member appointed by the Governor.  Judge Doherty stated the Commission had been given an opportunity to discuss the CRIPA report from the DOJ in some detail after the Commission had received a copy of that report during the second week of January 2003.  In those discussions the Commission, as a group which represented individuals from the judiciary, probation, mental health, and law enforcement, had come together to ask the Subcommittee and the legislative body to review the DOJ report with a level of detail and concern because of the emotion and concerns voiced by the Commission.

 

Judge Doherty stated she was not present at the hearing to discuss the points in the CRIPA report that applauded the NYTC because, as a juvenile justice provider, the expectation was that when a child was committed to a training center in Nevada:

 

• The environment for that child would be safe.
• The treatment for that child would be appropriate.
• The experience for that child would be healthy.
• The sum total of the period of time the child was in the care of the state would be one in which the child could grow and learn behavior that juvenile justice providers expected to see those children emulate as adults. 

 

While juvenile justice providers appreciated the good deeds and efforts that the state had engaged in at the training center, Judge Doherty stated she was present to discuss her concerns with the Subcommittee. 

 

Judge Doherty indicated that the concerns identified by the DOJ report were numerous, but the majority of grave concerns could be lumped into two areas.  She explained that the NYTC at Elko had become an area of concern to juvenile justice providers because of the culture of violence that had been identified as existing for a period of years, if not decades.  It was a culture that providers, as a juvenile justice body, needed assurance would be eliminated in its entirety.  Judge Doherty noted that the culture of the violence identified in the CRIPA report went from verbal abuse, to humiliation, to physical abuse, and to a pattern of behavior for those children who, according to the report itself, might be: (1) more abusive upon release than they were when they entered the facility; (2) more likely to become abusers or perpetrators of domestic violence; and (3) more likely to come back to the court system as abusers of children.

 

Judge Doherty explained that quite often the lessons children learned, whether brought with them from their families or learned and reiterated by confinement at a juvenile facility, would be that violence, intimidation, and aggression was the method and manner in which to deal with inappropriate behavior.  She emphasized that the culture of violence was one about which the providers were very concerned.  Judge Doherty revealed that she was no less concerned than she had been when she first read the CRIPA report, however, did applaud those efforts that the state had engaged in to address those issues. 

 

Judge Doherty believed that Ms. Smith, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Willden were present to earnestly address the concerns identified by the report, however, she noted that she was still hearing language and patterns of behavior that caused concern.  When a child who refused to get out of bed was described as possibly being “out of control” by a provider of services, that was of concern to Judge Doherty.  She explained that “out of control” was a generic term that was not allowed in court because the meaning was personal to each and every person who used it.  Judge Doherty commented that a clinical understanding of children in the state facilities was needed, and the DOJ report indicated that clinical services were virtually absent within the NYTC.  She emphasized that the facility had taken away the ability for children to maintain their medication schedule, which the Department of Probation had often worked months or years to establish in order to ensure that the child would be stabilized prior to entering the care of the state. 

 

According to Judge Doherty, juvenile justice providers expended thousands and thousands of hours and dollars on psychological evaluations for children, on psychiatric evaluations for children, on residential or group home placements for children, and accessed medical and medication services for children that families had been unable to access.  Then, said Judge Doherty, providers would still worry about the child’s behavior after addressing all the issues and, since the child would be stabilized mentally, would like the state to work with that child within an environment that was safe and would help that child grow. 

 

Judge Doherty acknowledged that she had presided over Juvenile Court in Washoe County as a District Judge for a very short time, but had served as the Juvenile Master for over five years; she noted that she was the exclusive Juvenile Master for those years in a tremendously growing community.  Judge Doherty commented that the court had been assured time and time again that medication management was a priority for the state, and that children would not automatically be taken off of their medication.  According to Judge Doherty, the fact that children were being removed from their medication would “creep” back into the juvenile justice arenas, and the consistent question would be whether children would be taken off their medication once transferred to the custody of the state. 

 

According to Judge Doherty, the court would not remove a child from their medication without consulting with physicians and requesting an evaluation for the child.  A review of the response from the state, even though it was an earnest response, was believed to be inadequate because to date, there was yet to be an understanding regarding the obligation to treat children who entered the state’s detention facilities for their health care needs, which included their mental health care needs.  Judge Doherty stated that research indicated children suffered at a very high rate from mental health problems, and from 50 to 75 percent of the population in detention on any given day would include children with mental health problems.  When children were sent to the NYTC by the courts, Judge Doherty explained that statistic would not change if the pattern and practice exhibited in terms of taking children off their medication continued.  If a child was taken off his medication, not only would that be a destabilizing factor, it might also be a pertinent factor as to why that child would not get out of bed in the morning.  Judge Doherty believed that because the facility did not have mental health counselors, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist on the premises, it might also be a factor that the child was not being attended to, so when she heard that a child possibly described as a child who was “out of control,” it caused her a high level of concern. 

 

Judge Doherty indicated that the proposals for additional staff were absolutely appropriate, and the state had identified that need, however, the request for additional services and mental health staff did not appear to be sufficient.  Judge Doherty noted that the request was for three additional counselors, and she wondered whether those positions would be classified as mental health counselors.  She stated if the positions were not mental health counselors, there would be correctional youth advisors interacting with children with serious problems who had been removed from their medication in a manner that was not clinically appropriate, and once again, pulling a child out of bed was one good example out of many. 

 

Per Judge Doherty, her greatest concern in reading the CRIPA report focused on mental health, and the response to the Governor indicated that the NYTC was not set up to deal with those issues.  Judge Doherty stated had she known for the past six years that as a judge she was not supposed to commit children with mental health problems to the state facilities, she would not have done so.  She emphasized that she did not realize that children with mental health issues would not receive the level of medical services that were reasonable for the state to provide.  In Chapter 62 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the Legislature guaranteed every parent that when the state removed a child from parental care for acts of delinquency, that child would be placed and cared for in a manner as close to the manner which would have been provided by the parents. 

 

According to Judge Doherty, when parents came to court, she was the first one to vouch for the Caliente Youth Center (CYC); she was the first one to vouch for the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC); and she was the one who looked those parents in the eye and said it would be a good experience for their child to be sent to one of the state’s facilities.  Judge Doherty stated everything within the juvenile justice system had been reversed with the information contained in the CRIPA report.  With that background, Judge Doherty indicated that she and the Juvenile Justice Commission would ask that the Legislature review the issues in several respects, for example, the funding needed to address ratios, and the funding needed for appropriate care.  Judge Doherty explained that a psychologist was not sufficient for the NYTC, and a psychiatrist was needed if the state was going to tamper with medications.  She indicated that juvenile providers would ask as a body that the Legislature review the medication issue very seriously, as the body believed it was symptomatic of many issues of deterioration within the juvenile justice system itself. 

 

Judge Doherty remarked that juvenile justice providers did not believe the state could self-monitor; the state could not be put in the position of ensuring that their compliance was adequate when, in fact, the state’s responses, in and of themselves, were of concern.  She believed that an independent panel of experts was needed to assist the legislative body in review of the state’s compliance with the DOJ report, and noted that was a window of opportunity that most states were not granted.  Per Judge Doherty, most states were dealing with those issues, based on federal lawsuits and consent decrees, where compliance would be “crammed down a state’s throat” in ways that would not be crafted if the state were allowed to initiate the compliance.

 

Judge Doherty stated that juvenile justice providers would encourage the Legislature to take advantage of the opportunity to reach out to the resources within the state and country to oversee the rectification of what was truly a very egregious environment for Nevada’s children.  Judge Doherty explained that the second request would be that the Legislature look not only to an interim study committee, but also consider creation of a select legislative committee of both houses to oversee that compliance; she indicated that the second request had been initiated by Juvenile Justice Commission member David E. Humke. 

 

Judge Doherty remarked that it was the hope of juvenile justice providers that the Legislature would review the issue, once again not in a vacuum, but in the larger scale of where Nevada was in the juvenile justice system.  She stressed that Nevada’s juvenile detention facilities were jammed, and the state could not address the long period of time children were waiting for entrance into a committed training center placement.  Judge Doherty opined that the Summit View Youth Correctional Center had to be opened immediately.  Children in the counties were being placed in an unsafe arena, based on population and need that the state could no longer sustain.  Judge Doherty asked, once again, that the Legislature consider the immediate opening of the Summit View facility to address those issues for the county, and to consider an independent panel with the ability to engage independent experts to review the state’s compliance with the DOJ recommendations. 

 

Judge Doherty introduced members of the Juvenile Justice Commission and/or the work-study group, which was a select committee of the Commission, who would provide testimony to the Subcommittee:

 

• Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Department G
• Kirby Burgess, Director, Family and Youth Services, Clark County
• Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Juvenile Services

 

Chairwoman Leslie thanked Judge Doherty for her testimony before the Subcommittee, and recognized Mr. Burgess.

 

Mr. Burgess concurred with the remarks made by Judge Doherty.  He stated that great strides had been made in the juvenile justice community in 1997, largely with the help of the legislative body.  During that time frame, stated Mr. Burgess, the Summit View Youth Correctional Center was opened, and funding was available to keep youths out of the state institutions.  According to Mr. Burgess, as time went on, there had been erosion within the juvenile justice system in terms of programs and other deficiencies, one of which was the issue concerning the NYTC.  Mr. Burgess explained that with the closing of the Summit View facility, there had been a backup of children in detention centers in both Washoe and Clark Counties. 

As of April 19, 2002, explained Mr. Burgess, there were approximately 16 youths in various stages of readiness for transfer, who had been committed to the state institution, however, remained in the juvenile detention facility in Clark County.  Mr. Burgess stated that while the Clark County juvenile facility was overcrowded for any number of reasons, moving youths sentenced to state facilities as quickly as possible would prove very helpful with the overcrowding in Clark County facilities.  According to Mr. Burgess, some of those youths awaiting transfer had been in the Clark County facility for as long as 70 days, and in the past it had not been uncommon to have quite a few youths awaiting transfer and placement in the state facility.  Mr. Burgess emphasized that there was a need to take a systematic look at the juvenile detention centers in the juvenile justice system; he indicated he would volunteer and lend any resources available in terms of collaboration and coordination in support of needed studies.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater commented that the Legislature had struggled with opening the Summit View facility, and one of the “iffy” points had been whether or not the state would receive a better deal from a private contractor as opposed to the state service.  It appeared to Mr. Goldwater that there were many issues that the state needed to control, and he asked Judge Doherty and Mr. Burgess for their opinions regarding the quality of private contractors, and whether the state would have the ability to control those issues. 

 

Judge Doherty stated she would answer that question as a layperson.  She indicated that many individuals associated with the juvenile justice system, some of whom were present at the hearing, had worked on the development and planning of the Summit View facility in an effort to determine the manner in which services would be best delivered at the facility and the efficiency of those services.  Judge Doherty stated that she personally had the opportunity to review the contractual provisions for the private provider, and it was believed that a state-of-the-art contract had been developed to ensure effective services for children.  The comment had been made that the contract could not have been done any better or cheaper.  Judge Doherty pointed out that the contract was something all involved parties had been proud of, and it was hoped that the contractor would deliver what had been identified in the contract.  According to Judge Doherty, with all those good intentions, with the level and quality of the terms of the contract pertaining to obligations and responsibilities of the state and the obligations and responsibilities of the private provider, the contract had failed.  She advised the Subcommittee that she could not say why the contract had failed, but it had failed miserably, worse than anyone could have imagined.

 

Judge Doherty stated she did not know where the state would go in terms of a private provider, or otherwise remedy what had occurred in that situation.  She believed the juvenile justice system was so “beaten” in relation to Summit View, and yet needed the facility opened so desperately, that much was being deferred to the legislative body regarding identification of the most appropriate provider.  The state had the skills and ability to run Summit View; private providers might have equal abilities, however, Judge Doherty stated the juvenile justice system did not want to get involved in that arena since the facility had failed under the previous private provider. 

 

Cynthia Steele, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Department G, believed that the most important factor that the Legislature should review in making a decision whether to open the facility under a private provider or as a state-run facility was flexibility, and how the campus could be utilized to best benefit all youths involved.  She opined that the system in Clark County should review the reason why medium-risk youths were placed very far away from their families at the NYTC in Elko when that family bond was necessary, while placing youths without parental influence in local facilities.  Judge Steele stated that flexibility should be built into the equation when the Legislature determined who would run the Summit View facility.

 

Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Juvenile Services, stated that he served as President of the Nevada Association of Juvenile Justice Administrators, and action that could be taken as a system to improve the level of juvenile justice in Nevada was often discussed.  At times during session, for whatever reason, Mr. Pugh noted there appeared to be some hesitancy in making the legislative body aware of the needs within the juvenile justice system because funding had not been approved in The Executive Budget.  Consequently, explained Mr. Pugh, the needs that existed were not always brought to the attention of the Legislature, as previously noted by Ms. Giunchigliani.  Some needs had been brought to the Legislature’s attention through interim studies, and Mr. Pugh noted that the interim committee created by ACR 57 of the Sixty-ninth Session, which had been chaired by Assemblywoman Jan Evans, and the interim committee created by ACR 13 of the Seventieth Session, had provided opportunities for issues related to juvenile justice to be fully examined, and had also provided the opportunity for people to feel free to bring those issues up for discussion. 

 

Mr. Pugh noted that Assemblywoman Evans had asked members of the community to come before the interim committee, and representatives from education, substance abuse, and juvenile services had responded to that request.  According to Mr. Pugh, there had been a candid discussion regarding how the system worked and where changes were needed.  Mr. Pugh stated Assemblywoman Evans had processed that information and created a framework that the juvenile system had built upon, and which had been very successful.  Mr. Pugh pointed out that because of other budget concerns, the system appeared to have regressed.

 

Mr. Pugh indicated that, while he would not attempt to rescue the state, it came as no surprise to him that when there was one supervisor for 28 youths, incidents of violence occurred in the institution; he stated that would be unavoidable.  Mr. Pugh noted that when an institution was not properly staffed to address certain issues, or when the supervising staff member was afraid of those 28 youths, incidents of violence were bound to occur.  Again, remarked Mr. Pugh, regardless of whether staff dealt appropriately with certain situations, the system itself had created those incidents, and youths within the system who were bipolar would act out when not given their proper medications. 

 

Mr. Pugh explained those were usually severely emotionally disturbed children who had failed in the school districts, had been thrown out of school, had been placed in programs such as an adolescent treatment center or the Desert Willow Treatment Center, and had been thrown out of those facilities because of their behavior.  He noted that those youths would then be placed in institutions that were not equipped to deal with their problems and taken off their medications, which was why the incidents of violence had occurred.  Mr. Pugh stated under those circumstances, such incidents would be guaranteed, and it would not necessarily mean that a staff person had gone to work at a facility simply to “beat up kids.”  It was Mr. Pugh’s opinion that until the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of the youths within the institutions were addressed, and if the facilities were not properly staffed, the conditions referred to in the CRIPA report would continue. 

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33, stated he was quite disturbed to hear about the situation at the NYTC in Elko.  He believed the community of Elko had been a good neighbor to the NYTC, and youths from the NYTC had participated in sporting events with local youths.  Mr. Carpenter advised that the community had attempted to do what it felt was best.  It was a mystery to him why he had not been advised about the situation at the facility, because in such a small community, he thought he would hear everything.  Mr. Carpenter remarked that it was hard for him to fathom how that situation had gone unnoticed for a number of years.  Apparently, stated Mr. Carpenter, the situation was ongoing, and had been ongoing for quite awhile, and he believed it should now be addressed.  Perhaps one of the problems was that the community was somewhat isolated, and as long as there was not a big “hullabaloo” over the situation, people thought the facility was functioning properly. 

 

Mr. Carpenter concurred with Judge Doherty’s statement that a body was needed to oversee the facility and ensure that the situation was handled correctly.  Mr. Carpenter emphasized that he was proud of his community and did not want people to believe that the community would condone such action, because it would not.  He offered his assistance in any way to improve the situation at the NYTC.  Mr. Carpenter remarked that if the facility remained in Elko, he wanted it to be an institution the people of Elko could be proud of, along with the rest of the state, and also a facility that would hopefully assist the youths sent there in becoming better citizens.  If that did not occur, Mr. Carpenter opined that the system was failing those youths; he reiterated that he would be willing to assist in any way possible to correct the situation at the NYTC.

 

Mr. Carpenter pointed out that some of the staff at the NYTC consisted of his neighbors, and one teacher in particular worked quite diligently and spent many hours at the NYTC.  Once again, he would do everything possible to assist with the situation at the NYTC and basically “clear the community’s name.”  Mr. Carpenter indicated that he was glad the situation had come to light and the state now had the opportunity to correct it.

 

Chairwoman Leslie concurred with Mr. Carpenter’s comments, and did not want the good people of Elko to think that the Legislature believed they would condone such abuse.  According to Chairwoman Leslie, members of the Subcommittee, along with other members of the Legislature, would be visiting the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) on March 28, 2003, and she advised Mr. Carpenter that there would be sufficient room for him to join the tour.  Chairwoman Leslie noted that some legislators would also tour the Caliente Youth Center (CYC) in early April; she expressed concern about what was occurring in Caliente as well, even though that facility was not the subject of the DOJ report.

 

Chairwoman Leslie informed the Subcommittee that there was at least one grandparent at the hearing who would like to testify.  She indicated that the other area of the state’s response that most concerned her was mental health.  Chairwoman Leslie stated it appeared that youths were still being removed from their medication at the CYC, and wanted the Subcommittee to also consider that issue.  In material provided at an earlier budget hearing under the heading, “Active Mental Health Care and Crisis Intervention,” Chairwoman Leslie stated the report read, “In any given month about eight of our students receive psychotropic medication.  Many of our students took medications before commitment.  Their medication regimen was stopped, not because they no longer needed them, but because of insurance problems, withdrawal of Medicaid coverage, lack of contact with their psychiatrist, or lack of a psychiatrist at the Caliente Youth Center.”  Chairwoman Leslie indicated that she would really like a response regarding whether or not that was a true statement.

 

Mr. Pyle responded that the CYC did not take youths off their medications.  That statement referred to the time frame prior to commitment.  Chairwoman Leslie indicated that the report stated, “. . . during a student’s stay at the Caliente Youth Center. . . .”  Mr. Pyle reported that many of the youths took medication prior to commitment, and their medication regimen had been stopped.  The intent of the statement was to indicate that the medication was stopped prior to the youths’ arrival at the CYC.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether students committed from the courts to the CYC with medication requirements would be allowed to continue that medication.  Mr. Pyle replied in the affirmative and explained that youths were continued on their medication.  Chairwoman Leslie asked whether the CYC would remove medication from any child.  Mr. Pyle replied that medication was not removed from any youths.

 

Mr. Cotton stated that when he first heard the report that medication was stopped upon commitment to the CYC, he issued a directive to staff that no child was to be taken off medication without the prescribing physician agreeing that removal would be an appropriate action.  He emphasized that the directive stated that a new physician could not remove a child from medication, but rather it had to be the physician that prescribed the medication.  Chairwoman Leslie asked Mr. Cotton whether he believed the problem had been properly addressed.  Mr. Cotton replied in the affirmative, and stated he had not heard of any situation where a child was taken off medication, and if that had occurred, it would result in immediate disciplinary action. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked who would have removed those children referenced in the aforementioned report from their medication prior to commitment.  Mr. Pyle stated that the CYC had a number of youths that had been on medications for a number of years, and because they were in and out of detention centers, or were a “run” risk, they simply stopped taking their medications.  According to Mr. Pyle, there were any number of reasons why that would occur, but when youths were committed to the CYC, their mental health history was transferred with them, and at that time it would be determined whether they were on medications, or whether there had been a significant lapse in medications. 

 

Mr. Pyle commented that in some cases, youths were committed to the CYC who had recently been placed on medication, which was why the CYC had requested a psychiatrist position in order to visit the medication regimen for those youths and ascertain whether the medication was appropriate.  Mr. Pyle emphasized that as far as he knew, the CYC had not taken any youths off medications for at least the past 16 years.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that earlier testimony from Judges Doherty and Steel indicated that the court often determined that youths would remain on their medication, and she wondered whether the medications were stopped at some other institution.  Ms. Giunchigliani believed that point should receive further research. 

 

Mr. Pyle stated there were basically many “cracks” in the system.  When children with mental health issues and on psychotropic medications received that medication in tandem with visits to the psychiatrist while in detention centers, or under some other type of court controlled program such as probation, and the medications were being monitored, then the situation would remain stable.  However, Mr. Pyle stated that the CYC had experienced an almost 50 percent increase in the past year of children on psychotropic medications, and there were youths being committed to the facility who had a history of being on psychotropic drugs.  

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there was a clinical setting at the CYC, or any type of mental health programming available.  Mr. Pyle explained that the CYC mental health staff consisted of one psychologist and one Youth Training Center (YTC) counselor.  Ms. Giunchigliani opined that there appeared to be a systemic problem that should be addressed by the Legislature at both facilities; it was an incredibly tough job, however, the youths committed to those facilities were not “throw away kids,” and the system could not even make such an implication.  Ms. Giunchigliani believed that at the present time an opportunity existed to determine what was needed to make the system workable so that the youths the state chose to place in its facilities would be cared for in an appropriate manner, which would afford those youths an opportunity to become contributing members of society.  

 

Chairwoman Leslie concurred, and stated if there were that many children on psychotropic medications, perhaps a psychiatrist would be a more appropriate position at the CYC. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie stated the Subcommittee would like to afford the grandmother of a child committed to the NYTC an opportunity to come forward and present testimony.

 

Cossette Retterer advised the Subcommittee that her grandson had been sentenced to the NYTC, and she had received a phone call from the facility asking for permission to stitch an injury.  Ms. Retterer stated that she replied in the affirmative, and asked what had happened.  The NYTC was unable to elaborate at that time regarding the injury, and Ms. Retterer asked that either her grandson or a staff member call her after the procedure had been completed.  According to Ms. Retterer, her grandson called and attempted to describe the incident, however, the call was disconnected and she was not allowed to return his call.

 

Ms. Retterer indicated that when her grandson was committed to the NYTC, she had made it perfectly clear to the authorities that he needed his medication.  She stated she had bent over backwards to ensure that he had his medications with him; those medications cost approximately $400 per month, and Ms. Retterer stated Medicaid was assisting with that payment.  She emphasized that through Medicaid and Walgreens, she was able to secure a two-month supply of her grandson’s medication, which she had given to his supervising officer to transport with him to the NYTC, however, that medication was never given to him.  Ms. Retterer stated that her grandson was still without his medication.

 

John Lefcourte, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, interjected that Ms. Retterer’s grandson had been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic with an IQ of 59.  Apparently, the aforementioned need for stitches was as a result of his being manhandled by staff at the NYTC after having been taken off his medication. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie asked when the incident had occurred.  Mr. Lefcourte stated the incident with the stitches apparently occurred last fall, and he believed the youth had been committed to the NYTC in approximately February of 2002. 

 

Mr. Lefcourte stated he would like to briefly address the question regarding where the failure to provide medications occurred, which he believed primarily occurred at the NYTC.  He reported that he had conducted a quick survey prior to the hearing by attempting to contact ten families of youths who had been committed to the NYTC to ascertain how those family members thought their children were doing at the facility, and how they believed the program was working. 

 

According to Mr. Lefcourte, the phones for five of those families had been disconnected, the child of one family was housed at a facility in Tennessee, two families indicated they had heard from their children that the conditions at Elko had been really bad, but had turned around and they currently had no complaints whatsoever.  Mr. Lefcourte reported that one of the parents reported it had taken three months to get her son on medication prior to commitment to the NYTC, and he had been taken off that medication within three weeks; the facility had indicated that they did not have to provide medication for the youths.  Mr. Lefcourte stated it was his understanding that the parents had received a letter which reflected some suicidal thoughts on the part of their son. 

 

Mr. Lefcourte indicated he had talked to another juvenile’s mother, who had actually been to the NYTC on three or four occasions to visit her son.  Her son had disclosed that he had gotten into trouble and had been placed in “time out,” and while in time out, his locker had apparently been emptied by other students, who had then put hot sauce on his clothing.  The parent reported that when her son was released from time out, and discovered what had occurred with his clothing, he was obviously upset and had confronted one of the youths he believed had participated in the incident.  Mr. Lefcourte noted that in the process of staff using physical restraint, the mother reported that her son wound up with a large “knot” on the side of his head; Mr. Lefcourte believed that was a recent incident. 

 

Mr. Lefcourte reported it was his concern that while everything appeared to be going well on paper and no one doubted the intention of the NYTC to respond to the criticism contained in the CRIPA report, the reality of the situation would be whether the incidents continued to occur, and whether it could be ascertained that the incidents had stopped.  Mr. Lefcourte opined that the only way to determine that the abuse was no longer occurring would be to put some type of ombudsman process in place, a person that the youths could relate to and who would listen and respond to the youths, rather than a person who appeared to be another branch of the system. 

 

Obviously, stated Mr. Lefcourte, the youths released on parole would be returned to either the NYTC or the CYC if they were recommitted, so there was an inherent reluctance on their part to make any complaints.  The parents Mr. Lefcourte had contacted were thrilled that someone talked to them about the situation at the facilities, and that included the families who believed things were going well, and those who believed they were not.  Mr. Lefcourte stated there had never been any follow-up in the past and he believed that would become a necessity.

 

Chairwoman Leslie thanked Ms. Retterer and Mr. Lefcourte for their testimony; she asked whether Mr. Pugh would like to respond to that testimony.

Mr. Pugh stated he could not speak to the methods used by every county, but he was reasonably sure it would be similar to the way things were done in Washoe County, and if there was a breakdown concerning medications, he did not know where it occurred.  When youth were housed in the Washoe County facility and were taking prescribed medications, Mr. Pugh reported there was a policy in place where medications were counted by staff members in order to account for each and every dose.  Mr. Pugh stated that the picture of the child was entered into the computer, along with the diagnosis and chart.  He explained that it was usual for approximately 50 percent of the population at the county facility to be on prescription medication, and Mr. Pugh stated that the facility had purchased a toolbox and customized that toolbox to hold each youth’s medication, which were then dispensed from the toolbox. 

 

Per Mr. Pugh, the medical unit at the new Washoe County facility had been designed to include a medication-dispensing unit; there was also a psychiatrist on contract through the University of Nevada Medical School who visited the institution once a week to review medication charts and consult with staff.  According to Mr. Pugh, at that point in time, if it was determined that a problem existed with the medication, the psychiatrist could not address that problem because he had not prescribed the medication and would call the treating physician to consult about the youth’s behavior, at which time the prescribing physician might change the medication.  Mr. Pugh testified that the facility simply followed the doctor’s recommendations.  When the youth was ultimately committed to a state facility, the medications were delivered with that youth, and Mr. Pugh stated if a breakdown occurred in that process, he was not aware of it.  He advised that Washoe County staff would never consider taking a youth off medications, and that would only occur once the psychiatrist had contacted the treating physician.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated Ms. Retterer’s testimony was that the medication was given to her grandson’s supervising officer, and she asked whether that would be a county or state officer.  Mr. Pugh stated that the officer referred to by Ms. Retterer was probably a county officer because Washoe County would be responsible for that youth until he was transported to a state training facility.  The youth would have received his medication the entire time he was housed in the Washoe County facility and would not have been taken off his medications until he was transferred to the NYTC.  Ms. Retterer concurred, and indicated that she had made sure the Washoe County facility had her grandson’s medications. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie asked representatives from the training facility to address the issue.  Ms. Smith advised that the staff member involved with Ms. Retterer’s grandson had been mentioned earlier in her report and identified as staff that the NYTC was considering disciplinary action against through the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) Personnel Office.  She noted that the Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation indicated the charge was unsubstantiated relative to how the youth received the stitches.  Ms. Smith stated she was not aware of the medication issue, but advised the Subcommittee that she would research the issue and take appropriate action. 

 

Chairwoman Leslie said that medications were a serious issue, and the Subcommittee would like to see a flowchart depicting exactly what occurred when youths taking medications were received at either facility, and the flowchart should indicate which staff members reviewed the medications, along with the procedure for taking children off their medications.  Chairwoman Leslie stated the Subcommittee needed some type of paper trail, as the situation clearly could not continue.  If the Legislature needed to put more money in the budget for a consulting psychiatrist, or go beyond the request included in The Executive Budget, Chairwoman Leslie believed the Subcommittee should receive that information before the budgets were closed.  According to Chairwoman Leslie, the situation was unacceptable, and could not be allowed to continue.

 

Chairwoman Leslie asked whether there were any further comments or testimony forthcoming regarding the CRIPA report and the state’s response.  She noted that the report also addressed lack of adequate due process for seclusion and disciplinary confinement, and the practice and policy regarding screening of outgoing mail, which was found to be unconstitutional.  Chairwoman Leslie noted that the NYTC had addressed the mail and transportation issues. 

 

Ms. Smith reported that the issue surrounding grievances had been addressed through a change of procedures, and the NYTC was still working on that issue.  Many of the issues addressed in the CRIPA report could not simply be fixed and would require a certain process.  Regarding seclusion and disciplinary confinement, Ms. Smith stated that part of the duties of the Board of Review was to review those processes, and those were issues that would require continual tracking and monitoring to ensure that they were fully addressed.  Ms. Smith advised the Subcommittee that the mail issue had been an easy fix and had been addressed.  The mental health issue had been under discussion and there was much work to be done in that area.  Ms. Smith explained that the transportation issue had not been discussed with the NYTC at the exit interview, and youth were only transported in restraints when they were picked up from the airport at intake; those youths were from Clark County, and the remaining counties drove youths to the NYTC.  She noted that youths were also transported in restraints when being transferred from the NYTC to another institution.  Ms. Smith remarked that staff had been instructed and trained in those procedures. 

 

According to Ms. Smith, budget implications were clearly spelled out in Exhibit E and the budget documents that had previously been submitted.  She stated she would like to take the opportunity to apologize to the youth’s grandmother who had testified, and to any other families who had entrusted their children to the state, and for whatever reasons the state had not lived up to its responsibilities.  Ms. Smith assured the Subcommittee that those issues would be addressed. 

 

In conclusion, Ms. Smith stated that the DCFS and staff remained proud of the programs at the NYTC and the CYC.  Those programs offered opportunities for youths to grow and develop.  The facilities had problems, which Ms. Smith acknowledged, however, DCFS and the NYTC were willing to take whatever action necessary to correct those problems.  Ms. Smith emphasized that the necessary action could not be accomplished without the help of the Legislature, and the DCFS had requested the resources it believed would only be a beginning in addressing the problems.  Both the DCFS and the NYTC took the findings in the CRIPA report very seriously, and Ms. Smith explained that some progress had been made regarding some of the less complicated complaints, however, there was still much to be done to internalize any new policies and procedures that might be put into place.  Ms. Smith stated the DCFS and the NYTC would continue to seek ways to refine efforts and procedures, but again needed legislative support to sustain any program enhancements that might be necessary. 

Ms. Smith thanked the Subcommittee for listening to the testimony and reviewing the issues, and she asked that the Subcommittee review Attachment A within Exhibit E.  That attachment, which began on page 17, outlined what were considered highlights at the NYTC, and very positive programs that youth were involved in within the Elko community.  Ms. Smith remarked that the NYTC believed the programs offered a strong opportunity for service mentoring, and an opportunity for youth to learn something other than negative behavior; the programs offered an opportunity to learn very positive skills.

 

Ms. Smith stated that while most of the discussion centered around the violence that had occurred at the facility, that would be stopped, and the NYTC would continue to offer some very, very positive programming for the youths, which she believed should be made part of the record.

 

Chairwoman Leslie indicated that she was looking forward to traveling to the NYTC and meeting with both the youths and staff members, as she had not had an opportunity to visit the training center.  She believed that admitting there was a problem was really the first step, and perhaps the state had been in denial regarding the severity of the problem.  Chairwoman Leslie commented that she had no idea about the problems at the NYTC until she read the CRIPA report and had been very shocked at how bad things had gotten at the facility. 

 

Per Chairwoman Leslie, airing the issues publicly was the duty of the Legislature to the citizens of the state, and certainly to the youths and their families.  She stated that she could not agree with Mr. Carpenter more, now that the Legislature was aware of the problems, they had to be fixed.  As the problems were addressed, the Legislature could work with the Juvenile Justice Commission to create an oversight mechanism.  Chairwoman Leslie indicated the Legislature often heard remarks that the legislators were “grandstanding,” that they would never come to Elko, and that the problems would simply go away.  Chairwoman Leslie remarked that the problems would not simply go away because she would not let them go away, and the other members of the Subcommittee, the judges, and the community would not let the problems simply go away. 

 

According to Chairwoman Leslie, if additional money was needed in the budget to ensure that the problems were addressed, then that should be considered because the youths were worth it.  She hoped that the Legislature could go forward in a partnership to review the deficiencies and fix them.  Chairwoman Leslie stated that she was not proud of the NYTC or the CYC at the current time, and hopefully in two or three years, everyone would be proud of the great programs and the lack of abuse at the facilities, and the problems would be fixed so that youths could receive the care they deserved.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she would like to believe that at some point staff would have a procedure in place that they were comfortable with regarding their safety and concerns.  She opined that the Legislature should ensure that would be part of the puzzle, because there were grievance procedures that needed to be in place at both ends of that spectrum.  Ms. Giunchigliani hoped that the Subcommittee would receive a revised budget, which would determine a definition of the NYTC and the CYC as institutions, as prisons, as systems, or as educational institutions.  She pointed out that titles would drive the perception and the crafting of procedures that went on within the walls. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would like to see a budget revision that looked more at a clinical model; she noted that the vocational programs were excellent and should be commended.  Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that it appeared the community was wonderful in working with the NYTC.  She believed such things could be capitalized on, but she wondered about the atmosphere of the facility.  Ms. Giunchigliani commented that the atmosphere had to be part of the overall picture in order to ensure that staff at the facility were well trained and energized by their work, so that youths were offered a chance that could be viewed with a sense of hope rather than fear.  Ms. Giunchigliani believed that should be part of the shifting of mental health components, and an amended budget should go beyond the current request and address ratios.  She noted that the Subcommittee had not yet touched on the budget needs that would move the two institutions into the twenty-first century.  Ms. Giunchigliani opined that another hearing would be necessary to review budget issues.

 

Chairwoman Leslie noted that the Summit View Youth Correctional Center issue had not been resolved, and the Subcommittee had much work to do in a short period of time. 

 

Mr. Willden advised the Subcommittee that he appreciated the criticisms received and felt they had been very constructive; he especially appreciated Judge Doherty’s comments and criticisms.  Mr. Willden stated that he felt comfortable about the direction in which the facilities were moving, however, one exception was that the mental health and substance abuse components had not been properly addressed, which was very apparent after the testimony heard today.  Mr. Willden believed that the DHR owed the Legislature a revision in the budget area, and he did not have any fear of submitting budget needs to the Legislature. 

 

According to Mr. Willden, that had been Governor Guinn’s direction to him since the CRIPA investigation and the DOJ report had been received.  The Governor had instructed him to determine what was wrong and “get it fixed.”  Mr. Willden stated it was very clear that there were several issues surrounding counselors, mental health, and substance abuse that had apparently not “hit the target,” and the DHR would have to rethink those issues. 

 

Mr. Goldwater asked whether other states licensed their public and private juvenile facilities.  Ms. Smith acknowledged that some other states provided a form of accreditation for their facilities, both public and private, but it varied across the country.  Mr. Goldwater asked whether Nevada facilities were either licensed or accredited.  Ms. Smith indicated that some functions within institutions had to be approved by the health district, and the school had to be accredited.  Mr. Goldwater then asked whether Nevada had a formal licensing procedure; Ms. Smith replied that there was no formal procedure.  Mr. Goldwater asked Ms. Smith whether she would be in favor of establishing a licensing procedure.  Ms. Smith did not believe she was in a position to answer that question at the present time, and she would have to research such a procedure to see what it would entail.  She offered to research the procedures used by other states.  Chairwoman Leslie believed that would be an issue for the oversight committee.   

 

Mr. Pugh indicated that was another example of why an interim study would be a good idea, and he pointed out that during the last interim study the idea of establishing statutory standards for institutions had been discussed.  Because of the age of some facilities, Mr. Pugh explained that a self-imposition of those standards had also been requested.  He remarked that the Silver State Juvenile Detention Association had developed standards which were currently being self‑implemented, and those standards were aligned with the standards of the American Correctional Association. 

 

Mr. Pugh stated that there was a group of detention officials currently touring the Rite of Passage facility near Yerington, Nevada, and that group would review those standards and conduct an independent peer review.  The results of that review would be presented to the facility, and hopefully, any necessary revisions would be made to bring the facility up to the standards.  Recently, stated Mr. Pugh, the same review had been conducted at the China Spring Youth Camp in Gardnerville, and other reviews would be scheduled for the local probation departments as well.  Per Mr. Pugh, the point was that there had been discussion regarding development of standards during the last interim study, however, a continuing committee had not been appointed to review such issues on an ongoing basis. 

 

Mr. Burgess testified that in 1997 there had been initial discussion regarding a licensing and accreditation procedure, and the Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators had initiated a peer review process, which had proven helpful.  Certainly, stated Mr. Burgess, further dialogue via an interim study committee would be useful.  He believed such a committee could take some lessons learned from that process and advance toward the goal; to date, Mr. Burgess reported, no state facilities had been reviewed. 

 

Mr. Lefcourte stated one of the things that had always distressed him about the entire juvenile system was that there had never been any type of monitoring or follow-up process to determine the effectiveness of the programs; there apparently were no criteria available to judge those programs.  Mr. Lefcourte conveyed that he had been working with the Adolescent Treatment Center (ATC) program, the only state-funded mental health treatment program for adolescents in northern Nevada, which had consisted of 16 beds for the last 19 years that he had been associated with that program.  According to Mr. Lefcourte, mental health issues had skyrocketed, and luckily there were other resources available, however, there had never been a study conducted regarding the effectiveness of the ATC program.  Mr. Lefcourte believed that the attitude had been if there was a program, all involved should “keep their fingers crossed” because they were lucky to have that program and should not “look a gift horse in the mouth.”  According to Mr. Lefcourte, there needed to be some systemic review of all programs.  Chairwoman Leslie agreed that Mr. Lefcourte had brought up a valid point.     

                                  

Chairwoman Leslie asked whether there were further comments from the Subcommittee, or further testimony from the audience, and there being none, thanked all involved parties for their participation.  She advised that the Subcommittee would look forward to receiving the revised budget from the DHR, at which time another hearing would be scheduled for additional input. 

 

With no further business to come before the Subcommittee, Chairwoman Leslie declared the hearing adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Carol Thomsen

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE: