MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

AND THE

Senate Committee on Finance

JOINT Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 1, 2003

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation was called to order at 8:24 a.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003.  Chairman David Parks presided in Room 2134 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:

 

Mr. David R. Parks, Chairman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Josh Griffin

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. Richard Perkins

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst

Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst

Anne Bowen, Committee Secretary

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

 

MILITARY – BUDGET ACCOUNT 3650 – BUDGET PAGE MILITARY – 1

Major General Giles E. Vanderhoof, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military, stated he was back before the Subcommittee to answer questions.  General Vanderhoof commented that in January 2003, the Office of the Military had been able to obtain a 50/50 split between the state and the federal government for the Army National Guard armory utility expenses.  Utility expenses had always been paid 100 percent by the state.  The agreement with the federal government was expected to be ongoing for the next several years.  Because of the 50/50 split, the state had been able to save $109,000 in the next biennium.  General Vanderhoof stated he would be willing to respond to any questions the Subcommittee might have.

 

Chairman Parks asked General Vanderhoof if he felt that the 50/50 split agreement with the federal government would be in effect at least through the next biennium.  General Vanderhoof responded that the agreement had begun a few months ago in January 2003 and would be in effect through, at least, FY2004-05.  Because this was a very unusual step, General Vanderhoof could not guarantee exactly how long it would last.  The federal officers who controlled this matter had been very sympathetic to the military’s plea for help because of the financial condition of the state.  This agreement was not in effect across the United States as most states were still paying 100 percent. 

 

Chairman Parks stated that it appeared the cost for the biennium was approximately a 30 percent reduction when compared to the amount actually spent for utilities and maintenance during the 2001-02 biennium.  Chairman Parks asked for an explanation as to why the cost for utilities and maintenance at the armories was estimated to decrease by that 30 percent. 

 

General Vanderhoof introduced Miles L. Celio, Administrative Services Officer (ASO), Office of the Military.  General Vanderhoof further stated that the utilities had been a little erratic recently as over 800 people had been mobilized for active duty.  Mobilizing for active duty involved bringing people into the armory for as much as two months before deployment to a mobilization site and then overseas.  During that time, armories were open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.  At the Nevada Air Guard the utility bills had increased to between $5,000 and $7,000 per month and the reason was because of the activity of the Unique Intelligence Squadron in the Air Guard in Reno.  The Unique Intelligence Squadron did the imagery analysis from the Global Hawk, the unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.  What the Global Hawk saw was beamed back to Reno by satellite, where the imagery analysis was accomplished, and then returned to the field or the cockpit.  For example, an F-15E pilot that had made a strike in Iraq could have information from Reno within seconds about whether the hit was successful.  General Vanderhoof stated that the Global Hawk flew for upwards of 18 hours, taking incredible amounts of imagery.  In addition to operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the Intelligence Squadron operated technology that used large quantities of electricity.  The new armory had been built to be more energy efficient than the old facility and the office was seeing some savings. 

 

Mr. Celio stated that General Vanderhoof had been correct, but there was one other point he wanted to make, which was that the new Readiness Center was a combination of two armories in Carson City and the Office of the Military’s headquarters.  Unfortunately, those two armories had not been split out under the 50/50 cost share.  The building was 100 percent funded for the armories and 100 percent funded for the headquarters.  In the new agreement with the federal government, only the armories would be shared 50/50 with the federal government and the state would still bear 100 percent responsibility for the headquarters.  Mr. Celio stated that there were two armories in FY2002 that were separate that had now been combined and were still being carried as 100 percent state funding in the new Readiness Center; that explained some of the 30 percent decrease in just the armory account.  The other accounts had seen some increase. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked about the four vacant positions scheduled to be deleted in decision unit E-605. 

General Vanderhoof stated that one of the four positions was 100 percent federally funded and he had been asked why he had allowed that position to be vacant when it cost the state nothing.  The federally funded position was in a section where there were enough people to handle the workload; therefore, it had been decided the expenditure for that position could not be justified.  General Vanderhoof stated that it did not matter if it was federal or state funds, it would not have been prudent to spend it.  The other three positions were funded 75 percent with federal funds and 25 percent with state funds.  Those positions were not being filled because of the cuts to the military budget.  Several positions had been authorized by the previous Legislature for the Readiness Center, but the agency had not been allowed to fill them until the building was actually built.  When the building had been built those positions were eliminated because they had been vacant for so long. 

 

Senator Coffin asked if it was correct that if those positions should be filled, the General Fund obligation would be only 25 percent.  General Vanderhoof replied that he had been mistaken when he stated that the General Fund obligation for three of those positions would be 25 percent.  The correct obligation was one position at 100 percent federal funding and the other three positions at 100 percent state funding. 

 

Senator Coffin stated that in his opinion there were a lot of vacant positions that could remain vacant in a lot of budgets, however, he wondered what had happened after the 1991 conflict.  Senator Coffin asked if the Office of the Military would not have a lot of work to accomplish when people were returned from active duty, and did it make sense to eliminate positions that might be needed in a few months. 

 

General Vanderhoof replied that while he understood what Senator Coffin was asking, it was problematic right from the beginning when you were deploying people.  The people not being mobilized were required to bear a considerable workload to do all of the things necessary to replace those being mobilized.  The people mobilized numbered nearly one-third of the Guard’s strength.  When writing their budget, the agency had to make cuts and still try to anticipate what would be needed while one-third of their force was deployed, as well as plan for when they returned.  General Vanderhoof stated that he believed his Department could still function efficiently with the cuts that had been made to the budget, however, further cuts would create a problem with maintaining facilities and would probably create a problem with the federal government as well.  The federal government provided Nevada with $80 million per year, plus approximately $30 million in add-ons through the congressional delegation.  General Vanderhoof said the largest amount of money that he received was through the federal government. 

 

Senator Coffin asked if there were people who had been mobilized who were close to retirement and might be retiring after the conflict was over, which would create some vacancy savings for the Department.

 

General Vanderhoof stated most of the people retiring after the conflict would be federal employees, although there might be a few state employees. 

 

Chairman Parks stated it was his understanding that the Office of the Military had some budget overruns that would be taken before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) in the current fiscal year, and wondered if that was correct.  General Vanderhoof responded that the Department had a shortfall in utilities costs in this fiscal year that had been compounded by unexpected situations, such as running the armories 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.  In FY2002 there had been some personnel savings that had been used to provide coverage for utilities, but in FY2003 there had been no such savings.  General Vanderhoof stated that because of the small budget of the Office of the Military, combined with the fact that the office had 70 employees, there was very little room to maneuver the budget.  Without the personnel savings, and with items added to the budget that had not been forecast, the Department had approximately a $150,000 shortfall.  That shortfall should have been discovered in time to submit a supplemental request.

 

Senator Tiffany asked where the Governor-recommended 3 percent cut had been made for the Office of the Military because the Subcommittee had noticed that some of the agencies were not cutting the 3 percent that had been factored in to close the budgets.  She wondered where the 3 percent had come from as opposed to the $150,000 in utilities costs that the Department needed to get through the end of the year.  General Vanderhoof stated the 3 percent cut was primarily in utilities and in education assistance, through the National Guard Benefits budget account.

 

Senator Tiffany stated that the Office of the Military had vacancy savings and some training money.  General Vanderhoof interjected that the Department had no vacancy savings.  Senator Tiffany asked the General to state, again, where the savings had been made.  General Vanderhoof stated the majority of the savings had come from utilities and education assistance.  There had been no personnel savings in FY2003.  General Vanderhoof reiterated that the Department had been given extra positions in the last Legislature for the new building that was occupied in early summer 2002.  Even though those positions had been approved previously, they could not be filled until the new building was occupied.  By the time the new building was occupied, those positions had been vacant for more than six months, therefore, they had been eliminated. 

 

Senator Tiffany asked how much the Department’s 3 percent cut had been.  General Vanderhoof replied that it had been approximately $60,000.  Senator Tiffany asked what the $150,000 shortfall money was needed for.  General Vanderhoof replied that the $150,000 would be used for utilities between now and the end of 2003.  Senator Tiffany commented that the Department did not really make a 3 percent cut.  General Vanderhoof acknowledged that was true, but he would have to add that these were extraordinary times and when 6 or 7 facilities were operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, utilities were being used at a rate unprecedented for the Department. 

 

Senator Tiffany stated that she appreciated that but many “of the 3 percent cuts turned out to be phantom cuts, like you’ve got right now, and when the Governor said cut, he meant cut.”  Senator Tiffany said that “gap tax” was being considered because some of the 3 percent cuts were not made as requested. 

 

Chairman Parks requested comment from General Vanderhoof on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project recommended for the 2003-05 biennium, which was the Henderson Readiness Center.

 

General Vanderhoof stated that the Office of the Military was growing in southern Nevada, with two armories in the area.  The Department did not have room for the people or missions that they presently had, and was looking at property in the vicinity of the general aviation airport in Henderson.  The federal share of the design money amounted to $806,000.  The Office of the Military was requesting 25 percent, or $447,129 in state funds, in the CIP for the state’s share of the design money.  In the 2005-07 biennium the Department would be requesting $9.6 million from the federal government for their share of the construction funds, and in the next legislative session $3.3 million would be requested for the state’s share of construction funds.  General Vanderhoof stated that because of the state’s financial situation he had been attempting to get the federal funds “locked-up” before requesting state money. 

 

Senator Rhoads stated that in the past, moving the Elko National Guard Unit had been discussed, and he was assuming that it had been postponed, but inquired as to the plan regarding that move at the present time.  General Vanderhoof replied that the plan was the same, but because the first priority of the Army Guard was the Henderson Readiness Center, Elko was the second priority. 

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on Budget Account 3650 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 3653. 

  

NATIONAL GUARD BENEFITS – BUDGET ACCOUNT 3653 – BUDGET PAGE MILITARY – 8

 

Chairman Parks stated the issue in Budget Account 3653 was the decrease in the percent of tuition reimbursement for guardsmen.  At the present time the reimbursement rate was 42 percent and a decrease had been projected to approximately 34 percent. 

 

General Vanderhoof stated he was somewhat uncertain about the percentage.  The forecast was based upon what had been done in the past and what appeared would be done in the future.  There was a 3 percent decrease in funding which would make the percentage lower for tuition reimbursement.  The Office of the Military had a prioritized system and the number one priority was the younger airmen and soldiers who were going for their first degree, whether a two-year or four-year degree.  The problem with the plan was that there was no way of knowing how many more guardsmen would be called for active duty from Nevada.  If guardsmen were mobilized but remained in Nevada, they could possibly continue to attend school. 

 

General Vanderhoof said it would be almost impossible to provide a comprehensive answer to the question because the answer depended upon the world situation.  If another 600 people were called up, that would have an effect on the forecast.  This account was important to the Office of the Military.  Both Army and Air National Guard recruiters had stated that it was one of the most important benefits that was offered.  General Vanderhoof reiterated that it was impossible to provide a true forecast at this time. 

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on Budget Account 3653 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 4738.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY, DIGNITARY PROTECTION – BUDGET ACCOUNT 4738 – BUDGET PAGE PS – 49

 

Col. David S. Hosmer, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, introduced Lt. Jacquelyn Sandage, Nevada Highway Patrol, and David Ellison, Administrative Services Officer, III (ASO), Administrative Services Division.

 

Col. Hosmer stated that the primary reason Budget Account 4738 was before the Subcommittee was that currently six troopers and one sergeant were assigned to the Dignitary Protection Detail.  One trooper was located in Las Vegas and five troopers and one sergeant were located in Carson City.  The Dignitary Protection Detail provided 24-hour protection to the Governor’s Mansion and the Governor and his family.  The current allocated manpower was stretched very thin for covering a fixed facility, such as the Governor’s Mansion, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year.  A proposal had been written to remove four trooper positions from the Dignitary Protection Detail and replace them with five Capitol Police officers for Mansion security.  The proposed plan would leave one trooper in Las Vegas and one trooper and a sergeant in Carson City, who would primarily handle the personal security of the Governor and his family.  The Capitol Police would handle the physical security. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Capitol Police cooperated with the Dignitary Protection Detail. 

 

Col. Hosmer responded that if the Dignitary Protection Detail needed to call the Capitol Police for special events at the Governor’s Mansion there was a very good working relationship between the two entities.

 

Chairman Parks asked if at the present time the Capitol Police covered the Governor’s Mansion or if it was strictly assigned to troopers. 

 

Col. Hosmer stated that currently the Dignitary Protection Detail was performing those duties with four troopers.  There were two troopers, one in Las Vegas and one in Carson City, who were working as personal security for the Governor, resulting in a “scheduling nightmare.”  The five proposed Capitol Police, who would just handle Mansion security, would improve the scheduling problem.  Over a biennium the difference in cost would result in a savings of $3,000 to the General Fund. 

 

Chairman Parks noted that the Governor was sometimes in Las Vegas and asked if additional security coverage was available there, or if it came from Carson City. 

 

Col. Hosmer stated that was the reason one trooper was assigned to Las Vegas; when the Governor was there, that position provided security to him. 

 

Chairman Parks asked what happened when the First Lady was in Las Vegas and the Governor was in Carson City.  Col. Hosmer stated security coverage was provided for both of them. 

 

Chairman Parks asked, if those trooper positions were reclassified to Capitol Police officers, would the individuals currently assigned to those positions be reclassified as well.  Col. Hosmer responded that he would not be moving those individuals to the Capitol Police; rather they would be filling vacancies within the Highway Patrol.  There would be a transition period of approximately two weeks while the Capitol Police officers took over the duties of the troopers presently assigned to the Dignitary Protection Detail. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked what the trooper in Las Vegas did when the Governor was not there.  Col. Hosmer referred the question to Lt. Sandage, who served as liaison between the Highway Patrol and the Dignitary Protection Detail.

 

Lt. Sandage stated that the trooper in Las Vegas performed advance work for events that the Governor would be attending.  The trooper assigned to Las Vegas also reported to Carson City quite often to cover events in the capital city. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if the proposed Capitol Police officers for the Dignitary Protection Detail would report to the sergeant in the detail or the Capitol Police Chief.  Col. Hosmer stated that the details had not been completely worked out as yet, but he believed it would be a type of bilateral chain of command for those officers.  The Highway Patrol sergeant would probably handle the day-to-day scheduling and staffing.  If a vacancy occurred in the Dignitary Protection Detail the Capitol Police would provide the replacement in cooperation with the Highway Patrol.  Col. Hosmer stated he believed the Dignitary Protection Detail would remain under the jurisdiction of the Highway Patrol with a very close working relationship with the Capitol Police Chief. 

 

Chairman Parks asked why those positions recommended for transfer were not   transferred to the Capitol Police, making it all one budget. 

 

Mr. Marvel commented at one time the Capitol Police had been in charge of the protection of the Governor and the Mansion and a few sessions previously, the Dignitary Protection Detail had been created.

 

Chairman Parks asked about vehicles assigned to the trooper positions and whether they would be transferred from one budget to another.  Col. Hosmer stated that he did not believe there were any vehicles in Budget Account 4738 because it was a stationary post at this point.  Chairman Parks said he was under the impression that Dignitary Protection had vehicles in service.  Col Hosmer replied that he had been told by his staff that there were some vehicles assigned to Dignitary Protection and they would remain there.  Col. Hosmer noted that any radios, weapons, or other equipment previously obtained for Budget Account 4738 would remain in that budget account. 

 

Chairman Parks requested comment regarding overtime costs for the Dignitary Protection Detail. 

 

Mr. Ellison stated that by having five positions within the Dignitary Protection Detail that handled Mansion duties, an attempt was being made to minimize the amount of overtime.  The hours of the three trooper positions that were assigned to the Governor and his wife were more unpredictable and the request for overtime was primarily for those positions. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that the change being presented made sense.  Ms. Giunchigliani said “by going to the three patrol and rolling over to the Capitol Police issue, that gives you some stability, is what you are saying on that end to control the overtime cost because of the way they are staffed at this point.  Is that right.” 

 

Col. Hosmer replied that was correct.  Because of the present staffing of four troopers primarily for the Mansion security, it was difficult to avoid overtime. 

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on Budget Account 4738.

 

Chairman Parks opened the hearing on the Report on Inmate Population Projections by the Department of Corrections.  

 

Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections, introduced Rex Reed, Administrator, Offender Management Division, Department of Corrections, and Fritz Schlottman, Research Analyst, Department of Corrections.  

 

Mr. Reed stated that he would provide an overview of the prison population projection.  The population projection was somewhat higher than the one produced in 2002 because there was a difference in the inputs used by George Washington University when they constructed the 2003 population projection.  In the 2003 projection they were projecting that the discretionary parole grant rate would be lower and that would mean it would drive up the total population.  The mandatory parole rate was going to be somewhat higher than the 2003 projection, but when you balanced the discretionary parole grant rate against the mandatory parole grant rate, the overall parole grant rate would be higher.  That was one of the factors that was driving the 2003 population projection to a higher number.  The other factor was that there appeared to be more parole revocations in the 2003 projection. 

 

The “new court commits” were expected to be somewhat lower in the 2003 projection, however, the total 2003 projection was still higher because the new court commits started at a higher number than they had in the 2002 projection. 

 

Mr. Reed stated that the actual prison population for the men at the end of March 2003 was 9,409, which was 48 inmates fewer than anticipated by the 2002 projection of 9,457.  The 2003 projection was only 20 higher than the projection. 

 

Mr. Reed said the female prison population at the end of March 2003 was 768 female inmates.  The 2002 projection anticipated 815 female inmates, which was 47 female inmates higher than the actual.  Those figures were not unexpected by the Department as the female inmate population was always more volatile and difficult to project. 

 

Mr. Reed presented Exhibit C, entitled “Projection Comparisons,” which compared the male and female inmate populations for 2002 and 2003.  The second page of Exhibit C contained a graph outlining the female projection comparison for 2002 and 2003, and the third page contained a graph outlining the male projection comparison for 2002 and 2003. 

 

Mr. Reed presented Exhibit D, entitled “Population-Projection Comparison of 3/2002 and 3/2003 Projections,” which dealt with the two years of the upcoming biennium.  A much larger table outlined the male and female population projections for 2002 and 2003 and graphed the difference. 

 

Exhibit E, entitled “Female In-house Projection,” and Exhibit F, entitled ”Male In-house Projection,” were presented to the Subcommittee. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked if Exhibit E and Exhibit F represented projections or actual inmate populations.  Mr. Reed responded that the light blue line on the bottom left corner of either graph represented the actual population projection through the end of March 2003.  Senator Rhoads asked what the dark blue color represented on the graph.  Mr. Reed deferred the question to Fritz Schlottman.

 

Mr. Schlottman replied that the dark blue line on the graph was the 2001 projection under which the current biennium was operating. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked how close the 2001 projection had come to the actual numbers.  Mr. Schlottman stated that the 2001 projection was fondly referred to at the Department of Corrections as the “scut” projection.  Mr. Schlottman commented that the male in-house projection for 2001 was very inaccurate, which had turned out to be good given the fiscal state of the Department. 

 

Mr. Marvel inquired as to whether the Department had made any adjustments to their budget, as he believed those were not the same projections that had been submitted with the budget.  Mr. Reed responded that the inmate population projections had been shared with the Department’s fiscal staff, adjustments had been made, and the staff was prepared to discuss the monetary difference created by the two population projections.  Mr. Marvel asked if the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) fiscal staff had been provided with those projections.  Ms. Crawford stated that the LCB fiscal staff had those projections. 

 

Chairman Parks stated that the Subcommittee was waiting for a formal budget modification from the Budget Division.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that while she appreciated the “dip in the numbers,” the number of inmates had been over-projected by approximately 522 inmates.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Department agreed with the budget modifications being requested from the Budget Division and if those modifications reduced the projections. 

 

Darrel J. Rexwinkel, CPA, Assistant Director Support Services, Department of Corrections, responded that the total average number of inmates over the amount originally in The Executive Budget amounted to 113 for FY2004, including male and female.  Of the original 113, 27 were female and because Jean Camp and Silver Springs had already been projected to be full, the additional 27 females were assigned to Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility (SNWCF).  For FY2005, the average number of inmates had been projected to 157 more than in The Executive Budget.  Of the 157, 26 were female offenders.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the only reason he mentioned the female inmates and SNWCF was because the rate was substantially higher and that increased the costs.  Including medical costs associated with those inmates, the projected increase for FY2004 would be $623,933, and of that amount $471,069 was for SNWCF.  For FY2005, the total amount was projected to be $729,638, and of that amount $467,193 was for SNWCF.  Those figures had been communicated to the Executive Budget Division. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many inmates were housed at the Jean Camp.  Mr. Reed responded that the emergency capacity threshold at Jean Camp was 240, and recently 196 to 198 inmates had been housed there.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that technically those additional 27 women could go to the Jean Camp and not into the SNWCF, which obligated the Department to a higher cost.  Mr. Rexwinkel interjected that in The Executive Budget 240 inmates had been projected at Jean Camp for FY2004 and 239 inmates for FY2005, which placed the facility right at emergency capacity.  The emergency capacity threshold at Silver Springs Camp was 112 and The Executive Budget projected 112 inmates for FY2004 and 111 inmates for FY2005. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if $623,933, or the $471,069 for women inmates, could be reduced based on the numbers Mr. Rexwinkel had just provided.  Mr. Rexwinkel responded that Jean Camp and Silver Springs Camp were both already at emergency capacity. 

 

Chairman Parks referred to the graph on page 2 of Exhibit C and inquired as to why there was a spike in the projection comparison for females in 2009.  Mr. Reed responded that the Department had noticed that spike as well and it was based upon numbers provided to the Department by George Washington University.  The University ran numbers that represented individual inmate cases through the system and the algorithms and the models computed what would result.  The result in 2009 was specific to just that year.  Mr. Reed stated that it was not unexpected to see those kinds of fluctuations in the women’s population.  It might look like a significant fluctuation on the graph, but when considered against the small number of female inmates in the system, it was something that a model could be expected to produce.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Reed to address the issue of the 250-bed addition at the SNWCF, in particular the timing of that addition, and whether it would be completed in time to satisfy the increase in required occupancy.  Mr. Reed stated that their projection had been built upon the numbers given to the Department by George Washington University.  Additional capacity was not “brought on” until it was needed and often facilities were run above emergency capacity in order to delay additions.  The Department looked at all the factors that helped to determine when to add to an institution, such as more inmates than available beds, and that was when it was decided whether to make an addition.  Mr. Reed stated he was a little uncertain what the question was and if the question was whether the Department should have asked for the 250-bed addition earlier, the answer was no, as they felt it was slated for construction when it was going to be necessary. 

 

Chairman Parks stated the Subcommittee’s biggest concern was allocating the money before the construction of the facility and if Mr. Reed was stating that the 250-bed addition would be funded and constructed in the 2005-07 biennium that would be fine.  Mr. Reed noted that the SNWCF would be run above emergency capacity beginning early in the 2005-07 biennium.  The Department was planning to delay the addition in order to be as cost-effective and efficient as possible for the taxpayers. 

 

Mr. Schlottman stated that one of the items the Department was looking to for the future was the success of the transitional program at Casa Grande.  The Department anticipated moving the prison population in order to give inmates more opportunities for education and work, which would mean fewer inmates entering the system in the future.  The model and projections did not reflect that as they only reflected past events.  Because so many of the female prison population were “lightweight” offenders, the transition program would give them skills to be successful in the community resulting in lower recidivism in the future and less demand for prison beds. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she believed everyone on the Subcommittee would agree about the need for transitional housing, but she believed there would be disagreement about the Casa Grande issue.  Because she believed the Casa Grande transitional housing plan would not work, Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Department had an alternative plan.

 

Mr. Reed responded that the plan was to use the Casa Grande program for transitional housing.  If the Legislature decided to remove Casa Grande from the plan, at that point the Department would need to implement an alternative. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the Subcommittee was attempting to separate the issue of Casa Grande from the need for transitional housing.  She did not believe that Casa Grande was going to work and emphasized that the Department should have an alternative plan otherwise the Legislature would formulate a plan.

 

Ms. Crawford stated that obviously there were some concerns about Casa Grande, but felt it was still a good idea and believed everyone agreed about the need for transitional housing.  She asked if it would help the Subcommittee if a Request For Proposal (RFP) were issued for the entire process.  When the Department was looking for a reentry plan for inmates, research was done about the subject in order to present some sort of plan.  It had been indicated that some people would be interested in building a facility and leasing it to the Department.  Ms. Crawford stated that it was her understanding that an RFP was not required for a lease or rental project, but perhaps she was incorrect.  In the study committee regarding transitional housing it had been asked what could be done better for the state of Nevada.  Mr. Crawford said she hated to see the concept thrown away. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the Department needed to formulate a plan for transition that was different from Casa Grande.  The problem was not how the plan had been formulated, but how the plan had evolved as information had been presented regarding the setup. 

 

Ms. Crawford requested guidance from the Subcommittee as to what was needed for the transitional housing plan. 

 

Senator Tiffany stated that transitional housing was key to reducing General Fund prison support and the recidivism rate.  She stated she would like to work with Ms. Giunchigliani and Ms. Leslie outside of the Subcommittee to attempt to reach some agreement to present to the Subcommittee. 

 

Chairman Parks made a request for an informal group comprised of Ms. Giunchigliani, Ms. Leslie, and Senator Tiffany, as well as himself, to study the issue of transitional housing for inmates and present a report to the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks stated he believed the question regarding the timing of the 250‑bed addition had been answered.  Mr. Reed stated he wanted to point out that it was actually a 200-bed addition.  The 50 beds would be running the facility above emergency capacity and that would be removed once the 200-bed addition was in place. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if the core facilities, such as the kitchen and infirmary, would be sufficient if 200 beds were added to the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility. 

 

Ms. Crawford responded that the core facilities were more than adequate and when the building had been designed it was with the understanding that there would be expansion in the future.  Chairman Parks asked if the core facilities would accommodate a second expansion and Ms. Crawford replied that she believed it would.

 

Chairman Parks announced there would be a work session for the Department of Corrections. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked what the final amount of revenue from the General Fund would be for the Department of Corrections. 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated he assumed Senator Rhoads was referring to the growth in the inmate population and that figure had been $623,933 for FY2004 and $729,638 for FY2005, making a total of approximately $1.35 million. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked if that figure was more than had been recommended in The Executive Budget.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied that it was because of the increase in the population.  Senator Rhoads asked what the increased number of inmates had been.  Mr. Rexwinkel responded that there had been a projected average increase of 113 inmates for FY2004 and 157 inmates for FY2005.  A large component of the increase had been the increase in the female population at SNWCF. 

 

Chairman Parks stated that the normal way a work session was handled was that staff would guide the Subcommittee through the budgets and specific questions would be directed toward Department personnel.

 

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PRISON MEDICAL CARE – BUDGET ACCOUNT 3706 – BUDGET PAGE NDOC – 13

 

Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, stated that The Executive Budget recommended the reclassification of the Mental Health Coordinator position located within the Medical Division to a Correctional Programs Coordinator position and that position be transferred to the proposed Correctional Programs Division. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if the Department personnel had any questions or comments regarding the reclassification and transfer of the Mental Health Coordinator position. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated that she believed the reclassification and transfer of the position was a viable concept and a new Correctional Programs Division would set the tone for the Department to receive additional funding, accomplish better tracking, and resolve some operation issues.

 

Mr. Raxter stated the next item for consideration in Budget Account 3706 was the elimination of 22.53 FTE positions and the reorganization of the mental health care function within the Department.  In addition to the Mental Health Coordinator position transfer, an additional 35.51 FTE mental health positions were recommended to be transferred to the new Correctional Programs Division, leaving the remaining mental health positions within the Medical Division.  The Department had indicated that the outpatient mental health services would be transferred to the new Correctional Programs Division and inpatient mental health care would stay within the Medical Division. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie stated that she did not know if the Department had prepared the overview chart that she had requested and if it was in her office, she apologized, because she had not had a chance to review it.  She requested the Chair’s indulgence and requested an opportunity to review the chart before the Subcommittee decided on the issue. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated that the Department had provided organizational charts before and after the proposed reorganization.  The following organizational chart indicated the mental health positions assigned to the Medical Division versus the Correctional Programs Division:

 

• Psychometrists - Programs
• Psychologists – Programs
• Clinical Social Workers – Programs
• Psychiatrists – Medical
• Psych. Nurses – Medical
• Psychologists – Medical
• Clinical Social Workers – Medical

 

Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Corrections, stated that the Department was entering a new area and it was difficult for people who were well versed in medicine to understand some of the dovetailing of duties that were involved in mental health.  Mental health had changed over the years and it had become a very involved system, particularly in corrections.  The Programs Division was expected to become a separate entity from the Medical Division with specific duties to perform in order to allow inmates to be identified, treated, placed into programs, and reentered into the community as viable citizens. 

 

The Medical Division had always concentrated on medical treatment for the mentally ill and would continue to perform that function, but with the new Programs Division there would be some dovetailing of functions.  The outpatient department would be overseen by the Programs Division psychologists but would be supervised by Medical Division psychiatrists to ensure that the medications were given appropriately and in a timely manner and that continuous reports were submitted.  In the instances where Programs Division employees were performing intake, they would be discussing intake with employees that were also in the Medical Division. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that psychometrists would handle intake testing, scoring, and special assessments.  Psychologists would handle special assessments and a variety of numerous duties.  Clinical social workers would handle anger management, conflict resolution, substance abuse, and various other programs.  The psychiatrists were strictly medical and dealt with writing prescriptions and overall evaluation of the diagnosis and the treatment plans for the patients.  Psych. nurses were also assigned to the Medical Division and would be supervised by the Nursing Department and the psychiatrists.  Some psychologists would be in the medical arena in the acute care facility, the mental health unit in Carson City, and the extended care facilities throughout the prison system.  Clinical social workers would be retained by the Medical Division to handle discharge planning. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated that the division of duties created a preventive approach to mental health issues.  Psychologists would be part of unit management and they would be in the units along with the case managers and the officers.  The Department was attempting to create a team.  It would expand the program component and meld the two together, rather than the Medical Division and Programs Division being on different levels.

 

Chairman Parks stated that the chart the Subcommittee had been provided had not indicated how many employees would be needed for each position. 

 

Ms. Leslie agreed that the Subcommittee was getting closer to understanding the subject and once she saw the organizational charts it would probably answer her question.  Ms. Leslie stated that there was not a good connection between what happened in the prison and what happened on the outside.  She asked if it was the Department’s idea that those clinical social workers doing discharge planning were going to be working with programs on the outside so when people were released they had a support system to use.

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that the pace had been set some time ago with the HIV program.  In that program, inmates who had been treated for the disease at the prison, when discharged, were placed in proper facilities to receive continuing medical care.  Arrangements had also been made for those inmates to receive medication when they left the facility. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that the same type of plan was in place for inmates with hepatitis C, as well as other medical problems, and the proposed program for released inmates with mental health problems would be managed the same way.  The Medical Division had been discussing with Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator for the Division of Mental Health and Development Services, acquiring beds for people who needed continuing inpatient care. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked if the clinical social workers that were assigned to the Medical Division would be dealing with housing issues and other supportive services that were not medical but were needed by mental health patients.  Dr. D’Amico stated that those issues would be handled as well.  Ms. Leslie stated that she still wanted to see the organizational chart because she was not totally convinced on that point. 

 

Dr. D’Amico responded that the clinical social worker’s job was multifaceted, and the employees would be contacting halfway houses, mental health courts, and various entities for placement.  Because it was not an easy job, other people within the Medical Department would be assisting the clinical social workers.  Dr. D’Amico asked Ms. Leslie if she was asking for a job description when she asked for an organization chart.

 

Ms. Leslie said that she was aware of what clinical social workers did, but she was trying to make the point that it was not just the medical needs of mental health patients that needed to be addressed.  Ms. Leslie stated that her concern was that if the clinical social workers were assigned to the Medical Unit their main focus would be on making sure those patients had the proper medication, which was certainly essential.  In order for those patients to be successful on the outside they needed a whole array of supportive services.  Presently no one was ensuring that a realistic plan was in place to assist those patients so that they did not return to prison.  Ms. Leslie said that she wanted to be convinced that having the clinical social workers under the Medical supervision rather than the Programs supervision was the correct organization.

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that he agreed with Ms. Leslie 100 percent and that was why he had said there was a lot of dovetailing between the Medical Division and the Programs Division.  In an effort to put people back into the community, more than medical needs had to be considered.  Dr. D’Amico said there was close cooperation between the Medical Director and the Programs Administrator in order to ensure that the program operated efficiently. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what happened on the intake end and if the courts transmitted medical plans to the prisons.       

 

Dr. D’Amico stated the intake process was probably the most important part of the system.  The Medical Division had been “marking time” as far as reviewing the intake process.  The new Programs Division would be made responsible for revisions to the intake process. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if new inmates entered prison with any type of paperwork for the prison.

 

Glen Whorton, Assistant Director of Operations, Department of Corrections, stated that getting information when an individual was first incarcerated was a difficult process.  Medical information was provided in some cases and not in others.  Medication was provided in some cases and not in others. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was any legislation that should be considered for requiring the submission of medical records for new inmates at intake because the Legislature would be taking a look at that problem for the Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko and the Caliente Youth Center in Caliente. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated “with all due respect” that legislation had to be supported.  The Department of Corrections had initiated legislation about the transmittal of Pre-sentence Reports to the prisons, and while it had gone into effect, the problem had not been alleviated because it was an issue of resources. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many patients were projected to be within the mental health component.

 

Dr. D’Amico stated he did not believe he understood the question.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that there should be a staffing ratio of some sort and was that ratio based on 200 of the inmates, or based on a percentage that it was assumed had never been screened or tested.

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that an extensive evaluation had been performed on the ratios and the entire mental health program had been built around those ratios.  The mental health program had been based upon some national averages and it had since been discovered that prison systems differed from state to state and sometimes it was impossible to say that 1 psychiatrist was needed for every 1,000 people or 1 psychologist for every 500 people.  However, the Department had those statistics and the system had been built with those statistics in mind. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested that those statistics be provided to the Subcommittee.  Dr. D’Amico agreed to provide those statistics.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she agreed with Chairman Parks, that while the Subcommittee appreciated understanding what each position was going to be doing, it would be nice to know how many positions were within each category. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested information regarding the anger management training that the prison staff was required to have in order to work in any capacity in the Department of Corrections. 

 

Ms. Crawford commented that Ms. Giunchigliani had previously inquired whether legislation was needed in order to have new inmate medical records provided to the prison at intake.  S.B. 90 was being proposed to allow the Department of Corrections, State Mental Health, and other mental health facilities to transfer records.  Historically, the transfer of certain types of records had been against the law.  Ms. Crawford requested the members of the Subcommittee support S.B. 90. 

 

Chairman Parks noted that he had visited High Desert State Prison, had taken a tour through the intake operation, and was surprised at the lack of records provided for many of the new inmates.

 

Mr. Raxter continued outlining the major issues for the Department.  The Casa Grande Transition Housing facility was a new initiative recommended by the Governor to facilitate the reentry of inmates nearing the termination of their sentence or awaiting parole back into the community.  Mr. Raxter stated that staff had some concerns about the financing of this facility and the subsequent construction time period. 

 

Chairman Parks stated that there had been previous conversations about the Casa Grande Transition Housing facility, and while he believed there should be further discussion, there were time constraints involved and individual Subcommittee members should meet with Department of Corrections’ staff to discuss this matter further.

 

Ms. Leslie suggested that the Department of Corrections return within a week and provide specific steps and a time line for the Casa Grande Transition Housing facility. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated the next item for consideration in the Medical Division budget was the classification and transfer of forensic specialists staff.  The Executive Budget recommended the reclassification of forensic staff positions in the Medical Division to custody staff classifications, transferring those positions to the individual institutional budget accounts within the Department.  Doing so would provide those positions with a two-grade pay increase through the reclassification process.  Mr. Raxter noted that the forensic staff positions had not been granted the pay increase that was given to the correctional officers in the 1999 Legislative Session and the 2001 Legislative Session.  A.B. 173, which was introduced this session and was presently in Assembly Ways and Means, would provide for the same two-grade increase for the forensic specialist positions, but would keep them within the forensic specialists classification series. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she agreed that those positions should be given the two-grade increase, therefore, perhaps the Subcommittee should recommend processing A.B. 173, or do it in the budget.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she still had some concerns regarding the reclassification and wondered if leaving the 52 positions in the present classification, while giving them the pay increase, would solve the problem.  As new people were hired, place them under the new classification, and through attrition, eventually the problem would be solved. 

 

Ms. Crawford responded that she had met with the forensic specialists and had been told that those employees wanted to be part of the security group but still retain their specialty.   

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if reclassification was the proper way to achieve that end.  She stated that she believed the forensic specialists had a legitimate concern. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated one of the previous questions had concerned flexibility of the forensic specialists.  Part of the Department’s difficulty had been with flexibility because there would be medical forensic specialists who did not want to go to the mental health unit when there would be a staff shortage.  The intent of the Department was to keep those employees as a correctional specialty, just as with control officers, transportation officers, and visiting officers.  Those individuals would have specific qualifications and would be assigned based upon those qualifications.  

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a specific term, “correctional specialty,” or if that was what the reclassification could create.

 

Mr. Whorton responded that he did not know if it was that specific. 

Ms. Giunchigliani mused that to her “a correctional officer was a correctional officer.”  A forensic specialist was a forensic that might have custody, but might not.  She suggested that perhaps Personnel should create a new category called correctional specialist and then there would be flexibility based upon background as to where they would be assigned. 

 

Ms. Crawford asked if the Subcommittee wanted her to check with the Personnel Department because the Department did not have any problem doing what Ms. Giunchigliani had suggested.  The Department was trying to figure out how to make everyone work together and be happy in their role, which was very important.  Ms. Crawford acknowledged that at the present time, the forensic specialists felt isolated and left out.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the possibility of creating a correctional specialist position, which would give the Department the management flexibility to tap individual resources. 

 

Senator Rhoads suggested investigating how prison systems in other states operated. 

 

Dr. D’Amico commented that other states did not know what a forensic specialist was.  The forensic specialist position was created during former Director Sumner’s era when Lake’s Crossing had some employees who were correctional people for the mentally ill, but they also had some mental health background.  It had been thought it would be a good idea to bring them into the prison system because manpower was needed to correct the mental health programs.  Dr. D’Amico stated that the plan had worked quite well and when the medical budget had taken over the cost and operation it had been decided to expand it to the Medical Division and have two classifications, mental health forensics and medical forensics.  As the years went on, supervisory problems occurred and supervisor positions were created within the forensic classifications. 

 

Dr. D’Amico emphasized that he was not discrediting the forensic specialist classification as the employees worked hard and were very capable.  Some forensic specialists were extremely capable in the medical arena as well as the custody arena.  Dr. D’Amico said he was trying to find a better way to make the Medical Division work.  The Medical Division had already done many repairs to its system.  This was only one repair and it was unfortunate that the salary issue was involved because that was not the intent.  The intent was to identify employees who were custody people, train them properly, and place them in the correct position.  Dr. D’Amico reiterated that other states did not have the classification of forensic specialists and the question had even arisen when private contractors from other states had bid on projects and wanted a definition of forensic specialist. 

 

Chairman Parks stated he was confused as to whom forensic specialists reported, custody or medical.

 

Mr. Whorton responded that at this point in time forensic specialists reported to custody because that was primarily what their duties were.

 

Mr. Raxter stated that the next item for discussion was the Ely Medical Services Contract.  The Executive Budget for the 2003-05 biennium recommended continuation of the contract for those services.  The budget amount did not include an allowance for medical inflationary increases.  The Purchasing Division had been working on a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the contract since the existing contract expired on June 30, 2003.  The Department would need to provide information regarding the cost of the new contract for inclusion in the 2003-05 biennial budget.  Mr. Raxter noted for the Subcommittee that the Department, in a previous Subcommittee hearing, had mentioned an alternative plan in the event the contract price was higher than anticipated.  The Subcommittee would need some information from the Department prior to closing, which indicated the direction they planned to go, and the dollar impact on the budget. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that while the Request for Proposal process was still ongoing, the proposals had been evaluated.  Mr. Rexwinkel said that he had not been on the evaluation committee but he knew a little bit about it and could share some information that could possibly inform the Subcommittee about the direction the plan was taking.  In The Executive Budget the amount allocated for the Correctional Medical Services (CMS) was after adjustments had been made.  After adjustments meant that if CMS had vacant positions, or if inmates had been sent to the Regional Medical Center, the amount paid to CMS was reduced.  Mr. Rexwinkel continued by stating that there was a “before adjustment” and “after adjustment” figure.  The before adjustment figure was approximately 9 percent larger for FY2004, while the after adjustment figure was only around 4 percent larger than the figure in The Executive Budget for the Department’s management of medical services at Ely State Prison.  In FY2005 the after adjustment figure would probably increase to approximately 7 percent.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that two other proposals had been submitted for outside medical services for Ely State Prison.  Those proposals ranged from 15 to 20 percent more to provide medical services for FY2004.

 

Chairman Parks commented that the way he understood it, if it were determined not to accept either of the two proposals and instead provide medical services in-house, there would be an increase in costs over the amount recommended in The Executive Budget of 4 percent in FY2004 and 7 percent in FY2005. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated those figures were approximate and depended upon variables such as vacancy savings.  It would be a major change if the NDOC were to assume the management of the medical services at Ely.  At the present time the budget figure was for contract services, so more money would have to be allocated for staff, medications, and outside medical. 

 

Chairman Parks said he could certainly understand what it would require to move the medical services to an in-house operation from a financial perspective.  He stated the bigger question was, could it be done or would there be areas of great difficulty.

 

Ms. Crawford stated that the Department was very capable of assuming that role if it were necessary and Dr. D’Amico had a completed action plan ready. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that private contractors had been brought to the Ely State Prison because it had been difficult to hire personnel and manage that system.  There had been a promise from the outside contractor that they would solve the problem and, at the time, the Medical Division of NDOC had not been prepared to assume the management of medical services.  Currently the operation of the Medical Division was much more stable than it had been in the past.  The problems that had occurred 10 or 15 years before regarding medical services at Ely State Prison no longer existed.  Dr. D’Amico said today the Medical Department could go into Ely State Prison and run medical services as well, if not better, than a contractor.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Medical Division was going to take over medical services at Ely State Prison rather than issue a new contract for outside medical services. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that he would welcome administering medical services for Ely State Prison.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was an “opt in” and “opt out” since the contract with CMS was close to expiration. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the contract with CMS was due to expire June 30, 2003, and that was the reason the Department had begun the RFP process, however, an extension could probably be negotiated for a short period of time. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Department was bidding on the medical services contract.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel responded that the Department had done their own calculations. 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Department was allowed to compete because she did not know if state entities were now permitted to apply for an RFP for their own departments. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated that the NDOC was not in that position yet, however, with all new contracts the Department was setting up their own plans to see which plan had the highest capability. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if The Executive Budget would allow the Department to install whatever changes were deemed best without changing the budget figures.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel responded that more money would be needed than was included in The Executive Budget, approximately 4 percent more for FY2004 and 7 percent more for FY2005. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if that would involve a budget modification.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied that the Department had not done a budget modification because they had just received the budget information and they were still developing the numbers.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how long it would take for the Department to compile the needed figures.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied that they could have the figures within a couple of days.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that would be very helpful toward closing the budget.

 

Chairman Parks stated that he may have missed something, but as he understood it, there had been two proposals submitted for medical services and asked if CMS had submitted one of the two proposals. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel replied that CMS had submitted one of the proposals but he did not know who had submitted the other. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if the entire evaluation process had been completed.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied that the Evaluation Committee had met and evaluated the proposals but there had been no notice of award. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated the next issue in the Medical Division budget was the pharmacist pay increase.  The Governor’s budget recommendation was to change the pharmacist positions within the Medical Division from the regular classified employee pay schedule to the classified medical pay schedule.  In a previous hearing the Department had indicated that it was examining a proposal for mail-order pharmacy services, which would be in lieu of those pharmacist positions.  Mr. Raxter said the Subcommittee might want to have the Department indicate where they were on that review process. 

 

Dr. D’Amico replied that for the past two years he had been attempting to streamline the Department’s pharmacy system to save money and have a better operating system.  Presently the Department had eight positions in pharmacy to manage a system with less than 10,000 inmates.  The average number of prescriptions dispensed throughout the system was approximately 8,000 per month, which meant each of the eight pharmacists was dispensing approximately 1,000 prescriptions each month, or 25 prescriptions per day.  Dr. D’Amico stated that was unheard of, considering the amount of money the Department was spending to hire pharmacists, so automation was being investigated.  Almost every system in the country was investigating automation.  Most of the private companies that operated prison pharmacies were on mail‑order systems and some of the state systems that were not privatized were also on mail order.  Unit-dose was a big innovation in hospitals and throughout medicine, as it saved a lot of nursing time and prevented errors. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that in the past two years the Department had investigated the possibility of purchasing computers for the pharmacy or purchasing a machine to dispense unit-doses.  The NDOC had issued an RFP for an automated pharmacy system, but for some unknown reason many of the major companies had not bid and there was a total of only three bidders.  Dr. D’Amico stated that he was still attempting to streamline the NDOC pharmacy system. 

 

Chairman Parks commented that, as he understood it, the NDOC Medical Division would be continuing with the existing pharmacy program and the pharmacist positions would be moved into the classified medical pay schedule.

 

Dr. D’Amico stated that when the Medical Division had been requested to cut 3 percent from their budget, it had been anticipated that the Division would be implementing some automation and streamlining in the pharmacy.  In order to cut 3 percent from the budget three pharmacy positions had been proposed for elimination.  Before the Committee met regarding the RFP, the Budget Office had replaced the three pharmacy positions in the budget.  At the present time The Executive Budget contained eight pharmacy positions, however, there were only two pharmacists and two pharmacy technicians hired.  Dr. D’Amico said the Department of Corrections would be deciding whether to rehire those four remaining vacant positions or whether the pharmacy system could get along with fewer employees.  A report containing those findings would be provided at a later date. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the budget showed eight pharmacy positions and asked Dr. D’Amico if three had been added.  Dr. D’Amico stated that when he said they had eight pharmacy positions, he meant that the Department had five pharmacist positions and three pharmacy technician positions.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she had not heard him correctly and thanked him for the clarification.

 

Chairman Parks said that staff would probably have to spend more time on this budget before it could be closed.

 

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARM SPRINGS CORRECTIONAL CENTER – BUDGET ACCOUNT 3716 – BUDGET PAGE NDOC – 27

 

Mr. Raxter stated that The Executive Budget recommended the conversion of the Warm Springs Correctional Facility from a medium custody facility to a minimum custody facility, which would increase capacity by approximately 50 beds.  The budget recommendation was to eliminate 28 custody positions through the conversion process, leaving staffing of 84 positions.  The Warm Springs Correctional Facility was considerably larger at 550 beds than the existing minimum custody facilities within the Department; however, staff believed that 84 positions seemed somewhat high, especially in two areas.  One area of concern was the number of roving and search/escort officers.  The budget recommendation was to reduce the existing 27 roving officer positions by six positions for a total of 21 positions.  The second area of concern was in the administration and overall management of the facility.  The Executive Budget recommended continuing the Warden position, the Associate Warden of Operations position, and maintaining three correctional Lieutenant positions.  The Department had indicated at previous hearings that the Warden at Warm Springs Correctional Facility also served as a Regional Warden for the Northern Nevada Restitution Center and the Silver Springs Conservation Camp.  Mr. Raxter suggested that the Subcommittee might want to ask the NDOC why the Warden at Nevada State Prison could not assume the duties of Regional Warden and why there would remain a need for three correctional Lieutenants, one on each shift. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated that he understood what LCB staff was saying, and he appreciated that, but the Warm Springs Correctional Facility still needed to be operated.  It was a very large facility for a minimum security institution, and it was unlike other minimum security facilities as it was spread out over a large land mass.  Also, unlike the other minimum security facilities, Warm Springs Correctional Facility was embedded in an urban area, which gave the Department a security responsibility to manage the facility appropriately.

 

Mr. Whorton said he could only return to the original presentation before the Subcommittee regarding the supervision of the Warm Springs Correctional Facility.  In that presentation, the ratio of staffing to inmates was discussed and the NDOC, especially in its non-uniformed staff, had more than twice the number of inmates than was the average in the western United States.  The Department was expected to manage those inmates and keep the community safe, but the Department could not go any lower with staffing and maintain the same level of supervision.  Mr. Whorton commented that the NDOC was not like other prison systems in the country that could cut fat; the Department had “no fat, we are all bone,” and cutting any more would jeopardize their mission.  It was unrealistic to expect the Department’s staff to do more with less without a reduction of the inmate population. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that as she understood it there were four chaplains available across the prison system and asked if that number could be increased. 

 

Ms. Crawford responded that nothing had been included in the budget for more chaplains because the Department had been trying to reduce spending by 3 percent as required.  However, the NDOC did need more chaplains because if American Correctional Standards (ACA) were used, the Department was probably 22 chaplains short.  At High Desert State Prison there was only 1 chaplain to 1,800 inmates and the same chaplain also served Southern Desert Correctional Center. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she did not want to use a lot of Subcommittee time but she had met with the chaplains in southern Nevada and felt they had made an excellent case.  The prison system was below standard regarding the number of chaplains to inmates.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that for those inmates who wanted to access some spirituality it should be available to them.  She requested that the Department submit the possible cost impact to the budget over the next biennium for doubling the number of chaplains. 

 

Chairman Parks returned to the question of staffing at the Warm Springs Correctional Facility and asked if the facility was being staffed by design or by the number of inmates.

 

Mr. Whorton responded that, when staffing for corrections, there was no standard that stated a minimum custody facility should have a specific number of inmates to a specific number of staff.  Much of the staffing requirement had to do with architecture, type of inmate population, and other considerations that made staffing unique to the specific facility.  One of the advantages the Department had with Ely State Prison was that it was architecturally efficient, however, Warm Springs Correctional Facility was architecturally inefficient because it had initially been a women’s facility and had been remodeled with women’s requirements in mind. 

 

Mr. Whorton emphasized that Warm Springs Correctional Facility was not only architecturally inefficient but the facility would also be housing sick inmates and inmates not suitable for work crews.  The Department was developing programs for community work for inmates and correctional officers would be required to transport and supervise those work crews.  Mr. Whorton stated that an action plan, specific to Warms Springs Correctional Facility, was in place and underway. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what duties a roving and search/escort officer performed. 

 

Mr. Whorton replied that it was somewhat of a local term but essentially there were the search/escort officers, who worked for the sergeant and lieutenant and worked throughout the entire institution, and roving officers, who were assigned to specific buildings.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many buildings were included in the Warm Springs Correctional Facility. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated there were four units and the largest unit was called a “bow tie,” which was separated into two wings; the original unit, which included the core; a small unit; and unit 3, which was the old Alaskan modular. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a correlation between each type of unit and the number of staff usually required in each unit. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated that those figures were available and he would provide them to the Subcommittee.

 

Mr. Raxter stated that some of the concerns that LCB staff had noted for the roving officers were that in two of the housing units the roving officers were recommended for the day shift and the swing shift, but not the graveyard shift.  In other housing units, roving officers were recommended for all three shifts, causing some inconsistencies. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated those inconsistencies related back to the architecture and the population because Warm Springs Correctional Facility had been designed as a medium security facility.  Now that Warm Springs was becoming a minimum security facility, a roving officer would not be required on the graveyard shift because those doors would be closed and locked just as in a medium security institution. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if he was correct that, although the inmates would be considered minimum security, some of them tended more toward medium security. 

 

Mr. Whorton responded that for some time minimum security housing had been at the conservation camps and most of that housing had been in the remote areas.  In the past, it had been difficult to place some people in minimum custody because there had been no medical infrastructure in place at the camps.  Inmates with back problems, leg problems, asthma, or insulin dependent diabetes could not be placed in the camps because of the lack of medical facilities.  Additionally, the NDOC had the responsibility to provide healthy people to work on the Nevada Department of Forestry (NDF) fire crews.  The conversion of the Warm Springs Correctional Center to a minimum security facility allowed the Department to place some of those inmates with medical problems in a specific place. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated that The Executive Budget recommended the elimination of 14 correctional officer positions at the Ely State Prison, resulting in a General Fund savings of approximately $700,000 in each year of the biennium.  Staff noted that this recommendation was a departure from the staffing of this institution in the past, and staffing in general within the Department.  The proposal did not identify the specific staffing posts to which those 14 positions were assigned.  The proposal was to reduce 14 positions based upon historical vacancy rates within the Ely State Prison.  The LCB staff had requested a post staffing chart reflecting the elimination of the 14 positions but to date a copy of that chart had not been received.  The budget included vacancy savings of approximately $1.3 million in each year of the biennium.  Part of that vacancy savings had been calculated on the 14 positions that had been recommended for elimination. 

 

Mr. Whorton responded that given the financial straits that the state of Nevada had found itself in, the NDOC was offering those 14 positions, however, the post chart was not going to be changed.  In 1999 the Ely State Prison had almost 60 vacancies and the post chart was not adjusted.  In actuality, the NDOC had fewer vacancies than there used to be, and there would never be 60 vacancies as there had been in the past.  Mr. Whorton stated that the Department would close areas and move people around, as well as pay overtime in order to provide necessary coverage.  Ely State Prison would still have the same architecture and the same population to manage but management would use flexibility in assigning staff to cover the daily activities. 

 

Mr. Whorton said that in terms of vacancy savings, the NDOC had no plan for vacancy savings and did not intend to develop one.  The Department was assuming that normal turnover would manage vacancy savings and the budget had been cut as much as possible. 

 

Chairman Parks stated that one of the Subcommittee’s concerns had been that the Department would be appearing before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) requesting supplemental funds. 

 

Mr. Raxter commented that by eliminating the 14 positions at the Ely State Prison, and not adjusting the post chart, it was being stated that this facility was designed for that particular recommended staffing level, and any future similar facility that was constructed would be bound by the staffing level currently being established.  That departure affected the whole staffing of Ely State Prison and any future facility with a similar design.

 

Mr. Raxter also commented on the vacancy savings by noting that the vacancy savings of $1.3 million was factored on the existing positions for FY2002, which included the 14 positions recommended for elimination.  If those 14 positions had been excluded from the calculation the vacancy savings recommended in the budget would have been lower, thereby providing more money to actually fund those 14 positions. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated that he was confused, because he was not sure what Mr. Raxter was saying about funding regular positions with vacancy savings.

 

Mr. Raxter said that the vacancy savings calculation, in essence, was overstated if it included 14 positions that the Department no longer had. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated that his assumption would be that those salary savings would be part of the calculation and by virtue of eliminating those positions the savings would occur.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel responded by stating that Mr. Raxter was correct, the vacancy savings had been calculated including the 14 positions recommended for elimination.  The $1.3 million vacancy savings would probably amount to an average of about 26 positions.  The other 14 positions added to the 26 positions would amount to about 40 positions that would be required to remain vacant.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that in calendar year 1998 vacancies had reached 47 positions; in 1999, 58 vacancies; 2000, 52 vacancies; and 2001, 42 vacancies.  The average vacancies had been at least 40 over those years.  In calendar year 2002, the vacancies averaged only about 22 positions.  The Ely State Prison would have to revert back to the vacancy rate of 2001 and before, in order to meet the vacancy savings and the reduction of 14 positions.  Mr. Rexwinkel acknowledged that perhaps the vacancy savings should have been calculated after the reduction of the 14 positions, which would have reduced the vacancy savings.

 

Mr. Raxter stated that the next item was High Desert State Prison and the budget issue was continued housing of inmates from Wyoming.  The existing contract that the NDOC had with the state of Wyoming was for the housing of inmates through June 30, 2003.  In a previous budget subcommittee hearing the NDOC indicated that they had a Letter of Intent from Wyoming expressing an interest in housing inmates for one or two more years after June 30, 2003. 

 

The Executive Budget recommended the elimination of staffing in housing unit 8 based upon a lower population of Nevada inmates in the next biennium.  Mr. Raxter stated that staffing would be necessary, however, if High Desert State Prison continued to house inmates from Wyoming.  In the current fiscal year, the Department had prepared a work program for the housing of Wyoming inmates, which included both revenue and expenditures.  The Department could prepare another work program at the time the contract with Wyoming was renewed, assuming it was renewed, but there might not be the opportunity for the Legislature to review that work program if it occurred after the session closed.  The contract that the Department had with the state of Wyoming provided for a rate of $60 per day, per inmate.  The actual cost to Nevada to house the Wyoming inmates was approximately $41 per day, per inmate; therefore, the state made money on the contract.  If this item were included in the budget it would be an opportunity for the Department to reduce the amount of General Fund support in the 2003-05 biennium. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated that the Wyoming inmate housing contract had been negotiated to earn additional revenue for the Department.  She wondered what would happen if the Wyoming revenue was eliminated from the NDOC budget and then Wyoming decided to remove their inmates. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated that the main concern was what kind of commitment the NDOC had from the state of Wyoming.  He requested comment on where the contract renewal negotiations stood, how many inmates Wyoming would be committed to send to Nevada, and where Wyoming was regarding their inmate housing needs as related to the state of Nevada.

 

Ms. Crawford stated that Wyoming had not allocated any money to build new prisons, and while they had been contemplating building, it was probably at least four years in the future.  Ms. Crawford further stated that she would not want to commit the NDOC to Wyoming for four years and any future commitments were on a year-by-year basis.  Even if Wyoming were to cease contracting with Nevada, other states had contacted the NDOC to express an interest in housing their inmates here.  The housing of inmates from other states was relatively new in Nevada, but Wyoming had been very pleased with the service provided.  Ms. Crawford stated she would be happy to provide a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Wyoming contract if the Subcommittee would like one. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated that when the contract with Wyoming had been initiated, the Department had expected 200 inmates to be housed in Nevada by the present time, however, there were only 112 inmates housed here.  Had the Department’s budget been based upon 200 inmates, there would have been a large revenue shortfall that would have to have been addressed.  Mr. Rexwinkel said that in most of those contract situations, no one committed to send a minimum of inmates, it was an agreement where one state said they would send inmates and another state agreed to accept those inmates. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the NDOC had enough staff to accommodate the Wyoming inmates or if increased staffing would be needed.

 

Ms. Crawford responded that Wyoming inmates had been housed in existing facilities, which were already staffed, so there had been no problem.  However, if the contract with Wyoming were expanded, or other states wanted to house inmates in Nevada, unit 8 would have to be utilized and staffed. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked if there would be enough staff if Wyoming housed the 200 previously expected inmates at the High Desert State Prison. 

 

Ms. Crawford stated that 200 inmates would not be a staffing problem, however, if the number exceeded 200, additional staff would be needed and the price per inmate would be increased. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the price charged per inmate was paying for the staffing and Ms. Crawford replied that it was. 

 

Mr. Raxter asked the Department to comment on the state of Wyoming continuing to house 112 inmates at High Desert State Prison, and not building a budget proposal based upon the maximum that would be included in the contract, but based upon the current number of inmates housed in Nevada.

 

Mr. Whorton responded that it was not unreasonable to assume that the 112 inmates from Wyoming would remain in Nevada.  The particular inmates that the NDOC had selected were individuals with relatively long-term sentences and with relatively good institutional records. 

 

Chairman Parks stated there were also inmates from Wyoming housed at Ely State Prison and noted that when the program had been initiated all inmates were supposed to be medium security housed at High Desert State Prison.

 

Mr. Whorton stated that was correct, but a small group of difficult-to-manage inmates had been housed at Ely State Prison with the knowledge and authorization of Wyoming officials.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the NDOC would accept additional inmates for housing at Ely State Prison.  Mr. Whorton responded that Ely State Prison had no more room for out-of-state inmates and no expansion was being considered.

 

Mr. Raxter stated the next budget item for consideration was funding for the Literacy Program.  The Executive Budget recommended that four academic teacher positions that were part of the Literacy Program, currently funded through a federal grant that would expire August 2003, be continued and funded through the General Fund.  Those four academic teacher positions were also recommended to be transferred to the Correctional Programs Division.  The General Fund impact of those four positions was approximately $260,000 the first year and $316,000 the second year.  One issue that the NDOC noted at a prior Subcommittee hearing was that the funding source used for those positions in the past was profit from the Offenders Store Fund.  Due to other obligations in that account, namely medical costs, the level of reserves in that account were not sufficient to provide ongoing funding for those four positions into the next biennium.  LCB staff had noted, based on questions raised by the Subcommittee and responses from the NDOC, that the Department had entered into a new revenue-generating program in the current fiscal year, namely commissions from catalog sales.  The Department had indicated that once the program was in operation for a full year, the revenue generated would be approximately $100,000 per year.  Mr. Raxter said the Subcommittee might want to ask the Department whether that funding could be used to pay a portion of the salaries for the four teacher positions.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel responded that the Department believed that the commission program would increase revenues by $100,000 per year.  On the other hand, Mr. Rexwinkel stated the inmate telephone contract was due to expire and a new RFP had been issued, which could possibly result in lower telephone commissions.  New telephone technology, such as three-way calling and remote call forwarding, had seriously reduced commissions from the inmate telephone contract.  Between the Offenders Store Fund and the Inmate Welfare Fund, Mr. Rexwinkel opined that the Department would be fortunate to end the biennium “without being in the hole.” 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized that it was a nice idea to provide literacy but it was not mandated by statute.  She stated that if the NDOC wanted to continue those four positions they should find the money somewhere else because “it was not coming out of General Funds.”

 

Marta J. Hall, Academic and Vocational Programs, Department of Corrections, responded that if the Department was to lose those four teacher positions, a very important program would be lost that was the responsibility of the NDOC. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani interjected that the program was not the NDOC’s responsibility according to statute, and while it was a worthwhile program the Department had initiated it based upon a grant and when the grant went away, the programs went away. 

 

Ms. Hall stated she understood, however, initially those positions were not grant funded, the Department had gotten a “reprieve” for three years through a federal grant, and now the Department was requesting the positions be reinstated in the budget.   

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the “Train the Trainer” program was still in place.  Ms. Hall responded that it was.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was working effectively.  Ms. Hall responded that it was.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the “Train the Trainer” program could continue in the interim in place of the Literacy Program and if the Legislature had more money next session the Department could bring back the Literacy Program.

 

Ms. Hall commented that those four teacher positions were not just “Train the Trainer” literacy positions.  At least two of those positions were essential to perform the functions of the Academic and Vocational Programs Department, aside from the literacy function. 

 

Chairman Parks commented on the “package program” and the fact that the Department had indicated that they implemented it twice a year.  Chairman Parks asked whether the program could be expanded and perhaps done on an ongoing basis in order to generate revenue.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel responded that the inmates had only a limited amount of money to spend each month.  The “package program” was derived from people outside of the prison sending packages to inmates.  What the program allowed was for people to provide $50 worth of product to an inmate without having departmental charges taken from that amount of money.  If money was directly sent to the institution for the inmate’s use, there were deductions taken from that money.  If the “package program” was instituted year round, the other needs would not be satisfied because that money would continually bypass amounts that needed to be taken out for other items set forth in statute. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated that the NDOC was requesting a Victims Services Officer position.  Currently, the Department had statutory responsibility in the area of victims to provide notification of an offender’s release or escape to those victims who have indicated, through a written request to the department, a desire to be notified.  The Department had requested the Victims Services Officer position to handle that responsibility and additional responsibilities in the area of notifying victims of an offender’s sentence reduction, transfer, death, and appearances before the Psychological Review Panel and the Pardons Board.  The Department was also recommending that this position include teaching victim empathy to department staff, assisting in victim impact panels, developing a clearinghouse of information for victims, and educating victims and victim providers on the prison system. 

 

Ms. Crawford commented that historically and statutorily the Department had been mandated to manage the victim’s unit, primarily with just clerical employees.  However, with 10,340 inmates there was a tremendous amount of inquiry, and the clerical staff was unable to handle the volume.  It was Ms. Crawford’s opinion that Victims Services was probably the most beneficial service the NDOC could provide to the community. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if the new position of Victims Services Officer would continue to use clerical staff to assist in performing the job.

 

Ms. Crawford stated that currently, with the state of automation, many people did their own clerical work.  The Department was not requesting additional clerical staff, they were asking for a person to be designated as the Victims Services Officer so that when an inquiry was made, one person would respond. 

 

Chairman Parks asked if the Victims Services Officer would be receiving some clerical support because he had a difficult time seeing how one person would be able to handle service to 10,340 inmates.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani requested a prioritized list of the new personnel that had been requested by the Department of Corrections.

 

Mr. Raxter stated that the next topic for discussion was the request for a Grants Analyst.  The NDOC had received within the last 12 months, approximately $5.9 million in grant funding.  The responsibility for applying for and administering those grants had been spread out among various staff members within the Department.  The Department wanted those duties centralized within one position.  The Department had provided a listing of various private foundations that provided grants in Nevada, but LCB staff had a question as to how many of those foundations supported correctional programs.  Mr. Raxter also noted that the President’s federal FY2004 budget proposal reflected the redirection of a significant amount of Department of Justice grant funds to the Department of Homeland Security for terrorism preparedness and prevention. 

 

Ms. Crawford responded that the Department had done considerable research to determine if a Grants Analyst position could be well utilized.  Because of the current budget issues the Department recognized that this position could be perceived as a luxury.  At the present time several members of the office staff were writing grants.  Ms. Crawford stated that she believed there were a number of grants available from private foundations that could assist the NDOC and particularly in the special needs population.  Those special needs categories included juvenile offenders, women, and children.  The Department would also like to explore the Medicaid and hospice issues for terminally ill inmates.  Ms. Crawford said that she believed it would be important to have a Grants Analyst position because there needed to be someone to look at all the grants, provide follow-up, and track progress. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel said he would like to follow-up with a comment regarding Ms. Giunchigliani’s request for prioritization of positions.  The Department had eliminated 85 positions from the base budget.  Outside of those positions requested for Casa Grande and the four literacy teachers, the Department was requesting only two positions, one was the Victims Services Officer and the other was the Grants Analyst. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she appreciated Mr. Rexwinkel’s comments, but still felt a list of positions requested and ranked in order of priority was needed. 

 

Mr. Raxter stated that The Executive Budget recommended funding to provide for psychological testing for new hires in custody-type positions at a cost of approximately $118,000 per year.  The Department had indicated in previous testimony that psychological testing would help ensure that only applicants suitable for working in a corrections environment would be offered employment, thereby reducing the potential risk liability associated with those employees. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated that psychological testing for new hires was extremely important to the Department and to the state, especially in terms of liability.  Corrections was a very challenging environment in which to work.  It was demanding in the sense that every day officers were degraded and often subject to physical assault.  It was necessary for correctional officers to have the same level of restraint as required for a police officer in a community. 

 

There had been examples in the past where the NDOC had paid tens of thousands of dollars in court judgments for the misconduct or mistakes of correctional staff.  Mr. Whorton stated that the Department believed that psychological testing of new hires was a small investment toward saving money in the future and ensuring that inmates were treated properly. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked whether information had been supplied to the Subcommittee regarding drug testing and the large increase in the NDOC budget for drug testing. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel responded that the Department would provide that information to the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks thanked the Department of Corrections for their presentation.

Benjamin Blinn, private citizen, testified before the Subcommittee regarding the Department of Corrections.  He stated he would like to give some reasons why he believed there was going to be a drop in the prison population:

 

·        Affirmative defense for lightweight use of marijuana

·        No children or mentally retarded on death row

·        Abolishment of the three judge panel system

·        Allowing the defense to speak last at trial in a capital case

·        Fewer frivolous prosecutions

 

Mr. Blinn commented that the profit from the Inmate Welfare Fund had been dissipated by the Medical Department to the point that the Fund no longer supported education for inmates.  Mr. Blinn related some personal experiences within the prison system in the 1970s. 

 

Mr. Blinn stated he did not believe Nevada needed Wyoming’s nuclear waste or their felony waste as Nevada was not in the prison business. 

 

Mr. Blinn suggested that the Subcommittee look at the successful programs already established in Washoe County, such as Step 2 and the Lighthouse of the Sierra. 

 

The Reverend Dr. Jane Foraker-Thompson, Social Justice Coordinator for the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada, informed the Subcommittee that a few weeks before she had taken a job with the Nevada Department of Corrections.  Dr. Foraker-Thompson stated that she would not have taken a position with any other Department of Corrections that she had known.  She further stated that she had worked in and around corrections for 32 years. 

 

Dr. Foraker-Thompson said that Director Crawford was the reason she was working for the NDOC because Director Crawford was humane, progressive, tough, and attempting to upgrade the Department to meet national standards. 

 

Dr. Foraker-Thompson stated that, in her opinion, the prisons in Nevada were seriously understaffed and understaffing was creating a dangerous situation. 

 

Chairman Parks thanked Dr. Foraker-Thompson for her testimony and stated that he believed he could speak for every member of the Subcommittee when he said they had the greatest respect for Director Crawford and the work that was being done in the Department of Corrections. 

 

Dr. Foraker-Thompson commented that literacy was basic to the entire corrections education system.  Most inmates had not graduated from high school when they entered the system and many were illiterate and could not progress until becoming literate. 

 

Lawrence Jacobsen, private citizen, commented regarding the inmate crews and a rumor that three of the crews might be eliminated.  Mr. Jacobsen stated that the inmate crews were the best programs in the Nevada Department of Corrections and the Nevada Division of Forestry. 

Chairman Parks adjourned the meeting at 11:53 a.m. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Anne Bowen

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

 

 

DATE: