The following work session document was prepared by staff of the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the Death Pena

WORK SESSION DOCUMENT

Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the

Juvenile Justice System

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 18

[File No. 92, Statutes of Nevada 2003]

June 18, 2004

The following “Work Session Document” was prepared by staff of the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the Juvenile Justice System in Nevada (Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 18 [File No. 92, Statutes of Nevada 2003]). The document contains a compilation of recommendations within the scope of the study that were presented in hearings and submitted in writing during the course of the study for the Subcommittee’s consideration.

The possible actions listed in the document do not necessarily have the support or opposition of the Subcommittee. Rather, these possible actions simply are compiled and organized so the members may review them to decide if they should be adopted, changed, rejected, or further considered. Individual or joint sponsors of recommendations may be referenced in parentheses. Please note that specific sponsors of the recommendations may not be provided if the proposals were raised and discussed by numerous individuals and entities during the course of the study.

Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 218.2429, interim committees conducting a study or investigation are limited to no more than five legislative measures (bill draft requests and requests for the drafting of resolutions). However, committees may request the preparation of additional legislative measures if the Legislative Commission approves each additional request by a majority vote. Finally, A.C.R. 18 specifies that any recommended legislation proposed by the Subcommittee must be approved by a majority of the members of the Assembly and a majority of the members of the Senate appointed to the Subcommittee. The Legislative Commission shall then submit a final report of the results of the study and any recommendations for legislation to the 73^rd Session of the Nevada Legislature.

For purposes of this Work Session Document, the recommendations have been grouped by possible Subcommittee action and are not preferentially ordered. Additionally, although possible actions may be identified within each recommendation, the Subcommittee may choose to recommend any of the following actions: 1) draft legislation; 2) draft a resolution; 3) draft a letter; or 4) include a statement of support in the final report.

Finally, it should be noted that many of the recommendations may contain an unknown fiscal impact. Subcommittee members should be advised that Legislative Counsel Bureau staff will coordinate with the interested parties to obtain detailed fiscal estimates (for inclusion in the final report), and that all recommendations may be considered within available funding limits.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE MEASURES

BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Recommendation No. 1 — Draft legislation, by amending Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 62H.030, to authorize certain persons and agencies to inspect juvenile records without a court order. The intent of this recommendation is to facilitate greater collaboration and coordination of services through the sharing of information between agencies involved with youth in the juvenile justice system. (Proposed by the Work Study Group of the Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission [hereinafter Work Study Group])

Background Information for Recommendation No. 1

Tab A – Letter from the Work Study Group, dated May 3, 2004, containing a recommendation with draft language amending NRS 62H.030. The recommendation would statutorily authorize the sharing of case information between agencies involved with a specific youth or family, as long as the agencies have similar confidentiality standards.

A copy of the current NRS 62H.030 is also included within Tab A.

Recommendation No. 2 — Draft legislation, or a resolution encouraging the Governor, to create an independent oversight body for all governmental institutions where juveniles and adults are incarcerated, detained, or under court-ordered residential treatment. (Recommendation proposed by Judge Frances M. Doherty, Family Division Second Judicial District Court, on behalf of Judge James W. Hardesty, Second Judicial District Court, and the Nevada District Judges Association)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 2

Tab B – Resolution of the Nevada District Judges Association regarding the creation of an institutional inspectors office.

The Nevada District Judges Association recently passed the attached resolution recommending that the Judicial Council of the State of Nevada request the
Governor of the State of Nevada to create a permanent office of institutional inspectors. The office of institutional inspectors would be under the executive branch of government, and would have a permanent staff funded by the Legislature. Duties of the office would include: conducting unannounced periodic inspections of state prisons, state and county juvenile facilities, as well as residential treatment facilities where juveniles are placed by court order; reporting to the Governor, judges who ordered such adults and juveniles to the facilities, and a legislative oversight committee; and, providing corrective action plans and recommendations.

Recommendation No. 3 — Draft legislation, to raise the minimum age to 16 years at the time of the offense for statutory or discretionary exclusion from the juvenile justice system. (Richard Siegel, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 3

Tab C - Letter from Richard Siegel, dated April 13, 2004, proposing to amend the minimum age for certification as an adult. Dr. Siegel testified that the juvenile brain is developmentally delayed, and that based on recent research, juveniles may not be competent enough to meet the constitutional standard to be able to assist counsel in their own defense.

Copies of current NRS 62B.300 et seq. regarding jurisdiction, transfer, and certification of juveniles are included within Tab C.

Recommendation No. 4 — Draft legislation, to require mental health and substance abuse screening and assessment for all juveniles upon admission to a juvenile detention facility. (Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy, and Judge Frances M. Doherty on behalf of the Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 4

Tab D – Microsoft PowerPoint slide presentation and background information on mental health screenings submitted by the Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy.

Tab E – Position paper, titled “The Unmet Needs of Youth With Mental Health and Co-occurring Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System,” submitted by
Judge Frances M. Doherty on behalf of the Work Study Group.

Testimony indicated that a substantial number of youth in the juvenile justice system report some type of mental health problem. Additionally, many youth have
co-occurring disorders with substance abuse problems as well.

The recommendation would amend state law to require mental health and substance abuse screening and assessment for every child that comes into contact with the juvenile justice system. A suggested form, such as the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument Version 2 (MAYSI-2), would be administered by detention staff upon intake for each youth. According to the Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy, the MAYSI-2 is inexpensive and the results would be comparable with other studies.

Recommendation No. 5 — Draft legislation, to strengthen Nevada’s laws on prostitution and pandering, to eliminate the unfair treatment of victims of such crimes. (Detective Don Fieselman, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 5

At the May 18, 2004, meeting, Detective Fieselman testified that Nevada’s pandering laws are difficult to enforce due to evidentiary standards under NRS 175.301. Further, Detective Fieselman indicated that the criminal penalties under
NRS 201.300 lack significant strength.

In response, representatives of the Office of the Clark County District Attorney met with detectives of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to discuss charging and convicting persons accused of pandering children. Douglas W. Herndon, then submitted a memorandum with four possible solutions to the problem.

Tab F – Memorandum from Douglas W. Herndon, Office of the Clark County District Attorney, dated June 9, 2004, regarding pandering issues.

This memorandum indicates four possible solutions to pandering convictions:

(1) Conducting a joint meeting between Metro Vice and the entire Clark County District Attorney screening unit;

(2) Potentially charging the pandering defendant with other crimes, such as: living off the earnings of a prostitute; kidnapping; sexual assault of a minor, statutory sexual seduction, or lewdness with a minor; or, child abuse or neglect with substantial mental injury;

(3) Amending NRS 175.301 by deleting all references to enticing a person for prostitution; or

(4) Amending NRS 175.301 to provide exceptions in cases involving the use of force or immediate threat of force to get victims to engage in prostitution, cases involving child victims, and cases involving mentally or physically incapacitated victims.

Copies of NRS 175.301 and NRS 201.300 (for reference) are included within Tab F.

*At the request of Assemblyman Anderson, staff researched the legislative history of NRS 175.301. It appears that this section, relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial for procuring an abortion or for inveigling, enticing, or taking away a person for the purpose of prostitution, has existed almost verbatim and dates back to at least 1911 in Nevada’s legal history.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DRAFT A LETTER OR INCLUDE A STATEMENT

Recommendation No. 6 — Draft a letter to the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), the Elko and Caliente Youth Training Centers, and available resources (Nevada’s Department of Transportation and Division of Forestry), to study the feasibility of teleconference and/or videoconference capabilities to enable the youth at remote training centers to communicate with their families.
(Assemblyman John C. Carpenter)

Recommendation No. 7 — Include a statement in the final report supporting further research and study on the issue of blended sentencing. The study should include juvenile, adult community, and institutional correctional organizations.
(Work Study Group and the Nevada Department of Corrections)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 7

Tab G – Letter from the Work Study Group, dated May 17, 2004, indicating that the Work Study Group will continue to seek technical assistance through the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges or the National Institute of Corrections, with the goal of developing an amicable approach to blended sentencing for presentation to the 2005 Legislature.

Tab H - Memorandum (see page two) from Jackie Crawford, Director,
Nevada Department of Corrections, indicating that further study, by the juvenile, adult, and institutional correctional organizations, on the issue of blended sentencing is necessary.

Recommendation No. 8 — Include a statement in the final report supporting further study on possible revenue streams for transitional living for children (ages 17 to 20) aging out of the juvenile justice system. (Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Clark County Department of Juvenile Justice, and Leonard J. Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Justice, on behalf of the Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 8

Tab I – Letter from the Work Study Group, dated May 17, 2004, recommending the identification of a revenue stream to fund transitional services for young adults.

At the May 18, 2004, meeting, Chairwoman Leslie suggested possibly utilizing the funding source established by Assembly Bill (A.B.) 94 (Chapter 603,
Statutes of Nevada 2001), which created the Account to Assist Persons Formerly in Foster Care, as a potential revenue stream for children aging out of the juvenile justice system.

Recommendation No. 9 — Include a statement in the final report urging greater collaboration between school districts, juvenile justice, and other key stakeholders. This statement may include direction to provide recommended improvements for development, implementation, and funding alternatives for Alternative Education Programs. (Theresa M. Anderson, Deputy Administrator, DCFS, Northern Region, on behalf of the Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 9

Tab J – Position paper titled “Education and the Juvenile Justice System,” submitted by Theresa M. Anderson, on behalf of the Work Study Group.

Based on the work of the 2003 Governor’s Conference focus group, the position paper recommends that:

School Districts that elect to provide alternative education programs should be required to include stakeholders from juvenile justice, mental health, social services, and the business community in the development of alternative education programs;
“Adjudicated Delinquents” should be added to NRS 388.537 to underscore the importance of education for these youth; and
Funding to support an assessment of Nevada’s alternative education programs to produce recommendations regarding guidelines for development, implementation, and funding alternatives.

A copy of NRS 388.537 is included within Tab J.

Recommendation No. 10 — Include a statement in the final report encouraging the exploration of funding sources to provide integrated case management and school- based wraparound services. (Theresa M. Anderson on behalf of the Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 10

See Tab J (previously identified) – Position paper titled “Education and the Juvenile Justice System,” submitted by Theresa M. Anderson, on behalf of the
Work Study Group.

In order to provide greater wraparound services, the recommendation encourages programs in Nevada to include:

Family Resource Specialists.
Teacher support and training.
Bilingual and ethnic/cultural collaboration.
A paid mentor program with emphasis on behavior management and academic success.

Recommendation No. 11 — Draft a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and the Juvenile Justice Commission’s Work Study Group, advocating the continued investigation of the service delivery gaps and related funding resource issues in providing substance abuse treatment services for youths in the juvenile justice system. (Kirby L. Burgess on behalf of the Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 11

Tab K – “Substance Abuse Legislative Position Paper,” submitted by
Kirby L. Burgess on behalf of the Work Study Group.

The position paper indicates a strong nexus between substance abuse and crime. To reduce that correlation, the recommendations include: screening, assessment, coordination of resources, and a re-allocation of resources to ensure that all available funding sources are maximized.

Recommendation No. 12 — Draft a letter to juvenile justice agencies, mental health providers, children’s services, school districts and welfare administrators, directing the parties to work collaboratively to deliver and fund mental health services in a coordinated, non-duplicative and unified manner, and to make certain that all youths in the juvenile justice system have a treatment plan.
(Judge Frances M. Doherty on behalf of the Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 12

See Tab E (previously identified) – Position paper, titled “The Unmet Needs of Youth With Mental Health and Co-occurring Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System,” submitted by Judge Frances M. Doherty on behalf of the
Work Study Group.

Position paper recommendation numbers two and four, advocate cross-system collaboration and assurance of access to mental health treatment (respectively). The recommendations encourage all parties to work together to deliver and fund mental health services, and to make certain that all youth in the juvenile justice system have a treatment plan that ensures mental health and substance abuse treatment.

Recommendation No. 13 — Draft a letter to the appropriate entities, or include a statement in the final report urging that greater collaboration and information sharing be included on the paperwork sent to the youth training centers. This should include school records and completed information on the background of the youth, to assure that the youth training centers receive full information packages from the previous detention centers and service providers. (Assemblyman Bernie Anderson and Chairwoman Sheila Leslie)

Recommendation No. 14 — Include a statement in the final report, recognizing the need to further review state/county funding ratios for the juvenile justice system established by the Legislature during the 2003 Legislative Session. (Judge David R. Gamble, Ninth Judicial District Court, and Steven Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp and Aurora Pines)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 14

Tab L – Letter from Judge David R. Gamble, dated April 8, 2004, requesting an opportunity to further discuss monetary policy and funding formulas.

The letter indicates that state/county funding ratios were recently changed for the operation of youth camps, and requests that the Legislature consider restoring prior funding ratios.

Recommendation No. 15 — Include a statement in the final report, recognizing the need to review the Community Corrections Partnership Block Grant and to consider future increases in the amount appropriated to the counties. (Judge David R. Gamble and Kirby L. Burgess)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 15

See Tab L (previously identified) – Letter from Judge David R. Gamble, dated
April 8, 2004, see page two, requesting that the Community Corrections Partnership Block Grant amounts be revisited.

Page two of Judge Gamble’s letter, indicates that appropriations under the
Community Corrections Partnership Block Grant have increased very little since the program’s inception in 1997, and have not increased at all since 2000. The letter, along with testimony at the May 18, 2004 meeting, advocate increasing the amount appropriated, as a cost saving measure in reducing commitments to state operated institutions.

Recommendation No. 16 — Include a statement in the final report encouraging continued communication and consensus building between the Division of Child and Family Services, the Youth Training Centers, management, staff, and correctional officers. (Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, and Chairwoman Sheila Leslie)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 16

Testimony at the May 18, 2004, meeting indicated that staff at the youth training centers are often faced with challenging environments and would like to have an open line of communication to address concerns.

Recommendation No. 17 — Include a statement in the final report encouraging the Department of Corrections to continue efforts to expand programs for youth to provide better education, training, and treatment programs, and to study the feasibility of converting the Southern Nevada Correctional Center at Jean, Nevada, to operate as a stand alone youth facility. (Jackie Crawford, Nevada Department of Corrections)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 17

See Tab H (previously identified) – Memorandum from Jackie Crawford, Nevada Department of Corrections.

The memorandum indicates that the Nevada Department of Corrections has attempted to separate youth from other inmates at Lovelock Correctional Center and High Desert State Prison; however, ideally, youth should be placed in their own facility.

Recommendation No. 18 — Include a statement in the final report encouraging the Nevada Department of Corrections and the Division of Child and Family Services to further study the feasibility of juvenile assessment centers. (Jackie Crawford, Nevada Department of Corrections, and Jennifer Personius, Director of Research, Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 18

See Tab H (previously identified) – Memorandum from Jackie Crawford, Nevada Department of Corrections.

The memorandum urges examination of the methods and feasibility of assessment centers (30 or 60 days) that serve those youth detained and those not detained
pre-sentence.

According to the Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy, a Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) has been successfully operating in Miami-Dade County since 1997. The program has become a model for other localities, who are implementing them across the nation. A JAC would provide a centralized processing, referral, and evaluation center for all juvenile arrestees. This would allow multiple service agencies to work together under one roof, and streamline the assessment and referral process. The JAC provides systematic mental health screening and assessment, a post-arrest diversion program, and gender-specific programming. The benefits to the youth of providing these services at their initial entrance into the juvenile justice system are numerous – problems are identified early, alternatives are available, and the multi-agency approach to assessment and evaluation allows for a multitude of expertise focused on each youth as they pass through the system.

Recommendation No. 19 — Include a statement in the final report expressing support for the DCFS to create a cost allocation plan amendment to seek funding for allowable Title IV-E program costs for juvenile services. (Work Study Group)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 19

Tab M – Letter from the Work Study Group, dated May 17, 2004, regarding
Title IV-E program.

The letter indicates that the DCFS does not currently have the personnel or expertise to develop and submit a cost allocation plan amendment to the Federal Administration for Children and Families Division of Cost Allocation. A request for these allowable
Title IV-E program funds will benefit juvenile services at the state and county level in Nevada. The DCFS has included a request for three staff positions (two professional and one administrative) in their future budget.

Additional testimony throughout the study indicated that the issues of mental health, education, and other services are necessary and may be funded through the pursuit of Title IV-E program funds.

Recommendation No. 20 — Include a statement in the final report encouraging counties to study available revenue sources for indigent juvenile defense. (Franny A. Forsman, Office of the Federal Public Defender)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 20

Testimony at the April 1, 2004 meeting, represented that there is a lack of representation for indigent juveniles through the Public Defender’s Office in
Clark County. Further, Nevada is among a minority of states that do not provide state funds for indigent defense. Finally, testimony indicated the possibility of a civil or class action suit for deprivation of civil rights due to caseload levels, with each attorney in Clark County handling a caseload of 800 juveniles per year.

Recommendation No. 21 — Include a statement in the final report supporting the need for more social, wraparound, and transitional services for teens at risk of engaging in prostitution and teens who have ceased or are attempting to cease engaging in prostitution. (Detective Scott J. Kavon, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department)

Recommendation No. 22 — Draft a letter to Nevada’s Congressional Delegation, and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, voicing a concern for allowing the state to provide greater collaboration and a continuum of care for juvenile Native Americans in Nevada. (Jennifer Bullock, Social Services Director, Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe, and Senator Maurice E. Washington)

Recommendation No. 23 — Include a statement in the final report recognizing the need for a coordinated continuum of care with a broad array of community-based programs and service options to ensure that health services, substance abuse, education training and care are compatible with each youth’s specific needs in tribal communities. To this end, further study should be devoted to researching the feasibility of creating a Native American liaison, to assist with collaboration of services provided to tribal youth in the juvenile justice system. (Sherrada James, Executive Director, Nevada Indian Commission)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 23

Tab N – Recommendations submitted by Sherrada James, Nevada Indian Commission.

According to the recommendations, to continue efforts for a coordinated continuum of care within the tribal community, a Native American Liaison position could be created in the Nevada State Health Division. The Native American Liaison would:

Provide technical assistance to the tribes in developing the “Ideal Tribal
Justice System”;
Assist tribes in requesting appropriations; and
Continue to explore the concept of a youth shelter/safe house for runaway youth.

Recommendation No. 24 — Include a statement in the final report recognizing that the juvenile youth who live on a reservation, but who are not eligible for enrollment, need to have access to services through greater collaboration and coordination with the counties. (Sherrada James, Nevada Indian Commission)

Recommendation No. 25— Include a statement in the final report: (1) recognizing the need for community based alternatives to incarceration for American Indian youth offenders; (2) encouraging counseling and treatment programs for American Indian youth in the juvenile justice system which draw upon the strengths of tribal culture; (3) recognizing tribal sovereignty, and the importance of policymakers working with Tribal Councils to reduce jurisdictional boundaries; (4) providing incarcerated youth access to quality education, life skills training, mental health treatment, and rehabilitative experiences; and (5) encouraging policymakers, police, officers of the court, and correctional providers to work together to remove racial inequalities from the juvenile court system. (Sherrada James, as developed by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice on American Indian Youth, and the Juvenile Court System on Native American Juvenile Justice)

Recommendation No. 26 — Include a statement in the final report encouraging further study, data development, provision of care, referral services, and assessment on the level of care for available mental health services. (Jennifer Personius, Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas)

Background Information for Recommendation No. 26

Tab O – Recommendations from Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy.

The submitted recommendations consist of four parts: (1) Data: Conduct ongoing data development, data analysis, and report production; (2) Provision of Care: Ensure that juvenile detention facilities are able to provide intensive, appropriate mental health services by qualified mental health personnel; (3) Referral Services: Identify mechanisms for juvenile detention facilities to identify and refer offenders with family problems to community agencies who provide multiple levels of services and assistance to families; and (4) Needs Assessment: Conduct a community needs assessment project designed to determine available mental health resources in each community.

RECOMMENDATIONS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

At the April 1, and May 18, 2004 meetings, the A.C.R. 18 Subcommittee approved the following recommendations, which will be incorporated in the final report:

Recommendation Previously Adopted — Draft a letter to Nevada’s Congressional Delegation indicating the need to receive information from individuals directly impacted by legislative policy. (Motion by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson at the April 1, 2004, meeting)

Background Information for Recommendation Previously Adopted

Tab P – Letter dated April 22, 2004, addressed to Nevada’s Congressional Delegation, from Chairwoman Sheila Leslie on behalf of the A.C.R. 18 Subcommittee.

Recommendation Previously Adopted — Draft a letter to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, recognizing and supporting the efforts of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. (Motion by Senator Valerie Wiener at the May 18, 2004, meeting)

Background Information for Recommendation Previously Adopted

Tab Q – Letter dated May 25, 2004, addressed to Bart Lubow, Senior Associate, Annie E. Casey Foundation, from Chairwoman Sheila Leslie on behalf of the
A.C.R. 18 Subcommittee.