MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session January 26, 1995 The Joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:40 a.m., on Thursday, January 26, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Dina Titus ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David Humke, Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Mike Schneider Mrs. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Charles M. McGee, Judge, District Court, Washoe County, and Representative, Nevada Association of Juvenile Court Judges Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections, State of Nevada Robert Calderone, Director, Washoe County Juvenile Services Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Clark County Family and Youth Services The roll was called for both committees and the meeting began. Chairman James of the Senate committee noted the agenda for the meeting and stated that item number 3, a video presentation on juvenile violence would only be presented if time allowed and if the video equipment was working properly. At that point he turned to floor over to the program presenters. Charles M. McGee, District Court Judge, District and Family Court, Second Judicial District of Washoe County, introduced himself in numerous capacities: President of the District Judges Association; President of the Nevada Association of Juvenile and Family County Judges; Spokesman for the Juvenile Justice Commission State Advisory Group (SAG); and Chuck McGee, citizen. He prefaced his statement with a discussion of the traditions within the juvenile justice system. Traditionally, Judge McGee pointed out, there has been no north-south division among the juvenile system, with the judges getting along with each other, sharing programs and "kids," and building consensus. Secondly, he told of the larger metropolitan areas' benevolence toward the "so-called cow counties" in the state, recognizing their smaller ad valorem tax base which hinders program development. He explained that the larger counties "go out of [their] way to share resources" with the rural counties. Moving on, Judge McGee told the committee that he and Robert Cavakis, Director Youth Corrections, State of Nevada, would be working together to make the presentation. He pointed to the presence in the audience of many professionals in the field of juvenile justice including representatives from Las Vegas, Washoe County, Douglas County, Carson City, the two state training centers, and others. Judge McGee made reference to the nomenclature of the juvenile justice system, a special vocabulary with which the committee members may not be familiar. He offered a glossary of terms (Exhibit C) that would be passed to the members as well as guides put together by Douglas County Juvenile Probation Douglas County Juvenile Probation (Exhibit D) and Laws for Youth, 1995 (Exhibit E. The original is on file in the Research Library.), which would assist the committee members in understanding the process. Moving into the realm of juvenile justice, Judge McGee outlined the three categories of children in the system. There are two categories that involve perpetrators, the judge explained, those who commit crimes that would be misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies if they had reached adulthood; and those who are status offenders, children who have committed crimes that would not be crimes if they had reached adulthood. These crimes, including truancy and runaway, end at the age of maturity, acknowledged the judge. The third group of children in the system are victims (e.g., abuse and neglect cases). However, these categories are not always clear cut and nicely delineated, stated Judge McGee. Many times all three categories apply to one child simultaneously, he said. He asked the committee to "not cut the heart out of the melon with this new legislation." He stated, The juvenile justice system is one of hope, it is one of redemption, it is one which contains a belief that we can change young people before their value systems fully jell. But, it is not, and it is demonstrably not, a system which goes easy or coddles punks or serious youth crime. He agreed that there are some needed reforms, especially in the area of certification (i.e., the sending of a child, because of their conduct or criminal history, from the juvenile court up to the adult court). He added there would be discussion of certification down and the issue of confidentiality and some other differences between the juvenile and adult justice system. ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 689 OF THE 67TH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding placement of delinquent children and children in need of supervision. Next to address the committee was Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections for the State of Nevada. He prefaced his presentation by stating that the data contained in the report he would submit and discuss, State of Nevada Juvenile Justice System Overview, January 26, 1996 (Exhibit F. The original is on file in the Research Library.) was gathered manually. He referred to a previous hearing of the committee where representatives of the prison system spoke of their sophisticated information system and their ability to produce varied reports. He told the legislators, "We don't have that in Nevada." He noted that the system was moving toward that end, and the report required by A.B. 689 of the 67th Session, a plan for uniform juvenile justice data collection as devised by the Division of Child and Family Services, would be available soon. Moving on, Mr. Cavakis spoke of the terminology applied to juvenile matters. He said the word "adjudication" was equivalent to "conviction" in adult courts, the word "sentencing" in adult court means "disposition" in juvenile court, and when a child is ruled to be delinquent he has committed a crime that might be considered a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony, were he an adult. The court, Mr. Cavakis explained, had the same array of consequences at its disposal, no matter the class of offense. The disposition is all at the discretion of the court, he pointed out. Mr. Cavakis said, "Generally stated, the mission of the juvenile justice system is to protect communities and to provide opportunities for delinquent children to become productive adult members of society." He then referred to page 4 of Exhibit F which he noted was "a typical juvenile justice flow chart," and he explained its contents, pointing out the possibility of informal handling of the case and community service. He moved to diversion, another form of informal disposition which includes counseling. Assemblyman Anderson asked Mr. Cavakis whether the diversionary programs were as effective as those dealing with adults. Mr. Cavakis replied in the affirmative with some qualification. He stated that the larger communities have better services available, but he also pointed to the individual's ability to access services as a contributor to their success. At this point Assemblyman Carpenter asked Judge McGee and Mr. Cavakis to introduce those in the audience who were professionals in the area of juvenile justice. Mr. Cavakis obliged the committee pointing out: David Bash, Chief of Youth Parole, State of Nevada Kirby Burgess, Director, Youth and Family Services, Clark County Curtis Stewart, Superintendent, Caliente Youth Center Ed Burgess, Superintendent, Youth Training Center, Elko John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County Steven Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp, Douglas County Bruce Alder, Division of Child and Family Services Phil Galiotto, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department Larry Carter, Chief Probation Officer, Mineral County Stephen Grund, Chief Probation Officer, Churchill County Bill Willis, Chief Probation Officer, Carson City, Storey County Robert Calderone, Director, Juvenile Court, Washoe County Dan Prince, Juvenile Justice Specialist, State of Nevada Mr. Cavakis then returned to the report (Exhibit F), referring to the flow chart once again, and pointing out the "petition," the charging document for juvenile offenders. He explained the option that the District Attorney and juvenile officials have to file the petition and call the child to court, or to handle even this informally through a "supervision and consent decree" wherein the child admits the charges and the family agrees to supervision, sanctions, and some other combination of efforts designed to avoid "further penetration into the system." Mr. Cavakis remarked upon the high number of juveniles that are arrested or referred to the system compared to the number that actually go to court or face a commitment to one of the juvenile facilities. As an example, Mr. Cavakis stated, Clark County had nearly 20,000 referrals and only about 500 of those ever make it to the juvenile correctional facilities. At this point, Judge McGee addressed the committee in regard to the juveniles who do reach the court. He stated that in more and more cases, the first contact the court has with a juvenile is in the context of a "certification" hearing, where the juvenile is faced with transfer into the adult court system. He noted that most cases of the violent crime and crimes involving drug sales or use in Washoe County are subject to a certification. In Clark County, he said, this is not as frequent due to the fact they "have so much serious and chronic juvenile crime." But in the remaining instances, Judge McGee explained, the first contact the court has with a juvenile is in a plea hearing, where approximately 95 percent of such cases are pled. In these hearings, he continued, the court, the prosecutor, and the family agree on which program might best serve the needs of the juvenile, whether it be a series of graduated sanctions, a short stay in detention, or even a stay at one of the training programs. These processes and programs such as the para-military program in Elko and the peer group reinforcement program in Caliente, work with most of the juveniles, the judge emphasized, especially when compared to the facilities in California. These processes also reduce the work load or the juvenile courts because they are not "bogged down, thankfully, in having a number of adjudicatory hearings, or hearings to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused," noted Judge McGee. Moving on, Judge McGee noted that one of the many bills drafted for consideration by the legislature was one which extends the jurisdiction of the juvenile authorities over the parents of the juvenile. He asked the committee to consider such legislation favorably. He also pointed out that while many people believe the best course of action to maintain a clear criminal record is to "divert yourself from court," it was his belief that many of the best diversionary programs were court or juvenile probation office based. This, he continued, is because they are better supervised and less concerned with profitable business practices. Next, Judge McGee described the various facilities in the Nevada Juvenile Correction System, their level of occupation (chronically full) and the problems that result when children who are not criminals, but "escalated child in need of supervision (CHINS)," (i.e., someone who starts out with a status offense and then fails to follow the order of the court and, subsequently, has their status elevated) are sent to these facilities. When such children are incorporated into the harder milieu of gang-bangers and drug abusers the combination "does not lend itself to corrections management," explained the judge. Judge McGee said that, despite the best efforts of many of the professionals within the system, there are "turf wars" between the counties and the state about who should pay the price for these children. Senator Adler addressed the witnesses and inquired whether under current legislation the juvenile court judges have jurisdiction over adults. He offered an example where in Tulsa, Oklahoma, judges were allowed to sentence chronic truants and their parents to community service, and asked if this was possible in Nevada. Judge McGee responded that at the present time no such jurisdiction held, however, if the proposed legislation was passed the juvenile judges would have that power. Senator Adler noted that in Tulsa the program was very effective. Judge McGee expressed his opinion that such a program would be a positive step, noting that in a lot of instances the children are asked to fill adult roles within the family due to parental drug abuse or other causes. He said he felt jurisdiction over the parents would be like a "window into the family." Assemblywoman Ohrenschall spoke next asking the Judge McGee to further explain the three status offenders within the juvenile system. He did so explaining that an incorrigible child was one who refused to obey the lawful demand of a parent. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall then asked if, under such circumstances, it would be the parent who was the complainant. The judge explained by saying that it was the parent who brought their child to the detention facility and asked the officials to do something. He stated the officials response was usually to the effect the facility was for delinquents and there was no room for such minor offenders. Next the Judge defined truants as children up to the age of 17 who chronically fail to go to school. It is a status offense, he added. Then, as a representative for the Juvenile Justice System, Judge McGee asked the committee to favorably consider legislation which expands the definition of status offenses to include incorrigible, truant, runaway, and adding curfew violators, and maybe, minors in a gaming establishment. Secondly, as a representative for himself as a judge, Judge Jordan, and Robert Calderone of Washoe County, he asked that the legislators not remove the status offense statutes. He pointed out that while the larger jurisdiction (Clark County) has limited time and resources to handle the "softer" offenders, it is not so true in Washoe County and the other small jurisdictions, and it should be left to the jurisdictions themselves to decide how they can most effectively deal with the problem. Assemblyman Batten spoke to the subject of blaming parents for the behaviors of children who were old enough, in his opinion, to know right from wrong. He asked Mr. Cavakis and Judge McGee what sanctions the court could bring if the parents refused to perform community service, as suggested above, and whether they felt such jurisdiction and sanctions would not actually "hurt the family?" Judge McGee replied that the fact is some parents abuse, neglect, and even prostitute their children, and as a result, some of the adults need the involvement of the juvenile courts to assist them in putting their lives and their families in order. The judge also admitted there are instances where the parents had no culpability in the actions of their children. He opined the good things about the juvenile justice system was it allowed individualization of the process to allow for different family circumstances. As to the matter of sanctions, the judge explained that for each refusal by a parent to participate as ordered by the court, the court could hold the parent in contempt and sentence them to jail. Mr. Batten asked the judge what would happen to the child if the parent is put in jail. The judge turned to the floor to Mr. Robert Calderone, Director of Juvenile Services, Washoe County. He addressed Mr. Batten's question by describing various programs within Washoe County. One, according to Mr. Calderone, is the McGee Center for Adolescent Programs, a voluntary program which allows children to live in the McGee Center while the parent is in jail. This program, he explained is to prevent the long-term placement of a child, and to prevent the breakup of the family. It also provides respite for the family in instances where pressures are so high that a major blow up is inevitable if intervention is not available, the speaker stated. Second, continued the juvenile services director, is a community outreach program including a gang early intervention program, which offers young males with mentors. Third, noted Mr. Calderone, the department was instituting a program to identify and assist juveniles with learning disabilities that result in behavioral problems. Judge McGee interjected that there were two programs in Las Vegas which were court affiliated and similar to the McGee Center. Assemblyman Anderson took the floor and thanked the speakers for their presence and their dedication. Additionally, he noted, that juvenile confidentiality prevented court from becoming aware of the criminal histories of 18 year old criminal offenders, "particularly these gang-bangers and those people who have more violent crimes, yet have not been moved up through the system because of the heavy cost," and he wondered if there was some way to access this information. Judge McGee, speaking as a representative of the Juvenile Justice Commission, used this inquiry to discuss the question of removing, "in whole or in part, the veil of confidentiality" and the commission's recommendation that any time a child reaches a second offense, which is a gross misdemeanor or felony level, that the court have the authority to reveal the name of that individual, and to allow the press and the public into the courtroom on proceedings pertaining to that individual. He further stated that it was his personal opinion that all juvenile criminal histories should be made available to adult sentencing courts. Senator Washington asked Judge McGee, after thanking him for his fine service, where the failure was that pushed juvenile offenders to crime or to run away from home? Judge McGee opined that the origins were very early in the child's life and was the result of insufficient bonding with a primary care giver. He offered a definition of family: "one or more persons who are raising one or more children in a healthy, literate, safe, and moral environment," and offered that it was the absence of the primary family connections that created "sociopaths." Judge McGee then moved to discuss the proposed addition of several categories of crime to automatic adult certification status: all violent offenses, sexual assault, and attempted sexual assault. He stated he felt, and was certain that most of the juvenile authorities in the audience felt, such a move would be detrimental, as would any legislation that allowed the prosecutor sole discretion to decide about certification of juveniles. Senator Washington addressed a question to Kirby Burgess, Director, Clark County Family and Youth Services. He asked Mr. Burgess to explain the Freedom Program, and its results. Mr. Burgess responded that the Freedom Program was an alternative to incarceration. He described the program as an intensive supervision program with additional activities which results in a 50 percent success rate. Senator Porter told the committee about the Juvenile Conference Committee program in his community, Boulder City, which consists of parents of the community who are charged with dealing with the juvenile problems there. According to Senator Porter, the offending juvenile, along with a parent, appears before the committee and is assigned duties (community service), as a means of addressing the behaviors of the juvenile and enforcing accountability and community involvement. The senator explained that this program allows the separation of juveniles whose offenses were mild (truancy or curfew violation) from those who committed violent crimes and faced the system in Clark County. He recommended that such a program might be effective in other communities. Mr. Burgess agreed and noted there was a similar program in place in Laughlin. Senator Adler addressed a question to Judge McGee about automatic certification. Judge McGee stated it was his feeling that defining certain offenses or accumulation of offenses as "presumptively certifiable" by the juvenile court, not the district court, upon a petition by the prosecutor. He also spoke against the certification down of some offenders. Senator Adler then told of the problems that result for the prisons when young offenders are certified up and then sent to serve time in an adult facility. He asked if there should be a separate facility for youthful offenders who have been certified up, in order to improve their chances at completing their education and to address other concerns relating only to the young convicts. Senator Adler's questions were spurred, he said, by conversations he had with a prison warden who had such a young offender in his prison. Judge McGee pointed out such placements were, indeed, problematic for the facility and for the young offender who, because of federal guidelines prohibiting mixing of the age groups, was subject to much harsher treatment and even isolation. He added, that he did, indeed, feel there was a need for an intermediate court or jurisdiction with separate, but punitive sanctions for those youthful offenders. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall turned the discussion back to the concerns of problem parents. She asked if such parents might not fall under the "contributing to the delinquency" statutes? Responding in the negative, the judge stated such a charge is difficult for the prosecutor to prove. Mr. Cavakis returned to his presentation. He explained that youths who are sent to a correctional facility, they come for an undetermined period of time, based on an assessment of their behavior. He then cited Exhibit F, page 10-10b to explain the assessment process whereby the youth is assigned to any particular program within the system. He told the committee of the process used to give the youths goals toward which they must work in order to become eligible for parole. He noted that certain offenses (e.g., violent crimes, weapons offenses, or sexual assault) are, as a matter of course, assessed a minimum 1 year stay. When a youth comes close to being eligible for parole, the staff starts working with the youth parole authorities to ensure there is a safe, reliable home for the child to return to; to ascertain programs are available to continue the youth toward rehabilitation; or to provide for, in some cases, necessary residential treatment beyond the correctional program, Mr. Cavakis stated. At this point, Mr. Cavakis referred the committee members directly to the report (Exhibit F), noting and expanding on statistics on page 1 and 2. Assemblyman Anderson referred to the statistic on out-of-state placements, and asked if there was any exchange program in place where other states used Nevada facilities in exchange for Nevada placements in their programs. He also asked the witnesses to tell the cost of such placements compared to the cost of housing Nevada youths in Nevada facilities. Mr. Cavakis responded that it cost approximately $100 to $120 per day, per youth, for out of state placement, and $80 to $83 per youth, per day in Elko or Caliente. Mr. Anderson asked why the cost difference. Mr. Cavakis noted that Nevada had the lowest cost of care in the United States and that explained why it was more expensive to house youths out-of-state. He continued, that the reason some juveniles were sent elsewhere is because they require special "inpatient mental health treatment." Mr. Cavakis continued his reference to the report (Exhibit F), noting page 3, pages 5, 6, 7. Senator Adler asked whether the statistics on page 7 (Juvenile Sex Offender Statistics) included "statutory sexual seduction" charges. Mr. Cavakis responded affirmatively. The witness emphasized the statistics on page 9 and their implication for future problems, and then continued his reference to the report. He moved to page 12e with its explanation of average daily populations and kinds of offenses. Judge McGee interrupted and asked the committee to remember that in the case of sexual assault/lewdness (bottom of page 12e), there is a wide continuum of sexual activity covered by this statistics. He also noted that many of the perpetrators were also victims of the same. Mr. Cavakis agreed, and added that he had serious concern with some of the proposed legislation that required automatic certification for sexual assault, without any discretion for the type of behavior or the conditions concomitant to it. Senator James noted the concern he felt when comparing the statistics and finding that firearms offenses were the highest. He asked the witnesses to comment on legislation which restricts youth possession and access to firearms. The judge, representing the Juvenile Justice Commission, told of a commission vote supporting the disarming of minors, statewide. "Youth, 18 years and under, should not be in possession of a handgun, any place in the state, unless they are hunting or sports shooting with a responsible adult," the judge said, is the recommendation of the commission. Senator Adler added he thought this was also the recommendation of the interim study and the National Rifle Association (NRA) had not expressed any opposition to the recommended legislation. Assemblyman Goldwater asked for clarification of the current law about youth possessing weapons. Senator Adler explained that currently a youth 14 years old or older could have an unconcealed firearm in his possession and go anywhere in the state. The interim study's recommendation was in line with that of the Juvenile Justice Commission, Senator Adler stated. Judge McGee attempted to further clarify by noting the obvious difference between a youth carrying a .22 rifle in a pasture and a youth carrying a 50 mm handgun in downtown Las Vegas. Mr. Cavakis emphasized the frequency of weapons offenses among youth. Assemblyman Anderson noted that the statistics provided on page 9 [(12d) sic] of the report (Exhibit F) were quite conservative when compared to another source he had, especially when talking about ethnicity of the state's young offenders. Mr. Cavakis explained that the youth authorities had been quite effective in holding the line on youth incarceration. He noted that in the past many young girls were put in facilities for status offenses. This is not the case today, he explained, however, even if the communities decide not to deal with status offenders, the number of actual delinquent youths is going to increase "significantly." Mr. Cavakis directed the committee's attention to the top of page 12f. He discussed this report and the fact that it was "self-reported." He noted that these are troubled "kids, but still just kids." He reiterated, the juvenile justice system believes in rehabilitation. Senator James questioned the story told by the statistics, noting that the "number of delinquent acts, nationally, actually had been leveling off, but that the seriousness of the offenses had gone up and the age of those committing more serious offenses had gone down." Mr. Cavakis agreed. The senator asked for statistics dealing with those issues in order to facilitate the committee's goal of a comprehensive reform of the criminal justice system. He wondered how much of the increases shown were simply tied to the increase in population or whether they were actually outstripping the population growth. Senator James mentioned the video scheduled to be shown at the end of the hearing (Exhibit A), which portrays the lives of young people who perpetrate and become victims of violence, including the resulting waste of life and productivity. He asked for speaker comment. Judge McGee offered to provide the committee with statistics from the National Center for Juvenile Justice, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He confirmed that, while overall delinquency is down 5 to 10 percent, violent crime is up 25 percent. Next, in addressing Senator Adler's question on intermediate incarceration, Judge McGee told of a Texas system that places juveniles adjudicated for violent or chronic criminal behavior in a juvenile facility until the age of 18. At that time, the juvenile comes back to court and a determination is made whether to release the youth to adult probation or to serve an additional term in the adult system. Mr. Cavakis offered to provide Senator James the names of sources where the statistics he requested might be obtained. He restated the difficulty of gathering statewide statistics because there is no centralized information system for the juvenile corrections system. He pointed out the lack of data available in Nevada was noted nine separate times in the text of the National Council for Crime and Delinquency's study. The chronic level of this information gathering failure was detailed by Mr. Cavakis. Assemblywoman Buckley asked if Clark County could provide information as to how many youths were certified as adults versus the number that stayed in the juvenile system, particularly considering the violent offenses, over the last 2 years. Mr. Burgess replied stating he would attempt to gather that information. Ms. Buckley asked Judge McGee, what the proposed disposition would be for individuals arrested under the proposed youth disarmament legislation? He responded that he thought they should be handled within the juvenile system unless the circumstances reached a level of one of the the "presumptive" offenses that would consider certification into the adult system. On the previous point of statistics, Judge McGee noted that one of the problems was there was no statewide classification of offenses. He said there was a committee currently working on a common classification system. Mr. Cavakis took a moment to comment on the youths who are housed in Tennessee. He pointed out there is "such a thing as a bad kid," and they can be identified, using careful criteria for determination. He told the committee that the majority of the youths paroled from the Tennessee program resurfaced in the adult prison system. Next, he returned to the report (Exhibit F) page 13, and page 15. Page 15 contains some recommendations made to the Juvenile Justice System. In summary, Mr. Cavakis told the committee he thought the juvenile system did a good job, that they know what they are doing, the recidivism rates are low, and that they should be allowed to do their job with and for the youth of the state. Assemblyman Manendo took the floor to welcome David Bash, a professional in the juvenile system. He thanked Mr. Bash for his help and dedication. Senator Adler asked if information was available about the number of youths who enter the juvenile system and then end up in the adult correctional system as well. Mr. Cavakis replied they had no information available. Assemblyman Carpenter referred to page 15d of the report (Exhibit F) and wondered what would happen if the recommendations made were implemented. Why, he wondered, build more facilities if the number of referrals were to be reduced? Mr. Cavakis addressed the question, stating that despite an attempt to reduce referrals through the use of community-based programs, the number of youth entering the system will still outstrip the number of beds currently available. Judge McGee closed his remarks by stating: The juvenile justice system would like your help. We would like to work with you in getting tough on serious and juvenile crime. We would suggest to you that you should leave the gatekeeper as the juvenile court judge, and not open the flood gate so widely that it inundates the adult system. Senator James then closed the hearing, stating he had marked in his notes the areas where the panel had indicated changes would benefit the juvenile justice system. He asked that Judge McGee and Mr. Cavakis also write down their suggestions, in a hope that bill draft requests will result from the hearing. Secondly, the senator reiterated his request for supporting statistical information as a means to concretely outline the needs of the system. Senator James noted that time did not allow the presentation of the video. He asked that committee members make time to view the video on their own, as it is a powerful statement. Assemblyman Perkins asked to judge to provide further information regarding holding parents responsible in juvenile matters. He expressed his support for this approach and his interest in pursuing this avenue of legislation. The judge agreed to do so. There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 10:38 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James Chairman DATE: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson Chairman DATE: As semblyman David Humke Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary Assembly Committee on Judiciary January 26, 1995 Page