MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

	Sixty-eighth Session
	February 7, 1995


The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:35 a.m., on Tuesday, 
February 7, 1995, Chairman Anderson presiding in Room 4401 of the Grant 
Sawyer State Office Building, Nevada Legislature, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A 
is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.


COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman
Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman
Mr. Thomas Batten
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mrs. Jan Monaghan
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider
Mrs. Dianne Steel
Ms. Jeannine Stroth

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman, excused at 1:30 p.m.

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst
Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary
Jackie Valley, Committee Secretary



OTHERS PRESENT:

Mr. James E Rogers, Department of Prisons
Ms. Dorothy North, Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse, Education, 
Prevention, Enforcement, and Treatment
Mr. James Ohrenschall, Young Democrats
Mr. Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Ms. Roxane Clark-Murphy, Las Vegas Municipal Court
Mr. Richard Clark, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, P.O.S.T.
Ms. Betty Wallace, Nevada Treatment Association
Ms. Nancy Tiffany, Parole and Probation
Ms. Liz Breshears, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Mr. Tim Moen, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Ms. Jeannette Sanders, Department of Prisons
Mr. Ryan Rowland, Governor's Office
Ms. Laurel Stadler, M.A.D.D.
Mr. Tracy Fisk, Parole and Probation
Mr. Thomas Goodson, Parole and Probation
Deputy Chief, Frank Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Commander, Charles Davidaitis, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Ms. Karen Winkler, Citizen
Mr. Thomas F. Pitaro, Attorney at Law
Ms. Lynn Johnson, NMS
Ms. Judy Huiberry, Family of Murder Victims, Member
Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Mr. C. J. Smits, Citizen
Mr. James J. Jackson, Nevada State Public Defender's Office
Mr. Lionel Fleming, Citizen



Chairman Anderson opened the meeting, noted the teleconference hookup with  
northern Nevada, and requested persons in the North to sign the attendance roster 
which would be faxed to the South; a further reminder to sign-in was given to 
those attending in Las Vegas. Chairman Anderson set out a general time schedule 
for the agenda items noting changes may occur to accommodate testimony. Before 
beginning Chairman Anderson related that the Ways and Means Committee heard 
information from Tom Stephens, former State Public Works Board manager, on the 
cost of new prisons: $250 million-the cost of additional prison beds and the 
availability of such. Copies of the information were offered with comment that it 
might be helpful to understand that part of the scenario. Chairman Anderson then 
moved the meeting to agenda material asking Ms. Roxane Clark-Murphy to begin 
testimony on Assembly Bills 84 and 85.

ASSEMBLY BILL 84 -	Expands circumstances under which certain criminal 
offenders may elect treatment for abuse of alcohol or 
drugs before sentencing.

ASSEMBLY BILL 85 -	Revises provisions governing placement of criminal 
offenders in programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol
and drugs before sentencing.

Ms. Roxane Clark-Murphy, DUI Evaluation Center, Alternative Sentencing and 
Education Division, Las Vegas Municipal Court, began her testimony on Assembly 
Bill 84 wanting the Assembly to look at the bills which allow a judge or court to 
send someone to an assigned treatment center. She would like an evaluation 
center, which uses all treatment centers, to be considered for recommending 
assignments. She stated that the courts may assign persons to treatment centers 
they are most familiar with or one that markets them; often the  center is not 
approved by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. She asked a change be 
considered in Line 4, from "a court", to "a court via the use of an accredited 
evaluation center" to eliminate the "super marketers" or have the "fox guarding the 
chicken coop." She qualified her testimony as relating to assignments in large 
metropolitan areas because it "becomes ludicrous to expect that to happen in Ely, 
Beatty, Elko, or Laughlin."  She noted Clark and Washoe counties have a plethora 
of treatment centers where the  process needs to be monitored. She wishes the 
same changes for A.B. 85. 

Chairman Anderson clarified the line to be changed in A.B. 85, Line 4, as "shall 
order an appropriate facility for the treatment of abuse of alcohol or drugs."

Ms. Clark-Murphy acknowledged the clarification and quoted new wording: "should 
order an evaluation center to find and send to an appropriate facility."

Chairman Anderson wished to confirm his understanding that Ms. Clark-Murphy 
believed the assignment should not be done by the court but by someone else.

Ms. Clark-Murphy stated the recommendation should be made by the evaluation 
center with the judge having the final say in whether he or she accepts that 
recommendation. She thought that it was also fiscally more sound to  look at what 
program a person could afford versus coming back to the legislature to  request 
additional money.

Chairman Anderson stated he thought Clark County may be the only jurisdiction 
that may have the ability and was not sure if Washoe County had it.

Ms. Clark-Murphy did not know and ended her presentation.

Mr. Humke asked if she could go into the accreditation definition she spoke of.

Ms. Clark-Murphy referred to Assembly Bill 491 (Sixty-seventh Session) which 
gave oversight of that law to  the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA).  
BADA revised its Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) to cover: accreditation of an 
evaluation center, who should operate it, how it should operate, and the 
accreditation process that must be gone through. She emphasized they did not 
want the situation, as with DUI schools, when a Utah provider of service ran "fly-
by-night" DUI schools.

Mr. Humke wished to clarify that she meant that BADA not only accredits and 
licences people but also accredits  evaluation centers.

Ms. Clark-Murphy added, "and treatment programs", stressing it was very 
important. She believed BADA also recognized joint commission of hospital 
accreditation. She continued that if there was not some way of policing 
"ourselves", problems would develop where people who have a BADA license  
would do bizarre things in treatment, and that the public needed to be protected. 
 She gave the example of six years ago when a women, a licensed Ph.D., was 
doing rebirthing with people in the nude in her pool. She went on to say oversight 
was needed in order to police "our" profession and to insure the profession 
received the standing that it should.

Mr. Humke wondered, as he was from the Reno area, if she or another witness 
could speak as to whether or not there are BADA accredited evaluation centers  in 
the area that the courts could call upon.

Ms. Clark-Murphy responded she thought they were still in the process of getting 
evaluation centers. The law was not in effect until July 23, 1993 and it gave 
certain jurisdictions up until July 1, 1995. The Las Vegas Municipal Court was part 
of the pilot program, therefore, they were ahead of other jurisdictions. She felt 
there were "loads" of BADA accredited treatment programs in Washoe County.


Mr. Humke mentioned that some of Ms. Clark-Murphy's words were brought home 
to him, regarding the  DUI Schools, by citizens of the Reno area. He related a 
situation where DUI School attendees were to watch a video but it was not 
available; instead the class watched regular television reruns. He emphasized, "That 
ain't right." 

Chairman Anderson questioned whether Ms. Clark-Murphy was speaking to the bill 
or to an amendment to the bill since accrediting  the facilities is what is being 
promoted; the facility needs to be approved by a judge in order for him to make a 
placement at the facility. 

Mr. Clark-Murphy agreed with Chairman Anderson.

Mr. Carpenter commented he thought that under NRS 453.580, which A.B. 84 
refers to, the program has to be either one the court has established or one BADA 
has approved. He thought perhaps the definition had been taken care of; however, 
he did not know. He suggested some legal advice was needed.

Chairman Anderson stated a request for such information was made to Mr.  
Neilander. 

Mr. Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated he  
could  address part of the question. He noted there are two different issues: one--
whether the evaluator is accredited,  an issue that had previously  come before the 
legislature and is not resolved; and two--whether the treatment facility has to be 
approved,  addressed in NRS 458.320  (the section following the bill currently 
being analyzed) which does require the court to assign the person to an approved 
treatment facility. The second part of the question is now in the statute, but, 
whether or not an  individual needs to be accredited is not addressed. He felt the 
BADA people could clarify that issue.

Chairman Anderson noted the sign-in sheet from the North had not been received 
 and requested anyone from BADA  who wished to address this piece of legislation 
to raise their hand. He acknowledged Ms. Breshears. 


Ms. Liz Breshears, Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, stated that the major 
part of her testimony would be regarding a fiscal note which BADA was asked to 
develop on A.B. 85; however, she would first respond to the previous question. 
She pointed out any certified alcohol or drug abuse counselor or any physician is 
legally able to assess an individual or make an evaluation. She continued,  that 
what was added to the statute was another category of individual, one who is a 
certification or evaluation technician, and BADA is developing regulations and a 
process whereby those individuals, who would have a para-professional function, 
can be trained and tested to demonstrate their competence. She clarified, this is 
the way individuals are addressed under the law.  

Ms. Breshears began her testimony on A.B. 85. She noted the section of the bill 
involving the determination of the fiscal note is Line 20, which changes the judicial 
discretion from optional to mandatory. To develop the fiscal note, the total number 
of arrests which matched the provisions of the statutes was determined and the 
number of individuals who were ineligible based on the clauses in the statute were 
deducted, resulting in the total number of persons to be evaluated. She asked if the 
members of the Committee had a fiscal note in front of them.

Chairman Anderson responded the Committee did not have the fiscal note in front 
of them as it had not been released.


Ms. Breshears continued, next it was determined, of those arrested, what 
percentage would be convicted; then, of those convicted, the number, who would 
benefit from a program of treatment; and subsequently, what percentage of those 
would need subsidized treatment resulting in a total estimated number of persons 
requiring treatment and supervision under these particular statutes. The result was 
a very small number: out of the 5,132 individuals assumed to qualify under the 
statute, an estimated three percent, or 154 individuals, would actually be referred 
by judges under this particular statute. She noted reasons why. The misdemeanors 
covered under these statutes fall into roughly three categories. First: DUI 
misdemeanors---which  typically are more clearly handled elsewhere in legislation, 
therefore, judges use other statutes to sentence to treatment or defer sentencing; 
Second: assaults---BADA's  understanding is there has been little connection made 
between assaults and substance abuse. There may be a component of substance 
abuse within assaults, but people committing assaults have not, traditionally, been 
deferred to a treatment; Third: general category of miscellaneous misdemeanors 
connected with substance abuse since it is understood it is rare for a person to be 
charged with only one misdemeanor. A person may be charged with multiple drug 
crimes including gross misdemeanors or felonies and when  either of these are 
pending the person is eligible under these statutes. The total cost to the State in 
additional treatment costs  is estimated to be $292,000 the first year and, based 
on an inflationary factor of one-half of one percent for each of  the succeeding two 
years,  $293,000 the second year and $295,000 the third year (Exhibit C). Ms. 
Breshears added that when the request was made for the fiscal note none of the 
bills had been introduced so the development was done on a Bill Draft Request 
(BDR). She added the introduction of A.B. 84  broadened the fiscal note for A.B. 
85 as it added two additional groups of individuals who would qualify for 
treatment. The exception of persons with multiple convictions and persons who 
had been in treatment previously have been removed allowing them to use these 
statutes to go into treatment or defer sentencing. Accurate estimates of additional 
cost to the state for  these two groups cannot be made because there is no 
tracking system to collect applicable data.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Breshears to provide the per unit cost which might 
be a helpful factor for the committee  to keep in mind when considering the offset 
 of the fifteen thousand dollars per inmate cost for recidivism.

Ms. Breshears answered that in order to compute the cost  they looked at Line 23 
of the statute which states that an individual must be involved "not less than 1 
year nor more than 3 years." Using historical BADA data, the average cost per 
individual for treatment (which is typically less than a year) was used along with 
an estimated cost per individual for the minimum  one year treatment resulting in 
$897 as the average cost per criminal justice client. An additional $1,000 was 
included for annual supervision giving a total of $1,897 to treat and supervise one 
individual for one year. 

Chairman Anderson asked if any members of the committee had questions. No 
questions were forthcoming. He continued by requesting information about the 
current success rate for the first time treated in the programs and how many 
people would return  if A.B. 84 were to be broadened by allowing people back who 
had been treated before.

Ms. Breshears stated she did not have that information. Information could be 
obtained based on out-come studies by other areas or other states, but there is no 
information for Nevada.

Chairman Anderson pointed out the information would probably be requested on 
later pieces of legislation requesting Ms. Breshears to move forward with that.

Mr. Humke asked who pays the costs cited in the fiscal note and whether the local 
court assigned the costs to the offender.

Ms. Breshears referred him to (A.B. 85) Page 2, Section 1, Subsection 4 of the 
proposed legislation which states the individual would be required to pay the costs 
to the best of his financial resources. Persons without financial  resources  would 
be assigned where there is state or federal funding available.


Mr. Humke felt it appears under the limited provisions of seeking treatment, as 
opposed to an offender going before the court and accepting his or her sentence, 
the offender will spend a great amount of money for treatment purposes; but, Page 
2, Section 1, Subsection 4, lets the person off the hook, in the  terms of the 
spending, so the state or federal government will pay the cost. He asked for Ms. 
Breshears' reaction to that being a correct opinion.

Ms. Breshears responded yes and no. She explained that from a public policy 
perspective what needs to be considered is that many programs feel a person 
should participate  financially in the treatment as it is part of the rehabilitation; 
however, it needs to be examined when an individual does not have sufficient 
resources. She continued that most studies show the investment of tax dollars is 
a cost effective investment; for example, the state of California spent $2 million 
evaluating the outcome of its treatment programs. It was found that within the 
year subsequent to treatment at least half the costs were recovered because of the 
reduced health care costs for that individual.

Mr. Humke asked, when preparing the fiscal note, if  the number of offenders who 
would actually pay the cost versus those who would  receive payments by the 
state or federal government was considered.

Ms. Breshears answered that federally generated data estimated 56 percent of the 
individuals, under these statutes, would need subsidized treatment. The $292,000 
reflects only the subsidized amount.

Mr. Humke wanted to make sure of his understanding that the $292,000 was state 
funds.

No verbal response.

Chairman Anderson reviewed that discussion was covering, Page 2, Section 1, 
Subsection 4, Line 1 through Line 8, and reiterated that persons placed under 
treatment must pay for it themselves but the fiscal note is for the three percent.

Mr. Carpenter wished to clarify previous testimony. He noted it was stated 154 
people eligible for treatment, three percent, would cost $292,000 but another 
figure reflected  that only 56 percent would be paid for by the state. He asked if 
 only 56 percent of  $292,000, not the total, should be used.

Ms. Breshears replied it had to do with where the percentages were applied. She 
detailed: out of the estimated 24,000 eligible individuals, 66 percent would be 
convicted; of the 66 percent convicted an estimated 57.5 percent would be 
evaluated as being able to benefit from treatment; of those able to benefit from 
treatment 56 percent, or 5,132 individuals, would need subsidized treatment.

Mrs. Steel asked how many of the 154 people (the three percent) determined to 
benefit from the program would be able to pay.

Ms. Breshears related that the 56 percentile, those needing subsidized care, had 
been applied earlier in the equation, therefore, all 154 are from the subgroup 
needing subsidized care. 

Mrs. Steel still found some confusion.

Chairman Anderson offered to help the committee's understanding and requested 
Ms. Breshears to confirm his explanation. He reviewed: 44 percent of people fitting 
into the category would be able to carry the full cost; 56 percent of the remaining 
population would not be able to carry the full cost; 3 percent of the 56 percent 
would require a  full or partial subsidy from the state, resulting in the stated fiscal 
dollars of $1,897 per year or total fiscal cost of $292,138. 

Ms. Breshears confirmed Chairman Anderson's review.

Mrs. Steel asked whether the program cost was actually closer to one-half million 
dollars with the taxpayer picking up 56 percent of the cost.

Ms. Breshears responded that if Mrs. Steel was looking also at amounts paid by 
individuals or their insurance the answer is yes.

Chairman Anderson reiterated that the vast majority of individuals will be paying 
all or some of the costs of treatment however the court sees their ability to carry 
on their own and asked confirmation from Ms. Breshears.

Ms. Breshears answered that it was correct.

Chairman Anderson also wanted confirmed that the reason is so that everybody 
has to pay something and the majority of the people will carry it themselves or 
have insurance coverage.

Ms. Breshears answered she could not say that everyone would have to pay 
something, but the vast majority would pay some portion of their costs.

Chairman Anderson checked with Mrs. Steel and assured her questions had been 
answered.


Mr. Goldwater directed his question to the chairman of the A.C.R. 71 Sub- 
Committee (Chairman Anderson.) He asked what latitude  the court has in making 
the estimation of the ability to pay and if  the determination is  made on current 
income, assets; and if liens can be placed on assets.

Chairman Anderson stated he would respond only to part of the scenario. He 
related that testimony indicated the court would have the ability at pre-sentencing 
to see the profile of the individual to determine if the person could be successful 
in the program and how much he would be able to pay. Determinations would be 
done on an individual basis with the judge, the prosecution, the needs of the 
individual,  and availability of a program; hence,  the importance of the drug court. 
The court has the latitude to determine the appropriateness of the program and the 
individuals ability to pay for the program.

Mr. Goldwater asked, "So, it's up to the court?"

Chairman Anderson answered, "It's up to the court."

Mr. Carpenter, referring to a question previously asked by the Chairman, wished 
to know what was the success ratio for such a program and when Ms. Breshears 
would have the information or  would other people be able to answer the question. 

Ms. Breshears responded that at a subsequent hearing she could testify to findings 
of various pieces of research conducted in Nevada and other states. Some 
conclusions may need to be drawn; for example, there is information regarding a 
program to treat ex-felons, as they are released from prison and their recidivism 
rate back into prison, which  could be used to develop how successful treatment 
is with that subgroup. Nevada has not formally funded outcome research since the 
high rate of growth has made it difficult to even maintain the same level of service. 
Funding outcome research would require reduced treatment availability. She 
referenced another bill coming before the Committee this day requesting funding 
for outcome research. She stressed she would be happy to pull together research 
from other states and other types of programs.

Chairman Anderson interjected that one of the frustrations coming from the A.C.R. 
71 Study was the lack of available data within the state of Nevada resulting in 
Assembly Bill 81 requesting funding of such a study.


Mr. Sandoval commented on  (A.B. 85) Page 2, Section 1, Subsection 4, that in 
his understanding, under the present law, a specified group (i.e. A through F) of 
defendants eligible for the program must pay for the program to participate; 
however, with the new statutes in  A.B. 84, the eligible group is expanded (i.e. 
adding G and H) and all (A through H) are eligible to have their treatment program 
paid for by the state. He asked Ms. Breshears if that was a correct summation.

Ms. Breshears was unsure if it was accurate because previous law did not address 
who would pay for the treatment. She continued, four out of ten persons, 
approximately 43 percent in 1993, come directly via a criminal justice channel and 
are already receiving subsidized treatment.

Mr. Sandoval stated he would still like to see "more teeth" as far as reimbursement 
to the state for the cost of treatment. He suggested the state could pay first, then 
have the person receiving treatment reimburse the state later. He asked if there 
was that type of program.

Ms. Breshears answered to her knowledge there was not; but, many of the non-
profit organizations around the state would thank Mr. Sandoval if he were able to 
strengthen the language.

Mr. Sandoval stated to Chairman Anderson he would like to follow-up with that 
later.

Chairman Anderson wished to clarify with Mr. Sandoval that he wanted to 
strengthen A.B. 85 at Lines ......

Mr. Sandoval interjected that what he wanted to accomplish was to allow for a 
person to reimburse the state. This would be after the evaluation of the court. If 
the person was found unable to pay for treatment at the  time (of sentencing) but 
could complete the program successfully and be able to return to a working role 
then the person could  reimburse the state for the costs of the treatment program.

Mrs. Buckley believed the same sentiment had been expressed at another hearing. 
She suggested it would be helpful to understand the financial position of most 
individuals going through the program when placing detail and remedy into the 
statute. She did not know if statistics were kept but, if most participants were 
making minimum wage it might effect how new language, if any, is drafted. 
Additionally, people earning a large amount of money and  not reimbursing the 
state is an abuse needing to be corrected. She questioned what information is kept 
on the  financial ability to pay  of individuals using the program.


Ms. Breshears stated she would be able to provide the Committee information 
which is collected on every client that enters a subsidized treatment program. The 
information includes whether or not the individual has a full-time job, part-time job, 
if they are unemployed, and the reason for lack of employment, i.e., a student or 
mother at home. 

Ms. Buckley thought that the information would be helpful in analyzing a possible 
amendment.

Mr. Humke stated he believed there was a model in statute for this concept--the 
 public defender services in criminal cases. Nevada has a recoupment statute 
whereby, if the court analyzes incorrectly and it is later found the defendant does 
have resources to pay the cost of defense then the court can go after that person.
He recalled specifically if the defendant later came into funds it triggered the 
recoupment statute. He felt the value of that statute is the court does a good 
evaluation of the offender's financial condition.  Mr. Humke relayed his opinion that 
prior to this law, when the court had a defendant before them that alleged to be 
indigent, the court would say, "OK, you're indigent", and assign a public defender 
with no more evaluation.  The recoupment statute causes the court to really look 
at the financial condition of the offender, which is the  positive effect intended.

Chairman Anderson agreed and believed  an appropriate amendment to 
strengthening the language would not detract from the intent of the Committee. 

Mr. Goldwater questioned Mr. Humke regarding the recoupment statute wanting 
 an explanation of what he meant by the court has the ability to "go after."

Mr. Humke explained it meant to make an order ordering the person to pay; handing 
out a judgement that a debt is owed.

Chairman Anderson called upon Mr. James Jackson, from the audience, a member 
of the Nevada State Public Defenders Office, to provide testimony.

Mr. James Jackson, Nevada State Public Defender, asked how he could help.

Chairman Anderson reviewed that Mr. Humke had pointed out the ability of the 
court to recoup moneys for the public defender and wondered if that statute was 
useful to the court and how it was being used when the court had not assessed 
somebody correctly.


Mr. Jackson stated yes, the provision is "there" and is used some, but  could 
probably be used more. He also stated, though he may be arguing against the 
position of some public defenders, he thought it an important consideration to place 
on a criminal defendant when they have the ability to pay. He continued that some 
people are truly indigent, will always be indigent and never have the ability to pay, 
but there are ways to receive those payments in-kind; such as, community service. 
He has seen the courts do that, particularly in the rural areas where he practices. 
He encourages it and thinks it is valuable and puts a message  to the individual that 
the service received is valuable and they should be made to pay something for it.

Mrs. Monaghan asked whether the recoupment statute has a time limit.

Mr. Jackson replied his understanding was the court may impose a reasonable fee 
for the services of the public defender, which is not reflective of what they would 
pay for private counsel, but is in consideration of the statutory amounts of $75 per 
hour. Also considered is  the individual's ability to pay, the seriousness of the 
offense, and the amount of time and effort the attorney put into that case.

Mrs. Monaghan asked if there was a time limit it, does it only happen at that 
particular time. She agreed with Mr. Sandoval's previous statements regarding the 
reimbursement after the program, but it seemed the recoupment statute could not 
be used because it was "down the road." She felt confused.

Mr. Jackson apologized stating he was not trying to avoid her question. His 
understanding of the way the courts impose the cost of his fee and time is that 
they are  tacked on to any other fine payments or other court costs that have been 
assessed against the individual. As enforcement, the courts typically use their 
contempt powers. If the payments are not made the court will issue a contempt of 
court warrant for the person's arrest making the person face the prospect of sitting 
out the amount of time to satisfy the cost and being held in contempt of court. It 
seemed to him the court would still retain its contempt power to enforce those 
amounts. 

Mr. Sandoval provided another comment that he understands people are indigent 
and should not be put into a position to fail by assessing fines. He wished to 
follow-up on the option of community service to help defray the cost associated 
with the treatment program.  He feels community service has nothing to do with 
indigence and everybody is able to participate to make an indirect defrayment of 
the costs associated with the program. He would like to see this added into (A.B. 
85)  Page 2, Section 1, Subsection 4.

Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Dennis Neilander, LCB Research Staff, could 
provide information regarding the recoupment statute.



Mr. Neilander referenced Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 178, 171, and 176 and 
explained when a judge orders an indigent defendant to have a court appointed 
counsel he also has the ability to order an assessment, a fine, and a whole series 
of things including restitution. The order then becomes a judgement and acts as a 
lien from the time the person is represented until (if) they are able to pay the 
recoupment. The judge also will set-up a schedule of payments. Mr. Neilander 
further explained that community service is not mentioned in the recoupment 
statute, as it is written, for defendants with court appointed attorneys; however, 
the judge has broad discretion in making a restitution order to place conditions on 
the defendant he deems necessary. That also could be added as an option, in A.B. 
84, as a condition of the treatment program. There is a "signing-off" procedure in 
the statute when the treatment is finished. Community service or a repayment 
schedule, modeled after the other statute, could be placed in A.B. 84 to address 
the problem. He saw no reason why it could not be included but could look into it 
further.

Ms. Ohrenschall, referring to the recoupment statute as it currently reads, asked 
if there was a way for the court, when making an assessment against an individual 
who is genuinely not employable and indigent at the time, to anticipate that upon 
successful completion of  a program the person would become employable and 
increase the potential of restitution to the court for the cost of the public defender.


Mr. Jackson responded that he believed there is because, typically, the 
assessments come at the conclusion of any treatment or program. When the 
person reappears, after completing the treatment program or other obligations 
imposed by the court, the court is in the position to see the "completed product." 
He believes at the concluding hearing the court will have the information required 
to make the assessment. 

Ms. Ohrenschall asked whether the completion of the treatment is  when the 
person completes the actual program or when he is "put out in the world and found 
a job that... can keep him on the straight and narrow" and what is presented to the 
court for a better evaluation.

Mr.   Jackson answered "yes" and continued that the person cannot come back to 
the court for release until they have successfully completed the program and a 
report to the court is received from the supervisory authority. He stated that in the 
counties, where he has practiced, the court schedules a hearing for final 
assessment, imposition of sentence, deferment of sentence, dismissal of the case, 
or something that needs to be done administratively even if not on the court record.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if the individual may or may not have been main-streamed 
into employment at that point.


Mr. Jackson supposed there was a chance they may not, although he would only 
assume. He acknowledged Ms. Breshears on the monitor and thought she might be 
better able to address the question. He continued he would assume that before an 
individual would be considered to have completed a program successfully all 
components would have been addressed and progress been made on them. 

Mr. Carpenter stated he thought Mr. Jackson or Mr.  (Ben) Graham (Nevada District 
Attorney's Association) should explain who is eligible for the program and what 
type of crimes have been committed and how widely is it being used at the present 
time.

Mr. Jackson asked for clarification that discussion is on A.B. 84.

Chairman Anderson responded that discussion had slipped away from A.B. 84 over 
 into A.B. 85. He clarified that A.B. 84 is more pertinent to Mr. Carpenter's 
question in terms of the eligibility and A.B. 85, where attention is focused, is on 
the cost factor; the $1,897 per year versus the $15,000 per year.

Mr. Jackson asked  if A.B. 84 covers both the NRS 453 and NRS 458 deferment. 

Chairman Anderson answered yes.


Mr. Jackson (addressing Mr. Carpenter) explained his question was, in some 
respects, comparing apples and oranges because  the NRS 453. 3363 program is 
specifically a drug deferment program. There are specific offenses under the statute 
which exclude people from the program, two of which are: trafficking in controlled 
substances and persons with drug convictions. The NRS 458 program is broader 
in scope.

Chairman Anderson intervened to provide Mr. Jackson some help calling upon Mr. 
Neilander.

Mr. Neilander explained the first program Mr. Jackson discussed, outlined in A.B. 
84, does have a broader scope in terms of civil commitment. He reviewed, it 
excludes crimes of trafficking, felonies, DUI's. He noted some other crimes were 
listed but are being added back in so those defendants will be  eligible. He added, 
if this bill is  not enacted they would not be eligible.

Mr. Jackson continued that the NRS 458 program offers a broader scope as to who 
can be eligible. He noted that basically any offense committed while under the 
influence of alcohol or drugs would be considered a felony or gross misdemeanor. 
Both programs have the same effect in terms; if a person is successful in 
completing the program they can avoid a judgement of conviction.

His assessment of Mr. Carpenter's second question was that these are not widely 
used; that an individual charged with a crime which  is the result of an addiction 
to alcohol or drugs stands a better chance of receiving a deferment in Clark or 
Washoe County than someone in other areas of the state. He thought there was 
a letter in the A.C.R. 71 Study final report from him to Mr. Anderson and the 
A.C.R. 71 Sub-Committee regarding an informal survey of other public defenders' 
offices around the state. It assessed that both the civil commitment statutes were 
rarely, if ever, used. He felt that failed to address a major problem in Nevada of 
both alcohol and drug abuse and encouraged the serious consideration of these 
bills.

Chairman Anderson reiterated that it would be found in A.B. 85. He thanked Mr. 
Jackson for testifying on the spur of the moment to help the Committee on the 
section. Chairman Anderson further requested that Mr. Neilander work on some 
possible language to clarify the ability of the court to reach those people who have 
the ability to pay, particularly at the end of the program, in order to make it more 
cost effective. He emphasized that the program has the potential of saving huge 
amounts of money in terms of diversion, and the $292,000, $293,000, and 
$295,000 costs over the biennium are easily offset by the $15,000. He would like 
the base to be broad enough to reach the population that may not have the ability 
to pay so agencies doing the job can be partly recouped; however, he did not think 
that agencies would be able to stand alone. Chairman Anderson, seeing no one else 
wishing to speak, closed the hearing  on A.B. 84 and A.B. 85.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 89 and referenced the  
A.C.R. 71 Study, 95-9, on page 147.

ASSEMBLY BILL 89 -	Eliminates mandatory minimum penalty for unlawful use of 
certain controlled substances.

Chairman Anderson asked if Judge Fondi or Judge Gamble were present in Carson 
City. As they were not present he called upon Mr. Neilander.


Mr. Neilander believed the recommendation came from a joint hearing held between 
the A.C.R. 76 Sub-Committee, which was studying the criminal justice system as 
a whole, and the A.C.R. 71 Sub-Committee. Suggestions were made that the entire 
scheme of mandatory minimum sentencing should be re-evaluated. He thought he 
could say there is a split among judges as to whether a mandatory minimum should 
be done away with. He continued, the criminal justice study recommended a 
further study during "this" interim to look at that specific issue as it was felt there 
was a lack of resources or time. The A.C.R. 71 Sub-Committee decided to take a 
very small category and subsequently recommended that the mandatory floor 
minimum be done away with in the category noted in Line 12 of the bill; the 
maximum of six years is retained, but the minimum one year is removed. He 
clarified this is not for trafficking or the slew of drug laws that follow in (NRS) 
Chapter 453. He believed this is designed for the possession issue for those 
controlled substances listed as "Category 1,2,3, or 4 substances." (He would 
provide that information).

Mr. Carpenter asked what is the end result if the statute is changed and would it 
mean the offender could be put on probation.

Mr. Neilander responded "yes", because the prior statute required a minimum of 
one year. Taking away the minimum of one year gives the judge discretion to divert 
the offenders into a program or sentence them to a lesser period of time which 
would place the offender in the jail rather than prison. He thought that was the 
intent in an attempt to look at a narrow list of crimes with regard to mandatory 
minimums because the sentencing structure throughout, especially NRS Chapter 
200 and 201 (crimes against the person), is set-up as a mandatory sentencing 
scheme where there is a floor (cannot go below) and ceiling (cannot go above) with 
a range the judge can pick. The notion of the `floor' is what both committees 
looked at. This (bill) would do away with the floor, in this particular crime, and give 
the judge the authority to do something other than sending someone to prison for 
a minimum of one year.


Mr. Perkins asked, with permission of the Chair, to hear from Mr. (Ben) Graham in 
regard to the change in public policy and, while seeing the benefits in such a 
change, noted his  concern that the wrong message would be sent when there is 
a departure from such a policy and they would not be "tough on drug offenders."
He recognized the need to address some of the substance abuse problems, in those 
types of programs, but would like Mr. Graham to address the District Attorney's 
perspective.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Perkins if he would agree to allowing the remaining 
testimony on behalf of the bill and  then continue with testimony from Mr. Frank 
Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, followed by Mr. Graham.

Mr. Perkins agreed.

Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. (Tom) Pitaro would come forward and review the 
Committee was dealing with A.B. 89 which was part of the A.C.R. 71 Study to 
broaden the judicial discretion when dealing with Schedule 1,2,3, and 4 drugs.


Mr. Tom Pitaro, Attorney-at-Law, in Las Vegas, began by stating that "A.B. 89 
really doesn't do anything." He explained the definition of felony is basically 
something that carries a year or more (penalty); the law never did prohibit 
probation. The statute is not a mandatory minimum statute. Since the offence is 
a felony the court will still  have to impose a suspended sentence of at least a year 
under the new statute. He thought from a housekeeping viewpoint the existing law 
would not change,  whether or not, the statute is changed. He stated there may 
have been a "misapprehension" that the statute required a minimum year in prison 
without the possibility of probation.  

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Carpenter if the testimony was helpful in terms of 
dealing with the bill.

Mr. Carpenter guessed it just confused him a little more.

Mr. Pitaro responded, "I've been doing that for a long time, I think. Haven't I"?

Chairman Anderson commented that Mr. Neilander had reminded him that this 
became part of the question in truth-in-sentencing that is often complained about;
there is this belief that when it is said someone is going to prison for a year it often 
means probation.


Mr. Pitaro explained  the way sentence is imposed in Nevada is that if a person is 
going to receive prison the judge imposes the term of sentence; if the judge is 
going to grant probation he will still impose the term but will then suspend the 
sentence and place the offender on probation for the period of time. He reiterated 
that under this specific  statute  a year in prison is not mandatory. 

Chairman Anderson noted to the Committee that Mr. Carpenter had requested Mr. 
Neilander to prepare a memo for the Committee's consideration describing how 
each of the these bills would impact, at various stages in the process, who is 
diverted; what the diversion will account for; and what will happen. That report 
could be expected in about three weeks. He directed any committee member 
wanting other information added to the report to contact Mr. Neilander.

Chairman Anderson asked those to speak against A.B. 89 to come forward.

Mr. Charlie Davidaitis, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 
assigned as Bureau Commander of the Vice/Narcotics Bureau stated he was 
attending to assist Deputy Chief Barker with any information the Committee might 
need.

Mr. Frank Barker, Deputy Chief, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, began 
testimony noting he would have liked to follow Mr. Graham as some of the 
questions he had regarding the effect on other statutes defining a felony crime 
were addressed by Mr. Pitaro. He continued that some of the concerns were:

if the year is removed, the effect on registration of ex-felons; if  the year is 
removed or probated the effect on civil rights, deprived of and later restored. He 
felt the best person to speak to the effect on the felony statutes is Ben Graham.

Chairman Anderson, with concurrence with Mr. Barker,  requested Mr. Graham to 
come forward to join Mr. Barker, and Mr. Davidaitis. 

Mr. Ben Graham, Attorney-at-Law, Legislative Representative, Nevada District 
Attorney's Association, began his testimony by acknowledging that Mr. Pitaro's 
testimony basically answered their question. He continued that by definition it is 
a felony and if it is a felony it is punishable by a year or more in prison. He thought 
eliminating the year  superfluous as it is a probationable offense and  unlike some 
of these laws which have mandatory prison time. He doubts this bill does very 
much at all except on Line 14 where it appears that a Schedule 5 (drug) is being 
reduced to a gross misdemeanor. At this point he found that Schedule 5 is 
currently a misdemeanor and so stated he was not sure what was the intent of the 
bill.


Chairman Anderson reflected it was difficult to recount what occurred over a year 
and one-half ago but felt it was part of the growth of truth-in-sentencing in terms 
of what is said and what is meant, being one and the same. He then asked Mr. 
Barker if he wished to continue.

 Mr. Barker stated that his major concerns had been addressed and offered that 
Captain Davidiatis could now discuss who the people are, reference in Line 2, who 
are arrested and go to court for the use of/under the influence of controlled 
substances, or could delay to another time when the truth-in-sentencing matter 
comes up.

Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Barker for the offer but did not feel it was 
necessary at this time.

Chairman Anderson began discussion of Assembly Bill 98.

ASSEMBLY BILL 98 -	Establishes within department of prisons position of 
coordinator of programs for treatment of offenders who 
abuse alcohol or drugs.

Chairman Anderson requested testimony begin.


Mr. James C. Rogers, Senior Psychologist, Department of Prisons, referenced that 
he had testified in 1993 and 1994 before the A.C.R. 71 and A.C.R. 76 Sub-
Committees. In support of Assembly Bill 98, he stated that during his four years 
with the Department of Prisons he had observed the operation of their substance 
abuse department and throughout that time there had been a person serving in the 
capacity. He felt it is critical to the supervision and continuing development of 
programs to have a person within the prison who is an overall coordinator. He had 
served, for about one year, as an acting coordinator of substance abuse programing 
and highly recommends the continuation of the position. He understands this bill 
provides for the financing and continuation of the position, the activities, the 
duties, and development of the prisons treatment programs for substance abusers.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the person is currently on board.

Mr. Rogers responded that, in the past, they have had a person in the capacity 
through other funding, which is no longer available.

Mr. Carpenter asked where the funding had been from.

Mr. Rogers responded it had been grant funding.


Mr. Carpenter inquired if it now has to be picked-up by the state if the position is 
established.

Mr. Rogers responded that was his understanding, in order to continue.

Mr. Carpenter asked if there was anyone currently performing the function.

Mr. Rogers believed there was someone performing the duties temporarily under 
another position. He continued it was his understanding the position (of 
coordinator) does not exist at this time though the duties are being performed by 
others.

Mr. Carpenter commented that he guessed the Committee was being asked to 
write a description of the duties of this person who has been doing the duties in 
the past but will no longer be funded and wondered if that was true.

Mr. Rogers responded that was correct as the prior funding has been exhausted 
and in order to continue the position new sources of funding are required. He added 
the duties were "pretty well" outlined.

Mr. Carpenter asked if it was just a funding situation or would it also be necessary 
to describe the duties.

Mr. Rogers thought it was more than just the funding and the proposed legislation 
does outline some of the duties in general terms; i.e., supervision of the program 
and supervision of the employees.

Chairman Anderson, referring to page 28 of the A.C.R. 71 Study, noted a letter 
from the sub-committee to the Governor and the Legislative Commission 
encouraging the Governor to include in the 1995-97 budget the amount of 
$110,000 for a position of substance abuse program director and urging the `95 
Legislature to approve such a budget item.  He believed this was included in the 
Governor's budget but would need to recheck. He asked Mr. Rogers if he knew if 
it was in the Governor's budget.

Mr. Rogers answered he understood it was.

Chairman Anderson understood the same but could not recall the exact line item.

Mr. Schneider asked if it was $110,000 for the position as listed in the book.

Mr. Rogers responded he was not familiar with the dollar amounts being proposed 
but thought a colleague in Carson City could respond to the question.


Mr. Schneider thought it a pretty high number for a director.

Chairman Anderson pointed out to Mr. Schneider, page 23 of the A.C.R. 71 Study, 
"Miscellaneous  Recommendations for Legislation", and reviewed its content... 
create the position of substance abuse program director within the Department of 
Prisons. Stipulate that the duties of the director include, but are not limited to: 
...coordinate and oversee the administration of substance abuse programs operated 
or contracted....; supervise all department personnel assigned to....; plan, initiate, 
and evaluate substance abuse programs. He thought the $110,000 included salary 
and benefits.

Mr. Schneider requested clarification of what was salary, what was benefits, and 
what else goes into directing the program. 

Chairman Anderson informed Mr. Schneider it was a Ways and Means Committee 
question and  not in the perview of the Judiciary Committee although it would be 
 recognized as a concern. Continuing, he explained the bill sets up the position and 
 the bill needs to be re-referred to Ways and Means.


Dr. Jeannette Sanders, Department of Prisons, stated she understood the 
recommendation for the $110,000 was for the biennium and included salary and 
benefits. The Governor recommended the position at a (grade) 38-15.

Chairman Anderson asked if the information was helpful to Mr. Schneider.

Mr. Schneider said it had been.

Mr. Batten reviewed, for his understanding: there was an individual in the position; 
they had had a federal grant which paid for the position; and now that the federal 
grant had expired the individual is still doing the job.

Mr. Rogers responded it was not the same individual but the job is being done.
Mr. Batten asked if that individual could still perform that job without getting the 
$110,000.

Mr. Rogers stated he could assume that it was possible, but he thought it 
important to have the position in order to coordinate the duties of substance abuse 
specifically. 


Dr. Sanders wished to clarify the position. She explained she currently runs the 
women's  program at the women's facility in Carson City and also performs some 
of the duties of the substance abuse coordinator position because there is no one 
else to do it. She stressed  both positions cannot be done by one person. She is 
filling in for the position, as able, until the position becomes funded.

Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Neilander recap some of the testimony from the 
Study to put some perspective on the issue.

Mr. Neilander recollected there was a great deal of confusion about what the 
success rate was for the various treatment programs and lack of valid statistical 
information. Because of the number of programs and other programs being 
proposed and expansion of the 305 Program, testimony was that once the Federal 
grant ran out the position needed to be continued. The sub-committee, with an eye 
to the future, determined there should be two separate elements: one sets-up the 
position (A.B. 98); and the second funds the position which is part of the  
Governor's budget and not what is before the committee. 

Chairman Anderson reviewed the duties as outlined in the Study.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked how much was the Federal Grant which had run out and 
how was it set up.


Mr. Rogers described the federal grant as the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant 
Funding which was received for four years with a 25% (State)-75% (Federal) 
match for a total of $113,000 per year. The majority of the grand funding was for 
the position of the coordinator. He followed-up on Mr. Batten's question that it is 
needed for someone to be doing this full-time.

Mrs. Monaghan questioned why this (program) has been done for the last four 
years but there is no data on how successful or what is going on with the program.

Mr. Rogers responded there was no funding for tracking or follow-up evaluation. 
He noted, as testified by others, it has been a deficiency in the state but is being 
addressed now and is something very much needed.

Chairman Anderson explained one of the frustrations for the Sub-Committee was 
obtaining appropriate data, compared to the national data, as to the effectiveness 
of Nevada's treatment programs. National figures have been relied upon to 
determine effectiveness of treatment. He noted figures specific to Nevada are 
needed to see if what is being done is cost effective: he referenced A.B. 81 which 
will heard later. Past funding has been reliant upon wanting the program but not 
being able to do the study. Now both are being proposed.

Chairman Anderson asked for any others wishing to testify to come forward.

Mrs. Betty Wallace, representing the Nevada Treatment Association, testified in 
favor of A.B. 98 reading from her statement,"...There is need for a prison 
coordinator for drug and alcohol programs. It would be advantageous to the prison 
staff, inmates, general public, the criminal justice system, Bureau of Alcohol and 
Drug Abuse and the community based treatment programs. There is an opportunity 
for collaboration and accelerated programming among prisons, parole and 
probation, judges and the treatment community if a progressive person is 
administering an accredited uniform drug treatment program in the Nevada  
prisons" (Exhibit D).  She noted she directs a program which provides service to 
women released from prison and a collaboration would greatly assist a continuum 
of care and help insure a greater success rate than at present.

Mr. Batten asked if Mrs. Wallace knew how many programs the state uses now to 
treat the drug or alcohol offender and if she had any statistics on which one is the 
most efficient cost saving.

Mrs. Wallace stated she had no statistics and added perhaps BADA would have the 
number of programs. She noted that a survey is needed to help answer the 
questions. She had anecdotal information but not hard statistics.


Chairman Anderson mentioned the programs were looked at during the A.C.R. 71 
Study and he would be happy to provide the list. He mentioned various numbers 
in different Nevada communities.

Mr. Batten asked if they were separate programs within the geographic areas.

Chairman Anderson responded some were similar programs and some were 
different in nature. He counted 33 programs with separate funding on the list for
January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1993. He also deferred some information to be 
addressed by BADA staff who would testify later in the day.

Mr. Batten inquired if each of the different programs has a coordinator is the bill for 
the "Chief of all Coordinators."

Chairman Anderson answered that the bill deals with the program within the prison 
system which does not have a program funded by the state of Nevada. He noted 
 this could give them access to other programs, some of which,  have private 
funding and others with state or federal funding; also, judges may find other 
programs that are acceptable which meet criteria.



Mr. Tim Moen, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, explained BADA accredits  drug 
and alcohol treatment programs and provides some funding for the DUI Program for 
men at Indian Springs. He expressed his support for A.B. 98. He stated he had 
interacted with all the coordinators since the inception of the 305 Program during 
the 1991 Legislature and felt the position is critical for a number of reasons: 1) 
there are several program components within the prison which require careful 
coordination; 2) it is imperative that BADA have someone who, at a clinical and 
administrative level, can provide oversight of the various programs. He referenced 
Mr. Neilander's comment regarding the potential for expansion of the programs 
which would increase the need for someone to take charge of the expansion. He 
felt the position would be valuable to generate additional funding from other 
funding sources and would be critical as a community liaison and aftercare when 
individuals leave the DUI program at Indian Springs. He also felt an effective person 
could increase the success rate and enhance the quality of the programing in the 
prison. He addressed Mr. Batten's question regarding programing. He listed, in the 
Nevada Department of Prisons: 1) the A.B. 305 (1991 Legislative Session)  
Program at Indian Springs; 2) women's DUI program at the Jean facility; and 3) 
prevention and education programs at Nevada State Prison and Northern Nevada 
Correctional Center in Carson City. BADA also provides funding for a variety of 
community based programs and  has treatment centers and prevention programs 
throughout the state. He noted the position referred to in A.B. 98 is specifically for 
the programming within the Nevada State Prisons; the other programs in the state 
(private or not-for-profit corporation) have directors and counseling staffs of their 
own. 

Mr. Batten asked why was funding not continued and have other funding sources 
been tried.

Mr. Moen replied to the first part of the question that the funding discussed by Mr. 
Rogers did not come through BADA but was administered by the Department of 
Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. He responded to the second part that BADA in 
conjunction with law enforcement agencies is evaluating the crime bill for prison 
programming purposes and other treatment issues related to the criminal justice 
population. 

Mr. Batten asked if Mr. Moen knew anything about the funding aspect; trying other 
sources.

Mr. Moen answered not in regard to the previous funding for the position as it 
came from elsewhere. He stated, to his knowledge, BADA had not pursued funding 
for the particular position through the crime bill. 


Chairman Anderson addressed Mr. Batten and explained when the study was done 
the crime package was still in its formative stage. The funding for the program had 
not been coordinated through the Department of Prisons, but through another 
means. Because of the success of the A.B. 305 (1991 Legislative Session) Program 
for alcohol diversion similar programs are trying to be developed for people on other 
drugs. He noted that alternative funding sources are being sought, a job for Ways 
and Means, but "we" are trying to make sure the position is in place.

Mr. Carpenter questioned that although the person is called a coordinator there is 
nowhere in the legislation where it specifically states the person should coordinate 
all the programs and thinks it should be added. He also wondered what the success 
rate was in the Indian Springs program.

Mr. Moen related that in testimony he would be providing on another bill which 
pertains to the A.B. 305 (1991 Legislative Session) Program statistical information 
would be provided....


Chairman Anderson offered to help and noted all the questions dealing with the 
success of the programs are based on the need for the A.B. 81 which reverts back 
to the unavailability of any statistical data on the success rate of programs in 
Nevada compared to the national data. Because of the lack of data it cannot be said 
in fact that the program is working, but it appears to be. He asked Mr. Moen if that 
was accurate.

Mr. Moen stated he thought that was an accurate representation. 

Chairman Anderson ended testimony on A.B. 98 and adjourned the meeting for a 
lunch break at 12:15 p.m.

Chairman Anderson reconvened at 1:40 p.m., outlined the changed order of bill 
testimony as Assembly Bills 83, 82, 93, then 81, excused Mr. Humke to attend the 
Western State Legislative Conference in his capacity as President, and tended to 
some housekeeping issues for the weeks activities.

Chairman Anderson opened testimony on Assembly Bill 83.

ASSEMBLY BILL 83 -	Requires peace officers to receive training in detection of 
use and abuse of alcohol and controlled substances.


Mr. Richard Clark, Chief, Peace Officers Standards and Training, Department of 
Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, announced he would testify in support of 
Assembly Bill 83 and provide information on Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 
already in place, and information on the potential fiscal impact of the bill. He 
continued that currently the Nevada Law Enforcement Academy provides training 
in the detection of the use and abuse of alcohol and controlled substances and 
provides three separate peace officer training programs (Exhibit E):

Category 1- Uniformed police officers: NAC 481.054(4d) 
requires a course in investigation of drivers who are under 
the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. The 
course is 36 hours; six hours covering blood alcohol 
content certification and 30 hours driving under the 
influence identification (DUI), horizontal gaze nystagmus, 
and the standardized field sobriety test.
                         
Category 3 - Confinement and correctional officers: NAC 
481.058(4b) requires training in the investigation of 
narcotics and abuse of controlled substances. The course 
is 10 hours; four hours of blood alcohol content and six 
hours of drug evaluation and recognition. 


Category 2 - Specialized law enforcement functions, i.e. 
bailiffs, juvenile probation officers, attorney general 
investigators, district attorney investigators, and SIIS 
investigators. There are no requirements under NAC 481 
that requires training in the detection of use and abuse of 
alcohol and controlled substances; however, students 
receive four hours of narcotics law. 

He noted the potential fiscal impact of setting a standard of 16 hours for training 
in detection equipment use (breathalysers), horizontal gaze nystagmus and 
standardized field sobriety testing would add one day to the Category 3 curriculum 
and cost approximately $800 per year and add two days to Category 2 for a cost 
of $1,600 per year for a total impact on the Law Enforcement Academy of $2.400.
If the 16 hours were required for peace officers currently certified under Category 
2 and 3 the fiscal impact would be enhanced. For example, under Category 3 for 
the Prison System, the added six hours of training for 1,163 people (including 
student and instructor salaries) would total about $140,000. Category 2, for 
example,  Parole and Probation with 238 officers requiring two days of training, 
 could total (with student and instructor salaries), $78,800. The fiscal impact 
would effect the Academy and the law enforcement (Categories 2 and 3) agencies.


Chairman Anderson asked if individuals coming from prison are placed into drug 
diversion programs will the officers at Parole and Probation need the enhanced 16 
hours of training in order to assure the programs are effective and to provide 
adequate information back to the court.

Mr. Clark asked to defer the answer regarding Parole and Probation training  to the 
Training Supervisor for Parole and Probation, Tracy Fisk.

Mr. Fisk, Training Manager, Nevada Parole and Probation, began testimony by 
outlining the agency's role of dealing with adult offenders and supervising them as 
parolees or probationers in Nevada. He stated there is an in-house drug counseling 
program in Las Vegas, Reno, and Elko dealing with diversionary systems; also a life 
skills program which will include diversionary programs for offenders is beginning. 
He stated the Division would welcome additional training in drug and alcohol abuse 
detection. Since 1977 there has been six to eight hours of basic drug and alcohol 
orientation for new-hired officers. Currently a drug and alcohol abuse orientation 
is held for new officers attending the pre-service school. The training consists of 
an overview of: controlled substances, the effects on the nervous system, overt 
signs and symptoms and their recognition, and how to deal with persons under the 
influence. There is optional training following the first year for persons who are 
specializing in drug offender caseloads, such as, attendance to the annual 
Governor's Forum on Alcohol and Drug Abuse and narcotic investigation schools 
held by the Drug Enforcement Administration.


Mr. Batten asked if it would be more cost effective to develop specialized in-service 
training than having each officer attend the P.O.S.T Academy.

Mr. Fisk answered the Division had moved its training into the Category 1, Basic 
Academy. They will continue to have in-service training following the academy 
training to keep abreast of the problems. He felt the cost effectiveness would be 
in dealing with the offenders. They need annual training to be able to properly 
supervise the offenders.

Mr. Batten repeated whether it would be more cost effective to have the in-service 
training as opposed to extending the academy and needing to pay the salary and 
benefits, etc., and thereby not needing  the legislation.

Mr. Fisk clarified there were 36 hours in Category 1 so extending the academy 
would not be necessary. He felt what A.B. 83 was asking for was already in place 
for Category 1, so there would be no further costs.

Mr. Batten asked, "If this is already in place, what is this,...?"


Chairman Anderson responded it was developed from the A.C.R. 71 Study to 
assure "that" part of the P.O.S.T training program is not dropped and people who 
have received training in the past will have updated information. The Study 
Committee did not find a uniform level of training in the identification of drug abuse 
problems. He continued, in another part of the legislation police officers will be 
asked to use techniques other than the breathalyser for purposes of developing a 
recorded history, particularly with youthful offenders. 

Mr. Perkins made an observation that A.B. 83 dovetails with A.B. 82. The 
Committee was trying to gather information on how many offenders were under 
the influence of alcohol or controlled substances which may have been the genesis 
of A.B. 83. He added they may be trying "to fix something that's not broke" with 
A.B. 83 since all officers are trained to identify persons who are under the influence 
of drugs or alcohol. He referenced NRS 481 (P.O.S.T requirements) noting  there 
is only one legislated requirement: a police officer's proper use of a choke hold. He 
observed it may be easier for P.O.S.T to provide direction for the certifications, etc. 
through regulation.

Mr. Clark requested to respond to Mr. Batten's earlier question: "if everything is in 
place what is this about." He explained there is a training requirement for  
Categories 1 and 3 that addresses "this area"; there is no requirement for Category 
2.  Parole and Probation upgraded their training from Category 2 to Category 1 and 
are now receiving the 36 hours of training.

Chairman Anderson asked whether he would like to see that remain in place.

Mr. Clark stated yes.

Mr. Carpenter asked what is the requirement for Category 1 officers to receive 
refresher training; is it yearly and how is it handled.

Mr. Clark responded P.O.S.T. regulations have no requirement for an in-service 
update in this area. Category 1 agencies do have on-going training.

Mr. Carpenter commented, "then they are taking care of it through their own 
agencies."

Mr. Clark confirmed his statement.

Mr. Carpenter asked if any of this training was conducted at P.O.S.T.

Mr. Clark replied yes, through the Traffic Safety Program. The on-going training is 
for agency instructors in areas of standardized field sobriety testing, horizontal gaze 
nystagmus, and drug recognition.


Mr. Carpenter asked if he felt the training given for Category 2 is adequate or do 
they need more training.

Mr. Clark said he could not speak for all Category 2 agencies as his information 
was from Parole and Probation. He stated experts felt 16 hours are adequate in this 
area.

Mr. Batten questioned if it meant that without the legislation in A.B. 83 at P.O.S.T 
cannot add more training. 

Mr. Clark responded, no, he had been responding to the bill, and his objective was 
to testify in support and give information on what is in place in that some added 
hours would be needed in Categories 2 and 3.

Chairman Anderson, to clarify, asked what percentage of the rural area police staff 
go through the academy.

Mr. Clark answered about 60 percent for all agencies.

Chairman Anderson asked what is the percentage for the Las Vegas Metropolitan 
area.

Mr. Clark replied that Las Vegas Metro has their own academy, but for the outlying 
areas (Henderson, Boulder City) almost all of them attend the P.O.S.T. Academy.

Chairman Anderson asked what is the percentage for the Reno-Sparks metropolitan 
area.

Mr. Clark stated Reno and Washoe County would be the largest percentage of 
officers and they attend the Sierra Nevada Law Enforcement Academy at Truckee 
Meadows Community College. All the programs meet the P.O.S.T requirements.

Chairman Anderson thought the purpose of the legislation was to assure P.O.S.T. 
training and P.O.S.T certified training includes alcohol awareness identification.

Chairman Anderson called on persons wishing to testify against the bill to come 
forward.


Mr. Eric Cooper, representative, Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association, testified 
against A.B. 83. He began by stating the Association is always concerned about 
unfunded mandates since many rural departments depend upon P.O.S.T. for 
training and P.O.S.T.'s budget is shorted  every biennium. He stated there are 
several pending Bill Draft Requests (BDR's) mandating other training, i.e., abuse 
and neglect and cultural awareness. He stated the  Association is concerned about 
statutory mandated training as the point could be reached where the entire 
curriculum of P.O.S.T. will be mandated by statute. He echoed Mr. Clark's 
comments regarding the additional cost for P.O.S.T. and added there would be 
additional cost to the other P.O.S.T. certified training academies around the state. 
He continued, $380,000 was cut from the P.O.S.T. budget request for fiscal year 
1996 by the Budget Office and it is unknown how much money will be available 
for P.O.S.T. at the end of the budget hearings. He added that P.O.S.T. is holding 
three training positions vacant in order to make it through the current fiscal year. 
He mentioned a discussion with Mr. Clark where he understood there is barely 
enough money to provide basic training to three Category 1 academies next year; 
he feared the other categories will, again, be shorted due to the budget shortfall. 
He asked the Committee to consider the impact of statutory mandated training for 
P.O.S.T. Academy.

Mr. Batten asked if "you" (Metro) feels it does not need to go outside to get 
authority to include training in the curriculum to update officers' training when laws 
change or information is needed.


Mr. Cooper stated was correct. He noted in his former position with Metro he was 
always mindful for the need for updated training for two major reasons: 
investigation of cases for court purposes and possible civil penalty for failing to 
apply the latest techniques in law enforcement.

Chairman Anderson asked if there may be a problem in the rural areas which do not 
have the opportunity to have this type of training for officers.

Mr. Cooper answered that the rural law enforcement officers are required to attend 
the P.O.S.T. Training Academy within one year (of hire). He understands the 
backlog is quite significant and deferred any detail to Mr. Clark; however, many 
officers may be approaching the one year period who may be in violation of 
regulations because they have not received the basic training. He noted the Sierra 
Academy provides the same basic curriculum, but, probably with enhancements. 
He thought it would be better if the Committee were to request P.O.S.T. to place 
these requirements within the regulation than to mandate it by statute. He did not 
really see any problem in the rural areas other than getting access to the P.O.S.T. 
Academy.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged Paula Treat.


Ms. Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Peace Officer Research Association of Nevada, stated 
she wished to echo the sentiments of Assemblymen Perkins and Batten and Mr. 
Cooper. The Association's review did not identify a major problem. She noted the 
Association represents the rural areas.

Chairman Anderson found it interesting that the recommendation came from the 
Sheriff's and Chief's Association; perhaps the A.C.R. 71 Sub-Committee did not 
read it correctly. 

Lt.  Stan Olsen, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 
(LVMPD), testified LVMPD is against the bill in its present wording for a number of 
reasons: The LVMPD Academy is 600 hours which exceeds the minimum P.O.S.T. 
requirements for Category 1. He related the academy has a number of classes 
where this topic is discussed and stated the problem with the 16 hours is it would 
require them to extend the academy by a minimum of three days.

Chairman Anderson asked if, even with their enhanced hours, they still would not 
meet the requirements the bill sets.

Lt. Olsen responded the Department is trying to prevent having any more 
mandatory hours which could require dropping something currently in the Academy 
or increasing its length. 


Chairman Anderson ended testimony on A.B. 83 and began testimony on Assembly 
Bill 82.

ASSEMBLY BILL 82 -	Requires certain information concerning use of alcohol or 
controlled substances to be included in records of criminal 
history.

Chairman Anderson asked for testimony to begin.


Ms. Dorothy North, Chairman, Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse, 
Education, Prevention, Enforcement, and Treatment, and the sole citizen member 
of the Uniform Crime Reporting Advisory Committee, testified in support of 
Assembly Bill 82. She stated the Commission has struggled with the lack of hard 
data on substance abuse since its inception in 1989. There was an inability to 
accurately count the number of crimes committed under the influence of drugs or 
alcohol. This bill would allow gathering of better data than is currently available. 
She related the number of crimes committed under the influence are high; but there 
is no method to determine how high. If the legislation is passed the information 
gathered will be invaluable to the criminal justice system and to a variety of 
treatment and social service agencies. The data would make Nevada much more 
competitive in grant application and give the issue prominence and credibility it 
deserves as one of the biggest social problems in the state. She strongly urged the 
Committee to support passage of the bill.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the records were available from the courts if a person is 
found guilty.

Ms. North responded there were no records collected which tell if the crime was 
committed under the influence unless it happens to "come up." It is identifiable in 
 a direct alcohol or drug related crime such as a DUI, but not necessarily so in a 
family violence or burglary. There is no consistent information being obtained.
She continued, the Advisory Committee had discussed this and in order for Nevada 
to have a system to obtain the information it would need to move from Uniform 
Crime Reporting (UCR) to a system called National Incident Based Reporting 
System (NIBRS) which would also collect other information. In the past, when 
Nevada's population was under one million, the Federal Government would accept 
the best guess; now there is an expectation that the cited statistics come from a 
source of hard data.

Mr. Carpenter was concerned there would be police officers collecting the 
information and asked how it was done by others.


Ms. North stated there is insufficient funds to fully implement UCR, therefore the 
NIBRS system is unlikely; but that system would require a more involved arrest 
report having check-offs to denote if the perpetrator was, or thought to be, under 
the influence. Other states which have the money have alcohol and drug testing 
from arrest through post-adjudication to track the statistics for the offender. She 
reiterated "we" would be in a much better position to compete for discretionary 
grant and federal program money for treatment and social service agencies in areas 
 of child abuse, family violence, etc., which are connected to alcohol and drug 
problems.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the system was instituted would someone need to be given 
a blood test to prove the person was under the influence.

Ms. North responded the training discussed previously would give them the ability 
to identify persons under the influence.

Mr. Carpenter thought he would agree with that.


Mr. Perkins explained the Uniform Crime Reporting is a simple system where the 
officer checks the appropriate box to describe the crime. What is being discussed 
is along the same lines: to collect objective data and to compile it for use at the 
state level. He referenced Mr. Carpenter's concern regarding the taking of a blood 
test. He did not think it was getting into a due process situation to actually prove 
the person under the influence, but to be able to show the federal government the 
number of percent of crimes dealing with alcohol and drugs. He further stated  
complete accuracy could not be claimed; but an overwhelming number of the 
officers will try to do it accurately.

Mrs. Steel observed that, to her, the due process laws were put in place for 
protection from the government and if the government agency is collecting the 
information and do not have to prove themselves, she has a problem with it. She 
acknowledged there appeared to be sufficient training (as testified to be previous 
persons) to determine if someone is under the influence. She asked whether the 
reporting time was large; is it a check the box on the reporting form; and must 
additional staff be hired to compile the information; and is the information escaping 
because of the plea bargaining where there is no information on certain criminals 
because they plead guilty to lesser offences.

Ms. North answered that the information being discussed is not being gathered to 
use against any individual or group of people; it is for providing resources to help 
"this" group of people. She thought the reason the information is  not available is 
because the questions are not being asked.

Mrs. Steel asked if it is necessary to have legislative approval to ask the questions.

Ms. North responded she would need to defer the answer to Mr. Perkins.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Perkins if a person is considered by an officer to be 
belligerent at time of arrest, which is only anecdotal, if  that is recorded on a check-
off system.

Mr. Perkins responded it is not always anecdotal as sometimes the demeanor of a 
person goes to the element of the crime; however, the reporting system he falls 
under is not a check-the-box system. His system is narrative to properly document 
what is seen, touched, smelled, etc. He stressed the data to be gathered will not 
be attached to any particular person; it is data gleaned away from names for 
percentages.

Mr. Batten wishing to follow-up on Mr. Perkins' and Ms. North's comments echoed 
their explanations.

Mr. Goldwater echoed Mr. Perkins' sentiments and pointed out that in the 
legislation it states the officer must identify how the assessment was made (Page 
2, Line 1.) 

Ms. Ohrenschall quoted from the bill ( Page 2, Section 4.2 (b), Line 35) and asked 
Ms. North if she could describe when information may be identifiable through an 
independent source.

Ms. North responded it meant, unless it was verifiable with a test, it could not be 
used against the offender.

Ms. Ohrenschall questioned if it was related to an "eavesdropper" type rule where 
someone working for the agency were willing to come forward and say "I looked 
at .... arrest record" and if that would break the confidentiality.

Ms. North responded she did not think so and asked what Ms. Ohrenshall thought. 
She stressed what was needed was a pool of data.

Ms. Ohrenschall felt the objectives seemed worthy but was looking at the 
language.

Chairman Anderson called upon Ms. Wallace.


Ms. Betty Wallace, representative, Nevada Treatment Association, wished to speak 
to Page 2, Section 4, Item 1.b.4, Line 18-25 stating the section relates to drug and 
alcohol confidentiality and pointed out many state departments are ruled only by 
state statute but the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) must meet the 
federal guidelines and procedures for confidentiality pertaining to the release of 
drug and alcohol information and records. The federal guidelines are very strict and 
can cause problems when individuals or agencies do not understand them (Exhibit 
 F). For questions she wished to defer to Liz Breshears, Chief, Bureau of Alcohol 
and Drug Abuse.

Mrs. Ohrenschall was concerned about confidentiality and if it was the position of 
the various witnesses that they are not adopting any sort of common law privilege 
which can be breached by an eavesdropper or a third party.

Ms. Wallace deferred answer to Ms. Breshears.


Ms. Breshears, Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, stated the content of her 
testimony had essentially been covered by Ms. Wallace but would go a step 
further. Specifically, the patient/professional relationship in any substance abuse 
treatment program that received federal or state funding must follow the Federal 
Regulations, 42 CFR, Part 2, which provides for very strict limitations regarding the 
extent and nature of information released; redisclosure is prohibited. If confidential 
information is provided to a data gathering agency, the agency is prohibited from 
redisclosing any information which can allow for the identification of an individual 
in a substance abuse treatment program (Exhibit G). 

Chairman Anderson reviewed that earlier Ms. North had stated the purpose of the 
bill was to develop statistical information, not specific names, but types and 
numbers of people under the influence committing crimes to obtain aggregate 
numbers. He did not think BADA would stand in the way of that purpose provided 
the name was not released. 

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the statute needed to be strengthened on the 
confidentiality procedure to make it plain that confidentiality would not be reduced.

Chairman Anderson thought Ms. Buckley could help the understanding.

Mrs. Buckley commented that the public has demanded accountability and when 
approving new programs it must be insured that statistics warrant it and the 
program to be enacted will meet the need. She has been appalled at the lack of 
statistics and thinks the bill is a step to get statistical information needed to 
proceed and therefore is in support of it. She did not see a confidentiality problem, 
in that, once in the criminal justice system there is sufficient protection in the 
distribution of the material by only allowing statistical information to be compiled.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated she still had a problem with the language,"it is not 
admissible against the offender...unless the information is otherwise discoverable" 
and thinks it needs tightening-up.

Mrs. Steel asked, since 42 CFR, Part 2 clearly states the agency collecting the 
information cannot release the information, if the police agency originally obtaining 
the information could not disclose it if they thought the person was drunk when 
they went to trial.

Ms. Breshears wished to correct the impression she may have given; she was 
referring only to one sub-section of the proposed statute and that is on Page 2, Line 
18-25 which refers only to a public or private agency for the diagnosis or treatment 
of a criminal offender. This does not impact a law enforcement agency.

Mrs. Steel wished to clarify it would not conflict with that portion of the federal 
mandate.

Ms. Breshears stated that was correct.


Mr. Batten, directing his comment to Ms. North, asked if he was correct that a 
blood test at a hospital would be considered discovery through an independent 
source.

Ms. North responded, absolutely. She continued, if the language was ambiguous 
and of concern it could be tightened to specify "unless otherwise discoverable 
through breathalyser, drug test, or whatever"; however the Committee would like.

Chairman Anderson noted the (Committee) would be coming back to this (bill.)

Mr. Lionel Fleming, citizen, testified he had problems with the bill. He voiced 
concern stating a police officer's observations should be verified by testing. He 
noted his suspicion of central repositories being: "Big Brother and Big Government." 
He did feel something should be done about the crime problem. He agreed obtaining 
data without the name was a good way to compile statistics.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if the language in the bill were amended to provide for a 
separate anonymous form for the officer, would it provide protection.


Mr. Fleming reiterated that he did not like the officer making just an observation 
that could show on a person's record and interfere with future livelihood, such as, 
a work application. He stated forms must be signed which in effect neutralizes 
confidentiality. The observation should be verified.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired,"Or totally anonymous, one or the other."

Mr. Fleming answered to not allow them to take the name, the same as is done 
with the AIDS statistics.

Ms. Ohrenschall wished to clarify his point that until the matter is backed up by a 
test it is just a subjective observation.

Mr. Fleming responded yes. He does not want a subjective observation; he wants 
an objective observation.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 82 and opened the hearing on 
Assembly Bill 93.

ASSEMBLY BILL 93 -	Makes various changes to provisions governing assignment 
of offenders to program for treatment of abuser of alcohol 
or drugs established by director of department of prisons.


Chairman Anderson asked that a letter from Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving (MADD), opposing Assembly Bill 93 (Exhibit H) be entered into the record.
He asked for representatives from the Department of Prisons to come forward; 
none were in attendance. 


Mr. Tim Moen, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, wished to provide background 
material on the legislation. He testified that during the legislative interim, officials 
from Prisons, Parole and Probation, and BADA met to discuss issues related to the 
A.B. 305 Program (1991 Legislative Session). The program was to provide 
treatment to individuals convicted of felony DUI offenses. Phase One is a residential 
treatment component located within the prison facility; Phase Two is a residential 
confinement program which is managed by Parole and Probation. BADA provides 
about $150,000 funding to the project. He reviewed that NRS 458 requires any 
alcohol and drug abuse treatment funded by BADA must be accredited by BADA. 
His role has been to assure minimum standards of performance regarding staff 
credentials, procedural matters, and clinical expectations. During the 1993 
Legislative Session the structure of the program was modified from using prison 
staff to using a community based non-profit agency. He explained, about seven 
percent of the total DUI population are not eligible for enrollment in the program 
(insufficient time incarcerated, unable to qualify for minimum custody.) He 
continued that each month 30-36 individuals are admitted who would qualify for 
the program. Only two to two and one-half percent are discharged for failure to 
comply with the program rules.  About 45 percent of persons successfully 
completing Phase One are accepted into Phase Two. He explained this meant (as 
of January 1995), of the 1,000 who had participated in the four years, 572 
remained in prison. Reasons for the individuals to remain in prison were: refusing 
to continue with Phase Two (25 percent); out-of-state parole (17 percent); and no 
employment, extensive criminal history, no residence for confinement, or wanting 
discharge to rural Nevada where there are no support services. Twelve percent 
entered into Phase Two are subsequently returned to prison. This legislation would 
take Phase Two criteria and include them into the Phase One eligibility equation, 
 requiring a commitment by the inmate to complete the treatment, and would foster 
and enhance collaboration between Department of Prisons and Parole and Probation 
prior to the beginning of treatment. He had comment on the language where it 
states "entire program of treatment" which he feels is not defined. He referenced 
Page 1, Section 1, Line 16, Line 20, and Page 2, Line 3. He assumed it means 
completing Phase One and Phase Two and suggested it be defined in the 
legislation.

Mr. Perkins asked what the percentage of success for completing Phase One and 
Two and not returning to the prison environment versus that for completing only 
Phase One.

Mr. Moen responded he did not have the information. Anecdotally, persons who 
complete Phase Two have a low recidivism rate; approximately 12 percent who 
enter Phase Two are returned to prison. He mentioned that Parole and Probation 
noted, of the 1,000 persons treated during the past four years, 21 have returned 
to prison on a subsequent DUI charge; a return rate of about two percent.  He 
stated he would try to provide better information at the Committee's next work 
session.

Mr. Perkins thought the information would be crucial to the bill as the intent was 
to have individuals complete both phases since their success rate was much higher. 
He wished to know if that was correct information from the interim study.

Mr. Moen stated he would let him know. He continued that another issue was the 
management of inmates through the programming. Knowing if a person will 
complete both phases before entering the program will impact the flow through the 
program by reducing open "bed spaces" during the program and allow better 
inmate management.

Chairman Anderson asked if a person enrolled in Phase One would earn good time 
credits.

Mr. Moen stated that was correct.

Chairman Anderson inquired if people sign-up for the program, in order to obtain 
the good time credits, but have no intention of completing the program.

Mr. Moen answered that was a possibility.

Chairman Anderson read the letter from Laurel Stadler, MADD, opposing A.B. 93 
(Exhibit H)  into the record and then moved to the next bill.

ASSEMBLY BILL 81 -	Provides for study of effectiveness of programs for 
treatment of alcohol and drug abuse.


Ms. Breshears, Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, testified that in previous 
years funding had not been allocated to BADA to conduct outcome studies on the 
effectiveness of treatment programs. If A.B. 81 is passed BADA would contract to 
a qualified research entity. The majority of the expense would be in personnel costs 
with the remainder for other operating needs. She stated the results of an outcome 
study could answer the questions, such as came from California's CALDATA Study 
(note was made that the California study cost $2 million and A.B. 81's $100,000 
bill study would not be asking for or producing "Cadillac" results): what is the cost 
benefit of treatment; what would be the post-treatment; what impact does 
treatment have on criminal activity (she quoted statistics from two regional 
programs in Nevada: a prison program reflected 17 persons out of 108 returning 
to the prison and a Reno program for ex-felons having a 22 percent recidivism 
rate); what is impact on health and health care costs (a study by St. Mary's in Reno 
found emergency room visits were reduced by 62 percent and hospital days were 
reduced by 73 percent) ; and employment and income (other state's studies 
showed absenteeism decreased by 89 percent, tardiness by 92 percent, injuries by 
57 percent and income increased) (Exhibit I). She continued that an outcome study 
would provide  information to make better public policy decisions. She reiterated 
to use funding from current allocations would reduce treatment services at a time 
when, due to growth, they are needed even more. She provided a copy of BADA's 
"Client Discharge Report" form (Exhibit J) which could be expanded.


Chairman Anderson referenced earlier questions by Mr. Batten and noted BADA had 
provided several documents on the cost benefits of this kind of program and 
statistics on the cost effectiveness of the treatment to the A.C.R. 71 Study Sub-
Committee and hoped she could provide an updated version.

Ms. Breshears agreed to provide the additional information. 

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Batten if that was his question.

Mr. Batten confirmed it was and he had no further questions.

Ms. Betty Wallace, representative, Nevada Treatment Association, testified they 
have a real need for the outcome study and read from her prepared statement 
(Exhibit K).

Chairman Anderson asked for any further testimony. None was presented.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson 
adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.   
 
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:		
Jacque Sneddon,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:




_______________________________________	
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman


_______________________________________	
Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman


Assembly Committee on Judiciary
February 7, 1995
Page