MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 16, 1995 The Joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, February 16, 1995, in Room 4401 of the Sawyer State Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Dina Titus Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator O. C. Lee ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Mike Schneider Mrs. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT : Mr. David Humke, Chairman (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary Maddie Fischer, Primary Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. James Austin, Executive Vice President, National Council on Crime and Delinquency The chairman apologized for starting late and made some general announcements. He noted the hearing was a continuation of previous discussions and presentations on truth-in-sentencing. Truth-in-sentencing, the chairman explained, has come to encompass habitual criminal statutes, and reform of prison sentence credits programs. Prior to turning the floor over to the speaker, Senator James provided a brief review of what the Legislature had looked at or heard in regard to sentence reform, including: The Springer Report on Sentencing from 1985-1986; the Report on the Abolition of Parole in Nevada from 1984; the prison master plan from 1981; the Governor's Blue Ribbon Report from 1971; the ACR 76 Criminal Justice Interim Study Committee Report from 1994; and the ACR 71 Drug and Alcohol Abuse in the Prison System Report from 1994, all on a state level. On a national level, he noted there is a report from the state of Virginia on the abolition of parole, along with a report on truth-in-sentencing; a North Carolina sentencing study; the U.S. Department of justice's Case for More Incarceration, from 1992, Report Card on Crime and Punishment from the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC) in 1994, and the truth-in-sentencing report from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most of these reports are recent and address the current state of prison sentencing in Nevada and the nation, he pointed out. Since the meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Judiciary has met twice, identified a preliminary list of the most serious felonies, identified some areas which would most impact a sentencing reform package (i.e., life without the possibility of parole sentences), and requested the administration of the state prison to identify those prisoners who are there for first time drug or property offenses that might, realistically, be directed to some other diversionary or alternative sentencing program, thus increasing the space available for serious felonies, Senator James told the committee. Senator James introduced the speaker, Dr. James Austin, of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, as currently on retainer with the State of Nevada and the state prison system in order to do projections of prison populations based upon proposed legislative changes. Dr. Austin's credentials are as follows: Executive Vice President, National Council of Crime and Delinquency (NCCD); he received his doctorate in sociology from the University of California at Davis; he has served as a correctional sociologist for the Illinois Department of Corrections; he currently directs NCCD's research and publication program, and serves as director of the National Evaluation of Multi-State Correctional Options program for the National Institute of Justice and the Evaluation of Drug Treatment programs in Local Correctional Agencies. This, the chairman noted, is by no means a complete list of Dr. Austin's accomplishments or endeavors. Assemblyman Anderson asked Chairman James to share with the Assembly Committee on Judiciary any of the reports they may not yet have in order to "dove- tail" it into what they do have. Senator James stated he would happily do so. Dr. Austin took the floor and thanked the committees for their interest. He observed that he feels the committees are "bent on sentencing reform, wants to make some changes...some things different, here in the State of Nevada." He explained there are many commissions and committees that have examined and debated what to do about crime and how to reform sentencing laws. He expressed his hope this committee will be more successful than most. Dr. Austin told that NCCD was established in 1907, making it the oldest and largest criminal justice research organization. He noted he is the director of the Washington D.C. office and he has spent a lot of time, recently, talking about the "Crime Bill" in Congress. This work led him to do a study called "Structured Sentencing" and an evaluation of alternatives to incarceration. He currently is working with the state doing prison population projections, he said, and plans to discuss all of these things with the committees. Referring to Exhibit C, "Correctional Populations percent change 1980-1993" Dr. Austin noted the important point to understand is the correctional system has been and is now growing at an extremely rapid rate. With 1.8 million adults in the prison system on any given day in 1980, and 4.9 million today, the system has experienced an increase of 167 percent. He continued that while the prison facilities have grown as fast as jail population, the probation and parole populations have grown the fastest. He stated it costs $85 billion per year to run the criminal justice system in the nation, with one of every 46 adults involved in the system one way or another (i.e., in prison and jail or on probation or parole). He added that 80 to 90 percent of this group are men (one of every 22 males are in the system) and black males are even more disproportionately represented (one of every 4 black males between 18 and 29 years of age). The growth shown in the system is expected to continue, he said, with experts not seeing any relief in the projected future, due "largely because of sentencing reform." It cannot be explained in growth of the population generally, because population only grew at 17 percent during the same period of time. However, Dr. Austin did point to a 46 percent increase in arrests with reported crimes only growing 5 percent. This, he said, tells us the system is working better at convicting people and placing them either in jail or prison, or on some other supervisory program. In 1989, NCCD projected a prison population of about one million, Dr. Austin stated, and this figure proved to be very accurate. At this rate, he noted, by the year 2000 there will be 1.5 million in prison. Moving to the area of drug arrests, Dr. Austin pointed to Exhibit D,"National Estimate of Drug Arrests," and attributed much of the growth within the system to the war on drugs. He explained the increase in drug arrests between 1980 and 1989 fueled the increase in prison populations and other facets of the correctional system. Addressing the decrease in arrests which shows up on the chart (Exhibit D) he attested to a decrease in drug consumption based upon surveys of youth and adults. This decrease is most particular to middle and upper middle class individuals, he noted, with no real change in the "hard-core drug populations." Another reason he offered for the decrease in arrests is the asset forfeiture laws which allow for property used or gained from the sale of drugs can be seized by the government. Because law enforcement agencies "make money" from the seizure of assets of drug dealers, they are much more selective in whom they arrest; seeking to arrest people with property, cars, boats, etc., not, according to Dr. Austin, those individuals who own nothing of value. Additionally, at the local level, the cost is too high to conduct "sweeps" of neighborhoods to clean up drug users. Next, Dr. Austin presented figures on who actually enters the prison system as a result of drug use or sale. Comparing total commitments to drug commitments, the speaker noted that, on a national level total new commitments grew from 75,000 in 1960 to 320,000 in 1990. When considering drug commitments, the figures grew from 3,000 to 104,000, a 3200 percent increase. This population, he said, now represents 32 percent of new admissions into the prison system. Thus, it is quite obvious there has been "a huge avalanche" of people being sentenced for drug crimes, Dr. Austin continued. This trend, he emphasized, is something that will require the Legislators' recognition and attention. "What are you going to do about the drug offenders," he asked. In Florida, drug arrests and convictions are a major portion of the criminal justice system, 45 percent approximately, he noted. Assemblyman Anderson asked the doctor whether drug diversion programs are effective or even in use. Using Florida as an example, Dr. Austin told of a combination of a drug diversion program and laws which resulted when Florida discovered the majority of their "habitual offenders" were there for drug use or possession and that many of the convicts were women. This discovery led them to reform their sentencing guidelines to mandate drug possession crimes into a non- prison, drug treatment program. Without the change, the speaker noted he feels the diversion programs would not have had much impact. Dr. Austin predicted Nevada would have to take similar measures if they hope to make room for more violent and dangerous offenders. Mr. Anderson asked if recidivism is impacted by the diversion programs. Responding, Dr. Austin noted, in Florida, while a prison sentence for a repeat offense is not mandated, it is still possible. Senator James added the threat of prison was still in place during participation in the diversion program. Dr. Austin pointed out the drug courts are in their infancy and only one study has been done of their effectiveness. He cautioned the committee that as a researcher, he wasn't sure if the drug courts were "ready to come to market" yet. Further, he explained that a drug court's effectiveness would require a large population, such as in Clark County. Senator James told Dr. Austin such a program is already in place and has been for 3 years. It seems, the senator told, to be working quite well with only 2 in 176 instances of recidivism. Senator Titus added the committees are examining its effectiveness with an eye to expanding it. Dr. Austin emphasized for a drug court to be effective it needs to be "carving into that stream" of individuals who are currently being sent to prison for their drug offenses. If the program is only taking people who will otherwise go on probation, the program's impact on prison populations is nil. In his personal opinion, Dr. Austin stated, he is opposed to programs that do not do what they say they will. One must be very careful when examining data regarding these programs, he noted. Assemblyman Carpenter asked the speaker if he had said drug use was going down. Dr. Austin responded affirmatively with some small exceptions. Mr. Carpenter asked if Dr. Austin sees any correlation between the increase in drug incarcerations and the decrease in drug use. Dr. Austin noted there might be some, but he feels the biggest impact is coming from public education and awareness, citing television ads and school educational campaigns. He did admit the current laws do impact individuals who have "something to lose" through arrest (e.g., home, job, reputation, family). Mr. Carpenter asked the speaker to elaborate some findings of the study done on the "war on drugs." Dr. Austin explained the study looked at the impact of drug arrests and court commitments on prison population. He further noted, that according to the study, if the "war on drugs" had not been instituted, we would not have seen the high increase in prison or other correctional system populations. Pressing, Mr. Carpenter asked whether the doctor felt the changes were effective. In answering, Dr. Austin asked him to consider two important factors: how many people enter the system; and how long do they stay. It is his opinion, he stated, that some people are kept in the system "far too long, beyond the utility of making our streets safer," and it wastes money that could be used for other purposes. When talking about drug trafficking, the laws are good, but when looking at a drug addict, putting a person in prison for 10 or 20 years, "absent any kind of treatment," does not accomplish much, he opined. Using Nevada as an example, Dr. Austin illustrated his point by showing of the 7000 people currently in prison here, 20 to 30 percent (2000) of prison beds are filled by drug users, with an average sentence being 2 years. If that sentence was reduced to 12 months, the state would save 1000 beds, conversely, if a year is added to their sentence the state would need to add 1000 beds to the prison system. He emphasized the high cost of incarceration, which, in these cases, really turns into a very expensive welfare system. Senator James added that according to the warden of the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, the availability of drugs within the prisons is high, therefore, imprisonment does not necessarily reduce drug use. Senator Adler told the committee, using Robin Bates' figures, that currently there are 1000 first-time drug user convictions in prison in Nevada. Senator Adler stated he feels they are serving relatively short sentences, but the parole board is unlikely to parole them. Dr. Austin suggested the questions to consider for sentencing reforms would be: how many are coming in per year, how long are they staying, how much does it cost, and what is the parole board doing with them. Assemblyman Anderson offered some statistics. He noted that of 6405 inmates, 24 percent (1559) are drug law offenders, and 75 percent (4805) are substance abusers of some type. He asked Dr. Austin if this is typical of national figures. Dr. Austin noted that in a lot of cases the criminality predates the drug use, but the drug use becomes part of the pattern. He cautioned that it is not fair to blame all the criminality on drug use, citing many of these individuals have failed in educational pursuit, family and other relationships, job skills and opportunities. Dr. Austin made another point by stating most crime is committed by young men between the ages of 18 and 34. By 35 years of age, he noted, they are slowing down criminal activities, and if the prisons are filled with men "who are forty years and above, you are wasting your prison beds." Assemblywoman Buckley acknowledged the speakers point about diverting some of the prison stream. She added her desire to research the policies and effectiveness of boot camps, especially their stricture against taking people who had previously served time in prison. She stated it is her concern that if such programs are to be added as alternative sentencing options, there is a need to make sure they will accept the individuals who are sent to them. Dr. Austin asked to address the boot camp issue stating, "boot camps are a fad, big time fad." Addressing the question of effectiveness, Dr. Austin stated: Most of the boot camps do not operate at full capacity. They have a hard time keeping them filled up precisely because of the reasons you just gave. Number two, with the exception of one program in Illinois, which is the model I would go to, it is not clear that they are diverting people out of the prison system. Number three, do they make them better? Yes, while they are in the boot camp they get better. Their health gets better, their values start changing, they start learning how to read, but when they get out, they go back to their former lifestyle. So, the recidivism rates, are not good. Looking at control and experiments cases, no differences were seen on graduates of boot camps with those that have not gone to the boot camp. The Illinois system, Dr. Austin noted, states that if a sentence is 8 years of less and the convict is younger than 35 years old, the prison officials decide whether or not they go to boot camp. This program is saving beds, he added, and millions of dollars. Further, he suggested putting cases with low recidivism rates into the program, which will enhance the effectiveness of them. Assemblyman Batten next addressed the speaker, asking his opinion of therapeutic communities (TCs). Dr. Austin replied that people who stay in treatment improve, the problem is keeping them in treatment. In a population with 40 percent recidivism a reduction of 10 percent recidivism is significant, and it is not realistic to expect to reduce the recidivism rate much than that, he explained. The people who populate these communities have already formed their life values, they are dysfunctional drug users, illiterate, with no work habits or skills, and thinking there can be any lasting change in 6 months is "naive," the doctor opined. Mr. Batten then asked what Dr. Austin's studies have shown was an appropriate length of stay for a treatment program. Dr. Austin replied that at least 6 months in a residential treatment program with a year or two of community care is usually called for. Even after the 2 year community care period, it is very easy for them to "fall off the wagon" and revert to drug use. In a criminal justice system, the difference would be 3 to 6 months of residential treatment with the same follow- up care. This is a money saving idea, he noted, considering these individuals would have spent 5 years in prison, otherwise. However, if the people that are diverted into other programs are those who would normally get probation, a very low level of recidivism is necessary in order to justify the costs. Assemblyman Anderson queried whether coupling a boot camp with aftercare and "street smart" programs tends to be more effective than boot camps alone. Dr. Austin responded that an aftercare program is imperative if a boot camp is to be effective. This is the major failing for most of the programs currently operating, he emphasized. So, incorporating such follow-up programs would increase effectiveness, Mr. Anderson noted. Sentencing reform was the next subject to be addressed by the speaker. Referring to Exhibit E, Dr. Austin noted the small number of states with determinant sentencing programs. Determinate sentencing, he explained, means a convicted person will get a fixed term with no range of discretion that a judge can use to impose sentence. Guideline sentencing, either presumptive or voluntary, is also not too common. Nevada falls into the category of indeterminate sentencing, Dr. Austin pointed out, along with the majority of states. Many states have attempted to formulate presumptive guidelines for sentencing, without success because "judges do not like them." Guidelines are supposed to allow for more certainty in judges' decisions, more predictability for prison population forecasts, and even impact crime because sentencing is more selective, Dr. Austin stated. In the study done by NCCD, he continued, it was found that disparity is reduced statewide, because it eliminates the judge's and community's standards from the mix. There is no impact found on prison crowding, and no impact on crime rates, he said, because, when considering crowding, the state's culture was not punitive. "Guidelines do not make you immune to the political process," Dr. Austin opined, "because you will do what you think you have to do to meet your political obligation to your constituents." Incarceration does not impact crime rates much, Dr. Austin stated, and truth-in- sentencing will not automatically reduce the crime rate, because many other factors influence the crime rate. States with high incarceration rates also have high crime rates, he pointed out, and if incarceration influenced crime rates one would expect to see the lowest crime rates in states with the highest incarceration rate. That is not the case, he said. Studies have shown that states with high crime rates also have high dropout rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, high rates of unemployment, lots of transition or movement within or among communities, bankruptcies, as well as a younger population within the state. While there is general agreement that society needs to lock up violent and dangerous persons, it is apparent, Dr. Austin ventured, that most of Nevada's incarcerated are not violent and dangerous. Senator James disagreed with this statement, citing the previous day's presentation which showed 50 percent of those incarcerated are either convicted of violent or sex crimes. In response, Dr. Austin asked the committee to consider some of the cases individually. Senator James continued, noting the subcommittees preliminary list of category one offenses (Exhibit F) and stating these offenses are such that diversionary programs and alternative sentencing structures are not acceptable choices. He further took exception to Dr. Austin's statement that incarceration rates do not impact crime rates, citing statistics provided by Steven Twist of ALEC. Dr. Austin replied his figures are crimes per capita and Mr. Twist was looking at incarceration per crime reported or even arrests made. Senator James expressed his support of Mr. Twist's figuring, stating that using those figures shows as the incarceration rate increases, the crime rate (crimes reported) decreases. Dr. Austin reminded the committee there are other factors which are related to crime rate, including the drop in size of the youth population. Assemblyman Goldwater made note that statistics can be manipulated to say whatever might be sought in them. He stated the Legislature is approaching truth- in-sentencing with an eye to receiving block grants from the federal government with which to finance the changes brought about by reforms, and he asked Dr. Austin if he would join him in cautioning the committee in that regard. Dr. Austin, referring to the crime bill, responded there may be $10 billion set aside by Congress for prison construction, in two tracks: one for truth-in-sentencing and 85 percent of sentence served, and one for addressing violent criminal sentences. Nevada's share of the funding will be based on the violent crime rate. Mr. Goldwater asked which statistic would be used and Dr. Austin replied the rate per capita statistic, but there is a "catch." The "catch," has to do with figuring the increase cost of incarceration for inmates serving 85 percent of their sentence versus funds provided by the crime bill, he cautioned. This cost would be determined by figuring the percent of a sentence currently being served and comparing the cost of that to serving 85 percent of the sentence. For example, he stated, going from 45 percent to 85 percent would double the prison population. He surmised it would cost the state more to go to 85 percent than would be received from the federal government and the crime bill. Mr. Goldwater pointed out there is a way to get around this increased cost, by following Arizona's lead and lowering the length of the sentence. Dr. Austin agreed, noting there is no requirement as to length of sentence from the federal point of view. Senator James addressed the implication that there is misrepresentation of statistics, stating all the information available is being considered prior to a decision being made. He reminded the committee and Mr. Goldwater the goal of the committees is to offset increased costs of longer sentences for violent and dangerous crimes with alternative and diversionary programs for nonviolent property and drug crimes. Senator James spoke of a phrase used by Assemblywoman Buckley to describe truth-in-sentencing as Sunshine-in-sentencing, where everyone concerned understands what a sentence really means. He restated the need to build consensus between the parties and the houses of the Legislature. Dr. Austin responded, noting the truth in Senator James' remarks and noting his own role in the process as outlining the fiscal consequences of any legislative action. He stated his agreement that each state must find their own plan based upon their own needs and goals. Senator Titus thanked the doctor for his contribution and then addressed Mr. Goldwater's concern. She noted that while most of the information before the committees was provided by conservative foundations or groups, all available information should be considered before any decision is made. Dr. Austin returned to the topic of people being released from prison, noting that the average age of such individuals is 32 years old. Additionally, he pointed out, most people do not return to prison; many are rearrested, but only about 30 percent return to prison. He cited a Department of Justice figure which says of all the crime being committed, only about 3 percent is committed by people previously released from prison. Senator Lee asked the speaker if, when he spoke of men over 35 not committing as many crimes, or not being likely to recidivate, he means that sentencing a 32 year old murder to 20 years is simply a waste of money. Dr. Austin replied it would depend on whether the senator is thinking simply in terms of public safety or in terms of punishment and retribution. He emphasized it is not his intention or place to argue against prison as punishment. Continuing his remarks, Dr. Austin discussed the results of a study done in California regarding crimes committed by parolees. This study shows parolees in California only committ 2 to 3 percent of the crimes in the state. He said if the parolees had been held for an additional year, it might have reduced the crime rate by that 2 to 3 percent, but it would have increased the prison population by 50 percent. "This is the tradeoff," he noted. Assemblyman Carpenter suggested the answer might be to simply incarcerate them all until they are 35 years old. Dr. Austin argued against such a proposition, stating the state could not afford such a measure. Mr. Carpenter opined that if everyone knew that, no matter what crime they committed, they would be in prison until they are 35, it might slow them down. Dr. Austen disagreed. Assemblyman Batten asked Dr. Austin to consider the cost of the crimes to society. Dr. Austin was very willing to discuss the cost of crime, citing the U.S. Department of Justice Victimization Surveys. These surveys, he explained, ask people in households "were you victimized?" and if so, "how much damage did you suffer, property loss and medical?" According to these surveys, Dr. Austin reported, the "public suffers $17 billion per year in property and medical losses, before reimbursement. He noted when reimbursement or recovery of losses is calculated, the figure is reduced by one-third. This is compared to spending $85 billion on the criminal justice system the doctor added. The average loss is $300 to $400 per crime, with most victims losses in the neighborhood of $100 or less, Dr. Austin pointed out. Mr. Batten responded based on this information, truth-in-sentencing targeting the violent criminals would be beneficial to the state of Nevada. If a decrease in crime is tied to a decrease in property and medical loss, without taking into consideration any psychological loss or damage, Mr. Batten continued, the state will profit. Dr. Austin did not agree, pointing out that without any consideration of the psychological harm factor, the criminal justice system is a "big loser, a big time loser in terms of net benefit." He suggested the committee take individual examples of a convicted person's victims' losses. He said that even looking at violent crime, the average loss is in the neighborhood of $700 to $1000 at most. If the criminal is incarcerated for 5 years at a cost of $20,000 per year, the state is spending $100,000 to punish someone for a $1000 loss. This, he noted, is not cost beneficial to the victim. Citing an example of a gunshot wound, Mr. Batten stated he feels the loss would exceed $1000 to that victim. Dr. Austin agreed, but restated his claim that $1000 is the average, and he suggested the committee gather data dealing with these losses. Further, Dr. Austin suggested the court should announce "here is the sentence, and here is how much it is going to cost," as a means of furthering truth-in-sentencing. He emphasized that victims want to be compensated for their losses and putting the perpetrator into a "very expensive welfare system" is not compensating the victim. Assemblywoman Buckley asked whether studies have been done comparing, for example, "an aggravated assault arising out of a barroom brawl and an aggravated assault where an 80-year-old woman has a gun stuck to her stomach and is shot." The speaker stated it would be necessary to go into individual inmates files and examine the statement of facts for the particular case. He agreed there are varied scenarios for aggravated assault, running the entire spectrum the assemblywoman suggested. Ms. Buckley continued her questioning, asking whether any other states have done such an analysis. Dr. Austin responded he did not believe such studies had been done. Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the source of Dr. Austin's statistics for the cost analysis. He responded his source is the U.S. Department of Census, which does an annual random household survey regarding victimization of individuals. He noted it is an invaluable source of data. Further, he noted the figures show the total amount of victimization of individuals is declining each year. Mr. Carpenter stated it is his feeling that crimes are much more expensive than the survey indicates. He asked what percentage of crimes are solved. Dr. Austin estimated only one-third of reported crimes result in arrests. In actuality, he added, the random survey reports a much higher figure of crimes than is actually reported to police, "about three times higher." He also pointed out that the ALEC also used the census department's survey, and in his opinion it is the best source of information about victim losses. Mr. Carpenter reiterated that cost is not the only factor to be considered when addressing crime. Dr. Austin said his point is not to suggest that, but to avoid situations such as a 29-year-old woman drug addict he knows of in Florida who is serving a "true" life sentence for her addiction. This woman will spend another 40 years in prison and the state will have to care for her three children until they are grown, he added. Assemblyman Anderson asked the doctor whether he thought Nevada would be better off to combine diversion programs and victim compensation, as opposed to pure incarceration. The speaker answered affirmatively, adding the committee might want to consider the Indiana model for modified sentences. This allows a person who is sentenced to prison to return to court within the first year, with the agreement of state officials and the victim, in order to have the sentence modified and allow the individual to be released from prison into a community restitution program. He noted this is a small program, but it has resulted in the state of Indiana having 50 percent of their prison sentences modified in this manner. This is a good program, Dr. Austin noted, because it has stabilized the prison population and it also involves all the individuals who are interested in the outcome of the cases. Senator James intervened in order to read an excerpt from an article by Steven Twist quoting another study. It reads: The most engaging cost-benefit analysis yet published was done in 1987 by Ed Zedaluski, an economist with the National Institute of Justice. Zedaluski surveyed cost data from several state prison systems and estimated the annual cost to confine an inmate was $25,000, including the capital costs associated with the facility. Using research from a Rand Corporation study, he estimated that the typical offender commits 187 crimes per year, which is the high end of the Rand estimate, and that, on average, each crime causes $2300 in economic losses. With these components, he then concluded that $430,000 dollars in social costs are avoided each year a felon was in prison, yielding a cost-benefit ratio of 1 to 17. The implications of Zedaluski's study were profound. As he described it, putting a thousand serious criminals behind bars for one year costs society $25 million, not putting them in prison each year costs society $430 million. Senator James offered this quote to illustrate there are other statistics available. Secondly, the senator asked Dr. Austin how he is able to "divorce out the non- economic costs of crime?" When an individual has his home burglarized, while the cost of the lost items may easily be calculated, the cost to the individual's psyche with the loss of security feelings, and feelings of invasion, are not calculable, Senator James pointed out. He stated he fears the doctor is promoting an idea of avoiding incarceration for violent offenders. Dr. Austin responded to the senator by returning to Zedaluski's argument, pointing out the assumptions Zedaluski relied on are based on an average that is skewed by a small number of felons reporting 1000 to 2000 crimes committed per year. Dr. Austin said that "all the criminologists, including Zedaluski, would come here and say you should not use the 187, you should use about 12." Secondly, Dr. Austin noted, related to the cost side of the analysis. By bringing in the "social harm costs" a figure is added to the mix that can not be substantiated in any way, he explained. The figures used in these reports are based upon civil court awards in civil cases, not on any criminal proceedings. Finally, he pointed out, if Zedaluski's claims are true "that for every person we locked up we saved 187 crimes per year, we would have been out of crime in this county in 1987." This criticism, Dr. Austin said, would be offered to the committee by "the whole field of criminology." There ensued some discussion between Senator James and Dr. Austin regarding the importance of considering social costs when calculating a cost-benefit analysis of the criminal justice system. Senator James indicated he feels such costs, along with the costs of adding security systems to residences are rightly calculated into these analyses. He pointed to groups in the state that represent the interests of these social costs and he took exception to the speaker's implication that there should be a dollar-for-dollar match when comparing costs and benefits. Finally, Senator James quoted a victimization study done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which states one-third of all crimes are committed by someone on probation, parole, or pre-trial release, and questioned the speaker about his reference to 2 or 3 percent of crimes being committed by parolees in California. Dr. Austin, agreed with the senator but asked that if such things are considered, it is not right to tell people the state is saving millions of dollars when those dollars cannot actually be calculated. He ventured further, the study quoted by Senator James was done by Mr. Barr of the Department of Justice, is "...let's be candid, that was a political statement by a person in the administration." Dr. Austin emphasized he is a scientist interested in technical reports who takes "issue with people who use data to say things that I think are scientifically incorrect." Assemblyman Goldwater offered to break the issue into two portions: public safety and crime control. He opined that when looking at public safety, social costs cannot be accurately figured, and that is not really the issue. The real issue is keeping the public safe, he explained. But, when dealing with crime control, a cost-benefit analysis is very appropriate. He reminded the committee of the importance of keeping cognizant of the public monies being spent. Dr. Austin's response focused on the total social change that is required in order to make any lasting improvement in public safety and crime control. He opined that some of these societal ills could not be addressed by government. Senator Porter commented the committees "are looking for a way to resolve the fact that we are spending $85 billion dollars a year, and it is not working." Partisan feelings must be put aside and it must be realized that statistics can be made to say whatever is desired of them, but mostly, there are some facts that cannot be ignored and some feelings that must be considered, he stated, in order to make the system work. At this point, Dr. Austin asked to look at Nevada's future. Currently there are about 7200 inmates in the system, with a projection of 10,500 by the year 2000, without any changes in the system, he said. He stated that something has happened and that is the parole board has stopped paroling people. Referring to Exhibit G, Dr. Austin showed the committee the parole rate has been reduced from a high of 52 percent in 1987, to 25 percent in 1995. At this rate, prison populations will increase by 2000 more than projected. This, he said, will require an additional 5000 prison beds, along with funding to operate the facilities. Mostly, he emphasized, it is important to look at data for the state of Nevada and not worry too much about national averages. Senator James asked Dr. Austin if he is working with Robin Bates of the Department of Prisons, and if so will he be able to provide the committees with some of the figures he suggests are needed, without "running up the Governor's tab." Dr. Austin stated he would talk with Mr. Bates and provide the information needed, as well as suggesting the committees arrange for a "good half-day briefing on those data before you start serious proceedings on it." Assemblyman Perkins thanked the doctor for his presentation and his patience with the committees. Because of the contradictions inherent in the data provided and examined by the Legislators, he expressed his concern the committee might be "pandering" to crime victims and citizens in hopes of convincing them there is an easy correction to the problems in the system, without any downside. He emphasized that as a police officer, no one wants to correct the problem more than he does, but he thinks that "warm and fuzzy" feelings do not go a long way in the face of what really needs to be done. Finally, he asked Dr. Austin if there is some way to "get to the bottom of the statistical data provided," in order to avoid false feelings of security and to actually make the state a safer place to live. In response, Dr. Austin suggested the committee provide the researchers with their questions in writing. He noted information about crime rates would not come from victimization surveys, but from the FBI. Questions about victim loss, fiscal impacts, lengths of actual stay in prison, are all answerable, he said, but what cannot be told is, "What will the impact be on crime if we lock up certain kinds of people?" He stated he feels it is his obligation to provide the answers to the questions in an unbiased manner and let the legislature decide how to interpret the data provided. He opined that a shedding of political ideologies before considering the information would go a long way toward facilitation of change and improvement. Once again the chairman reiterated the goal of the committee is not to embrace one particular set of data or one viewpoint. He stated it is his desire to provide a variety of information to both committees, not, as would be easily done by using the model truth-in-sentencing law and a model habitual criminal law provided with the ALEC information report, to offer to the Legislature for adoption an already formulated package of crime reform bills. The committees are trying to proceed prudently he noted, not precipitously. Finally, he invited any member of either house to come and sit in on the committee hearings to be held on the subject. Dr. Austin reminded the members there are some issues that can be dealt with in the current session and there are some issues that may take more time and consideration, which may not be handled during this session of the Legislature. He noted the sentencing code should be overhauled and the parole and pardons boards might need revision, as examples of things to work toward. Assemblywoman Buckley told of a personal experience with burglary and the subsequent feelings of helplessness and fear. She said that today, looking at that experience in light of the considered legislation, she agrees with Senator Porter that it is most important to deal with the violent and dangerous offenders. She noted the need to "keep everything on the table for now" in order to avoid removing any options prematurely. Senator James agreed. Assemblyman Anderson made the point, once again, there was an early agreement to a division of the labor between the two houses of the legislature, and that, because of the mountain of paperwork, it is likely to be difficult, but with the help of Dr. Austin and others like him, the result can be effective, fiscally sound, and honest. Assemblyman Manendo, noting the timing may not be right, asked the committee what the future might be for felons who are released from prison?; Who will hire them?; What will they do when they are out? He suggested that as an addition to things being considered, it might be prudent to look further down the road for a way to productively deal with the ex-felons in society. Senator James asked Dr. Austin if there is anything further he might add. The doctor noted the committee is moving in the right direction, adding they should listen to many people and study many facts in order to make the right decision. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to address them and closed his presentation. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James Chairman DATE: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson Chairman DATE: As semblyman David Humke Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary Assembly Committee on Judiciary February 16, 1995 Page