MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 3, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Douglas Bache STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons Pat Coward, Nevada Collectors Association Rod Barbash, Nevada Collectors Association Robert Calderone, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services Kirby Burgess, Director, Clark County Family & Youth Services Larry Carter, Mineral County Probation Department David Nielsen, Juvenile Master, Carson City Bill Lewis, Carson City Juvenile Probation Scott Cook, Probation Officer, Douglas County James Jackson, Federal Public Defender ASSEMBLY BILL 505 - Requires establishment of program of regimental discipline for certain juvenile offenders. Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, the primary sponsor of A.B. 505, stated the bill implements a juvenile boot camp correctional facility. Mr. Manendo stated he would be happy to answer questions about the bill but requested Mr. Bayer testify first in order to accommodate his schedule. Robert Bayer, Director of Department of Prisons stated he supports A.B. 505. Although he is in adult corrections and A.B. 505 deals with juvenile corrections, he thought the committee may have questions with regard to the adult boot camp program currently underway. Mr. Bayer stated that program has a very low recidivism rate. He added with regard to the overall criminal justice system, a necessary focus he sees is in the area of support systems, transition systems, counseling and assistance. The recidivism rate in the adult boot camp to date is approximately 18% which is lower than the rate for the typical adult offender. He declared similar results should be seen if a juvenile boot camp were implemented. Mr. Bayer stated some of the details of the boot camp need to be worked out. Further, aftercare systems need to be in place after the offenders have been released back into society. Ms. Ohrenschall commented she believes in the concept of the juvenile boot camp adding that juveniles would have a higher success rate since juveniles are usually more impressionable. Chairman Humke asked for Mr. Bayer's thoughts on expanding the boot camp programs to the in-between ages of 16 through 24 years by a blend of treatment within the prisons and juvenile authorities. Mr. Bayer replied he would have to study that area to see what the effects have been. Mr. Bayer confessed he needed to learn more about the juvenile offender because at present he has only been dealing with adults and the occasional serious juvenile offender. Mr. Manendo commented on his impression of visiting the boot camp in southern Nevada during the adjournment in February concluding kids are lacking discipline in their families. Mr. Bayer commented he would get back to the committee with further information. Specifically, he stated he would provide an estimate of the benefits of establishing a boot camp and the cost for the same versus the benefits of society. Robert Calderone, Director, Washoe County Juvenile Services, and President of Nevada Association of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers, testified they support A.B. 505. He stressed the entire juvenile system needs additional beds. There is a population explosion in juvenile offenders. In addition, juveniles are committing offenses at early ages and their offenses are more violent. The juvenile system, as a whole, has not responded to this change. Mr. Calderone stated he and some others went to Georgia recently because the federal government was giving away $24,000,000 to build boot camps. He stated he learned, while in Georgia, that boot camps are now considered in their third generation. The first generation was a 90-day program where a kid was taken in, his head was shaven, and his face rubbed in the mud then some serious allegations were made about his ancestry and heritage. Finding that did not work, the second generation of boot camps brought in programing, such as education, drug and substance abuse counseling. Third generation boot camps, what is being advocated now, adds to that programing some intensive aftercare systems. The time has also been extended from 90 days up to six months. These are the aspects that need to be considered while reviewing A.B. 505. Mr. Calderone remarked other programs could be enacted in the boot camp such as job skills, and life skills training. The chiefs' concerns are there need to be beds available in the boot camp program but also a continuum of beds within the entire juvenile system. Mr. Calderone strongly suggested the development of a master plan which would in addition to other areas, prepare juvenile authorities for the future of how many beds are needed and what type of facilities are needed for our youth offenders. Mr. Calderone informed the committee the facility where he works has a maximum capacity of 44 kids. However, they currently have 49 kids and have not been below 44 kids in quite some time. Kirby Burgess, Director, Clark County Family & Youth Services, supports A.B. 505 and its entire concept. Mr. Burgess stated the time to impact a person's life is when they are young as they are more impressionable and more likely to change. Mr. Burgess stated he would like to add some items to the bill. Specifically, aftercare is necessary for when the individual goes into probation. He added there was a similar program currently in California which focuses primarily on drugs. Mr. Burgess commented he would like to include schooling in A.B. 505 as it is not currently specified in the bill along with parenting education since some of these young people are parents themselves. Mr. Burgess stated the number of kids they have seen has doubled since 1984. They now see more than 25,000 kids annually and the crimes are becoming more and more serious. He stated the kids are fighting each other within his facilities and in just the past year he has had six staff members attacked by juveniles in the facility. The juvenile justice system is severely impacted in Nevada. Mr. Burgess urged the committee to consider supporting a boot camp and look at doing some master planning in this state to look at the entire needs of the rest of the juvenile population. Chairman Humke expressed his appreciation to both Mr. Calderone and Mr. Burgess for their testimony stating it was very helpful. Chairman Humke agreed the image of boot camps was properly described by Mr. Calderone and he was interested in the changes that have been made into the third generation. Chairman Humke asked what type of aftercare were they looking to implement. Mr. Burgess stated money has been set aside for aftercare including intensive supervision. He sees boot camp lasting for six months and then aftercare would also be for six months. Chairman Humke stated his reading of the bill is that there is an evaluation process for the juvenile court wherein a young person could be sent into the boot camp to see if he or she fails or succeeds and then they would be returned to the juvenile court. He asked if that was the intent of the bill or whether there was a long-term proposition wherein the juvenile court would turn the young person over to the state juvenile services division. Mr. Calderone stated it could be done either way. However, it is very important to design the aftercare program properly for each case. All the aftercare programs he has seen involve very intensive supervision including small caseloads by the probation officers with frequent visitations. He has also seen the use of halfway houses utilized in the transition of getting their life back on track. Chairman Humke informed the committee if there is a commitment by the juvenile court to the state with a suggestion for placement at such a boot camp then the cost is the state's responsibility. If it is an evaluation whereby the child could be returned to the juvenile court, then the county bears the cost, generally. Further discussion was held regarding the cost of the program and the need to develop a master plan addressing all concerns surrounding the juvenile justice system. Upon Ms. Monaghan's inquiry into statistics, Mr. Burgess stated he did not have any statistics on the education of the juvenile offenders they see. He assured the kids in the detention center usually leave a couple grades higher than when they arrived. He added he did not have any specifics regarding the suggested master plan. However, there was a study several years ago by the National Council of Crime and Delinquency completed after the 1993 legislature which recommended a 40 bed facility in Clark County for serious and chronic offenders. Secondly, it has been shown the closer a young person is kept to home and in contact with a support system of some kind, treatment is more likely to be successful. Mr. Sandoval asked what type of offenders they see the boot camp aiding. Mr. Burgess stated the crimes he sees being appropriate would be crimes against the person and drug offenses. Mr. Burgess added there has been some question regarding mixing 14 year olds and 20 years together as called for in the bill. That may require an amendment to NRS Chapter 62 to allow that to happen. Mr. Sandoval pointed out the bill excludes those persons who have "not committed an act of violence" clarifying that a crime against the person would be an act of violence. Mr. Calderone concurred that language was a problem within the bill. He sees the boot camps dealing with the more marginal offenders at the age of 14-17 years who are at a high risk of becoming repeat, chronic offenders. These are the kids that would most benefit from a boot camp program. The difficulty with this is if you do not have enough beds for older, more serious juvenile offenders then those offenders eventually get placed in the facilities originally designed for the marginal offender and the results in treatment began to vary. Mr. Calderone clarified, with regard to Mr. Sandoval's inquiry, if a kid committed an act of violence they could still possibly be eligible for the boot camp program provided they did not have a history of chronic and repeated acts of violence. Mr. Burgess added if there is a weapon involved along with the commission of an act of violence, he would like to see that offender eliminated; however, in most likelihood, those decisions would be made by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Schneider asked out of the 25,000 kids seen annually by the Clark County facility, how many of those kids would be candidates for the boot camp program set forth in A.B. 505. Mr. Burgess informed the committee approximately 6,000 of those 25,000 are referred through child abuse and neglect. A majority of the others are placed on community supervision or work program or informational probation by way of consent decree. In an attempt to answer Mr. Schneider's questions, Mr. Burgess estimated approximately 200 kids would be eligible for the boot camp program. Mr. Calderone cautioned the committee that the purpose was not to place kids in a residential program when they may benefit just as well from straight probation. He added the problem with the juvenile system is not just limited to the big cities as the rural areas are equally affected. Upon Mr. Carpenter's inquiry, Mr. Burgess stated six months was long enough in the program provided there was a six month aftercare program established. Mr. Manendo, upon Ms. Ohrenschall's comments, stated his intent was to include some "real world survival skills" in aftercare programs for the juveniles to assist them in real life situations where they may be persuaded to return to their old lifestyle by strong gang leadership. Ms. Stroth asked why the age of 20 years was included in the bill. Mr. Manendo stated he wanted to take some things out of the bill and include other items to the bill so he was open and flexible to the age provision. In addition, he is interested in obtaining the federal funds available. Mr. Burgess added Chapter 62 of the Nevada Revised Statutes sets forth the juvenile court can retain jurisdiction of the juvenile until age 21 but usually at age 18 they cut off services. Mr. Calderone stated he sees the population for the bill being 14 to 17 year olds. Dave Nielsen, Special Master, Carson City Juvenile Court, and Bill Lewis, Chief Probation Officer, Carson City testified jointly regarding A.B. 505. Mr. Lewis stated in his experience as a probation officer for 20 years he has seen the strengths and weaknesses within the juvenile system. He stated the juvenile system is at a crisis point right now. He pointed out that in the adult system the judge sentences a defendant to the Nevada State Prison and the statute states the prison has to take custody of the person. However, the juvenile system is hampered when the correctional facilities are frequently at capacity. This results in risking safety to victims and to communities because they cannot detain youth due to overcrowding. This is a large concern. Mr. Nielsen stated he sees A.B. 505 as giving the juvenile courts another alternative by providing an evaluation and then considering what the aftercare should be. He added the kids he sees being best-suited for the boot camp program are not getting much out of school and need the regimen and discipline to get back on track. Then there is a further disposition from the courts based on the report received from the boot camp and can properly structure an aftercare program. Mr. Nielsen remarked the kids sent to Spring Mountain Youth Camp or China Springs do get a good education while they are there and they do advance. Usually, at the time they have been sent there, they have not been getting anything out of the public schools. Mr. Nielsen summarized that he supports the bill 100% and it should provide additional tools to aid the court in properly treating youth offenders. Scott Cook, Chief Probation Officer, Douglas County, stated he agreed with the testimony provided thus far. He commented developing the continuum of service is greatly needed. He stated there was a meeting a few weeks ago which set forth an analysis of the different placements of the youth camps in Elko and Caliente. Although he was unable to attend the meeting, his understanding of what came out of the conference was there has been a break-down in the continuum of service due to the demand for beds. Therefore, kids end up being placed in a facility where there is a bed rather than where they necessarily should be placed based on their needs. Mr. Cook stated China Springs is not serving the population it was designed to serve. They are serving a more intensive offender. There are violent offenders at China Springs. They are doing the best they can to meet those needs but those needs were not part of the plan when this camp was implemented. China Springs was designed for the low level offender and it has a low level of staffing. What is happening now at China Springs is they are taking whatever kid comes to the facility because kids are being placed where beds are rather than where their needs can best be met regardless of the offense or if the kid is a repeat offender. Chairman Humke asked if Mr. Cook had any ideas on solving the problem so the state services are used in a continuum and the judges do not just send a kid where a bed happens to be. Mr. Cook stated the process has broken down. However, the work study group should continue to study which facilities are handling identifiable needs of youth offenders and then educate the judges and referees. Larry Carter, Juvenile Probation, Mineral County, testified in support of A.B. 505 stating in the past he acted as program coordinator for China Springs for seven years. Mr. Carter commented the educational component is one of the most primary things a youth camp facility can accomplish. During the course of China Spring's history, the average age entering the program was approximately 15 years of age. He stated the juveniles come into the program functioning at the 6th to 7th grade level. When they leave the program they are functioning at usually a sophomore grade level. Mr. Carter stated he agrees with the implementation of an aftercare program adding structured and intensive aftercare has been lacking in the past and he urged the committee to address that issue. SENATE BILL 284 - Clarifies provisions governing representation of certain entities in small claims courts. Pat Coward, Nevada Collectors Association, stated S.B. 284 was brought forth to clarify corporate representation in small claims court. Apparently, there has been some confusion in Clark County that a corporation must be represented by an attorney in a small claims court action. Ron Barbash, Nevada Collectors Association, and President of Collection Service of Nevada, stated there are several protem judges in Clark County abiding by a District Court ruling which sets forth a corporation must be represented by an attorney and therefore they are refusing to hear cases in small claims if an attorney is not present. Mr. Barbash stated this poses a problem with professionals such as dentists and doctors who routinely attend small claims court in collection cases of under $100.00. The pro tems have been dismissing the cases in small claims court allowing the case to be brought again without prejudice in the justice court with an attorney. Ms. Buckley commented the case law she has read in this area sets forth the court's rationale is that a corporation is not a "natural person" and for that reason a corporation had to retain an attorney. She asked what the term "other representative" contained in the bill was intended to include. Mr. Coward stated the original bill had the term "agent" in it; however, the Senate Judiciary amended it to "other representative" because there was a feeling that "agent" could be incorporating an attorney as well. Ms. Buckley concluded small claims court was designed to allow individuals to tell their story to the judge and attorneys should remain excluded from small claims court. Therefore, is the term "other representative" even necessary in the bill at all. Further discussion was held pertaining to the use of "other representative" in the bill. Mr. Burgess stated he did not object to excluding that language. Mr. Coward added he would not have a problem removing the language either. James Jackson, Federal Public Defender, stated in his brief representation of the Nevada Judges Association, they fully support the concept of excluding attorneys from small claims courts. Mr. Jackson stated he discussed this bill with Judge Robey Willis of Carson City and he sees S.B. 284 as complying with the statutes and the suggested amendment by this committee would make it even better. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS S.B. 284 BY REMOVING THE TERM "OTHER REPRESENTATIVE" AT LINE 5 OF THE BILL. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE. Chairman Humke appointed Ms. Monaghan floor assignment of S.B. 284. ASSEMBLY BILL 510 - Increases requirements of disclosure and notification by associations of units' owners of common-interest communities. Assemblyman Douglas Bache, District 11, the primary sponsor of A.B. 510, stated he was not the original requester of the bill; rather, it was requested by former Assemblyman McGaughey after last session. Mr. Bache stated A.B. 510 deals with homeowners associations and since he has a particular interest in this area he brought it this session. Mr. Bache informed the committee A.B. 510 expands the noticing requirements of the association as they are taking action for violations of the by-laws. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED FOR A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 510. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Noting Mr. Schneider had current legislation surrounding the same subject matter of A.B. 510, Chairman Humke asked if Mr. Schneider had any comments. Mr. Schneider stated he had no objections to the bill or the amendment. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 3, 1995 Page