MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session March 22, 1995 The joint subcommittee meeting on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation of the Senate Committee on Finance and Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Lawrence E. Jacobsen, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Bernice Mathews ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman Mr. Thomas W. Fettic, Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. Jack D. Close Ms. Chris Giunchigliani STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Pamela Jochim, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Janet Johnson, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division Lupe Gunderson, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners Susan J. McCurdy, Executive Secretary, State Board of Parole Commissioners Robin Bates, Chief, Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons Beatrice Franklin, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer, Division of Parole and Probation Carlos Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Parole and Probation William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Mark Krmpotic, Management Analyst III, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Alan Barnes, Operations Supervisor, Division of Parole and Probation Warren Lutzow, District Administrator of District I, Division of Parole and Probation James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Glen Whorton, Classification & Planning Specialist, Department of Prisons State Board of Parole Commissioners - Page 1857 Lupe Gunderson, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, came forward and distributed a handout (Exhibit C) comparing Nevada's parole board with 11 other Western states. Ms. Gunderson testified the board submitted revised performance indicators to the fiscal staff on March 15, 1994. She stated the board has met with Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, regarding prison population projections. As a result of the meeting with Mr. Bayer, the board has revised its parole approval rate to 35 percent. Mr. Marvel asked if the board has any statistics indicating the number of parole revocations. Ms. Gunderson said she did not have the information with her, but she will provide it to the committee. Mr. Arberry noted the prison growth rate has increased, while the parole rate has decreased. He asked if the Governor, the board, and the director of prisons have discussed this dilemma. Ms. Gunderson related a meeting was held between the board and Mr. Bayer to discuss the parole grant rate. It was decided at the meeting the parole approval rate would be approximately 35 percent. She noted the 35 percent rate is a relatively optimistic figure. In addition, it was determined at the meeting, the approval rate would be greatly impacted if the board was not required to handle prisoners with 1-3 year sentences. Mr. Arberry expressed his concern about the prison growth rate versus the parole board's decrease in approval rate. He related if the economy takes a downturn it will be difficult for the state to build more prisons. He stated the Governor, the judiciary, and the parole board should meet to discuss the growing prison population. Ms. Gunderson agreed with Mr. Arberry and maintained some of the problems the system is experiencing stems from sentencing. She stated offenders sentenced to 1-2 years could be given probation instead of prison time. Prisoners sentenced to short prison time are "clogging" the system. Senator O'Donnell asked if the growth is due to sentencing policies or parole polices. The senator also asked if the Governor has approached the board regarding parole and approval rate policies. Ms. Gunderson replied, "No." She said the parole board's duty is to review each case and make a determination whether the prisoner is ready to be released back into the community. If a prisoner has a violent background, the board is more reluctant to approve a prisoner's release. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a breakdown of the various types of hearings the parole board conducts. In addition, she questioned if there is any legislation proposed requiring board members to meet certain qualifications. Ms. Gunderson responded she is not aware of any legislation, at this time. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned what role credits play in determining parole approval. Ms. Gunderson explained the board receives a parole progress report, which indicates the prisoner's disciplinary history and program participation. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if each prison facility provides the same opportunity for an inmate to earn credits. She stated if each facility does not offer similar programs, it impacts the inmate's parole board report. Ms. Gunderson indicated each institution does offer a certain amount of classes for the inmate, but the programs are not very abundant. Ms. Giunchigliani related the inconsistencies in programs in each facility impacts the whole system. She said, in order to have the bed space for violent criminals, a better job must be done in identifying the appropriate sentencing methods. Ms. Gunderson recounted the 1-3 year cases are slowing down the system and should be dealt with at the court level. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who identifies the individuals receiving a 1-3 year sentence and requested a list of all inmates sentenced to 1-3 year prison term. She stated she does not want to build more prisons, if the inmate population could be decreased with the release of less violent offenders. Ms. Gunderson said she would provide the committee with the requested information. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if the Department of Prisons makes recommendations to the board regarding parole approval. Additionally, she asked for an explanation of why the board is more strict in its treatment of women parolees. Robin Bates, Chief, Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons, stated the Department of Prisons stopped making parole board recommendations 3 years ago. The department provides the board with an objective report identifying the inmate's sentence, prior history, institutional adjustment, and any other factors relevant to the parole decision. The information is provided in a cumulative summary which is similar to a Presentencing report. The department discontinued making recommendations because the reports are very subjective. If an inmate had one negative interaction with a warden, the warden could potentially recommend parole denial. Mr. Bates explained the Department of Prisons identifies an inmate's case factors and presents a report to the parole board 30 days prior to the hearing. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the parole board does with the information provided by the prison system. Ms. Gunderson said the reports are distributed to each commissioner for their review. The board studies the prisoner's progress report along with the inmate's prior history to determine if the inmate is eligible for parole. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how long it takes to release an inmate once parole has been granted. Ms. Gunderson replied approximately 30-90 days. Senator Jacobsen requested Mr. Bates to furnish the committee with information regarding inmate classification. The senator asked if a classification policy is utilized throughout all the states. Mr. Bates said the department uses an objective classification instrument that begins from the day the inmate enters the prison system. Two months prior to a parole hearing, the classification data is summarized into a report. Mr. Bates indicated he will provide the committee with a copy of the classification instrument and a summary report. Mr. Fettic noted the parole approval rate was 42 percent in 1993, 38 percent in 1994, and 24 percent for the first 7 months in 1995. He observed the revised approval rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 and FY 1997 are 35 percent and asked if the revised figure is realistic. Ms. Gunderson responded 35 percent is an optimistic figure, because the new inmates coming into the system tend to be more violent offenders. Mr. Fettic questioned if the board has reviewed the numerous bills proposed to address the crime situation. Ms. Gunderson stated the board is aware of some of the proposed legislation. Mr. Marvel asked what the prison's monthly inmate intake has been for the last 6 months. Mr. Bates replied the system has been receiving 296 inmates per month. The figure includes: new court commitments, probation violators, and parole violators. Mr. Marvel questioned if the monthly intake figure is a trend. Mr. Bates explained the figure is higher than what was projected in 1994. Mr. Marvel inquired about the monthly parole rate. Mr. Bates responded the prison released 275 inmates per month during 1994. He related if all commitments are taken into consideration, the prison system actually received 347 inmates per month, which translates into a growth rate of 75 inmates per month. Mr. Fettic asked if the Lovelock Prison opens July 1, 1995 instead of October 1, 1995, will the parole board require additional funding. Ms. Gunderson responded, "Yes sir." Mr. Fettic questioned if the board is relocating its office from Building 89 to Building 107 at the Stewart facility. Ms. Gunderson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how the 35 percent projected parole rate is determined by the board. Ms. Gunderson explained the figure is optimistic because of the increase in new commitments. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned why a percentage figure is projected if it does not relate to anything. Ms. Gunderson said another factor involved with the parole rate projection is the board does not have the expertise to perform statistical research. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the board needs a parole grant rate projection. Mr. Bates stated the parole rate assumption is needed to provide the projection contractor with an essential element for producing population projections which form the basis for the Department of Prisons' budget. The projection model will not work without the parole rate assumption. He said the department is forced to ask the parole board to project parole rate percentages. The projection contractor utilized a 41 percent parole approval rate because that was the average grant rate in the past. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the accuracy of the approval rate assumption seems to determine whether more prisons are built. She noted James Austin of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, has been requested to provide the committee with an assessment of what policy decisions the Legislature may wish to enact which will affect the parole board and the prison system. Ms. Giunchigliani said if the parole approval rate is down because of the "makeup of the board, the budget of the board, or the ability of the board to meet," then the Legislature needs to be informed so the appropriate resources can be provided. Senator Jacobsen questioned if the prison system and parole board do any pre- planning regarding the parole review process. Mr. Bates related the composition of the parole agenda from month-to-month is out of the hands of the parole board and the Department of Prisons. The parole agenda is based upon today's laws and policies and is totally objective. Mr. Marvel asked how realistic is the parole board's budget. Janet Johnson, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, stated the budget needs to be adjusted to allow for the early opening of the Lovelock Prison. Senator O'Donnell questioned if the approval rate is declining because of judiciary decision making and the commitment of more hard core criminals. Ms. Gunderson responded, "That is a good assessment." Mr. Close stated he is concerned the budget does not provide adequate funding for parole board training. He inquired if the requested $4,000 for training is sufficient to ensure the board members are up-to-date on the latest information and newest trends. Ms. Gunderson replied, "Probably not." She related she and another board member attended a seminar last year, but because of lack of funds, she paid for her own expenses. Mr. Close said he would like to see the parole board make an objective decision whether an individual is ready for parole. He noted all the parole board members could benefit from additional training in objective decision making. Ms. Gunderson said she agreed with Mr. Close. Mr. Arberry asked for a definition of a hard core criminal. Ms. Gunderson responded a hard core criminal is someone who has committed a violent offense such as murder, sexual assault, or battery with injury. Mr. Arberry questioned what percentage of inmates come before the board on a monthly basis who would not be considered hard core. Ms. Gunderson said she could not answer the question, but agreed to research the question and provide the committee with the data. Senator Jacobsen inquired if the 35 percent projection is realistic when considering the opening of the Lovelock Prison. Ms. Gunderson responded the 35 percent projection is an optimistic figure because more violent offenders are being committed to the system. Senator Jacobsen asked how many paroles were revoked in 1994. Susan J. McCurdy, Executive Secretary, State Board of Parole Commissioners, stated parole revocation hearings for 1994 totaled 329. Senator Jacobsen questioned if the additional staff requested by the board will help increase the board's efficiency. Ms. Gunderson stated the board had originally requested three additional positions, but only two positions were recommended. She related all three positions are needed in order to deal with caseload increases. Two of the positions will be located in Carson City and one will be placed in Las Vegas. The board's executive secretary, presently, has to prepare all the documents for the pardons board hearings which involves a tremendous amount of paperwork and responsibility. Senator Jacobsen inquired if an inmate's file remains with the parole board once a hearing has been held. Ms. Gunderson related the file is returned to the prison system. Senator Jacobsen suggested Ms. Gunderson furnish the committee with a schedule depicting when the parole board hearings are held. Senator Jacobsen invited Beatrice Franklin, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, to come forward and testify. She stressed short sentencing is a major problem for the board. Senator Jacobsen asked if men and women inmates are processed by the board in the same manner. Ms. Franklin related the women inmates do not have as many programs because the male prison population is so much larger. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected there should be equal opportunity in the prison programs in order to allow all inmates to benefit from "good time" credits. She asked Ms. Franklin to explain why short sentencing is a problem for the board. Ms. Franklin related an inmate goes through an intake process before being classified. The intake process involves a medical, dental, and psychological evaluation. Because the inmate has not been in the system very long, the prison cannot provide the board with a very in-depth report. It is difficult for the board to make a parole assessment on an inmate who has been in the system for such a short time. In many short sentencing cases, the inmate is eligible for parole the day they enter prison. Senator O'Donnell related inmates are credited with time they have already served in a local jail. The senator noted county jails do not provide the parole board with a report. Ms. Beatrice said she has a problem with 1 year sentencing because the sentence has been served in many cases before the inmate reaches the prison system. Mr. Arberry asked when the committee will be provided with a copy of the revised prison budget. Ms. Johnson indicated the fiscal staff will be given a portion of the budget this afternoon and the remainder will be provided by Friday, March 24, 1995. Parole and Probation - Page 1849 Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer, Division of Parole and Probation, stated in a previous meeting the division was asked to reassess its needs in the areas of staffing, caseload ratio, equipment and computers. The division has met with the Budget Division and revised its budget (Exhibit D) after taking the above factors into consideration. The division is presently supervising the following programs and participants: 112 people in the 305 Driving Under the Influence (DUI); 3,249 parolees; and 8,712 probationers. The statewide average caseload per officer is 76.5. He stated the division is requesting 36 positions for FY 1996 and 19 in FY 1997. The division is requesting the substitution of Program Assistants for Parol and Probation Officers to address the issue of paper intensive work loads. The replacement of Program Assistants for Parole and Probations Officers will allow the division to place more officers in the community, Mr. Wyett asserted. Mr. Wyett stated the division has requested a one-shot appropriation of $480,000 for replacement and purchase of new equipment. He related the division's officers have always been required to purchase their own weapons and safety equipment. Because of this policy, there is no standardization regarding firearms. Referring to budget category E425, Lifeskills Centers in Reno and Las Vegas, Mr. Wyett said the program is requesting three positions for the Reno center and four positions for Las Vegas. The expanded Residential Confinement Program eligibility criteria has been broadened to include nonviolent first- and second-time offenders. He noted it is important for the inmate to successfully complete a substance abuse program, while in prison, before being released. The division is requesting an additional six positions for the program's expansion. In addition, the budget recommends reclassification of the existing Deputy Chief of Parole and Probation (Grade 41) and the vacant Personnel Analyst I (Grade 32) position, both to Deputy Chief status (Grade 43). The reclassifications are needed to recognize the two position's increased responsibilities and work load. Senator O'Donnell, referring to page 1852 of Exhibit D, noted the agency requested $2,244,837 for Personnel Expenses in FY 1996, the Governor's original recommendation totaled $1,127,128, and the revised Governor's recommendation is $1,053,226. The senator questioned why the final amount recommended by the Governor is reduced by $73, 902. Ms. Johnson explained, when Program Assistant IV positions were substituted for Parole and Probation Officer positions, the funding was decreased because the salary of a Program Assistant IV is much lower than that of a Parole and Probation Officer. Gary L. Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, interjected the original budget was predicated on a growth rate of 8.9 percent from FY 1994 to FY 1996 and an additional increase of 4 percent between FY 1996 and FY 1997. The average growth rate for the first 7 months of 1995 has been 10.7 percent. Because the division's growth rate was understated, the Budget Division submitted a revised budget (Exhibit D), which provides for a growth rate of 12.4 percent from FY 1994 to FY 1996 and an increase of 4.7 percent from FY 1996 to FY 1997. Mr. Ghiggeri stated, during the Budget Division's review of the budget, the Division of Parole and Probation asked for a reevaluation of staffing requests to substitute Program Assistants for Parole and Probation Officers. A Program Assistant IV is a grade 29, whereas, a Parole and Probation Officer is a grade 34, which amounts to a 25 percent reduction in personnel costs. He said personnel costs will decrease in the first year of the biennium and increase in the second year because more Parole and Probation Officers will be hired. Ms. Johnson noted, with the addition of Program Assistants, travel and auto costs will also be reduced. Senator Mathews asked if the division has been automated. Mr. Wyett responded the division is not automated, although a one-shot appropriation request was proposed, the Governor indicated because of other more pressing funding needs, the request would not be recommended until the 1997 legislative session. Senator Mathews questioned how much funding the division had requested for automation. Mr. Wyett said a request of $78,247 was made for the first year of the biennium. Carlos Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Parole and Probation, interjected the amount is approximately $1 million for the biennium. The request included a Program Analyst II, a System Programmer, file service, computer work stations, laser printers, and development of a network system. Senator Mathews asked if the division has worked with the Department of Information Services (DIS) to assess the division's needs. Mr. Concha said the division has been working with Alan Rogers, Data Processing Manager, Information Services, Highway Patrol Division, to develop a computer automation plan. The DIS has reviewed and approved the division's automation plan. Ms. Johnson explained the original budget request for automation had not been reviewed by the DIS when the division's budget was prepared. Because the Executive Budget is now faced with more pressing funding needs, the automation request is not affordable. She related there is a need for automation, but there "simply is not enough money to go around at this point." Senator Mathews requested the Budget Division to review the automation request and see if a plan could be phased in. The senator noted the prison population is growing which means the responsibilities of the Division of Parole and Probation will also increase. Ms. Johnson explained the automation request totals $4 million, with a 4 year phase-in schedule. She said the Budget Division will review the request, once the financial ramifications of the prison's budget are determined. Senator O'Donnell commented computerization for legislative functions only cost $1 million and questioned why the division's automation plan will cost $4 million. The senator suggested the division should purchase small networks and automate functions which are being handled manually. Mr. Concha stated information regarding parolees and probationers is now written on a 3x5 card and is very labor intensive. He related the division has asked the Legislature to provide automation funding for the last 6 years and the funding has always been denied. Senator O'Donnell restated the division needs to automate what is currently being handled manually. Mr. Concha said the actual cost for the automation program in the first year totals $343,819 for equipment and $78,247 for funding of two employees. The second year costs total approximately $500,000. Senator O'Donnell suggested computer programs could be purchased "off the shelf." Mr. Concha stressed that no one in the agency is sufficiently trained to make informed decisions on the type of equipment or programs needed. Senator O'Donnell asked the division to review its automation funding request because the $4 million automation costs are estimated too high. Senator Jacobsen questioned if the Budget Division has a report on the automation request. Ms. Johnson distributed a handout (Exhibit E) detailing the division's one-shot appropriation request for automation. Mr. Arberry commented the automobiles used by the division are too small to safely transport several officers and a parolee. The Assemblyman asked if the division is requesting larger vehicles for the next biennium. Mr. Wyett explained the division has asked the State Motor Pool to provide them with larger vehicles for prisoner transport, but the motor pool has not followed up on the request. Ms. Johnson interjected the budget recommends new vehicles for one out of every three officers. The vehicles are not owned by the agency, but are rented from the State Motor Pool. Mr. Arberry inquired if there is any funding in the budget to remodel the division's Las Vegas office. Mr. Concha responded there are no funds in the budget to provide the necessary maintenance on the Bonanza Building in Las Vegas. He noted the agency has spoken with the Buildings and Grounds Division regarding some of the maintenance work. Mr. Wyett stated the heating and air conditioning equipment is antiquated and the roof leaks. Mr. Arberry inquired if the division has approached the Buildings and Grounds Division regarding these concerns. Mr. Wyett said he provided the Buildings and Grounds Division with a tour of the building, after which, new carpets and paint were provided. Mr. Arberry asked if the Bonanza Building is the best location for the division's operations and if there are any proposals in the budget to have satellite offices. Mr. Wyett replied the Bonanza Building is not the best location for the division's functions. He would like to implement satellite offices in Las Vegas, in order for officers to become more in tune to community needs. Mr. Wyett noted the division had a satellite office in North Las Vegas, but because of the Rodney King riots, the office was destroyed by fire. He related, up until the riots, the office had been very successful. The Bonanza building is antiquated and the division has outgrown the facility. Mr. Arberry requested the division to research what the cost would be to relocate the office versus the cost to properly repair the Bonanza Building. Mr. Ghiggeri interjected the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for next biennium includes a recommendation by the Governor to upgrade the heating and air conditioning systems in the Bonanza Building. He noted this project along with a number of other CIP projects will be discussed at the CIP subcommittee meeting on March 29, 1995. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the committee or the Budget Division should communicate with the State Motor Pool regarding the division's need for larger vehicles. Ms. Johnson commented she will communicate with the State Motor Pool. Mr. Ghiggeri explained the division's request for vehicles is included within the State Motor Pool's one-shot appropriation request. Ms. Giunchigliani said it is her understanding the division's files and information system are all done by hand and if an offender's file is misplaced, then the division cannot provide any information on the individual. She asked if the requested automation plan will deal with this problem. Mr. Wyett replied, "Yes it will." Senator O'Donnell inquired if the division lost any vital information when its satellite office burned down. Mr. Wyett related most case files were removed before the office was destroyed. William S. Gosnell, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the computer automation costs are substantially less than $4 million; moreover, the 4 year phase-in plan totals $2.4 million. Mr. Gosnell said the division virtually has no computerization and will be starting from "scratch." He indicated the department requested more space for the Division of Parole and Probation in its CIP request, but only the air conditioning and heating requests were recommended. Senator Jacobsen inquired whether the division's caseload projections are accurate. Mr. Wyett responded the projections are reliable. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Wyett to review the division's new proposed pilot programs. Mr. Wyett related a system needs to be implemented which will give individuals an opportunity to modify their criminal behavior. The Lifeskills program is designed to carry out this function. The program will address employment, education, physical and mental health, drug and alcohol treatment. The division researched programs in four other states before developing the Lifeskills program. He related a variety of professionals will be involved in the program which will provide services by drug counselors, mental health counselors, the Department of Employment Security, and the Adult Education Program. All these professionals have committed to work together in order to help the offenders modify their criminal behavior, he asserted. Mr. Wyett distributed a handout (Exhibit F) which includes support letters from various agencies supporting the Lifeskills program. Mr. Concha noted the following businesses have indicated their willingness to work with the program: Truckee Meadows Community College, the Addiction Training Center, Washoe High School, Northern Nevada Literacy Council, Adult Education in Clark County, and Southern Nevada Community College. In addition, the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation has also indicated an interest in the program. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned where the Lifeskills Centers will be located. Alan Barnes, Operations Supervisor, Division of Parole and Probation, stated he is coordinating the Lifeskills program in northern Nevada. He noted the program is considering locating a center in Las Vegas as well as one in Reno. The program will be de-emphasizing the role of law enforcement and emphasizing the role of education, counseling, and job development. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how the program's participants will be identified. Mr. Barnes said the program's clients will be assessed at the time the Presentence Investigation (PSI) is ordered. Offender's will be assessed for substance abuse disruption, educational levels, and risk to the community. The program will also work with the Clark County Detention Center and the Washoe County jail to ensure that programming and assessment occurs within the jail system. PSI classifications have been enhanced in order to provide the Department of Prisons with better information so the classification process can be done faster and the offender can be programmed quicker. The Lifeskills program will provide the parolee a support system in the areas of education, employment, and counseling. Mr. Fettic asked where the program costs are located in the division's budget. Mr. Concha referred Mr. Fettic to budget category E425. He related the revised budget (Exhibit D) includes funding of $58, 287 for increased rental space for Las Vegas and Reno. Mr. Concha noted the division maintains the program must have its own space in order to function successfully. Mr. Fettic stated the Budget Division should be able to break out pilot program costs to determine what services will be provided free and what services the program will cover. Mr. Barnes said a treatment component has been developed with the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA). The program will work directly with BADA certified programs in Washoe County and Clark County. He stated, "It is not the intention of the Division of Parole and Probation to pay for people's treatment services." The funds requested are for individuals who have absolutely no financial means of payment. The division expects program participants to work and pay their own way. Mr. Fettic questioned if the program will affect the division's PSI reporting. Mr. Barnes explained the program will give the division more latitude in working with an offender. Some nonviolent offenders, who normally would be placed in the county jail or the Department of Prisons, will now have an opportunity to remain in the community instead of being incarcerated. Senator Jacobsen noted PSI reporting increased over the last biennium. Mr. Wyett said an increase in PSI reports can result from an increase in inmate population or an increase in probation units. Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Wyett to comment on the proposed substitution of Program Assistants for Parole and Probation Officers. Mr. Wyett stated officers need to be out in the community dealing with offenders and the personnel substitution proposal will help accomplish this goal. Senator Jacobsen questioned if there is any uniformity among all the law enforcement agencies regarding firearms. Mr. Wyett responded the Washoe County and Clark County law enforcement officers use a 40 caliber firearm. He related the division is trying to standardize their weapons with other law enforcement agencies. Presently, Parole and Probation Officers are responsible for buying their own safety equipment while other state law enforcement agencies furnish their personnel with safety equipment. Mr. Close inquired if the division has developed a selection criteria for the individuals who will be eligible for the Lifeskills program. Mr. Barnes felt it would be unethical to exclude certain offenders from the program. The division has asked the parole board and the district judges to be careful in mandating program involvement. He commented the bulk of the prison population could be helped by this program. Mr. Close asked if Mr. Barnes will have enough data on the program within 2 years to do a proper evaluation. Mr. Barnes said, "Absolutely." He indicated the division is currently spending a lot of time developing performance indicators for the program. Mr. Close questioned if the division's parole revocation rate is consistent with the national average. Mr. Concha replied Nevada's rate is higher because of the state's tremendous growth rate. Mr. Wyett commented the Lifeskills program is not only designed for the offender, but services will also be provided to family members. He pointed out, if the family is experiencing problems, then it is more difficult to help the offender. Mr. Wyett explained the Residential Confinement Program will be expanded to include nonviolent first- and second-time offenders. The criteria for program placement will remain the same as the 305 Program. The offender must successfully complete a substance abuse program while still in prison before the offender can be considered for placement in the Residential Confinement Program. The budget has requested six positions to help operate the expanded program. Senator O'Donnell asked if the technology used for the in-house arrest program is up- to-date. Mr. Concha replied the division, in the last 3 months, has converted to newer equipment. Senator O'Donnell questioned what type of equipment the division is utilizing. Warren Lutzow, District Administrator, Division of Parole and Probation, stated the primary monitoring device utilized for the 305 Program is an alcohol monitor. He related the monitors have breathalyzers and still cameras in order to correctly identify the offender. Ankle units notify the division if the offender is not at home. Senator O'Donnell inquired if there is a centralized location which tracks electronically monitored offenders. Mr. Lutzow explained the division does not use a grid system because it has not been sufficiently developed. He noted the use of satellite tracking systems will not be on the market until the year 2000. Presently, one division employee monitors Carson City, Douglas County, and South Lake Tahoe from the division's office. If an offender is out of range for more than 2 minutes, the division is notified immediately. Senator Jacobsen questioned if electronic monitoring is available to all counties. Mr. Lutzow replied in the last 2 years the electronic monitoring program has been expanded to include all the counties in the state. Senator O'Donnell commented the Legislature would be more comfortable in considering alternative incarceration, if they received assurance the use of electronic monitoring systems are favored by the division. Mr. Wyett responded the system currently utilized by the division is very successful. The use of electronic monitoring for the DUI house arrest program has been very effective. He predicted the Residential Confinement Program may not be as successful for the first- or second-time offenders. He related the division has an open house each year to make judges and legislators aware of the equipment and system used for the house arrest program. Senator Jacobsen asked whether sex offenders will be considered for the program. Mr. Concha explained a unit manager oversees the release of the 305 offenders. The manager reviews each file for consideration, but violent offenders or sex offenders would have a difficult time meeting the program's criteria. Mr. Fettic noted there is a "fine line" between Assembly Bill (A.B.) 317 and the expanded Residential Confinement Program. He commented A.B. 317 allows the Director of the Department of Prisons to determine an offender's eligibility to participate in the Residential Confinement Program. ASSEMBLY BILL 317: Makes various changes related to juvenile courts, sentencing, crimes and punishments. Mr. Concha interjected A.B. 317 does not require an offender to be employed. He stated employment is an integral part of a successful program. If the offender is not employed, then the division must provide the funds for the electronic monitoring equipment. Senator O'Donnell commented A.B. 317 allows the prison system to release an inmate to the house arrest program. The senator asked whether this action is more a function of the parole board than the Department of Prisons. Mr. Concha said the division is concerned with the bill's language and discussions have been held with the Director of the Department of Prisons regarding the matter. The prison director has told the division he will research the bill's language for clarification. Senator O'Donnell stated he likes the autonomy of the parole board, the prison system, and the justice system. The senator remarked he disagrees with the language in A.B. 317 allowing the prison system the responsibility of releasing prisoners to the house arrest program without first being reviewed by the parole board. Mr. Concha said the division is unsure of the bill's requirements and has asked the Department of Prisons for clarification. Mr. Wyett related the division presently investigates an inmate's proposed release plan before the inmate is released from prison. He stressed this system should remain intact in order to protect the community and to help the inmate make a successful transition. The plan needs to be developed and investigated before the inmate is released to a program. Mr. Spitler interjected the parole board and judges can mandate a house arrest program and A.B. 317 will also allow the Director of the Department of Prisons to make the same determination. He stated the bill allows the prison system to release an inmate to the Division of Parole and Probation. The assemblyman said the bill provides a "third way" the division might receive a parolee. He noted the bill does not require the division's participation in the process and regulations might need to be implemented to ensure the division's participation. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the committee needs to research the number of parolees the parole board has released to the house arrest program. Mr. Concha related the number of house arrest offenders on parole is relatively low. He said the courts are utilizing the program much more than the parole board. Mr. Wyett interjected the offender must agree to participate in the house arrest program before being paroled. Mr. Arberry, referring to Exhibit D under category M200, questioned whether the figure listed for New Positions is correct. Ms. Johnson explained the Governor Recommends 39 New Positions for FY 1996 and 55 New Positions for FY 1997. Senator Jacobsen asked if James P. Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, would come forward and testify. Mr. Weller indicated his concern regarding the division's use of smaller vehicles for transportation of prisoners. In addition, he noted weapon standardization is an important issue to the division. Some weapons used by the officers have been purchased at garage sales. Mr. Weller, referring to the scarcity of divison safety vests, stated, "The chief has stood outside Washoe County Sheriff's Department and waited for them to throw out their old vests, so he can stand there and catch them." In addition, officers are not provided two-way radios for their vehicles. He said he has had several meetings with the Budget Division regarding division automation. In the last meeting he attended, it was agreed the automation request would be placed in a one-shot appropriation request. He received information yesterday, the automation request has been deleted. Although there are a number of operational concerns, philosophical concerns, and political concerns, he stressed the most important issue is personnel concerns. He stated Mr. Rogers helped the division develop an automation plan which would tie-in all criminal justice records. Department of Prisons - Page 1535 Mr. Bates distributed three handouts, Exhibit G an in-house population comparison, Exhibit H a 7-year Program inmate projection, and Exhibit I a graph depicting inmate population projections from 1980 through the year 2003. Glen Whorton, Classification and Planning Specialist, Department of Prisons, testified the Department of Administration contracts with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for the production of inmate population projections. The winter of 1994 intake projections were 277 inmates per month, but the actual figures indicate 296 inmates were received. He also noted there has been an adjustment to the number of parole violators returned to prison. Originally, it was projected 45 inmates would be returned per month as parole violators, but the figure has been adjusted to 51. The parole grant rate projections were figured on a 40 percent grant rate. In actuality, the parole grant rate was only 35 percent. Mr. Whorton stated the new projection indicates the prison population will be approximately 361 inmates higher than the winter of 1994 projections. At the end of the biennium, the new projections indicate a population of 408 inmates higher than the original projection. Mr. Spitler asked when the winter projections are determined. Mr. Whorton replied the winter projections were calculated in December, 1994. Mr. Spitler questioned when the most recent projections were calculated and Mr. Whorton responded March of 1995. Mr. Spitler inquired how the parole release rate applies to the increased projections. Mr. Whorton explained the parole board indicated in December 1994 that their parole grant rate would be approximately 40 percent, but the percentage had to be adjusted downward. Mr. Spitler asked if the Department of Prisons is able to determine if the parole board's grant rate is accurate before the projections are made. Mr. Bates said the parole grant rate had been in decline, since June of 1994. He explained the department took a "wait and see attitude" between June of 1994 and December of 1994, to determine if the parole grant rate would return to its 10-year average. The department did not expect the parole grant rate to remain in the 20-30 percent range. Mr. Spitler questioned who in the department analyzes the parole rate data. Mr. Bates explained the department expected the parole grant rate would return to its historic average because the demographics of the inmate population has not dramatically changed. Mr. Spitler commented the Legislature in 1993 had concerns regarding the parole board's projection rates. He noted the parole rate projection does not match bed space needs. Ms. Johnson stated the Budget Division had a meeting with the parole board in November regarding its lower parole grant rate. She said the parole board reviewed its records and indicated the 40 percent grant rate would be sufficient. Subsequent to the meeting, the parole board determined the 40 percent grant rate would not be met due to the severity of crimes being committed. Mr. Spitler noted the parole board does not have any personnel who are sufficiently trained to gather and report statistical information. Since the information from the parole board is inaccurate, he suggested the Legislature needs to look at the actual figures. Ms. Giunchigliani voiced her concern the parole board will not reach its new projected rate of 35 percent. She remarked, "I still don't have an answer as to why they [parole board] cannot generate more proper grantees." She asked what will happen if the parole board does not achieve the 35 percent rate. Mr. Bates said a difference of 5 percent in the grant rate figure will affect the release of 500 inmates per year. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned what the bed projections are for next biennium. Mr. Bates replied the prison system will house approximately 7,563 inmates in 1996 and 8,015 inmates in 1997. He referred the committee to Exhibit G and explained the first column is a date benchmark, while the second column reflects December 1994 projections. The document's third column indicates the March 1995 projection with a 35 percent parole rate. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what is the current prison population total and Mr. Bates responded, "7,120." Senator O'Donnell asked if the Department of Prisons has a problem with utilizing tents to house inmates. Mr. Bates stated the department has developed a strategy called "Construction Solutions and Nonconstruction Solutions." The construction solutions will be presented to the committee at a later date. Nonconstruction solutions the department is considering include: tents, sprung structures, and welding beds. Senator O'Donnell suggested inmates housed in tents could be moved to the southern part of the state in the winter and then moved to the northern part during the summer months to save on heating and air conditioning costs. There being no further business to come before the joint subcommittee, Senator Jacobsen adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pamela Jochim, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Chairman DATE: Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler, Chairman DATE: Assemblyman Thomas W. Fettic DATE: Senate Committee on Finance Assembly Committee on Ways and Means Joint Subcommittee on Pub.Safety/Nat'l Res./Trans. March 22, 1995