MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session February 8, 1995 The joint meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 8, 1995, Chairman Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., presiding in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dean A. Rhoads Senator Bernice Mathews Senator Bob Coffin COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst CHILD AND FAMILY ADMINISTRATION - PAGE 1273 John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, presented to the committee copies of Division of Child and Family Services Revenues, Budget Accounts 3145 and 3229, 1995-1997 (Exhibit C). Mr. Sarb noted budget account 3145 covered the central administration and the staffing for the family support services unit in the division, also known as child welfare services, and fees were handled through budget account 3229. Budget Accounts 3145 and 3229 went through dramatic changes, most in the interim since the last session and approved by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). He recapped some of the revenue changes approved by IFC to demonstrate the impact of the changes. Those changes affected the entire division. Mr. Sarb drew the committee members' attention to page 1 of Exhibit C which indicates state participation in budget account 3145 from FY 1992 through FY 1997 drops from 27.7% to 23%. Budget account 3229 on page 2 of Exhibit C indicates state participation was 62.6% in FY 1992 and drops to 38.3% by FY 1997. Page 3 of Exhibit C provides information on the two funding sources approved by IFC and implemented during the interim. The IV-A/EA program collects 50% of the cost of statutorily required child protective services. The services had previously been paid 100% by the state General Fund or by Clark and Washoe counties. The dollars shown on Exhibit C were Federal dollars. The Medicaid Rehabilitation option on Exhibit C paid for statutorily required residential care, day treatment, and case management services. The Medicaid Rehabilitation program made it possible to increase in-state residential group care. Page 4 of Exhibit C demonstrates the increase in in-state residential care capacity from FY 1992 through FY 1997. Increasing in-state residential care capacity would be the first step in reducing out-of-state placements, which was a high priority for the coming biennium. Page 5 of Exhibit C provides information on Title IV-E collections, Title IV funds, foster care and related services. Title IV-E, a long- standing Federal funding source, was the subject of some audit findings during the last biennium. Mr. Sarb emphasized Title IV-E collections increase 76.2% from FY 1992 through FY 1997, while applicable case loads increase 14.1% during the same period. He pointed out child support collections on page 6 of Exhibit C were funds children were eligible to receive, including court-ordered child support payments, VA benefits, and Social Security benefits. When a child comes into the custody of Child and Family Services, funds are collected to offset the cost of care. Those funds increase 122.7% from FY 1992 through FY 1997, while caseload increase 14.1% over the same time period. Mr. Marvel inquired if the figures represented on page 6 of Exhibit C were actual collections. Mr. Sarb stated the figures through FY 1994 were actual collections. Mr. Marvel asked what the accounts receivable were. Mr. Sarb responded delinquency collections were not reflected in Exhibit C totals. Mr. Marvel noted he would be asking the same question again in subcommittee. Mr. Sarb commented the good news was $5.8 million in Federal funds had been collected through the Title IV-A/EA and Medicaid Rehab programs, which had previously come from the state General Fund, and the bad news was all the funding was from Federal entitlements and almost certainly would be reduced or eliminated altogether, probably before the end of the biennium. Mr. Sarb assured the committee it would be apprised of any changes which would affect the budget over the next two years. Ms. Giunchigliani asked where in the budget she would find Title XX funds. Mr. Sarb replied Title XX funds were not shown because they are a capped entitlement. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if Title XX funds were shown under resources. Mr. Sarb stated Title XX funds were in the "other non-state" revenue line item. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a breakdown be provided to the committee of the funds included in the other non-state category. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Sarb to continue with budget 3145 and explain the recommended transfers. Mr. Sarb introduced Annette R. Swainston from the Division of Child and Family Services. Ms. Swainston pointed out there were two program transfers into budget account 3145, one for the Family Preservation Program staff from budget account 3646, Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services, and one from budget account 3281, Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services. The transfer would bring all Family Preservation staff and associated operating costs into one budget account instead of having them within three different budget accounts. Thomas F. Reilly, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, commented he would be addressing major decision units. He drew the committee's attention to two charts to help in understanding the recommendation. The first chart showed developing caseloads in child welfare, including child protective services, substitute care, adoptions, and also included a District of Columbia lawsuit under which that state was operating in district court. A class action suit was filed against the District of Columbia on caseload size. As a result of the lawsuit, a caseload ratio of 1:20 for substitute care was mandated. The second figure represents the Welfare League of America, which sets national standards on child welfare cases, and it has established a caseload standard of 1:25. The Nevada standard established in 1985 was 1:35. The current standard as of January 1995 is 1:44. Nevada exceeds caseload lawsuit stipulations as well as national recommendations. Mr. Reilly explained although there was not a large increase in the number of children coming into substitute care because several prevention programs had been implemented to help the state reduce the number of children coming in and out of home care, the type of child coming into home care had changed dramatically. For example, Clark County alone between 1993 and 1994 had a 218% increase in medically fragile children, those with HIV, etc., over the period of one year. Statewide, between 1992 and 1994, there was a 3% increase in overall substitute care cases, but there was a 42% increase in number of children diagnosed as severely emotionally disturbed. Mr. Reilly noted maintenance request M-201 basically dealt with nine social worker positions and one supervisory position. Referring to a display chart, he indicated in FY 1995 the division averaged 44 cases per staff member. Even with the requests in maintenance and enhancement for additional child welfare staff, the caseload size would remain the same. The request did not take into consideration the severity of the type of children needing care. Chairman Arberry noted the Budget Office recommended 27 FTE positions while the Children, Youth and Family Administration account had requested 106 positions. He asked why 106 new positions had been requested. Mr. Sarb responded the request of 106 positions would have brought the division to caseload staffing standards across the board in all the programs, i.e., 1:16 in protective services, and 1:35 in foster care. Senator Raggio pointed out decision unit M-201 requested new positions to address existing staff shortages in foster care, child protective services and adoption programs, but even with the new positions the caseload would not decrease from 1:45. Mr. Reilly stated the caseload would decrease in FY 1996 to 42 and FY 1997 to 43 because many of the new positions would also handle child protective services. The indicated caseload represented just substitute care. Only part of the allocated positions would go to foster care and adoptions, and the rest would go to child protective services. Senator Raggio asked the purpose of the presentation indicating the District of Columbia lawsuit caseload was 1:20. He inquired if there would be sanctions if caseload size did not decrease. Mr. Sarb responded the request to keep caseload at the current levels was certainly not out of line or an outrageous request. The division had looked at 26 consent decrees in 22 states. Trouble could come from any one of four issues: caseload size, out-of-state placements, lack of computer systems and the absence of statewide reasonable efforts. Senator Raggio inquired if the budget were augmented would there be a potential for sanctions over the biennium. Mr. Sarb stated the division would stay ahead of sanctions on caseload size. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the division would stay ahead of sanctions if there was litigation involving a caseload of 1:20. Mr. Sarb pointed out the consent decree in the District of Columbia at 1:20 was compared to states operating in the 1:50 or 1:60 cases per worker range. The Federal courts had ruled on consent decrees at caseloads of 1:20 or 1:25. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked she did not want to be in a consent decree situation, but she was concerned about an obligation to deliver services. She requested information be presented to subcommittee on the caseload size which truly could be handled. Senator O'Donnell recognized decision units M-202 and M-203 had not been recommended but asked why the positions had been requested. Mr. Reilly responded decision unit M-202 dealt with increasing the psychology staff to a full- time position at the Children's Resource Bureau in Reno, and decision unit M-203 was to establish a child welfare office in Pahrump. Mr. Reilly directed the committee members' attention to decision unit M-207. Two mental health counselors were requested for the purchased placement unit. The purchased placement unit was established at the same time as the division in 1991 and had developed quality controls for placement of children at different levels of out-of-home care. Prior to 1991, workers would place a child out of desperation wherever there was an opening. Presently the unit monitors placements to see if the child is at the correct level and moves the child to a less restrictive setting when improvement has been shown. The caseload size was 1:83. The two positions would be added to assist with quality control, assist with out-of-state care, transition out-of-state children back to the state, and review all contract services the division used. Mr. Reilly moved to decision unit M-209, which was a request to add two foster care recruitment and training specialists. There were close to 600 foster parents, with three training and recruitment specialists to provide all training, support, and recruitment of new foster parents. As pointed out previously in the display charts, foster parents were increasingly asked to deal with more difficult children. Many severely emotionally disturbed and medically fragile children with HIV and AIDS had been placed in foster homes. The Foster Parent Training and Recruiting Program offered training and also support for individual foster parents. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if foster parents were permitted to be advocates at the school level for emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children placed in their home. Mr. Sarb responded that was his understanding. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if training was provided to those foster parents who received emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children in their home or whether training was something the division wanted to implement. Mr. Reilly replied the division had a package which would specifically address core competency training for foster parents because the level of training was not where it should be, particularly with the difficulty of children being placed in the home. Ms. Giunchigliani commented having done many IEPs and having increased her own caseload as a special education teacher, she urged training for foster parents because of the burden they were taking on. Mr. Reilly remarked Nevada was one of few states nationally which currently had no HIV or AIDS children available for adoption. Nevada has an incredible network of foster parents who adopt children with HIV or AIDS. Mr. Close drew attention to the description that stated without these services many children would not be able to be maintained in foster family care. He asked if data was available for the number of children to which the description was referring. Mr. Sarb said the information could be provided to the committee. Mr. Close commented he would like information on what would happen if the recommendation was not approved. Mr. Sarb stated he could describe the impact but not the number. The children would be moved into more restrictive kinds of care or out-of-state placements. Mr. Reilly explained decision unit M-500 was the State Automated Child Welfare Information System. A one-shot appropriation was recommended for $1,687,500. The SACWIS Program was federally mandated to provide data collection for the state and assist in interfacing child welfare with mental health, juvenile justice, Medicaid and various other programs. Federal funds would be provided at 75% through September 30, 1996 and would be reduced to 50% thereafter. As stated by Mr. Sarb and as testified to in committee, the present information system is pretty dismal. For example, a determination of the number of children in custody can only be provided during a snapshot in time. There is no capability to go back and collect unduplicated numbers. There are 46 social workers and two computers in Las Vegas, creating a desperate need for a computer system. Mr. Reilly assured the committee the computer request was not the child of NOMADS. The scope of the computer request was smaller and much had been learned from the Welfare Division. A business process re-engineering plan had been developed, and the division was working with the Department of Information Services. Ms. Tiffany asked if Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) would be delivered on time and was the Department of Information Services paying for any portion of the BPR. Mr. Sarb responded he had every reason to believe BPR would be delivered on time. January 12, 1995 was the first meeting with the contractor Peat Marwick. Management interviews were scheduled to be completed May 20, 1995. Ms. Tiffany inquired what the anticipated delivery date would be. Mr. Sarb replied BPR and functional specifications, phase I, was scheduled to be completed by the end of May 1995. The cost benefit analysis, feasibility study, and RFP implementation, phase II, would take another six to nine months. The implementation, phase III, would run into FY 1998. Ms. Tiffany remarked completion was scheduled for March 1995. She asked if there would be a guarantee completion would be in May 1995. Mr. Sarb answered the schedule dates were from Peat Marwick's contract. Ms. Tiffany asked if the change in completion dates had an impact on cost. Mr. Sarb said no. Ms. Tiffany inquired if the software was going to be programmed as opposed to an application software package which was purchased off the shelf. Mr. Sarb replied there were no such software packages available for purchase. Ms. Tiffany encouraged penalties be instituted for nonperformance. She stated the contractor should be able to communicate and exchange information with interface agencies, which would require a common network and data base, and asked if that was part of the package. Mr. Sarb replied definitely. Ms. Tiffany agreed with the concept of automation but pointed out $1.6 million was a lot of money. She stated the committee would be real careful with this issue, they expected to see the report in May, and performance penalties would be a key issue. Chairman Arberry asked what the Federal sanctions would be for not reporting data. Mr. Sarb stated the penalties were approximately $33,000 per year in each of four areas starting in 1998 and $66,000 per year in the same four areas starting in 1999. The Federal government could also recoup 25% of the enhancement share of $358,000 for the first phase (BPR) if the system were designed but not implemented. Chairman Arberry inquired what the actual cost figure was. Mr. Sarb answered the contract with Peat Marwick was $358,060 and 25% of the contract would be what the Federal government could recoup. Chairman Arberry commented in June the committee was told the BPR would be completed by March 1995. He asked if sanctions were imposed against KPMG Peat Marwick. Mr. Sarb told the committee the division was working with the Department of Information Services. The estimate in June referred to when the contract would be let and awarded. Peat Marwick was not slow on the contract. The RFP went out later than was anticipated in June. Chairman Arberry inquired what the total state cost of the project would be. Mr. Sarb replied the outer limit of state cost would be $2 million and the total cost would be in the area of $6 million. Chairman Arberry questioned what the Federal sanctions would be. Mr. Reilly said the maximum exposure rate after October 1, 1998, would $133,000 taken out of the earned Title IV/B funds. Mrs. Evans inquired whether the division was able to tap additional funds through the Medicaid rehabilitation option and the Title IV-A funds. Mr. Sarb responded through the Medicaid rehabilitation option, yes. Mrs. Evans wished to know under what circumstances the division would be able to claim those additional dollars. Mr. Sarb stated children must be Medicaid eligible, which most of the children in the division's custody were. What made the Medicaid rehabilitation option so attractive was the facilities used, unlike most other Medicaid options, did not have to be JCAHO accredited; group homes for example. The person ordering the service for the child did not need to be a physician; social workers for example. Mrs. Evans asked where the amount of additional Medicaid dollars was reflected in the budget besides the Medicaid appropriated two years previously. Mr. Sarb felt reference was being made to budget 3229, category 17, which was the Title XIX or Medicaid line item. The state welfare funds used were not included in the budget, but Mr. Sarb said he could provide those amounts. Mrs. Evans requested the information be provided to the subcommittee. She questioned whether it was anticipated state welfare funds would be used again. Mr. Sarb responded he did not anticipate that situation happening again. He said it was his understanding the money available from state welfare was specifically earmarked in the provider taxes for the division's purposes. With no more provider taxes available after 1995, that option would no longer exist. Mrs. Evans pointed out E-404, Self Sufficiency Through Social Services, had many lofty goals and objectives regarding out-of-state placements and moving children placed in higher level facilities to more cost effective ones. She asked how realistic the projections were in actually achieving the goals. Mr. Sarb stated he felt the goals could be and had to be accomplished. Too many children were being sent out of state, and the client outcome was not as good when they were sent out of state. This budget drew a hard line in the dirt. If the goals were not accomplished, the division would be over budget. Mr. Reilly pointed out the clinical social workers being requested in the enhancement package were related to the Medicaid rehabilitation option and the treatment homes. For example, some children were targeted to return to the community if given intensive case management and placement facilities in the community and then have the clinical case managers access the wrap-around dollars. But some children have had such severe conditions, they must be placed out of state. Ms. Evans agreed with Mr. Reilly's assessment but expressed concern about how these issues would be monitored. She said she would look at the performance indicators to determine the division's expectations in achieving the stated goals. She mentioned money would be saved by bringing children home on one hand but would be put into staff on the other. Certainly the humanitarian aspect of bringing children closer to their families was important, but also how numbers would work was important. Mr. Sarb commented debits had already been made on the estimated savings from accounts in budget 3229 for bringing the children home. Mrs. Evans noted there was a CIP request for a 56-bed facility which had evolved since 1991 from a 40-bed facility. She requested a full rendering regarding the kinds of placements and how the facility would be utilized be provided to the subcommittee. Chairman Arberry requested information on decision units E-900 and E-901, program transfers. Annette R. Swainston, Division of Child and Family Services, stated the transfers in E-900 and E-901 were the transfer of Family Preservation staff from budget accounts 3281 in the north and 3646 in the south, which would bring all Family Preservation staff into one budget account instead of three budget accounts. YOUTH COMMUNITY SERVICES - PAGE 1287 John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, pointed out budget account 3229 was the program side of child welfare services. It contained the money for residential care, subsidized adoptions and most of the programs associated with child welfare. When the division was created there were purchased residential care categories scattered among five budget accounts. Transfer requests were being made for every category of purchased residential care to be put in one budget account for accountability reasons. This would provide easier tracking, simpler contracting and would make available an accountability measure for the division. Annette R. Swainston, Division of Child and Family Services, noted there were two program transfer categories in budget account 3229. E-900 represented the transfer request to move categories out of the Youth Alternative Placement budget account 3147. A transfer request was being made to move alternative placement categories 10 and 12 into category 14 of budget account 3229 to track expenditures in the upcoming biennium. In addition, a request was being made in E-900 to transfer community group home beds which were in budget accounts 3646 and 3281 to category 16, Mental Health Placements, in budget account 3229. The total amount of transfers among all budget accounts was $1.8 million. Mr. Marvel noted the measurement indicators showed the average number of changes in placements per child for actual FY 1994 was 5.3, while the projected figures were 4.5. He asked how the placements would be reduced. Mr. Reilly responded the figures included all placements, including emergency shelter care or when the child was moved at any time during their stay in foster care. The figures were high but were consistent nationally. Mr. Marvel inquired why the figures were so high in FY 1994. Mr. Sarb stated the division felt they would achieve 4.5 placements but the average was actually 5.3. He said he did not know if projected FY 1995 would be 4.5. Mr. Marvel asked what plans were being made to reduce the figure. Mr. Sarb said he did not know if the figure would come down. Mr. Marvel pointed out a number had been supplied to the committee. Mr. Reilly stated many times children were placed inappropriately. By adding purchased placement services staff and more quality control, the division hoped 4.5 could be achieved. Mr. Marvel inquired why there was a difference between measurement indicators for purchased placement services number 5 and number 6 in the average length of stay for in state versus out of state. Mr. Sarb explained more severe cases tended to go out of state which required a longer amount of time. Out-of-state placement was also more difficult for the division to monitor the treatment provider. The out- of-state treatment providers tended to hang on to the placements. Mr. Marvel asked what the division did to try to return the children to the community and how the treatment provider was monitored. Mr. Sarb responded the out-of-state treatment provider received approximately two site visits per year as opposed to one per month or more frequently for in-state providers. He stated since the division was at the mercy of the treatment provider's estimation of case progress, the children stay longer in out-of-state placement. Mr. Marvel asked what positions would be monitoring out-of-state placements. Mr. Sarb answered the purchased placement unit makes the site visits, and two additional positions were requested in budget account 3145. Mr. Marvel inquired whether this request would help bring children back to the community earlier. Mr. Sarb responded affirmatively. Mr. Marvel noted this issue was not reflected in the measurement indicators and asked what the savings would be. Mr. Sarb said there were many things the division would like to see in performance indicators and probably some they wished were not there at all. Mr. Marvel noted the measurement indicators stayed the same at 496 days as the average length of stay for out-of-state placements. Since a request was being made for two new positions, he hoped the average length of stay for out-of-state placements would be reduced. Mr. Sarb stated the big effort was to make sure there were fewer children sent out of state, but he did not know how much of a decrease the division could expect in the average length of stay for those who stay out of state. Mr. Marvel reiterated the measurement indicators remained the same for projected and actual, and he hoped the additional positions would be able to reduce the average length of stay for out-of-state placements. Mr. Sarb indicated the performance indicators probably were not modified to consider that issue. Mr. Marvel stated the subcommittee would ask the question again and suggested the division be prepared with a better answer. Mr. Hettrick pointed out the two E-900 program transfers did not indicate positions were being transferred. He inquired if the positions were going to remain as they were before the transfer, how would the positions be supported budgetwise. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, indicated as part of the program transfer component the positions were not reflected in the total position counts at the end of each budget. There was a computer problem where position transfers did not show up in the FTE total. Positions would probably be transferred but were not reflected in the FTE total at the end of the budget. Mr. Hettrick asked if administration services would be duplicated once the transfers were implemented. Mr. Sarb stated there were no personnel associated with budget account 3229. Budget accounts 3145 and 3229 worked hand in glove; one was funding, the other was staffing. By transferring the categories, a small group of people would manage all purchased residential care, which had always been done. During budget cuts, positions were eliminated which had duplicate administration. Mr. Fettic expressed the same concerns as Mr. Marvel regarding decision unit E-404 in budget account 3145 which addressed the likelihood of children being returned from out of state and the measurement indicators in budget account 3229 remaining constant. Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Reilly continue with his budget description. Mr. Reilly called the committee members' attention to decision units M-200 and M-201, demographics caseload changes. The decision units reflected $1.5 million being transferred out of the budget with the expansion of the treatment homes in budget accounts 3281 and 3646 and the clinical case management portion. Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Reilly to point to the specific portion of the budget which addressed these transfers. Mr. Reilly indicated the information was shown on page 1291. Mr. Reilly commented the enhancement section of the budget, decision unit E-400, self-sufficiency through social service, was known as the foster parents package. He pointed out the joint committee as well as the subcommittee on Human Resources would receive an excellent presentation from foster parents. Decision unit E-400 reflected a 10% increase in clothing allowance each year of the biennium and also a 5% increase in FY 1996 and a 3% increase in FY 1997 in foster care rates. Referring to a display chart, Mr. Reilly noted Nevada paid an average cost to foster parents of $309 per month. The national average in 1993 was $350 per month. The USDA recommended $584 per month to raise a child at a middle class income level in 1993. With the increased number of children in the system and the increased number of difficult children in the system, what was paid to foster parents did not cover the basic cost of care. Foster parents take money out of their pockets to clothe their foster children, so the request of a 5% and 3% increase was a modest request. Mr. Reilly pointed out there was a budget request for $20,000 to develop foster parent training and recruitment. Prior year budgets included $1,500 to train 600 foster parents. The request included competency-based training to deal with the difficulty of children coming into foster care and to provide ongoing training as well. Mr. Reilly noted there was a request to increase respite care dollars by $7,600. The current package was $16,000 statewide for foster parent respite care. The previous year's total plus the requested enhancement translates to two respite care days per year per family. A foster care liability program was also being requested. When foster parents were involved in lawsuits, it was the opinion of the Attorney General that the Division of Child and Family Services could not represent the foster parents. The liability package would cover $60 for the 600 current foster families and would also include a 30% turnover rate. Not only was it difficult to recruit foster families, but the turnover rate was high because of the difficulty of children placed with the foster family. A small amount was being requested for funeral expenses. Mr. Reilly stated it was very embarrassing for a state agency to beg for money from a community for funeral expenses when a child dies out of county or out of state. A county is not responsible for funeral expenses when a child dies out of county. The Foster Parent Association many times has given the agency money to cover the cost of burial. Chairman Arberry requested an explanation of the increase in excess of 100% in decision unit M-100 for inflationary increases of medical costs. Annette Swainston responded there was a miscalculation in decision unit M-100. The calculation was made by using FY 1994 actuals times the medical inflation rate, but instead of subtracting the difference, it was added on top of M-100. The correct figure for FY 1996 should have been $11,119 and FY 1997 should have been $19,712. Chairman Arberry asked if he had not brought it up, would the agency have mentioned it. Ms. Swainston commented they had intended to bring it up during subcommittee. Mrs. Evans noted the Title XIX medical cost for FY 1993-94 was $8.9 million and went to $14.6 million in each year of the biennium. She also expressed concern about whether Medicaid should go back to the welfare budget. Mr. Sarb commented the advantage of keeping Medicaid in budget account 3229 was the agency would be totally accountable for the account, and it would be the job of the agency to stay within the budget. Mrs. Evans pointed out the agency did not stay within the budget. Mr. Sarb stated the last biennium was the first time the agency had projected that kind of expense and it was under projected. Mrs. Evans stated Title XIX would be brought up in subcommittee. Chairman Arberry called for public testimony. Garry-Beth Alsdorf stated she was a foster parent living in Elko, Nevada. She represented the Northeastern Nevada Foster Parent Association. Mrs. Alsdorf read from prepared testimony, which is attached as Exhibit D. Senator Raggio asked Mrs. Alsdorf how many children she cared for in her home. Mrs. Alsdorf responded she had five of her own children and one foster child. She and her husband were licensed for one more foster child. Senator Raggio asked how much she was paid by the state of Nevada for each foster child. Mrs. Alsdorf replied from zero to four years of age she receives $281, of which $11 is for personal needs. Senator Raggio asked what the proposed increase for a child up to four years of age would be. Mr. Reilly noted the increase of 5% from age zero to 12 years of age would go from $281 per month to $295 in FY 1996 and $304 in FY 1997. The clothing allowance would increase 10%. Mr. Price thanked Mrs. Alsdorf for appearing before the committee. Her appearance put a face to the people in the community doing God's work. Senator Coffin noted Mrs. Alsdorf testified that the state of Nevada was not following the statutes. He asked her to provide more detail as to how the state was not following the statutes. Mrs. Alsdorf explained foster parents paid 49% of the care of foster children out of their own pockets. The state of Nevada paid only 51% for the care of foster children. The 49% figure did not provide for the purchase of adequate clothing, adequate housing, or adequate care. The statutes say foster parents have to provide adequate housing, clothing for the area, bedding, fire alarms, but the state is not providing what they need to provide. Senator Coffin asked if the committee had accurate figures on the cost of raising a child so the committee would know if they were in violation of statutes. Mr. Sarb stated he felt the argument was more of a legitimate moral argument than a legal argument. The statute requires that care be provided. The way care is provided is people are found who are willing to absorb a portion of the care. In terms of a law violation, Mr. Sarb expressed confidence there was no law violation. The question should be, are foster parents being reimbursed reasonably, and certainly they have lost purchasing power over time. The IRS recognizes foster parenting as a charitable contribution, and that is the way it is legally seen. Ms. Giunchigliani argued legislative intent, and the intent was to care for children. If foster parents are not provided the necessary services and dollar amounts to care for children, then there is a violation of the statutes, if someone wants to make that argument. Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to focus on the fact that $548 is what the USDA suggests is the monthly cost to raise a child, and the state of Nevada projects to spend $304 by 1997, which is irresponsible. Senator Rhoads asked where the 51%/49% breakdown came from. Deanne Blazzard of Foster Parents of So. Nevada responded the figures were derived from the USDA guidelines. Deanne Blazzard of Foster Parents of So. Nevada read from prepared testimony, which is attached as Exhibit E. Ms. Blazzard brought with her clothes she purchased for a 4-year-old boy with the $60 clothing allowance, which included the following: two shirts, one pair of pants, one pair of shorts, one pair of shoes, one pair of pajamas, two pair of socks, and one package of underwear. Children must go to church, school and play in these clothes. The proposed increase would pay for one additional pair of shorts. Without additional funding, children will not be dressed according to the standards of the average child in the community. Senator Raggio noted the budget proposed a two-day respite payment. He asked how the payment was utilized as a practical matter; would someone who is paid by the state actually come in or would the foster parent receive the money. Mr. Reilly replied specific policies were in place for utilizing respite care, which he would provide to the committee. Basically, priority was given to emergency or death situations over vacations. Senator Raggio inquired if foster parents were paid for respite care or was someone else paid to physically come to the home and provide respite care. Ms. Blazzard explained the foster parent apprises the social worker of the respite need. If the need is approved, the social worker and the foster parents work together to find another licensed care provider who is paid by the state. When Senator Raggio asked if the child was physically moved to a new location, Ms. Blazzard answered yes. Mr. Price expressed his thought, as he observed the young families with foster children who were present, that the members become somewhat of a family unit among themselves. It seemed a rather bureaucratic process for a family to, for instance, go to Disneyland for a weekend or attend a funeral. He asked if the family would be separated so they could tend to personal matters or was there an option to take the foster child. Ms. Blazzard stated foster children could be taken with the family, but in some circumstances it was not appropriate. For instance, a family in Las Vegas experienced the death of a relative who lived in Reno. They felt it was not appropriate to bring the preschool foster children to the funeral, so the husband attended the funeral by himself because there was no money available for respite care, which would have allowed the wife to attend also. Mr. Allard asked what was being done to collect money from biological parents. Mr. Sarb noted page 6 of Exhibit C was a chart indicating child support payments. For instance, in a divorce situation where a parent is paying child support to the custodial parent and the children were removed from the custodial parent, Child and Family Services could collect the child support. The large increase shown on page 6 of Exhibit C was the result of a link between the Welfare Division and Child and Family Services. Mr. Allard requested information be provided to the committee on the amount of money being collected from biological parents for child support. Mr. Sarb agreed to provide the information. He noted some foster children were the result of a neglect situation resulting from the impoverishment of the parents and collecting child support would be difficult in that situation. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if some of the increases in budget account 3229 were being funded by the collection of child support rather than additional state revenue. Mr. Sarb explained the shift between state and Federal participation in budget account 3229 has been pretty steady over time, and it is now more Federal participation than state. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated the state had not increased its participation but simply had gone after some of the people who should have been paying support. The mission statement calls for family preservation, but the legislature will be funding family elimination if more focus is not placed on foster care or AFDC. Mr. Spitler inquired if an employer-employee relationship existed between the state and a provider of foster care. Mr. Sarb responded no. Mr. Spitler asked if that was because housing was not provided. Mr. Sarb stated it was because foster parents were not paid a salary; they were only partially reimbursed for costs. (Lisa Smith, Milton Alsdorf and Laurie Bachiochi each submitted written testimony to the committee, which have been attached as Exhibits F, G and H, respectively.) NORTHERN NEVADA CHILD & ADOLESCENT SERVICES - PAGE 1305 John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, explained budget account 3281 provided mental health services to children and adolescents in northern Nevada, principally Washoe County. Mr. Sarb introduced Dr. Christa R. Peterson, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Treatment Services. Dr. Peterson explained budget account 3281, Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services, provided a continuum of mental health treatment to nearly 600 children and adolescents each year. Dr. Peterson directed the committee members' attention to a display chart depicting actual FY 1994 expenditures for each program. Of the funding in budget account 3281, 68.3% paid for long-term residential services, with 10.7% going to outpatient services, 11.4% going to day treatment, 6.9% to early childhood treatment programs, and 2.75% to other programs. The expenditures in budget account 3281 were funded by both state and non-state funding sources. General Fund revenues provided 41.3% of the budget, and Federal funds such as CMHS block grants and Title XX money provided 41.1% of the budget. Other sources which included client charges and Medicaid, which is generally 50% each for state and Federal, provided the additional funding at 16.9%. Dr. Peterson commented since there were no major changes to the base budget, she would address major decision units in budget account 3281. Decision unit M-201 provided for staffing and operating costs to expand the on-campus treatment home program at Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services by eight beds. The expansion would benefit the agency by eliminating the waiting list and bringing back several children from out of state both in FY 1996 and FY 1997. Senator Raggio inquired where the Family Learning Homes were located. Dr. Peterson stated the Family Learning Homes were located on the Children's Behavioral Services campus. Presently, there are two vacant homes which could be utilized for expansion. Senator Raggio asked if there were a total of four homes, two of which were vacant. Dr. Peterson replied two were staffed and operational and two were vacant. Senator Raggio questioned why there were vacancies. Dr. Peterson explained during the FY 1992 budget cuts staffing for one home was cut. When Senator Raggio inquired where the children were placed, Dr. Peterson responded the children were placed in other settings either through purchased residential contracts or possibly out of state. To a question by Senator Raggio regarding the number of beds in each home, Dr. Peterson stated the number had been expanded to five beds in each home. Senator Raggio asked if the recommended funding would reopen the other two homes, and Dr. Peterson replied yes. She explained the move would reduce the waiting list and hopefully reduce out-of-state placements. Since Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services was already paying many of the fixed costs for the vacant homes, the program costs would increase with decision unit M-201 by about 23% and the average daily census would increase over 33%. Mrs. Evans inquired what type of youngster would go into the two reopened homes. Dr. Peterson indicated severely emotionally disturbed children who had not been able to remain in their homes or in a community-based group care setting. They typically needed a range of services, including residential day treatment and medication services. Mrs. Evans asked how long it would take to get the two homes operational. Dr. Peterson responded the decision unit provides funding beginning October 1, 1995. It would take approximately two months to hire and train staff to get the homes operational. Mr. Spitler complimented Dr. Peterson for the net reduction of $39,327 to the General Fund in FY 1996 and $250,185 in FY 1997. He suggested to Mr. Sarb it would be beneficial for the subcommittee to have all savings identified throughout the budget be reflected exactly the way it had been in budget account 3281. Dr. Peterson explained decision unit E-275 provided funding for contract psychiatric services as backup coverage for the one FTE staff psychiatrist at the Northern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services. The funding would be used to provide on- call coverage and direct services while the staff psychiatrist was on vacation, sick leave, holidays or while on administrative leave or in training. The amount included in decision unit E-275 is $30,868 in FY 1996 and FY 1997. In budget account 3281 there is the transfer of nine Family Preservation Program staff including operating expenses to budget account 3145. The expenditures for categories 11 and 12, which fund purchased residential services, are being transferred into budget account 3229 under category 16, Mental Health Placements. Senator Raggio inquired why a backup for psychiatrists was necessary. Dr. Peterson indicated a psychiatrist had been providing coverage without compensation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The staff psychiatrist was 70 years old, and it is recognized he needs to have time off on weekends, holidays, vacations and anticipated sick leave. Children on medication in the treatment homes were on in-patient care 24 hours a day and needed supervision. Mr. Close questioned when the Child Care Block Grant for FY 1996 and FY 1997 would become definite. Dr. Peterson responded the agency would know some time after July 1995. When Mr. Close asked if the agency would know about the block grant before the end of the legislative session, Dr. Peterson stated she did not think they would because funding was on the Federal fiscal year. CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT - PAGE 1297 Thomas F. Reilly, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, explained budget account 3271 was the funding for training a specialist who coordinates statewide training in Nevada for child protective services. The budget also provides funding for a nurse for medically fragile children. The nurse assists the case manager in working with foster parents who have medically fragile children. The funding is going to be reduced in FY 1996-97, and a request is being made for state funds to keep the nurse position. SOUTHERN NEVADA CHILD & ADOLESCENT SERVICES - PAGE 1313 Dr. Christa R. Peterson, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Treatment Services, explained Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services provides a continuum of mental health treatment to emotionally disturbed children and adolescents. The programs in budget account 3646 provided services to nearly 1,300 children in FY 1994. The display charts depict the major program areas and how the funding is spent, with 47.3% for long-term residential services, 15.2% for acute short-term residential services, 15.6% for out-patient counseling services for elementary school age children and adolescents, and 17% for early childhood treatment services. Dr. Peterson pointed out revenue sources for budget account 3646 were 59% from the General Fund, 21.6% from Federal funds, 16% from other, which included Medicaid and client charges, and 3.3% from agency transfers, which included child care development block grants from the Department of Human Resources. Dr. Peterson stated there were no major changes to base budget 3646. Mrs. Evans asked why there were no expenditures for the Pathways Program in FY 1994, nor any recommended amounts for the FY 1995-97 biennium. Dr. Peterson responded in FY 1993-94 one FTE was funded for the Pathways Program plus the equivalent of a 0.50 FTE contract position and operating expenses. The contract position and operating expenses are depicted in the Pathways Program line item. The program is operational. The one staff has been hired, is working, and has a caseload of autistic children and their families. Mrs. Evans pointed out the FY 1993-94 actual expenses shows zero. Dr. Peterson indicated the contract position had not been successfully hired in FY 1993-94. The staff position, which does not show up in the current line item but is reflected in personnel, is on board and providing services. The contract position was funded at $13 an hour. It had been difficult finding a licensed professional to provide the services or to develop a contract for an unlicensed person which would meet the independent contractor guidelines of SAM. The agency was still recruiting, and there were a couple of possible choices. At present there is no waiting list for the program. All families were being served by the one FTE, so it was not considered a priority for funding in FY 1996 and FY 1997. Mrs. Evans noted a small amount had been requested but was not approved. She asked if the position would then be vacant. Dr. Peterson explained the one FTE was funded for the FY 1995-97 biennium. The agency request to continue the funding for the 0.5 contract position was not a high priority since there was no waiting list for the Pathways Program. Mr. Hettrick asked why the agency request for FY 1996 maintenance of buildings and grounds in the base budget was $17,894 and the Governor recommended $92,342. Sherry R. Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, explained the increase was a reallocation of category 04 janitorial services and grounds repair to category 07. Mr. Hettrick noted category 04 had increased by $7,000 over actual operating expenses in FY 1993-94. Ms. Blackwell indicated the contract expenditures were reduced in the line item detail and offered to provide the detailed information to the committee members. Dr. Peterson commented budget account 3646 was requesting funding to expand the On-Campus Treatment Home Program, which was reflected in decision unit M-202. The decision unit provides $193,544 in FY 1996 and $196,687 in FY 1997 for staffing and operating expenses to expand the program. The expansion would eliminate the waiting list and provide an increase in beds to bring 14 out- of- state children back in FY 1996 and approximately 18 in FY 1997. Senator Raggio asked if bringing out-of-state children back as noted in both Northern and Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services budgets was a realistic goal. Dr. Peterson indicated the agency had conducted an analysis of the out-of-state placements over FY 1994. There were many reasons why children needed to be placed out of state. At times the children's problems were so severe, none of the agency programs or providers in Nevada could handle them. However, the children identified as indicated in the Executive Budget went out of state by virtue of the fact there was not an available bed in state. Senator Raggio inquired if there would be reflected in the budget a reduction in out-of-state placements. Dr. Peterson noted the reduction was shown in budget account 3229. Dr. Peterson explained decision unit M-202 in budget account 3646 would not only reduce the waiting list and bring out-of-state children back, it was also very cost effective. For about a 20% increase in costs, the average daily census could be increased by almost 80%. Dr. Peterson explained decision unit E-425 would provide funding for the relocation of the UNLV Early Childhood Day Treatment Program, currently located in a trailer on the UNLV campus. Chairman Arberry asked where the Day Treatment Program would be transferred. Dr. Peterson explained the agency was currently looking for an appropriate space. In order to serve the client population, a space in the east Las Vegas area needed to be located. The existing trailer did not meet fire code and health department regulations; there was poor ventilation, poor access for clients; and in January 1995 UNLV requested the agency vacate the premises effective May 31, 1995. Chairman Arberry inquired what was the possibility of using the West Charleston Campus for the Day Treatment Program. Dr. Peterson indicated there was no available space at the West Charleston Campus to house the program. Also, the clients, ranging in age from two years to five years, rode on a bus to the site, which was a prohibitive length of time to ride a bus from areas of east Las Vegas and Henderson to the west side of Las Vegas. There were three sites for the Day Treatment Program, one at the West Charleston Campus, one at UNLV, and one in north Las Vegas, each serving approximately 25 children. Dr. Peterson noted there was a transfer recommendation of two FTE Family Preservation Program staff to budget account 3145 and a transfer recommendation of Purchased Residential Care to budget account 3229. Chairman Arberry inquired what the benefits would be of moving the Family Preservation Program. Dr. Peterson mentioned most of the staff and administration for the Family Preservation Program were located within budget account 3145. The agency was simply wanting to move and realign the staff into the budget account with the other staff in the program to make expenditures more predictable and accountable. CHILD CARE SERVICES - PAGE 1323 Patricia J. Simonsen, Bureau Chief, Child Care Services, explained budget account 3149 had two functions: licensing foster homes and child care facilities. The foster homes were licensed statewide, and child care facilities were licensed in all rural areas and the incorporated areas of Las Vegas. Child Care Services provided licensing, consultation, monitoring and investigation functions. Unlicensed child care facilities were also monitored in the areas previously mentioned. Ms. Simonsen pointed out there was a request in decision unit M-200 for the continuation of two positions. One position from block grant funding was for a Child Care Development Surveyor for day care licensing and the other position was a Social Worker II position in the Reno area for foster care licensing, also Federally funded. Senator Coffin requested a list be provided to the committee of child care providers who have received violation notices. Mr. Close asked when licensing fees were last increased and were they within a standard average of other states. Ms. Simonsen responded the Child Care Board sets the fee standards. A request was made to the legislature in FY 1995-97 to increase the fees. The fees were increased in FY 1995 but have not been increased since. When Mr. Close asked if the fees were within the standard of the national average, Ms. Simonsen indicated they were. YOUTH CORRECTIONS SERVICES - PAGE 1327 Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections Services, indicated budget account 3263 reflected the youth parole function for the state of Nevada, which included services for youth who were released from the training centers at Elko and Caliente and were committed for correctional care and in-patient residential mental health treatment in other facilities as well as commitment to the China Spring Youth Camp, particularly from rural jurisdictions. Budget account 3263 reflected the administrative function for the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention program which was passed through to local jurisdictions. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Cavakis to comment on measurement indicator number 7, the average length of time youth were on parole. Mr. Cavakis indicated upon review of caseloads a few youth in rural areas were creating a significant increase in parole time. The agency worked to more closely address the needs of those youth in their communities and not just keep them on parole status. Chairman Arberry noted there was a percentage increase in measurement indicator number 4, revocations for technical violation of parole agreement. Mr. Cavakis explained two years ago, when the agency began focusing on technical revocations, they were able to cause a significant drop in the revocation numbers, but he was not sure the agency could maintain the 22% figure reached in FY 1994. Chairman Arberry asked why he did not feel the agency could maintain the 22% figure. David F. Bash, III, Chief of the Nevada Youth Parole Bureau, responded the decision to revoke a youth for technical parole violation was not only within the purview of Youth Corrections Services, but was also a court decision. The agency must prove there are adequate resources and programs available in the community not to revoke a youth who has violated the conditions of parole. To the degree the agency is successful in convincing the court the behavior can be dealt with in the community, the technical parole violations can be reduced, but ultimately the court will decide whether or not the parole will be revoked. Mr. Close requested information be provided to the committee regarding the number of youth incarcerated, the number of youth who complete parole conditions and are then reincarcerated, and also the ratio of counselors to inmates. Mr. Cavakis stated the counselor to inmate ratio was 1:50, but different caseload standards depended on the type of caseload. Rural caseloads were lower because of the distance traveled. Specialized caseloads were developed for sex offenders, mentally disturbed offenders, and chronic and violent offenders. He said he would provide the requested information. Mr. Hettrick commented measurement indicators 3 and 5 were identical and suggested the agency review their figures and provide more meaningful information to the committee. Mr. Cavakis explained decision unit M-200 recommended two additional parole counselors beginning October 1, 1995, to meet the projected caseload increases and to address the increase of special needs offenders. Also requested were two Motor Pool vehicles, two executive units, and the two 75% administrative aid positions be increased to full-time positions to accommodate the increased paperwork in Reno and Las Vegas. A request was being made for an increase in detention fees paid to local juvenile detention facilities who hold youth parolees awaiting revocation hearings and transfer back to institutions. Chairman Arberry inquired if the two parole counselors were needed because special needs parolees required more intensive supervision. Mr. Cavakis stated some parolees needed more intensive supervision but also because of caseload growth. Chairman Arberry asked if the parole counselors would spend most of their time doing paperwork or providing counseling services. Mr. Cavakis responded the parole counselors would provide counseling services if the administrative aid positions were increased to full-time positions. Court reports must be done by the parole counselor, but the recommendation was made to maintain a standard of supervision on the street. Chairman Arberry questioned whether computer implementation could reduce some of the workload. Mr. Cavakis indicated some work at the administrative level could be greatly enhanced by computerization. David Bash and his Las Vegas staff needed to pull files and count one by one when asked to respond to legislative inquiries. Mrs. Evans asked what was being done to collect court-ordered support payments. Mr. Cavakis explained a position was lost during the 1991-93 budget reductions and collection efforts had not been increased significantly. Since the agency was created, an individual in the central office had been attempting to put all collections in the computer and do regular billing, but absent a replacement position, it could not be done. Mrs. Evans indicated the audit showed $412,000 in court-ordered support payments receivable. If the agency received a portion of the collection, funds would be available for caseload changes. Mr. Sarb indicated the agency's last report to the Audit Committee did show decent progress was made in collections. There was a question regarding privatization. Mr. Sarb stated he did not have an easy answer. If the collections were privatized, he wanted to make sure the agency took the cream before turning the case over to a collection agency. Mrs. Evans commented the welfare division had privatized some hardcore cases in the past, but in order to do that, the subcommittee would need information on the accounts receivable. Mr. Sarb said the information could be provided. Mr. Marvel noted there were several recommendations in the audit report, and the agency did report back to the Audit Subcommittee. He asked how many of the 15 recommendations had been implemented. Mr. Sarb responded it was his recollection if all recommendations had not been completed, there was progress made on all the recommendations, except the collections issue. He offered to provide the information to the committee. Mr. Hettrick pointed out decision unit M-200 showed operating expenses of $14,100 requested by the agency and $244,857 recommended by the Governor. In reading the narrative, Mr. Hettrick stated it appeared the operating expenses include payments to counties. If that were the case, he suggested a separate expenditure category be set up to account for the money going to counties. Mr. Cavakis stated the county money was originally recommended to be included in inflation, but the Budget Office moved it to decision unit M-200, which did reflect changes in payments to counties. The payments were kept as separate line items within the operating category in budget account 3263 for Carson City, Elko, Clark County and Washoe County. Mr. Hettrick indicated it would be more appropriate for the committee's use to have information on the amount of money spent on detainment and the length of time youth were detained instead of having the expense end up as a number in the summary. As a separate category, it makes a difference in how quickly youth might be picked up for a parole violation. Mr. Cavakis stated he had no problem providing the information. Chairman Arberry inquired by what amount the payments to counties had increased. Mr. Cavakis responded the payments were in excess of $200,000. Chairman Arberry asked what the payments to counties were in 1994. Mr. Cavakis indicated the agency had never been billed by Clark County for detention, but a letter was received stating pursuant to statute they were required to bill for detention. Chairman Arberry questioned whether other counties had sent letters regarding billing for detention. Mr. Cavakis stated a letter had been received from Washoe County stating they had changed their billing procedure. In the past Washoe County had billed only for those days up to the detention hearing. Now all actual days would be billed at $50 per day. Carson City billed $50 per day, and Elko County billed $25 per day. Chairman Arberry noted 12 cellular phones were being requested for the youth parole counselors. Mr. Cavakis explained parole staff had unreliable, hand-held radio units. Individual parole officers out in the community dealing with critical situations needed to have reliable communication. Chairman Arberry asked if the one-shot appropriation in the amount of $11,734 for a new phone system was for 12 cellular phones in the Las Vegas area. Mr. Cavakis explained the cellular phones would be distributed one to the Elko office, one to the Fallon office, three to the Reno office, and the remaining seven to the Las Vegas office. Chairman Arberry inquired where the line item charge for the monthly bills was located in the budget. Mr. Cavakis indicated $20 per month for each phone was included in the budget. Chairman Arberry asked what company was providing the service. Mr. Cavakis responded $20 per month was billed through Cellular One for the basic emergency service. The phones were not to be used for regular communication; they were only to be used for critical situations. Chairman Arberry requested detailed information be provided to subcommittee on detention payments by counties and the one-shot appropriation for the new phone system. YOUTH ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT - PAGE 1331 Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections Services, explained budget account 3147 was funding for placement of parolees in a reputable home or program like foster care, group care or residential treatment. Budget account 3147 also included expenditures for the China Spring Youth Camp in Douglas County and the Spring Mountain Youth Camp in Clark County. Senator Raggio inquired if all counties paid their share for use of the China Spring Youth Camp. Mr. Cavakis indicated the agency had trouble collecting from one county, which turned out to be a communication issue, but all other counties paid their share. Senator Raggio asked why county collections fell short by $15,982. Mr. Cavakis replied the agency had recovered all collections. Chairman Arberry, in follow-up to Senator Raggio's questions, remarked the information he had received indicated all collections had not been recovered. Mr. Cavakis stated he had received a check in his office approximately two weeks prior to today's hearing. When Chairman Arberry asked where the check was deposited, Mr. Cavakis responded he was not sure. Annette R. Swainston of the Division of Child and Family Services explained that because the check should have been collected the FY 1994, it was deposited directly to the General Fund, not to a budget account. She offered to provide a copy of the deposit receipt which would show the check was deposited directly to the General Fund. Mr. Cavakis pointed out decision unit M-200 increased funding for placement of chronic and violent youth offenders. The Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee was used exclusively for out-of-state placement. The request for additional funds was due to the increase over the past several years in the number of chronic and violent youth offenders in the agency's programs. Increased funding would allow more youth to be moved into secure facilities for chronic and violent offenders, which would allow the agencies to spend more time on the needs of the general population. Chairman Arberry inquired how many beds were used in FY 1994 in Youth Alternative Placement. Mr. Cavakis indicated the average daily population was seven in FY 1994, but the agency had intentionally held the figure down. Chairman Arberry asked why the population was intentionally held down. Mr. Sarb responded in 1994 Lincoln County built a jail they could not use and were looking for an occupant for the facility. Youth Alternative Placement was in negotiation with Lincoln County for leasing the facility, but Lincoln County defaulted on the lease. When Youth Alternative Placement was looking for money to lease the Lincoln County facility for chronic and violent offenders, the agency chose not to spend the money and thereby artificially depressed the number of youth sent out of state so money could be saved for the possibility of getting into the Lincoln County facility. Mr. Sarb commented regarding the fiscal notes it was very likely that some significant number of chronic and violent offenders would be part of the adult system in the next biennium, in which case the contract amount could be revisited because the agency would not need the amount requested. Chairman Arberry asked if the agency could get by with ten beds. Mr. Sarb replied not over the long haul. The figures were artificially depressed for a short period of time. The study being worked on indicated 40 beds would be needed by January 1996. Some could be kept at the Nevada Youth Training Center. Chairman Arberry asked for an explanation of the proposed increase to 15 beds. Mr. Sarb stated if the number of offenders was 30 to 35 today, some of them could be kept at the Nevada Youth Training Center. For example, the population who had been assigned for a year to the Nevada Youth Training Center because of the seriousness of their offenses was 13% of the population for the five years prior to 1994. The number did not fluctuate more than one half of a percentage point. In 1994 the number spiked to 18%. The agency was starting to see the much heralded increase in incidents of violent crime by juveniles. The policy question now is how will the state respond. Mr. Cavakis remarked he had been advised by Mr. Burgess one of the problems during FY 1994 was an unavailability of needed beds. It had been difficult to find contractors around the nation who were willing to accept these youth from Nevada. Senator Coffin inquired how many youth from around the country were housed at the Corrections Corporation of America Tennessee facility. Mr. Cavakis stated he believed it was 140 beds and most were from Shelby County, Tennessee. Senator Coffin asked what it would take to induce Corrections Corporation of America to take a look at running or creating a small facility for the West. Mr. Cavakis stated he had recently attended a meeting of nine western states correctional administrators in Denver, Colorado. The administrators indicated a need for this type of facility. Mr. Cavakis had since spoken with two different contractors who had expressed an interest in coming into Nevada. One contractor was even looking at the Pioche facility. As a result of being an economy of scale, the facility would need 40 to 60 beds guaranteed to make it operable. Colorado, Utah and Nevada desperately need beds. Senator Coffin asked if it would be desirable to place such a facility in a rural setting. Mr. Cavakis responded he would choose Las Vegas. Senator Coffin inquired if the youth were of such a nature that it was not desirable to have them in a rural setting or doing community service work. Mr. Cavakis replied no, these youth were criminals. Mr. Dini pointed out the last time he had visited the facility at Elko, it was overloaded, there were about 30 to 40 tough kids, guards were getting beat up, kids were getting beat up, and the conditions were bad. He asked if the facility had been cleaned up by shipping some kids out. Mr. Cavakis explained funding and the cap placed on inmate population had allowed the most dangerous and most unmanageable inmates to be moved out of Elko, had given the agency the ability to better deal with the normal inmate population, and had allowed staff turnover to level out. Mr. Dini inquired if attempts had been made to work with the Rite of Passage program. Mr. Cavakis indicated he was in contract negotiations with Rite of Passage at the present time. Mr. Close pointed out there were no performance indicators in the Youth Alternative Placement budget and suggested it would be helpful to the committee if information were provided regarding the change in mix of the inmate population, as indicated in response to Mr. Dini's questions. Mr. Cavakis explained one performance indicator for Youth Alternative Placement was carried in budget account 3259. Mr. Close mentioned performance indicators regarding the number of youth sent to alternative placement, the number in day care, the number in work programs, and the number in education programs would be numbers which the committee members could see where the inmate population was going. Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Sarb if his spending authority was supported by revenue collections. She pointed out it appeared there was some displacement and Mr. Sarb had authority for some Title XIX funding which was not actually realized. Ms. Swainston responded Mrs. Evans was correct. During an FY 1994 Interim Finance Committee meeting a request for budget account 3147 was made to have some Medicaid Rehabilitation funding incorporated into the budget as a line item. Because Medicaid Rehabilitation options and Title IV-A were new to the agency, the agency was specifically looking at budget account 3229 in collecting the Medicaid Rehabilitation dollars. There were no collections that were made for the Medicaid Rehabilitation dollars in budget account 3147 in FY 1994 because of funding that remained in other categories. When Mrs. Evans concluded the agency took General Fund money which was available in other categories, Ms. Swainston responded yes. Mrs. Evans asked why the agency had not yet collected any Title XIX funds in FY 1995. Ms. Swainston explained the agency had begun doing billings for Medicaid Rehabilitation in 1995, which amounted to approximately $20,000 for budget account 3147. When Mrs. Evans inquired if it was anticipated the full amount would be collected, Ms. Swainston responded yes. Mrs. Evans requested a full accounting of the agency's creative bookkeeping be provided to the subcommittee on Human Resources. Mr. Cavakis pointed out there was an increase requested in budget account 3147 for the China Spring Youth Camp, based on their budget request. Prior to every legislative session China Spring Youth Camp submits their proposed budget for the biennium through the Youth Alternative Placement budget. The statute requires that the legislature review and approve the China Spring Youth Camp budget, for which the counties and the state are billed. Senator Raggio requested information on the base rate per day or per month at the China Spring Youth Camp. Mr. Cavakis indicated the China Spring Youth Camp proposal was $59.77 per day for FY 1996 and $61.78 per day for FY 1997. Senator Raggio asked how those figures compared with the current rate. Mr. Cavakis responded in FY 1995 the rate is $56.51 per day. Senator Raggio inquired if budget account 3147 provided fully for China Spring Youth Camp requests, to which Mr. Cavakis replied yes. Senator Jacobsen mentioned since the China Spring Youth Camp was a new facility and there was a new director in the audience, he suggested an update of how many youth were housed at the facility and where they came from would be helpful to the committee. Steven Thaler, Director, China Spring Youth Camp, indicated there were currently 45 residents at the camp. The budget provides for 40 residents. The number fluctuates on a daily basis. The average length of stay is approximately 5 months, 28 days. The average age of residents is 15 years, 6 months. China Spring Youth Camp supports 16 out of 17 counties in the state, the exception being Clark County. As indicated by Mr. Cavakis, the legislature approves a percentage of the money which supports the camp, along with the 16 counties. The residents are tested when coming in and when leaving after their 6-month stay and demonstrate a grade level increase of approximately 2 years, 6 months. The camp is in the wilderness and is unsecured. The residents are monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The success rate of the residents is approximately 87% in the first year after leaving the camp, which is based on reports from probation officers throughout the state. Senator Rhoads mentioned recently Eureka County signed an agreement with Elko County to build a detention facility. He asked what the impact would be on other institutions of that type. Mr. Sarb indicated the Elko/Eureka detention center would be a precommitment holding center. It would be to other facilities as jails were to prisons. Senator Rhoads inquired where youth were being housed at the present time. Mr. Sarb responded the facility has detention capacity now, but they were looking for a larger detention center. When Senator Rhoads stated the agreement between Elko and Eureka Counties would have no effect on China Spring Youth Camp, Mr. Sarb agreed. Mrs. Chowning requested statistics like those presented by Mr. Thaler be provided for Spring Mountain in Clark County. Mrs. Chowning asked what type of after care was provided to residents who had completed their program. Mr. Cavakis explained many youth from China Spring Youth Camp returned to their local probation department and the others went to the Youth Alternative Placement parole caseload. Mrs. Chowning asked if the youth experiencing a success rate of 87% did not end up back in the system somewhere else. Mr. Cavakis inquired of Mr. Thaler how the 87% success rate was determined. Mr. Thaler indicated the report was made from local probation agencies on whether a youth reoffends during the first year following release from the China Spring Youth Camp. Chairman Arberry requested an explanation of decision unit E-900, since no explanation was provided in either the budget narrative or the agency budget request. Ms. Swainston explained decision unit E-900 was a program transfer in addition to the program transfers of the mental health children who were in community beds. Budget transfers would place all placement beds into budget account 3229. PROBATION SUBSIDIES - PAGE 1335 Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections Services, explained budget account 1383 contained the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Subsidies grant which came into the state of Nevada and was passed through to local jurisdictions based on student population. The amount of the grant for FY 1996 and FY 1997 was $379,996. NEVADA YOUTH TRAINING CENTER - PAGE 1337 Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections Services, explained budget account 3259 was the Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko. The facility contained 157 beds as opposed to 160 beds as a result of a retrofit for emergency exits. The facility continues to run nearly 10% over capacity. The average length of stay in FY 1994 was 7.4 months. The center continues to target a stay of 7 months. As pointed out earlier by Mr. Sarb, it was difficult to achieve the seven-month target because of the serious offenders coming to the facility. The facility operates an accredited school with a full-time academic program, including vocational and athletic programs. The facility works with the Forest Service, and in FY 1994 a half million dollars was paid to the youth and staff to fight fires. Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Cavakis to explain the figure of 10% over capacity. Mr. Cavakis explained 10% over capacity was the facility's target figure. In FY 1994 the facility housed 167 youth, which was about 5% over capacity. The fluctuation would go up to 10% over capacity, which was not the average daily population but the single count days. Mrs. Evans inquired if all the dorms at the facility were utilized, to which Mr. Cavakis responded yes. Mrs. Evans requested an explanation of the recommendation to convert a dorm to a boot camp facility. Mr. Cavakis explained the boot camp facility would be operated with existing inmates, who would be classified differently for the specialized program. The bed capacity would not increase for individual days. Because the stay for the boot camp was proposed for 90 days, the total beds would increase over the period of a year. The proposal provided youth be assigned to the boot camp program through a classification process rather than the courts. Mrs. Evans asked if the remainder of the facility would be used as it is now as far as eating and schooling or would the population at the facility be segregated. Mr. Cavakis stated it was planned that the population would be segregated but all the inmates would use the facilities. For example, the youth from the boot camp would eat lunch last or first, but not with the regular population. The proposal had not progressed to program design, but conceptually the inmates would use the facility. Mrs. Evans requested detailed information be provided to the committee members on the proposed boot camp. Senator Rawson pointed out when he visited the Nevada Youth Training Center, it appeared there were a number of units which were in need of repair. He asked if there was adequate grounds and maintenance staff to perform the repairs or if there were capital improvement projects recommended to replace the buildings. Mr. Sarb indicated there were a number of capital improvement projects to refurbish the buildings at the Nevada Youth Training Center. Senator Rawson remarked it was his feeling the subcommittee needed to look historically at the number of youth housed at the training facility and the number of staff available so the committee members could develop a plan of where the facility needed to be. He noted there was Federal funding available for boot camps which follow some fairly rigorous guidelines and asked if there were plans to use the available funding. Mr. Sarb indicated Federal funding for boot camps was not yet available and may not be available as a result of the direction of deliberations on the crime bill. Mr. Sarb explained juvenile boot camps were experimental. Senator Rawson commented boot camps seemed to have an effect for the right mix of youth, and he expressed concern what the effect on the camp would be if more hardened criminals were brought in. Mr. Sarb stated the issue clearly needed a lot of discussion, and he was fully aware of how popular boot camps were. He said there was no good evidence available to indicate juvenile boot camps were successful. Boot camps for young adults had been successful and there was a possibility of seeing some success for the juvenile population. Senator Rawson pointed out the Nevada Youth Training Center was a nice campus which provided an education to youth. He expressed concern that the population was increasing with more hardened criminals, and he wondered if options were being lost for the less serious offender. He suggested these issues be addressed in subcommittee. Mr. Dini asked if it would be better to put 20 youth in the Rite of Passage program instead of going to the expense of remodeling the facility in Elko for an experimental program. Mr. Sarb stated the Rite of Passage program cost approximately $120 per day, Nevada Youth Training Center operated at a cost of $82 per day, and western states averaged $113 per day. Would it be less expensive, no. Mr. Dini inquired if it would be more practical to implement the program as soon as next week. Mr. Sarb responded if Rite of Passage was called a boot camp, the answer would be yes, but the folks at Rite of Passage bristle at the suggestion they are a boot camp. Mr. Dini noted Rite of Passage desert training was pretty close to a boot camp. Mr. Sarb indicated the program continues for two years beyond the desert training. Mr. Fettic commented he would not be on the subcommittee dealing with these issues, but it did not make any sense to reduce the beds by 20 and call it a boot camp. Common sense says boot camps are for less serious offenders. Ms. Giunchigliani commented she also was not on the subcommittee but some of her students had been assigned through the court system to the facility at Elko. She requested information on the number of youth from Clark County assigned to Elko. Mr. Cavakis responded approximately 65% of the inmate population was from Clark County. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the facility would be located in the northern part of the state, especially if the youth were not adjudicated through the court system. Mr. Sarb commented there was a misunderstanding. Ms. Giunchigliani said it was her understanding the youth were to be classified but not by the court system. Mr. Sarb stated all children in the Nevada Youth Training Center or Caliente Youth Center were committed to the division for incarceration for a delinquent offense. The number of commitments was not being increased. Ms. Giunchigliani concluded the youth would be shuffled by placing 20 youth adjudicated by the court into a fenced area called a boot camp. Mr. Sarb said he was not saying the court would be given a new commitment option to say boot camp. Ms. Giunchigliani requested information on the classification of the 65% of youthful offenders from Clark County as to who the youth were and why they would be taken from a program that actually was working and segregate them into a new program, rather than saying what youthful offenders are out there now who might be brought into the system without having to go to court and are eligible for retraining so they can be functioning members of society. If that is what a boot camp is, she said she did not understand why the agency was taking them from court adjudicated students who were already there for having broken the law. She stressed the program needed to be effective, the students who were going to be served needed to be defined, and location needed to be part of the equation. Mr. Sarb indicated Ms. Giunchigliani's comments highlighted the need for extensive subcommittee discussion, because he had never heard her notion of a boot camp expressed anywhere else in the country. Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Sarb provide in writing the information Ms. Giunchigliani needed. Mr. Marvel expressed concern about placing a boot camp at a facility able to house 176 inmates but had a head count of 180 inmates. Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Burgess respond to Mr. Marvel's concern. Mr. Sarb reminded the committee members that the legislatively commissioned NCCD report presented at the hearings two years prior made it very clear the problem stemmed from incarcerating far too many lightweight offenders and that was the strategic direction the agency was taking. Boot camps, to the extent they had been successful, targeted lightweight offenders. The question is, is it possible to handle inmates in 90 days instead of the present 180 days with no adverse results in terms of recidivism, which is the essential test. Mrs. Chowning requested statistics be brought to subcommittee both for the Caliente Youth Center and the Nevada Youth Training Center in terms of the recidivism rate, do the inmates get better grades while at the camp, and were they true success stories. Edwin C. Burgess, Superintendent, Nevada Youth Training Center, offered to provide the requested information to the committee members. Chairman Arberry asked the number of youth housed at the facility, to which Mr. Burgess responded 180. Eight youth were being transferred to the Caliente Youth Center. Chairman Arberry inquired about the average number of youth housed at the facility over the past year. Mr. Burgess indicated in FY 1994 the average was 167 for each day of the year. The average for first half of FY 1995 was 171 youth. Mrs. Evans requested information on how the boot camp would impact the ongoing program. Mr. Burgess stated he had not been involved in the planning and development of the boot camp concept, so he could not respond to the impact on the ongoing program, even to the point of knowing what kinds of youth would be served. Senator Rawson asked if there was presently a psychological staff to respond to the court-ordered counseling. Mr. Burgess stated the camp did not have a Ph.D. Psychologist on staff, but there were some bachelor-level staff who were cottage counselors and alcohol-drug abuse counselors. Senator Rawson asked if the staff to inmate ratio had deteriorated over the past five years. Mr. Burgess indicated the camp had lost some positions through budget cuts which had not been reinstated. Senator Rawson requested information be provided to the committee on the maintenance staff. Mr. Burgess stated the camp had lost an electrician position and there had not been a request to reinstate that position. When Senator Rawson inquired as to the number of maintenance staff at the camp, Mr. Burgess responded there were four maintenance positions. Senator Rawson asked about the area of the campus and the number of buildings at the site. Mr. Burgess indicated there were 640 acres of land with its own separate water system consisting of deep water wells, city sewer system, garbage pickup system, boiler maintenance system, road maintenance system, 18 buildings, dormitories and out buildings, and 40 acres of grass playing and athletic fields. The facility staff did all the needed painting. Mr. Marvel asked if the facility now had a decent generator. Mr. Burgess responded a generator was acquired as part of a fire retrofit and capital improvement project. Mr. Close inquired why the sewer fees were going to increase by $125 per month in each year of the biennium. Mr. Burgess indicated the fee increase was the result of increases in rates and a monthly assessment fee. Mr. Spitler pointed out there were $1.6 million in one-shot appropriations to pull the facility together. He asked how much was spent in the last biennium on the facility. Mr. Burgess responded roughly $800,000. Mr. Spitler asked if in excess of $2 million was spent to bring the facility up to code, to which Mr. Burgess answered yes. Mr. Spitler stated yet no more people would be served. A certain section would be segregated and that section would then be called the boot camp. He questioned the cost effectiveness of spending in excess of $2 million to bring the facility up to code. Mr. Sarb said he felt in four years, no more than six years, a long-range decision needed to be made about the future of the Nevada Youth Training Center, because the useful life of the facility was coming to an end. Senator Jacobsen commented over the years the committee members had very diligently talked about an active interim committee. The questions raised at this committee prove again not many people have been to China Spring, Elko or Caliente. He stressed he visits these facilities on an annual basis and therein lie some of the answers to the questions raised today. He suggested an interim committee would be well worthwhile. CALIENTE YOUTH CENTER - PAGE 1347 Robert A. Cavakis, Director, Youth Corrections Services, explained budget account 3179 was the Caliente Youth Center, a co-educational correctional facility with 60 female beds and 80 male beds. The facility continued to run between 5% and 10% over design capacity. The males came to Caliente after first going through correctional classification at the Nevada Youth Training Center, which seemed to be working well. The inmates tended to be younger and less sophisticated. If a male inmate did not adapt well to the program at Caliente, he was transferred back to the Nevada Youth Training Center. Caliente used a program called positive peer culture where the other youth would participate in the actual program design and completion. The school program was provided through the Lincoln County School District. The only education cost was a line item to pay Lincoln County additional funding to operate the school program on a year-round basis. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the measurement indicators showed 178 males and 118 females in 1994, but the females were projected to drop down to 74 in FY 1995. She asked if the agency was limiting the number of beds accessible to the females so there would be a waiting list. Mr. Cavakis stressed the agency did not limit the number of beds for females. A waiting list may have been created for a few days when a youth was committed and the agency gave the court a delivery date for the waiting child. The 118 figure was felt to be a blip. The present female population is 53. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the co-educational classrooms were working. Mr. Cavakis explained the facility recently opened a new vocational school building on campus which housed a computer school and a print shop. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the committee members needed to view the facility, although a standing committee did not seem necessary. Ms. Giunchigliani requested information on the correctional classification be provided to the committee members. Senator O'Donnell asked if the new vocational school building was paid for out of budget account 3179. Mr. Cavakis responded the facility was paid for out of capital improvements. Senator O'Donnell inquired whether the agency participated in the distributive school fund for the individual children in the facility. Mr. Cavakis stated Lincoln County did participate for the Caliente Youth Center. Senator O'Donnell asked what the reimbursement rate was, to which Mr. Cavakis replied approximately $5,800. Senator O'Donnell inquired what the reimbursement rate was in Clark County. Ms. Giunchigliani stated because Clark County was a rural county, the wealth equalization factor came into play. Senator O'Donnell wondered about the equitableness of the $5,800 figure. Since most of the children were coming from the Las Vegas area and were temporarily assigned to Caliente, how would the Nevada Plan work. Mr. Cavakis stated he was not familiar with the Nevada Plan, but other factors must be considered. The inmate population required services beyond what the normal schools could provide. The superintendent of the Lincoln County School District would be able to provide the needed information. Chairman Arberry requested Mr. Cavakis address important items in budget account 3179. Mr. Cavakis explained decision unit E-175 was additional in-state travel for staff training. Decision unit E-250 reflected a portion of the Carl Perkins Vocational Federal grant received by the State Board of Education in the amount of $49,000. The money received would be used for staff and specialized vocational programs. Chairman Arberry asked if it was anticipated there would be grant increases. Mr. Cavakis stated he could not answer the question. The agency had been told for several years they were not eligible to receive the grant. He was contacted by the Department of Education in FY 1994 and was told the State Board of Education decided the agency should participate in the grant. Chairman Arberry pointed out the Interim Finance Committee allocated $71,171 in FY 1994 to cover utility shortfalls due to rate increases. He asked if the agency would need supplemental funding again in FY 1995 to cover utility expenses. Mr. Cavakis replied yes, and the agency was advised by the legislature to watch the utility bills. The agency had requested a significant increase in the utility line item based on a letter from the Lincoln County Public Utility District stating there would be increases in utility rates. The legislature advised the agency that funding would not be provided until the rates were, in fact, raised, which was in June. Chairman Arberry asked why a request was not included in the budget to cover the rate increases. Mr. Cavakis replied the agency was waiting to see what the increases would be. Curtis B. Stewart, Superintendent, Caliente Youth Center, explained a utility request was built into the budget for the next biennium, but a request for FY 1995 had not been made. Mr. Sarb stated a supplemental utility increase would be needed for FY 1995, the same as for FY 1994. For the coming FY 1995-97 biennium, the known rate increases had been annualized. The confusion was with future increases. Chairman Arberry inquired what the bottom line figure would be to cover the utility rate increases. Mr. Stewart said he did not know yet, but it was estimated at $45,000. Chairman Arberry asked why $45,000 was not requested in the budget as a supplemental expense. Mr. Stewart indicated a supplemental request would be submitted. CHAPTER I - SPECIAL EDUCATION PROJECT - PAGE 1353 Marilyn K. Walter, Chief of the Division of Child and Family Services, Early Childhood Services, explained budget account 3276 covered a variety of functions for Early Childhood Services, which included administrative support for Early Childhood Services. The agency was the lead agency for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), specifically Part H which serves ages birth through two years and their families. A variety of special projects ran through budget account 3276 which focuses on respite services, crisis services, a Happy Outreach Project training grant, and a resource library. Direct services supported by budget account 3276 include the Happy Program, a rural-based program providing home-based services for children and families, and an infant enhancement program which provides staff to work in two northern hospital neonatal intensive care units. Additionally, there was a request to transfer the First Step Program staff from budget account 3279 in the Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation to budget account 3276. Ms. Walter stated budget account 3276 was organized into categories by funding source, and positions were identified by funding source. After personnel expenses were deducted from revenue, the remainder went into an expense category. There were nine revenue sources within budget account 3276. Nevada chose to use Federal funds to meet General Fund obligations. State dollars provided approximately 10% of the funding dollars, with the rest coming from Federal dollars. The base budget in FY 1996 included the loss of the Chapter I funding, which Nevada began receiving in 1965 and will terminate effective July 1, 1995. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out measurement indicators in the north for average number of clients on a waiting list were 19 in FY 1994, 8 projected for FY 1996, and 0 projected for FY 1997. Ms. Walter indicated the reduction was the result of a decision unit which would fund an additional position to increase the number of children served. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the intent of the agency was to reach zero on the waiting list by FY 1997. Ms. Walter replied that was correct, and the agency would meet the mandate of IDEA, Part H. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what the allowable caseload was under IDEA. Ms. Walter stated there were no standards, per se, but the agency was striving in the rural areas for 1:16, which required an extensive amount of travel, 1:20 for severely involved children, and 1:25 for programs serving less involved children. Ms. Giunchigliani called attention to a notation which states "for all eligible children" and asked how many children were eligible for the program. Ms. Walter explained budget account 3276 also funded services within the Division of Health. Referring to a display chart, Ms. Walter pointed out in FY 1994 the agency served 1,288 children statewide, FY 1995 projected 1,480 children which included the Medicaid children, FY 1996 projected an additional 97 children, and FY 1995 projected an additional 104 children. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the agreements regarding overlapping services for 3-year-olds in the school districts were working out. Ms. Walter stated the agency had many joint activities with all of the local education districts. Districts had individual education plans, but the Special Education Project maintained the same due process procedures in order to maintain the same system so families would operate under one set of rules. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if she would find funding for the Special Education Project in education budgets. Ms. Walter stated all funding went directly to the Department of Human Resources. Mr. Close inquired if the data was correct in the measurement indicators which demonstrated a decrease in the projected categories versus actuals. Ms. Walter stated that was correct. The decrease in one area was the result of the implementation of case management services which required a great deal more time be spent with each family in identifying services they needed. Mr. Close asked if the projections for FY 1995 and FY 1996 would need to be revised. Ms. Walter indicated FY 1996 projections were accurate, but FY 1995 projections could be revised, if given the opportunity. Chairman Arberry called for public testimony. Sheila Leslie, lobbyist for Action for Nevada's Children, distributed a copy of her testimony to the committee members (Exhibit I). She explained Action for Nevada's Children (ANC) was a statewide association of citizens and organizations interested in children's issues. ANC had identified four areas of the Division of Child and Family Services budget which would be tracked in subcommittee and most of the areas would be taken up in subcommittee meetings. Lowering foster family caseloads and increasing payments for foster families had already been discussed. The third area of interest to ANC was ensuring the safety of foster children. There were many safety issues built into the budget, and ANC encouraged the committee's continued support. The last area of concern which had not received a lot of attention was early intervention mental health crisis services, which was listed in the budget as Project Crisis. The program provides intensive home-based therapeutic crisis intervention for families at risk of abusing their children. Federal funds for the program would terminate September 30, 1996, and it appeared the program had been zeroed out. The agency had requested funding, which was denied. Ms. Leslie encouraged the committee members to look again at the project in subcommittee. Mr. Price complimented Mr. Sarb and his organization for providing the outstanding graphs presented during his testimony. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING & REHABILITATION DIRECTOR'S OFFICE - PAGE 1361 Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation (DETR), explained the budget covered pages 1361 through 1534 and included approximately 26 accounts. She mentioned the DETR budget was funded 93% by Federal funds. The agency kept tabs on what Congress did in Washington regarding the possibility of block grants. Because Nevada was very wise in the FY 1993 legislative session by combining the majority of the programs that affected DETR, Nevada was well situated. But if block grants were awarded to the state, DETR would be ready to receive those block grants affecting the department. Ms. Jackson defined the mission of DETR was to provide quality and timely employment training and rehabilitation services to the citizens of Nevada in the most economical and equitable manner possible. The department was created by NRS 232.910 which combined the major employment and training agencies in the state of Nevada. The department consisted of the Employment Securities Division, Rehabilitation Division, State Job Training Office, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, Drug Commission, State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, Governor's Committee for the Employment of Persons with Disabilities, and Nevada Commission for National and Community Service. The budget formalized the consolidation of financial and personnel services into the Administrative Services section and an information development and processing division without any new positions. At the present time DETR consists of 744.6 permanent positions. There is a proposal to convert 61.4 intermittent positions to permanent status. Intermittent positions will remain to handle the seasonal variation in the of employment security workload. There are approximately 21 new positions requested in the DETR budget, which is approximately a 2.47% increase in staffing, bringing the total positions for the department to 870. The total DETR budget for FY 1996 is $94 million and for FY 1997 is $95 million. The state portion of the DETR budget for FY 1996 is approximately $6.8 million and FY 1997 is approximately $6.6 million. Ms. Jackson pointed out there are two one-shot appropriations, one in the amount of $275,000 for the purchase of equipment and filtering systems designed to protect patients and staff at the alcohol and drug treatment centers and the other in the amount of $227,000 in seed money for the developmental disabilities program for low-income housing to enable the disabled to live more independently. Senator O'Donnell asked if contacts were made with Washington in terms of DETR and their funding. Ms. Jackson stated she was in contact with the National Governors Association, the International Association of Employment Security Agencies (IAESA), and the rehabilitation agencies in the Department of Education, and they kept DETR posted on a continual basis. DETR has someone in the IAESA agency located in Washington who continually faxes information. Ms. Jackson stated she had spoken with Senator Bryan's and Senator Reid's offices and made them aware of Nevada's concern about the block grants, and Ms. Jackson was assured she would be kept informed as information became available. Ms. Jackson explained she was before the Interim Finance Committee in March 1994 and was allowed to create the Director's Office with a budget providing for four positions. She recommended seven additional positions be brought to the Director's Office. The figures for actual FY 1993-94 on page 1361 represent 41% of the year, and the remainder of the base has been annualized. The work program indicates the agency request is for $393,488 and the Governor recommended $381,348 for the four positions currently in the Director's Office. Moving to page 1362, Ms. Jackson explained the expenditures outlined were a result of the Director's Office budget for the four positions. Ms. Jackson stated under decision Unit M-525 DETR had submitted an addendum for the Americans with Disabilities Act in the amount of $25,000. The Governor recommended $2,500. The total amount of $27,500 would be left in the account to provide funding to hire disabled clients immediately without the need of waiting for Interim Finance to approve a request. The adjustments to workstations could cost as much as $10,000. The account would be used department wide. Chairman Arberry requested Ms. Jackson provide information on the reorganization of DETR which created the Director's Office, because it was his understanding the reorganization was delayed until the 1995-1997 biennium. Ms. Jackson stated DETR went before the Interim Finance Committee in March 1994 to establish the Director's Office. In July 1994 DETR requested permission to reassign staff to establish an administrative services unit and information, development, and processing unit. NRS 232.910 states that the director can create any divisions she sees necessary. A new division was not created before appearing at the Assembly Way and Means Committee. Ms. Jackson stated she administratively reassigned staff to enable small agencies without financial management services, data processing services, or any type of personnel services to have these types of services which would be funded out of their budget accounts. Chairman Arberry asked why DETR did not come before the Interim Finance Committee before the start of the legislative session to discuss the reorganization. Ms. Jackson stated she went to the Interim Finance Committee in July 1994. At that time it was decided to wait until the Joint Hearings to ask permission to establish the new divisions because of a number of questions raised at the Interim Finance Committee meeting. Ms. Jackson explained she did an administrative assignment pending permission of the Joint Subcommittee to permanently assign staff to the new areas. Chairman Arberry inquired what would happen if the request was not approved. Ms. Jackson replied nothing would happen except the smaller agencies would not receive some services they currently receive. Since the funding source would not change, they would just disband. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if David M. Griffith and Associates did cost allocations for all departments or just for DETR. Paula E. Steinbauer, Budget Analyst, responded this was the Statewide Cost Allocation Plan. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Ms. Steinbauer was aware there was a change in the methodologies by the Griffith company in how the cost allocations were assessed. Ms. Steinbauer stated she was not an expert in the assessment of cost allocations but would provide a written explanation to the committee. Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Jackson to continue with the Director's Office budget explanation. Ms. Jackson called attention to decision unit E-912 for program transfers. A request was being made to fund two full-time positions with the Attorney General's office, one for the Director's Office in northern Nevada and one in southern Nevada, to provide department-wide services for DETR. DETR had been actively using the Attorney General's office on many issues. Appeals referees located in the Employment Security Division had requested access to the Attorney General's office on day-to-day questions during hearings. Mr. Marvel noted there were state and department allocations and asked how the cost allocation plan was crafted. Ms. Steinbauer explained the cost allocation plan was based on full-time equivalency. All costs were summed and divided by each agency based on the number of employees. Mr. Marvel inquired if the cost allocation plan had received Federal approval. Ms. Steinbauer stated the cost allocation plan had not yet received approval but was in the process. Mr. Marvel asked if it was anticipated approval would be received by the Federal government. Ms. Jackson stated she had met with the Department of Labor and discussed major changes, particularly in the Employment Security Division. The Department of Labor staff indicated they did not anticipate any problems with the approval of the cost allocation plan. Mr. Marvel questioned what would happen if the cost allocation plan were not approved. Bruce Tucker, Assistant Chief Financial Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, explained the issue was not the cost allocation to FTE. The cognitive agency, probably the Department of Labor, did approvals for the Employment Security Division. What is being changed in the cost allocation is how the Rehabilitation Division currently allocates their cost, which is on an indirect cost allocation based on salaries. Mr. Marvel reiterated, what would happen if the cost allocation plan were not approved. Mr. Tucker replied DETR would have to go back and reconstruct how the allocations were done in the Rehabilitation budget. Senator O'Donnell asked if the two Attorney Generals would be assigned to DETR and whether funding would be provided through the Attorney General's budget or DETR's budget. Ms. Jackson responded it was her understanding DETR now paid an assessment to the Attorney General's office. The only DETR office which does not currently have access to the Attorney General's office may be the Employment Security Division. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the request was to provide funding for two Attorney General positions to be assigned to DETR as opposed to DETR requesting two positions. Ms. Jackson stated the Attorney General already had staff that would be assigned to DETR, and DETR would fund the expense for the two Attorney Generals. Senator O'Donnell asked how the funding would work if the Attorney General already had staff and DETR was requesting funds to pay for Attorney Generals who had already been hired. Ms. Jackson replied it was her belief the Attorney General cost allocates the expense back to the agency which used their services. She offered to provide a statement from the Attorney General's office in response to the question. Senator O'Donnell expressed concern the positions would be funded twice. Senator Raggio stated it had come to his attention DETR had private attorneys and asked where those expenses were reflected in the DETR budget. Ms. Jackson replied the Employment Security Division had two private attorneys on contract from November 1, 1994, through October 30, 1995. Presently there are Attorney Generals working in the Rehabilitation Division and the Equal Rights Commission. Senator Raggio asked if it was planned to terminate the private legal contract with the Employment Security Division, to which Ms. Jackson replied yes. Senator Raggio requested a cost comparison of the private attorneys versus the Attorney Generals. Ms. Jackson agreed to provide the information. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a flow chart of the department structure. Mr. Close asked what was accomplished during the 34 travel days out of state. Ms. Jackson explained DETR was 93% federally funded and was required to attend conferences put on by the Federal government for the Equal Rights Commission, Employment Security Division, and some training and travel with the Rehabilitation Division. Chairman Arberry asked if there were other parts of the Director's Office budget Ms. Jackson would like to address. Ms. Jackson noted decision unit E-920 was requesting an auditor located in the Rehabilitation Division be transferred to the Director's Office. Because the Director's Office is federally funded, they require internal audits. A team consisting of Ms. Jackson's executive assistant in Las Vegas, the requested Auditor II position, and perhaps one more department staff would perform the internal audits. The Department of Labor would provide specific training for the auditors. DETR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PAGE 1367 Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation (DETR), explained budget account 3272 was created through administrative reassignment by the transfer of facilities, office staff, auditors, and Financial Management to enable DETR to provide services for all departments. Chairman Arberry asked why there were no performance indicators for budget account 3272. Ms. Jackson replied there were no performance indicators because the budget account was new. She offered to provide present work products to the committee. Chairman Arberry requested performance indicators be provided to the committee for all DETR budget accounts. Senator O'Donnell pointed out budget account 3272 did not reflect any employees. John R. Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation, explained there were 44.5 positions being transferred into budget account 3272, including 6 from Personnel, 35 financial positions, and the balance being in Office Services. There was a misprint on page 1372. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated his explanation this morning about the position transfers not showing up in the FTE count at the bottom of each budget account did not apply this morning, but it applied now. Anything that has a position transfer in it will not be reflected in the FTE count at the bottom of the budget summary due to a glitch in the data processing system. Mr. Dini mentioned during the reorganization in the last biennium there was some difficulty when an attempt was made to transfer the Employment Security Division staff. He asked if the proposed transfers would cause any repercussions with the Federal government. Ms. Jackson replied there would be no repercussions. Senator Coffin pointed out during the beginning of the last session the committee was told there would be no problem with the transfers, and then there was a lot of resistance from the Federal government over the transfers. For this reason, the issues needed to be nailed down. Senator Coffin inquired if DETR had any written documentation explaining the consolidation request. Ms. Jackson said there was written documentation and she would provide it to the committee. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the auditors would be transferred to the Employment Security Division. Ms. Jackson replied it was proposed in the Governor's budget that DETR would receive the audit function back from the Department of Taxation. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if the audit function would be placed with budget account 3272 or the Employment Security Division. Ms. Jackson responded the audit function would return to the Employment Security Division budget. A recommendation was being made from the Department of Taxation that 55 combined audits could be performed. It was proposed the Employment Security Division would do the 2% penetration, as required by the Federal government. If the 55 combined audits were done by the Department of Taxation, they would be paid a fee for service. Budget account 3272 has allocated approximately $13,000 for service fees. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired where the $13,000 budget item was located. She also asked if 3 of the 27 positions coming from the Employment Security Division were seasonal positions, since 24 positions were permanent. Ms. Jackson stated three positions were seasonal, and the Employment Security Division recommended the three positions be converted from intermittent to permanent positions. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what types of positions were being transferred from the Employment Security Division. Ms. Jackson stated the positions were in financial management. The proposal would consolidate 27 financial management staff from the Employment Security Division, 13 from the Rehabilitation Division, and 1.5 from the State Job Training Office. Ms. Giunchigliani stated all financial management staff would be brought into budget account 3272, and fees would be cost allocated to agencies requiring financial services. She inquired where the financial management staff would be housed, to which Ms. Jackson replied the Employment Security Division. The staff would be combined in one unit so they could talk to each other and provide coverage if someone were sick. The financial management of the Equal Rights Commission had improved since being administratively assigned to budget account 3272. In response to Ms. Giunchigliani's question regarding the location of the audit function, Mr. Orr explained it was located in budget account 4770 in decision unit E-961 on page 1422. The salaries of the returning auditors would be offset by the Employment Security Division and Employment Security Special Fund no longer paying the Department of Taxation for doing audits. Mr. Spitler asked if efficiency savings were included in the documentation explaining the consolidation requested by Senator Coffin. Ms. Jackson stated efficiency savings were included in the documentation. Cost savings would not be depicted in a large organization like DETR, but improvements would be made. Mr. Spitler agreed efficiencies could not always be expressed in dollar amounts, but performance indicators could show problems were being turned around in one day as opposed to five days. He suggested the committee would like to know why this configuration would work better either financially, more expeditiously, or empowering smaller agencies through consolidation. Mr. Hettrick noted decision unit E-720 requested six personal computers. He asked why new equipment was needed if the proposed transfer positions were staying where they were, and were there Federal regulations which would prevent the transfer of equipment purchased with Federal funding. Ms. Jackson responded it was replanned to purchase new equipment before the reorganization. Of the six personal computers requested, two were for the Office Services unit, one was for Personnel and Training, and three were for Financial Management. Computers were at times shared with smaller agencies. Bruce Tucker, Assistant Chief Financial Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, explained technology in the Employment Security Division had advanced faster than other agencies, and staff was running under the Windows environment. A study was performed to determine if the older computers should be upgraded or new equipment should be purchased, and it was found purchasing new equipment would be more economical because of the large increase in capacity that was needed. Mr. Hettrick asked what would happen to the six existing personal computers if new equipment was purchased, and could equipment be transferred without problems from the Federal government. Mr. Tucker explained three computers were being purchased as replacement equipment and three were being purchased as new acquisitions. The replacement equipment would be in the Employment Security Division where they were originally purchased. Some of the smaller computers were not able to perform the work required by the Financial Management Division. Mr. Hettrick inquired if there would be a problem with the Federal government in transferring equipment. Mr. Tucker responded the equipment would probably be passed within the Employment Security Division first, and if it was found the equipment was not needed, it would be put up as surplus property. DETR INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING - PAGE 1373 Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, introduced James S. Hanna, Division Administrator, DETR Information and Development Processing Division. Mr. Hanna explained this was a new division created to consolidate the data processing, research and labor market information activities within the division. There are 70 existing positions in the division, the majority of which are federally funded. The budget reflects $220,000 in user fees. Before the division was created there was a wide disparity in data processing capabilities, ranging from a large mainframe system with statewide capabilities down to some agencies with a single personal computer. There was no electronic communication or standardization among agencies. The Employment Security Division mainframe was obsolete, and the software would not allow the division to run various programs and applications. Mr. Hanna stated since the Information and Development Processing Division was created, they were converting to the Department of Information Services (DIS) IBM ES9000 computer system. It was estimated the annual savings to Information and Development Processing by using DIS was estimated at $200,000 to $600,000. The present cost for the mainframe system and related communications network is $800,000 annually. The budget reflects an increase in information services to just over $1 million, but what is not reflected in the budget would be expenses necessary to purchase new peripheral equipment. By going to DIS there would be elimination of duplicate software, use of DIS communication lines throughout the state at a lower cost, and access to a variety of communication software and application software. Mr. Hanna pointed out the consolidation brought Employment Security Research and the State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC) into the division. SOICC was a small three-staff office which was federally funded and was responsible for coordinating labor market information statewide. It has the Nevada Career Information System, a computerized career guidance system for high schools throughout the state. The consolidation will reduce overhead and salary costs and will provide SOICC more support than in the past. Mr. Hanna drew attention to other non-state resources in the amount of $262,507 on page 1374. As mentioned in the narrative, Information and Development Processing anticipated bringing in revenue up to $500,000 as a result of contracting with Federal and state agencies. Contract services would be provided to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Veterans Employment Service, and the Office of Nuclear Projects for projects ranging from operating econometric modes to developing exportable software. Expenditure items would allow Information and Development Processing to bring in temporary assistance from outside resources such as DIS, software support, statisticians, and economists. The contracts would bring in revenue resources without the need to hire additional permanent staff. Mr. Hanna called attention to decision unit E-720, new equipment. He explained although Information and Development Processing was transferring the mainframe operation to DIS, they would still maintain their own internal local area network and wide area network along with four personal computers. The remainder of the expense item would be for application and network software. Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was her understanding 70 current staff were being transferred from four other agencies due to the consolidation. Information and Development Processing would interface with DIS as well as produce labor market information and economic modeling. She asked if it was anticipated revenues would be received in the amount of approximately $500,000 by expending $262,000 to do independent contracts. Mr. Hanna responded affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired who Information and Development Processing would contract with. Mr. Hanna stated the division has contracted with Federal and state agencies. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the division had charged for their services in the past, where would the revenue be reflected in the budget. Mr. Hanna explained the division currently has $280,000 in contracts. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the Employment Security Division (ESD) produced labor statistics and many of the transfers were coming from ESD. She inquired what staff remained at ESD and what their function would be. Mr. Hanna replied the transfer included the Employment Security Division research section, which did labor market statistics for the state, the data processing section, which did program development, and operations and network support staff. Labor market information and data processing services would continue to be developed in order to support ESD and DETR. Ms. Giunchigliani concluded other agencies did not perform duplicate research efforts for Federal, state or private sectors. Mr. Hanna agreed, and stated in the area of labor market information, Information and Development Processing was the cooperating representative for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they received $665,000 yearly to provide the official labor force and employment statistics for the state of Nevada. Ms. Tiffany complimented the Employment Security Division staff and suggested they be transferred to DIS. Ms. Tiffany asked when the decision was made to use the DIS mainframe, 1) if permission was received from the Federal government to use the services of the mainframe, 2) was new software purchased, and 3) was funding provided to transfer the data from one system to the other. Mr. Hanna explained Information and Development Processing was gearing up to transfer data to the DIS mainframe, and no money had been set aside for that activity since staff time was involved as opposed to outside funding. Information and Development Processing currently pays $800,000 yearly for software and hardware maintenance, which will cease to be expense items when their mainframe is no longer used. The $800,000 will then be used for DIS services. Ms. Tiffany inquired if new software was purchased. Mr. Hanna stated Information and Development Processing would use DIS software. He explained in decision unit E-720 $49,000 was allocated for software application tools for the personal computers. Ms. Tiffany stated DIS's software was not Employment Security Division software. She remarked she was confused about the costs for software, staff, and the request for funds to compete with private sector. She asked why the agencies were not closed, staff put into data processing, and thereby saving everybody money. Mr. Hanna explained Information and Development Processing was requesting the authority to spend $262,000, which would be generated by the division, as opposed to requesting funding from taxpayers of $262,000. Ms. Tiffany commented taxpayers were paying the salary for employees to get contracts, and it was not evident all the costs were reflected in the budget request. Mr. Hanna explained the costs were in staff time and the loss of work performed during the conversion. In answer to the software question, Mr. Hanna stated the Information and Development Processing application software would run on the DIS mainframe. The advantage of going to DIS would be accessibility to newer versions of software. Ms. Tiffany remarked she would be looking in subcommittee to answers regarding what the new group would be doing, who is funding the group, where would the business come from, and the true costs for the conversions. Mr. Fettic asked if people were being transferred from one agency to another. Mr. Hanna replied responsibility was being transferred. Mr. Fettic inquired if the staff being transferred would be doing the same job for a different boss, to which Mr. Hanna replied affirmatively. OFFICE OF EQUAL RIGHTS - PAGE 1395 and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - PAGE 1401 Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, stated budget account 2580 needed to be addressed in conjunction with budget account 2583, the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, pages 1395 through 1406. She and John Orr would each present part of the agency budget because of issues the committee needed to be made aware. Also present were Attorney Generals Gordon Fink and John Albrecht, who would provide testimony regarding the Equal Rights Commission. The Equal Rights Commission had a significant problem in reference to case closures in past. In FY 1994 the Equal Rights Commission was paid for 881 of 1,129 case closures by the Federal EEOC, which represented an increase in case closures of 28%. The Federal government does not pay for all case closures, but the more cases closed, the more agencies are paid. In FY 1994 the Equal Rights Commission contracted for 881 case closures, and the Federal government increased the contract to 908. It was Ms. Jackson's feeling the agency should close as many cases as possible because of the existing backlog. Ms. Jackson indicated at the direction of the Federal government she met with the Colorado Equal Rights Commission, and their compliance investigators were only required to close 7 cases per month. The work performance standards for the Office of Equal Rights compliance investigators require 15 case closures per month. If case closures are not performed, funding is not received from the Federal government. Ms. Jackson was told too many cases were being closed in Nevada which made other state's equal rights commissions look bad. In discussing this with Jim Mulhall, the Governor's Chief of Staff, it was decided to look at going to the national level for funding of more case closures. Ms. Jackson pointed out the Office of Equal Rights had a commission headed by Anita Laruy which meets regularly. The commission has met approximately three times since April 1994. The commission looked at the old regulations and adopted new ones. Training which addressed how to determine probable cause, mediation and arbitration was provided for the Office of Equal Rights compliance investigators and the commissioners. She recognized there was a delay in the past in forwarding required reports to the Interim Finance Committee. A letter has been sent to the Legislative Counsel Bureau indicating at the close of each quarter they will receive faxed status reports. The Office of Equal Rights had pilot programs with hotels and casinos in southern Nevada to help expedite equal rights processing. Senator Coffin pointed out he had seen measurement indicators for cases filed, complaints received, and cases closed, but he was looking for a measurement indicator reflecting the inventory of cases and the aging of cases. John R. Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, explained Mark Stevens was provided an expanded budget narrative for the Office of Equal Rights where it was identified the performance indicators were either irrelevant or nonsense, and alternative performance indicators of the type requested by Senator Coffin were suggested. The inventory of charges on hand at the end of FY 1994 was 1,139, with projected complaints of 1,256 in FY 1995, resolved complaints of 1,129, and 1,226 cases on hand at the end of FY 1995. Extending into the biennium the inventory of cases on hand would grow despite the increased production. It is expected by the end of FY 1996 there will be 1,510 charges on hand and in FY 1997 there will be 1,699 charges on hand. In reference to aging, at the end of FY 1993 there were 563 cases over the 270-day limit, which has been reduced to 475 cases. The process is slow because of the large number of aged cases. The goal is to achieve a 90-day turnaround by implementing rapid- resolution techniques. Senator Coffin stated he was troubled by an increasing inventory without an increase in staff. Mr. Orr replied he had promised the Interim Finance Committee he would not come back and ask for General Fund money. The agency request was for six additional federally funded compliance investigators. After the request was made it was discovered the Federal government was not going to pay for the work performed. Senator Coffin inquired whether he should address his questions to the Budget Office rather than the Office of Equal Rights. Mr. Orr replied the question should be addressed to Washington. He felt the EEOC should pay the Office of Equal Rights for their production. Senator Coffin pointed out the state of Nevada had an obligation under state law to protect the civil rights of its citizens. He expressed surprise and anger by this Administration's inability to recognize the problem. This was the fourth session he has seen an increase in inventory and a request for more staff, but this was the first time blame has been placed with the Federal government. Many women and elderly people depend on the legislature to enforce their statutes. The statutes must literally be paper because they were not being enforced. He suggested meeting with the Budget Office to find out why they put through another hollow budget. The Budget Office either cares about civil rights or does not. Senator Coffin stressed he expected a written response from the Budget Office. Paula E. Steinbauer, Budget Analyst, stated she would provide a written explanation to the committee. She explained, as stated by Mr. Orr, it was decided not to fund the six positions until productivity increased with the staff currently in place. Senator Coffin asked if increased productivity had been demonstrated. Ms. Steinbauer replied affirmatively. Senator Coffin inquired if Ms. Steinbauer and the Governor were impressed by the increases observed. Ms. Steinbauer stated she could not speak for the Governor. Senator Coffin stressed he would like to hear from Administration about whether it cares for the civil rights of its citizens. Senator O'Donnell stated he was also frustrated with the Federal government not paying for the cases the Office of Equal Rights had worked on. He asked what kind of resolve did the Office of Equal Rights have with the cases, which could range from "tough luck" to a mediated expansive resolve. He expressed the same concern as Senator Coffin regarding the number of cases closed with the same number of staff. He inquired if the Office of Equal Rights was really diligently and fairly working on the cases. Ms. Jackson attested to the fact that the Equal Rights commissioners, the compliance investigators and the Attorney General's office take the cases very seriously, as does Ms. Jackson. She assured Senator O'Donnell the cases were looked at diligently and not just shuffled from one desk to another. Senator O'Donnell stated he needed to get on the record that these cases were taken care of justly. The problem went back session after session. The legislature failed to fund the Office of Equal Rights to the capacity needed. If there were three FTEs working diligently and there were 8% unresolved cases, Senator O'Donnell stated he would find fault with the Federal government. Senator O'Donnell stated he was sick and tired of dealing with the Office of Equal Rights, and the legislature needed to augment the funding. The agency was not being compensated fairly. He stated he would have to put a mirror in front of his face, look squarely at it, and say it was his fault. Senator Coffin asked why the staff of the Equal Rights Commission was not expanded from the General Fund to meet the overwhelming and increasing backlog of cases. There was a statutory responsibility which could not be met without increasing the budget. John P. Comeaux, Director of the Budget Division, stated Budget Division staff felt the funding provided to the Office of Equal Rights, based on the information provided by the agency during the budget presentation process, was adequate to handle the workload. Staff could look at the budget again, but when the budget was put together, staff felt it was adequate. Senator Coffin stated he looked at the caseload inventory provided by the Office of Equal Rights, which was not part of the measurement indicators, and applauded the Office of Equal Rights for whittling down the inventory. But the numbers reflected in the measurement indicators increased each year of the biennium, yet staff was not increased to handle the projected increasing caseload. Mr. Comeaux stated he would look at the budget again and provide the committee with a response to Senator Coffin's question. Senator Coffin commented in FY 1991 a considerable number of staff was added to the Office of Equal Rights, which was promptly cut in FY 1992, and staff had not been restored adequately in the FY 1993 or FY 1995 budgets. These actions do not accurately reflect the legislature's responsibility to address the statutes. Mr. Comeaux assured Senator Coffin when the budget was put together there was no specific dollar limitation. The Budget Division staff felt the budget was adequate, but he would look at the budget again and provide a response to the committee. Ms. Giunchigliani reminded the committee some of the changeovers came with the new administration in the Office of Equal Rights as well as adding a financial position to the agency to make the agency either responsive or not, which were issues the committee struggled with during the previous biennium. She stated she was thrilled to see people being open minded to enhancing budgets like WIC, AFDC, and the Committee to Hire the Handicap. Mr. Orr commented it was suggested by Ms. Jackson to look at budget accounts 2580 and 2583 together. In fact, the narratives and calculations in decision units E-125 in both budgets were incorrect. The calculations were made when the agencies were looking at the additional federally funded staff. A memorandum from Mr. Comeaux was sent to the finance committees addressing the corrections in the decision units (Exhibit J). NEVADA COMMISSION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES - PAGE 1407 John R. Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, stated budget account 4860 Community Services supports the Nevada Commission for National and Community Service (NCNCS). In January 1994 the Interim Finance Committee approved a work program which was submitted for the purpose of bringing President Clinton's AmeriCorps into the state of Nevada. The budget supports the activities of Administrator Christine Bundren and office staff and provides a vehicle for Federal funding in support of the Community Services program. Two programs have been funded on the recommendation of the NCNCS; one, a direct service program in Fallon, and the other, a planning program housed at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Mr. Orr pointed out budget account 4860 reflects a significant increase in public education and outreach in hopes of developing a pool of individuals eager to participate in community service as members of AmeriCorps. Chairman Arberry noted Community Services received AmeriCorps grants in the amount of $276,000, but the Governor's budget reflects no AmeriCorps funding in the upcoming biennium. Mr. Orr responded his staff had been working with the Budget Division to make technical corrections. The Legislative Analysts, the Budget Division and Community Services agreed the budget needed to be corrected. Authority was needed to bring in Federal funding and to disburse funding to the community-based programs. Chairman Arberry asked if the corrections would be made before the subcommittee hearings, to which Mr. Orr replied affirmatively. Mr. Spitler noted Community Services had difficulty raising gifts and donations to provide the required matching funds. He asked if the gifts and donations revenue was obtainable. Mr. Orr explained the NCNCS members had dedicated themselves to raising the matching funds. Mr. Spitler stated he did not question the members' ability to raise funds, but only $4,000 of the $35,000 to $40,000 had been raised. Mr. Orr noted the match requirement accelerates for the first five years of the program when a 50/50 match requirement was met. He stated he was troubled with the matching funds requirement, as was the Interim Finance Committee. A promise was made that if the money was not raised, the program would cease to exist. The NCNCS had committed to raise the required matching funds during the biennium. Mr. Spitler inquired who was on the Nevada Commission for National and Community Service. Mr. Orr indicated originally there were 25 members appointed but had transitioned down to a more manageable 15 members. He offered to provide the committee members a list of the commission members. Mr. Spitler questioned from what source the donations had thus far been raised. Mr. Orr replied the primary support came from community agencies or utilities, including Nevada Power. In-kind support had been received, which did not meet certain cash requirements. He offered to provide a list of actual contributors along with the membership list to the committee members. Mr. Spitler asked what types of programs would be funded through Community Services. Mr. Orr responded the expectation at the Federal level would be programs which addressed urgent needs in public safety, the environment, human services and education. Examples of programs around the country include graffiti removal and supplemental schooling or tutoring to at-risk children. COMMITTEE TO HIRE HANDICAPPED - PAGE 1437 Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, explained the Governor's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (GCEPD) was charged with the responsibility of assisting people with disabilities to become employed through public awareness, advocacy and direct job placement. The GCEPD conducted its activities through individual efforts, its administrator and staff. Ms. Giunchigliani wanted clarification on the budget and stressed the committee's purpose was not to deal with personnel matters. She remarked personnel issues should be resolved among the individuals involved. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there was a line item for collection of gifts and donations in the amount of $41,275. She asked if gifts or donations were received in the last biennium. John Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, explained gifts and donations were regularly received at GCEPD. It was the practice that the donations came with a string attached. For example, a person would donate $500 to support the Miss Wheelchair Pageant. GCEPD had not received uncommitted donations or gifts during the past biennium, which created a hole in the budget. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed frustration that it was not brought to the Interim Finance Committee's attention the transfer from Vocational Rehabilitation affected an actual position and the budget had never been properly funded for three positions. This was one area where a service was actually delivered to private sector. She stressed she did not support going to a contracted basis for services. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would like to explore transferring GCEPD to Business and Industry and focus on delivering a service to businesses. She asked what funding was needed to complete the cycle for July 1995 and add the eliminated position back into the budget. Ms. Jackson stated neither she nor the Governor had a problem with funding being provided for the position in Las Vegas through July 1995 and also the next biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani requested information be provided to the Interim Finance Committee on the funds needed through July 1995 for the Las Vegas position. She also requested information be provided regarding a segregated budget for the purpose of exploring if GCEPD should more properly be located in another budget. Ms. Jackson stated the funding required for the position in Las Vegas through the end of the fiscal year would be $9,196. Chairman Arberry stated it was his understanding GCEPD could not come before the Interim Finance Committee to request additional funds; it must be submitted through a supplemental appropriation request. Mr. Spitler remarked it was grossly unfair to ask agencies to fund what were basically mandated programs through donations and gifts and then ask for consistency in their program indicators. He stated it is increasingly difficult to raise donations, and there was a high demand for Federal funds like United Way to assist these programs. The programs should be funded, and agencies should not be asked to raise money to fund their own programs. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Committee to Hire Handicapped would be willing to submit to the legislature a supplemental appropriation. Ms. Jackson replied affirmatively. Assemblywoman Saundra Krenzer, District No. 19, stated she served on the advisory board for the Governor's Committee on Employment of Peoples with Disabilities for six years and worked professionally for the past 12 years with the Governor's committee. She read a letter from Bernie Kaufman, Chairman of the Governor's Committee on Employment of Peoples with Disabilities, as follows: It is my understanding that the southern office of the Governor's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities closes beginning in March. Unfortunately, as the chair of this committee, I never received direct notification of this. This is extremely disconcerting to me, because southern Nevada's rapid expansion attracts the majority of those who seek employment. Evidently future inquiries, aid, education and placement will take place through the Reno office. Our southern office has placed numerous people and created numerous job fairs for employment. It has also aided ADA efforts to make our state more accessible and educated the private sector. Prominent businesses in the south have opened communication with this committee to increase awareness and employment of people with disabilities. One full-time state employee, without volunteers, accomplished these tasks. Better funding by the Legislature would not only secure money to operate the two offices but provide employment opportunity for countless people with disabilities, including veterans, hearing impaired and head trauma. It is my conviction the closure of the southern office will adversely affect employment of people with disabilities in southern Nevada. This is unfortunate because it is the committee's goal to employ all people with disabilities throughout this fine state. Mrs. Krenzer commented Mr. Kaufman further added: It is my understanding that the Governor's committee was given the $70,000 start-up grant for 15 placements last year. It was to place only vocational rehabilitation clients. Ms. Jackson told them they were not allowed to use volunteers in their office. In the meeting with Ms. Jackson in October 1993 I was informed the Governor's committee could not accept fund-raising donations. They had been told previously by the Governor that they could accept fund-raising. We would like the committee to be funded with an administrator, a southern Nevada coordinator and two secretaries, one in the north and one in the south. Sincerely, Bernie Kaufman. Mrs. Krenzer agreed with Mr. Kaufman and stated for the past 12 years she had an opportunity to watch the Governor's Committee on Employment of Peoples with Disabilities create a strong public-private partnership between the business community in southern Nevada and the rehabilitation community. The purpose of the partnership was to help qualified individuals with disabilities get off welfare, Social Security disability or the State Industrial Insurance System and become active, self-sufficient employees. Employers in southern Nevada were pleased with the Governor's committee because it is user friendly. It is responsive and anxious to help business. Over 470 employers attended the last Governor's committee awards banquet, among them representatives from every major resort property, Clark County School District, the health care industry, the finance industry and the Chamber of Commerce. This agency needs to be salvaged. It is an office of state government that is the best example of maximizing tax dollars. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how often the Committee on Employment of Peoples with Disabilities met. Mrs. Krenzer stated she believed the committee met four times a year. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the reality was that two staff members did the actual work. Mrs. Krenzer agreed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Jackson if the titles of the staff were the northern coordinator and the southern coordinator. Ms. Jackson replied Kathleen Olson was the administrator and there was a southern coordinator. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if the positions were created by Executive Order of Governor O'Callaghan, to which Ms. Jackson replied affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani commented she did not agree with contract services and suggested looking for a way to fund the position. Mr. Price commented it would seem logical to have a position in southern Nevada and a position in northern Nevada and asked if that would be the preference of the Governor's committee. Ms. Jackson replied yes, and added she had a copy of the actual budget that closed in 1993. She remarked at that time she was not the Director of the department. The budget closed in July 1993, which left inadequate funding in the gift account for 1994 of approximately $31,000 and for 1995 of approximately $41,000. The positions were approved, but the funding source was not included. Ms. Jackson stated she had already testified that the Governor and she would support going back to the Interim Finance Committee for the supplemental appropriation and also funding for the next two years. (Daniel M. Wade, Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer, MGM Grand; Concerned business and disabled advocates of Southern Nevada; James L. Brown, CHA, Vice President Hotel Operations, Ramada Express Hotel Casino; Dan Tarwater, Executive Director, Human Resources, Sierra Health Services, Inc.; Veronica J. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, Aladdin Hotel Casino; and Andrew S. Brignone, Law Offices of Morris Brignone & Pickering, each submitted written testimony supporting the continued funding of the Governor's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, which have been attached as Exhibits K, L, M, N, O, and P, respectively.) EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING & REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION - PAGE 1443 John R. Orr, Assistant Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, stated the next 14 budgets in the Executive Budget were housed within the Rehabilitation Division. He introduced Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division. Chairman Arberry requested more detail on the transfer of the Auditor II position in decision unit E-920. Mr. Orr explained the Auditor II position was discussed earlier during the Administrative Services budget. Decision unit E-920 transferred the Auditor II position to Administrative Services where it would be the central position around which an internal audit function would be developed for the rest of the department. Mr. Shaw explained there were performance indicators in all budgets of the division except budget account 3268, the administrative budget. He stated if the committee could come up with some suggestions of performance indicators for the administrative budget, he would be glad to listen to them. He felt his performance should be judged by whether the rest of the division met their performance indicators. The agency was a pilot agency in performance indicators, and the staff looked forward to working with the Legislature. He felt there were some performance indicators the committee would be interested in, but he was not sure how others got into the budget. Mr. Shaw stated budget account 3268 was the Rehabilitation Division administration budget entitled Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Administration. Personnel decreased from 28 to 10 because of transfers to the director's office, Administrative Services and Information Development and Processing. Nine positions were existing, and there was one request for a new Public Service Intern in decision unit E-500. An attempt was being made throughout DETR and this division to ensure the people served and employed were a reflection of the communities in the state. The plan was to recruit a qualified minority from a historically black college or historically Spanish university to help implement diverse initiatives. Two films of national acclaim were produced by the division to help the Disabilities Council. A doctoral student was doing a dissertation on data to identify who the division was serving and where they came from. ALCOHOLISM & DRUG REHABILITATION - PAGE 1451 Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, explained 65% of the Alcoholism & Drug Rehabilitation budget was funded through the Federal government, 26% through the state of Nevada, and the remaining percentage through fees collected for certification. There was a decrease in the budget resulting from a decrease in Federal discretionary grants for HIV outreach, capacity expansion, and data collection. Assurance was given during the Interim Finance Committee meeting that the agency would not seek state funds to replace the Federal grants. Approximately half of the services provided through Alcoholism & Drug Rehabilitation had been privatized. A staff of 22 handled in excess of $10 million which was passed through to treatment and prevention programs. The agency was requesting a one-shot appropriation to allow for retrofit of approximately 13 treatment programs for the prevention of drug resistant and non- drug resistant tuberculosis. By way of illustration, Kentucky has a treatment program for IV drug users. The correctional staff came down with drug resistant tuberculosis, which spread into the community. Statistically, 40% of the people diagnosed with the disease die. The one-shot appropriation would provide funding for ultraviolet lighting which kills tuberculosis, Heparespirators, and training for staff who are community-based treatment providers. The agency distributed $1 for every $4 in requests received through a very competitive granting process. Mr. Shaw pointed out measurement indicator No. 1, juvenile justice, annual decrease in recidivism rate by 50%, did not depict a decrease in juvenile crime throughout the state, but showed a reduction in the number of people who received prevention service. Mr. Shaw felt measurement indicator No. 5, percent of people with no substance use at six month follow-up, was a good indicator because it measured criminal activity, employment, and whether the recipients were drug free. Mr. Spitler asked if budget account 3170 reflected the full amount of Federal substance abuse funding which the agency anticipated receiving. Mr. Shaw responded yes and explained treatment providers and Alcoholism & Drug Rehabilitation sought competitive grants. For instance, treatment providers sought the treatment capacity grant which flowed through and was monitored by the agency. He felt there may be Federal funds to replace those funds which had been lost. Mr. Spitler asked if the budget would be able to meet the needs of those it served with it being as flat as it is. Mr. Shaw stated the budget was flat in terms of there was not a lot more money to go around. The agency was using funds as effectively as possible and working on providing meaningful measurement indicators. Mr. Spitler inquired if the agency could meet the needs of those it served based on the agency's streamlining efforts. Mr. Shaw responded the agency would meet those needs with the available resources in the best and most efficient way possible. Mrs. Brower inquired if the focus of treatment was juveniles, adults or both and what the percentage breakdown was. Mr. Shaw stated he did not have an exact percentage figure, but the agency did provide treatment programs for both juveniles and adults. The agency was moving rapidly into the prevention area. One prevention program was audited by the Federal government, and they indicated the Alcoholism & Drug Rehabilitation prevention program was the most effective program in the United States. Two other prevention programs received two of a possible nine national awards out of thousands of prevention programs. Another program teaches young children from second through sixth grade how to play chess, which has improved their math skills, cognitive ability, self-esteem, planning, and delay gratification. Senator Raggio asked if budget account 3170 was the budget through which most of the funds flowed to the local programs for alcohol and drug abuse, to which Mr. Shaw replied affirmatively. Senator Raggio drew attention to the summary located on page 1457, particularly block grants and state alcohol grants, and inquired if those items comprised the total amount available for distribution to local agencies. Mr. Shaw stated the entire budget less 10% was the amount available for distribution to local agencies. Senator Raggio pointed out the entire budget was a little over $9 million and 10% would be $900,000, which add up to approximately $7 million. Mr. Shaw introduced Elizabeth Breshears to respond to Senator Raggio's question. Elizabeth Breshears, Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, stated in addition to the continuing sources of funds from block grants and state alcohol grants, there were a number of time-limited discretionary grants. Mr. Shaw noted Alcohol Tax Program funds in the amount of $641,000 were used for treatment. Senator Raggio requested the total available dollars for distribution to local agencies and the formula for allocating funds for the next biennium be provided to the committee. Ms. Tiffany asked what was included in the data processing expense item for budget account 3170 in the amount of $14,449. Ms. Breshears responded the majority of the funding was to fulfill the requirement of a federally mandated client data collection system. Funds were used to develop local software to transmit information to the federal data bank on a PC-based system. Ms. Tiffany asked if the funds were used for development or operation of the data base system. Ms. Breshears replied the funds were used primarily for the operation of the system in the areas of maintenance and tweaking. Ms. Tiffany noted in decision unit E-720 there was a request in the amount of $5,500 for a color printer. Ms. Breshears explained much of the Federal funding to state agencies was drying up. For example, the national clearing house that used to provide many thousands of copies of materials to the state would now only provide one copy. Ms. Tiffany remarked she was not questioning the need for a printer, but she did question the amount. She requested information be provided in subcommittee regarding the agency's PC system and the printer request. Chairman Arberry called for public testimony. Mr. Shaw indicated there were three people from the disability community in Las Vegas who wished to testify. Mr. Orr indicated Kevin Quint from the Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs wished to testify regarding budget account 3170 and suggested the three people from the disability community could testify after Mr. Quint, as they were not testifying in reference to budget account 3170. Kevin Quint, President, Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, and a treatment provider in Fallon, provided a copy of his association's position statement (Exhibit Q) and stated the treatment services for adults and juveniles needed to be expanded and provided with more funding for the following reasons: 1) All publicly subsidized programs in the state of Nevada have long waiting lists; 2) The treatment field has not been able to grow at the same rate as the growth of Nevada because of lacking funds; 3) Six Nevada counties and dozens of rural communities have no treatment services funded by the state of Nevada; and 4) Unfunded Federal mandates regarding HIV, pregnancies, and TB have cut into the base of treatment dollars in Nevada. National studies have shown treatment funding is well spent in cost savings for crime and health care costs. The association recommends prevention programs be expanded and provided with more funding for the long-term benefit of the citizens of the state of Nevada. He offered to provide needed information in subcommittee. When Senator Rawson asked if Mr. Quint was referring to state alcohol grants as a means of increasing program expansion, Mr. Quint responded affirmatively. Senator Rawson inquired if Mr. Quint felt there would be support for alcohol tax to enhance revenue. Mr. Quint stated he had no idea what the public would support. He offered to help the committee explore those kinds of options. Senator Rawson suggested the Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs explore options to raise revenue and bring those ideas to subcommittee. Mr. Shaw introduced Dorothy North, who wished to testify before the committee. Dorothy North, Chairman of the Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment, commented she would be willing to work with the subcommittee on issues brought up during the committee hearing. She explained there was currently a bill which came from the ACR 71 interim study to increase the excise liquor tax by 10% and earmark the money for alcohol and drug treatment, specifically dealing with people in the criminal justice system. A large percentage of people seeking treatment from the publicly funded programs have first passed through the criminal justice system. There is a large drain on the system because of incarceration of people who could have been diverted into treatment. Ms. North urged the committee members to consider the health care implications because oftentimes drug and alcohol problems are viewed as a moral issue rather than a disease. People coming into treatment have more health problems involving tuberculosis and HIV and pose a greater burden on the available resources than any time in the past. Nevada needed to increase its fair share of funds as compared to the Federal funds to address the problems of drug and alcohol abuse. Mr. Spitler asked what revenue would be generated by the increase in the liquor tax. Ms. North indicated approximately $1 million. Mr. Shaw introduced George Brown, Reginald Bennett and Bob Hogan, members of the disability community, who wished to testify before the committee. George Brown, Chairman of the Developmental Disabilities Council, stated his organization represents approximately 120,000 handicapped people across the state of Nevada. He commented disabilities are an equal opportunity inflicter and do not care about politics, ethnicity or affluence. Mr. Brown introduced Bob Hogan. Bob Hogan, Executive Director of the Nevada Community Enrichment Program, read a letter signed by representatives from a number of community agencies dealing with disabilities, which is attached as Exhibit R. Reginald Bennett, advocate for Nevadans with Disabilities, urged continued support for Nevadans with developmental disabilities and thanked the committee members for their consideration. Chairman Arberry called for further public testimony. There being none, he moved to budget account 4704. DRUG COMMISSION - PAGE 1461 Mr. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, pointed out there were many members from the disability community present who supported funding through the Executive Budget. He explained budget account 4704 on page 1461 was the Drug Commission office of the coordinator and the Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment. The budget reflects an increase in travel in the amount $5,039. As a result of the elimination of the $41,520 Byrne grant, the Governor's office has agreed to replace the loss with General Fund dollars. Chairman Arberry pointed out decision unit E-400 included $4,004 in both years of the biennium for 30 trips for the Drug Coordinator to travel to Carson City, Reno and rural Nevada as part of the Community Team Training Institute. He asked why 30 trips per year were required. Mr. Shaw explained the Drug Coordinator had to beg, borrow and steal funding and was supported out of his budget for several items. Travel was required for coordinating community efforts and community- based agencies. The Drug Commission was recently moved to the Rehabilitation Division. He stated Ms. Payne-Starke needed to be in the community on a statewide basis. Chairman Arberry commented $4,004 was built into budget account 4704 for travel, but the Governor recommends $5,039. Mr. Shaw stated he would provide a written response regarding travel to the committee. Mrs. Chowning asked why there were no performance indicators included in budget account 4704. Mr. Shaw indicated he would like Ms. Payne-Starke to respond to the question. He pointed out budget account 4704 was one of two budgets in the Rehabilitation Division which did not have measurement indicators. He stated he was open to suggestion for those two budget accounts. Mrs. Chowning stated she would like to know what has been accomplished through the Drug Commission since its inception in 1989. Julia A. Payne-Starke, Drug Program Coordinator, stated she was not with the commission in 1989 and could not address issues during that period. She commented her present responsibilities were to collaborate with representatives from law enforcement, youth groups, civic groups, education, and treatment and prevention arenas. Her purpose was to educate people on available services through the state of Nevada or on a national level. Travel to rural areas was limited, so funds were requested to cover that area. Additional funds were requested to cover telephone costs when travel was limited. VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION - PAGE 1467 Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, stated budget account 3265 was a program developed in 1919 to help returning World War I disabled veterans with rehabilitation and employment. During the Persian Gulf War Vocational Rehabilitation was designated as the single state agency to help returning veterans. The program was not a feel-good society program, but was one which put people to work. Nationally, people with disabilities have a 60% to 70% unemployment rate. Every dollar put into the program is returned to society with $11, and 80% of the funding comes from the Federal government. Approving the budget would put the state of Nevada on a cash match basis of 78.7% Federal funds and 21.3% state funds. During the budget cuts of 1991, the cash match was given up and replaced with certified match, which was used as a match for Federal dollars but was unable to be spent. Mr. Shaw reiterated Vocational Rehabilitation puts people to work and takes people off Medical, Medicaid, Medicare and welfare. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Shaw to address the 50% increase from the General Fund. Mr. Shaw indicated the increase was due to the cash match of $700,000 from the state General Fund. To demonstrate the need based on the 1992 amendments, in 1992 there were 981 eligible people with disabilities, in 1993 there were 1,437, in 1994 there were 2,096, so far in 1995 there have been 1159, and projections are well over 2,500 for 1996 and 1997. The Federal funding has increased by 65% since 1989 and the General Fund dollars have been reduced by 5%. Mr. Shaw reiterated he would like to see Vocational Rehabilitation return to the cash match basis. SERVICES TO THE BLIND - PAGE 1477 Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, stated budget account 3254 was the same as Vocational Rehabilitation except it was disability specific to visually impaired, blind or deaf/blind. The agency was requesting an Orientation and Mobility Instructor position in decision unit E-515. The position was needed for the Las Vegas area because the increased population has caused a delay in services. He stated the measurement indicators were well documented. The agency would like to add some measurement indicators and delete others. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES - PAGE 1511 Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, explained budget account 3154 originated from a Federal grant in the amount of $423,000. Most of the states matched the grant in cash; Nevada did not. Local community-based agencies had put up the match, but the match was no longer available. Mr. Shaw pointed out the Federal grant had allowed the state of Nevada to bring in $12 million worth of housing for severely disabled people. The agency put up Federal dollars to leverage Federal dollars. The funds provided by the legislature for the Traumatic Brain Injury Program and the Developmental Disabilities Council were start-up dollars which saved the state millions of dollars. He commented budget account 3154 created resources for Nevada citizens with disabilities. Senator Raggio asked how the necessary match would be provided for budget account 3154. Mr. Shaw responded the match would be provided through a one- shot appropriation. Senator Raggio inquired if the match would be provided in cash. Mr. Shaw replied the match would be cash in the amount of $227,427 in both years of the biennium. Senator Raggio questioned whether donations would be sought, to which Mr. Shaw stated no. Senator Raggio inquired what the leverage would be during the biennium with the proposed match. Mr. Shaw indicated the cash match would provide for 44 new assisted apartment units and homes for 20 severely disabled Nevadans through the Home of Your Own Program. Senator Raggio requested a dollar amount for the leverage during the upcoming biennium. Mr. Shaw stated he would provide the dollar amount. Chairman Arberry requested copies of the revised measurement indicators and the agency plan be provided to the committee. Mr. Shaw agreed to provide the requested material and pointed out the Developmental Disabilities program had been largely privatized. Mr. Marvel asked how much of the $227,427 was leveraged through other sources. Mr. Shaw stated a match of 25% would be $113,000 per year for the Developmental Disabilities grant from the Federal government. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED - PAGE 1517 Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, explained decision unit E-125 in budget account 3155 was to ensure quality care and reduce employee turnover through a competitive wage. This budget account would increase personal care attendants' wage from $6.50 per hour to a more livable wage of close to $8 per hour and also provide health insurance to the Las Vegas care attendants. The program had to revert approximately $20,000 during 1994 even though there was a waiting list for services because there were no available care attendants. A person can work as a casino housekeeper and make more money than care attendants. Programs in other states have problems, including New York where care attendants wear ankle bracelets so police agencies can trace those attendants who take advantage of the people for whom they work. Nevada Financial Assistance to the Physically Disabled was the top program in the United States. The world Disability Council was looking at the Nevada program because attendants received more than a minimum wage. The program allowed 49% of the people served to stay at home. The cost effectiveness of the program was demonstrated by comparing the cost of intermediate care at $23,000 versus $12,000 for at-home attendant care. Mr. Marvel asked if there had been a study of the cost savings to the state since the program's inception in 1985. Mr. Shaw responded he was not aware of a study but offered to provide the information. Mr. Marvel commented significant savings was one of the reasons the program was implemented. Mr. Shaw remarked participants were now contributing to society by getting off welfare and paying taxes. Chairman Arberry called for public testimony. There being none, Chairman Arberry asked if there were any other questions by the committee. Senator Raggio asked if the budget for the Hearing Devices Program would be formally heard. Chairman Arberry responded no. Senator Raggio asked if the split surcharge was being continued during the biennium. Mr. Shaw stated the agency was not proposing a raise and the surcharge was the same as in the past. Senator Raggio commented the surcharge started at 10 cents per month. Mr. Shaw explained the surcharge was stopped because too much money had built up and was reinstated at a more reasonable level of 8 cents. There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 4:32 p.m. (Agency budgets listed on pages 1495, 1519 and 1523 were not addressed.) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________ Jonnie Sue Hansen Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means February 8, 1995 Page