MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session February 17, 1995 The joint meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Friday, February 17, 1995, Chairman John Marvel 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 Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close 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: Ms. Sandra Tiffany (Excused) Mr. Dennis L. Allard (Excused) Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Bob Guernsey, Deputy Fiscal Analyst NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY Chairman Marvel welcomed Dr. James Austin, Executive Vice President, National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Dr. Austin informed the committee the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) was working under contract with the State of Nevada to forecast prison population numbers. He explained two forecasts were prepared each year. The most recent forecast was completed in October 1994. He noted the October forecast had underprojected actual prison population numbers and he would explain the reason for this underprojection. Dr. Austin stated the indeterminant sentencing structure was an important feature of the Nevada criminal justice system and one which drove the prison population. He explained inmates in Nevada were eligible for parole after serving some portion of their sentence. In order to project prison populations, the extent to which the Parole Board would grant paroles to certain inmates must be estimated and calculated. Population projections would be affected as the rate of paroles granted changed. If the parole grant rate increased, the length of stay in prison would decrease, and vice versa. A lower than estimated parole grant rate translated to a higher than projected prison population. Dr. Austin reported the parole grant rate had dropped from 40 percent of cases heard to 22 percent of cases heard since February 1994. As a result, prison population projections were approximately 200 to 300 less than actual numbers. Dr. Austin stated NCCD met with a representative of the Parole Board to determine whether the decline in the parole grant rate would remain the same or if it would increase. He noted Nevada had a history of a fluctuating parole grant rate. Dr. Austin indicated no formal decision on the direction of the parole grant rate was reached, but NCCD assumed the rate would move slightly higher than 22 percent. The rate has not, in fact, increased. He expressed his opinion, therefore, that the population projection now had to be adjusted upward, i.e., an addition of approximately 400 to 500 beds to the prison system each year. Chairman Marvel noted this would be approximately one new prison per year. Dr. Austin responded that would be the minimum requirement. He explained the October projections indicated a total inmate population of approximately 7,600 by June 1996. At the 20 percent parole grant rate, the number would actually be approximately 8,100. Chairman Marvel said Fiscal Division staff had projected a net increase of approximately 80 inmates per month. Dr. Austin said NCCD projected a minimum increase of 500 inmates per year. Dr. Austin stated it was important to look at which inmates were being denied parole. Denying parole to short-term inmates had less impact on projections than denying parole to inmates who were serving four- or five-year sentences. Chairman Marvel inquired whether parole revocations were also considered in projections. Dr. Austin noted the Parole and Probation Division had made a strong effort to lower the revocation rate. Initially it was successful in doing so, but the revocation rate had now increased again and was fueling inmate projections. Dr. Austin indicated NCCD would be providing to the committee revised projections which would be considerably higher than the October projections. Mr. Hettrick asked how many additional beds would be required if the parole grant rate was 40 percent. Dr. Austin said a 40 percent rate would bring the population numbers back to the October projection or lower. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if inmate beds were nearing capacity. Dr. Austin said the emergency capacity (approximately 7,100 beds) would be exhausted within a week. He noted the October forecast had projected approximately 6,800 inmates and the disparity would become wider. Senator Rhoads questioned whether new legislation or a change of attitude of the Parole Board was affecting the prison population. Dr. Austin responded the parole grant rate fluctuated dramatically, making it difficult to project the inmate population. Senator Rhoads questioned why the parole grant rate fluctuated so much. Dr. Austin replied fluctuations in grant rates were not related to the inmate profile, which had not changed. He expressed the opinion explicit, consistent, uniformly applied guidelines for granting parole were required to ensure predictability. As long as the grant rate continued to fluctuate, prediction was difficult. Senator Rhoads inquired whether other states experienced similar fluctuation in parole grant rates. Dr. Austin said the situation was similar in states without parole guidelines. Senator Rhoads asked if there were no parole guidelines in Nevada. Dr. Austin expressed the opinion Nevada's parole guidelines could be made more explicit. Chairman Marvel asked if the parole guidelines were statutorily defined. Dr. Austin said guidelines were imposed by statute, but they were broadly defined within the statutes. He noted other states utilized risk factors to gauge risk of recidivism. Under those conditions parole decision making was fairly uniform, especially if parole board members were well trained and knowledgeable about the prison system and criminal justice issues. Chairman Marvel noted there were several "tough on crime" bills to be introduced to this session of the Legislature which would impact the prison system. Mr. Hettrick asked Dr. Austin to provide examples of parole guidelines from states with stable parole grant rates. Dr. Austin agreed to do so. Senator Coffin noted it would be useful to receive data from other small states. Senator Rawson said it would also be helpful to receive information on the structures of other states' parole boards and their methods of appointment. Mr. Spitler asked if pre-sentencing investigations had the same impact as parole grant rate on inmate projections. Dr. Austin responded pre-sentence investigation reports prepared by the Parole and Probation Division were used by the courts to determine whether sentences were appropriate, i.e., whether incarceration or probation should be imposed. Dr. Austin stated it was important to determine clear policies regarding Parole and Probation revocation, pre-sentence investigations, and parole decision making in order to create predictability in projecting populations. Mr. Spitler noted pre-sentence investigations had increased at a rate of over 18 percent, and this issue had not been addressed during the 1993 legislative session. That increase had also driven the bed count up. Chairman Marvel added the judicial system had expanded considerably in the past few years. He asked if NCCD monitored sentencings in the various courts. Dr. Austin replied NCCD reviewed felony court filings to monitor trends. Chairman Marvel asked if judges were imposing stiffer sentences. Dr. Austin said that could be happening, but the parole grant rate was the factor which was having the most significant impact on prison populations. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about the optimum caseload for parole and probation officers. Dr. Austin said 40 to 50 was the standard caseload. An intensive supervision caseload would be 15 to 20. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there had been any policy change regarding the classification of inmates. Dr. Austin said he was not aware of any classification policy changes. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY - PAROLE BOARD - PAGE 1857 Chairman Marvel asked if the Parole Board was granting paroles pursuant to written standards. Mrs. Lupe Gunderson, Chairwoman, Nevada Board of Parole, replied the Board made parole determinations based on standard parole success likelihood factors (see page D of Exhibit C). She noted those standards were currently being revised. Mrs. Gunderson said the mission of the Board was to evaluate eligible inmates to determine their suitability for parole and to grant parole to those who show promise of becoming contributing members of society. Chairman Marvel stated it appeared from the measurement indicators the number of hearings had declined in Fiscal Year 1994. He asked the reason for the decline. Mrs. Gunderson said the number of hearings projected for Fiscal Year 1994 was 4,980. The actual number of hearings held in Fiscal Year 1994 was 4,635. The number of inmates granted parole projected for Fiscal Year 1994 was 1,992. The actual number of inmates granted parole in Fiscal Year 1994 was 1,862. Ms. Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary, explained the original projections were based on projections of inmate population. The actual figures were based only on the portion of the inmate population which was eligible for parole. Chairman Marvel asked for an explanation of the apparent decline in number of revocation hearings. Ms. McCurdy said the decline was based on the Parole and Probation Division's efforts to reduce revocations. Chairman Marvel inquired whether the Robert Collier parole had influenced the actions of the Parole Board. Mrs. Gunderson responded the Collier case had influenced Board actions. Chairman Marvel questioned whether parole guidelines were now being reassessed. Mrs. Gunderson replied guidelines for the parole of violent offenders were being reassessed. Mrs. Gunderson referred to decision unit M-100. She explained in-state travel reflected a negative balance due to a decrease in motor pool costs. Decision unit M-200 was a recommendation for funding an additional Parole Board member, a management assistant position, and an administrative aid position to support the new Lovelock Correctional Center scheduled to open in October 1995, and to manage activity resulting from inmate population growth. Chairman Marvel noted fewer hearings were projected, even in light of Lovelock Correctional Center coming on-line. Mrs. Gunderson said there would be an increase in caseload. Chairman Marvel asked how many hearings were projected. Ms. McCurdy said an average of 420 hearings per month were projected for Fiscal Year 1995. Once the Lovelock facility became fully operational the number of hearings would increase. Mr. Close inquired about the length of time an individual would wait for a hearing before the Parole Board once he was deemed eligible for parole. Ms. McCurdy said Board policy was to see inmates approximately two months prior to their eligibility date. If a parole was granted, the inmate would be released on the eligibility date. Mr. Close asked if there was any backlog in parole hearings. Ms. McCurdy said there was no backlog. The hearing process was ongoing. Mr. Close questioned whether additional staff would make a difference in Board efficiency. Ms. McCurdy said additional staff would help make the paper flow more efficient. Senator Raggio noted Exhibit C indicated 5,552 hearings were conducted by the Parole Board in Fiscal Year 1993. He questioned why additional staff was needed when only 5,040 hearings were being projected in Fiscal Year 1995 and 5,100 hearings were being projected in Fiscal Year 1996. Mr. James Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated the reduction in number of hearings was a function of the amount of travel required to conduct hearings. Chairman Marvel explained that Senator Raggio was making the point that the number of hearings projected was decreasing, even in light of the opening of the Lovelock facility. Senator Raggio asked what the criteria for becoming a Parole Board member was and if Board members possessed any specific expertise or background. He pointed out Dr. Austin had attributed blame for inaccurate projections of inmate population to the actions of the Parole Board, and therefore, the committee needed to have an understanding of the composition of the Board. Mrs. Gunderson stated two members had law enforcement backgrounds, one member was a minister, one was a former city councilman from Las Vegas, and one member was a lawyer. Senator Raggio inquired whether specific criteria should be met by persons serving on the Board. Mrs. Gunderson said Board members should meet specific criteria. Mr. Weller agreed Board members should have specific qualifications and/or training for the position. He noted funding for training had not been provided in the past. Chairman Marvel questioned whether funding for training had been requested in this budget. Mrs. Gunderson said training expense had been included in the agency request. Senator Coffin questioned whether the number of hearings was a significant measurement indicator. He reminded the committee the Department of Prisons, not the Parole Board, determined the number of hearings. The Board did not know how many hearings would be held until it received the eligibility list from the Department of Prisons. Additionally, the hearings were spread over a number of institutions and a number of dates. Therefore, a fluctuation of 500 or 600 in a year could represent the shortening of one day's appearance at the institution by one name. Travel to the institution to hold the hearing would still be required, even though the list of names was shortened. Mrs. Gunderson concurred with Senator Coffin's assessment. Chairman Marvel said the committee was looking at overall population and trends. Senator Coffin suggested the number of hearings might be the wrong trend indicator to look at. Mr. Price asked how so many hearings could be held in a year. Mr. Weller explained one or two Parole Commissioners traveled to an institution to conduct the hearings. Ratification then occurred via conference telephone call with the other commissioners. He noted the Board had proposed funding the purchase of video teleconferencing equipment so the commissioners could hold hearings from their offices in Carson City or Las Vegas. That request had not been approved by the Budget Division. Chairman Marvel questioned whether contract labor was used. Mrs. Gunderson said the Board utilized hearing representatives on a contract basis. The contractors were used for every hearing. Ms. Giunchigliani requested that the committee be provided in writing information regarding the backgrounds of the Board members. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Board members could sit on hearing panels separately from one another. Mrs. Gunderson answered all Board members were not required to be in attendance at parole hearings. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a reason for having the Board members travel to the institution rather than having inmates transported to Carson City or Las Vegas. Mr. Weller said cost and security issues were involved in transporting inmates. Mr. Close asked Mrs. Gunderson to provide to the subcommittee the reasons for the decrease in parole grants. Mrs. Evans requested greater detail in the measurement indicators in terms of types of hearings. She also requested ongoing comparisons of Nevada rates to national rates. Chairman Marvel emphasized the seriousness of the roles of the Parole Board members, particularly with regard to fiscal responsibility to the State of Nevada. He said the committee members also had a tremendous amount of responsibility in funding the Executive Budget for the coming biennium. Growth in prison population significantly impacted the budget. He indicated the committee would be looking closely at the activities of the Parole Board over the next few months. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY - DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION - PAGE 1849 Mr. Richard Wyett, Division Chief, thanked the committee for placing the Division under the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. He explained the reorganization had proven advantageous to the Division, resulting in improvements in hiring and recruiting of staff and communications (via access to the Nevada Highway Patrol dispatch center). Mr. Wyett indicated the Division had taken a proactive position in dealing with offenders by networking with other organizations, i.e., the Washoe and Clark County gang task forces, drug task forces, the repeat offender task force, and the FBI violent crime task force. He added information possessed by the Division had proven helpful to other law enforcement agencies. Mr. Wyett stated the mission of the Division was to protect the public, make sentencing recommendations to the courts, and supervise the activities of parolees and probationers. Parole and Probation officers arrest violators, represent the Division in court, work with offenders and refer them to appropriate counseling service programs, collect restitution for victims, collect supervision and house arrest fees, enforce compliance with special conditions and court fines and/or assessments. Mr. Wyett explained the Division would seek every possible alternative (e.g., house arrest, lifeskills, and intensive supervision) to returning parole violators to court or the Parole Board. Chairman Marvel inquired whether the Division had assessed the lifeskills centers and residential confinement program. Mr. Wyett responded violent offenders had to be separated from non-violent offenders. The violent offenders were the most detrimental to society and the most costly to manage. He echoed Dr. Austin's earlier statements that alternatives to incarceration must be developed. He noted the Division had been successful in reducing the number of Parole and Probation revocations by modifying its violation report process to utilize intervention measures prior to revocation. He explained while intervention measures could not keep some offenders from being returned to prison because they had more prison skills than life skills, non-violent offenders were being given every opportunity to modify their criminal behavior. Chairman Marvel questioned whether the Division had enough assets at its disposal to successfully engage in alternative programs. Mr. Wyett indicated the Division had requested funding which would allow it to accomplish its goals with respect to the lifeskills program and managing caseloads. He noted the lifeskills program was community-based and involved the efforts of city and county governments, law enforcement, and providers, as well as state government. All entities were striving for the same goals instead of working independently. Mr. Spitler expressed enthusiasm for the proposed lifeskills and expanded residential confinement programs. He requested that measurement indicators projecting anticipated results and time frames be submitted to the subcommittee. Mr. Spitler referred to decision unit M-200. He noted it appeared insufficient funding had been requested. He asked that realistic figures be presented to the subcommittee so the budget might be funded correctly. Mr. Spitler also requested information regarding increases in pre-sentence investigations. He said the committee needed to be aware of how data assimilated by the Division related to prison bed counts and sentencing. Mr. Spitler noted he had not seen increases in funding in the budgets of other agencies involved in the lifeskills program. He questioned whether those agencies would be assessing charges to Parole and Probation for this service which would drive up this budget. He requested an explanation of funding be provided to the subcommittee. Mr. Wyett agreed to provide the information. Chairman Marvel asked if there was any specific portion of the budget on which Mr. Wyett wished to testify. Mr. Wyett referred to decision unit E-805, funding for reclassification of the existing Deputy Chief and a vacant Personnel Analyst I positions. Chairman Marvel asked for an explanation of decision unit E-429. Mr. Wyett said decision unit E-429 reflected funding for the expanded residential confinement program. He explained the proposal was to broaden participation in the residential confinement program from those sentenced solely under DUI laws to include non- violent, first-time and second-time offenders. Five additional positions were requested in the first year of the biennium and six additional positions were requested in the second year in conjunction with expansion of the program. Chairman Marvel inquired who determined which offenders were placed into the program. Mr. Wyett said the determination was made by the Division of Parole and Probation. Chairman Marvel asked how long sentences were. Mr. Wyett said he could not answer the question. Chairman Marvel questioned whether legislation was required to implement the expanded program. Mr. Wyett indicated the Department of Prisons had requested a bill draft. Mr. Comeaux noted the bill was currently being drafted. Mr. Fettic noted the Executive Budget anticipated a savings of 158 prison beds resulting from the lifeskills program and a savings of 138 beds resulting from the expanded residential confinement program. He asked Mr. Wyett if those figures were correct. Mr. Wyett responded affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani asked that the subcommittee be provided with a copy of guidelines used by Parole and Probation Division in determining placements into the residential confinement program. Senator Raggio inquired whether decision unit E-428 reflected refunding of Project Restart. Mr. Wyett said it did. Senator Raggio asked, Mr. Wyett if--in light of miscalculations in prison inmate projections and proposed increases in alternative sentencing programs--he was certain the budget was sufficient for the coming biennium. Mr. Wyett said again the proposed budget would be sufficient. Senator Raggio requested the subcommittee to look carefully at the budget to ensure adequate funding. Mr. Carlos Concha, Deputy Chief, said the Division believed the Governor was recommending adequate funding. He noted, however, projections of pre-sentence investigations were preliminary only and could require revision upward. Chairman Marvel reiterated there was a great deal of interest on the committee's part in funding this budget to ensure its goals were achievable. Mr. Wyett noted the Division appreciated the current interest in community programming. Senator Jacobsen suggested committee members could be educated by spending some time on-the-job with Parole and Probation staff. STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER - PAGE 1003 State Public Defender James Jackson noted the Executive Budget indicated the Public Defender had a regional office in Tonopah. He reported that was no longer the case since Nye and Esmeralda Counties withdrew from the system. Chairman Marvel asked how many counties were represented by the State Public Defender. Mr. Jackson responded his office represented seven counties: Carson City, Storey, Lincoln, Eureka, White Pine, Pershing, and Humboldt. Chairman Marvel questioned whether any counties would be withdrawing from the system. Mr. Jackson stated he was not aware that any counties were considering withdrawing. Mr. Jackson testified his office represented criminal defendants who were unable to afford their own counsel. The office also represented juveniles charged with crimes and parents charged with child abuse or neglect. Additionally, the Public Defender's Office administered the Fund for Post-Conviction Relief when a district court appointed counsel to assist a prison inmate in prosecuting an appeal. Chairman Marvel asked if a decrease in juvenile cases was anticipated. Mr. Jackson answered while the measurement indicators reflected projected numbers for Fiscal Years 1995, 1996, and 1997 which were lower than Fiscal Year 1994 actuals, 1994 figures were unusually high and indications were that numbers would continue to increase. Chairman Marvel questioned the cause of the high numbers in Fiscal Year 1994. Mr. Jackson said he believed the numbers could be attributed to more aggressive prosecution. Chairman Marvel asked if the projections in the Executive Budget were accurate. Mr. Jackson said he believed the projections reflected were inaccurate and the Fiscal Year 1994 figure was an accurate indicator of future trends. Mr. Arberry noted the measurement indicators reflected a 230 percent increase in number of cases involving prison inmates projected for Fiscal Year 1995. He asked for an explanation of those projections. Mr. Jackson said the Fiscal Year 1995 projection anticipated the opening of Lovelock Correctional Center and the corresponding inmate caseload. Mr. Arberry questioned whether costs would be impacted by increasing the inmate population at Lovelock by an additional 250 inmates. Mr. Jackson replied it was difficult to determine the impact of an additional 250 inmates. He noted every inmate was a potential client of the Public Defender. He stated his office would attempt to absorb the cost of any increase in inmate population at Lovelock, but the Budget Division had informed him the issue could be revisited if the impact on the budget would be substantial. Chairman Marvel suggested the Public Defender should be cognizant of the impact of the Lovelock population, particularly if the prison was opened earlier than expected. Chairman Marvel questioned whether the Public Defender represented prison inmates in counties other than the seven mentioned earlier. Mr. Jackson responded it would fall to the County Public Defender to represent those inmates. He noted, however, the statutes did not clearly define the responsibility of the Public Defender with regard to inmates in state prisons. Mr. Jackson testified the Executive Budget included a recommendation to fund one additional investigator position. He explained this position would replace one of two investigator positions lost over the past few years. He noted one investigator was assigned to all seven counties, and he was working beyond his limit. As a result, cases were not being investigated to the degree they should be. Mr. Jackson stated the budget was substantially the same as it had been in Fiscal Year 1994. He noted the Governor had recommended approximately $8,000 less than had been budgeted in the prior year for in-state travel expense. He distributed to the committee copies of an Overview of Budgetary Impact of the case of State of Nevada vs. Michael Hampton Sonner (see Exhibit D), a capital murder case following the killing of a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper. He explained the case had a tremendous budgetary impact for both the Public Defender and Pershing County, especially in terms of in-state travel costs and personnel expenses. He pointed out if private counsel had been appointed to defend this case, the cost would have been an additional $158,550. He said the actual cost of the case to Pershing County--$56,250--underscored the benefit of the State Public Defender system. Mr. Jackson indicated he had requested transfer of funds from a Chief Appellate Deputy position to supplement the in-state travel category, anticipating that a capital case could occur at any time. Senator Jacobsen noted the Public Defender's office was being relocated. He asked where the office was moving from. Mr. Jackson answered the Public Defender was currently housed in an office which historically had been used for no more than four attorneys. The Public Defender's staff included six attorneys. The agency was proposing to move the location of the office to a new building designed to meet current needs. Senator Jacobsen suggested there was adequate space available at the Stewart facility. Mr. Jackson explained his office served several walk-in clients from the justice courts. He felt it was important to keep his office in the "legal corridor" of Carson City, near the courthouses, the juvenile court, and the jail. Chairman Marvel asked what the rationale of the Budget Division had been in not fully funding decision unit M-100. Ms. Rebecca Ward, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, responded the item reflected a decrease in motor pool rates. She noted the Public Defender's office used five motor pool cars. The cost of those vehicles had decreased from $200 per month to $170 per month. Chairman Marvel questioned whether the base budget contained adequate funding for motor pool vehicles. Ms. Ward stated there was adequate funding in the base budget. Mr. Jackson said he would defer to the Budget Division regarding determination of necessary funding for motor pool expenses. Chairman Marvel suggested Mr. Jackson review this account to ensure it contained adequate funding. Mr. Jackson agreed to do so. Mr. Jackson commented on his request for increased salaries for his staff. He explained he was not advocating any position on this request, but rather wished to explain the rationale for the request. He noted a comparison of Deputy Public Defender salaries and Deputy Attorney General salaries reflected Deputy Public Defenders were paid approximately 12 percent to 19 percent less. Mr. Jackson said he now understood the Personnel Division had reviewed this matter and action may be taken separately from the budget request. DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS - PAGES 1535 - 1675 Chairman Marvel noted it appeared the Department of Prisons budget would have to be revised. He asked the Director simply to give an overview of the Department. Mr. Bob Bayer, Director, introduced Assistant Director George Weeks, Assistant Director Howard Skolnik, Warden Miles Long, Warden Brenda Burns, Warden John Slansky, Warden Leon Hardison, Warden E. K. McDaniel, Warden Chuck Wolff, Warden Sherman Hatcher, Mr. John Neill, Chief of Fiscal Services, Mr. Robin Bates, Chief of Classification and Planning, Dr. George Kaiser, Medical Director, and Mr. Gary Little, Administrative Services Officer. Mr. Bayer presented the Department's plan to manage the inmate population until the opening of Lovelock Correctional Center on July 1, 1995. He noted revised cost estimates associated with the earlier than anticipated opening of the facility had been submitted to the Budget Division. He explained a supplemental appropriation and a one-shot appropriation would be required to meet additional operating and equipment costs. Chairman Marvel questioned whether appropriate legislation was being drafted. Mr. Comeaux indicated legislation was being drafted. Mr. Bayer explained the supplemental appropriation was required to fund the costs associated with inmate population growth. He said 88 beds could be added at the Nevada State Prison for up to 90 days. He explained maximum capacity could not be exceeded for more than 90 days pursuant to court order. Chairman Marvel inquired whether the maximum security population at the prison at Ely would diminish. Mr. Bayer responded maximum security capability would be expanded at Ely when the Lovelock facility came on-line. Some medium security inmates would be moved from Ely to Lovelock. As a result, there would be a reduction in total beds at Ely. Mr. Bayer reported on March 23, 1995, 40 beds could be added at Northern Nevada Correctional Center as a contingency measure to keep up with inmate population growth. Additionally, on April 7, 1995, 18 beds could be added at the Northern Nevada Restitution Center. On April 17, 1995, the Department was anticipating the Pioche Conservation Camp expansion to come on-line, which would add 116 beds. On May 16, 1995, the 88 beds at the Nevada State Prison would have to be relinquished, and the Department proposed to add up to 144 beds at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. He explained the Northern Nevada Correctional Center could handle the added population; however, there was a court order in place (i.e, the Stickney agreement) establishing the number of staff required to manage inmate populations exceeding 172 per housing unit. One additional position would be required for each shift for each unit housing more than 172 inmates as well as a roving patrol between the units on two of the three shifts. Mr. Bayer explained if the contingency measures were required the crew hired to implement those measures would be transferred to Lovelock Correctional Center when it went on-line. Mr. Arberry asked if a sample population of inmates would be moved to Lovelock to test the facility prior to moving in the whole inmate population. Mr. Bayer said initially a small group of inmates would be moved into the facility while the infrastructure was tested for proper operation. Mr. Arberry inquired whether there were extended warranties in place to cover necessary repairs or corrections of systems. Mr. Bayer answered there were no extended warranties in place, but the contractors had agreed to test some equipment and make repairs prior to the facility opening. Mr. Dan Daily, Project Manager, Public Works Board, stated most of the original warranties, including the warranty on the locking system, had expired October 4, 1994. Mr. Arberry questioned the prudence of not maintaining warranties on equipment as complex as the locking system. Mr. Daily said the locking system at the facility had been operated on a monthly basis and the contractor had made some replacement of equipment. He expressed confidence the locking system would operate as designed. Mr. Arberry reiterated his concern with the potential expense of repairing inoperative or damaged systems. Mr. Bayer noted contingency measures would only be implemented if they were found to be necessary. He added that if additional beds were still needed on June 13, 1995, the women inmates at Jean would be transferred to Silver Springs to utilize the emergency capacity (112 beds). This measure would require the transfer of operating funds from one location to the other. Additional staff would be required at Jean. Chairman Marvel asked how much money would be moved from the coming biennium to the current biennium. Mr. Neill said the Department requested $10,339 for 40 beds at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, $1,052,000 for the cost of hiring staff at Lovelock, $46,654 to hire personnel and training staff at Lovelock, and $197,961 for 144 beds at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. The total supplemental appropriation would be $1.3 million approximately. Mr. Neill also pointed out costs in the Executive Budget would increase approximately $788,000 in Fiscal Year 1996 if Lovelock Correctional Center was opened in July, which was three months earlier than originally planned. Chairman Marvel inquired whether there were alternative measures (e.g., double bunking) for managing inmate population growth. Mr. Bayer stated inmates were already being double bunked at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center and the Nevada State Prison. He said every alternative had been reviewed. Mr. Bayer added the Department would be requesting supplemental funding to hire an Information Specialist II in the classification and planning section prior to July 1, 1995. He noted Senator James wanted to utilize Department of Prisons staff to forecast fiscal data to be used in conjunction with proposed crime legislation and supported funding this position early for this purpose. Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Bayer to explain what Senator James was requesting. Mr. Bayer said Senator James needed assistance from prison staff to forecast the potential impact of proposed legislation which would deplete staffing resources needed to perform routine tasks. Mr. Spitler stated the state was in an emergency situation now with regard to inmate population, and he expressed surprise that a legislative committee would deplete resources needed to respond to that emergency. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about the status of the management team. Mr. Bayer replied he was still forming his management team. Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciated Mr. Bayer's need to be able to choose managers who could best carry out his policies. But she also encouraged Mr. Bayer to assemble his management team promptly. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would like to see written policies, if any, for disciplining inmates which Mr. Bayer intended to put in place. She also requested information regarding staffing recommendations (i.e., ratio of staff and correctional officers to inmates), and criteria for eligibility for parole. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested Mr. Bayer might have been provided an opportunity to redraft the Department of Prisons budget according to his own policies, rather than accept a budget drafted by his predecessor. She encouraged him to come back with a proposed budget reflecting what Nevada must do to keep people behind bars who should stay behind bars versus those who should be mainstreamed back into society. Mr. Bayer said he believed each warden had provided budget input which adequately reflected their program needs, but he would review the budget. Chairman Marvel questioned whether there were any situations which were unique to any of the Department's institutions. Mr. Bayer said he would like to update the committee regarding the honor camps. He said the Department of Prisons was working with the Forestry Division to solve problems regarding diminished work crews. Light-duty crews (comprised of inmates without the physical capability to work on fire crews) were being formed to perform work such as highway cleanup. Additionally, the system of work credits was being reviewed to ensure work credits constituted an incentive to perform hard work. Chairman Marvel noted the Department of Transportation had informed the committee that conservation crew availability for Fiscal Year 1995 had substantially deteriorated. Mr. Bayer said he would look closely at this issue. Mr. Spitler said he understood residential confinement was an extension of a prison sentence, i.e., an inmate would leave the control of the Department of Prisons and move to the control of Parole and Probation. He said he also understood this action would require no formal parole. He asked what type of inmate would be eligible for such a program, the type of program envisioned being provided, and who would determine when or which inmates were moved into the residential confinement program. He also questioned whether legislation proposing the expanded residential confinement program had been drafted and could be reviewed by the subcommittee. Mr. Bayer said legislation was being drafted and would be forthcoming. He agreed to provide a copy to the subcommittee. Mr. Bayer said the type of inmate who would be appropriate for expanded residential confinement was a non-violent first-time or second-time offender serving a short sentence. He explained residential confinement was basically a classification action. Offenders would still be considered inmates but would be supervised by Parole and Probation. If those inmates deviated from appropriate behavior they could immediately be placed in a confinement setting without having to go through the parole process. Mr. Spitler asked how this sentencing structure was different than that currently available to the courts. Mr. Bayer said judges currently had the authority to sentence inmates to electronic confinement prior to sentencing as part of probation. He noted using residential confinement in conjunction with prison sentences was effective in reducing recidivism rates. Mr. Spitler indicated he was in favor of the Department of Prisons having the authority to determine whether inmates should be diverted to residential confinement. Statistics revealed the more control the prisons had over inmate placements, the lower the recidivism rates. Mr. Spitler added the subcommittee would be looking very carefully at this program to be certain public safety was ensured. Senator O'Donnell said there appeared to be two gatekeepers, one for inmates going into the prison system, and one for inmates leaving the prison system. Judges and the court system comprised the first gatekeeper. Parole and Probation was the second gatekeeper. He said it was not within the purview of the Department of Prisons to determine the placement of inmates because assigning that responsibility to the Department of Prisons eliminated input from victims of crime from the sentencing process. He pointed out if more prisons were needed, it was the responsibility of the Department of Prisons to so advise the Legislature and the responsibility of the Legislature to take appropriate action. Mr. Bayer said the Department of Prisons was charged with executing policy, not making policy. He noted, however, judges did not have sole proprietorship of the incoming gate. There were already a series of sanctions and diversions in place within the criminal justice system which affected inmate placements. Those sanctions and diversions were designed to make the system as cost effective and as fair as possible for both offenders and victims of crime, taking into consideration measures to ensure offenders do not become repeat offenders. He added Parole and Probation had been developing a series of intermediate sanctions to establish forms of punishment other than incarceration. He emphasized residential confinement still constituted punishment. Mr. Bayer reiterated neither the Department of Prisons nor the Parole and Probation Division were in a position to set policy, but rather, they served to apply policy by screening inmates who they judged to meet the criteria for alternative sentencing. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the alternative sentencing proposal envisioned public input into the inmate placement process. Mr. Bayer said he would research the question and report to the subcommittee. PRISON MEDICAL CARE - PAGE 1567 Chairman Marvel asked for a presentation on the Prison Medical Care budget. Mr. Bayer introduced Dr. George Kaiser, Medical Director. Dr. Kaiser testified the mission of the Medical Division was to provide inmates with basic medical, mental health, and dental services to maintain health and prevent significant deterioration. The standards for access to care and care ordered under professional medical judgment were set by the federal court system. Dr. Kaiser reported the Division had made several significant accomplishments since the 1993 legislative session, including the settlement of a class-action lawsuit, opening of a regional medical facility, and efforts to control hospitalization costs and inmate expenditures. He said the Division had continued to develop a quality assurance program, revised the medical classification system, developed an infection control program, and was involved in the DUI program at Indian Springs Conservation Camp. In the past eight months, the Division was successful in providing on-site consultations at prisons. He noted this enhanced public safety by keeping inmates within the prison environment. Dr. Kaiser said the budget requested 60 new positions, including 22 for Lovelock Correctional Center, 11 for the substance abuse treatment program planned for Jean Conservation Camp, 5 clerical support positions, 2 administrative positions, 2 for medical services, and 9 for mental health services. Mrs. Chowning said the committee required more detailed information regarding the average cost per inmate for medical care. She asked if the number of inmates requiring high-cost medical care had increased. Dr. Kaiser said current medical costs averaged approximately $269.50 per month. Projected costs would be $291.42 per month in Fiscal Year 1996 and $292.00 per month in Fiscal Year 1997. With the centralization of services, inmates requiring significant medical expenditures had been relocated from Las Vegas and Ely to the regional medical facility. He noted information about associated cost savings had previously been provided to the Interim Finance Committee. Dr. Kaiser said other strategies for dealing with serious or terminal medical illness included providing medical information to the Parole Board and the Pardons Board. He noted there were inmates with terminal illness who could not leave the prison system for various reasons. He noted several of those inmates had died at the regional medical facility. Mrs. Chowning requested a break out of factors which were driving medical costs. Dr. Kaiser agreed to provide the information. Mrs. Chowning noted a small number of inmates were responsible for the majority of medical costs, and the committee needed information about that population. Dr. Kaiser stated the Division had been tracking the inmates who incurred medical expenses over $10,000 in order to identify inmates whose cases needed to be managed to ensure the most cost effective and appropriate medical or mental health care. Senator Raggio noted the measurement indicators reflected increases in medical costs per inmate from $8.90 per day for Fiscal Year 1994 to $9.58 per day in Fiscal Year 1996 and $9.60 per day in Fiscal Year 1997. On a per-year basis the costs would increase from $3,248 in Fiscal Year 1994 to $3,497 in Fiscal Year 1996 and $3,504 in Fiscal Year 1997. Information obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics - 1993 indicated the cost of medical care ranged from a low of $634 per year in Louisiana to a high of $3,260 per year in Massachusetts. Nevada's costs were reported to be $2,861 per year. He inquired what Nevada's standing was now in comparison to other national averages. Mr. Bayer said the last information he had seen indicated Nevada was in approximately the middle one-third of average medical expenditures. He agreed to research this question. Senator Raggio questioned whether a capitation program was in place. Dr. Kaiser replied there was no capitation program. Mr. Spitler inquired whether an inmate with a terminal illness would be eligible for the expanded residential confinement program, and thereby reduce the prison bed count. Mr. Bayer said some terminally ill inmates would probably qualify for reclassification to residential confinement. Mr. Spitler suggested this matter be looked at. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested this information might be included in the Parole Board guidelines for assessing candidates for parole. Ms. Giunchigliani requested statistics regarding co-payments and whether inmates were, in fact, paying a portion of medical expenses. Chairman Marvel inquired whether co-payments were being waived. Dr. Kaiser replied the co-payment program had been implemented according to statute. He noted co-payments were assessed based on the providers' judgment. The cases of providers with several recommendations for no charge were reviewed with the provider. He explained an analysis of the policy revealed it was costly to collect funds due. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if inmates using sickcall were monitored to determine if they were actually ill and if there was any disciplinary procedure for inmates using sickcall without good cause. Dr. Kaiser responded inmates avoided using medical services for which they knew they would incur an expense. He noted sickcall utilization had decreased since the policy was implemented, but not much revenue had been generated as a result of the co-payment policy. Mr. Hettric noted several thousand dollars was proposed in the Inmate Welfare Account budget to pay for an inmate television system. He suggested the committee explore whether medical care co-payments could be charged against the Inmate Welfare Account rather than paying for television systems. Dr. Kaiser stated an attempt was made to pay for prosthetics from the Inmate Welfare Account but was not statutorily permitted. Mr. Hettrick questioned whether the law could be modified to permit medical payments from the Inmate Welfare Account. Mr. Neill said the statute could be modified. He noted the Division was requesting payment of several positions from store fund profits. He explained Inmate Welfare Fund revenues had only recently reached levels sufficient to pay expenses. Chairman Marvel asked Dr. Kaiser to discuss the contracting of medical services at Ely. Mr. Bayer said his staff was compiling data to determine an appropriate course of action based on costs and level of services. Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), said he was glad to hear no decision had been finalized. He noted the Ely employees had serious concerns about this situation. He explained Ely had an overall staffing problem. Elimination of medical department staff could impact corrections staff since many medical employees were married to correctional personnel. If dismissed medical staff members moved from the Ely area to find other employment, their spouses or partners employed in corrections would move with them. He noted 13 of 24 full-time medical staff members had spouses or significant others employed in corrections. Additionally, people who had considered employment at Ely were withholding a decision to work at Ely pending resolution of this issue. Mr. Gagnier stated there was a serious morale problem at Ely due to this situation. He said contracting for services was not the way to solve the problem and would not save money for the state. PRISON INDUSTRY - PAGE 1585 Chairman Marvel asked for a brief overview of the Prison Industry budget. Mr. Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director, stated on January 16, 1995, the Department of Prisons announced the opening of a program at Southern Desert Correctional Center in cooperation with the private sector to manufacture Cobras for Shelby North America. It was anticipated the program would be expanding and the wood shop at Southern Desert Correctional Center would be consolidated with the furniture factory at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. He explained the product line would not be reduced. He noted Prison Industries had been able to timely deliver furnishings for the new state office building while the private sector suppliers had not. Mr. Skolnik reported Prison Industries was also in the process of manufacturing ambulances for a company in Reno. He explained this was a test project which hopefully could lead to a larger program at the Lovelock facility. Prison Industries would be meeting with Clean Water Technology, a Seattle manufacturing company, regarding the manufacture of water processing equipment. He noted both Clean Water Technology and Shelby North America had relocated to Nevada, in part, due to their cooperative efforts with Prison Industries. Both would also have substantial operations in their communities (Carson City and Las Vegas). Mr. Skolnik indicated the Ely program was still under review and was losing approximately $8,000 per month. Several possible new products were being considered. A private sector uniform manufacturer had been approached about entering into a joint program with Prison Industries. Mr. Skolnik stated Prison Industries would be displaying products at the National Summit On Correctional Industries in Houston in March. Certification of a limousine manufacturing program in conjunction with Lincoln-Mercury was expected within approximately 60 days. Metal products had recently exceeded all required standards. Finally, Prison Industries had provided furnishings for the new Ormsby House. Chairman Marvel questioned whether the accounts had been reconciled. Mr. Skolnik said Prison Industries was being assisted by Support Services staff. He hoped to have the work finalized in early March. Senator Raggio asked how many inmates were involved in the Prison Industries program. Mr. Skolnik answered slightly over 300 inmates were involved in the program. Senator Raggio inquired what the agency's goals were for the coming biennium. Mr. Skolnik stated he would like to see inmate involvement increase by 50 to 100 inmates. Chairman Marvel noted it appeared the prison system would be short approximately 500 beds by July 1, 1995. He questioned when a revised budget could be available. Ms. Janet Johnson, Deputy Budget Administrator, replied her staff would meet with Dr. Austin regarding revised inmate population projections. Once the revised projections were available, the Budget Division would require at least a week to redraft the budget. Chairman Marvel requested a time certain for submittal of the revised budget in order that fiscal staff could schedule subcommittee hearings. Mr. Comeaux estimated the revised budget could be prepared by March 17, 1995. Chairman Marvel asked if recommendations for increased General Fund spending would be provided at that time. Mr. Comeaux stated information regarding supplemental funds necessary prior to July 1, 1995, and adjustments to the Executive Budget had been supplied to fiscal staff. Mr. Comeaux said he had requested legislation for funding the design and construction costs of Phase II of the Lovelock Correctional Center for consideration by the Legislature. Senator Raggio reminded the Department of Prisons of its commitment to provide the committee with any modifications required to properly staff the conservation camps with appropriate inmates. Mr. Neill agreed to provide the information. Mr. Price inquired whether the state had ever investigated the possibility of utilizing the unused Caliente county jail facility. Mr. Neill said he would look into this matter. He noted small facilities were very expensive to operate. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Dr. Austin to provide to the committee an assessment of the possible outcomes if proposed crime legislation were adopted. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:11 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Dale Gray, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means February 17, 1995 Page