MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session February 22, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 22, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ernest E. Adler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Joni A. Kaiser, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW) John H. Sarb, Administrator, Nevada Division of Child and Family Services Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum Kathleen L. Shane, Director, Children's Services, Washoe County Social Services Penny Brock, Taxpayer Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education Mary Nebgen, Ph.D., Superintendent, Washoe County School District Carol C. Andrews, Concerned Citizen Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association Sherri Lakin, Parent Robin Hollingshead, Parent Chairman Rawson called the meeting to order. He stated there were four bills set for hearing today. He said the committee would hear Senate Bill 142 and Senate Bill 143 first so that Senator Adler could speak. SENATE BILL 142: Specifies proof required before child placed in protective custody may be released to person responsible for his welfare. (BDR 38-1068) SENATE BILL 143: Requires consideration of wishes of elderly persons in provision of services to those persons. (BDR 38-1107) Senator Ernest E. Adler was first to testify. He asked that Senate Bill 143 not be heard at this meeting because persons in the health care profession brought to his attention a problem with the bill. He stated he would like to rework the language before presenting it. Regarding Senate Bill 142, Senator Adler stated the genesis of the bill is that some children in Northern Nevada had been returned to their home after having been removed by a social services agency, and subsequently, in one incident, been beaten to death by the parents, and in other instances been seriously injured. He explained the idea behind this bill is that, somewhere along the line, a determination be made by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not if the child is returned to the home they are not going to suffer physical or psychological harm. He stated there is currently no standard. He clarified that when a decision is made to return a child who has been abused to his home, that child should have a greater than 50 percent chance that he will not be reinjured. Senator Adler commented he thinks this is a fairly low standard, but thinks it is important that a determination be made that there will not be a re-injury. He said there is an error in the bill, pointed out to him by Kathleen Shane, Director, Children's Services, Washoe County Social Services. He referred to a chart (Exhibit C) which shows the process that the state goes through in removing children from their homes. Senator Adler said the bill incorrectly makes a reference to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 432B.410 which deals with the protective custody hearing. Senator Adler explained that process comes at an early stage. He stated that is not what the bill intends. He said it should state on line 3, NRS 432B.530 which addresses the adjudicatory hearing stage. Chairman Rawson stated there are two sides of the issue, one being they do not want children to be returned to the home to be reinjured, the other being they do not want to unjustly prevent children from returning to their homes. He asked Senator Adler if he thinks this bill would be able to accomplish that balance. Senator Adler answered saying he thinks so. He stated this bill requires a fairly definite, although not a high standard. Senator Adler commented it would require a finding that it is more likely than not that there would not be a reinjury to the child. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Adler if he knows of any other states that use similar procedures. Senator Adler replied this standard is used in all civil cases which require proof. He said a "preponderance of evidence" is a standard with which judges are familiar. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Adler if he knows of any other state which had taken steps to accomplish what this bill requires. Senator Adler said he has not researched other states standards for required criteria in returning children to homes where abuse has occurred. Senator Adler said his main concern is the protection of children who may be returned to abusive households and be reinjured or even killed. Vice Chairman Lowden, referring to line 6, "...that no further physical or psychological harm...", asked if there are guidelines for judges to follow in order to make that determination. She asked how one would determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child would endure no further psychological harm. Senator Adler said it is somewhat subjective in that the judge will be looking at reports from various social service agencies in making his determination. Senator Adler explained the judge would be looking for extremely damaging incidents that may occur. Chairman Rawson thanked Senator Adler for his testimony and asked if anyone wished to testify in opposition to the bill. Joni A. Kaiser, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW), came forth to testify. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit D) she expressed her concerns regarding the language in the bill and the potential financial burden imposed thereby. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone in favor of this bill would like to testify. John H. Sarb, Administrator, Nevada Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), was next to testify. Mr. Sarb stated DCFS is in support of the bill, particularly with the proposed amendments offered by Senator Adler. He said DCFS does not currently return a child to a home where abuse or neglect would be expected to reoccur. Mr. Sarb explained the practical effect of this bill is to strengthen the court's ability to be the "check and balance" that it is supposed to be. He said he thought it would compel his staff to articulate to the court, as a matter of evidence, why they believe a child would not be reinjured, and why DCFS thinks the home would be safe for the child. He said the judge would then concur with them. Mr. Sarb pointed out it would strengthen the safeguard. Chairman Rawson asked if a child is removed from a home as a result of reported abuse, and the social service agency feels it is a dangerous situation, does the agency presently have the authority to keep the child out of the home. Mr. Sarb answered in the affirmative. He explained the sections of the law which Senator Adler suggested be amended out of this bill are the sections which apply in that instance. Mr. Sarb stated the only requirement for removal is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is in danger of immediate harm. Mr. Sarb said the State has very broad discretion in those circumstances through various agencies. He stated a judge is currently required to hear the matter within 72 hours. He stressed under S.B. 142, the social service agency would have 10 days to proceed to petition, and it would be at that point where the agency would go back to court and articulate to the judge why it believes returning the child to his home would be a safe thing to do. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mr. Sarb if any other states have this kind of language and, if so, if it is working. Mr. Sarb answered he was unsure. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if he had a number of cases where he felt the child was returned without a preponderance of evidence and then a problem had occurred. Mr. Sarb answered in the negative. He explained there is always some risk involved. He said DCFS presently observes those standards, but emphasized passage of this bill would create an added safeguard. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if Mr. Sarb could comment on the psychological harm. Mr. Sarb replied when dealing with psychological abuse or neglect it is always more difficult to prove originally, and more difficult to establish that it will not reoccur in the future. He said DCFS evaluates the situation based on the completion of parenting classes, interviews, and observed interaction between parents and children during supervised visits. He said DCFS makes their recommendations to the judge, who then must make his decision. He said he thought it is fair to require a certificate of completion from the parents which would provide evidence of compliance. Vice Chairman Lowden asked how it is currently handled. She asked Mr. Sarb what a judge would do, presently, if DCFS stated the parent had not completed the class, and in fact did not even care about the class. Mr. Sarb stated in most cases a judge usually handles it in the same manner, but the hearings are typically only a matter of minutes, particularly in Clark County. He stated this bill would insure that at least a portion of the hearing would be devoted to a specific finding. He said he thinks when a judge is required to make a specific finding in the law, the judge would take that very seriously. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if Mr. Sarb knows of any cases where DCFS has gone before a judge and asked that a child not be returned to the family, and the judge made the opposite finding and returned the child to the family. Mr. Sarb said without citing specific statistics the incidence of that happening, while possible, is slight. He further explained DCFS may lose the case in petition, but post-petition the incidence is very slight. Chairman Rawson asked if DCFS has had any situations where parents have sued the state because their children have been taken away without cause. Mr. Sarb stated the threat is made nearly weekly, but he has never seen one get to court, let alone be founded. Senator Neal stated he did not have NRS 432B.530 before him and asked Mr. Sarb for clarification on that statute. Mr. Sarb stated NRS 432B.530 concerns the adjudicatory hearing on the petition of child abuse and neglect. Senator Neal said it goes up to NRS 432B.600 according to the bill. Mr. Sarb said NRS 432B.540 is in regard to the requirement for a social service agency to present a plan stating their intention to the court. The purpose of those sections is to outline the steps the court must take. Senator Neal said, as he understands the bill, it deals with a proceeding which is already held. He further stated this bill would then put a restriction on the judge as to what the judge's determination could be after listening to the facts in any particular hearing. Mr. Sarb said he does not see it that way. He explained in the case where a child has been in protective services for a period of months and the agency feels it is time to return the child to his home, the onus is on the agency to provide a preponderance of evidence in support of its position so the judge can make his decision. Senator Neal asked for clarification regarding what is currently done as opposed to how it will be done if this bill is passed. Mr. Sarb reiterated that the onus will be on the social service agency. He said the practical effect will be to.... Senator Neal interrupted saying, "No, the onus would be on the judge, because you say he must find by preponderance of the evidence." Mr. Sarb agreed, clarifying the judge would have to make a specific ruling that he is not presently required to make. Senator Neal asked what difference it would make in Mr. Sarb's job as it relates to child abuse if the bill passed. Mr. Sarb said his agency would have to be more articulate to the court about their reasons for recommending the child be returned to the home. Chairman Rawson thanked Mr. Sarb for his testimony and asked if anyone else would like to testify in opposition to the bill. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, was next to testify. Mrs. Hansen expressed her concern for protection of parents' rights as well as childrens' rights. Senator Mathews asked Senator Adler if abuse occurs and grandparents are available to take custody of the children whether they are required to go to court to get custody. Senator Adler replied that although he is not an expert in this area, he believes they would have to go through the appropriate protective service agency. Senator Neal asked Senator Adler to explain to the committee exactly what this new standard would mean. Senator Adler replied that it is a civil law standard. He said it means that the greater probability is that the child would not be reinjured. He commented that the preponderance of the evidence only requires 51 percent. He stated this bill would require a judge to examine the social service agency reports in making his decision that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the child would not be re-harmed. Senator Neal stated if there was more evidence on one side than the other, that would constitute preponderance and that would have to be considered. Senator Adler replied that if one side presented more credible evidence than the other that the judge would have to find in its favor. Senator Washington expressed his misgivings with the bill, and said he wondered about its intent since the actions currently taken apparently accomplish the same thing. Senator Adler concurred, but said there is presently a less clear standard than provided by this bill. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone else wished to testify in favor of the bill. Kathleen L. Shane, Director, Children's Services, Washoe County Social Service (WCSS), came forth to testify. Ms. Shane stated WCSS is in favor of the bill with the proposed amendments mentioned by Senator Adler. She proposed an amendment to the language in lines 4 and 5, where it states, "...must not be released to the person responsible for his welfare..." to read: "...must not be released to a person responsible for the abuse or neglect..." She said that language would make it very specific as to whom the child would be released to. She said it would also make clear that the same evaluative techniques would be implemented when evaluating the relatives. Senator Mathews stated Ms. Shane's proposed amendment would clarify her concerns. Ms. Shane explained WCSS evaluates the relative to whom they would be releasing the child and if that home also proves unsuitable they would present that evidence to the judge as well. Senator Neal said: As I understand the bill, it says that the judge has to make the finding by preponderance of the evidence that no psychological or physical harm would come to the child by being released to this person whom they describe as responsible for the child's welfare. Give me an example if you can as to how this would operate. What will be looked at in terms of say psychological first and say physical harm. Ms. Shane said: Okay, psychological harm is perhaps the most difficult area to prove that has even occurred in the first place. What we would be looking at that time would be reports from psychologists clinical evaluations as statements that support our position that the parent realizes the damages that have occurred, that they've taken action and corrective action to change their behaviors that led to the psychological damage. In the area of a physical injury to the child, it depends upon the nature of what the physical injury is, but let's say it's inappropriate discipline that resulted in severe injury to the child. What we would be looking at is parenting classes, . . . again counseling therapist's statements and as well as our own observations and time that we spend in the home with the families. We would also be looking at services that we currently use such as family preservation services where they spend in-home counseling time with families and observe them and give them direct input on how to change a behavior. Senator Neal stated: Now, if the child is physically harmed, that becomes evidence within itself. The child has bruises. You can see that. You can take pictures of that. Now, when we go to the psychological portion of this particular bill, are we not saying then that we talking about someone else who is abusing the child by some manner, or yelling at the child, and this determination would have to be made not necessarily by the child himself, by the finding of some type of social worker. Is that not correct? Ms. Shane answered: Or psychologist/psychiatrist. In order to have a psychological injury to the child you have to indicate, you have to be able to prove what the parental behavior was that caused the injury and how the child was psychologically damaged. Senator Neal asked: So, in your experience, what evidence have you seen that you can give to this committee that would allow us to address this in a fashion that we know that once we pass upon it, it's going to work? Ms. Shane said: I would go back to the statement that I was making would be a psychological evaluation and a statement from the therapist that is treating... Senator Neal asked, "by whom?" Ms. Shane replied: Not by a social worker assigned to the case, it would be by a therapist, a licensed therapist. Senator Neal stated: And that person would, no doubt, be appointed by the state. Ms. Shane said: The child protective service agency or the division of child and family services from the state, depending on who has legal jurisdiction of the child would probably be called upon to pay for that service by the court if they are not eligible through their own private resources such as insurance or Medicaid eligible.... Senator Neal asked: So, for the psychological portion, you would go to someone who probably would have say a vested interest in terms of compensation for their services, or a state person who would have to make this particular judgment? Ms. Shane replied: Well, with the rates that most agencies pay therapists, they're not getting rich. Their private rates usually are substantially higher. We would be using somebody...we would give the parents the option to choose their own clinical therapist. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Neal if he was asking if there was a conflict of interest. Senator Neal replied: Essentially that's what it would turn out to be, psychologically. I can understand the physical abuse here, but when we talk about psychological abuse, and we're asking the court to make a finding on the preponderance of evidence, the court then is listening to individuals who probably have a vested interest, either job-wise or being paid for their particular services. Ms. Shane said: I think they would argue with you on that that they are looking at the best interests and whether the family completing, but I can't address that issue. Chairman Rawson thanked Ms. Shane for her testimony and asked if anyone else was in opposition to the bill. Penny Brock, Taxpayer, was next to testify. She said she was concerned about this bill from the taxpayer's standpoint. She asked if this would add to the already overburdened courts, and what the cost would be to the taxpayers. She asked if it would add to the cost of social services. She said she thinks the wording in this bill is too vague with regard to the definitions of physical and psychological harm. She urged the committee to vote no on this bill. Chairman Rawson thanked Ms. Brock for her testimony and asked if anyone else wished to testify in support of the bill. A letter was received on February 22, 1995, from Robert W. Teuton, Assistant Director, Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services, expressing their opposition to the bill (Exhibit E). There being no further testimony, Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 142, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 30. SENATE BILL 30: Authorizes grants of money to elementary schools for programs of early intervention for certain pupils. (BDR 34-286) Chairman Rawson asked if there are any proponents of this bill. Keith Rheault, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent, Nevada Department of Education, was first to testify. He said the bill would allow the Department of Education the opportunity to grant money to elementary schools to develop programs of early intervention for at-risk and disadvantaged students who could benefit from such programs. He went on reading from prepared text (Exhibit F) to outline his views on the bill. Mary Nebgen, Ph.D., Superintendent, Washoe County School District (WCSD) was next to testify. Dr. Nebgen said she joined Dr. Rheault in support of S.B. 30. She said WCSD thinks the best approach is to offer quality preschool programs for 3- and 4-year old children who are living in poverty. She said it is not WCSD's goal to have all 3- and 4-year-old children go to preschool whether living in poverty or not, but to remove the barriers to a preschool education for those who wish to participate. She said WCSD envisions a preschool program with a strong parent component, integration of health and social services, and promotion of family self-sufficiency. Vice Chairman Lowden expressed her advocacy for preschool programs but said she is curious as to where this program could be implemented in terms of facilities. Dr. Nebgen stated facilities would be an issue, but she thinks the building of new schools with the passage of new bond issues would accommodate that. She suggested portable classrooms could be purchased and students could be shuffled around to make classrooms with restrooms accessible to the toddlers. She concluded by saying it would be an issue, but not an insurmountable one. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if the facilities are considered to be a part of the $300,000 budget, or if the facilities are additional. Dr. Nebgren said facilities are not included in the $300,000. She stated the $300,000 appropriation would not begin to cover all of the needs for the preschool they perceive, but said it would be a beginning. Dr. Rheault stated that the Department of Education's interpretation of the intent of this bill is to get principals of elementary schools to write grants for what they consider innovative programs for early intervention. He said what they envision is that the state would fund the $20,000 per available site which could be used for hiring a part-time extra reading teacher, or an English as a Second Language (ESL) instructor to work with the first grade students to help them get caught up. He said the Department of Education is not looking at funding to the extent that Dr. Nebgen had mentioned. He said the Department of Education is just looking at programs which would allow staff and principals of elementary schools to be creative and generate funds unavailable to them at present. Vice Chairman Lowden asked if the State Board of Education has asked the Clark County School Foundation for funding for these programs in Clark County. She stated Clark County may already have a program of this nature if the foundation deems this an appropriate cause on which to spend their money. Dr. Rheault said his experience is that most foundations would rather deal directly with certain causes rather than give money at the state level. Senator Mathews asked if this would fit in with the family focus center. Dr. Nebgren said this works very well with the family focus center. She said a preschool program that works simply with academics would not be successful. She said the integration of health and social services is vital because very often the children who need the preschool most are in families who have other issues which need to be resolved. Chairman Rawson asked if that is included in the Governor's budget or if it is additional. Dr. Rheault said he mentioned that part of this bill, particularly the providing of health and social services to the public or to pupils who are at-risk, is one of the identified functions that could take place in a family resource center. He said there is $565,000 in the Governor's recommended budget for family resource centers. Chairman Rawson thanked Doctors Rheault and Nebgren for their testimony and asked if anyone else wished to testify in opposition to the bill. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, came forth to testify. She stated she has serious concerns about this bill. She said, referring to section 2, lines 4 and 5, it appears that the focus of this bill is to develop programs of early intervention which are designed to provide help and social services to pupils. She said if the focus is on preschool children, ages 2, 3 or 4, and the goal is to provide social services, she feels the Legislators would be setting up a structure for school- based health clinics, starting at the preschool level. Mrs. Hansen said her concern is that, once instituted, a school-based health clinic would focus on such things as abortion referral and contraceptive distribution. She acknowledged that sounds far- fetched but reminded the committee they would be setting up the structure and acceptance of health care needs being served by the schools, rather than being the responsibility of the family. She said the committee needs to exercise caution when initiating a program of this nature to guarantee there would be specific written parental consent for any health services that are provided for a child. She said she is concerned that when the state gets involved in providing medical services for a family, there could be problems safeguarding that family's privacy. She called attention to the government's failure with regard to the welfare system. She said she views this as just another program which would foster further dependency on the system. She insisted it would be like the welfare system, it will not work. She said there is a study produced by the Cato Institute regarding the Head Start program which presents a different view of the benefits of the program. She said it found that those children within the program did not have any significant advantage versus those without it. She said she is also concerned about the screening process for children to determine their need or eligibility. She expressed her further concern that once labeled, those children would never be able to have that label removed throughout their school career. She said she feels the National Education Association's (NEA) interest in these programs stem from their desire to expand their numbers even though they are currently the largest, most powerful union in the country. She said it certainly appears that this bill would cost the taxpayers more money. She urged a no vote on this bill. Chairman Rawson thanked Ms. Hansen for her testimony. Carol Andrews, Concerned Citizen, was next to testify. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit G) she expressed her concerns and opposition to the bill. After presenting her written testimony, she quoted from a teachers manual (Exhibit H) page 35: 1. Our constitutional government excludes any power of the state to standardize children; 2. Children are not mere creatures of the state; and 3. Parents have the higher right to control the lives and values to be adopted by their children. Chairman Rawson thanked Ms. Andrews for her testimony and asked if anyone else would like to testify in favor of the bill. Rick Millsap, President, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stepped forward to testify. He said NSEA wants to go on record in favor of this bill. Vice Chairman Lowden mentioned she is a board member of the Variety Day Home which serves the same purpose as this bill would provide. She said she knows for a fact that it does work, however, the cost of the Variety Day Home is primarily funded with private funds and some federal grant funds. She asked if the NSEA has any suggestions on how they could fulfill the grants of the Department of Education like the Clark County School District so they could look at private funds in doing an innovative program like this as they are already doing in Clark County. Mr. Millsap replied there are a lot of ways to accomplish that. He described a program in Rhode Island, "Kids First," where they have an annual dinner to raise funds for underprivileged children. Vice Chairman Lowden stated her main concern is where the funds would come from in the future if this bill passed. Mr. Millsap said he would like to generate the funds in any way possible, but he thought the state should fund this initially to get the program "off the ground." He further stated he would like to rebut previous testimony regarding NEA's position on child health clinics. He said he has been a representative to NEA's national assembly for a number of years. He explained the discussion of health clinics in schools comes mainly from urban educators who observe that the only doctors most of their students ever see are in emergency wards. He clarified that any decision to implement clinics within public schools would be locally decided rather than at the state or national level. Senator Augustine pointed out, with regard to private funding, Dr. Rheault stated that Mr. Millsap has had that capability for 2 years, but it has become a very small funding source. She asked what Mr. Millsap thinks should be done so that it will become a larger funding source. Mr. Millsap responded he did not even know about it until today. Senator Augustine repeated he had that capability for 2 years. Mr. Millsap repeated he did not know it, and suggested Dr. Peterson, Dr. Rheault and he should have a discussion about it. Chairman Rawson thanked him for his testimony and asked if anyone else was in opposition to the bill. Sherri Lakin, Parent, was next to testify. She said is very concerned about the bill. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit I) she described her experience and concerns regarding early intervention. She urged a no vote on the bill, and asked the committee to avoid passing future bills which invade family privacy. Senator Neal said he often hears these arguments about parents and what they should do in terms of educating their children. He said very often parents are not college or high school graduates. He called attention to the fact that people have children irrespective of their credentials. He pointed out childbearing is merely a biological function. He asked what the state should do with those particular individuals who do not have the where-with-all or education to actually train that child. He asked if the state should just leave that child with his parents and have the parents educate the child. Ms. Lakin answered, "Yes, sir!" She said she did not believe that formal education is the criteria for being a parent. She said she believes there are many people who are highly intelligent who may not have a high school diploma, love their children, know right from wrong, and know what a child needs. Senator Neal asked her if she is saying that the child should not be educated in any way; that they should just depend upon the experience of their parents. Ms. Lakin responded by saying she believes there are many ways parents can make themselves good parents without the educational establishment intervening. Senator Neal asked for an example of what she was talking about. He commented a person must be trained to function in society. He said that is why the committee members serve in the legislative body, to make the laws based on their perception of society in general. He reiterated his request for an example. Ms. Lakin said she could use herself as an example. She stated she completed high school in 1966, and married in 1967. She said she did not complete college. She contended she raises her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. She said her children are very intelligent. She asserted her children have their problems with public schools as had she. She mentioned her 16-year-old daughter presently attends an academically challenging college. She said she has no more than her will to succeed coupled with her daughter's will to succeed to spur her along... Senator Neal interrupted asking what she would do with a parent who could not read or write. Ms. Lakin responded by asking Senator Neal how the state would discover, at age 3, whether a child's parent could read or write. She asked how they would go about bringing that child into the system without being invasive into that family. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lakin if she believed those questions should not be asked. Ms. Lakin answered saying she thought it was okay to ask them, but she does not think it should be funded with taxpayer dollars in a public school system. She emphasized she does not think the child should be taken out of the home at 3-years old or earlier. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lakin, "what about at 5?" Ms. Lakin said she does not think it should be mandatory. Chairman Rawson thanked Ms. Lakin for her testimony and asked if anyone else wish to testify in favor of the bill. No one came forth, and he asked if anyone else was opposed to the bill. Robin Hollingshead, Parent, came forth to testify in opposition. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit J) she cited a personal example of early intervention with her child in Douglas County. She commented in addition to her written testimony that she does not see how the children in early intervention programs could be accurately assessed since it would be impossible to determine what their outcome would have been without the intervention. She said she thought the state is creating additional liability for itself and the taxpayers by implementing health and social service programs from the standpoint of potential malpractice suits. She mentioned she knows of a bill in existence, Senate Bill (S.B.) 86, regarding disabled children at the age of 3 years, stating that the child must be enrolled into special programs. She said she had been told that it has been withheld, yet she has not had official confirmation of that. She said her concern is that it would require her child to be enrolled in a special program under the category of disabled. SENATE BILL 86: Repeals provision that pupils are not required to take advantage of special provisions for education. (BDR 34-736) Senator Augustine stated she thinks S.B. 86 originated with the federal government. She asserted the bill has been withdrawn. She explained previously if one had a child in special education, the child went to a special education school. She pointed out currently that child must be funded to go within the mainstream of the public schools. She stated the schools require additional funding to provide for the special education students. Senator Augustine asked if Dr. Rheault could comment on the statistic which indicates the special education student population has risen from 6.9 percent 4 years ago to 10.7 percent today. She said she is curious why over 10 percent of the student population is now designated as special education. Senator Neal interrupted saying he would like to ask the previous witness a question. He asked if it is appropriate, in Mrs. Hollingshead's judgment, for a teacher to tell a child to brush his teeth. Mrs. Hollingshead responded saying she believes teachers do mention that in special hygiene classes. She said she does not understand the intent of his question. Chairman Rawson said it seemed to him that Mrs. Hollingshead does not object, and asked for confirmation. Mrs. Hollingshead responded in the affirmative, but added if that is the interpretation of "health service" she is not under the impression that it is something as simple as telling a child they should brush their teeth. Chairman Rawson asked if anyone else is in favor, there being none, he asked if anyone else is in opposition to the bill. Penny Brock, Taxpayer, came forth to testify in opposition. She said she is concerned with this bill from the taxpayer's standpoint. She expressed her concern at line 4 where the bill states it will primarily provide the early intervention through health and social services which will improve the academic education. She said she is uncertain what is meant by that phrase. She said she assumes it means literacy skills. She stated she wonders why the health and human services concerns are being addressed within the education budget. She said the Nevada Constitution does not require parents to formally educate their children until the age of 7 years. She said she would like to know where the state is going with some of these budgets. She said she agrees with Senator Neal that we need to provide for our disadvantaged children, however, she thinks it should be accomplished outside of government. She asked how much funding would be provided for early intervention in all types of programs. Chairman Rawson stated those concerns should be addressed to the finance committee since they are beyond the scope of the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. He clarified the committee does not want to take the attitude "that is not our station," but generally speaking, he explained the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities deals with policy issues rather than budgetary issues. Senator Augustine said she wants to mention that there is a fiscal note attached to S.B. 30, which requests $330,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996 and another $330,000 for fiscal year 1996- 1997. She stated that the funds are earmarked for 15 grants for 263 elementary schools. Dr. Rheault came forth to respond to Senator Augustine's previous question regarding the percentage of special education pupils. He stated the figures cited by Senator Augustine are correct. He said one of the reasons is the Board of Education is seeing an increased number of children presently enrolled who were born drug addicted or who were affected by fetal alcohol syndrome. He said Nevada has a higher than normal number of people coming into the state who have special education needs. He stated better screening and identification at an earlier age add to those numbers. He concluded saying the federal government requires Nevada to actively seek and find 3- to 5- year-olds who have special education needs and serve them, whether or not Nevada accepts federal funds. Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 30 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 137. SENATE BILL 137: Provides for free distribution of publications of legislative counsel bureau to county law libraries. (BDR 33-1252) Senator Neal testified the bill was requested by the Clark County Law Library. He said the bill would amend NRS 380.170 to permit the law library, upon request, to receive copies of those publications listed in NRS 345.050. He explained S.B. 137 would also allow the law library to receive all of the copies of bills that are introduced. He explained the fiscal note attached to this bill is incorrect in that many of the publications mentioned therein are currently provided to the law library. He said the law library would only be receiving updates, and the cost of originals would not be added in again. He also pointed out although the bill says those documents would be provided to each county upon request, there is currently only one law library in the state, that being in Clark County. * * * * * VICE CHAIRMAN LOWDEN MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 137. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Chairman Rawson mentioned there would be a meeting on adjournment Friday, February 24, 1995, to hear one resolution. He said the committee would hold a work session if necessary. There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:43 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities February 22, 1995 Page