MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 12, 2007

The meeting of the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice (NRS 176.0123) was called to order by Justice James W. Hardesty, Chairman, at 9:08 a.m. on September 12, 2007, at the Legislative Building, Room 4100, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. The Agenda is included as Exhibit A and the Attendance Roster is included as Exhibit B. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT (CARSON CITY): Justice James W. Hardesty, Nevada Supreme Court, Chairman Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33 Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General Larry Digesti, Representative, State Bar of Nevada Gayle W. Farley, Victims Rights Advocate John Allan Gonska, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation Douglas Herndon, Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court Arthur Mallory, Churchill County District Attorney Dorla M. Salling, Chairwoman, State Board of Parole Commissioners Richard Siegel, President, ACLU of Nevada, Inmate Advocate Howard Skolnik, Director, Department of Corrections COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT (LAS VEGAS): Senator Steven A. Horsford, Clark District 4 Assemblyman David Parks, Clark District 41 COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District Raymond Flynn, Assistant Sheriff, Las Vegas METRO Phil Kohn, Clark County Public Defender James Miller, Sheriff, Storey County OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Washoe District 31 Assemblyman James Settelmeyer, Assembly District 39 Assemblywoman RoseMary Womack, Clark District 23

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 2 LEGAL DIVISION MEMBERS PRESENT: Bradley Wilkinson, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel Matthew Nichols, Senior Deputy Legislative Counsel OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Frierson, Clark County Public Defender Janet Traut, Senior Deputy Attorney General Linda Blevins, Secretary Chairman Hardesty called the Commission to order and roll was taken. It was noted that a quorum was present. The first item on the agenda was the approval of minutes for the July 24, 2007, meeting. Chairman Hardesty requested the Commission voice any changes or corrections. Mr. Howard Skolnik, Director, Department of Corrections (NDOC), noted that page 13, paragraph 2, incorrectly indicated "male" inmates were being housed in the dayrooms at the Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center. He requested the record be changed to indicate that "female" inmates were being housed in the dayrooms. Janet Traut, Senior Deputy Attorney General, indicated there was an incorrect spelling for the names of Jason Frierson and Amy Fettig. On page 8, Ms. Traut was incorrectly identified as serving as a member of the Commission rather than as counsel for the Commission. There being no other requests for corrections or modifications, Chairman Hardesty requested a motion for adoption of the minutes.

ARTHUR MALLORY, CHURCHILL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2007, AS CORRECTED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED.

*****

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 3 Chairman Hardesty advised the members that a primary objective for the meeting was to outline the goals they would like the Commission to accomplish. Chairman Hardesty then moved to agenda item 4 and recognized Howard Skolnik, Director, Department of Corrections. Mr. Skolnik began his presentation by noting that at the previous meeting of the Commission, information was requested on the NDOC staffing. In response, Mr. Skolnik noted the following:

• Average length of service of NDOC employees was approximately six and two-thirds years.

• Average age of staff was 41 years. • During the last fiscal year staff (both uniformed and non-uniformed) who left NDOC

service were: o 58 less than 1 year service o 9 with1 to 3 years service o 64 with 4 to 7 years service o 23 with 8 to 10 years service o 57 with 11+ years service

• Total NDOC in-house population at the current time 13,026. • Deportation program had 99 individuals pardoned and deported prior to expiration or

parole date. Mr. Skolnik explained that part of the flattening and subsequent reduction of the population was a "bubble" caused by the application of retroactive good time credits for probation and parole. There were approximately 1,400 individuals affected by those credits. He could not say definitively whether the population had, in fact, flattened. The last Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had approved a request for NDOC to purchase video conferencing equipment. Mr. Skolnik believed that by placing video conferencing equipment in the camps, the Parole Board could conduct face-to-face interviews as required by law without transporting the inmates. This would save NDOC time and money as well as ensure public safety.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 4 According to Mr. Skolnik, the construction was continuing as follows:

• The Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center was approximately one week behind schedule for the pre-engineered buildings. The modular unit was planned to open the end of February 2008.

• The opening of the two units at Southern Desert Correctional Center was scheduled for the end of January 2008.

• The construction at High Desert State Prison was on schedule. • The construction of the 300 beds at Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center was

on schedule. The Program of Regimental Discipline (Exhibit C) was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Skolnik stated there were 85 inmates for the 60 bed inmate boot camp program, and NDOC would accommodate all 85 of those individuals. Small trailer-type units were converted from living units to classroom units. Those units could be reconverted to living units and the multipurpose building could be used for classroom space. Mr. Skolnik updated the Commission on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 510. The patches for the computer system were in effect and appeared to be running as planned. If the patches ran successfully, it was anticipated that by September 17, 2007, inmate status could be obtained through the internet. Based on information obtained September 11, 2007, through the first run of the new computer system, Mr. Skolnik believed the following number of offenders would have their sentences or expiration dates reduced:

• 1,970 sentences reduced by 1 month or less • 4,460 sentences reduced by 1 to 3 months • 2,453 sentences reduced by 3 to 6 months • 1,216 sentences reduced by 6 to 12 months • 395 sentences reduced by 1 to 1½ years • 216 sentences reduced by 1½ to 2 years • 55 sentences reduced by 2 to 3 years • 3 sentences reduced by 3 to 4 years • 4 sentences reduced by greater than 4 years (these will need to be reviewed)

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 5 Impact on parole eligibility dates was as follows:

• 36 eligibility dates moved forward 1 month or less. • 22 eligibility dates moved forward 1 to 3 months. • 1,146 eligibility dates moved forward 3 to 6 months. • 225 eligibility dates moved forward 6 to 12 months. • 6 eligibility dates moved forward 12 to 18 months. • 2 eligibility dates moved forward 18 to 24 months. • 1 eligibility date moved forward 24 to 36 months. • 0 eligibility dates moved forward 36 to 48 months. • 2 eligibility dates moved forward 48 months or more (these will need to be reviewed).

The actual impact was as follows:

• 100 MPR (Mandatory Parole Release) immediately eligible to be released with approved parole plan.

• 220 regular parolees immediately eligible to be released with approved parole plan. • 250 to 300 approved parolees accelerated to be released within the next 60 days. • 625 additional inmates eligible to be seen by the Parole Board in the month of October

(these were in addition to the normal 700 eligible inmates). According to Mr. Skolnik, the information provided was the most current available. Chairman Hardesty requested that Mr. Skolnik review Exhibit C, the Program of Regimental Discipline, for the Commission members. Mr. Skolnik described page 2 of the exhibit as showing a representation of 58 percent of individuals who had entered the program during fiscal year (FY) 2006 had successfully graduated. There was a 21 percent failure rate and 16 percent that quit the program before completion. Failures were defined as anyone removed from the program for assaultive behavior, fighting, continuing or ongoing problem behavior, and excessive rule violations. Individuals who continue to be uncooperative were returned to the prison to complete their sentences. For the period January 1 to August 1, 2007, there was an improved graduation rate of 65 percent. The failure rate was reduced from 21 percent to 15 percent. The individuals who quit the program remained at 16 percent. The recidivism rate, as shown on page 4, for those who successfully completed the program was less than one-quarter of the recidivism rate for the Department. The program appeared to be successful for helping those individuals succeed.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 6 The program was made up of several areas which included 180 hours of life skill training, 150 hours of community service work, 200 hours of state work details to provide benefit to the State, and 80 hours of boot camp projects. Judge Herndon was curious whether statistics were available which reflected the percentage of judicial referrals that made it into the program versus the percentage rejected because of statutory requirements. Mr. Skolnik said he would provide those numbers to Judge Herndon. Judge Herndon commented that the boot camp program was used in lieu of incarceration. Often the judge might believe the person would benefit from the boot camp program but the mandatory probation sentence would be granted. In his opinion, the boot camp in lieu of a revocation of probation was underutilized by the judges. He was interested to learn whether statistics were available that would show the number of boot camp individuals who were there because of a probation violation report in lieu of a full revocation versus those sent to boot camp before their sentences were completed. Mr. Skolnik stated he would supply the information to Judge Herndon. Arthur Mallory, Churchill County District Attorney, asked for actual numbers for the recidivism rate shown on page 4 of the exhibit. Mr. Skolnik agreed to supply the numbers to Mr. Mallory. Mr. Mallory inquired what the comparison would be between the costs for boot camp versus the cost of incarceration. Mr. Skolnik estimated the cost of the camp was approximately $17 per day per inmate as compared to the cost at a medium security facility of approximately $35 per day per inmate. He believed the boot camp cost was slightly higher because of increased staffing requirements to provide the overall programming. Because the boot camp program was for 190 days as opposed to over one year for the regular camp program, there was an overall cost savings for the State. Chairman Hardesty commented that Lt. Harold Wickham, NDOC, had provided him with numbers and cost breakdowns which he would distribute to the Commission members. The comparison of numbers and the cost effect was notable. Chairman Hardesty inquired whether the Commission should examine statutory modifications to the Program of Regimental Discipline as far as the sentencing options and what brought defendants to the program. In the opinion of Mr. Skolnik, the success of the program was because of the staff involved. Nationally the data did not support regimental discipline or boot camp programs as viable programs. They had generally been seen as an opportunity for excessive force behavior on behalf of staff. He believed that if the program was expanded, it should not be a part of NDOC

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 7 but should be a diversionary program as the skills of NDOC staff were in the area of incarceration and programming within confinement facilities. Chairman Hardesty inquired whether the Commission should review the program to consider removing it from NDOC and possibly setting it aside as part of a diversion or probation program. Mr. Skolnik favored keeping the program at NDOC as it was an excellent tool for the community because the inmates could assist with projects and fund raisers. Inmates built 17 Habitat for Humanity homes as part of community service projects. However, he preferred that expansion be done as a diversionary program rather than as part of the Department. It appeared to Judge Herndon that a defendant initially charged with a crime of violence but convicted of a lesser nonviolent crime would be ineligible for the program. Statutorily boot camp was supposed to exclude anyone convicted of a felony involving violence, but it seemed referrals for rejection were referred to the crime for which they were originally arrested, not the one for which they were sentenced. He was curious to learn whether that was an internal policy decision by NDOC and whether a modification could be made without having to change legislation. A change would open the camp to more applicable people. Mr. Skolnik replied that the NDOC had the latitude to make those decisions under current law. It was important to avoid any potential for major incidents which would risk shutting down the program. Mr. Frierson agreed with concerns expressed by Judge Herndon regarding cases that had been negotiated to a lesser charge when the defendant had a record that was nonviolent. Often the prosecutor and defense attorney were privy to information which led to the negotiation of the lesser charge. For someone outside of that circle to use the original charge as a basis for denial of a program that might benefit the defendant did not appear to be in the best interest of the system. Mr. Skolnik stated he would take the suggestion under consideration; however, he reiterated that one violent incident could close the post-release and transitional programs. It was his opinion that it was better to err on the side of caution. Dr. Richard Siegel, President, ACLU of Nevada, Inmate Advocate, noted that the per day costs quoted by Mr. Skolnik were operating costs. Capital costs should always be factored into the operating costs. Mr. Skolnik agreed; however, in the 160 year history of the Department, an institution had never been closed which meant that it was an ongoing operating cost. It the opinion of Mr. Mallory, it appeared that many of the people who first came into the criminal justice system had a lack of impulse control and self discipline which this program seemed to provide. He was curious to know whether, if not for political considerations, the

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 8 Regimental Discipline Program would be beneficial in dealing with offenders even when their offenses included minor violent conduct. Mr. Skolnik believed the program would be beneficial to those individuals. If rejections were resubmitted with an explanation of the negotiations, he would reconsider those individuals. Mr. Skolnik did not want Department staff to "second guess" the negotiated agreement. Chairman Hardesty stated that there was a need for the coordination of all parties involved in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors and defense attorneys negotiate cases while taking into consideration a myriad of details; a judge passes sentence based upon his perceptions of the defendant's needs; and, the NDOC, who has the responsibility for carrying out the sentence, must make another decision and exercise of discretion. At some point the system must stop and consider what to do with the individual and how best to implement the plan. Chairman Hardesty further noted that the Commission must determine whether the entire issue should be examined more carefully. The program in the prison was working well; however, as previously discussed, the issue of individuals being rejected from the program because of an arrest not prosecuted must be revisited. Chairman Hardesty suggested the Commission move forward with the agenda and discuss this issue at a later date. Mr. Skolnik continued his presentation noting that the NDOC continued to grow because of the sentencing law, statutes on probation and parole, and decisions made externally. The NDOC had no control over the size of the prisons. Both inmates and staff were placed at increased physical risk if adequate space was not provided for living, working, and programming. Mr. Skolnik assured the Commission that irrespective of the long-term consequences of the actions of the Commission, it was his responsibility to request the necessary resources to create a safe environment. Chairman Hardesty agreed and believed the focus of the Commission should be redirected toward the causes of incarceration. In answer to a question from Judge Herndon, Mr. Skolnik reiterated that the capacity of the boot camp was 60 individuals, but 85 individuals were currently in the program. The Department was in the process of reconstructing the camp area at the Indian Springs Conservation Camp which would include the expansion of the number of boot camp beds. The expansion would be completed in approximately two years. Recalling an earlier request, Mr. Skolnik noted that the list of programs and the number of inmates in each program would be forthcoming to the Commission. The problems with the NDOC computer system had delayed processing the information.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 9 Referring to previous testimony by Mr. Skolnik, Chairman Hardesty inquired whether the NDOC monitored the jails to determine the prospective number of inmates who would be transported to the prison system. According to Mr. Skolnik, the jails were monitored in the major counties. The NDOC had a seat on the Regional Criminal Justice Commission in both Clark and Washoe Counties. They met either bi-monthly or quarterly depending on the issues to be discussed. At those meetings the NDOC was provided a list of the categories of inmates that would be transported. Mr. Skolnik further explained that over the past two years the NDOC had taken thirteen inmates per day, five days per week, and 26 inmates every other Thursday from Clark County facilities. This method of transport allowed Clark County to keep their population stable while providing the time for NDOC to perform intake functions more efficiently. The NDOC worked closely with the larger counties to prevent a backlog. The counties were very supportive during the NDOC computer system conversion by not requesting the transfer of inmates during that time. Responding to a request from Chairman Hardesty with respect to the A.B. 510 early release issues, Mr. Skolnik restated the impact on parole eligibility dates as follows:

• 36 eligibility dates moved forward 1 month or less. • 22 eligibility dates moved forward 1 to 3 months. • 1,146 eligibility dates moved forward 3 to 6 months. • 225 eligibility dates moved forward 6 to 12 months. • 6 eligibility dates moved forward 12 to 18 months. • 2 eligibility dates moved forward 18 to 24 months. • 1 eligibility date moved forward 24 to 36 months. • 0 eligibility dates moved forward 36 to 48 months. • 2 eligibility dates moved forward 48 months or more (these will need to be reviewed).

The actual impact was as follows:

• 100 MPR (Mandatory Parole Release) immediately eligible to be released with an approved parole plan.

• 220 regular parolees immediately eligible to be released with an approved parole plan. These have been approved by the Parole Board.

• 250 to 300 approved parolees accelerated to be released within the next 60 days. These have been approved by the Parole Board.

• 625 additional inmates eligible to be seen by the Parole Board in the month of October (these are in addition to the normal 700 eligible inmates to be heard).

Mr. Skolnik further explained that he was not certain it would be possible for the Parole Board or NDOC to provide hearings for the additional 625 inmates. The video conferencing equipment had not been installed and transportation of the inmates to the Parole Board may not be possible.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 10 Additionally, the NDOC estimated that approximately two-thirds of the inmates were categorized as minimum security, which meant an impact on the camps. Chairman Hardesty asked how many camp inmates were included in the 470 to 520 inmates eligible for release. Mr. Skolnik estimated it was approximately two-thirds but he did not have an accurate count. Chairman Hardesty requested that Mr. Skolnik provide those numbers to the Commission and the number of camp inmates included in the 625 inmates eligible to be seen by the Parole Board. Chairman Hardesty believed it was important for the Commission to report to the Legislature the precise area of the prisons where these inmates were housed and the financial impact to the prison budget resulting from the early release of inmates. Mr. Skolnik responded that the NDOC was not comfortable with releasing fiscal impact information prior to January 2008. As a result of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) inmates being removed, the prison population had declined every month since May 2007. It was anticipated the trend would continue through November 2007 when the population was projected to begin increasing. Responding to Assemblyman Carpenter's question regarding the impact on the camps, Mr. Skolnik stated a short-term impact of approximately 700 inmates was anticipated. It was expected that it would be six months before the population was reestablished. The long-term impact would be negligible. John Allan Gonska, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation (P&P), commented that he supported Mr. Skolnik's testimony regarding public image, reaction, and perception of decisions made in the Department. Senator Horsford asked what regulations had been adopted by P&P or the Parole Board to carry out the provisions of A.B. 510 and the process referenced by Mr. Skolnik. Mr. Gonska noted that he had prepared a standing order for P&P to clarify the handling of A.B. 510 and how to give the good time reduction credits. It had been discussed at the weekly staff meetings. He had requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General on his interpretation of a "serious infraction." The Division was actively ensuring the compliance of A.B. 510 but regulations had not been prepared. According to Mr. Skolnik, the passage of A.B. 510 had not required modification of NDOC regulations, only a modification of the system for computing time. Senator Horsford asked Mr. Gonska to supply the Commission with a copy of the standing order. He also inquired when the standing order would be developed into regulations to be submitted to the Legislative Commission's Subcommittee to Review Regulations.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 11 Mr. Gonska responded that he was waiting for guidance from the Attorney General's Office before the regulations could be prepared but he would provide a copy of the standing order to this Commission. Senator Horsford wanted to bring the regulatory review issue to the attention of the Commission, noting that he believed not all regulations were brought forward for review prior to implementation by the various departments. Relevant to parolees and those eligible for good time credits, Senator Horsford inquired whether the required assessments for alcohol/drug addition and mental health issues had been conducted and if the information was available. Mr. Skolnik replied that the numbers quoted to the Commission had only been available for approximately 24 hours and, therefore, nothing had been done at this time. The requirements placed on the application of A.B. 510 would be followed; however, he was not familiar with that provision of the bill. Senator Horsford commented that during the hearings on A.B. 510 there were concerns expressed regarding proper assessments of the individuals being considered for early release. There was money set aside with IFC for additional personnel necessary to carry out that provision. Mr. Skolnik stated that as enrolled the bill did not carry that provision. The money was set aside on a contingency basis assuming that A.B. 510 would reduce the requirement for food, clothing, and other inmate-driven costs. The money was not available for assessments and was stipulated to assist in diversion and/or post-release programming, if the money became available through the population reduction. Senator Horsford asked whether there was a current requirement based on assessment as a condition for eligibility for good time credits or parole eligibility. Mr. Skolnik responded that the time credits were statutory credits for good behavior. As directed by statute, the good time credit could be taken away from or restored to an inmate by the Director of the Department of Corrections. The awarding of meritorious credits was more limited. Other than review of a sexual offender by a psychiatric panel, Mr. Skolnik was not aware of any assessment requirements. The good time credits were given based on the statutes and the behavior of the inmates. The current system calculated the maximum number of credits an inmate could receive and provided the inmate with a release date based on those credits. An absence from work or inappropriate behavior would reduce the number of credits earned. Mr. Skolnik believed a better system would be to award credits as they were earned rather than take them away if they were not earned.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 12 Chairman Hardesty and Senator Horsford agreed the Commission should evaluate the awarding of good time credits, whether in the context of regulations or statute. Chairman Hardesty recognized Dorla M. Salling, Chairwoman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, who was accompanied by David Smith, Management Analyst for the Parole Board, and Dr. James Austin, JFA Associates/The Institute. Ms. Salling provided the Commission with a historical background for the parole guidelines, stating that the Parole Board was not bound by those guidelines. Approximately five years ago the Parole Board received a grant from the National Institute of Corrections to evaluate the guidelines. At that time Dr. Austin began a study of the cases, the Board, and the guidelines. Dr. Austin also assisted with the creation of a risk instrument, another tool for the Board to use in its decision making. As a result of the credits applied through A.B. 510, the guidelines were no longer valid. Statutory language required that at the point when guidelines were no longer valid, the Board must suspend their use. The Council of State Governments funded Dr. Austin to perform another study for the Parole Board to apply the credits and create a new guideline. A sample guideline was created and approved by the Board at a public hearing. Dr. James Austin presented the following testimony for the Commission:

As you all know, the Parole Board has been restyled. It is the vehicle by which, once the court has made a sentencing decision, a determination is made when the person is ready to be released. You, as a state, are fortunate that you did not get rid of your parole board or discretionary release. That gives you a lot of flexibility that other states do not have. A very important, statistical, positive thing that is working for us in Nevada is that the state has a relatively low recidivism rate. Compared to other states where from 40 percent to 70 percent of the inmates are returned to prison within three years, your recidivism rate is at the 25 percent to 28 percent rate. That is well below the national rate. What that means is that we have a lot of people going to prison who do not come back. The Parole Board's task is to figure out "who are those people that are not going to come back?" We want to get them out at the earliest time possible so we can save money on those people. At the same time, we want to make sure the violent ones, the ones who are likely to commit violent crimes, are going to stay in for as long as possible, and when they get out, get the highest level of supervision possible. The guidelines I am going to talk to you about are the two that allow us to do this. It is looking at two things at the same time and giving the Board discretion to make decisions where it thinks it should depart from the guidelines.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 13

Let me walk you through the handout (Exhibit D) so you understand what this guideline system is going to do. As indicated before, the prior guidelines, in my opinion, were more complicated. They were trying to determine how many months the prisoner should serve before they were released. Because of A.B. 510 significant numbers of prisoners are going to get to their parole eligibility dates faster. It does not mean they will be released, but they will be eligible to be released. The old guidelines would have prisoners staying in past the new parole eligibility date. The old guidelines would not consider them until after the parole eligibility date. We could not use those guidelines. This new approach removes that issue of trying to figure out when the person should be released. What is assumed is that based on whatever statutes are adopted by the Legislature that determine parole eligibility dates, this guideline will help the Board determine what decisions they should make at the initial or subsequent hearings. There are two dimensions they are looking at in the guidelines [Exhibit D]. One is offense severity (the left-hand column). You will see there are five categories there—highest, high, moderate, low moderate, and low. This is a rating which comes from the NDOC prison classification system which they have used for a long time and has been validated several times. We thought that was the best severity to use because it is in their database. Another important fact is that the NDOC actually produces the risk assessment and the offense severity score. We thought it made sense to keep it where it was so we had a seamless system. In the back of the handout [Exhibit D] is the list of all the offenses rated by severity. The risk level is coming from the risk instrument, which is on page 2 of the handout. That was based on a recidivism study we did for the Board several years ago where we looked at people that had been released from prison and followed them for three years to see who came back after three years. Each of these items was shown to be related to risk. This is a validated risk instrument. If you look at someone who is low risk, I mentioned the 25 percent to 28 percent overall recidivism rate, these people have a very low risk of coming back, below 10 percent. On the other side of the coin, high risk people have a much higher risk; about 50 percent to 55 percent of those people come back. The moderates are at the norm, about 25 to 30 percent. When the Board gets a person under these new guidelines, they will have the offense severity score and the risk level score. The cells are the guidelines to the Board that says, "If you fall within this cell, this is what the suggested decision should be."

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 14

Let's take low offense severity, which is the minor crimes, nonviolent property crimes, and low-risk, which means very unlikely to come back to prison. The guideline says to the Board, "You should parole this person at their initial parole eligibility date." We should see very high parole grant rates for this pool of people; somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent to 100 percent. The other extreme would be highest offense severity, high risk. These are the people that have committed a very serious crime, a violent crime, and their risk level is extremely high. The Board's recommendation there is the presumption they will deny parole to those people. You will see that each cell has its own suggestion to the Board. Below this guideline matrix are aggravating and mitigating factors. These are factors that the Board should and must take into account to either depart upward or downward in their decision. They may have people that are offense severity high and their risk level is also high. It says deny parole, but they may, for whatever reason, decide to parole that person. If they do that, they must check a reason for mitigating factor. We may have low risk/low offense severity and they may decide not to parole that person. That would be an aggravating factor and they would have to check at least one of those reasons to justify that decision. We think that these guidelines will give transparency to the decision making process. It fits the statutes and the factors they need to take into account. As Chairwoman Salling has indicated, I think it is going to simplify the process.

Chairman Hardesty asked whether the aggravating and mitigating factors were statutory or the product of a combination of issues raised and developed by the Board. Ms. Salling responded that because of the changes in A.B. 510, the Parole Board was required to have greater reporting than previously required when deviating from guideline recommendations. Some of the aggravating and mitigating factors were in statute, some were formulated by the Board for legislative reporting, and others were developed by surveying other states. According to Ms. Salling, because of the volume of parole hearings, over 7,000 per year, the checkbox system was the most efficient system for reporting. Judge Herndon requested clarification for page 2 of the exhibit under category 2, Prior Probation/Parole Revocations. He was uncertain whether only actual revocations were considered or if dishonorable discharges in lieu of revocation were also considered. Dr. Austin explained it had to be a revocation. A group of prisoners released in 2002 were tracked for three years. If the prisoner returned within the three year period, all of the data elements stored in the NDOC and Parole and Probation (P&P) databases were reviewed to determine which items showed an association with recidivism. It might be true that behavior that

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 15 did not result in revocation could be a better or more refined predictor, but that information was not available in a database and could not be used. Responding to Judge Herndon, David Smith, Management Analyst for the Board of Parole Commissioners, noted the asterisks on page 2 of the exhibit should have been removed as they were not significant and should be disregarded. Chairman Hardesty asked Dr. Austin for his definition for recidivism. Although there were many definitions used by various departments, Chairman Hardesty believed it would be beneficial if the state settled on one definition for all departments. Dr. Austin agreed and explained there were three standard measures that were used and promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice which were as follows:

1. Was the person rearrested at least one time within three calendar years of being released? 2. Was the person reconvicted for the arrest? 3. Did they return to prison for any reason?

According to Dr. Austin, the definition used in his study was whether the parolee was returned to prison for any reason. The difference was minor in terms of the risk factors. All definitions predicted rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison. It was difficult to obtain the rearrest data and it was much easier to use Mr. Skolnik's database to see who was returned to the prison system. Chairman Hardesty asked how Dr. Austin had decided to use the return to prison indicator. Dr. Austin stated that the determination was based on his training and consultation with researchers in the field. Mr. Skolnik acknowledged that the NDOC definition was the return to the system within three years of release for any reason, which was consistent with Dr. Austin's definition. Ms. Salling was in agreement with that definition. She further noted that a part of the decision making in not counting the dishonorables as a failure was to mirror what the Division of Parole and Probation did in terms of counting revocations. Chairman Hardesty advised that he had raised the question because he believed recidivism was defined differently by specialty courts. The second factor, which asked if the person was reconvicted for the arrest, would be important in that category, especially in drug offender cases where the person may be convicted a second or third time but not end up in the NDOC system. In his opinion, the Commission should review the definition of recidivism and, if the use of the second factor did not materially impact the guidelines or other decisions being made by the operatives in the criminal justice system, consider making that the standard for the State.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 16 Dr. Austin noted that ideally all three measures should be used. Electronic access to arrest data was not available; however, the conviction data was more accessible. He believed using two measures would provide a more complete assessment. As an example, nationally 65 percent of the prisoners were rearrested. The majority of those arrests were nonviolent misdemeanor or felony crimes, but it was important to know they were rearrested. Approximately one-third of those arrests did not result in conviction. Dr. Austin continued his presentation as follows:

This form of guidelines has been adopted by many other states. Accuracy of the Risk Instrument. We need to make sure that this risk instrument is being accurately scored. I would urge the State to consult with the chair of the Parole Board and the director of corrections and make sure that they have sufficient resources to score these risk instruments properly. One percent of all people released from prison will be arrested for another murder. It is a very small percent, but it does happen. Let us assume that one of the parolees is going to commit a murder. When that happens, the press and the public will want to know 'what did you do to make sure that you did your best effort to prevent that.'

We can't stop this from happening, but we do have an obligation to do everything we can to ensure that does not happen. One of those guarantees is that we have properly assessed the risk of this person. I have a concern, Mr. Skolnik has a concern, the Chair [of the Parole Board] has a concern about whether we have enough resources being thrown on the risk assessment to make sure that when the Board gets a case they see as low risk, that person is actually a low risk person and we did not make an error; that we missed the fact that this person has a prior conviction for a violent offense and we missed it.

Chairman Hardesty inquired if Dr. Austin had made an assessment as to whether the state had sufficient resources to make accurate risk assessments. Dr. Austin explained that there should be a process in place where every month a percentage of the risk instruments being presented to the Board were sampled and rescored by another person to determine if the instrument was done properly. It should be part of the quality control for the assessment. The Parole Board did not have reliability testing at the present time. Additionally, Dr. Austin noted that what generally happened with the guidelines was that the Board focused on the low risk/low offense severity cases. They paroled them faster which increased the grant rates. The quality control assessment would ensure the parolees were truly low risk. Mr. Skolnik pointed out that the NDOC had one caseworker for every 125 inmates, assuming all positions were filled. Those caseworkers were responsible for everything having to do with the

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 17 inmates. The caseworkers also prepared the information for the Parole Board. He also noted the NDOC did not have the resources necessary to reapply a risk assessment tool. Ms. Salling added that in her upcoming presentation she was planning to request funding for a number of positions. Duties of one of the positions could be to perform the auditing suggested by Dr. Austin. Relevant to constitutionality, Dr. Siegel commented that page 2 of the exhibit was only used as a decision making element and requested Dr. Austin comment on the legality or constitutionality of the gender item and whether elements such as employment history had implications for race and ethnicity. Dr. Austin responded that the reality was that females had a significantly lower recidivism rate than males. Litigation had indicated that not using a risk instrument sensitive to the differential between males and females could be seen as unconstitutional. If an instrument was built norm to the 90 percent male offender population there would be an over-classification of women. Women viewed on a male-driven instrument as medium risk were actually minimum risk. The courts and the National Institute of Corrections had launched a major effort to require a gender specific risk instrument. As far as race was concerned, Dr. Austin stated the national recidivism data and most recidivism studies showed that there was little difference between whites, African Americans, and Hispanics on recidivism rates. African Americans scored slightly different in the risk factors. Race must not be a separate, independent factor. Whatever differential existed, which was very slight, African Americans had different profiles on these static factors. The dynamic factors were put in purposely to change the risk level while the prisoner was incarcerated. By looking at items 8, 9, 10, and 11 (Exhibit D) an attempt was made to build an incentive system so that when the prisoner came in he was viewed as high or moderate risk. The prisoner was able to lower that risk level by doing things while incarcerated. Inmates that gave up their gang membership, completed quality programs, kept their conduct good, and got to the lower custody levels had lower recidivism rates. Dr. Siegel said he understood there was a choice in terms of having a single instrument for male/female or going with separate instruments. He believed having a gender checkbox was overtly discriminatory. If the Commission put together a subcommittee regarding the Board, he requested a review of the possibility of hidden race and ethnic factors. In the opinion of Dr. Austin, the risk assessment instruments should be updated on a regular basis. New technology and innovations should be reviewed to determine the applicability for the instruments. Chairman Hardesty noted that Dr. Siegel had a good point with reference to separate risk assessments for male and female. The increased population of females in the prison system and

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 18 an increased violence among females was also an issue. Independent assessments would address that issue. Dr. Austin stated that statistically the risk assessment form (Exhibit D) covered that issue. At this time women were typically extremely good risks. Mr. Carpenter requested Dr. Austin explain the principle of the column titled High (11+ total or 8+ dynamic points) on page 1, and whether the meaning was that 8 dynamic points was an automatic parole denial. Dr. Austin explained that 8+ dynamic points was an indicator that the person was not doing well in the prison system and was an important indicator for the Board. Because the indicator said "deny parole" did not mean that the Board must deny parole. The Board could parole anyone at their discretion. The form (Exhibit D) was merely a guideline. Dr. Austin suspected that once the system was initiated, there would be regular monthly reports which would present the grant rates by the cells. It would not be surprising to see paroles granted in the high and highest category. This guideline was not meant to be an order for granting or denying parole but was based on things the Board must consider as a part of their decision. If grant rates were the same in each category, it would be an indication that the Board was not using any criteria but was using a random decision making process. Mr. Frierson was curious to learn about the distinction between major and minor violations. It appeared that multiple major violations would score significantly, whereas multiple minor violations would not. Unless there was something in writing that expressly designated a major violation, it seemed two individuals with the same conduct might score very differently using a subjective definition. Dr. Austin reiterated that the definitions used in the guideline were from the database. The variations in the definitions showed an association with recidivism. The guide was similar to an insurance policy actuarial table. Of the people that had multiple major violations and were released, a significant number did not recidivate, but as a class of people they had higher recidivism rates. Mr. Skolnik added that the NDOC had a code of penal discipline which specifically outlined the major and minor violations of the rules. They were delineated and every inmate received a copy upon entry into the system. A copy would be provided to the Commission members. In closing Dr. Austin commented that it was going to be important that the system develop good monitoring of what was occurring with the prison, parole, and probation populations. As Mr. Skolnik indicated in his testimony, the prison population had gone down and was now going up. It was important to determine why this was occurring. The system was moving into uncertain territory and Dr. Austin urged working together to develop a regular reporting system which would show the admissions by type, releases by type, parole grant rates, and probation success

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 19 rates. Studying these key factors would give a better indication of what was causing the movement in the prison population. In response to Chairman Hardesty's questions regarding what should be monitored, Dr. Austin advised the Commission that he had been notified by the Council of State Governments that the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had requested assistance in monitoring the effects of A.B. 510 and other issues. Dr. Austin looked forward to working with everyone involved to develop the monitoring criteria. Dr. Siegel commented that during the 2007 Legislative Session Dr. Austin had made some interesting recommendations. Dr. Siegel described those recommendations as "backloaded" rather than "frontloaded." He hoped Dr. Austin had an opportunity to go back to those recommendations for systemic change. Judge Herndon agreed with Dr. Siegel's earlier comments regarding the gender classification and apparent discrimination. Although he did not disagree with Dr. Austin's comments regarding the lower risk for females, he was interested in the possibility of giving the male a zero point and the female a negative one point. Dr. Austin stated that was a possibility and he could easily change the scale or design of the guideline. In a review of the testimony, Chairman Hardesty noted that Dr. Austin had indicated that the accuracy of risk assessment was a critical component to this process. There was also a need for an ongoing audit, rescore, and quality control of that process. Dr. Austin had indicated the importance of the resources necessary to accomplish that goal. It appeared to Chairman Hardesty that Dr. Austin had looked at that from the standpoint of the Parole Board and expressed the opinion that they did not have those resources available. The Director of the NDOC testified regarding NDOC processes for risk assessment and using resources at a ratio of 1:125 inmates. Chairman Hardesty asked Dr. Austin whether, in his opinion, NDOC processes and resources were sufficient. Dr. Austin stated that he did not believe the resources were sufficient to provide adequate assessments. Given the importance of the accuracy of risk assessment, Chairman Hardesty questioned whether Dr. Austin had an opinion regarding the success of the project given the resource capability. Dr. Austin was worried about the processes currently used and the possibility of an incident occurring. His concerns extended not only to the Parole Board, but also to the Division of Parole and Probation and the risk instrument being used for supervision of the parolees. All of the areas should use the same auditing process. The risk instruments were driving the entire system and also protected people from victimization.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 20 In recapping, Chairman Hardesty summarized by saying that a critical resource shift that needed to be made by the Legislature was to direct adequate resources to ensure accuracy in risk assessments. Dr. Austin agreed. In closing, Dr. Austin expressed appreciation to Ms. Salling, Mr. Skolnik, and Mr. Gonska. He believed there was tremendous opportunity to make fundamental changes based on good evidence. Chairman Hardesty voiced his intention to call the Chairman of IFC and coordinate the monitoring process. He believed it was vital that decisions be made as quickly as possible regarding what needed to be monitored and how best to proceed. Following a brief recess, Chairman Hardesty called the meeting to order and recognized Assemblywoman RoseMary Womack, Clark District No. 23, who was accompanied by Joyce Buckingham, Executive Director, Ron Wood Family Resource Center. Through personal experiences, Ms. Womack became interested in learning why some parolees were successful and others were failures. During the 2007 Legislative Session, Ms. Womack had met with several legislators and prison officials to discuss what happened to inmates when they were released from prison. It became apparent that a strong support system, a desire to change, and a continuation of substance abuse programs was essential to success. Ms. Womack had discussed with Joyce Buckingham partnering within the communities to make the resources available. Ms. Buckingham explained the purposes of the Ron Wood Family Resource Center in Carson City and the programs available through the Center. The Center was certified by the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Agency (SAPTA) and worked with social service organizations and family counseling groups. Ms. Buckingham presented testimony in support of the Ron Wood Family Resource Center (Exhibit E). It had been brought to the attention of Ms. Buckingham that there was a dire need for services for recently released inmates. Ms. Buckingham was proposing that 90 days prior to release from prison, the inmate would meet with a representative of the Family Resource Center and a needs assessment would be completed. A team consisting of a licensed social worker with substance abuse qualifications, case manager, and employment and training manager would be put together to ensure the individual's needs were met. A plan would be in place and put into action for the individual for the next 90 days. The individual received an identification card, housing, clothing, and bus passes. Ms. Buckingham had met with the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation (DETR) for assistance with various employment programs. It was hoped that after 90 days of "hand holding," the individual would be able to be self-sufficient. A member of the team would follow up after the next 90 days to assure the individual was self-sufficient and all needs were being met. Individual and support group counseling would be available for the person at the Center. Ms. Buckingham added that the Center would be in

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 21 contact with the person for at least one year following their release to provide assistance as needed. According to Ms. Buckingham, the program budget, included in the exhibit, was for serving 100 participants for the first year. The majority of the costs were for food, clothing, and housing. Ms. Womack introduced Jay Terrell, Substance Abuse Programs Director, NDOC, and pointed out that Ms. Terrell was instrumental in providing the Center with information on the type of programs necessary to assist the released prisoners. Ms. Terrell provided the Commission with comments regarding recidivism. According to Ms. Terrell, the states that had been successful with recidivism had put transitional services in place. It was difficult to track the inmates when they were released from prison. Ms. Terrell had suggested to the Center that a combination of services starting before the inmate was released and following through in the community would ensure a better success rate. Ms. Terrell and the Ron Wood Family Resource Center greatly appreciated the letter of support provided by Mr. Skolnik (included in Exhibit E). Chairman Hardesty clarified that the program was not currently in operation. Ms. Buckingham explained that although the Center had been in operation since 1995, the transition program was presented as a proposal. With grant season approaching, the Center would be applying for grants to fund the transition program. In response to Chairman Hardesty, Ms. Buckingham stated that although she had not met with John Gonska, Chief, P&P, she had met with Captain J. Roy Giurlani, P&P; Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong; Lt. Mark Smith, P&P; and John Simms, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer. Everyone appeared supportive of the project. It was anticipated that the program could support parole and probations programs by providing additional assistance. Those involved with the program would have extensive experience in case management and working with ex-prisoners. Chairman Hardesty inquired whether housing resources would be available to effectuate the pilot program. Ms. Buckingham had contacted the proprietor of a Carson City motel who was willing to work with the Center and provide rooms economically to these individuals. At the suggestion of Chairman Hardesty, Ms. Buckingham was anxious to meet with Mr. Gonska to discuss resources available for the Center. Gayle W. Farley, Victims Rights Advocate, inquired whether the Family Resource Center had discussed the proposed program with Carson City officials. Ms. Buckingham responded that she had met with Sheriff Furlong and would be meeting with the city manager and mayor to discuss options. She had met with Governor Gibbons, Secretary

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 22 of State Ross Miller, and other state officials. She wanted to promote and encourage all of the available service agencies to work closely with the Center to provide complete services to the ex-prisoners in an effort to see they succeed. Chairman Hardesty was appreciative to Ms. Womack for bringing the program to the attention of the Commission. The endorsement by the NDOC was an important step and with the endorsement of the Division of Parole and Probation would encourage the Commission to assist in the search for resources for the pilot program. Ms. Womack commented that this was a community program and needed the support of the community to come to fruition. The program was needed in both the urban and rural areas of the state. Mr. Gonska commented that P&P could not provide the assistance that the ex-prisoners desperately needed and community support and involvement was instrumental in ensuring the success of the parolees. Chairman Hardesty turned to item 5 on the agenda, recognizing John Gonska, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Gonska provided highlights of A.B. 510 and the impact on P&P. According to Mr. Gonska, A.B. 510 did not appear to apply to gross misdemeanors. The biggest problem facing P&P was the early releases. Because of the early release, offenders were not paying back as much restitution as they had in the past. As the offender approached the end of the probationary period, there was no recourse for collection of restitution. The matter was then referred to the Controller's Office to be turned over to a collection agency. Additionally, P&P had requested a decision from the Attorney General regarding whether an offender was considered as having completed a drug court program if the probation period ended prior to the completion date of the program. It was Chairman Hardesty's understanding that A.B. 510 did not limit its application to whether a serious infraction had occurred, but additionally required that the terms and conditions of probation had been satisfied before good time credit was awarded. Mr. Gonska continued his testimony, stating it would require approximately six months for P&P to be able to determine the number of individuals discharged as a result of A.B. 510. Projected numbers were:

• Parolee discharges from July 1 to September 5, 2007, were 1,227. • Probationer discharges from July 1 to September 5, 2007, were 979. • Total discharges from July 1 to September 5, 2007, were 2,203.

Compared to the fiscal year (FY) 2007 statistics the averages were:

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 23

• Monthly parole discharges 266. • Monthly probation discharges 144. • Total monthly discharges 707.

According to Mr. Gonska, the new releases from the prison, either through the Parole Board or directly from the prison system, would have to be factored into the numbers. Mr. Gonska emphasized that he would not have actual numbers available for nearly six months. Mr. Gonska expressed concern that when a probationer or parolee was with P&P for less period of time, less supervision fees would be collected. On average the Division collected approximately $250,000 per month. This directly affected the operating budget for the Division. The total impact could not be calculated for approximately six months. Prior to A.B. 510 a parolee was supervised for an average of seven months and a probationer an average of nineteen months. As a result of A.B. 510, the Reno office had been able to eliminate the banked caseloads and return to more effective supervision practices. Mr. Gonska hoped to also be able to eliminate the banked caseloads in the southern region. Mr. Frierson noted the bulk of comments regarding A.B. 510 were not supportive of the bill. In his opinion, there was a problem regarding the miscommunication of information regarding A.B. 510. He had received information that the Division of Parole and Probation had told victims that because of the passage of A.B. 510, they would not be receiving restitution. Mr. Frierson believed it was problematic for the Division to tell victims that they would not be receiving the restitution. Mr. Gonska was unaware of any notification to victims regarding their restitution. The restitution problem had always existed within the Division. Usually the probationer was discharged from supervision still owing a considerable amount of money to the victim. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 1768.43 addressed the restitution issue. He believed restitution would always be an issue for the Division. Chairman Hardesty advised that it had been represented to him that a letter had been sent from P&P to victims indicating they would not receive restitution by reason of the adoption of A.B. 510. Mr. Gonska responded that he had received information that one of the judges wanted to send a letter to victims in his judicial caseload indicating there might be difficulties with restitution because of A.B. 510. The victim was given the name of someone in P&P to contact for assistance. Mr. Gonska was uncertain whether the letters had been sent but he would research the issue.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 24 Chairman Hardesty agreed the collection of restitution had been a problem for many years and he believed it was something the Commission should review. The problem had to do with the ability of the Division to require compliance from probationers to meet their restitution requirements and the consequences available to the judges if they did not meet those requirements. Chairman Hardesty expressed concern that District Court judges might overreact and do two things:

1. Refuse to grant probation for a length of time shorter than the full five years because of a restitution concern.

2. Routinely order five years probation in all restitution cases.

Chairman Hardesty noted there was also a financial consideration because as long as the person was on probation they were paying supervision fees to the Division of Parole and Probation. Possibly the supervision fees could be directed toward the victim for restitution. The Division had been placed in the untenable position of being a collection operation while supervising the probationers. This Commission must evaluate and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding this situation. The prospect of the Commission reviewing the situation and making recommendations to the Legislation was appealing to Mr. Gonska. Dr. Siegel pointed out that involved in the restitution issue was the restoration of civil rights for those convicted of felonies. He wanted the Commission to be aware that four to six years ago the Legislature reformed the restoration of civil rights but included the idea that restitution must first be completed. That issue must be considered when the Commission evaluated the issues. Mr. Gonska noted that it was the responsibility of P&P to ensure that A.B. 510 was put into practice. There were glitches in the bill but it was working at the moment. Judge Herndon voiced concerns regarding the propriety of the letter referenced earlier regarding restitution for victims. The victim had the right to expect restitution as awarded by the court and as a part of the plea agreement. As a result of the passage of A.B. 510, a defendant who had been making a reasonable effort to pay restitution would immediately be eligible for release from probation before restitution was completed. The victim must now pursue a civil confession in judgment. In the opinion of Judge Herndon, the fear that judges would now sentence all probationers to five years to ensure payment of restitution would not be the practical reality of what was going to happen. Ms. Farley commented that there was a group called the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) which had money for victims. If victims could not get the restitution deserved, they could contact NOVA. Ms. Farley asked that the Commission address this area of A.B. 510 as it related to victims.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 25 Larry Digesti, Representative, State Bar of Nevada, was of the opinion that A.B. 510 did not have direct impact on the issue of restitution. The majority of defendants were represented by public defenders as they had no financial or employment backgrounds to allow them to earn the money to pay attorney fees, victim restitution, supervisory fees, or mandated court assessment fees, no matter the length of the probation. Chairman Hardesty requested the Commission move forward to the presentation by the Board of Parole Commissioners. Dorla Salling, Chairwoman, Board of Parole Commissioners, presented Exhibit F, a memorandum to the Commission regarding the impact of S.B. 471 and A.B. 510, and Exhibit G, a letter of opinion from Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto dated September 7, 2007. Noting that Mr. Skolnik had identified 470 to 520 inmates who had been granted parole but were awaiting the preparation of a plan, Chairman Hardesty requested that Ms. Salling describe the parole process and whether it presented any unusual problems for the Board or the Division of Parole and Probation. Ms. Salling described the parole process as follows:

The Parole Board grants parole for that group identified by Mr. Skolnik. Once they have been identified and paroled, they go back through the prison over to P&P to their pre-release unit for approval of the pre-release plan. They have to meet the minimum parole eligibility before they are actually released. Typically the Board has seen these individuals four months prior to their parole eligibility to allow sufficient time for the Division to approve that plan. As Howard [Skolnik] said, the effects of A.B. 510 are that some of those parole eligibility dates have moved up. What that has done is put the pressure on P&P to scramble to get those parole plans approved now that the dates have changed.

Responding to Chairman Hardesty's question regarding the ability of P&P to complete the plans, Mr. Gonska stated that through communication with the Parole Board, the Division was advised of the upcoming releases and had the resources available to expedite pre-release investigations. He further noted that the pre-release investigations were crucial to ensure the ex-prisoner was released to a healthy environment. Ms. Salling continued with the review of Exhibit F, page 6 as follows:

Legislative Impact on the Parole Board:

a. Increases the amount of credits prisoners may earn to reduce their maximum sentence.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 26

A.B. 510 doubles the amount of good time credit prisoners may earn to reduce their maximum sentence from 10 days per month to 20 days per month. This change will accelerate the expiration of determinate sentences for offenders serving sentences in prison and on parole. This change impacts the Parole Board in three ways: 1. Some parolees will expire their parole sooner. This will likely

cause a reduction in parole violation hearings, as parole violators with new criminal charges may expire their parole prior to adjudication of the new charges.

2. Prisoners will become eligible for mandatory parole sooner, and some prisoners may expire their sentence before becoming eligible for discretionary parole. (Note: A prisoner may not be released on mandatory parole until becoming eligible for parole based on the minimum sentence imposed.)

3. The parole guidelines, adopted in 1997, were developed with guideline ranges anticipating an expected amount of time available on a sentence. The additional credit earnings cause the high end of the guideline to become invalid as sentences expire long before reaching those recommended months to serve.

Chairman Hardesty asked Ms. Salling when she anticipated the adoption of the guidelines presented in earlier testimony. According to Ms. Salling, the Board of Parole Commissioners was hoping to have the guidelines into effect by October 1, 2007, the effective date of A.B. 510. Any changes suggested by the Commission could be incorporated into the guidelines at any point following the test study. Ms. Salling continued with the presentation as follows:

b. Allows certain prisoners to earn credits to reduce their minimum sentence.

In 1995 truth in sentencing laws enacted in Nevada required prisoners serve a minimum sentence that was not reduced by credit earnings. A.B. 510 changes this for certain classes of nonviolent and non-DUI offenders. This change impacts the Board as follows: 1. The parole guidelines adopted in 1997 were developed with

guideline ranges anticipating specific minimum sentences that were not reduced in credits. The new credit earnings cause the low end of the guideline to become invalid as certain prisoners will

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 27

become eligible for parole prior to serving the lowest recommended months.

2. Prisoners with short minimum sentences will have little time to

program or adjust to incarceration before being seen by the Board. Low risk prisoners may score a higher risk because there has not been enough time to classify them into minimum custody. These factors may adversely affect a parole decision.

Chairman Hardesty clarified that time served would include the time incarcerated in the county jails as well as NDOC. Ms Salling continued:

c. Prohibits the Board from considering whether a prisoner has appealed

their judgment of imprisonment when determining whether to grant parole.

The Board does not have a policy or practice to make a decision to grant or deny parole based on a prisoner exercising their right to appeal a sentence. There have been occasions in which the Board has postponed a parole hearing because of an impending court decision regarding an appeal. This usually occurs after being informed of the pending court action by the prisoners, and in many cases, at the request of the prisoner. This new requirement does not appear to have any impact on the operation of the Board.

Attorney General (AG) Masto noted that in the proposed guidelines, the aggravating factors contained a component under "insufficient problem resolution" that was denial of crime or inability to accept responsibility for the offense. It appeared that if someone was appealing it could fall into this category. Ms. Salling responded that often, especially with sexual offenders, the prisoner would deny having a problem or would make a comment that was inappropriate and had nothing to do with the appeal process.

d. Requires the Board to provide a written statement of its reasons for

denying parole when mandatory parole is not granted.

Prior to this new requirement, the Board would simply indicate on the written order that mandatory parole is denied because there is a reasonable probability the prisoner would be a danger to public safety if released on parole. This new provision requires the Board provide a

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 28

"written statement of its reasons for denying parole" when mandatory parole is not granted. A written statement of reasons is more than the generic reason that has historically been provided. Under this new provision, the Board must indicate specific reasons to justify the determination that the prisoner would be a danger to public safety while on parole. A written statement is more involved than a checkbox on a form and requires more time and attention to detail. There was an average of 50 mandatory parole denials each month during FY 2006, and through the first 11 months of FY 2007 there was an average of 54 mandatory parole denials each month. The impact of this change is as follows: 1. Programming changes and costs: The process of entering

information related to a parole decision was planned to be part of the NDOC information system. The parole module was not designed to include specific reasons, or statements related to parole denials. We are currently in the process of preparing a report to Syscon [Justice System] to determine the cost of program changes that will allow the electronic input and storage of this information into the new parole module.

2. Time constraints: Each mandatory parole denial will require more

time on the part of Commissioners to prepare the specific reasons for the denial so that the reasons can be included on the parole order.

3. Staff concerns: Parole staff members prepare Parole Board orders

and will be required to ensure these denial reasons are stated correctly on the orders.

4. Statistical Information: The Board is required to prepare detailed

statistical information related to parole decisions in accordance with NRS 213.10887. The Board has historically relied mostly on the automated tabulation of parole actions and how those actions relate to parole guidelines. The requirement to provide statements indicating the reasons for denying parole causes a substantial amount of human effort to ensure the statistics are tabulated properly. While the ultimate goal will be to extract this information from the NDOC information system, the effort to do

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 29

so will require additional personnel dedicated to compiling this information and tabulating it in a usable format.

e. Allows the Board to confine a parole violator to an approved facility of the

Department of Corrections for a period not to exceed 6 months in lieu of revocation.

This new change is a valuable and powerful tool for the Parole Board to use in an effort to avoid revocation for less serious violators. The impact on the Board primarily will be to establish regulations and policies regarding the use of this process as an alternative to revocation. Currently, the Board has limited personnel resources for creating policy and adopting regulations.

f. Provides for a study to be conducted by the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice.

The Board is an active participant on this Commission, and feels an impact when requested to provide information that must be gathered and prepared by the small parole staff.

Senate Bill 471

a. Meetings to consider prisoners for parole are quasi-judicial and are exempt from the Open Meeting Law.

The Board has operated for several years under the advice of the Attorney General that parole hearings are not subject to the Open Meeting Law. This section of S.B. 471 clarifies the Legislative intent and affirms that parole hearings are only subject to the specific statutory requirements related to parole hearings. The Legislature added language and specified that parole hearings are "quasi-judicial." The Board is waiting for an opinion from the Attorney General as to whether this new term will require any changes to the way the Board conducts parole hearings. [Exhibit G]

b. The Board must provide reasonable notice to each prisoner being considered for release on parole and may not deny parole unless reasonable notice has been given.

In the past, the Board has not provided specific notice of a parole hearing to a prisoner. After receiving a list of prisoners eligible for parole, hearing agendas would be set by the Board and provided to the NDOC. Caseworkers would meet

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 30

with the prisoners prior to hearings to gather information that would be included in the progress report provided to the Board.

Dr. Siegel commented that it appeared P&P would not have a problem with the projected number of releases as a result of A.B. 510 and questioned whether the Board would be requiring additional personnel to accomplish the hearings in a timely manner. Chairman Hardesty pointed out that page 16 of the exhibit addressed the needs of the Board, but asked if the Board was seeking the endorsement by the Commission of the need as outlined. Ms. Salling responded that the Board would appreciate the support of the Commission. To briefly outline, Ms. Salling noted that there could not be any parole hearings held until October 15, 2007, to meet the legal requirement of providing 30 days notice. This hearing would be for the inmates eligible for hearing before the implementation of A.B. 510. The group of additional inmates eligible as a result of the passage of A.B. 510 would have to be scheduled for hearings at a later date to allow for noticing and reporting requirements. The earliest the Board would be able to appear before IFC to request resources would be November. Ms. Salling further explained that because of the anticipated volume of inmates eligible for parole, the Board would be hearing the cases two months in advance of eligibility rather than four months in advance of eligibility. The Board was trying to avoid situations in which inmates were eligible but would not receive a timely parole hearing. Chairman Hardesty noted that on page 12 of the exhibit, the number of hearings and the amount of time that could be devoted to each hearing was cause for concern and, in his opinion, was an emergency situation for the State. The Board could not be expected to reasonably and accurately evaluate the cases by giving 13 minutes to each case. He believed the Commission should consider this situation as an emergency item for the Board of Examiners and the IFC to address immediately. Responding to a question from Chairman Hardesty, Mr. Gonska noted that the number of parolees the Division of Parole and Probation was told to expect was within the capabilities of the Division. If the number exceeded the original estimate, there would be a problem. Chairman Hardesty reviewed the number of eligible parolees as quoted by Mr. Skolnik as 320 that were waiting, 250 to 300 within 60 days, and 625 within the next 45 days. Mr. Gonska stated that the Division could handle approximately 300 per month by moving resources. A tremendous increase would cause significant problems. Ms. Salling pointed out that page 18 of the exhibit outlined some suggestions that the Commission might consider when making recommendations to the Legislature. The suggestions included:

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 31

• Eliminate the requirements for three Commissioners to conduct hearings on prisoners with certain types of convictions.

• Allow for matters concerning parole to be decided by three or four Commissioners instead of a majority of the Board.

• Conduct parole violation hearings for technical parole violators immediately following arrest and while the parolee is held in the custody of the county jails.

• Employ personnel to gather information, review cases, complete the parole standards forms, and make recommendations to the Board with respect to the quality of parole plans.

Chairman Hardesty inquired whether Mr. Skolnik wanted to add topics to be considered by the Commission to the proposed list of Commission objectives. Mr. Skolnik noted that the list of suggested topics to be considered by the Commission should indicate that NDOC decisions seemed to be made in a vacuum for the Department. The legislatively set ratio in the Department was 125 inmates to 1 caseworker and was set over 20 years ago. The orders that described the staffing patterns for the correctional officers were equally outdated. Responsibilities were added but the number of staff was not increased. Chairman Hardesty requested the Commission discuss the two emergency situations identified during testimony. The first situation was the effect of A.B. 510 on the Board of Parole Commissioners and the needs identified by the Board as set forth on pages 15 to 18 of Exhibit F. In his opinion, the Legislature and IFC needed to address these issues immediately. The second emergency situation was the professional opinion of Dr. Austin that the basis under which inmates would be released on parole would be based on a new set of guidelines which would be dependent on an accurate risk assessment. Serious reservations existed concerning the accuracy and the auditing of the resource driven risk assessment. Immediate action needed to be taken in the prison system to provide adequate resources and personnel necessary to monitor and provide quality control on the risk assessments. Without these controls a situation was created where the good efforts of A.B. 510 would be reversed because the system was set up for a mistake. This was a matter of serious consequence, in the opinion of Chairman Hardesty. AG Masto asked the time period required to hire and train additional staff to carry out the requirements of A.B. 510. Ms. Salling stated that if they were given money and approval for new positions, it would be approximately six months before employees could be hired and trained. Because the law went into effect October 1, 2007, the Parole Board would be out of compliance quickly. Mr. Gonska agreed. It would be approximately one year before sworn officers could be recruited and trained for P&P.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 32 Mr. Skolnik added that NDOC currently had openings available. Recruitment for filling additional positions was a problem for NDOC. As a follow up, AG Masto stated that if resources were not an issue, the time frame on implementation of the bill and the impact was the problem. It appeared to her that the only solution was a special legislative session to delay the implementation of the bill. Mr. Parks said that would be an alternative; however, there were budgets established for each of the agencies involved and the Governor had a degree of flexibility in utilization of those funds. It would be simple if the implementation date of the bill was deferred; however, given the lack of a special session to do that, the alternative would be for the offices involved to determine if the situation could be resolved by requesting additional funds from IFC. Chairman Hardesty agreed that a deferral would appear to solve the problems discussed. This Commission could suggest a special session to the Governor as an emergency measure. The Commission members agreed that it appeared this was an emergency situation. Mr. Carpenter pointed out that only the Governor could call a special session of the Legislature. In his opinion, the suggestion for the offices involved to determine if the use of existing resources available through IFC would be sufficient was the best alternative. Judge Herndon agreed that it was an emergency situation. His primary concern was with the issues addressed by the Board of Parole Commissioners. He inquired whether the number of Commissioners needed to make decisions was set by statute. Ms. Salling stated they were set by statute as outlined in Exhibit F. It would be helpful if the requirement changed; however, additional staff would still be necessary because of the additional requirements put in place by the passage of A.B. 510. Dr. Siegel believed that it was unlikely the Governor would call a special legislative session. The Commission should consider other options. Mr. Skolnik explained that the authority to move money was the responsibility of the IFC. The directors of the departments could attempt to identify areas where the Legislature allocated more money than necessary but that would be difficult as most department budgets had been cut significantly. Mr. Parks noted there had been circumstances in the past where, because of emergency situations, the Governor had taken the authority to proceed with the reallocation of funds and requested the Legislature release funds to adjust accounts. In his opinion, this situation could possibly be handled in a similar manner. He further commented that in statute the Governor had the authority to appoint temporary parole commissioners to relieve the workload.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 33 Ms. Salling stated that the statute allowed the Board to have hearing representatives but they could not sit on the three commissioner cases and had no voting authority. They had been used in the past to sit on panels but it would not solve this problem. Chairman Hardesty reiterated that if there were funds available, it would take time to hire and train additional personnel and was not an immediate solution for the problem. The most obvious solution would be to delay the implementation of A.B. 510. Furthermore, given the seriousness of the problem in terms of the makeup of the Parole Board, implementing some of the voting changes would be helpful in providing a more efficient hearing process. Chairman Hardesty proposed the Commission identify the two items as emergencies and advised he would entertain a motion to that effect.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MALLORY MOVED TO IDENTIFY TWO AREAS OF CRITICAL NEED AS FOLLOWS:

1. INACCURACY OF RISK ASSESSMENTS 2. REQUIREMENT OF INCREASED STAFFING TO ENSURE

ACCURACY OF RISK ASSESSMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL

JUDGE HERNDON SECONDED THE MOTION. AG Masto supported the motion but asked the Commission to entertain the idea for development of a letter to the Governor, Majority Leader, and Speaker of the Assembly regarding the issues.

MOTION AMENDED TO INCLUDE NOTIFICATION TO THE GOVERNOR, MAJORITY LEADER, AND SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY REGARDING EMERGENCY ISSUES. MOTION PASSED. (Senator Amodei, Sheriff Flynn, Mr. Kohn, and Sheriff Miller were not present for the vote.)

Chairman Hardesty requested a motion to petition the Governor to call a special session of the Legislature to address a public safety concern. The Commission recommended the implementation date of A.B. 510 be adjusted to January 1, 2008. This would accommodate the limitations imposed on the Board and their ability to respond as identified in the report of the Board dated September 7, 2007. The Commission further recommended appropriate financing be made available through IFC or the Legislature as identified on pages 15 to18 of the aforementioned report (Exhibit F). Judge Herndon requested including in the motion a consideration to change the statute to reduce the number of Parole Commissioners needed to address individual cases and other issues identified in the previously mentioned memo, page 18.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 34

ATTORNEY GENERAL MASTO MOVED TO PETITION THE GOVERNOR TO:

1. REQUEST A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE. 2. REQUEST ADDITIONAL FUNDS AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT F. 3. CONSIDER REVISING THE NUMBER OF BOARD OF PAROLE

COMMISSIONERS REQUIRED TO HEAR AND VOTE ON CERTAIN CASES.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Dr. Siegel commented that although he would vote in favor of the motion he was doing so with reluctance. He believed there were other options available such as the repeal of A.B. 510. He was concerned about the implications of taking these issues to the Legislature. Mr. Frierson requested clarification regarding the internal budgets for the departments involved. He was unclear whether the departments had the authority to adjust their budgets and then appear before IFC for approval. Mr. Parks responded that IFC dealt with issues on unforeseen emergencies. The items could be brought to IFC after the fact for adjustment. It was the intent of IFC to work with all state agencies to address any issues presented and ensure available funding for emergency situations. Chairman Hardesty noted that it was not the intent of the Commission to request the Legislature revisit A.B. 510 or the intended benefits of the bill. The Legislature had empowered the Commission to identify any emergency situations that should be brought to the attention of the legislative body. The motion should make clear that the Commission endorsed the purpose and intent of A.B. 510 but required assistance in ensuring the implementation was responsible, careful, and well thought out.

ATTORNEY GENERAL MASTO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CLARIFY THE INTENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE AMENDMENT OF THE MOTION.

Senator Horsford requested clarification regarding pages identified in the exhibit as a part of the motion. It appeared the motion was being limited by requesting the Governor consider a special legislative session for resources necessary for the Parole Board. During the 2007 Legislative Session there was considerable discussion with each of the entities affected by the provisions of A.B. 510. In his opinion, the entities involved could have requested additional resources during those discussions.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 35 Ms. Salling explained that she had testified repeatedly regarding different aspects of A.B. 510 but because the bill was passed at the end of the legislative session, there was no opportunity to request additional resources or to amend the budget. Chairman Hardesty also noted that the unforeseen problems of NDOC with their computer system had caused considerable delays in obtaining the information regarding the number of inmates who would be eligible for parole under the new law. Senator Horsford and Chairman Hardesty further discussed the situation surrounding the passage of A.B. 510 and the discussions which occurred during the legislative session. Senator Horsford also expressed concerns regarding inmates being paroled without receiving proper assessment of drug, alcohol, and mental health services necessary. While not considered an emergency, he believed there could be negative consequences for both the individuals and the communities. Chairman Hardesty agreed that was a significant concern which should be addressed. Mr. Mallory commented that A.B. 510 was not supported by the prosecutors. However, the bill had passed and it was important to make the bill work for the State.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 36 Mr. Parks voiced reluctance supporting a motion that called for a special session of the Legislature. He was not aware if the Administration had reviewed all of the opportunities available in the ability to implement various measures that would avoid the necessity of a special session to move the implementation date of the bill. He would support the motion but requested going on record as asking the Governor to review alternatives available to resolve the issue. Ms. Farley supported the motion. It was important to her that the community was kept safe.

THE MOTION PASSED. (Senator Amodei, Mr. Skolnik, Sheriff Flynn, Mr. Kohn, and Sheriff Miller were not present for the vote.)

Following a brief recess, Chairman Hardesty reconvened the meeting and reopened the motion which requested a special legislative session. He had been informed that courses of action could be available to the Governor or legislators other than a special session. The Commission might consider a modification requesting the Governor to consider all alternatives including the possibility of a special session.

DR. RICHARD SIEGEL MOVED TO MODIFY THE MOTION. DISTRICT ATTORNEY MALLORY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (Senator Amodei, Mr. Skolnik, Sheriff Flynn, Mr. Kohn, and Sheriff Miller were not present for the vote.)

***** ATTORNEY GENERAL MASTO MOVED TO ENDORSE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF A.B. 510 AND PETITION THE GOVERNOR, MAJORITY LEADER, AND SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY TO:

1. CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE INCLUDING A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.B. 510.

2. REQUEST ADDITIONAL FUNDS AS OUTLINED IN PAGES 15 TO 18 OF EXHIBIT F.

3. CONSIDER REVISING THE NUMBER OF BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS REQUIRED TO HEAR AND VOTE ON CERTAIN CASES.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (Senator Amodei, Mr. Skolnik, Sheriff Flynn, Mr. Kohn, and Sheriff Miller were not present for the vote.)

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 37

There being no further discussion regarding the motions passed by the Commission, Chairman Hardesty opened the floor for public comments, recognizing Elaine and Milton Voigt, Executive Directors, My Journey Home, Inc. Ms. Voigt described the program, My Journey Home, to the Commission (Exhibit H). The program had proven to be a successful reentry program over the previous three years. The program consisted of three support groups and one outreach group. Support for My Journey Home was expressed by ex-prisoners Johnny Russell, Wade Shipman, and Kristy Kirkpatrick. All had completed the program and were currently working successfully in the community. Responding to a question from Mr. Gonska, Ms. Voigt stated that My Journey Home was located in Reno, but also operated in the Sparks and Carson City areas. AG Masto commended Mr. and Mrs. Voigt for their accomplishments. There being no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Hardesty recognized Tonya Brown, a concerned citizen whose brother was incarcerated. Ms. Brown presented the Commission with Exhibit I. Chairman Hardesty next recognized Glen and Florence Jones Crew, who requested an audit for the parole hearing held for their son. Chairman Hardesty recognized Teresa Werner, concerned citizen, who commented regarding the boot camp program, NDOC, good time credits, and accuracy of information databases for prisoners. Senator Horsford commented regarding the accuracy of information for state agencies. There appeared to be a lack of a focused place for the data collection, analysis, and reporting. He requested the Commission put on a future agenda a discussion of how to better address the data and analysis problems of the state. Pat Hines representing the members of the Religious Alliance in Nevada (RAIN) was appreciative of the reactivation of the Commission. Ms. Hines presented Exhibit J to the Commission and testified regarding reforms needed in the justice system. Evelyn Murphy, concerned citizen, commented regarding the prison population and the discretion of judges in sentencing. Ms. Murphy was supportive of the Ron Wood Resource Center. There being no further public comments, Chairman Hardesty moved to agenda item 7, a presentation of and discussion concerning a matrix of crimes and sentences in Nevada (Exhibit

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 38 K). Chairman Hardesty believed it was important for the Commission members to have an understanding of the crimes recognized and sentencing ranges authorized by the Legislature. In the opinion of Chairman Hardesty, the matrix provided information regarding potential inconsistencies in the ranges in criminal sentences for crimes. Chairman Hardesty was planning presentations for the Commission from district attorneys and public defenders from Clark County, Washoe County, and the rural counties to provide alternating points-of-view about the reasonableness of the sentences embodied in the statutory constructs. Chairman Hardesty requested the Commission members review Exhibit K and begin discussions at the next meeting. Phil Kohn, Clark County Public Defender; Jeremy Bosler, Washoe County Public Defender; and a representative from the offices of the district attorneys for Clark and Washoe Counties, had agreed to deliver a presentation at the upcoming meeting. Chairman Hardesty further requested that as the members reviewed the exhibit they should note the crimes in which judiciary discretion had been removed from sentencing. In his opinion, individuals were being sentenced without allowing the judge to use discretion in the evaluation of the sentencing for the defendant or the case. Dr. Siegel commented that over the years he had met with many legislators to discuss sentencing issues, but had seldom been able to discuss reducing the length of sentences for crimes. The Commission should discuss not only the rationality of particular sentences, but also the politics of legislative sentences.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 39 Mr. Frierson agreed with the comments made by Dr. Siegel and was looking forward to the upcoming discussions. Chairman Hardesty intended to distribute the exhibit to every district attorney and public defender in Nevada as well as some criminal defense lawyers for their review and comments. Mr. Carpenter noted that during the 2007 Legislative Session, the law was changed to allow judges discretion regarding the use of deadly weapons in the commission of a crime. Chairman Hardesty pointed out that at a Senate Judiciary meeting, Senator Terry Care said he did not know what criteria was used to place a crime in Category A, B, C, D, or E. The Commission should look into that process. Chairman Hardesty suggested that the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) legal staff should crosscheck the Crime Severity Levels for NDOC Classification (Exhibit D) with the statutory offenses listed in Exhibit K to ascertain whether all offenses were covered. Responding to Chairman Hardesty, Mr. Parks answered that the Assembly Select Committee on Corrections, Parole and Probation had not been provided a list such as the one distributed as Exhibit K. Chairman Hardesty asked how the Legislature decided whether a crime fit within a category and whether there were guidelines or criteria to make that determination. Senator Horsford stated that as a junior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his limited experience was that it was an arbitrary decision. The Committee met with LCB staff and made a recommendation as to the category. The LCB legal staff provided information on what other states had done, but it was an arbitrary decision. Senator Horsford believed the category designation had been developed from the 1995 mandatory sentencing restructuring. The legislative record would have to be reviewed to determine what had occurred. Judge Herndon commented that when the category designation to crime and the maximum and minimum sentences were developed, he believed the categories were created without applicability to the crimes. It was simply a way to designate that a particular number of years and mandatory probation would equal a particular category. Maximum and minimum potential sentences for the crime were then created. He suggested the Crime Severity Levels for NDOC Classification (Exhibit D) should include the categories so the Commission members could see the category for the offense severity at a glance. It appeared to Judge Herndon there was disparate ranking between the statutes and the severity grading of the Parole Board and P&P. Ms. Salling believed the categories were in statute but she would discuss the issue with her staff and meet with Bradley Wilkinson, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 40 Chairman Hardesty advised Mr. Wilkinson that the Commission would like to find the source for the lettered categories and their use. If Judge Herndon's recollection was correct, it appeared to Chairman Hardesty that when the Legislature decided to advance the proposition that a certain behavior was going to be criminal, there was minimum discussion about range of sentencing. The category the crime was attached to would drive the sentence. This was disconcerting for him. There being no further discussion on the sentencing issue, Chairman Hardesty noted that the Legislature had asked the Commission to examine the budgetary and financial issues of the justice system. The LCB financial staff was in the process of preparing a presentation for the next Commission meeting on the internal budgetary process. One of the issues which concerned Chairman Hardesty was the accuracy of financial data and information that drove the cost assumptions. Moving to agenda item 9, the short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals and objectives of the Commission, Chairman Hardesty noted that he had received information from each member which listed the areas of concern for consideration by the Commission. There were also comments from members that the breadth of the Commission's work could adversely impact the ability to influence any change in significant policy, and the Commission should consider restricting its work to a limited number of topics, report on those, and hope they would be examined by the Legislature. Chairman Hardesty suggested the Commission was interested in a broad number of topics, and the Commission should consider all of those topics, prioritize them, and discuss each as time permitted. Those completed by September 1, 2008, would be reported to the Legislature. The work would continue on the remaining items. Chairman Hardesty outlined suggestions for Commission review as follows:

1. Sentencing a. Range of sentences b. Mandatory sentencing c. Probation

i. Pre-sentencing Investigation (PSI) ii. Risk Assessments

d. Diversion e. Specialty Courts f. Alternative Sentencing

i. Access to programs ii. Availability

iii. Resources 2. Probation

a. Structure i. Resources

ii. Supervision iii. Funding

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 41

iv. Training v. Staffing

3. Incarceration a. Programming b. Facilities

4. Parole Process a. Structure b. Staff c. Operation of Parole Board d. Availability of programs

Senator Horsford believed the outline captured many of the elements the Commission had been charged with, but requested to add juvenile justice issues for review. Chairman Hardesty agreed that should be added. He had contacted the family court judges who were working on a presentation to the Commission regarding juvenile justice issues. The Nevada Supreme Court entered an order to create a Commission to study a new set of rules of procedure before the juvenile justice courts in Nevada. AG Masto suggested that it would be appropriate for the Commission to hear from the county directors of the juvenile justice facilities. They could provide important information to the Commission. Chairman Hardesty agreed that they could be contacted for a presentation. Dr. Siegel requested the Commission also consider, 1) the conscious and unconscious assumptions that have gone into the current system; and 2) how do we open legislators and other governmental leaders to significant change. Chairman Hardesty was of the opinion that both of those elements transcended all of the topics in the outline. Mr. Gonska suggested a presentation on creation of the recommendation report and Pre-sentencing Information (PSI). He would provide the information and the presentation at a later meeting upon request of the Commission. Dr. Siegel pointed out that The Sentencing Project represented an attempt to see what could be done differently in this area and could be considered for a presentation to the Commission. Mr. Carpenter noted that Senator Mark James was knowledgeable regarding the sentencing issues. Many of the changes that had occurred in the system were the result of an incident in which a parolee shot an officer.

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 42 Chairman Hardesty recalled the incident and agreed to contact Senator James to provide background information to the Commission. Dr. Siegel suggested that the current "trend" was a focus on sex offenders. He requested the Commission discuss the issue at a future meeting. Chairman Hardesty pointed out that there were many issues in that area and the Commission would be discussing them. Ms. Farley requested the Commission look at the issue of child endangerment and possibly focusing on the sentencing of individuals involved. Judge Herndon noted that a new crime had been instituted on child endangerment, first responders, and methamphetamine labs. The new crime had instituted a higher penalty for children injured in methamphetamine houses and first responder responsibilities. AG Masto advised the Commission that the Meth Working Group was looking at the issue of child endangerment. She stated that she would be happy to keep Ms. Farley updated on the progress. There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Hardesty adjourned the meeting at 5:09 p.m. Commission members would be advised of the next meeting date, time, location and agenda items. Submitted by: __________________________________ Linda Blevins, Interim Secretary APPROVED: ____________________________________________ Justice James W. Hardesty, Chairman Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice

DATE: ______________________________________

Advisory Commission on Administration of Justice September 12, 2007 Page 43

EXHIBITS Committee Name: Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice Date: September 12, 2007 Time of Meeting: 9:08 a.m.

Bill Exhibit Witness / Agency Description *** A Agenda *** B Attendance Roster C H. Skolnik, Director, Dept. of

Corrections Program of Regimental Discipline

D Dr. J. Austin, JFA Associates Parole Guidelines E J. Buckingham, Executive Director Ron Wood Family Resource

Center Brochure F D. Salling, Board of Parole

Commissioners Memo to Advisory Commission

G D. Salling, Board of Parole Commissioners

Opinion letter from AG Masto

H E. Voigt, My Journey Home Brochure I T. Brown, citizen Memo to H. Skolnik, NDOC J P. Hines, Religious Alliance in

Nevada How to Reduce Prison Population

K Chairman Hardesty Selected Nevada Revised Statutes relating to felonies