►
Description
This is the fifth meeting of the 2019-2020 Interim. Please see agenda for details.
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
I'd
like
to
call
today's
meeting
of
the
interim
legislative
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
to
order.
We
have
our
committee
policy
analyst,
mr
geinan,
here,
to
take
the
role.
Mr.
B
Gainen.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
record,
patrick
gainen.
I'll
start
the
role
now
senator
cancella
is
absent.
As
we
know,
senator
hammond.
C
D
A
Present
and
mr
grinden,
please
mark
any
other
members
present
as
they
arrive
for
the
public,
who
is
listening
via
the
help
of
our
wonderful
broadcast
team
at
the
legislative
council
bureau.
I
want
to
just
go
over
a
few
housekeeping
measures
before
we
get
to
agenda
item
number
two
up,
please
be
sure
to
mute
your
microphone
when
you're,
not
speaking
to
minimize
any
background
noise.
A
Please
minutes
of
the
meeting
are
produced
in
a
summary
format
and
are
not
verbatim
meeting
materials
can
be
accessed
on
our
committee's
web
page.
Anyone
who
would
like
to
receive
electronic
notification
of
and
access
to
this
committee's
agendas
minutes
and
final
report
can
do
so
by
signing
up
on
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
A
A
A
Lcb.State.Nb.Us
and
child
welfare,
juvenile
or
all
together
with
no
punctuation
in
between
you,
can
mail
comments
by
a
u.s
mail
to
the
legislative
council
bureau,
research,
division,
401,
south
carson
street
carson
city
nevada,
89701.
And
if
you
want
to
fax
comments,
you
can
fax
them
to
the
following:
fax
number:
four:
775-684-6:
six:
zero:
zero.
With
that
I'd
like
to
go
to
agenda
item
number
two
public
comment:.
E
E
F
Good
morning,
this
is
joanna
jacob
j,
o
a
n
n,
a
j,
a
c
as
in
cat
o
b
as
in
boy
on
behalf
of
clark
county
good
morning,
chair
orange
hall
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
just
wanted
to
give
comment
this
morning
to
alert
you
to
a
letter
that
we
have
filed
chair
for
review
by
the
committee
responding
to
last
meeting
in
august
when
director
armstrong
had
testified
about
policy
changes,
posing
fiscal
impacts
to
the
state.
F
We
wanted
to
offer
perspective
from
clark
county,
the
largest
child
welfare
agency
in
the
state,
and
we're
asking
the
committee
support
to
review
this
letter
and
possibly
consider
a
letter
to
the
21
legislature,
urging
review
of
the
issues
we
have
outlined.
We
are
facing
some
challenges
heading
into
the
2021
legislative
session,
due
to
a
number
of
factors.
I
know
that
you
are
very
familiar
with
the
major
shifts
in
the
systems
that
are
coming
delivering
services
to
the
youth
and
the
family
that
we
serve.
This
is
a
result
of
federal
changes
on
the
from
the
family.
F
We
understand
that
these
changes
are
coming,
but
please
understand
also
that
clark
county
is
experiencing
his
structural
budget
deficit.
We
are
losing
10
million
dollars
in
the
loss
of
federal
funding
alone,
due
to
the
shift
from
the
in
the
way
that
the
federal
our
federal
waiver
under
4e
was
funded
as
we
shift
to
the
family.
First
prevention
and
services
act
as
we
enter
into
the
2021
legislative
session.
F
We
know
that
you've
conducted
a
study
over
this
interim
period
on
how
to
draw
down
more
federal
dollars
and
we
support
looking
into
that
issue,
but
we
also
urge
your
review
of
the
cap
to
block
grant
that
has
been
placed
since
2011.
In
light
of
the
significant
policy
changes
that
we
have
faced
at
the
state
and
the
county
child
welfare
agencies,
since
that
system
was
put
into
place
in
so
even
with
the
challenges
that
we
know
the
state
is
facing,
and
the
county
certainly
has
faced
as
well.
F
We
have
supported
our
front
line
workers
and
we
will
continue
to
do
so.
We
want
you
to
consider
county
as
a
partner
to
the
legislature,
and
we
want
to
work
with
you
in
the
forthcoming
session
to
help
to
step
up
to
continue
to
serve
our
community
and
the
children
and
the
families
we
serve.
Our
constituents
are
yours,
and
so
we
thank
you
for
your
work
that
you
have
done
on
these
issues.
We
urge
a
review
of
the
letter
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Chair
orange
health.
A
Thank
you
very
much
miss
jacob,
and
that
letter,
I
believe,
was
posted
on
our
committee's
website
for
members
and
any
members
of
the
public
to
review,
and
it's
good
to
have
you
here,
advocating
on
half
southern
nevada.
Northern
nevada's
loss
of
southern
nevada's
gain
we're
very
lucky
to
have
you
and
appreciate
your
hard
work
on
these.
These
very
difficult
issues.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
anderson.
I
would
like
to
then
move
on
to
or
remind
the
public.
There
will
be
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
as
well.
So
if
you
didn't
get
in
the
beginning,
there
will
be
a
period
at
the
end
of
our
agenda.
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
three
approval
of
the
minutes
for
the
meeting
on
august,
the
28th
2020,
and
if
there's
any
question
about
the
minutes,
please
feel
free
to
bring
that
up
now.
Otherwise,
I'd
accept
a
motion.
A
Motion
all
right
see
no
discussion,
mr
garner,
I
believe
we're
taking
this
vote
by
roll
call.
B
C
B
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
grandad.
Please
mark
senator
cansella
and
senator
hammond
excused
we're
now
going
to
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
four.
We
have
a
presentation
on
a
recommendation
for
a
bill
draft
request
concerning
child
welfare
case
disposition,
and
we
are,
we
do
have
a
representative
from
the
clark
county
department
of
family
services.
I
think,
before
we
get
into
those
those
agenda
items
of
four
and
five.
A
B
Sure,
mr
chair
I'd
be
glad
to
again
patrick
guyan
for
the
record.
So
in
an
ordinary
interim
period
we
have
a
an
open
window
for
us
solicitation
of
recommendations
to
the
committee,
which
we
usually
run
around
say
the
middle
of
june
to
the
middle
of
july.
B
So
we
received
three
recommendations
at
that
later:
deadline
deadline
which
hadn't
been
vetted
by
the
committee
and
we
hadn't
had
any
public
testimony
on
those
yet
so
these
agenda
items
today
the
two
that
deal
with
direct
file
and
one
that
we're
about
to
hear
are
recommendations
that
were
submitted
to
the
committee
after
we
had
had
our
last
meeting
before
this
meeting.
So
the
point
of
these
agenda
items
today
is
to
have
these
issues
publicly
vetted
by
the
committee.
B
It
does
not
guarantee
that
they
will
appear
on
our
committee
final
work
session,
as
the
members
know,
and
the
public
probably
know
that
the
content
of
the
final
work
session
document
is
up
to
the
chair.
B
So
when
we
do
our
work
session
in
october,
the
items
appearing
on
that
work
session
will
be
those
that
have
been
approved
for
the
work
session
by
the
chair.
They
will
include
potentially
any
of
these
from
today,
others
that
we've
had
submitted
to
us
during
the
course
of
testimony
during
the
interim
and
any
generated
by
staff
at
the
chairs
direction.
That
would
be
included
on
the
work
session
for
the
for
the
committee's
consideration.
A
A
A
So
thank
you
again
for
going
over
that
with
that,
I
would
like
to
go
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
four,
where
we've
got
a
representative
from
the
clark
county
department
of
family
services-
and
I
just
want
to
make
a
advise
the
committee
that,
as
this
agenda
item,
relates
to
recommendations
for
a
bill
draft
request
made
by
the
clark
county
department
of
family
services,
I
would
like
to
advise
the
committee
that
I
am
employed
by
clark
county
as
the
deputy
public
defender
with
the
clark
county
office
of
the
public
defender
in
the
juvenile
division.
A
I
just
wanted
to
advise
the
committee
of
that
and
turn
it
over
to
whoever
would
like
to
present
from
department
of
family
services.
E
E
A
H
Abigail
fryerson
for
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
start
by
saying.
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
talk
to
you
all
to
talk
to
this
committee
about.
I
think
what
us,
what
would
be
a
small
change
in
the
law,
would
actually
have
a
big
impact
in
improving
child
safety
across
nevada.
H
So
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
case
dispositions.
I
want
to
explain
a
little
bit
about
case
dispositions.
Then
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
our
process
and
then
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
change
that
we're
recommending
so
to
begin.
H
H
I'm
sure
you
guys
all
know
that
the
the
you
guys,
I'm
sorry.
The
committee
now
knows
that
the
role
of
child
welfare
is
to
ensure
the
safety
of
children
and
in
our
community
and
the
children
that
are
in
our
purview.
H
One
of
the
most
important
ways
that
case
dispositions
are
used
to
keep
children
safe,
are
through
intervention.
First
and
foremost
it's
those
substantiations
that
actually
give
us
the
ability
to
intervene
in
families
lives.
However,
case
dispositions
also
have
very
another
important
aspect
to
keeping
the
community
safe
and
that's
through
in
future
investigations
and
through
the
central
registry.
H
F
Message
here,
ms
bryerson,
if
you
please
re-share
your
screen,
your
presentation
went.
A
H
Okay,
great,
I'm,
so
glad
look,
please
let
me
know
if
that
happens
again.
H
H
When
we
assess
those
allegations,
our
cases
come
to
come
to
a
close
with
something
called
a
case
disposition
which
is
really
an
investigative
finding
in
nevada.
There
are
two
options
for
those
investigative
findings:
that's
a
substantiation
or
an
unsubstantiation
substantiation,
meaning
that
we
met
a
burden
of
proof
that
that
abuse
or
neglect
occurred
and
substantiation
unsubstantiation.
Being
everything
else.
That
comes
to
the
agency.
H
As
I
said,
those
substantiations
are
particularly
important
for
giving
us
the
ability
to
intervene
in
families,
but
those
unsubstantiations
and
substantiations
also
serve
a
very
important
role
for
community
safety
and
that
they
use
they're
used
for
future
investigations
and
they're
using
something
called
the
central
registry
which
I'm
sure
you
guys
are
all
aware
of,
is
a
database
of
those
case
dispositions.
H
Those
are
used
by
the
child
welfare
agency
to
determine
who
is
appropriate
for
placement
of
children
when
they
are
removed
from
homes
they're
used
by
schools
to
determine
who
can
be
teachers
they're
used
by
daycares
to
to
show
who
should
be
around
our
children,
they're
even
used
to
protect
people
working
with
the
elderly.
So
these
are
very
important
case
dispositions
and
because
they're
so
important.
H
So,
just
briefly
just
to
orient
you
to
the
process.
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
what
happens
when
a
report
comes
into
child
welfare
agency.
Initially,
a
report
is
made
and
we
have
in
clark
county.
We
have
individuals
who
are
trained
just
to
vet
those
reports
when
they
come
in
they
come
in
and
they
screen
them
to
see
if
they
meet
our
statutory
standard
of
child
welfare,
child
abuse
and
neglect.
H
They
also
vet
them
to
ensure
that
we
have
jurisdiction
over
those
allegations,
meaning
that
their
those
those
families
are
found
within
clark
county
and
then
they
will
make
a
screening
decision.
Once
the
screen
decision
is
made,
some
cases
will
be
dispositioned
as
information
only
and
some
will
be
opened
up
for
investigation.
H
So
to
kind
of
give
you
an
idea
in
clark
county
of
how
many
cases
we're
talking
about
here.
Our
cps
agency
refer
received
nearly
30
000
referrals
and
in
2018
and
2019
in
2020.
It
was
about
25
000,
and
that
was,
we
think,
is
due
to
coven
19,
reducing
the
number
of
reports
that
we
received
in
march
and
april
and
may,
and
you
see
that
approximately
45
percent
of
those
get
screened
in
for.
H
Investigation
so
once
those
cases
are
screening
for
investigation,
we
have
an
investigative
process
that
we
will
go
through.
That
involves
reading
the
report
talking
to
the
reporting
source,
if
possible,
going
out
interviewing
parents,
children
any
collaterals
that
are
available.
H
And
and
making
determinations
about
risk
and
safety
as
we
we
go
along
these
safety
assessments
are
all
combined
in
a
document
we
call
the
nevada
in
clark
county.
We
call
the
nevada,
I'm
quick,
sorry,
we
call
the
venia
and,
after
that
our
case
will
be
ended
with
a
disposition.
As
I
said
before,
there's
only
two
options
in
nevada
that
would
be
an
unsub
or
a
sub.
Sorry,
an
unsubstantiation
or
a
substantiation.
H
All
right,
so
I
do
want
to
define
that
a
little
bit
so
basically,
a
substantiation
is
when
a
report
of
child
abuse
or
neglect
was
made
to
a
child
welfare
agency,
and
the
agency
determines
that
there
is
reasonable
cause
to
believe
that
abuse
or
neglect
occurred
and
that
the
alleged
perpetrator
is
responsible
for
the
abuse
neglect.
H
So
essentially,
we
have
to
prove
two
things,
one
that
abuse
and
neglect
occurred
and
that
the
alleged
perpetrator
is
responsible
for
that
abuse
neglect.
Everything
else
is
unsubstantiated.
H
Okay,
and
I
think
what
I
really
want
to
drive
home
is
that
there
are
a
ton
of
reasons
why
cases
could
be
unsubstantiated
if
we're
not
able
to
locate
families
and
assess
those
allegations.
That
must
be
unsubstantiated
if
we
know
that
abuse
and
neglect
occurred,
but
we
can't
determine
who
did
it.
Those
must
be
unsubstantiated
if
the
report
was
completely
false
on
its
face
and
it
was
a
case
of
mistaken
identity
and
were
involved
in
the
wrong
families
lives.
H
Those
cases
must
also
be
unsubstantiated,
because
there's
such
a
wide
range
of
reasons
why
cases
should
be
unsubstantiated
that
unsubstantiated
term
kind
of
loses,
meaning,
especially
when
future
law
enforcement
and
child
welfare
agencies
are
trying
to
determine
their
whether
their
current
case
has
merits,
but
also
when
we're
talking
about
the
central
registry,
it's
important
to
know
that
all
unsubstantiations
are
not
created.
Equally.
H
So,
to
kind
of
take
to
put
this
take
this
point
home
of
the
12
000
or
so
investigations
that
gets
opened
only
about
2500
actually
meet
the
substantiated
level.
That's
about
25,
or
so
that
means
three
quarters
of
our
investigations
are
all
getting
dumped
into
this
one
big
bucket
of
unsubstantiated,
which
doesn't
give
us
enough
information.
In
case
the
family
comes
back
in
which
doesn't
give
the
central
registry
enough
information.
H
H
H
Texas
has
five
disposition
options,
which
is
reason
to
believe
unable
to
determine,
which
is
essentially
that
the
investigation
was
completed,
but
it
was
inconclusive
unable
to
complete,
which
is
essentially,
we
were
unable
to
complete
the
investigation
either
because
we
were
unable
to
find
the
family
or
the
family
moved
before
we
could
finish
the
investigation
ruled
out,
which
means
that
we
found
the
we
did
a
full
investigation.
We
found
the
allegations
were
not
credible
and
an
administrative
closure
which
I
really
like
that
they
have
available
for
those
families.
H
That
really
should
have
never
had
a
case
opened
at
all
as
a
way
to
show
that
that
there
was
a
mistake
made
when
whoever
called
it
in
called
it
in
you'll,
see
that
new
hampshire
has
much
almost
twice
as
many
options
founded
court
action
founded
problem
resolved
fab,
founded
services.
Only
so
I
think
that
would
be
that
we
would
substantiate,
but
just
because
we
substantiate
doesn't
mean
we
always
go
to
court,
it
doesn't
mean
that
they
always
need
our
services
incomplete.
H
I
think
would
be
akin
to
the
unable
to
complete
that
texas
has
rebuttable
presumption
of
harm
unfounded
and
unfounded
with
reasonable
concerns,
and
I
would
connect
the
unfounded
with
reasonable
concerns
to
the
unable
to
complete
that
texas
hesitable,
which
means
that
we
were
unable
to
get
clarity
on
whether
abuse
or
neglect
occurred.
H
H
H
H
How
we
would
define
unable
to
determine
would
be
a
report
of
suspected
child
abuse
and
or
neglect
was
made
to
a
child
welfare
agency,
for
which
the
agency
determines
that
there
is
some
credible
evidence
that
child
abuse
are
not
occurred,
but
the
evidence
is
not
sufficient
to
support
a
substantiation,
so
one
this
would
be
useful
is
if
there
was
some
concern,
but
we
weren't
unable
to
get
across
the
substantiation
line.
H
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
what
makes
child
abuse
and
neglect
investigations
particularly
difficult
is
that
these
are
things
that
happen
in
secret.
So
often
the
only
witnesses
are
the
parents
and
the
children
and,
depending
on
the
child's
developmental
abilities
or
age,
it's
very
difficult
to
sometimes
determine
what
happened
if
there's
no
physical
evidence
one
way
or
another,
and
as
we
learn
more
about
the
effects
of
trauma
on
on
memory,
it
is
a
challenge
sometimes
to
be
able
to
get
clarity
on
on
what
occurred
to
the
to
the
standard.
That
would
support.
H
Substantiation,
we
are
proposing
that
unable
to
complete,
be
defined
as
a
report
of
child
abuse
and
or
neglect
was
made
to
a
child
welfare
agency,
and
the
agency
was
unable
to
complete
an
investigation,
because
either
the
child
welfare
agency
lacks
necessary
information
such
as
a
current
address,
the
child.
The
family
was
contacted
and
then
moved
and
could
no
longer
be
located
to
complete
the
investigation
or
the
family
refuses
to
cooperate
with
the
investigation
or
appears
to
be
avoiding
cps
intervention,
and
the
agency
has
insufficient
evidence
to
proceed
after
exhausting
all
legal
remedies.
H
So
essentially,
these
are
the
families
who
we're
unable
to
locate
or
who
disappear
before.
We
can
finish
our
assessment
or
just
reject
our
intervention
and
we've
gotten
to
the
end
of
the
road
of
our
legal
remedies,
and
we
still
have
been
unable
to
complete
our
investigation.
H
For
instance,
cps
can't
just
in
interview
children
necessarily
or
go
into
people's
homes
without
a
proper
legal
basis.
So
there's
some
allegations
that
we're
not
able
to
fully
vet
if
the
family
is
unwilling
to
cooperate.
H
And
finally,
for
the
cases
of
mistaken
identity
or
for
the
reports
that
never
should
have
been
open,
we'd
like
to
have
an
administrative
closure
option,
so
these
would
be
options
where,
where
we'd
like
the
authority
to
actually
investigate
where
the
allegations
were
previously
investigated-
and
this
is
a
a
re-report
of
past
abuse
or
neglect
or
where
the
allegations
are
patently
unfounded.
H
So
this
would
be
for
an
option
where
we
wouldn't
have
to
do
very
much
investigation
at
all,
and
we
would
know
that
this
was
100,
not
child
abuse
and
neglect
the
classic
example.
Being
we
go
out
on
a
call
about
a
child
having
a
black
eye
and
then,
when
we
get
on
the
scene,
we
realize
that
it's
not
a
black
guy.
H
It's
leftover
makeup
from
halloween
so
and
those
kind
of
things
can
happen
and
those
families
should
never
have
should
never
be
in
our
system,
and
I
think
the
administrative
closure
would
help
everyone
to
understand
that
they
should
the
case
never
should
have
been
opened
and
that
there
was
a
mistake
made.
A
Mr
fryerson,
thank
you
for
all.
You
do
to
protect
our
children
and
try
to
help
families.
You
know
work
through
these
issues.
Members
any
questions
for
mrs.
G
Ryerson,
mr
chair,
this
is
assemblywoman
monroe
mourinho.
I
have
just
a
few
questions.
Please
go
ahead.
My
shirt.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mrs
ryazan.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation
and
bringing
this
to
our
attention.
I
have
a
question:
have
you
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
other
counties
or
agencies
within
the
state
and
how
they
feel
about
making
this
change
to
nrs.
H
Abigail
fryerson,
for
the
record
we
have,
we
did
mention
it
in
a
statewide
meeting
that
involved
all
the
other
jurisdictions
as
well
as
dcfs,
and
I
believe
that
they're
they
were
supportive.
I
think,
because
of
the
shortened
timeline
that
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
through
the
exact
proposal
line
by
line,
if
there's
an
agreement
with
each
of
these
options
available,
but
we
did,
we
did
discuss
it
with
other
jurisdictions.
G
Awesome
and
I'm
sure,
we'll
probably
receive
a
letter
from
them
or
comments
from
them
on
it,
but
you
had
mentioned
something
during
your
presentation
about
a
case
will
be
determined
unsubstantiated
if
you
cannot
determine
who
the
aggressor
is
in
those
cases
is
the
child
left
in
the
home
because
you
can't
determine
which
parent
or
grandparent
or
caretaker
is
the
actual
aggressor,
but
there
may
be
signs
of
abuse.
H
Abigail
fryerson
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
It
would
if
we
are
unable
to
meet
our
substantiated
our
substantiation
level,
our
ability
to
force
our
interventions
on
families
are
limited,
occasionally
not
occasionally
often,
if
that's
a
situation
where
we're
concerned,
but
we
cannot
meet
that
burden
of
proof.
We'll
often
offer
voluntary
services
to
the
family
to
address
whatever
issue
it
is
that
that's
occurred
and
try
to
engage
them
on
a
voluntary
basis.
H
G
H
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
record
abigail
fryerson,
particularly
the
unable
to
complete
option.
I'm
really
excited
about
that
being
able
to
open
up
possibilities
for
us,
because,
right
now
we
have
45
days
to
complete
our
investigation.
If
we
have
to
unsub
it,
we
can't
revisit
those
allegations,
but
states
that
have
this
unable
to
complete
option
are
able
if
the
family
ever
comes
back
to
our
attention
to
address
those
past
allegations
of
abuse
or
neglect
to
vet
those
to
see
if
they
are
problematic,
rather
than
just
unsubstantiating
the
case.
A
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
mr
for
your
presentation,
so
how?
How
would
be
that
what
would
different
ways
in
which,
like
you
would
become
notified?
If,
if
that
child
is
back
in
that
in
that
community,
would
it
would
you
also
be
notified
from
like
school
registration
and
things
like
that,
or
would
it
just
be?
Another
report
was
filed.
H
Abigail
fryerson,
thank
you
for
that
question.
I
think
primarily
through
a
new
report,
usually
from
this
like
often
from
the
school,
but
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
know
of
another
way
that
we
would
become
aware
of
a
family
without
law
enforcement
or
a
school,
probably
calling
it
an
or
concerned
parent
family
member.
A
H
Thank
you
for
that
question,
abigail
fryerson,
for
the
record.
I
believe
that
obviously
we
probably
would
have
to
hash
all
that
out,
but
I
believe
that
everything
would
have
the
same
legal
weight
as
an
unsubstantiation
except
a
substantiation,
because
substantiations
do
come
with
legal
ramifications
and
if
we
can't
meet
the
burden
of
proof,
I
think
that
that
wouldn't
satisfy
due
process.
H
A
Great
thank
you
and
under
administrative
closure,
one
of
the
options
was
patently
unfounded.
Would
that
would
that
be
a?
How
would
that
defer
from
a
unsubstantiation?
If,
let's
say
it
was
the
wrong
family
or
you
know,
there
was
some
clearly
or
the
report
was
just
clearly
erroneous.
H
Probably
in
practice,
but
I
think
the
difference,
the
main
difference
between
unsubstantiated
and
patently
unfounded
is
apparently
unfounded
means.
We
don't
have
to
really
do
any
investigation
at
all,
and
we
know
it's
not
true.
So,
for
instance,
I
gave
the
example
of
the
boy
whose
black
eye
wasn't
a
black
eye,
or
I
know
we've
received
a
report
or
if
we
receive
a
report
on
a
17
year
old,
who
doesn't
have
someone
caring
for
them
and
then
she's
able
to
produce
paperwork
that
shows
she's
been
emancipated.
H
So
it's
it's.
It's
the
cases
that
don't
require
any
investigation
for
us
to
know.
They're,
not
true.
Another
one
comes
to
mind
is
often
toddlers
will
get
a
hold
of
their
parents,
phones
and
we'll
call
9-1-1
over
and
over
and
over
again,
and
then,
when
you
get
out
there,
you
realize
that
that
it
wasn't
really
someone
calling
for
help.
That
was
a
toddler
with
their
mom's
phone.
So
those
are
the
kind
of
cases
that
we've
patently
unfounded.
H
The
kind
of
cases
that
would
be
unsubstantiated
would
be
the
ones
where
we
had
to
interview
everybody
and
then,
as
we
weighed
the
evidence,
we
felt
that
the
allegations
were
not
credible.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
for
explaining
that
really
appreciate
your
presentation,
everything
you
do
to
protect
our
kids
and
help
our
families.
Members,
if
you
have
don't,
have
any
additional
questions.
A
Mr
burch,
please
go
ahead
and
thank
you
for
being.
E
A
Again,
thank
you
to
abigail
fryerson
and
to
tim
burch
from
clark.
County
department
of
family
services
really
appreciate
all
their
hard
work
during
these
these
difficult
times
to
protect
our
kids
and
help
our
families
deal
with
some
of
the
issues
they're
facing.
We
are
now
going
to
move
on
to
agenda
item
five
discussion
of
recommendations
for
bill
draft
requests
relating
to
direct
file
and
certification
of
juveniles.
A
As
adults,
there
were
submissions
from
the
office
of
the
clark
county,
public
defender
and
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada,
and
I
I
know
I
sound
like
a
broken
record
committee,
but
I
do
want
to
remind
the
committee
that,
as
this
agenda
item
relates
to
recommendations
for
a
builder
after
quest
one
of
them
at
least
made
by
the
office
of
the
clark
county
public
defender,
I
would
like
to
advise
the
committee
that
I
am
employed
as
a
deputy
public
defender
with
the
clark
county
office
of
the
public
defender
in
the
juvenile
division.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
five
and
have
the
discussion
about
the
recommendations
for
bill
draft
requests
related
to
direct
file,
and
I
believe
the
first
presenters
will
be
representatives
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
followed
by
representatives
from
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada
and
as
soon
as
you're
ready.
You
can
go
ahead
and
get
started
and
we
welcome
you
to
our
committee.
I
I
That
is
again
under
this
under
the
nrs
62b
390.,
also
in
cases
of
sexual
assault,
with
force
or
threatened
by
force.
I
I
I
did
notice
that
in
your
last
meeting
in
august
that
mr
duffy
did
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
also
about
the
direct
file.
One
of
those
concerns
was
the
fact
of
establishing
that
a
the
jurisdiction
expands
of
a
child
over
the
age
of
18..
I
I
So
again,
we're
asking
at
this
point
to
eliminate
direct
file,
and
I
apologize-
I
forgot
to
mention
there-
are
a
few
states
around
us
that
do
not
have
direct
file.
Utah
has
just
eliminated
direct
file.
Oregon
has
eliminated
direct
file
and
to
go
to
our
one
of
our
southern
states.
Tennessee
has
no
direct
file
to
the
adult
court.
G
G
I
apologize,
I
am
multitasking
in
my
house
at
the
interim
committee
and
classroom,
so
I'm
sorry,
I
was
in
the
dis
room
for
a
second
there
with
the
kindergartner.
Please
forgive
me.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation,
members.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
this
presenter
or
if
you'd
like
to
wait
to
hear
the
next
presentation,
ask
all
the
questions
at
once.
That
would
be
fine
that
there's
a
member
of
the
committee
that
has
questions
for
this
presenter.
You
can
go
ahead.
C
Vice
chair,
it's
assemblywoman
alexis
hanson
go
ahead.
I
have.
I
have
just
a
clarification
question
for
miss
jones.
Thank
you
for
being
here
when
you
mention
the
other
states
that
do
not
have
direct
file.
Utah
oregon
tennessee
are
those
the
only
states
in
the
union
that
don't
or
do
we
know
how
many
others
don't.
I
Again
for
the
record
kelly
jones
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
I
apologize
to
similan
hanson.
I
don't
have
further
information.
I
happen
to
work
with
some
of
the
representatives
from
that
state.
So
that
is
why
those
states-
which
is
why
I'm
aware
of
those
I
do-
need
to
do
further
investigation
and
research
on
other
states
that
have
eliminated
direct
file,
and
I
can
get
that
information
for
you.
G
I
Thank
you
for
the
question
again
kelly
jones
for
the
record.
I
G
I
know
we've
heard
in
this
committee
in
the
last
two
interims
and
a
number
of
conversations
about
direct
file,
we've
issues
with
the
placement
of
youth,
that
kind
of
fall
in
between
the
adult
system
and
and
the
child
welfare
system
that
there's
nowhere
to
put
those
children
and
then
have
you
thought
about
that.
And
then
you
spoke
about
that.
Our
our
system
should
be
more
of
a
rehabilitation,
because
these
these
individuals
are
still
children.
What
rehabilitation
programs
have
you
thought
of
if
we
get
if
we
do
get
rid
of
direct
file?
G
I
Again,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
monroe
moreno.
I
I
Currently,
I
know
we
are
in
the
midst
of
using
a
new
system
in
determining
individual
plans
and
services
for
you.
I
would
think
that
that
would
still
occur,
even
if
we
got
rid
of
direct
file
as
far
as
those
services
are
concerned.
I
What
we're
finding
more
and
more
as
we
are
consulting
and
advising
our
clients
we're
finding
more
and
more
of
them
do
have
mental
health
issues.
I
think
that
is
going
to
help
additional
services.
We
would
be
looking
increasing
the
services
of
such
as
the
boys
and
girls
club,
giving
children
an
opportunity
to
have
outside
or
things
to
do
outside
of
just
school
or
just
sports
in
school.
G
Thank
you
for
that.
So
what
I
hear
you
saying
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
is
that
if
we
were
to
eliminate
direct
file
each
child
that
entered
the
the
juvenile
justice
system
that
would
have
been
considered
for
direct
file
would
now
have
their
certification
hearing,
and
by
doing
that,
each
case
would
be
treated
on
an
individual
basis
and
go
towards
the
specific
needs
of
that
child.
J
Thank
you
so
just
so,
I
understand
I'm
clear
if,
if
the
child
then
is
determined
to
be
let's
say,
incompetence
or
violence
it'd
be
up
to
the
court,
then
to
decide
whether
they
go
they're
adjudicated
as
an
adult
or
not.
Am
I
correct
in
saying
that.
I
Yes
again
senator
hammond
again
kelly
jones
for
the
record
that
would
be
correct.
All
juveniles
would
have
an
opportunity
to
have
a
certification
hearing
to
determine
whether
they
should
stay
within
the
juvenile
justice
system
or,
if
there's
truly
a
need
to
move
on
to
the
adult
system
and.
J
And
right
now
I
know
that
we
we
banned
this.
I
think
we
banned
this
when
they
turned,
I
think
14
and
younger.
We
banned
it,
so
this
would
go
up
to
18
and
younger,
or
is
it
higher
than
that?
Is
it
21.?
J
I
mean
I,
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
is
how
many
more
we're
gonna
have
to
increase
the
number
of
cases,
then
that
have
to
be
reviewed
instead
of
going
directly,
and
so
how
does
that
play
out
in
the
course?
Is
that
how
many
more
times
or
how
many
more
people
are
going
to
see
in
front
of
the
juvenile
courts.
I
I
So
I
don't
have
an
exact
number
for
you
at
this
time.
Senator
hamilton,
hammond.
J
Thank
you,
that's
fine.
I
get
called
all
kinds
of
stuff,
so
one
last
question
for
you,
and
that
is
you
know
you
mentioned
a
minute
ago.
You
thought
it
now
that
the
tactic
itself
right
now
is
kind
of
being
used
as
a
as
a
tool.
You
know
as
a
negotiation
tool.
How
does
your
department
then
handle
that
negotiation
tool?
What's
the
give
and
take
there,
I
mean
if
you
guys,
if
they
come
back
at
you
and
you
know,
use
it
as
a
tool.
J
I
And
I
I
apologize
senator
hammond,
I
don't
think
I
was
being
very
clear
for
direct
files.
There
is
no
negotiation.
Once
the
da
has
decided
to
direct
file
a
juvenile
from
the
juvenile
court
system,
they
automatically
go
to
the
adult
court
system,
so
there
is
no
negotiation
there.
However,
oh
no,
no,
I
apologize.
It
was
probably
me
with
the
certification
hearings.
I
There
tends
to
be
negotiations
so
from
the
standpoint
of
we
try
to
make
sure
that
the
certification
hearing
will
occur
based
on
the
crime
and
based
on
the
negotiations
that
were
given
by
the
da's
office.
I
I
Again,
like
our
normal
cases,
after
reviewing
all
the
evidence,
we
determine
whether
or
not
that's
going
to
be
the
best
for
the
child
and
usually
when
they're,
using
the
certification
hearing
as
a
negotiation,
it
is
actually
to
place
them
in
a
juvenile
facility
rather
than
going
through
the
actual
certification
hearing.
J
Oh
yeah,
I
do
thank
you
very
much
for
your
for
your
answers
and
I'm
sure
that's
all.
I
have.
F
Thank
you
vice
chair
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation.
I
really
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you
do
for
our
kids
in
our
juvenile
detention
centers
here
in
clark
county,
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
some
questions
so
once
an
individual
once
once
a
juvenile
has
been
direct
files.
What
juve
do
they
get
receive?
Any
additional
juvenile
services
once
they've
been
moved
to
the
detention
center.
So,
if
they're
receiving
like
youth
mental
health
care,
schooling
like
what
types
of
services
are
available
for
juveniles
that
have
been.
I
Transferred
morning
assemblywoman
torres
and
thank
you
for
the
question
again
kelly
jones
for
the
record,
my
understanding
is
once
they
are
transferred
to
the
clark
county
detention
center.
They
are
placed
in
a
separate
area
as
far
as
housing
is
concerned,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
them
receiving
any
other
services
as
far
as
education
or
mental
health
services.
F
Thank
you.
That's
particularly
concerning
for
me
just
because
they
believe
all
children
deserve
an
education,
regardless
of
what
they
may
have
done.
So
I
think
that
that's
definitely
something
that
needs
to
be
resolved,
and
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
ensure
that
we're
able
to
provide
a
kid
that
that
education,
while
they're
in
the
middle
of
like
this
limbo
process.
F
So
that's
particularly
concerning
to
me-
and
I
just
wanted
to
understand
so,
if
we're,
if
the
juveniles
are
able
to
stand
until
juveniles,
that
recertification
hearing
would
be
like
the
time
for
them
to
for,
for
the
judge
to
really
look
at
and
evaluate
those
options
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
particular
individual.
F
That
particular
juvenile
would
be
better
fitted
for
a
different
type
of
court
system.
Correct.
I
F
Thank
you,
and
so,
if,
at
that
time,
I'm
sorry
last
follow-up.
But
if,
if
at
that
time,
the
judge
determined
that
that
juvenile
needed,
like
additional
mental
health
services
and
things
like
that
that
child
then
wouldn't
have
to
go
through
that
that
that
judge
could
have
the
discretion
to
allow
for
that
juvenile
to
receive
juvenile
services.
Instead
of
just
moving
to
the
adult
facility,
where
they're
they'll
still
be
unicef,
separate,
but
they're
not
going
to
receive
the
juvenile
services
that
we
know
that
the
juvenile
juvenile
system
can
provide.
G
C
C
I
I
They
would
have
to
either
go
to
trial
or
they
would
accept
a
plea
agreement
that
would
then
have
to
go
to
the
judge,
who
would
determine
whether
or
not
they
would
actually
go
on
probation
or
if
they
would
actually
go
directly
to
prison,
and
so
those
services
would
only
be
determined
during
the
sentencing
phase
of
the
adult
side
of
the
court.
C
I'm
sorry
for
interrupting
this.
This
technology
causes
us
to
interrupt
so
I
apologize
so
if
it
were
a
three
to
nine
month
period,
which
we'll
refer
to
as
limbo,
for
lack
of
me
being
able
to
find
another
word.
If
there's
an
actual
legal
wordle
word,
they,
those
juveniles
are
receiving
no
educational
services
or
other
other
services
that,
at
that
point,.
J
Just
a
follow-up
because
that
the
three
to
nine
months
was
kind
of
disconcerting.
Is
that
an
average
or
is
that
something
that
you're
experiencing
right
now
with
this
particular
client?
I
think
you're
you're
referring
to
a
client
or
at
least
you're,
I
thought
you
were
is.
E
J
That
you're
only
getting
three
to
nine.
It
takes
three
to
nine
months
for
that
that
person
to
start
getting
any
kind
of
services,
especially
education,
or
is
that
you
know
maybe
an
extreme
case-
is
three
months
normal.
I
I
would
probably
say
the
average
would
be
six
months
and
I'm
sorry
again,
kelly
jones
for
the
record
and
that's
to
have
their
case
processed
through
the
adult
system
and
again
that
depends
on
the
crime
that
was
committed
and
where
they
stand
in
that
legal
process.
J
Okay,
because.
J
C
Vice
vice
chair
monroe
mourinho,
I.
C
Okay,
sorry,
I
think
I've
been
called
a
lot
of
things
too.
Like
my
colleague
senator
is
there's.
Do
we
have
anybody
that
can
give
us
some
insight
about
this?
If
your
client
is
saying
this,
but
it's
juvenile,
I
I
thought
I
had
heard
that
juvenile
services-
you
know
these
detention
centers-
do
provide
some
sort
of
services
during
this
period.
C
Do
we
have
anybody
on
the
line
that
could
let
us
know
was
this
client
an
unfortunate
you
know
not
the
except
was
the
exception
and
not
the
rule.
I
It
appears
that
the
person
who's
going
to
be
speaking
after
me
does
have
some
information,
because
I
did
see
something
in
the
check
that
they
can
help.
Holly
welburn
said
that
she
could
help.
G
All
right
well
miss
jones.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
the
second
part
of
our
presentation
and
get
some
of
those
questions
that
were
asked
to
you
answered
during
the
next
part
of
the
presentation.
So
the
next
and
q.
You
can
go
ahead
and
get
started.
I
I
I
think
that
would
be
me.
This
is
leslie
with
plan
and
I'm
actually
going
to
pass
it
to
jigada,
because
he's
he's
actually
giving
the
presentation.
K
Thank
you,
greetings
greetings.
My
name
is
jigada
chambers,
I'm
actually
a
fellow
with
the
mass
liberation
project
under
the
planned
umbrella,
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada.
I
want
to
thank
you
honorable.
Go
ahead,
I'm
sorry!
Thank
you,
miss
chair
of
mourinho,
I
I
had
notes,
but
I
kind
of
want
to
just
dig
in
first
and
foremost
we're
talking
about
black
and
brown
kids,
specifically
I'm
one.
I
want
that
to
be
very,
very
clear.
K
Black
youth
as
a
population
in
clark,
county,
school,
district
or
clark
county
have
never
got
over
that
10
and
a
half
11
percent,
but
they
continually
make
up
the
bulk
of
direct
files.
I
really
want
to
highlight
that.
I
feel
that
this
is
the
foundation
for
the
school
to
prison
pipeline,
the
the
ramifications
that
come
in
no
longer
looking
at
a
child
as
a
child
insane
by
a
decision
or
a
bad
choice
that
they
make.
K
They
are
now
to
be
viewed
as
an
adult
the
ramifications
throughout
the
juvenile
criminal
criminal
justice
system.
I
don't
even
think
they
could
be
measured.
One
thing
I
definitely
feel
it
is
a
tool
in
a
pretrial
state
to
support
miss
monroe.
There
is
a
level
where
the
threat
of
it
is
always
in
play.
Okay,
the
threat
of
it
is
always
in
play,
and
I
don't
feel
like
we're
talking
about
a
lengthy
amount
of
violent
crimes
where
these
youth
are
being
transferred
to
the
adult
court.
K
Again,
our
arguments
are
going
to
be
specific
around
the
the
constitution.
The
constitution
has
dictated
the
age
of
when
a
juvenile
should
be
viewed
as
an
adult.
I
know
that
there
are
other
jurisdictions
in
our
country
where
you're
not
even
viewed
as
an
adult
until
19
20
21,
so
just
that
parameter
to
to
to
no
longer
view
a
child
as
a
child
from
a
decision
that
they
make.
K
I
think
that
is
something
that
has
to
be
pulled
out:
the
racial
and
ethnic
disparities
when
we're
looking
at
direct
files
to
me
that
that's
where
the
the
medicine
is
gonna
lie,
if
we
really
want
to
get
to
really
getting
beyond
where
we
are
not
only
in
clark
county
but
as
a
country.
K
I
really
think
this
is
the
the
founding
piece
of
how
we're
treating
our
black
and
brown
kids,
not
only
in
this
county,
but
in
this
country
there
are
over
a
quarter
million
youth
that
are
sent
to
adult
court
a
year,
okay,
they're
over
a
quarter
million
that
that
that
this
happens
to
my
direct
involvement
and
passion
came
from
the
2017
stats.
There
were
41
direct
files,
27
of
them
were
black
and
another
14
were
latino.
There
wasn't
a
white
youth
that
was
sitting
to
adult
court.
K
Needless
to
say,
those
racial
and
ethnic
disparities
were
alarming
and
it
piqued
me
again.
I
didn't
have
a
clue
that
clark,
county's
black
youth
population,
never
gets
over,
that
10
11
plateau
again.
The
school-to-prison
pipeline
is
such
a
a
hot
topic,
not
only
here,
but
around
the
country
again
can
can
we,
I
petition
this
honorable
committee
to
try
to
look
into
this
direct
file
piece
this
minor
component.
This
minor
few
sentences
is
in
the
nevada,
revised
statute
being
a
pillar
into
what
we're
doing
with
with
our
youth.
K
We
we
know
that
there
has
not
been
a
hundred
and
forty
youth
murders
or
a
hundred
and
forty
something
youth
violent
crimes,
so
we
really
want
to
know
who
is
getting
direct
filed
and
why
I
know
mrs
duffy
was
able
to
re,
represent
the
the
juvenile
district
attorney's
office
and
present
to
this
honorable
committee,
and
I
you
know,
I
think
their
office
would
know
a
lot
more,
but
a
lot
of
the
data
is
not
there.
K
K
Was
there
a
iep
in
place
just
common
steps
that
you
think
would
go
along
prior
to
sending
a
youth
to
adult
court?
None
of
those
have
been
taken
into
consideration.
That's
why
I
feel
like
for
this
honorable
committee.
We
are
almost
beyond
a
a
study
or
a
review.
This
has
been
three
decades
plus
of
people
that
are
black
and
brown
that
have
been
impacted
by
this.
K
What
is
most
alarming
to
jage
to
me
personally,
is
that,
from
from
a
period
of
dating
back
to
from
2013
to
2017,
there
were
over
140
youth
directly
filed
into
the
adult
court
system.
Okay,
147,
to
be
exact,
not
one
of
them
was
a
female,
not
one
out
of
that
140
out
of
147.
K
140
of
them
were
youth
of
color
96
being
black
okay.
So
these
are
black
kids
that
are
making
ten
percent
of
the
population,
but
over
the
last
five
six
years
are
making
up
65
of
the
youth
that
are
being
transferred
into
the
adult
court.
So
it's
a
bear
trap
and
it's
a
noose.
That's
only
it's
only
hanging
black
and
brown
kids,
and
here
in
clark
county.
We
had
an
alarming
scenario
at
arbor
view:
high
school,
where
there
was
terroristic
threats
where
there
were
some
lives
of
black
youth
that
were
threatened.
K
The
threat
had
applicable
credibility
because
one
of
the
parents
of
that
that
was
charged
with
that
crime,
his
father,
had
over
100
weapons
in
the
home,
but
these
youth
weren't
direct
filed
into
the
adult
court
system.
So
again
I
I
want
to
do
away
with
it.
I'm
not
trying
to
say
hey,
let's
start
direct
filing
white
youth,
that's
not
what
jake
is
saying.
K
I
want
to
do
away
with
the
practice
that
we
know
is
only
capturing
our
black
and
brown
brothers
and
sisters
again
prior
offenses
of
what
is
going
on
one
thing
that
was
discussed
to
senator
hammond.
I
know
we,
there
was
a
juvenile
who
committed
a
crime
in
september
of
2017.
K
he's
in
custody.
Now
the
covid
crisis
was
such
an
alarming
situation
for
his
mama.
She,
she
came
up
with
nearly
a
half
a
million
dollars
to
get
her
baby
out
of
custody.
Okay,
it
is
when
the
youth
are
transferred
to
adult
court.
Please
we
have
to
stop
viewing
them
as
kids,
once
we
send
them
to
adult
court
they're
viewed
as
adult
they're
on
the
program
of
adults,
the
23
hour
lockdown
that
have
hit
the
clark
county
detention
center
for
the
kobe
crisis.
K
A
lot
of
that
had
hit
the
youth
that
were
in
custody.
So
there
are
a
laundry
list
of
scares
or
alarms
that
go
along
with
the
youth
being
transferred
into
adult
court
system,
also,
the
the
reality
of
what
we
could
do.
If
we
weren't
sending
these
25
to
40
black
and
brown
youth
to
adult
court,
what
could
we
do?
I
think
it
starts
with
culturally
rooted
healing
we're
talking
about
a
specific
set
of
kids
that
need
a
specific
set
of
energy
it.
I
I
I
think
that
has
to
be
highlighted.
K
This
isn't
a
plague
that
is
affecting
the
entire
youth
population
for
clark
county,
and
I
I
I
would
be
amiss
to
to
not
mention
that.
Please
don't
think
that
of
the
150
160,
plus
direct
files
that
have
happened
since
2013
in
clark
county,
don't
think
those
are
all
murders,
don't
think
those
are
all
violent
crimes.
A
lot
of
those
are
youth
who
have
been
sent
on
probation
because
of
possession
of
pod
or
for
truancy
and
now
you're
in
a
vehicle
with
a
18
year
old
adult
and
you
get
caught
with
a
pistol.
K
A
lot
of
things
will
usher
into
that
adult
court
status.
So
again,
no
one
knows
better
than
those
25
30
years
of
kids,
who
have
been
thrust
into
the
adult
court
system
and
a
lot
of
those
youth
have
made
their
way
back
home.
So
if
there
were
any
exit,
any
effort
to
study
or
get
involved
tap
in
with
those
youths
that
have
been
sent
to
adult
court
15
20
years
ago,
but
again
that's
going
to
be
such
a
challenge,
because
minimal
records
have
been
kept
on
these
babies
that
we
sent
to
adult
court.
K
I
I
really
want
to
highlight
mental
health
components.
What
we
would
do
with
these
youth,
we're
in
talks
with
a
organization,
a
phenomenal
organization
called
youth
first
and
what
they
have
done
in
in
new
jersey,
is
actually
got
I.e.
A
department
store
a
vacant
shopping
center
and
have
built
that
up
to
house
your
youth
to
keep
them
right
there.
You
know
allow
some
of
the
medicine
that
happens
from
our
community
to
give
direct
access
to
our
youth
in
custody.
So
there
are
different
jurisdictions
that
are
taking
this
step.
K
I
think
it
boils
down
to
looking
at
our
kids
as
kids
there's
nothing
that
a
youth
can
do
that
is
preserved
for
an
adult
except
be
charged
into
adult
court.
He
can't
smoke
a
cigarette.
He
can't
grab
a
bait.
He
can't
vote.
He
can
sign
up,
there's
so
many
restrictions
that
we
would
never
think
to
look
beyond
them,
but
for
certain
scenarios
again,
these
are
not
don't
think
that
we're
talking
about
40
murders,
youth
murders
a
year.
These
are
certain
scenarios
and
circumstances
that
are
reserved
again
for
black
and
broth
youth.
K
So
if
this
honorable
committee
was
able
to
take
any
effort
or
initiative
into
eliminating
this
practice
and
just
taking
care
of
it
through
the
statute-
needless
to
say,
it
would
be
so
rewarding
and
impactful
to
our
community
again
because
there
is
no
youth.
That
is,
is
un
repairable
what
we
do
with
our
black
and
brown
youth?
Is
we
don't
see
him
as
repairable?
K
You
see
the
14
year
old,
as
you
see
his
uncle
and
his
daddy
in
prison,
and
we
see
that
as
their
logical
route.
But
again
I'm
a
school-to-prison
pipeline
guy.
I
got
suspended
multiple
years.
Multiple
years
ended
up
getting
expelled
and
you
know
I
had
to
figure
it
out
in
the
penitentiary,
but
I
don't
think
that
is
the
medicine,
especially
for
our
youth.
When
we're
talking
about
23
hour,
lockdown,
that's
irreparable
damage
and
what
it
does
is
creates.
K
The
foundation
where
clark
county
school
district
police
was
is
going
to
come
in,
and
arrest
and
handcuff
an
11
year
old,
baby
girl
and
they
and
they're
gonna
be
she's
gonna,
be
left
in
custody
for
four
days
and
she's
gonna
be
charged
with
a
felony
for
grabbing
a
pair
of
safety
scissors.
Okay,
that's
the
climate
that
comes
in
place
when
we
do
direct
file,
our
chips
once
we
surrender
looking
at
any
child
as
a
child,
and
that's
how
you
get
11
year
olds,
handcuffed
on
campus
in
front
of
their
classmates.
K
That's
how
you
get
11
year
olds
left
in
custody
for
four
days.
That's
irreparable
trauma.
So
I
think
this
is
a
step
to
healing
not
only
just
youth
that
are
transferred
into
adulthood,
but
how
we
view
all
of
our
babies
that
need
that
need
more
attention
that
need
a
little
bit
of
help
I'll
surrender
right
there.
I
know
myself
and
leslie
turner
are
definitely
available
for
questions,
and
I
would
be
I'd
be
sad
if
I
didn't
get
one
too.
So
thank
you.
G
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
chambers,
for
your
very
passionate
presentation.
I
I
feel
your
pain.
Are
there
any
members
that
have
a
question
for
mr
chambers?
I
am
going
to
ask
the
aclu.
I
know
that
they're
on
the
line
for
one
of
our
other
agenda
items,
but
I
I
know
that
they
have
some
numbers
specific
to
questions
that
assemblywomanhansen
had
so
does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
mr
chambers
before
I
move
on
to
miss
walmart.
C
I'm
sorry
miss
wellborn,
it's
celery,
woman
hansen.
I
I
just
wanted
to
thank,
I
didn't
have
a
question.
I
just
want
to
thank
our
last
presenter
that
I
don't
have
a
question
because
you
were
very
thorough,
so
I
appreciate
the
information,
appreciate
your
passion
and
we
care
about
all
children,
and
you
know
the
black
and
brown
children,
all
children
and
that's
why
we're
here
on
this
committee
and
we
want
to
vet
these
things
and
get
some
some
good
solutions
and
answers
to
these
things
that
concern
us
all.
So
thank
you.
C
D
Thank
you,
holly
well-born
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
vice
chair
monroe
moreno.
I
just
wanted
to
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
clarification
on
the
education
issue.
We
will
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
our
study
that
we
facilitated
back
in
the
last
interim
before
the
2019
session,
where
we
went
and
we
did
a
facility
assessment
of
all
local
institutions,
the
lovelock
correctional
center
and
their
youth
pod,
the
clark
county,
direct
clark,
county
detention
center
and
their
youth
pod.
I
also
want
to
thank
our
our
presenters.
D
We
really
are
in
this
fight
together
to
find
the
best
solution
for
young
people,
and
I
think
you
know
our
presentation
coming
up-
will
provide
clarity
on
how
all
of
this
works
together,
but
what
it
is
when
it
comes
to
providing
adequate
services,
at
least
what
we
found,
and
we
certainly
want
to
hear
if
there
are
young
people
who
are
getting
lost
in
the
cracks,
because
you
know
between
some
kind
of
procedural
outcome,
but
in
our
facility
tours
you
know
the
clark
county
detention
center
does
have
educational
opportunities
available.
D
Actually,
in
our
assessment,
we
did
find
that
it
was
quite
a
good
good
educational
system,
there's
a
lot
of
hands-on
training
for
young
people
in
the
clark
county,
detention
center
youth
pod,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
these
institutions
and
these
adult
facilities
are
at
able
to
meet
all
of
the
other
variety
of
needs
that
young
people
have.
So,
for
example,
we
know
that
the
nutritional
content
of
food
available
at
ccdc
has
come
under
scrutiny.
It's
been
found
to
not
be
you
know,
nutritionally
adequate
for
a
young
person
there's
also
no
outdoor
a
yard
opportunity.
D
They
do
have
one
of
those
indoor
yards
that
has
the
open,
chain-link
fencing
above
them,
but
no
real,
adequate
opportunity.
From
our
perspective
for
real
large
muscle
exercise
that
young
people
need,
I
mean,
there's
a
basketball
court
things
like
that,
but
in
order
to
you
know
be
out
in
the
air
have
time
you
know
for
for
that
type
of
recreation.
D
That's
found
to
be
uncontroversial,
uncontroversial
in
the
need
for
young
people
to
to
have
that
type
of
that
type
of
you
know
physical
interaction
with
other
people,
so
we'll
we'll
dive
a
little
bit
more
into
it,
and
I
don't
know
if
I'm
permitted
to
put
our
study
study
into
this
box
just
so
everybody
kind
of
has
it
in
front
of
them.
Am
I
permitted
to
do
that.
G
B
Thanks,
madam
chair
patrick
iron,
for
the
record,
I
would
just
ask
holly
if
that,
if
that
is
going
to
be
a
link,
that's
part
of
your
presentation
under
the
next
agenda
item
that
maybe
we
just
move
it
to
the
next
agenda
item
and
look
at
it.
Then,
rather
than
confuse
this
agenda
item
for
that.
D
That
sounds
great,
but
I.
D
Clarify
for
for
the
record
and
be
responsive
to
the
question
that
that
they're,
you
know
most
facilities
have
contracts
with
their
local
school
districts
and,
if
there's
a
delay
in
getting
to
those
educational
opportunities,
that's
something
we
certainly
want
to
know
about
and
see
if
we
can
fix
it.
But
my
understanding
is
that
most
kids
are
sent
to
ccdc
after
certification
pre-trial
and
they
are.
They
do
get
educational
instruction.
G
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
members
that
have
any
questions
for
miss
welburn
on
this
agenda
item
miss
walburn,
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
stay,
don't
go
anywhere.
G
Okay,
see
no
questions,
then
I
am
going
to
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item
on
our
agendas
and
its
agenda
item
number
six
and
mr
auburn,
since
you
were
one
of
the
presenters
on
that
nexus
item.
Since
you
are
already
on
screen,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
ask
you
to
start
out
that
agenda
item.
It
will
be
the
discussion
of
proposals
for
appropriate
state
and
local
entities
to
develop
a
memorandum
of
understanding
to
house
youthful
offenders
and
juvenile
facilities,
and
so
with
that
and
so
auburn.
D
You
you
vice
chair,
monroe,
moreno,
again,
holly
balbourn
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
I
went
ahead
and
linked
a
report.
I've
submitted
this
to
this
committee
quite
a
few
times
over
the
last
few
years,
but
this
was
published
in
the
summer
of
2016
priest.
Excuse
me,
2018
preceding
the
the
2019
legislative
session
we
have
been
advocating
to
to
both
end.
You
know
direct
file
of
youth,
as
we've
heard
in
this
other
presentation.
D
So
I
think
that
all
of
us
were
quite
shocked
to
learn
this
past
legislative
session.
That
excuse
me
in
your
past
meeting
that
four
young
women
who
had
been
sent
to
the
adult
system
were
transferred
out
of
state.
I
had
was
not
aware
of
that.
After
going
through
this
process,
it
was
a
surprise
to
me
to
learn
about
that.
I
had
asked
a
few
questions.
D
It's
my
understanding
that
the
young
women
they
are
in
a
state
institution-
and
I
don't
know
that,
there's
any
current
plans
to
remove
those
young
women
back
to
nevada.
D
So
I
bring
up
a
report
and
I
think
it's
important
to
remind
the
committee.
You
know
what
what
our
conclusions
were
and
what
we
did
was
a
minimum
standards
assessment,
not
a
best
practices
standards.
Every
facility
can
do
exponentially
better
right,
but
of
course
you
know
we're
living
in
a
state,
especially
now
where
we're
fighting
for
for
money
right.
D
So
it's
really
the
question
of
what
do
we
need
to
do
to
have
the
best
outcome
for
kids,
given
all
of
these
circumstances,
what
we
concluded
and
what
I
think
most
administrators
will
will
admit-
and
I
know
that
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
will
admit.
We
very
much
see
this
as
a
partnership
with
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
on
finding
a
solution
for
young
people,
particularly
the
young
women
who
have
been
sent
out
of
state
and
the
boys
who
are
living
in
lovelock.
D
D
The
strict
adherence
to
sight
and
sound
separation
requirements
in
the
prison,
rape,
elimination
act
and
under
jj
gpa
have
have
created
barriers
for
being
able
to
provide
the
high
level
of
inter-prevention
education,
jobs,
etc
for
young
people
in
order
to
be
successful
if
they
are
on
a
track
to
one
day
no
longer
be
incarcerated,
we
know
that
the
solutions
for
young
women
are
very
minimal.
So
I
want
to
explain:
what's
happened
with
this
situation
with
young
women?
D
One
of
the
proposals
back
when
james
arenda
was
the
director
of
the
department
of
corrections.
Was
you
know?
Perhaps
what
they
would
have
to
do
is
build
a
portable
unit,
and
at
that
time
it
was
one
young
woman
who
had
been
transferred
and
to
have
that
young
woman
housed
in
that
portable
until
she
reached
the
age
of
majority.
D
This
by
our
standards
is
solitary
confinement
or
administrative
segregation,
as
the
department
would
call
it,
which
is
completely
unacceptable
for
a
person
under
the
age
of
18
for
any
any
individual,
particularly
for
children,
because
we
know
of
the
harm.
D
Cost
we
are
in
this
conundrum,
where
we
don't
want
to
place
young
women
in
solitary,
but
we
also
don't
want
young
women
to
go
out
of
state.
It
also
presents
serious
sex
discrimination
issues
where
boys
are
treated
one
way.
Girls
are
treated
another
way
it
takes
them
out
of
the
state
and
away
from
their
families.
There's
been
litigation
throughout
the
country
that
has
sought
to
remove
girls
who
have
been
moved
out
of
state
in
other
jurisdictions.
D
Most
of
those
cases
there's
nothing.
That's
been
decided
on
the
merits.
Most
of
those
cases
had
been
dismissed
because
those
girls
had
reached
the
age
of
majority
before
it
got
before
the
case
was
heard
or
went
to
trial,
but
we
know
that
that's
lingering
there,
so
I
I
say
this
and
I
really
want
to
drive
home
the
point
that
we
we
need
to
find
solutions.
We've
embarked
on
this
road
through
this
study,
we've
worked
worked
in
collaboration
with
the
doc
with
our
juvenile
institutions.
D
So
what
is
the
answer?
And
I
think
we
have
a
few
conclusions
for
you.
One
of
those
answers
is
to
look
to
our
states
and
there
are
currently
11
states
that
do
that
house
youth
who
are
transferred
out
or
either
certified
through
that
process
that
you
heard
about
prior
who
stay
in
the
juvenile
institutions,
and
there
are
zero
problems.
D
In
fact,
it's
drastically
reduced
the
recidivism
rate
among
youth
and
has
been
shown
to
have
the
best
possible
outcomes
for
young
people
and
there's
a
certain
there's,
a
variety
of
ways
to
get
there
and
then,
of
course,
you've
heard
about
direct
file
and
ending.
D
You
know
direct
file
and
really
taking
a
look
at
each
individual
individualized
youth
that
is
going
to
enable
the
possibility
to
retain
those
youth
in
the
juvenile
system,
because
we
know
that
youth
are
simply
different
than
adults
when
it
comes
to
when
it
comes
to
the
way
and
the
reasons
why
they
enter
the
criminal
justice
system.
So
I'm
going
to
stop
talking
and
I
would
like
to
introduce
marcy
mistrett.
She
is
the
ceo
of
the
campaign
for
youth
justice
and
she
can
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
a
state-by-state
analysis
on
this
issue.
L
Thank
you
holly,
and
thank
you
to
the
members
of
the
committee
for
introducing
me
or
allowing
me
to
speak
today.
I
really
appreciate
it
as
holly
just
mentioned.
I
am
the
ceo
with
the
campaign
for
youth
justice.
L
So
forgive
me,
it
is
very
hard
for
me
to
talk
about
just
the
removal
of
children
from
adult
jails
and
prisons
from
adult
facilities,
without
also
talking
about
how
they
got
there
in
the
first
place
right.
So
I
will
do
my
best
to
try
to
to
try
to
keep
those
discussions
separate,
although
I
will
say
that
excluding
children
based
on
their
age
in
charge,
what
everyone's
referring
to
is
direct
file
in
nevada
is
a
huge
reason
that
we
have
so
many
children
that
are
in
adult
facilities
to
begin
with,
so
they
are
inextricably
linked.
L
One
thing
and
I'm
going
to
start
this
with
just
a
little
bit
of
historical
context
before
in
the
1990s,
before
we
kind
of
had
the
era
of
treating
children
like
adults,
arabs
super
predators,
there
was
only
seven
states
in
the
entire
country
that
skipped
that
very,
very
important
step
of
a
judicial
transfer
hearing
only
seven
now
that
number
is
up
to
34
right.
So
we
skipped
that
step
in
most
of
our
states
and
and
it's
not
that
those
certification
or
those
waiver
hearings
went
away.
It's
just
that.
L
We
grouped
a
bunch
of
children
based
solely
on
their
age
and
the
crimes
they
were
charged
with
as
being
automatically
excluded
from
those
jurisdictions
from
juvenile
court
jurisdiction
right.
So
those
statutes
around.
You
know
a
waiver
hearing,
a
certification
hearing
where
children
have
representation.
Where
there
is
more
than
just
a
police
report,
where
da's
actually
had
more
than
you
know,
24
to
72
hours
to
make
their
charging
decisions
that
does
exist
in
45
states
that
that
possibility
to
do
it.
L
That
way
does
exist
in
45
states,
including
in
nevada,
except
for
that
we
have
carved
out
this
group
of
children
who
don't
get
that
opportunity
they
start
immediately
into
in
in
the
adult
court.
They're
no
longer
considered
children,
and
so
we
are
at
the
point
now,
15
years
later,
where
we
have
made
as
a
country
based
on
research
based
on
supreme
court
jurisprudence.
L
Based
on
what
we
know
now
about
adolescent
brain
development
and
neurology,
we've
started
to
change
this.
As
a
country,
you've
started
going
back
to
look
at
our
practices
and
to
mr
chambers
point
earlier.
I
just
want
to
reiterate:
our
children
are
not
the
ones
driving
violent
crime
in
our
communities.
As
a
matter
of
fact
nationally,
we
are
at
the
lowest
point
of
juvenile
crime
that
we
have
been
in.
L
In
50
years
we
have
reduced
nationally
we've
reduced
youth
incarceration
by
more
than
60
percent,
and
we've
reduced
the
number
of
kids
charged
as
adults
by
more
than
70
percent.
So,
while
we
have
moved
all
of
these
children
back
to
the
juvenile
court,
which
is
the
appropriate
place
for
them
to
be,
we
have
also
dropped
our
youth
crime
right.
So
those
two
things:
if
we
treat
children
like
children,
they
are
much
less
likely
to
engage
in
more
criminal
behavior.
L
They
are
not.
They
are
not
linked.
There
are
22
states
that
have
restricted
the
placement
of
children
in
adult
jails
and
prisons,
and
we
also
have
two
federal
laws
that
holly
referred
to-
that
I'm
sure
this
committee
is
well
aware
of,
but
both
the
prison,
rape,
elimination
act
and,
just
recently
in
2018
and
signed
by
president
trump,
the
reauthorization
of
the
juvenile
justice
and
delinquency
prevention
act
which,
since
1974,
has
required
states
to
keep
children,
delinquent
children
or
children,
with
status
offenses
out
of
adult
jails.
What
it.
L
What
the
new
reauthorization
did
is
to
say
that
should
be
tied
to
any
child
who's
under
the
age
of
majority,
including
children
who
are
pending
adult
charges,
so
states
basically
have
till
the
end
of
next
year
to
deal
with
that
or
they'll
start
to
get
federal
penalties.
L
There
are
so
does
that
make
sense
everybody
with
me
so
far.
Yes,
okay,
there
are
24
states
right
now
that
allow
young
people
and
nevada
is
one
of
these
states
right.
There
is
a
period
of
time
where
young
people,
even
those
charged
as
adults,
can
be
housed
in
youth
facilities.
L
There's
only
eight
states-
and
this
is
before
the
law
passed,
but
there's
only
eight
states
that
presume
and
really
have
no
way
at
all
for
any
child
to
be
held
in
a
juvenile
facility.
So,
even
before
this
law
passed,
there
was
at
least
wiggle
room
for
states
to
make
that
decision
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
L
Well,
over
the
past
two
years,
we've
seen
rapid
movement
around
this
and
nine
states
in
the
past
two
years
have
changed
their
laws
prohibiting
children
pre-trial
to
be
in
adult
facilities.
Most
states
have
already
changed
their
law
post
commitment.
So
any
child
that
gets
sentenced
to
adult
time
because
of
priya
because
of
the
high
cost
of
priya,
because
as
mr
chambers
referenced
earlier,
there
actually
isn't
a
lot
of
kids
who
are
under
18
by
the
time
they're,
sentenced
and
going
to
adult
facilities.
L
And
so
you
know,
we
have
moved
the
field
tremendously
once
they
understand
that
they
actually
have
decision-making
authority
about
where
these
children
belong
most
places
when
they
look
at
this
realize
that
the
juvenile
facility,
the
juvenile
system,
is
the
appropriate
place
for
all
of
these
children,
particularly
pre-trial
when
they
have
not
been
convicted
of
any
crime.
So
in
the
1990s,
the
number
of
children
who
were
under
the
age
of
18
that
slept
every
single
night
in
adult
jails
and
prisons
was
close
to
13
000
last
year.
That
number
dropped
to
3
000..
L
So
we
are
making
progress
right
and
I-
and
I
think
that
the
way
that
people
have
done
this
and
I've
seen
this
in
in
nevada
as
well
right.
We
have
looked
at
our
juvenile
justice
system
and,
again
to
mr
chambers
point
the
way
we're
handing
school
to
prison
pipeline.
We
started
realizing,
like,
oh
god,
we're
locking
up
these
kids
for
skipping
school
and
then
they're,
not
then
they're
actually
14
times
less
likely
to
ever
go
back
to
school
again
right.
L
So
maybe
we
should
look
at
this
a
different
way
if
we're
talking
about
solutions,
so
our
juvenile
justice
system
has
begun
to
shrunk
shrink
and,
in
my
opinion,
that
then
provides
us
with
the
opportunity
to
bring
these
children
who
are
just
automatically
excluded
from
any
sort
of
consideration
from
juvenile
court
back
to
the
juvenile
justice
system,
where
they
can
get
a
fair
and
comprehensive
review
by
a
judge
with
with
an
attorney
present
again,
as
mr
chambers
said,
I
think
the
assumption
is
we
all
go
to
the
worst
crime.
The
front
page
story.
L
That
is
not
the
bulk
of
children
who
end
up
in
the
adult
court
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
a
lot
of
the
best
practices
that
we
have
seen
that
work
to
reduce
recidivism,
to
get
kids
on
the
right
track
that
are
developmentally
appropriate.
L
Are
our
our
interventions
that
were
designed
with
children
with
very
serious
or
chronic
or
violent
charges
in
mind,
so
things
like
ms
multi-systemic
therapy,
family
functional
therapy,
a
lot
of
the
cultural
healing
practices
that
are
out
there,
we're
all,
even
even
things?
Why
am
I
forgetting
the
name
of
a
sign
blanking
on
the
name
of
the
program,
but
even
pro
housing
programs,
voc
tech
programs
have
taken
children
with
very
similar
histories
as
the
children
that
we
have
excluded
and
have
been
incredibly
successful?
L
They
were
who
the
children
were
designed
for,
and
the
the
doctor
that
created
mst
will
talk
at
length
about
the
fact
that
that
the
children
who
are
now
being
served
by
the
are
not
being
served.
But
in
the
adult
system
are
the
children
that
his
program
that
was
designed
was
designed
to
attend
to
it
is
a
set.
It
is
a
family
system
model.
It
is
understanding
that
children
don't
live
independently,
yet
that
they
live
in
a
family
setting,
and
it
is
why
it's
gotten
so
much
so
many
very,
very
positive
outcomes.
L
L
So
again,
most
of
the
states
have
already
done
this
or
are
moving
rapidly
to
doing
this,
but
the
other
piece
I
want
to
talk
to-
and
I
think
mr
chambers
talked
about
this-
there
are
actually
16
states
in
the
country
who
require
a
judicial
that
that
judicial
waiver
hearing
or
that
juvenile
certification
hearing
before
that
child
can
move
to
the
adult
court.
Those
states
include
california,
connecticut,
hawaii,
kansas,
kentucky
maine,
missouri,
new
hampshire,
new
jersey,
north
carolina,
north
dakota,
ohio,
rhode,
island,
tennessee
and
texas.
L
Should
they
remain
in
the
juvenile
justice
system.
I'm
going
to
share
real
quick,
a
screen
to
show
where
the
movement
has
been
very
recently,
and
I
know
I'm
throwing
a
lot
of
information
at
you.
I'm
sorry,
but
here
we
go
right
this.
If
you
look
here,
I
can
you
guys
see
my
pointer,
my
or
no
yes,
okay,
so
you
see
in
these
first
two
columns.
L
These
are
judicial,
waivers
right,
there's
actually
three,
but
none
of
the
states
have
the
third
one
so
either
a
judge
has
full
discretion
over
the
certification
or
there
is
a
presumption
of
waiver
for
certain
children
based
on
their
crime
or
the
third
one
would
be
mandatory
waiver.
So
a
judge
is
basically
just
verifying
that
the
child
that
the
charge
and
the
age
of
the
child
is
verified
and
then
they
transfer
the
kid
up,
but
they're
still
in
a
juvenile
court
by
a
juvenile
judge
right.
So
that's
the
first
two
columns.
L
The
second
three
are:
these
are
all
children
who
have
no
touch
at
all
with
the
juvenile
justice
system.
They
stay,
they
start
in
the
adult
system.
We
call
that
and
it
and
it's
all
three
branches
of
government.
So
the
way
we
break
it
down
is
statutory
exclusion.
So
the
the
legislature
has
determined
under
statute
the
age
and
the
charges
that
have
to
originate
in
adult
criminal
court.
You
guys
are
referring
to
that
today
as
direct
file,
and
many
many
states
do
so.
That
is
the
legislative
branch
right.
Then
you
have.
L
These
are
the
judicial
branch
and
then
prosecutor
discretion
is
considered
the
executive
branch
because
it
gives
the
full
authority
of
determining
which
children
start
in
juvenile
or
adult
court.
The
prosecutor
has
full
discretion
on
which
child
goes
where
there's
only
about
13
states
that
allow
that,
and
then
this
once
in
adult
provision
means
if
you
have,
depending
on
the
state
either.
If
you
have
an
adult
charge
or
an
adult
conviction
before
you
reach
the
age
of
majority,
any
subsequent
charge
will
also
land
you
in
the
adult
system.
L
So
if
you
get
a
char
you
get
excluded
because
you
have
an
armed
robbery.
You
plea
to
something
lesser:
you
plead
a
simple
robbery,
but
it's
still
an
adult
conviction,
and
then
you
get
another
charge:
a
misdemeanor
theft
right
that
you
that
misdemeanor
theft
is
also
an
adult
charge.
Okay
and
then
these
are
more
about
sentencing
and
ways
to
mitigate
those
harm,
and
then
the
last
column
here
is
which
of
these
states
house
children
under
the
age
of
majority,
in
adult
jails
and
prisons.
So
you'll
see
california
16.
L
No
one
under
the
age
of
cal,
under
16
in
california,
can
be
waived,
no
matter
what
they
do
right
and
a
judge
has
to
have
a
full
certification
hearing.
They
used
to
have
a
prosecutorial
discretion,
but
in
2016
they
ended
that
and
children
under
the
age
of
18
and
they
were,
and
up
to
age
24
are
mandated
to
remain
in
the
in
the
youth
justice
system,
even
if
they
have
those
adult
charges
and
sentences,
and
I'm
gonna
pause
for
a
second
on
california.
L
I
know
california
does
not
represent
the
rest
of
the
country,
but
I
am
just
gonna
say
this:
they
went
from
1100
kids
a
year
in
the
adult
system
to
44
last
year
from
1100
to
44.
Their
crime
rate
overall
has
not
gone
up,
and
these
kids
are
staying
out
of
the
adult
system
because
they're
getting
the
age-appropriate
services
and
interventions
they
need
before
before
becoming
adults.
Colorado
still
has
a
pretty
low
minimum
age.
They
again
change
the
number
of
kids
in
the
adult
system.
They
totally
restricted.
L
No
one
under
age
16
can
be,
centered
can
be
considered
without
a
hearing,
and
it
was
a
very
limited
number
of
charges
and
they've
dropped
that
down
to
under
10
kids
a
year
now
automatically
starting
in
the
adult
system
when
it
used
to
be
over
a
hundred.
L
L
Utah
again,
just
this
year
greatly
reduced
it.
It
is
only
for
murder
and
aggravated
sexual
assault
that
children,
16
or
older
can
even
be
considered
in
the
adult
system,
and
again,
washington
state
also
dramatically
narrowed
the
charges
that
are
eligible,
and
if
you
see
here
all
of
the
states
around,
you
guys
have
already
gotten
the
kids
out
of
their
adult
system,
so
pre
and
post
trial.
These
children
are
being
housed
in
age-appropriate
facilities
with
trained
officers
in
adolescent
development,
with
mental
health
providers
that
are
trained
in
adolescent
development.
L
They
have
contact
visits
with
their
families.
They
get
free
phone
visits
with
their
families.
They
get
all
of
the
idea
and
education
requirements
up
to
age
21..
You
know
we
designed
separate
facilities
for
kids
because
we
recognize
they
had
unique
kids
unique
needs.
L
So
I
think
I'll
take
a
pause
and
then
answer
your
questions
because
I
know
I
just
threw
a
lot
of
you,
but
I
think,
if
there's
a
real
real
opportunity
here
for
for
nevada
to
continue
on
the
work
that
you've
actually
already
started-
and
I
think
it
just
makes
it's
common
sense
and
we
just
have
to
realize
that
you
know
90
percent
95
of
these
kids
will
be
home
by
the
time
they're
24..
L
That
is
when
we
see
the
desistance
curve
drop
right,
so
kids
stop
engaging
in
delinquent
behavior
at
around
80
24
years
old
right
when
they
age
out
of
adolescence
and
then
the
last
thing
I
will
say
I
know
I
just
said
I'm
gonna
finish,
but
I
I
want
to
underscore
what
mr
chambers
said:
the
racial
and
ethnic
disparities
of
children
who
are
not
preserved
their
right
to
a
childhood
by
the
criminal
justice
system
is
alarming.
L
It
is
the
most
disparate
point
on
the
entire
entry
points
on
the
entire
continuum
of
care
for
juvenile
justice.
Nationally,
we
are
talking
about
88
percent
of
children,
sentenced
as
adults
are
black
and
brown
88.
L
Yet
when
you
look
at
their
self-report
data
of
how
they
engage,
what
they
are
self-reporting
their
behavior
to
be,
you
see
very
little
difference
by
race
or
ethnicity
in
their
behaviors.
This
is
about
how
we
view
these
children,
how
we
invest
in
support
their
families
during
time
crisis
of
time,
and
we
have
solutions
on
how
to
get
better
about
serving
all
of
our
children
and,
as
mr
chambers
said,
that
healing
and
cultural
practice
is
a
big
piece
of
those
successful
programs.
G
Well,
I
thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation
and
I
will
ask
if
you
could
send
this
screen
to
our
committee
policy
analyst.
So
if
you
can
become
part
of
our
meeting
materials,
that
would
be
extremely
helpful
and
then
listening
to
the
conversation
during
this
meeting
and
our
last
meeting,
I
kind
of
my
career
was
in
correctional
law
enforcement.
G
While
I
worked
with
adult
offenders,
I
often
worked
with
adult
offenders
that
had
just
recently
left
the
juvenile
justice
system,
and
I
got
I
I
think
I
just
have
to
put
it
on
the
record.
G
G
And
yes,
there
are
some
improvements
that
we
do
need
to
make
to
our
system
so
that
it
better
treats
on
an
individualized
basis,
all
of
our
children,
no
matter
what
race
or
creed
that
they
are,
but
is
a
better
system
in
addressing
the
needs
of
all
of
our
children,
and
it
does
sadden
me
as
a
as
an
african-american
woman
that
the
number
of
children
that
we
see
being
filed
are
children
of
color
and
how
we
can
combat
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record
members.
G
And
and
this
walmart
I'd
also
ask
if
you
could
speak
directly
to
the
memorandum
of
understanding
and
what
that
would
say
and.
D
Sure,
mrs
mr
could
could
probably
offer
a
little
bit
more
clarity
on
some
of
those
contracts,
but
we
know
that
in
both
washington
and
oregon
and
a
few
other
states,
you
know
the
main
primary
point
of
you
know
how.
How
do
we
facilitate
moving
young
people
into
the
you
know
retaining
them
in
the
juvenile
justice
system?
D
The
funding
that
would
be
used
to
retain
the
kids
in
in
doc
would
be
transferred
over
to
the
juvenile
system,
there's
also
in
some
states
an
arrangement
where
there-
and
I
believe
ms
mr
spoke
to
this-
but
there
is
an
arrangement
where
some
correctional
facility
staff
are
on
hand
at
the
juvenile
institution
to
handle.
You
know
you
know
any
kind
of
therapeutic
interventions
that
might
need
to
be
doc
approved
for
whatever
reason,
so
that
is
one
you
know
possible
solution
that
could
move
forward
regulatorily.
D
I
think
you
know
some
states
have
have
authorized
that,
and
it's
been
quite
successful
in
making
sure
that
that
youth
get.
You
know
the
full
spectrum
of
care
that
they
need.
Did
you
want
to
add
something
to
that?
Miss
mistreat.
L
I
would
suppose
the
only
other
thing
I
would
add
to
that
is
as
our
again
nationally
you
guys,
I'm
actually
not
exactly
sure
of
nevada's
numbers
right
now,
but
I
know
you've
made
so
many
adjustments
along
the
way
that
there's
kind
of
some
static
costs
with
running
a
facility
and
again,
and
so
as
our
juvenile
population
numbers
go
down
in
juvenile
detention.
We
have
space
for
children
that
isn't
actually
going
to
cost
a
lot
more
than
serving
the
children
that
are
there.
L
So
we
have
seen
that
run
that
way,
and
then
we
I
mean:
we've
got
policy
platform
statements
from
the
national
sheriff's
association
from
the
major
cities,
chiefs
of
police
from
the
correctional
juvenile
justice
association,
all
calling
for
jail
removal
because
you've
got
in
general.
You
have
very
few
children
in
these
adult
facilities
and
as
holly
mentioned
earlier,
both
between
priya
and
jjdpa
federal
law,
they
need
a
lot
more.
The
costs
become
pretty
high,
pretty
quick,
and
so
I
would
just
say
you
know
this
is
more.
L
This
ends
up
being
more
a
choice
of
it
ends
up
not
costing
as
much
as
people
think
it
costs.
L
Although
I
I
know
it
is
very
hard
to
wrap
your
head
around
that
until
you
actually
do
it,
but
I
can
show
you
data
after
data
after
data
in
states
that
have
done
this,
and
their
costs
were
not
even
a
fraction
as
a
matter
of
fact,
in
connecticut,
their
their
cost
went
down
by
two
million
dollars
after
after
making
this
change-
and
I
do
want
to
point
out
to
the
vice
chairman-
thank
you
for
I
was
not
trying
to
anyway
shape
or
form
vilify
the
da's.
L
I
was
trying
to
articulate
the
fact
that,
when
it's
automatically
when
these
statues
exist
that
automatically
exclude
children
from
the
adult
system
that
ties
their
hands
too
right
if
it's
in
a
juvenile
court-
and
there
is
a
certification
hearing-
that
also
does
give
the
da's
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
full
picture
as
well
and
make
decisions
that
are
based
on
something
more
than
the
crisis
of
of
the
time
being
arrested
when
they
have
to
charge.
So
I
agree
with
you.
J
Thank
you.
I
apologize.
I
just
got
called
down
to.
I
have
to
go
down
to
another
office
for
another
meeting
here,
so
I
want
to
get
this
in
real
quick.
I
miss
miss
had
had
mentioned
that
she
doesn't
know
what
the
numbers
are
here
and
I
think
in
our
last
meeting
we
were
promised
some
numbers.
Did
we
give
you
those
numbers,
I
think
from
the
da's
office,
because
that's
one
of
the
things
I
recall
that
they
were
going
to
supply
to
us.
Maybe
mr
guynum
knows.
B
J
G
Okay,
I
am
seeing
none,
so
I
thank
you,
ladies
for
your
presentation.
It's
always
interesting
and
impactful
and
meaningful,
and
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
So
much
and
I'll
just
ask
you
out
because,
as
we
hear
the
next
presenter,
there
may
be
questions
for
you
all
as
well.
So
thank
you
so
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
the
representatives
from
the
division
of
child
and
family
services.
G
M
Ross
with
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
and
thank
you
for
having
this
important
conversation
today,
I
don't
have
a
lengthy
presentation
and
mostly
is
kind
of
a
summary
of
some
of
the
things
we've
heard
before.
I
know
there
are
also
county
representatives
to
talk
about
this
topic
from
their
point
of
view,
and
so
I
would
just
start
first
by
noting
that
you
know.
M
Our
juvenile
process
is
outlined
in
title
v
of
the
nevada,
revised
statute,
and
then
the
adult
process
has
outlined
in
title
14
of
the
nevada
vice
statute.
I
I
don't
have
confidence
that
an
mou
would
be
sufficient
for
us
to
meet
the
requirements
of
those
federal
oversight
laws,
and
so
I
think
a
more
robust
statutory
change
would
would
get
us
to
the
right
place.
There
are
five
main
factors
I
think
when
this
committee
is
considering
this
policy
change,
the
first
would
be
location.
M
Where
would
these
youth
be
placed
within
the
juvenile
justice
system?
If
we're
talking
about
post-conviction,
only
one
of
our
three
facilities
is
physically
secure,
so
only
one
of
our
three
dcfs
facilities
has
a
fence
around
it,
and
so
that
would
be
summit
view
youth
center
and
probably
the
only
suitable
facility
for
this
type
of
youth
and
then
some
questions
about
the
staffing.
So
is
it
nevada
department
of
corrections,
folks
that
would
come
in
and
operate
that
part
of
the
facility,
or
would
it
be
division
of
child
and
family
services?
M
Because
it's
at
a
juvenile
facility
they
would
need
to
meet
those
priya
ratios
of
one
to
eight
during
the
day
and
one
to
16
at
night,
which
is
very
different
than
the
regular
ndoc
staffing
ratios
services?
How
those
would
how
those
would
come
into
play?
I
think
that
our
you
know
the
folks
in
lovelock
are
doing
a
great
job
with
what
they
have.
You
know.
M
One
of
the
issues
that
we
have
is
for
for
our
kids
in
dcfs
custody,
there's
an
incentive
to
go
to
school
and
to
participate
and
engage
in
services,
because
that
will
accelerate
your
return
home.
That
is
not
the
case
for
those
that
are
convicted
in
the
adult
system.
M
At
least
you
know
you
can
get
some
time
for
good
behavior
and
those
types
of
credits,
but
I
know
that
the
love
lock
folks
experience
just
resistance
to
those
youth
wanting
to
go
to
school
because
in
their
mind,
what's
the
point
I
I
have
a
certain
time
I
have
to
serve,
and
so
I
don't
you
know
I
don't
want
to
engage
in
that.
I'm
just
going
to
you
know
essentially
do
my
time
and
then
the
funding
piece,
how
that
funding
of
services
and
staffing
works.
M
So
some
key
things
about
the
site
and
sound
separation,
that
is
in
the
the
jj
dpa,
the
juvenile
justice
delinquency
prevention
act,
and
then
it's
touched
on
in
priya,
at
least
in
adult
facilities.
M
Is
there
are
a
number
of
factors
that
they
would
look
at
to
determine
that
the
two
types
of
inmates
are
are
in
two
separate
programs
and
part
of
this.
I
think
really
part
of
our
our
struggle
in
tackling
this
population
is
that
nevada
actually
has
no
real
definition
of
a
youthful
inmate
in
terms
of
someone
who
is
convicted
in
the
adult
system,
but
is
not
of
adult
age,
we
don't
have
a
structure
around
what
that
looks
like.
I
think
that
could
be
helpful
as
this
as
this
committee
considers
nrs
changes.
M
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
great
it's
important
to
also
note
some
of
the
differences
in
just
governmental
structure,
so
we
heard
about
california.
So
let
me
back
up
a
little
bit.
There
are
three
main
structures
for
juvenile
justice
services
in
the
country.
One
is
where
the
juvenile
justice
services
are
housed
within
the
agency.
That
does
adult
corrections.
M
The
second
one
is
a
totally
independent
type
of
agency,
and
then
the
third
one
is,
it
can
be
housed
in
the
department
of
health
and
human
services,
so
california
mirrors
that
first
model,
where
it's
actually
the
the
department
of
corrections
that
runs
juvenile
justice.
You
may
have
noted
that
during
the
economic
downturn
in
california,
they're
actually
shutting
all
of
their
department
of
corrections,
facilities
for
juveniles
and
and
leaving
it
to
the
counties
to
address
those
needs.
M
Oregon
has
an
independent
oregon
youth
authority,
a
lot
more
flexibility
and
jurisdictional
range
there,
as
indicated
in
that
chart
and
then,
of
course,
nevada
is
housed
within
the
department
of
health
and
human
services.
I
think
there
are
pros
and
cons
to
each
of
those
structures
but
they're
important
to
keep
in
mind
as
we
consider
the
issue
of
housing,
and
so
you
know
to
summarize.
I
think
it
is
a
great
idea
to
figure
out
how
we
can
serve
these
youth
best.
M
I
think
you
know
there
are
some
that
are
are
sentenced
for
a
short
period
and
some
that
are
for
a
very
long
period.
We
would
take
probably
different
approaches
to
those
two,
but
from
our
perspective
we
would
be
happy
to
work
with
this
committee's
council
on
any
sort
of
nrs
changes
to
make
sure
we're
staying
within
the
bounds
of
the
jjdpa
priya
and
then
our
title
5
and
title
14
within
our
nrs.
So
that
is
all
I
have.
M
G
E
Is
this
low-risk
high-risk
concept,
and
so
we
try
to
really
match
the
kids
levels
of
needs
and
risk
in
the
short-term
detention
centers
at
least
thank
you
for
washable
counties
designed
for
young
people
who
are
pending
further
disposition
in
the
juvenile
system
are
awaiting
transfer
to
another
facility,
such
as
mental
health
or
one
of
the
state
correctional
facilities
that
ross
has
is
authorizing.
So
you
know,
we've
talked
to
both
jack
down
south
and
I've
talked
to
ross.
E
E
We
don't
have
the
programming,
that's
really
set
up
for
long-term
housing
and
it
causes
some
issues,
because
you
know
the
kids
that
we
have.
We
have
really
good
education.
We
have
all
the
medical
needs
and
we
can
provide
that
to
whoever's
in
the
facility
where
we
really
run
into
a
problem
is
the
long-term
program.
You
know
some
of
the
youth
that
are
being
transitioned
ultimately
upon
age
majority
in
the
correctional
system,
don't
have
as
much
to
lose.
They
have
much
more
severe
offenses.
E
As
you
previously
discussed
from
your
earlier
panelists
about
educational
medical
services
for
youth,
we
can
do
that
much
more
proficiently
because
that's
our
business
but
longer
term
is
where
we
run
into
into
the
issues,
because
our
systems
really
weren't
designed
for
that
long-term
care.
And
so
I'm
just
going
to
leave
it
at
that,
because
I
think
the
discussion
will
probably
promote
some
questions.
So,
if
I
can,
at
this
point,
I'd
like
to
throw
it
down
to
mr
martin
clark,
county.
N
N
Martin,
I'm
the
director
of
the
clark
county
department
of
juvenile
justice
services,
I'm
down
here
in
las
vegas,
the
the
biggest
issue,
and
I
don't-
and
I
I
agree-
and
I
disagree-
I'm
always
careful
whenever
we
compare
anything
to
california
having
left
the
california
system
after
many
many
years
of
working
in
it,
there's
a
lot
of
different
mechanisms
there
that
weren't
exactly
shared
transparently,
I
mean
the
system
in
california,
can
house
children
up
to
24.,
that's
not
part
of
our
world.
N
Direct
transfers
and
or
direct
files
and
and
certifications
have
been
kind
of
bled
and
bounced
around
in
between
intermingling
these.
These
conversations
they're
two
very
separate
processes
that
occur.
The
direct
file
is
obviously
something
that
we
in
juvenile
justice
have
no
zero
influence
on
now
of
any
kind
that
is
murder.
Attempt,
murder
aggravated
sexual
assault,
those
three
we
call
them
the
big
three,
those
are
automatically
direct
filed.
Those
children
have
no,
they
have
no
jurisdictional.
N
I
I
might
hold
that
child
for
one
night
or
until
they're
or
until
their
first
hearing
our
average
length
to
stay
here
in
clark.
County
is
18
days
for
for
an
actual
clark
county
child.
That's
about
11
days
for
a
child,
that's
pending
placement
or
pending,
depending
on
to
the
state.
Those
numbers
go
up
exponentially,
which
makes
it
about
18
days
and
reading
the
documents
that
were
submitted
by
clark
by
the
nevada
department
of
corrections.
Their
average
length
of
stay
is
299
days.
N
There's
about
14
youth
about
299
days,
I'm
going
to
assume
the
majority
of
those
children
are
coming
from
clark
county.
I'm
not
going
to
disagree.
The
value
of
housing,
children
with
other
children,
I'm
not
going
to
I'm
not
even
going
to
you,
know,
touch
that
because
there's
there's
been
quantitative
multitudes
of
research
that
have
been
done
to
demonstrate
that
it
is.
But
I
am,
I
am
always
cautious.
Whenever
we
talk
about
a
state
function
and
and
discussing
it
at
the
local
level,
there's.
M
I
N
Of
things
being
pushed
further
and
further
back
to
the
county,
I
mean
right
now
we're
watching
it
with
dcfs
limiting
their
their
beds
at
the
at
the
state
level
of
dcfs
right
now,
which
creates
a
backlog
of
children
within
the
county
system.
So
within
our
detention
center
on
any
given
day,
I've
got
between
12
and
18
children
that
are
pending
placement
at
the
state.
Now
you've
had
another
14
children
so
to
to
say
that
there
are
no
costs
associated
with
it
or
or
very
little
costs.
I
would
disagree
with
that,
I'm
not
I'm
not.
N
I
would.
I
would
love
to
have
a
deeper
dive
into
those
costs.
I
just
don't
believe
that's
a
realistic
expectation
to
say
there
are
no
costs
and
then
to
say
I'm
leaving
from
an
a
an
18
bed
average
length
of
state
at
299.
I
have
no
vocational
rehabilitation
stuff
here
I
have
no
long-term
planning.
I
don't
have
the
mental
health
or
clinical
staff
set
up
to
establish
long-term
care
for
children.
N
I
don't
have
the
medical
plans
to
deal
with
to
deal
with
long-term
medical
medical
needs
of
children
that
are
going
to
be
housed
here
longer.
I
mean
there
are
a
lot
of
hidden
costs
there
I
mean
so
you
know,
like
I
hate
to
say,
if
you,
if
you
want
to,
if
you
want
to
drive
a
nice
car,
you
got
to
pay
for
it.
You
know-
and
I
don't
disagree
with
the
with
the
with
the
validity
of
housing
children,
but
I
do
I
do
disagree.
N
You
know
wholeheartedly
that
the
costs
are
not
going
to
be
there,
there's
going
to
be
limited
costs
or
even
less
costs
on
this
mou
that
would
have
to
be
between
clark
county
and
the
the
state
corrections
would
have
to
we'd
have
to
really
explore
what
those
costs
were.
So
there
wouldn't
be
so
there
wouldn't
have
unintended
consequences
on
children
that
are
currently
pending
placement
at
the
state.
Already
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences.
N
I
think
that
would
that
would
that
would
come
into
play
here,
not
to
say
they
couldn't
be
worked
out.
I
absolutely
believe
they
could.
We've
got
lots
of
smart
people
here
in
the
state.
We
can
figure
all
this
stuff
out,
but
there
is
going
to
be
a
cost
associated
with
it.
G
I
do
have
a
question
and
for
the
the
counties
and
and
mr
ross
director
russ
how?
What
would
the
impact
be
to
the
system
as
a
whole?
G
We
were
to
consider
allowing
the
jurisdiction
to
be
extended
for
that
youthful
offender
and
and
the
need
to
define
the
youthful
offender
to
include
extending
up
to
the
age
of
21
and
possibly
24..
What
would
that
look
like,
and
and
what
would
it
require
to
retrofit
our
county
facilities
or
state
facilities
to
accommodate
that.
N
Who
wants
to
jump
in
please
feel
free.
This
is
jack
martin
for
the
record,
and
thank
you
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
would
need
to
look
before.
I
could
answer
right
now
and
I
would
want
to
answer
this
intelligently,
because
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
great
question.
I
would
need
to
look
at
ccdcio
because
we're
in
the
business
of
collecting
data
on
kids
under
18
or
18
and
under
I
would
need
to
look
at
what
ccsd
is
or
the
ccsd
I'm
sorry.
N
Ccdc
is
housing
in
terms
of
kids
that
were
21
or
under
24
and
under
I
need
to
get
a
better
feel
of
the
numbers
that
are
there.
I
can
tell
you
on
for
a
day
we
it's
about
290,
a
day
per
child
for
in
care
custody
at
the
one
to
eight
staffing
ratio.
N
So
I
mean
once
we
get
those
raw
numbers,
we
can
kind
of
extrapolate
that
out
in
terms
of
actual
housing.
I
I'm
going
to
assume
from
21
and
for
for
24
and
21.
We
can
do
two
different.
You
know
workups.
If
ccdc
would
be
willing
to
share
the
data
with
us.
I
think
the
biggest
issue
there
would
be
physical
plant.
My
physical
plant
here
in
my
detention
is
not
is
not.
I
heard
miss
welborn
mentioned
earlier,
like
lme
large
muscle
exercise.
N
I
do
not
have
a
large
facility,
you
know
with
a
large
baseball
field
or
a
football
field,
or
something
like
that.
You
know
I
don't
have
an
open
track
before
I
started
this
career.
I
did
run
youth
correctional
facilities
for
many
many
years
in
california,
arizona
and
hawaii,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
juvenile
corrections
and
what
needs
to
be
what
a
good
quality
system
looks
like.
N
So
I
mean
I
would
need
time
to
quantify
that
specifically,
and
I
think
it's
going
up
to
24
is
going
to
be
that's
going
to
be
a
heavy
price
tag.
21.
I
would
be
I'd
be
interested
to
know
just
what
the
raw
numbers
were.
So
I
could
give
you
an
accurate
answer.
M
This
is
ross
that
I
would
echo
what
mr
martin
said
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
the
big
ticket
item
would
be
physical
infrastructure.
You
know
the
some
of
youth
center
facility
has
96
beds.
It
doesn't
have
all
those
other.
M
I
don't
think,
there's
enough
space
there
to
run
a
quality
program
and
safely
with
actually
96
people
on
on
the
campus,
and
so
it
would
edit,
and
it
would
also
depend
on
21
and
24.,
so
we
when
we
could
certainly
if
we
were
able
to
get
the
data
from
the
department
of
corrections
and
our
you
know,
adult
counterparts
that
would
help
us
make
a
more
informed
decision
in
terms
of
the
actual
impact,
as
also
mr
martin
indicated.
You
know
we
had
a
budget
reduction
that
reduced
our
beds
substantially.
M
We
have
138
kids
in
care
right
now
across
the
state,
but
that
physical
infrastructure
piece
is
going
to
be
the
biggest
currently
title,
five
which
governs
us.
We
have
to
release
the
child
at
age
20.,
so
we
rarely.
We
rarely
have
19
year
olds,
still
in
the
facilities,
usually
they're
working
out
in
parole
and
are
working
towards
re-entry,
but
currently
the
law
says
we
cannot
have
any
child
20
years
or
older
in
our
facilities.
G
Go
ahead
simply
momentous.
F
Thank
you,
mr
and
mr
martin.
I
know
a
couple
meetings
ago
you
had
spoken
about.
There
were
several
girls
that
were
certified
and
we
had
mentioned.
We
had
discussed
that
they
were
going
to
be
staying
here
in
nevada
and
that
we
were
committed
to
ensuring
that
they
were
kept
to
nevada,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
that.
While
we
have
you
here
and
kind
of
see
what
that
certification
process
ended
up,
looking
like
for
for
those
young.
Ladies.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question
through
yours
with
a
chairwoman,
monroe
moreno.
I
I
have
the
hardest
time
with
your
name,
and
I
apologize
for
that.
N
N
N
What
I
had
learned
is
that
a
couple
of
these
young
ladies,
were
going
to
be
kept
in
isolation
for
extended
periods
of
time
because
of
the
prior
restrictions
at
the
adult
level,
and
I
said
and-
and
we
could
afford
to
take
one
or
two
young.
Ladies,
so
we
took
them
and
we
housed
them.
There
was
no
contract
that
was
that
was
entered
into.
It
was
all
housed
them
until
they
turned
18.
At
that
point,
we
were
pretty
successful
with
a
couple
of
those
girls,
obviously
keeping
them.
N
You
know,
kids,
don't
fix
themselves
in
cells
right,
so
we
that
was
not.
That
was
not
a
formal
agreement.
We
haven't
been
reached
out
to
or
contacted
about
any
other
sense
to
my
knowledge.
So,
to
give
you
an
actual
specific
process
in
which
we
do
this,
it's
really
not
it's
more
of
a
handshake
and
talking
and
making
sure
that
those
girls
aren't
on
aren't
isolated
unduly.
If
that
makes
sense,.
F
And
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
had
also
heard
that
a
number
of
those
girls
were
transferred
over.
So
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
could
speak
to
what
that
transfer
process
looks
like
after
the
young,
women
have
been
certified.
N
Once
again,
jack
martin,
for
the
record,
to
be
honest
with
you,
that
transfer
process
was
not
a
clark
county
that
was
not
clark
county.
That
did
that.
That
was
the
nevada
department
of
corrections.
I
believe
and
to
be
honest
with
you,
we
had
no
idea
whether
where
the
child
was
going,
I
was
under
the
impression
with
one
of
the
children
that
they
were
going
home
and
then
found
out
later
on
that
they
weren't
they
were.
They
were
sent
to
arizona.
N
So
we
were
we're
in
that
that
process
we
didn't
have.
They
were
not
adjudicated
in
dark
care
and
custody.
We
were
just
holding
them
as
a
courtesy,
hole
for
their
friend
and
providing
for
our
for
our
friend
agency
and
and
providing
some
level
of
supervision
and.
F
All
right,
so
you
had
mentioned
that
you
they
they
were
that
you
had
made
this
agreement,
but
then
they
were
trans
they
they
were
transferred
over
and
that
this
kind
of
went
on
without
your
knowledge.
So
I'm
just
wondering
why
something
like
that
might
occur
that
they're
allowed
to
stay
and
then
they're
moved
and
transferred
over
to
another
another
state,
and
essentially,
I
think,
that's
going
to
make
it
extremely
challenging
for
those
young
women
and
their
families
to
continue
any
type
of
relationship
or
socialization.
F
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
could
explain
like
why
those
transfers
occur.
These
interstate
transfers
for
young
prairie,
young
women.
N
My
understanding
is,
and
you
would
need
an
ndoc
representative
to
give
you
the
so
if
I'm,
if
I'm
incorrect,
please
somebody
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
my
understanding
was,
is
that
nboc
did
not
have
the
ability
to
house
those
children,
those
young
females
on
their
campuses
without
having
to
isolate
them
due
to
priya,
so
that
you
know,
because
that
was
because
that
was
the
mechanism
I
I
courtesy,
housed
them
upon
their
turning
18.
You
know
the
we
don't.
N
We
don't
house
children
over
18
at
that
point
or
we
do
house
them,
but
in
kind
of
limited
perspectives
the
child
had
completed
all
the
things
that
we
were
going
to
complete
here,
like
I
said,
the
mechanisms
of
it
why
they
transferred
or
how
they
transferred.
I
don't
know
I
wasn't
a
part
of
that
conversation.
N
I
just
know
that
we've
held
the
we
had
one
girl
for
almost
a
year
and
a
half
almost
it
might
even
be
longer
than
that.
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
check.
It's
been
a
couple
of
years.
N
G
What
that
expense
would
be,
if
that
the
age
was
expanded
to
21?
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
the
committee.
I
don't
believe
it's
the
committee's
intention
or
anyone's
intention
to
require
our
our
accounting
facilities
or
the
state
to
force
anything
upon
them
without
having
the
adequate
funding
available
to
to
make
this
happen.
So
I
would
be
interested
in
finding
out
what
that
was.
So,
if
you
could
all
look
into
that
and
get
that
to
our
community
policy
on
this,
I
could
share
it
with
the
committee
as
a
whole.
E
This
is
frank:
cervani's,
washable,
county.
E
G
I
would
like
to
see
moving
the
age
of
whole
up
to
21..
I
think
in
our
conversation
today,
24
would
be
problematic
for
our
facilities,
but
I
would
like
to
know
what
it
would
how
it
would
look
to
move
that
number
to
21.
and
in
response
to
the
assemblywoman
taurus's
question.
G
We
currently
have
in
an
interstate
compact,
where
our
female
youth
offenders
are
are
removed
out
of
state
because
of
the
the
cost
that
it
incurs
to
the
state
of
nevada
to
have
a
facility
built
just
for
one
or
two
females
and
currently
believe
we
only
have
one
female,
that's
currently
out
of
state
and
the
cost
of
that
is
kind
of
a
wash
because
of
the
interstate
compact.
G
We
paid
nothing
for
that
female
to
be
housed
in
the
arizona
facility,
and
I
had
asked
a
question
at
the
last
meeting
if
it
was
a
privately
run
facility,
it's
a
state-run
facility,
not
a
private
run
facility
and
the
state
of
arizona
as
a
person.
That's
here
so
that
there's
no
financial
fees
incurred
to
us
so
just
wanted
to.
G
Let
you
know
that
and
and
for
mr
cervantes
that
it
would
be
granting
the
juvenile
courts
the
ability
to
retain
jurisdiction
of
our
youthful
offenders
if
needed
up
to
age,
21
and
then,
and
what
that
would
look
like
at
24.
I
think
would
be
helpful
for
this
committee.
They
have
both
of
that.
If
that
makes
sense.
E
Again,
frank
cervanish
for
the
record,
the
jude
in
the
juvenile
justice
system.
Now
we
can
retain
jurisdiction
on
kids
that
we
have
in
the
probation
system
and
under
the
jurisdiction
now
up
until
age
21,
and
so
I'm
just
making
sure
that
are
we
talking
about
new
offenses
so
that
a
20
year
old
that
is
typically
going
to
the
adult
system
on
a
new
charge?
Would
we
also
be
looking
at
bringing
those
kids
into
the
system
or
adults
into
the
juvenile
system
or
the
ones
that
we
currently
have
under
jurisdiction?.
G
And
that's
a
really
good
question.
I
think
I
think
that
would
be
up
to
the
the
courts
for
the
new
offenders.
I
think
that
would
be
up
to
the
courts,
but
if
a
juvenile
enters
our
system
under
the
age
of
18
and
allowing
them
to
stay
in
our
system
up
until
24
was
more
at
the
direction
that
I
was
leaning
to
find
that
information.
N
Adam,
madam
chair,
with
your
permission,
just
one
more
clarifying
point
I
mean
so,
I
would
like
to
also
poll
so
maintaining
the
jurisdiction
until
they
turn
24,
maintaining
jurisdiction
until
they're
21..
Those
are
two
separate
pieces,
but
also
looking
at
I
was,
I
was
going
to
reach
out
to
ccdc
and
ndrc
and
see
how
many
young
people
age
18
to
21.
They
have
in
their
current
custody
and
also
18
to
24
in
their
current
custody.
N
G
G
So
I
believe
that
brings
us
up
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
and
that
would
be
public
comment.
G
G
Thank
you
so
much
for
that,
so
see
no
public
comment.
I
would
like
to
thank
you
all
for
joining
us.
Thank
everyone
for
the
presentations
that
you
presented
today
and
all
the
great
information,
and
that
brings
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
and
that
is
adjournment.
So
I
wish
you
all
a
wonderful
day.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.