►
Description
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
Right
I'll
now
call
to
order
the
august
meeting
of
the
nevada
sentencing
commission
so
good
morning.
It's
wonderful
to
to
see
everyone
in
person.
I
did
have
to
find
the
room
and
get
out
get
out
a
bit,
so
it
is
great
to
to
be
here
in
person
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
to
today's
meeting.
I
want
to
welcome
those
members
of
the
public
who
are
streaming
the
meeting
on
the
legislators
legislature's
website.
This
is
the
sixth
meeting
of
our
2021-2023
meeting
cycle.
A
Yes,
thank
you,
your
honor.
I
do
all
right.
Wonderful,
thank
you!
Senator
next,
you
can
see
we
have
a
full
agenda
today,
but
staff
does
not
anticipate
for
to
take
all
day.
For
that
reason,
I
do
not
plan
on
taking
a
lunch
break.
I
know
staff
advise
you
to
bring
food
and
snacks
so
that
you
have
what
you
need
to
get
through
our
meeting
and
move
on
to
the
rest
of
your
day.
A
C
D
E
F
B
G
H
H
I
A
A
All
right,
thank
you,
director,
I'll
now
open
agenda
item
2
the
first
period
of
public
comment.
There
are
two
periods
of
public
comment,
one
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
and
one
at
the
end,
members
of
the
public
have
two
options
for
submitting
public
comment.
First,
members
of
the
public
may
do
so
in
writing
by
emailing.
The
department
of
sentencing
policy
at
sentencing
policy
at
ndsp.nv.gov
public
comment
received
in
writing
will
be
provided
to
the
commission
and
be
included
by
reference
in
the
meeting
minutes.
The
second
option
is
speaking
in
person.
A
If
there
is
any
public
comment,
either
here
in
carson
city
or
in
las
vegas
at
this
time,
please
make
your
way
to
the
table.
We
limit
public
comment
to
three
minutes
per
speaker.
We
will
be
timing
up
here
and
when
you
get
close
to
your
three
minutes,
I
will
ask
you
to
wrap
up.
Let
us
please
start
here
in
carson
city.
Is
there
any
public
comment
in
carson
city.
A
A
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
mccormick,
for
your
motion,
a
second
for
mr
erascada.
Is
there
any
discussion
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
A
Any
opposed
all
right
motion
passes.
I
will
now
open
agenda
item
4.
update
from
the
nevada,
local
justice,
reinvestment,
coordinating
council
and
recommendation
regarding
grants
administered
by
the
nevada,
local
justice,
reinvestment
coordinating
council.
The
coordinating
council
is
required
to
make
recommendations
to
this
commission
regarding
the
implementation
of
ab236
at
the
local
level.
The
council
is
also
tasked
with
administering
grants
to
programs
that
will
reduce
recidivism
director
gonzalez
will
provide
us
with
an
update
on
the
activities
of
the
coordinating
council
and
a
recommendation
for
this
commission
to
consider
director.
B
Thank
you,
victoria
gonzalez,
for
the
record
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
sentencing
or
department
of
sensing
policy.
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
morning.
Everyone,
it's
great
to
see
you
so
I
have
some
other
slides
include
with
your
materials
and
I
will
walk
through
those
regarding
an
update
from
the
coordinating
council.
B
The
coordinating
council
has
had
four
meetings
since
it
got
up
and
running
last
year.
The
intent
is
for
the
coordinating
council
to
meet
at
least
on
a
quarterly
basis
basis
in
a
way
that
aligns
with
this
the
quarterly
meetings
of
the
sentencing
commission,
the
court,
one
of
the
first
efforts
of
the
coordinating
council
was,
they
agreed
to
support
data-driven
efforts
to
to
support
this
commission
in
order
by
doing
that
by
collecting
jail
data.
B
B
The
coordinating
councils
also
heard
a
presentation
from
the
mobile
outreach
safety
team
in
carson
city
and
dr
woodard
from
dhhs
to
learn
more
about
programs
that
would
help
support
the
treatment
of
mental
health.
The
corneal
council
is
tasked
with
administering
grants
for
treatment
and
programs
that
will
reduce
recidivism.
B
The
recommendation
before
this
commission
today
from
the
coordinating
council
would
request
that
our
department,
the
department
of
sentencing
policy,
include
a
request
for
an
appropriation
to
fund
the
grants
administered
by
the
coordinating
council.
The
amount
requested
developed
was
developed
from
the
research
research
collected
by
our
staff
and
the
presentations
for
most
and
dr
woodard.
B
The
coordinating
council
identified
priorities
consistent
with
the
priorities
for
reinvestment
pursuant
to
the
commission's
mandates,
which
are
programs
for
re-entry
education,
substance
use
employment
and
mental
health
housing
to
support
re-entry
of
offenders
and
behavioral
field
response
program.
If
the
funding
were
provided.
This
is
what
those
grants
would
be
administered
to
for
the
counties
would
apply
to
the
coordinating
council.
B
The
current
council
would
work
on
developing
metrics
for
measuring
the
performance
of
those
grants
and
then
and
request
those
reported
to
measure
the
outcome
and
then
make
the
decision
about
which
programs,
trade,
programs
and
treatment
and
counties
to
provide
that
those
grants
to
and
then
monitor
those
grants.
B
B
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
the
timer
to
the
chair
for
any
questions
the
commission
may
have
and
about
this
recommendation.
D
K
Hopkins,
thank
you
senator.
Thank
you
justice.
So
my
question
is
this:
3
million?
Is
this
the
only
source
of
money
for
these
grants?
That's
going
to
be
the
next
biennium.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez
at
this
time,
yes,
the
funding
for
the
coordinating
council
must
come
from
the
general
fund.
That's
provided
by
statute,
so
the
request
the
amount
we'd
be
requesting
right
now
is
three
three
million.
That
amount
could
be
adjusted
that
we
include
in
our
request.
It's
also
possible
that
during
the
the
budget
building
process,
which
goes
to
the
governor's
office
and
then
the
legislative,
the
legislature,
next,
that
that
amount
could
continue
to
be
adjusted.
But
right
now
it's
three
million.
K
And
I
have
a
follow-up
if
you
don't
mind
so
the
cost-avoided
report,
I
think
that's
something
like
21
million-
is
that
whatever
the
number
is
so
most
of
that
is
not
going
to
this,
or
is
that
a
separate
pot
of
money.
B
The
21
for
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
the
21
million
identified
in
the
cost
avoided,
was
the
amount
that
we
estimate
has
generally
been
avoided
over
the
last
two
years
since
ab-236
went
into
effect.
The
purpose
of
that
amount
identified
by
the
commission
is
to
make
recommendations
for
various
programming,
so
the
statute
provides
that
the
commission
will
identify
the
costs
avoided
and
then
recommend
funding
to
programs
like
for
re-entry.
That
would
be
at
doc,
which
is
specifically
provided
in
statute
pro
and
probation,
the
housing
division
and
the
coordinating
council.
B
So
the
intent
by
specifically
requesting
three
million
dollars
for
or
recommending
three
million
dollars
be
invested
in
the
coordinating
council
would
be
part
of
that
funding.
Where
then,
the
intent
would
be
for
the
governor's
office
and
the
legislature
to
identify
other
priorities
for
programming
to
fund
within
those
other
categories
of
department
of
corrections,
prone
probation,
and
so
that
would
I
would
hope
that
would
be.
B
The
intent
is
to
fund
across
those
different
types
of
programs,
but
so
that
this
would
be
a
portion
of
that
and
then
the
intent
would
be
for
the
rest
of
that
to
go
towards
the
other.
The
other
programs-
I
will
add
that
it's
not
necessarily
a
pot
of
money
because
they
are
costs
avoided.
B
We
when
ab236
was
enacted,
it
was
identified
what
could
be
avoided
if
the
policies
and
reforms
were
put
into
place,
and
so
what
the
approach
is
is
to
identify
the
the
formula
that
we
address
at
our
last
meeting
that
this
commission
addressed
as
far
as
how
to
calculate
those
costs
avoided
and
then
point
that
out
to
the
lawmakers
and
the
stakeholders.
As
far
as
here
are
money,
here's
money
that,
based
on
the
calculations,
has
been
avoided
and
that
could
be
appropriated
to
other
programs.
K
I
Yes,
I
have
one
question:
it's
more
a
matter
of
process
you
referenced
in
the
slide
presentation
that
grants
can
be
administered
or
requested
of
the
the
com
not
of
this
commission,
but
of
the
coordinating
council
is
that
the
process
for
any
entity
or
or
person
that
wants
to
obtain
a
grant
for
the
purposes
as
referenced
in
the
powerpoint
presentation.
B
I
B
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
victoria
gonzalez
for
the
record.
All
of
the
grants
are
administered
through
the
council,
so
the
sentencing
commission
does
not
administer
those
grants.
B
The
coordinating
council
would
provide
regular
reporting
back
to
the
sentencing
commission
what's
happening,
but
the
statute
provides
that
the
coordinating
council
itself
is
the
administrator
of
those
grants
and,
by
virtue
of
our
staff,
providing
the
support,
we
would
provide
the
technical
support
for
keeping
track
of
the
grants,
but
the
coordinating
council
would
have
the
final
decision
about
who
gets
the
grants
and
who
doesn't,
and
the
coordinating
council
would
also
be
the
entity
tracking
metrics
to
make
sure
the
grants
are
being
used
in
those
priorities
that
were
identified
in
the
recommendation.
A
J
Thank
you.
This
is
jennifer
lynchman
for
the
record,
so
director
gonzalez,
my
my
question
is:
have
grant
application
criteria
been
established
generally
and
particularly
in
relation
to
re-entry,
and
if
so,
do
those
requirements
include
evidence-based
programs
or
practices,
because
we've
found
that
the
word
reentry
is
used
in
a
general
way
and
is
often
applied
to
programs
and
practices
that
are
not
evidence-based
or
informed
by
research.
So
I'm
just
curious
about
how
you
will
prioritize
applications
or
what
the
criteria
are
for
for
programs.
B
B
We
were
going
to
start
soliciting
presentations
from
other
grant
administrators
to
get
ideas
for
those
criteria
could
be
because
the
coordinating
council
did
express
that
at
our
last
meeting
to
to
make
sure
we
start
talking
about
that
criteria,
to
show
that
they're
ready
to
go
so
actually,
in
conjunction
with
mr
erascada's
question,
I
think
it
is
appropriate
for
the
commission
to
provide
guidance
to
the
learning
council
about
how
to
administer
grants.
B
So
if
the
commission
had
an
appetite
to
approve
this
recommendation
today
or
a
version
of
it,
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
if
the
commission
wanted
to
sit
to
give
a
direction
to
the
coordinating
council
about
what
to
include
as
grant
metrics
as
other
priorities
when
it
comes
to
administering
these
grants.
The
coin
council
functions
as
a
type
of
subcommittee
of
the
commission,
and
so
it
makes
sense
that
the
commission
could
direct
the
coordinating
council
on
the
specifics
of
how
to
administer
that.
B
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
what
you
were
kind
of
getting
at,
but
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
include
that
that
specific
direction
to
the
courtney
council,
when
they're
developing
those
metrics
which
we'll
be
doing
in
the
coming
year.
E
Some
of
the
criteria
that
dr
landerman
just
talked
about
and
then
and
then
the
distribution
of
these
reinvestment
funds.
E
And
so
that's
the
way
I
understood
it.
My
question
is,
and
I
I
think
it's
just
a
good
opportunity
to
ask
it.
I'm
jumping
ahead
to
item
number
eight
and
I'm
curious,
wouldn't
it
be
better
for
that
particular
agenda
item
to
go
through
the
coordinating
council.
If
that's
the
entity,
that's
considering
recommendations
or
distribution
of
reinvestment
funds.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
that
would
make
sense,
because
once
the
coordinate
council
has
grant
funding,
then
based
on
my
and
will
my
understanding
of
what
the
proposal
would
be
before
the
commission
would
be
a
type
of
program
or
entity
that
would
that
would
benefit
from
this
funding.
Once
that
grant
money
is
in
place,
it
would
make
sense
for
them
to
then
take
their
application
to
the
coordinating
council
and
make
a
request
for
those
funds
as
far
as
how
to
actually
get
that
money.
Okay,.
E
And-
and
I'm
not
trying
to
pick
apart
the
agenda-
I
just
I
think
as
a
commission,
it
would
make
sense
for
us
to
be
consistent
in
who's
which
entity
these
these.
These
entities
are
appearing
in
front
of
asking
for
potential
consideration
of
reinvestment
funds.
E
B
Yeah
and
if
and
if
I
made
for
the
record,
troy
gonzalez,
if
that's
something
the
commission
wants
to
consider,
it
could
be
included
in
the
recommendation
as
far
as
when
it
comes
to
applications
and
any
sort
of
discussion.
These
types
of
things
that
they
start
with
the
coordinating
council
first
and
then
come
up
through
the
commission.
If
it's
necessary.
A
A
E
A
Any
opposed
all
right
motion
passes
no
further
questions.
I'll
now
close
this
agenda
item
I'll
now
open
agenda
item
number
five
report
from
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
department
of
sentencing
policy,
as
is
our
custom
and
consistent
with
her
duties
at
each
meeting,
the
director
provides
a
report
on
the
activities
and
budget
of
the
department.
I
will
now
turn
this
time
over
to
her
for
the
update
and
items
of
business
for
the
commission
to
handle
director
gonzalez.
B
Thank
you,
chair
I'll
direct,
your
attention
to
the
materials
we've
included
with
your
material
or
the
the
slide
presentation,
we've
included
with
your
materials
today.
I
am
very
excited
to
provide
an
update
about
our
recent
activities
and
the
ongoing
progress.
We
continue
to
make
it's
exciting
to
see
where
we're
at
about
two
and
a
half
years
since
we've
been
put
into
place
and
which
is
we're
going
to
hear
more
about
from
cgi
as
well.
B
First,
I
have
our
summary
of
activities.
Some
of
our
activities
based
on
the
core
function
we
use
to
govern
our
department.
With
our
agency
request,
I
have
taken
the
opportunity
to
revise
our
core
functions
and
our
mission
statement.
These
will
be
available
on
our
website
too
soon
and
we
will
distribute
them
to
the
commission.
So
there
used
to
be
seven
core
functions
that
we
have
it
now
down
to
five,
which
you
see
here:
administrative
budget,
commission
data
and
reports
and
outreach.
B
So,
first
of
all,
under
administrative,
I'm
very
happy
to
report
that
on
september,
6
will
be
fully
staffed.
You
can
see
the
results
we
have
realized,
as
our
talented
team
has
evolved
and
we
look
forward
to
your
feedback
to
help
us
improve
in
our
next
evolution.
B
The
bdr
request
that
was
approved
at
our
last
meeting
by
a
majority
of
this
commission
was
included
in
the
governor's
bdrs
and
has
been
numbered
bdr263,
and
we
I
will
keep
this
commission
updated
on
the
progress
of
the
drafting
of
that
bdr.
As
you
know,
we
launched
our
first
monthly
data
dispatch.
We
distributed
this
to
the
sentencing
commission
yesterday.
It
is
now
available
on
our
website.
We
are
going
to
also
distribute
it
to
our
listserv.
B
B
The
statement
of
cost
avoided
is
due
december
1st,
and
the
comprehensive
report
is
due
january
15th
and
finally,
I
wanted
to
just
briefly
report
here
and
give
you
more
detail
that
our
department
and
this
commission
are
members
of
the
national
association
of
sentencing
commissions,
and
there
was
a
conference
that
staff
was
able
to
attend
in
portland
and
we'll
refer
to
them
as
nask.
B
So
when
we
were
first
established
the
first
year
were
that
the
commission
and
department
were
functioning,
they
didn't
have
a
meeting
and
then
they
had
a
virtual
meeting
the
year
after
that,
so
we
were
able
to
attend
that,
but
this
was
the
first
in
in
person
being
able
to
to
attend
and,
like
I
said,
we're
excited
to
announce
that
we
create
our
twitter
account
and
invite
you
to
follow
us
in
order
to
stay
updated
on
our
activities,
along
with
the
emails
that
we
send
to
the
commission,
I
mentioned
that
one
of
the
upcoming
reports
from
the
commission
will
be
the
comprehensive
report
I
want
to.
B
Let
the
commission
know
that
we
are
going
to
start
working
on
that
and
our
plan-
and
this
is
our
plan
for
getting
it
done
here-
is
a
very
general
outline
we
will
put
together
for
the
report.
Of
course,
we
will
include
a
summary
of
the
meetings
we're
going
to
identify
data
that
can
be
included
in
the
report.
I
would
also
like
to
include
comments
and
findings
for
members
of
this
commission
regarding
the
data
that's
presented
in
the
meetings.
Some
of
the
data
we
present
to
here
today
includes
data
metrics.
B
We
need
to
collect,
along
with
those
required
for
ab-236.
We
would
include
those
ab-236
metrics,
while
our
department
will
have
our
analysis
and
findings.
I
think
it's
really
important
to
keep
our
perspective
neutral
and
rely
on
input
from
the
commission
on
what
other
findings
and
conclusions
can
be
included
in
the
report
is
really
in
relation
to
the
data
we
want
this
support
to
be.
B
We
want
this
report
to
be
useful
to
the
public
stakeholders
and
lawmakers,
so
they
can
be
a
resource,
and
so
by
including
these
types
of
discussions
and
findings,
I
think,
will
be
an
excellent
resource
for
the
stakeholders,
the
lawmakers
and
the
public
you
can
see.
Our
plan
here
is
to
put
an
outline
together
with
as
much
detail
as
possible.
We
will
circulate
what
we
have
with
the
commission
and
present
as
much
as
we
can
at
the
november
meeting.
B
B
I
mentioned
we
attended
the
national
association
of
sentencing
commissions
conference
in
portland,
oregon
staff
and
commission
members
from
other
states
attended
the
conference.
We
learned
about
trends
and
activities
and
commissions
in
other
states
and
got
to
share
our
accomplishments
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
mostly
in
just
getting
established,
we
got
to
hear
about
the
experience
of
justice
reinvestment
in
other
states,
including
a
detailed
experience
in
alaska
who
passed
an
omnibus
bill.
B
We
also
learned
about
how
supervision
is
organized
and
funded
in
other
states
and
nevada.
Sorry,
we
also
learned
about
how
supervision
is
organized
and
funded
in
other
states
like
pennsylvania
and
oregon,
and
of
course
we
got
to
hear
about
the
data
collection
challenges
in
other
states
and
nevada
is
not
alone
in
these
challenges.
B
We
look
forward
to
reaching
out
to
our
new
friends
and
partners
that
we
have
in
other
states
and
bring
presentation
presentations
to
this
commission.
If
that
is
something
the
members
are
interested
in.
More
importantly,
we
are
excited
to
report
that
nevada
is
represented
on
the
executive
committee,
as
I
was
appointed
to
fill
a
vacancy
that
recently
became
open
in
the
last
couple
of
months
at
the
conference
they
requested
volunteers
from
states
who
would
be
willing
to
host
the
2023
conference.
I
volunteered
nevada.
B
B
The
executive
committee
and
the
membership
present
at
the
conference
seem
most
excited
about
the
opportunity
to
have
the
conference
at
lake
tahoe.
At
the
next
board
meeting
the
executive
committee
will
vote
on
the
location
of
the
2023
conference.
One
of
the
items
of
business
business
I
have
for
this
commission
today
is
whether
you
would
like
us
to
pursue
this
opportunity.
The
executive
committee
would
not
want
to
move
forward
without
the
approval
of
this
commission.
B
and
if,
if
and
if
we
were
approved,
the
conference
would
take
place
around
the
middle
of
august
in
2023
and
of
course
we
would
look
for.
We
would
look
to
the
members
of
the
commission
for
ideas
on
panels
and
a
keynote
speaker
for
that
conference.
J
Thank
you.
This
is
jennifer
lantern
for
the
record
director
gonzalez.
It
sounds
like
an
exciting
opportunity
to
host
the
nazca
conference.
I
have
one
question,
though,
if
we
were
selected
to
be
the
site
for
the
conference,
would
that
create
any
financial
obligations
for
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
or
the
sentencing
commission?
Thank
you.
B
Victoria
gonzalez,
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
that
question.
No,
it
does
not.
The
nask
nask
has
its
own
budget
for
paying
for
the
conference.
So
what
the
the
only
thing
we'd
be
doing
is
helping
the
administer
the
conference,
doing
the
leg,
work
for
finding
the
site
and
but
there's
a
budget
for
everything
included
in
that.
N
Thank
you,
chair,
chuck,
callaway
for
the
record
director
gonzalez.
Did
I
hear
you
correctly
when
you
said
that
at
the
national
conference,
one
of
the
presentations
spoke
about
repeals
to
reinvestment
reforms
that
were
made
in
other
states
and
I'm
curious.
Did
you
hear
from
law
enforcement
during
the
presentations
about
reinvestment
and
reform
and
if
so,
what
was
their
comments
regarding
the
reforms
and
and
what
states
repealed
reforms
and
for
what
reason.
B
Victoria
gonzalez
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
that
question,
mr
callaway.
So
the
presentation
for
justice
reinvestment
in
alaska
was
made
by
the
staff
of
the
analogous
entity
to
ours.
There
have
a
different
name,
of
course,
and
they
I
believe
they
passed
their
reforms
back
in
2017.
I'll,
have
to
go
check
that
so
the
presentation
was
made
by
staff.
They
did
not
include
members
from
their
commission.
They
did
share
that.
B
The
concerns
for
the
reforms
came
from
law
enforcement
specifically,
and
I
would
be
happy
to
put
together
a
full
debrief
of
that
in
other
states.
It's
a,
I
would
say,
based
on
what
we
heard
at
the
conference,
it's
very
mixed
depending
on
how
justice
reinvestment
reforms
work
and
are
applied
and
implemented,
and
so
we
we
noticed
alaska,
because
there
definitely
seemed
to
be
some
similarities
and
wanted
to
share
that
with
the
commission
as
far
as
possible
challenges
that
could
come
with
that,
but
their
concerns
that
they
expressed
did
come
from
law
enforcement.
B
They
the
data
they
presented,
did
not
was
not
related
to
that.
The
data
they
presented
was
related
to
what
trends
they
saw
in
their
prison
population.
So
so
we
would
be
able
to
gather
more
data
about
that.
I
do
have
the
comprehensive
reports
we've
been
looking
at
their
report,
so
I
could
share
those
with
the
commission
as
well
and
with
your
question,
I'd
be
happy
to
look
more
into
that
and
put
together
a
more
comprehensive
assessment
of
justice
reinvestment
in
other
states.
N
We
spoke
a
moment
ago
about
projected
savings
in
the
state,
and
you
had
mentioned,
which
I
believe
is
very
true
that
just
because
we
don't
spend
money
on
something
doesn't
mean
that
we
now
have
that
money
in
the
bank
to
use,
and
so
during
the
conference,
the
national
conference
was
there
any
discussion
from
other
states
that
had
had
passed
reinvestment
laws
about
hard
dollars
that
they
actually
saved
and
were
able
to
spend,
or
at
the
end
of
the
day,
were
these
projected
costs
nullified
by
by
various
other
expenditures
that
that
came
about
maybe
not
related
to
the
to
the
reinvestments.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
I
will
give
you
three
examples
that
I'm
aware
of
so.
First
of
all
that
question
that
exact
question
was
asked
in
the
alaska
panel
about
the
cost
savings
and
they
had
challenges
being
able
to
identify
those
before
exactly
the
the
reason
that
you
just
brought
up
as
far
as
being
dollars
that
could
be
actually
invested,
and
so
that
is
a
point
of
discussion
about
how
we
address
that.
I
utah
also
had
a
similar
experience
where
they
passed
a
justice.
B
Reinvestment
theirs
was
not
as
sweeping
as
ours,
and
they
have
had
a
couple
of
studies
done
or
a
couple
of
analysis
done
by
their
sen.
Their
commission
that's
required
to
collect
data
that
has
shown
that
they
have
not
realized
the
outcomes
that
they
had
hoped
to
realize,
and
so
how
can
they
address
that
and
the
specific
challenge
that
they
had
was
actually
putting
money
into
the
programs?
The
thing
I
heard
more
than
once
from
other
states
was
trans
and
the
pop
and
the
prison
population
do
adjust.
B
They
see
other
impacts.
The
number
one
challenge
is
getting
funding
to
these
programs.
I
believe
alaska
expressed
that
concern.
Utah
has
expressed
that
concern,
and
I
think
that
is
a
concern
for
nevada
when
it
comes
to
this
reform
is
how
do
we
get
the
money
to
these
programs
and
then
there's
a
practical
concern.
That's
also
been
discussed
is
the
staffing
in
order
to
actually
deliver
these
services.
Utah
expressed
a
very
specific
concern
where
they
have
they.
B
Where
is
the
state
at
and
what's
going
to
work
for
that
state
to
enact
the
reforms
in
a
successful
way
or
to
at
least
achieve
the
policies
that
were
intended?
So
those
are
three
very
different
examples
about
how
those
cost
savings
have
been
addressed
or
how
they're
being
identified.
However,
the
number
one
concern
is
the
same
across
the
board
is
how
to
fund
these
mental
health
programs
and
so
to
to
your
point
it
was
discussed.
B
It
there's
different
approaches
to
that,
and
I
think
it's
something
that's
important
for
this
commission,
not
only
because
of
statute,
but
because
of
the
reforms.
As
far
as
what
we're
the
commission's
required
to
measure
is,
how
do
we
actually
identify
this,
how
to
identify
and
measure
these
needs,
and
how
do
we
make
sure
the
funding
gets
there.
J
A
That
said,
the
directors
requested
approval
of
two
items
to
include
a
request
for
additional
staff
and
enhancements
in
the
budget
and
pursue
the
opportunity
to
host
the
nasc
conference
in
2023
I'll,
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
both
either
or
any
so.
Are
there
any
motions
at
this
time
in
regard
to
those
items.
A
D
Honor
I
apologize
nicole
cannasar.
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
comment.
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
Obviously
I
do
and
will
sit
on
the
senate
side
with
respect
to
budgets
and
just
want
to
make
note
that
obviously
we'll
have
those
discussions
as
a
legislative
body
with
respect
to
any
budget
enhancements
or
staff,
but
definitely
support
it
in
the
committee.
A
E
A
A
A
O
O
O
O
Just
quick
outline,
so
we
have
the
ndoc
data
population
by
felony
category
compared
from
2017
to
2022..
We
have
the
population
by
felony
category.
By
percentage
we
have
total
population
by
felony
category.
We
have
total
population
by
group
offense,
category
c
d
and
e
by
offense
group,
category
b
by
offense
group
and
category
a
by
offense
group
and
last
but
not
least,
we'll
be
going
over.
The
aging
population.
O
So,
as
we
know,
the
prison
population
has
been
trending
downwards
on
the
left.
Side
is
what
it
looked
like
at
the
end
of
2017
and
on
the
right
side
is
what
the
prison
population
looks
like
at
the
beginning.
At
the
ending
of
july
of
22..
These
are
broken
down
by
felony
category
number
and
percentage.
O
O
O
O
O
O
There
has
been
some
decrease
in
almost
all
of
the
categories.
Also,
there
has
been
some
decrease
in
almost
all
groups
across
categories.
This
analysis
is
helpful
in
analyzing
outcomes.
This
analysis
could
be
helpful
in
analyzing
outcomes
from
ab236
full
analysis
of
all
months,
back
to
2017
will
be
pre
will
be
presented
at
the
november
meeting.
A
couple
things
I
want
to
point
out
here
is
that
in
categories
cds-
and
these
have
decreased
by
almost
50
percent,
we
also
see
a
significant
decrease
in
drug
and
drug
for
d's
and
e's.
O
O
O
O
So
next
we
conducted
our
data
analysis
based
on
a
question
from
a
previous
meeting
regarding
costs
needed
to
house
agent
offenders.
O
This
is
this
is
an
example
of
the
data
that
we
are
able
to
answer
and
questions
we
can
deal
with
so
for
these
parameters.
We
looked
at
the
population
of
age
50
or
more
and
a
minimum
booking
sentence
of
120
or
more
first,
we
broke
it
down
by
filling
the
category
by
offense
group
and
then
by
filing
category
and
offense
group.
O
O
O
O
F
F
There's
a
coalition
of
states
that
have
agreements
with
each
other
and
so
if,
for
some
reason,
a
high
profile
case
or
just
just
difficulty
with
violence
or
different
gang
activity,
then
we
would
call
to
one
of
those
coalition
states
and
say:
can
you
take
one
of
our
inmates
and
we'll
take
one
of
yours,
and
so
they
trade
bed
days,
and
so
they
aren't
actual
nevada
inmates.
A
Thank
you
miss
powers
and
then
the
second
question
is
with
regard
to
the
habituals.
Has
there
been
any
effort,
or
is
that
that
capable
of
being
broken
down
as
to
what
the
underlying
offense
is?
Is
it
violence
with
a
habitual
offender?
Is
it
property.
B
K
Thank
you,
so
mine
was
also
about
the
safekeepers,
so
just
so
I'm
clear
these
are
people
who
have
felonies
from
other
states.
Is
that
correct?
There's
not
just.
F
Georgia
powers,
yes,
that
is
true,
they
are
from
other
states,
they
are.
There
are
also
county,
safe
keepers.
So
if
there
is
say
white
pine,
they
have
an
inmate
that
they
cannot
deal
with
at
that
point,
then
they
will
stay
in
a
prison
facility
until
such
time
as
they're
sensed.
J
N
Population
prison
population
by
category
it'd
be
interesting
to
see
so
is
some
of
this
population
stagnant?
Let's
say
people
that
are
serving
lengthy.
J
But
where
has
that
been?
Has
it
been
on
the
intake
side
in
the
prison
system?
You
know
to
really
get
a
true
impact
of
of
what
236
is
doing.
It
would
be
helpful
to
have
that
in.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
thank
you
for
that.
For
that
question
so,
and
this
is,
I
appreciate
the
comments
and
questions,
because
this
will
help
us
give
us
another
approach
to
analyze
the
data.
I
will
say
that
I
want
to
look
into
that
as
well.
I
think
for
what
we
have
today.
B
I
think
what
the
what
we
would
be
able
to
measure
without
any
other
additional
information
would
be
here
are
the
types
of
offenders
that
whose
felony
category
and
offense
group
were
specifically
addressed
in
ab236,
and
we
can
count
how
many
of
them-
and
I
agree
with
you-
we
want
to
look
back
about
what
the
impact
is.
B
I
will
say
too:
we
have
noticed
that
there
was
a
downward
trend
in
the
prison
population,
starting
in
2017,
which
was
two
years
before
ab-236
went
into
effect,
and
so
that's
what's
going
to
be
interesting
to
track
as
well.
We're
really
curious
about
that,
because
one
of
the
things
we've
discussed
is
that
when
we
see
let's
say
we
look
at
admissions,
what
the
admissions
is
going
to
tell
us
is
that
something
in
the
year
or
two
previous
may
have
affected
that,
along
with
immediate
outcomes,
releases
are
absolutely
going
to
be
impacted
by
the
previous
years.
B
What
we
have
noticed
is
that
releases
started
to
outpace
admissions,
so
that
tells
us
as
well
that
something
was
happening
a
year
or
two
previous
that
was
affecting
those
admissions
and
along
with
the
rate
of
it
or
the
releases
along
with
the
rate
of
emissions.
So
we
will
provide
that
as
well
and
I
think,
provide
the
different
ways
to
approach
the
data
in
terms
of
ab-236.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
I
think
we
could
do
a
sampling
of
that
and
I'm
gonna
just
check
in
with
other
staff
as
well,
both
if
I
could
check
on
miss
powers
and
mr
cosio
on
that.
I
think
what
we
could
do
is
take
a
sampling
of
the
drug
offenders
and
then
go
and
gather
additional
information
to
see
what
we
could
collect.
Regarding
that.
F
Georgia
powers,
yes,
that's
true,
we
would,
we
would
definitely
be
able
to
do
a
sampling
and
then
it
would
take
our
partnership
with
ndoc
and
maybe
collecting
other
information,
the
nrs
they
were
sentenced
under,
but
we
would
have
to
do
a
little
more
work
to
get
that.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
we
will
we'll
do
a
preliminary
sampling
and
bring
that
to
the
commission
in
november
and
then
get
feedback
and
see,
show
you
what
we
were
able
to
collect
and
see.
If
that
answers
the
question,
and
if
that's
the
case,
then
we
can
do
more
of
a
deep
dive
based
on
the
sampling
we've
already
started,
so
we'll
start
that
and
look
into
it.
N
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
sir,
for
the
data,
so
a
couple
observations
and
then
a
question
and
first
is
to
to
expound
on
the
comment
that
director
gonzalez
made
both
the
data
in
this
report
and
the
data
from
cji's
report
which
they'll
be
giving
later
show.
The
prison
population
was
trending
down
since
2017
two
full
years
before.
Actually
three
years
before
ab236
went
into
effect.
I
remember
at
a
legislative
hearing.
N
I
don't
remember
what
year
it
was,
but
might
have
been
2017
director,
zarinda,
doing
a
presentation
for
one
of
the
judiciary,
committees
and
stating
that
his
prison
population
was
declining
at
that
time.
Well,
in
advance
of
ab236,
then
ab236
goes
into
effect
during
a
pandemic,
and
we,
I
guess
we
don't
have
any
real
data
that
shows
that
ab236
and
maybe
this
is
more
of
a
question
for
cji
when
they
come
to
the
table
later.
N
But
we
really
don't
have,
in
my
opinion,
any
clear-cut
proof
that
ab236
has
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
prison
population
with
one
exception,
and
the
one
exception
is,
is
that
you
stated
that
property
crimes
have
decreased
admissions,
have
cr
decreased
by
50
percent.
So
it
stands
to
reason
that
when
we
raise
the
threshold
of
felony
crimes
to
to
the
1200
dollar
threshold,
which
is
high
compared
to
many
other
states
higher
than
california,
our
neighbor,
when
we
lower
the
penalties
and
tear
out
crimes
so
that
the
penalties
are
much
lower.
N
If
they,
if
they
do
end
up
going
to
prison,
they're,
getting
much
less
of
a
sentence,
it
would
stand
to
reason
that
that's
where
ab236
has
impacted.
This
is
that
we
see
less
people
going
to
prison
for
property
crimes.
So
then
the
question
would
be-
and
this
is
where
I
think
the
deep
dive
into
the
into
the
data
becomes
important
is
when
we
look
at
the
felony
offenders,
how
many
of
those
folks?
What
is
their
criminal
history?
How
many
bites
of
the
apple
have
they
gotten?
N
How
many
of
them
would
have
been
in
prison
prior
to
ab236
for
property
crimes
or
other
offenses?
And
when
I
say
property
crimes
where
you
know,
people
think
oh
well,
somebody
stole
someone's
laptop
or
something,
but
it
could
be
a
burglary.
It
could
be
larceny
from
a
person
knocking
somebody
down
taking
their
purse.
N
They're,
not
they're,
part
of
that
50
percent
decrease
that
we've
seen
and
then
subsequently
now
they're
committing
a
more
violent
crime
and
landing
in
prison
later
down
the
road.
Where
now
somebody
has
been
a
victim
of
a
violent
crime
and
they've
been
victimized,
and
I
think
this
plays
into
the
graduated
sanctions.
N
When
we
look
at
the
category
e
felonies,
I
don't
remember
the
exact
numbers
you
had
on
the
chart,
88
offenders
or
whatever,
but
my
my
belief
is
and
if
I'm
wrong
correct
me,
but
unless
you've
had
multiple
convictions,
a
category
e
felony
is
a
mandatory,
suspended
sentence
or
mandatory
probation.
N
So,
for
you
to
end
up
in
prison
for
a
category
e
felony,
you've
either
had
previous
convictions.
You've
had
multiple
bites
of
the
apple
or
your.
Your
actions
have
have
have
been
so
egregious
that
that
you
needed
to
be
in
in
prison
or
you
violated
your
parole,
multiple
times,
which
again
we
get
into
that
discussion.
N
I
guess
and
later
on
today,
in
the
cji
presentation
about
supervision
by
parole,
probation
and
how,
in
their
report,
they
claim
that
there's
been
benefits
there,
which
I
I
would
I
would
argue,
but
I
guess
I
think
we
need
to
to
have
a
more
deeper
dive
on
the
the
data
to
see
how
this
property
crime
factor
is
is
affecting
people
that
have
multiple,
offenses
and
I'll,
say
this
final
thing
and
then
I'll
I'll
wrap
it
up.
N
But
you
know
what
what
we're
seeing
in
law
enforcement
and
we're
starting
to
track
this
data
now
is
individuals
that
are
creating
or
are
committing
crimes
that
I
I
will
call
crimes
that
shock
the
conscience
they're
trying
to
shoot
an
old
man
with
a
gun
that
they
think
is
loaded
and
it's
not
they're
killing
a
trooper.
On
our
freeways,
they're
killing
a
family
of
seven
in
a
car
accident,
I
can
go
on
and
on
and
on
they're
raping
a
child
in
a
dumpster.
N
What
we're
finding
is
these
folks
have
multiple
multiple
criminal
convictions
that
go
back
longer.
Their
criminal
history
in
some
cases
goes
back
longer
than
my
33-year
police
career,
and
so
I
want
to
see
the
data
show
that
that's
not
a
contributing
factor
to
this,
and
I
don't
know
how
we
get
there
other
than
a
deep
dive
of
that
data.
To
look
at
these
readmissions
and
who's
had
multiple
bytes
of
the
apple.
A
D
Do
dr
bradley,
please
hi
cher
bradley.
J
For
the
record,
I
I
guess
along
those
lines
in
terms
of
thinking
about
the
impacts
of
pandemic
versus
ab236
or
the
combination.
I
was
curious
about
pending
cases
in
the
criminal
justice
system
before
the
pandemic
and
then,
since
the
pandemic
started.
In
other
words
are
there
just?
There
are
more
cases
that
are
pending
resolution,
and
so
those
people
aren't
in
a
prison
facility
yet,
but
they
potentially
will
be.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
of
those
kind
of
numbers.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
I
just
want
to
comment
on
mr
callaway's
request.
We
can
absolutely
look
into
that
and
I
we've
got
some
ideas
about
how
we
could
break
that
information
down
and
then
to
dr
bradley.
So
we
would,
in
order
to
actually
collect
the
information
for
pending
cases.
We
would
need
to
go
to
courts.
We,
I
will
say
we're
looking
at
the
admissions
very
closely
so,
as
you
saw
in
the
data
dispatch
we
sent
out
yesterday,
we're
doing
we'll
we'll
highlight
what
the
admissions
look
like.
B
The
dashboard
on
our
website
provides
a
comparison
of
admissions
and
releases.
I
will
say
my
qualitative
analysis
on
the
admissions
and
releases
which
we
I
could
pull
up
and
show
you
on.
The
dashboard
would
be
that
we
have
seen
little
spikes,
and
so
we
are
about,
I
think,
we're
about
two
years
since
out
since
everything
completely
shut
down,
and
so
I
think,
measuring
the
outcome
from
those
pending
cases
is
going
to
be
important.
B
I
have
to
look,
I
think,
a
month
or
two
ago
that
we're
wondering
if
that
was
the
start
or
at
least
part
of
those
cases
getting
processed,
and
I
know
members
of
this
commission
could
comment
on
their
their
actual
their
experience
of
what
they're
seeing
I'll
look
based
on
the
data
right
now
we're
keeping
an
eye
on
that,
and
so
that's
how
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
pending
cases,
we
are
going
to
try
and
get
court
data
to
analyze
that,
but
the
way
we
will
analyze
right
now
with
the
data
we
do
have
we'll
be
looking
at
those
admissions,
and
then
we
can
tell
you
too,
when
we,
because
we're
looking
at
releases,
we
can
see
how
quickly
they're
coming
in.
B
So
I
can
tell
you,
too,
that,
as
these
missions
are
coming
in,
some
of
them
are
turning
right
back
out,
because
they've
got
jail
credit.
While
they
were
waiting
for
some
of
those
cases,
so
even
as
they're
getting
processed.
I
think
the
prison
population
we're
seeing
it's
doing
what
it's
doing,
because
they've
already
been
sitting
there
waiting
they
get
processed,
they
serve
whatever
time
they
have
left
and
they're
right
back
out
on
supervision.
B
So
that's
what
I'll
give
you
to
come?
We
could
look
and
we
could
we'll
do
a
sampling
of
that
as
well.
I
think
we
could
look
at
when
someone
was
admitted
and
when
they
were
released
and
see
how
quickly
they
came
in
and
then
came
out,
even
with
their
their
length
of
stay.
So
that
would
be
how
we
could
analyze.
M
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
One
has
to
do
with
again
the
systems
and
whether
or
not
the
data
that
you're
collecting
is
compatible
with
systems
that
the
court
uses,
and
maybe
that's
something.
I
know
you
said
you're
going
to
be
trying
to
collect
data
from
the
courts,
and
I
was
so
that
that's
one
question
I
have,
and
maybe
that's
something
that
can
be
answered
at
a
later
at
a
later
meeting.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
thank
you
so
as
far
as,
if
it's
compatible
with
the
courts,
when
we
start
collecting
that
information,
we
will
we'll
start
looking
those
variables
to
see
how
they
can
talk
to
each
other
and
then
absolutely
we
can
do
a
breakdown
of
ethnicity
and
gender.
As
far
as
the
the
variables
we
are
collecting,
it's
included
with
that
and
with
the
medical
costs.
That
is
a
good
point,
too.
I
Yes,
I
have
a
question
for
this
time.
Ms
gonzalez,
we
we've
heard
a
request
for,
in
essence,
to
receive
the
data
of
doom
people
that
aren't
successful.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
thank
you
for
that
question.
I
think
that's
a
great
point,
the
I
I
would
appreciate
you
gave
me
some
ideas
right
now
about
how
we
would
measure
that
the
the
question
with
that
is
going
to
be
a
centralized
entity,
but
I
think
we
could
reach
out
to
individual
entities
and
figure
some
of
that
out
and
see
what
we
could
come
up
with
and
then
brainstorm
with
you
we'll
talk
more
about
what
how
we
could
collect
that.
But
that's
a
that's
a
great
point.
A
K
Thank
you
senator
thank
you,
chair
john
mccormick
for
the
record.
We
at
the
courts
do
actually
collect
data
on
pending
caseload
at
the
district
court
level.
I
don't
know
it
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
our
data
key
team
has
that
and
I
will
put
them
in
touch
with
victoria,
to
make
that
link.
And
additionally,
we
do
have
some
data
on
recidivism
rates
for
specialty
court
programs
for
just
going
to
say
this
later
in
the
236
presentation,
but
for
people
who
entered
specially
court
in
fiscal
year
2017.
A
J
You
this
is
jennifer
landerman
for
the
record
for
the
next
set
of
analyses.
J
I
think
it
would
be
really
helpful
for
us
to
see
whether
or
not
there's
been
a
the
percent
change
in
the
aging
department
of
corrections,
population
between
2017
and
2022,
so,
whether
there's
a
statistically
significant
increase
in
the
aging
population,
statistically
significant
decrease
in
that
population
or
whether
or
not
it's
remain
relatively
stable,
and
whether
we
have
projections
moving
forward,
because
those
numbers
will
influence
department
of
corrections,
budget
requests
to
address
the
aging,
inmate
mobility,
health
care
and
palliative
care
or
hospice
care
needs.
J
So
we
really
kind
of
need
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
how
those
numbers
are
trending
so
that
we
can
properly
plan
for
care
and
project
those
costs
so
that
those
the
doc
budget
essentially
doesn't
get.
Does
it
get
squished
in
weird
places
to
to
reallocate
funds
to
address
those
those
care
needs?
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chris
hicks,
for
the
record.
I
have
a
quick
question
for
the
department,
and
that
is
one
of
the
arguments
that
was
made
when
ab236
was
being
debated
in
this
building.
Was
that
a
lot
of
the
the
changes
that
that
were
going
to
occur
to
the
felony
structure?
The
felony
thresholds
would
result
in
a
bit
of
a
shell
game
that
that
some
of
the
inmates
that
were
in
prison
were
going
to
end
up
just
being
in
our
jails
that
it
was
going
to
fall
on
the
counties.
E
E
Interestingly,
at
least
as
I
understand
it,
in
washoe
county,
the
the
jail
population
has
gone
up
immensely.
It's
it's
at
operational
capacity
is
what
my
sheriff
in
that
county
says
where
there's
some
in
some
instances
having
to
put
three
inmates
in
one
cell
together
what
is
also
an
interesting
undertone,
and
all
of
that
is
that
we've
had
significant
bail
reform
measures
occur
in
the
last
five
years
to
where
now
we're
having
bail
hearings.
E
So
I
was
just
curious
if
the
if
the
department
had
an
intention
to
perhaps
look
at
the
clark
county,
washoe
county
jails,
to
see
what
you
know
what
the
effect
has
been
on
there
as
well
and
so
and
if
not,
I
know
you
have
a
lot
on
your
plate,
but
I
I
do
think
that
that
would
be
a
valuable
area
to
look
as
well-
and
you
know
it's
not
classification
of
crime,
of
course
like
in
prisons.
E
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
thank
you
d.a
hicks.
Yes,
so
we
are
working
on
trying
to
set
up
the
relationship
to
get
the
the
jail
data
and
I
think
you
brought
up
a
good
point.
I
think
a
place
we
could
start
is
just
basic
or
not
basic,
but
just
at
the
population
level,
because
you're
right
that
comparison
with
what
we
have
right
now
would
be
very
informative
for
for
that,
so
we
will
see
what
we
can.
We
can
get
together
for
november.
A
Alright,
hearing
none,
we'll
close
this
agenda
item
and
we'll
open
agenda
item
number,
seven
presentation
on
justice
counts
and
the
opportunity
for
nevada
to
become
a
founding
state.
At
our
may
meeting
staff
presented
information
about
justice
counts,
an
initiative
related
to
the
collection
and
sharing
of
criminal
justice
data
staff
told
us
about
the
opportunity
to
become
a
founding
state
for
justice
counts,
which,
if
granted,
would
provide
technical
assistance
to
advance
the
initiative
in
our
state.
Our
staff
submitted
a
letter
requesting
technical
assistance
signed
by
myself
and
other
members
of
this
commission.
A
We
were
notified
that
nevada
has
been
awarded
provisional
approval
to
be
a
founding
state.
The
justice
counts
team
is
here
today
to
tell
us
more
about
the
project
answer
our
questions,
hear
our
comments
and
facilitate
a
discussion
about
criminal
justice
data
in
our
state.
I
will
now
turn
the
time
over
to
the
justice
counts
team
to
introduce
themselves
and
proceed
with
their
presentation.
Q
Well,
good
morning,
everyone,
I'm
ben
schieler,
I'm
a
deputy
program
director
at
the
council
of
state
governments
working
on
the
justice
council
initiative
and
thank
you
to
chair
stiglitch
and
to
director
gonzalez
the
team
at
the
nevada
department
of
sentencing
policy
into
the
nevada
sentencing
commission
for
having
us
today
and
for
your
interest
in
the
justice
counts
initiative.
Q
It
sounds
based
on
the
conversation
this
morning
and
conversations
that
we've
had
with
ndsp
with
members
of
the
commission
and
with
others
in
nevada,
as
though
there
is
a
great
deal
of
interest
in
criminal
justice
data
and
a
great
deal
of
data
literacy
there
in
nevada
and
we're
happy
to
to
try
to
build
on
that
by
adjustments
counts.
Q
Q
So
who
are
we
again?
We
are
the
council
of
state
governments,
justice
center,
and
this
is
an
initiative
that
is
co-led
by
us
here
at
csg,
as
well
as
our
partners
at
the
bureau
of
justice
assistance,
which
is
a
division
of
the
department,
united
states
department
of
justice
under
the
umbrella
of
the
office
of
justice
programs.
Q
So
bja
is
contained
alongside
other
federal
entities
like
the
bureau
of
justice
statistics,
the
national
institutes
of
justice
and
other
such
entities
that
exist
to
provide
federal
funding,
assistance
and
guidance
to
state
and
states
and
localities
to
help
improve
their
criminal
justice
system.
So
again,
we
work
very
closely
at
csg,
with
our
partners
at
bja
to
guide
the
initiative,
which
has
been
around
now
for
about
two
and
a
half
years
since
the
very
beginning
of
2020.
Q
Q
These
are
elected
and
appointed
leaders
from
criminal
justice
agencies,
policymakers
from
all
from
both
chambers,
from
both
parties
from
again
over
20
different
states
from
across
the
nation,
and
really
this
committee
exists
to
help
guide.
The
project
to
provide
feedback
on
various
components
of
justice
counts,
whether
that's
the
metrics,
the
digital
infrastructure,
to
help
champion
justice
counts
in
states
and
localities
across
the
nation
and
to
provide
general
subject
matter,
expertise
and
context.
As
we
pursue
our
work,
we
also
have.
We
also
have
21
national
partner
organizations
as
part
of
justice
counts.
Q
14
of
those
21
are
association
partners.
Some
represent
stakeholders
in
the
criminal
justice
system,
for
example
the
american
jail
association,
the
international
association
of
chiefs
of
police,
the
national
district,
attorney's
association,
the
national
legal
aid
and
defenders
association,
so
from
law
enforcement
all
the
way
through
prosecution,
defense,
courts,
supervision
corrections.
We
have
stakeholder
associations
representing
those
key
leaders
in
the
system.
Q
We
also
have
association
partners
representing
policymakers,
the
national
governors
association,
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures,
the
national
criminal
justice
association,
that
represents
state
administering
agencies
that
administer
federal
funds
to
state
and
local
criminal
justice
agencies.
There
are
also
a
number
of
research
and
technical
assistance
partners
on
the
project
measures
for
justice,
the
rand
corporation,
the
justice
management
institute,
in
addition
to
a
technology
provider
on
our
project
recidivists,
whose
work
you'll
hear
about
a
little
bit
later
on
next
slide.
Please.
Q
So
that's
a
little
bit
about
who
we
are
I'm
going
to
introduce
other
members
of
my
team
who
are
either
speaking
or
on
the
call
today
we'll
start
with
diva
vankatesha
who's,
a
member
of
the
justice
council
team
and
we're
also
joined
by
katie
mozar
program,
director
and
matt
herman.
One
of
our
data
scientists
here
at
csg.
So
I'll
turn
it
to
viva
for
a
quick
introduction.
G
Yeah
hi
everyone,
my
name
is
biba
venkatesha,
I'm
a
senior
policy
analyst
on
the
justice
towns
team.
I
started
at
the
justice
center
about
six
months
ago
and
I'm
on
the
state
engagement
side
of
our
justice
council
project
work
before
coming
to
the
justice
center.
I
worked
for
about
seven
years
with
the
re-entry
task
force
in
michigan
I'll.
Kick
it
back
to
ben
to
introduce
himself.
Q
Great
thank
you
vebba
again
ben
sheila
deputy
program
director
here
at
the
council
of
state
governments,
justice
center
prior
to
coming
to
csg.
I
was
a
deputy
director
for
standards
and
accreditation
for
the
american
correctional
association,
so
my
background
is
in
corrections
and
supervision
operations.
Q
Again,
I've
been
at
csg
since
about
2015
and
on
the
justice
council
project,
since
early
2020,
so
fairly
experienced
with
this
particular
work
before
we
dive
into
some
aspects
of
justice
counts.
The
challenge
that
it
addresses
and
how
we're
going
about
that.
I
want
to
frame
a
couple
of
things
about
the
project
generally,
so
justice
counts
exists,
basically
to
provide
better
and
more
timely
and
more
reliable
data
to
public
and
to
policy
makers
and
to
agency
leaders
about
what's
happening
in
their
criminal
justice
system.
Q
We're
talking
here,
at
least
in
in
this
instance
about
aggregate
level
data.
We
heard
a
lot
earlier
today
about
looking
across
the
system
at
trends,
what's
happening,
with
everything,
from
arrests
to
jail,
populations
to
other
components
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
case,
filings
court
processing,
into
corrections
to
probation
and
parole,
and
really
those
are
our
areas
where
we
need
more
and
better
data.
So,
unlike
other
projects,
justice
counts
does
not
exist
with
a
policy
end
in
mind.
Q
So
again
we
know
there
is
a
ton
of
data
out
there
at
the
agency
level
and
many
take
many
in
many
cases
at
the
state
level,
and
so
justice
counts
is
about
bringing
that
data
to
bear,
putting
it
into
a
system
in
a
format
that
is
easily
used
and
easily
understood
and
easily
interpreted
by
policy
makers
and
the
public
to
help
enhance
outcomes
in
the
criminal
justice
system
and
to
enhance
equity
and
other
factors
that
are
of
great
importance
to
policymakers
and
to
state
leaders.
Q
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
to
viva
to
talk
about
the
challenges
and
the
problem
that
justice
counts.
Addresses.
G
Yeah
thanks
ben
so
as
ben
alluded
to
this
project
is
necessary
because
there
have
been
great
data
collection
efforts
across
the
field
in
the
past,
but
data
is
often
several
years
old.
By
the
time
it's
published
more
recent
data
is
published
at
the
discretion
of
individual
agencies.
It's
often
siloed
inconsistent
or
it's
just
not
terribly
user
friendly.
G
There
is,
there
is
data
in
the
justice
count.
State
dashboard,
for
example,
on
annual
prison
populations,
but
metrics
like
probation
revocations,
for
example-
are
this
data
that
was
less
rarely
available
to
us.
So
the
question
that
was
asked
earlier
about
seeing
like
full
breakdowns
of
population
trends?
That's
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
that
this
project
wants
to
address.
This
is
not
an
issue,
that's
specific
to
nevada
or
any
other
state.
This
is
across
the
country
and
at
the
federal
level
as
well.
G
There's
also
bjs
reports
that
are
only
on
an
annual
basis
and
they
don't
have
regular
data
on
all
of
the
metrics
that
we
are
trying
to
address.
So
this
project
aims
to
collect
data
that
could
be
collected
easily
is
already
being
collected,
but
it's
just
not
being
consolidated
and
shared
in
a
timely
way.
That's
easy
to
access
and
proactively
available.
G
So
when
policymakers
don't
have
data,
they
have
to
make
data
based
on,
they
have
to
make
decisions
and
policy
based
on
conjecture,
based
on
anecdote
based
on
emotions
based
on
what's
happening
in
another
part
of
the
country
or
another
part
of
their
state,
that
national
trends
aren't
relevant
or
as
accurate
to
data
when
it's
really
relevant
to
a
specific
locality
or
making
policies
about
end
decisions
about
programs
that
are
at
a
specific
local
level.
G
So,
for
example,
I
worked
in
a
task
force
and
during
budget
season,
policy
makers
knew
that
they
could
get
questions
answered
during
that
time
and
that
agencies
and
departments
would
be
rushing
to
answer
their
questions,
and
then
agencies
and
departments
were
having
a
huge
crunch
time
trying
to
gather
all
this
data
to
answer
the
questions
that
policymakers
had
in
such
a
short
time
period.
G
What
justice
counts
hopes
to
do
is
that
this
data
is
already
being
proactively
available,
it's
being
available
on
a
regular
basis,
not
an
annual
basis
or
not
even
an
annual
basis,
and
that
there's
just
open
communication
between
agencies
and
departments
and
policy
makers,
so
that
everyone
is
on
the
same
page,
and
everyone
understands
the
big
picture
of
data
in
their
state
and
in
their
localities.
G
And
like
ben
alluded
to
earlier,
this
is
not
a
policy
specific
project.
This
is
a
data
project.
You
are
the
people
who
know
your
state.
The
best
justice
counts
is
rooted
in
the
idea,
that
of
helping
states
to
get
to
know
themselves
better
across
the
system
so
that
you
have
all
of
the
information
you
have
it
proactively.
Q
Great
thanks,
boba,
so
a
little
bit
more
on
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
justice
counts
how
it
would
the
the
deliverables
we've
created
for
the
project
as
well
as
how
it
might
work
in
states,
including
nevada.
Q
So
agreeing
on
those
core
sets
of
metrics
was
a
really
key
objective
for
us,
and
happily
that
is
something
we've
been
able
to
to
produce
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
or
so
in
order
to
make
those
metrics
meaningful
and
usable
for
policymakers
and
the
public.
We
have
to
deploy
a
suite
of
tools
and
resources
so
that
agencies
can
actually
share
the
data
generated
by
those
metrics
right.
Q
The
metrics
are
one
thing
for
agencies
to
to
know
and
utilize
themselves
in
their
own
operations,
but
absent
some
kind
of
digital
infrastructure
through
which
those
data
metrics
can
be
reported
at
this
local
level
at
the
county
level
and
ultimately,
at
the
state
level,
then
there
is,
there
is
utility
there
that
is
lacking,
so
we've
developed
those
tools
and
approaches
to
help
share
the
data
generated
by
the
metrics
as
well.
Q
We
realize
also
that
states
and
localities
are
going
to
need
help
to
do
this.
There
are
aspects
of
this
that
are
highly
technical
in
nature.
There
are
others
that
are
less
technical
but
more
around
how
those
data
are
defined,
what
they
mean,
how
they're
interpreted
and
how
they
actually
relate
to
driving
policy
and
budget
decisions
again
at
the
local,
at
the
county
or
at
the
state
level,
and
so
we
at
the
council
of
state
governments
and
our
21
national
partners
on
this
project
are
supporting
states
and
agencies
and
implementing
the
justice
council
framework.
Q
Talk
more
about
that
in
a
few
minutes
and
then,
finally,
as
I
noted
we're
supporting
states
and
agencies
in
applying
the
metrics
and
utilizing
those
metrics
to
make
policy
and
budget
decisions.
So
again
you
see
the
process
here
of
starting
with
those
data
applying
the
metrics
to
those
data
getting
those
data
into
a
system
that
then
translates
and
transmits
those
data
to
policy
makers
and
the
public
and
then
utilizing
those
data
to
drive
policy
and
budget
decisions.
Q
So
a
few
minutes
on
the
consensus-driven
criminal
justice,
metrics
developed
through
justice
counts.
So
we
have
multiple
tiers
of
metrics,
the
only
metrics
that
are
available
right
now.
We
call
tier
one,
and
these
are
our
metrics-
that
had
to
meet
a
dual
test.
So
the
dual
test
was
feasibility.
I.E.
Are
these
metrics
feasible
for
agencies
of
all
sizes
and
capacities
to
actually
either
collect
if
they
don't
already
collect
these
data
or
to
report?
Q
If
they
in
all
likelihood,
do
already
collect
these
data
and
they
have
to
the
other
test
was
utility,
so
they
have
to
be
useful
for
policy
makers
and
for
the
public,
and
so,
if
a
if
a
proposed
metric
did
not
meet
that
dual
test
of
feasibility
and
utility,
then
it
did
not
make
this
first
tier
of
cross
system
metrics.
So
we
started
looking
at
those
cross-system
metrics
with
seven
different
issue-specific
subcommittees
specializing
in
each
sector
of
the
criminal
justice
system.
Q
So
those
seven
sectors
are
law
enforcement,
prosecution,
defense
courts
and
pre-trial
operations,
jails,
prisons
and
community
supervision.
So
again
those
kind
of
run,
the
gamut
of
the
criminal
justice
system.
That
is
certainly
not
exhausted
by
any
means,
but
those
are
represent,
broad
sectors
into
which
we
we
have
assigned
various
metrics.
Q
So
the
sectors
make
up
one
side
of
the
metrics
that
you
will
see
here
in
just
a
minute
that
are
represented
by
a
matrix,
so
you're
able
to
look
at
all
of
the
law
enforcement
metrics
for
again
these
six
categories
that
you
see
here
at
the
top
of
the
slide
or
all
of
the
court
metrics
across
those
categories
or
all
of
the
supervision
metrics
across
those
categories.
Q
So
the
categories
the
categories
are
necessary
because
this
information
is
is
numerous.
It
is,
it
is
at
times
complex.
There
are
tons
of
different
metrics.
There
are
tons
of
different
ways
to
look
at
how
the
system
is
functioning
and
these
provide
some
organization
to
the
criminal
justice,
metrics
and
hopefully
to
the
criminal
justice
system
as
it
is
represented
here.
Q
So
those
six
are
capacity
and
costs,
population
movements,
operations
and
dynamics,
public
safety,
equity
and
fairness,
and
you
see
below
each
of
them
here
effectively
what
those
categories
set
out
to
try
to
capture
so,
for
example,
capacity
and
cost
is
how
how
big
is
our
system?
How
much
are
we
spending
on
certain
areas
of
the
system
or
in
agency
operations?
Q
David?
Can
you
go
back
one
for
me?
Thank
you.
Population
movement
effectively
represents
ins
and
outs.
We
heard
discussion
earlier
of
admissions
and
releases
how
many
people
are
coming
into
this.
Given
area
of
the
system
going
out
of
a
given
area
of
system
that
could
be
people
that
could
be
cases
that
could
be.
You
know
operations.
Q
So
we
talk
about
operations
on
that
and
dynamics.
How
are
our
key
actions
or
decisions
affecting
people
at
various
stages
and
then
again
on
down
the
line
through
public
safety?
Q
What
we
see
in
terms
of,
for
example,
reported
crime
equity
we
looking
at
racial
and
gender
breakdowns
and
populations
in
fairness
is
another
key
key
category
for
the
justice
council
metrics
before
we
move
on
to
look
at
the
metrics
themselves,
just
to
note
about
the
the
consensus-driven
nature
of
these
metrics.
So
we
started
by
again
putting
together
the
seven
different
issue,
specific
subcommittees
and
having
them
brainstorm
all
of
the
different
metrics
that
they
felt
were
useful
for
policymakers
to
know.
Q
The
subcommittee
members
who
are
again
were
practitioners
and
researchers
and
data
experts
within
each
of
those
fields,
as
well
as
us
here
at
csg
bja
our
partners
at
measures
for
justice
who
oversaw
and
administered
the
metrics
development
process.
We
were
able
to
hone
and
apply
various
tests
to
all
of
those
proposed
metrics
and
get
down
to
the
matrix
you
see
represented
here,
so
we
were
voting
in
real
time.
We
were
having
conversations
in
real
time.
There
was
a
vote
on
every
single
metric.
Q
If
there
was
not
consensus
about
whether
or
not
that
metric
should
move
forward,
then
we
stopped
we
discussed
it.
We
took
another
vote.
If
that
consensus
still
didn't
exist,
then
that
metric
did
not
move
forward
so
again,
what's
represented
here
is
truly
the
result
of
a
consensus-driven
project
process
among
the
subcommittees
and
one
that
was
reviewed
and
cleared
by
members
of
the
national
steering
committee
as
well.
Q
Q
Some
have
moved
around
different
categories,
so,
for
example,
reported
crime
is
moved
over
into
the
public
safety
category.
As
further
analysis
and
discussion
has
revealed
that
you
know
we
are
more
comfortable
with
reported
crime
as
a
public
safety
indicator,
so
this
would
would
not
necessarily
match
word-for-word
what
is
currently
on
the
justice
council
website,
although
that
will
be
updated
here
soon.
Q
So
what
you're
looking
at
is
is
the
most
up-to-date
version
of
the
tier
one
matrix
so
again,
hopefully,
given
the
explanation
previously
of
categories
running
vertically
there,
in
the
columns
and
of
the
sectors
running
horizontally
there
across
the
rows,
this
matrix
makes
sense
as
a
set
of
tier
1
metrics.
There
are
67
in
total,
there
are
no
more
than
11
per
per
sector.
Q
And
again
you
see
some
some
similarity
and
some
consistency
there
within
each
column
within
each
category.
In
terms
of
of
looking
at
how
each
agency
or
the
data
that
each
agency
would
report
in
line
with
the
metrics.
Q
Great
I'll
turn
it
to
viva
to
talk
about
the
tools
and
resources
for
actually
utilizing
and
implementing
those
metrics.
G
Thanks
ben,
so
what
sets
justice
account
bounds
apart
from
previous
efforts
to
improve
data
sharing
is
that
we
are
building
a
national
digital
infrastructure
to
go
hand
in
hand
with
these
metrics.
So
again,
as
ben
keeps
saying,
we
being
the
the
coalition
behind
justice
counts,
we're
working
with
our
tech
partner,
recidivist
to
build
a
platform
to
consolidate
and
share
and
display
the
data.
That's
inputted
from
these
metrics.
G
This
platform
will
be
cloud-based
because
of
the
associated
benefits
with
being
cloud-based
cloud.
Computing
is
high
speed,
it's
cost
effective,
it
has
unlimited
storage
capacity
and
cloud-based
systems
can
be
deployed
to
all
users
simultaneously,
updates
can
be
deployed
to
all
users
simultaneously.
G
G
A
really
important
consideration,
both
in
developing
metrics
and
in
developing
the
infrastructure,
is
that
we
know
that
definitions
can
vary
so
while
there
be
will
be
definitions
and
methodology,
that's
provided
for
each
of
the
metrics
and
I'll
work
through
that
in
just
a
second.
It's
also
important
that
agency
staff
has
flexibility
and
adaptability
and
the
ability
to
add
important
context.
G
So,
for
example,
there
are
some
places
that
collect
use
of
force
data,
and
that
includes
any
contact
from
law
enforcement
and
then
other
places
that
collect
it
based
on,
if
there's
a
certain
level
of
force,
so
when
comparing
that
would
really
skew
numbers
into
its
new
trends.
So
the
point
of
this
project
is
to
provide
an
accurate
picture.
So
there
is
that
ability
to
include
that
kind
of
context
and
then
accessible
to
all
justice
council
reporting
agencies.
So
our
tech
partner
knows
technology
really
well
they're,
former
google
and
microsoft
engineers.
G
G
Here
you
can
see
what
it
could
look
like,
and
you
see
this
flexibility
to
toggle
and
choose
to
report
metrics
that
are
already
being
collected.
Like
much
of
the
data
that
the
sentencing
policy
department
presented
earlier,
you
can
choose
to
input
data,
that's
already
being
collected
on
a
regular
basis
and
share
other
data
later
when
it's
more
readily
available.
G
And
then
here
you
can
see
how
we're
asking
for
additional
context
so
there's
either
there's
questions
being
asked
like
for
this
example.
It
includes
like
programmatic
and
medical
stuff,
but
then
there's
also
just
an
open
answer
option
to
provide
any
additional
context
that
could
be
useful
in
interpreting
and
analyzing.
This
data.
G
And
finally,
data
is
great,
but
to
be
able
to
see
the
big
picture
and
to
see
like
the
story
that
the
data
is
telling.
The
other
important
thing
is
that
it's
accessible
and
it's
easy
to
understand
and
digest
and
to
actually
be
able
to
utilize
to
make
decisions
and
make
policy.
So
the
infrastructure
will
also
take
the
data,
that's
inputted
and
then
generate
visualizations
and
dashboards
to
sort
of
be
able
to
zoom
out
and
see.
The
big
pictures
see
trends
sort
of
like
the
way
that
it's
displayed
here.
Q
Great
thanks
so
again,
we
are
under
no
illusion
that
states
and
agencies
will
have
excess
capacity
or
even
the
necessary
capacity
to
be
able
to
just
go
in
and
pull
all
of
these
data
that
are
necessary
for
the
metrics
from
their
system.
You
know
like
that
at
the
snap
snap
of
fingers,
there
are
many
agencies
that
do
have
capacity
like
that.
Q
That
are
great
with
data
that
are
already
super
data
savvy,
and
there
are
even
more
that
aren't,
especially
those
that
are
smaller
and
that
lack
that
capacity
and
that
are
not
used
to
to
utilizing
data
either
in
their
everyday
operations
or
in
providing
data
to
oversight
bodies
or
to
federal
agencies
or
to
whatever
the
case
may
be.
Q
This
is
new
and
different
for
them,
and
they
will
need
support
from
justice,
council
partners
from
state
agencies
and
from
others
who
are
familiar
with
the
infrastructure
and
familiar
with
the
metrics
in
order
to
make
those
a
reality.
So
to
help
with
that,
there
are
opportunities
right
now
for
10
founding
states,
of
which
nevada
has
applied
to
be
won
again,
we're
in
receipt
as
our
bja
of
the
letter
from
this
commission.
Q
From
I
believe,
it
was
june
and
really
excited
to
be
taking
steps
in
that
direction
today.
So
there
are
other
opportunities
for
states
to
join
the
founding
states
program
and
receive
one
year
of
technical
assistance
in
six
distinct
phases
that
we'll
walk
through
quickly
now
so
phase
one
is
introduction
and
orientation
effectively.
Q
We
need
to
get
everyone
around
the
table:
criminal
justice
agencies
across
the
system
around
the
table,
data
experts,
folks
from
state
leadership,
to
understand
and
endorse
justice
counts
and
to
know
what
it's
going
to
result
in
to
know
how
it's
going
to
work,
to
get
everyone
on
the
same
page
about
what
needs
to
be
done
and
to
really
drive
the
project
forward
in
a
way
that
makes
most
sense
for
that
state.
So
that
involves
convening
agencies
to
participate,
involves
orienting
agencies
to
the
justice
accounts
approach,
providing
them
with
orientation
materials,
information.
Q
What
this
is,
what
this
isn't
and
establishing
we're
designating
a
governance
or
oversight
structure
in
the
case
of
nevada.
We
think
that
the
sentencing
commission
and
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
clearly
make
the
most
sense,
given
their
statutory
mandate
as
centralized
collectors
and
and
analyzers
of
criminal
justice
data
across
the
state.
So
they
make
the
most
home.
You
all
make
the
most
sense
as
a
home,
so
so
to
speak,
for
justice
counts
in
nevada.
Q
There
are
other
states
that
have
similar
entities,
and
there
are
many
that
don't
so
we'll
be
working
on
a
state-by-state
basis.
Phase
two
is
evaluation
and
assessment
really
difficult
to
know
where
to
go.
If
you
don't
know
where
you
are
so
that's
the
evaluation
and
assessment
component
of
what
we
do.
What
we
do
so
participating
agencies
would
complete
an
online
self-assessment
tool
that
is
active.
Q
Currently
now
we
can
drop
a
link
to
the
justice
accounts
website
and
to
the
state,
I'm
sorry
to
the
self-assessment
tool
in
the
chat
now
and
be
sure
to
distribute
that
information
later
as
well.
We
want
to
map
state
data
onto
the
justice
accounts
framework.
Again
we're
not
trying
to
reinvent
the
wheel,
we're
not
trying
to
ask
agencies
to
do
more
than
than
is
necessary
to
participate
in
justice
accounts.
Q
We
want
to
make
the
buyer
the
barrier
or
the
bar
to
entry
for
justice
counts,
low
and
so
to
the
extent
that
data
already
flows
from
county
jails
up
to
doc
or
to
a
different
entity
or
from
as
we've
seen
earlier
today,
doc
over
to
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
we'd
like
to
leverage
those
connections
and
again
try
to
start
to
kind
of
map,
the
metrics
on
to
data
that
already
exists,
and
it's
already
moving
from
the
agency
level
up
to
the
state
or
up
to
the
federal
government
in
ways
that
we
can
can
make
those
processes
more
seamless
and
easy.
Q
And
then
finally-
and
we
want
to
evaluate
policymaker
data,
literacy
and
readiness.
Again,
I've
been
really
impressed
with
the
discussion
in
this
commission
today
with
how
granular
the
data
or
the
requests
for
analyses
have
been.
How
thoughtful
folks
are
about
asking
about
why
analyses
were
conducted
in
a
certain
way,
what
those
analyses
actually
mean,
and
so
that
is
part
of
the
process
here
as
well.
Q
Right
is,
as
we
help
states
to
conduct
or
pursue
justice
counts
in
their
jurisdiction
or
in
their
state,
wanting
to
know
kind
of
where
the
baseline
is
in
terms
of
what
policymakers
want
to
know
and
what
is
most
helpful
for
justice
counts
too,
or
how
it's
most
helpful
for
it
to
to
work
phase
three
is
implementation
planning
so
again
with
basis
one
and
two,
we
kind
of
know
where
we
stand
so
then
we
need
to
plan
to
roll
out
justice
counts
at
the
state
level.
Q
How
do
we
work
with
state
and
local
agencies
which
agencies
are
ahead
of
the
curve
which
agencies
might
be
slightly
behind
the
curve?
Where
can
agencies
lend
each
other
capacity?
Where
can
the
state
help
localities,
or
vice
versa,
in
terms
of
participating
in
justice
counts?
So
all
of
that
is
is
around
developing
a
reporting
strategy
for
each
agency
again,
one
that
is
kind
of
customizable
by
that
agency's
data
and
analysis
capacity.
Q
We
want
to
identify
priority
metrics
for
agencies
to
focus
on
once
we
have
a
kind
of
critical
mass.
If
you
will
of
agencies
that
have
completed
the
self-assessment,
a
really
good
sense
for
where
there
is
some
consistent
data
in
each
sector
across
the
state
and
where
it
is
either
inconsistent
or
missing
completely.
So
that
is
where
we
can
work
with
the
sentencing
commission
in
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
to
say
these
are
the
priority
metrics.
Q
We
want
every
law
enforcement
agency
in
nevada
to
be
reporting
via
justice
counts
or
all
16
county
jails,
or
we
really
want
to
know
from
doc
to
focus
on
these
priority
metrics
and
then
finally,
we
want
to
develop
visualizations
for
those
priority
metrics.
So
what
is
the
way
that
either
policy
makers
or
the
public
or
agency
leaders
can
view
and
analyze
those
data
quickly
that
are
user
friendly?
That
are
clear
that
that
quickly
and
easily
show
the
policy
maker
or
the
viewer?
Q
What
it
is
they
want
to
know
based
on
those
data,
so
developing
those
visualizations
is
key
phase.
Four,
I
think
is,
is
the
big
one.
This
is
the
actual
implementation,
so
this
involves
onboarding
agencies.
Two
justice
counts.
There's
a
one-time,
onboarding
exercise.
They
would
go
through
with
the
team
here
at
csg
and
our
partners
at
recidivis
and
others
who
were
involved
in
the
process.
That's
the
initial
configuration
for
each
agency.
Q
So
what's
the
mechanism
through
which
they
want
to
report
data,
do
they
hopefully
not,
but
some
may
need
to
kind
of
collect
it
and
report
it
manually.
Others
may
be
able
to
link
their
system
to
it.
Others
may
be
able
to
run
a
report
within
their
system
to
collect
those
data
and
so
again
understanding
that
landscape
and
completing
an
initial
configuration
for
each
agency
is
a
key
step.
Q
Secondly,
is
to
implement
a
reporting
strategy
and
automations
again,
you
heard
me
kind
of
reference
the
automations
there.
So
how
is
it
that
those
agencies,
once
we
know
how
they're
going
to
get
those
data?
How
often
are
they
able
to
do
it?
You
saw
some
frequency
associated
with
each
of
the
metrics.
Are
they
able
to
do
that?
Is
there
a
delay?
Do
those
data
need
to
settle
and
again
getting
a
little
bit
technical
here,
but
important
considerations
for
each
agency's
reporting
strategy
and
then
finally,
to
engage
policymakers
and
state
leaders
around
the
data?
Q
So,
to
get
folks
in
the
legislature,
in
the
governor's
office,
in
the
judiciary,
and
and
also
at
county
level,
government
excited
about
the
data
that
will
be
forthcoming
from
justice
counts,
so
to
help
them
know
the
state
system
at
a
at
a
a
higher
level,
as
well
as
to
know
how
local
and
county
systems
play
into
that
and
to
do
ideally
to
be
able
to
compare
between
jurisdictions
as
well.
Phase
five
is
ongoing
implementation
assistance.
Q
So
this
is
a
longer
phase
where
again
folks,
here
at
csg,
as
well
as
our
project
partners
and
state
leaders,
are
working
with
those
agencies
to
troubleshoot
any
issues
that
they
might
come
across
to
identify
a
second
tier
of
metrics
again,
if
we've
identified
the
priority
metrics
and
we're
making
progress
on
those.
What
are
the
other
metrics
that
we
want
to
then
start
to
prioritize
in
that
second
wave
to
get
again
additional
additional
data?
Q
We
want
to
recruit
additional
agencies,
so
we
certainly
again
don't
envision
that
all
hundred
plus
law
enforcement
agencies
in
the
data
will
be
on
board
right
away.
We'll
start
with
those
that
likely
have
more
data
capacity,
more
experience
and
then
we'll
slowly
branch
out
to
working
with
with
additional
agencies
to
deepen
the
impact
in
the
context
of
the
data
provided
by
justice
accounts
and
then
finally,
to
ensure
regular
use
of
that
data
and
policy
making.
Q
So
one
thing
to
highlight
this
as
a
resource
to
policy
makers
quite
another
for
them
to
be
coming
back
to
it
on
a
routine
basis.
You
know,
as
it
updates
in
a
very
timely
way
we
want
them
them
coming
back
to
look
at
trends
in
prison,
population
and
missions
releases
and
again,
hopefully
many
of
the
other
metrics
that
are
able
to
be
satisfied
there
in
nevada
and
then
finally
is
phase
six.
This
is
sustainability
and
additional
metrics.
So
you
heard
me
reference
the
second
tier
of
metrics
much
earlier
in
this
presentation.
Q
Q
So
we
want
to
work
with
the
state
of
nevada
and
other
founding
states
to
ensure
ongoing
access
to
the
digital
infrastructure
opportunities
for
future
ta
opportunities
for
expansion
to
hopefully
adopt
the
tier
2
metric,
continued
support
and
engagement
of
policy
makers
around
how
they
utilize
these
tools
and
utilize
these
data,
so
that
is
certainly
the
sustainability
phase
of
our
technical
assistance
plan.
Q
So
with
that,
I
promise
I'll
stop
talking.
I
know
we've
been
been
chatting
for
a
while
now
and
open
it
up
to
you.
Questions,
thoughts,
concerns
feedback,
anything
and
everything
we
are
certainly
open
to
here
to
hear
all
of
it.
I
believe
that
is
going
to
stop
our
share
at
this
point,
so
we
can
have
a
discussion.
A
E
Thank
you
chair
stiglitz.
So
first
question
I
have
is
the
amount
of
participants
in
the
data
you're
talking
about
is
immense,
just
washoe
county
alone
we're
on
the
district
attorney.
You
have
the
district
attorney's
office,
the
reno
city,
attorney's
office,
the
spark
city
attorney's
office.
Those
are
all
prosecuting
entities,
occasionally
the
attorney
general's
office
and
then
just
in
law
enforcement.
You
have
the
washington
sheriff's
office,
arena,
police
department,
sparks
police
department,
nevada,
state
police
and
then
several
other
smaller
entities.
E
What
concerns
me
is
how
you
will
get
all
these
entities
on
board.
This
commission
has
no
authority
to
order
any
of
those
those
entities
to
cooperate
to
provide
data,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
that
it's
I
I
want
to
make
it
clear.
I
think
your
your
initiative
is
commendable
and
I
think
it's
something
we
all
would
love
to
see,
provided
it
has
the
deep
granular
analysis
that
you've
commented
on
today.
E
E
Q
Well,
thank
you,
mr
hicks,
for
the
question.
It's
a
great
point.
It
is
one
that
we
have
certainly
thought
a
lot
about,
which
is,
is
the
number
of
stakeholders
and
entities
that
are
involved
in
an
initiative
like
this
and
conduct
in
putting
together
the
self-assessment
tool.
Q
We
did
a
count
of
relevant
age
agencies
in
each
state
and
again
they're
we're
aware
of
over
100
law
enforcement
agencies
in
the
state
of
nevada
alone.
We
know
there
to
be
18,
000,
plus
law
enforcement
agencies
across
the
nation,
30
3
100,
I
believe,
plus
jails
across
the
country
and
so
again,
certainly
aware
and
mindful
of
of
the
number
of
stakeholders
and
entities
that
would
be
involved
in
something
like
this.
Q
That
said,
I
I
think
it
is
important
to
remember
that
the
metrics
were
oriented
around
data
that
is
commonly
collected
by
these
entities,
that
many
of
these
entities
operate
using
case
management
systems
that
are
provided
by
a
you
know,
a
national
vendor
that
operate
in
similar
ways
that
you
know
once
someone,
perhaps
at
a
larger
agency
or
the
state
agency
is,
is
aware
and
able
to
you
know,
collect
the
data
necessary
and
enter
the
data
necessary
for
their
own
agency,
that
they
can
provide
assistance
to
smaller
and
other
agencies
in
that
area
as
well.
Q
I
think
we
are
looking
for
entities
at
the
state
level,
including
the
nevada
sentencing
commission,
to
champion
justice
counts,
which,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
is
a
voluntary
project,
unlike
other
federal
data
initiatives
such
as
the
bureau
of
justice
assistance,
I'm
sorry,
bureau
of
justice,
statistics,
collection
of
probation,
parole
data
or
the
national
corrections
reporting
program,
or
even
the
fbi's
national
incident-based
reporting
system
or
neighbors
data
for
neighbor's
system
for
law
enforcement,
data
participation
and
justice
counts
is
ultimately
voluntary.
Q
Certainly,
larger
entities
participating
in
larger
agencies
participating
that
speak
to
or
that
cover
a
larger
sector
or
proportion
of
the
population
in
the
state
are,
are
helpful
in
that
those
agencies,
you
know
again
demonstrate
trends
and
simply
just
cover
more
more
of
the
population,
so
there
is
a
lot
to
be
thinking
about
there,
katie
and
and
matt.
I
wonder
if
you
have
additions
to
that
as
well.
Q
H
Thanks
matt
hi
everyone,
my
name
is
katie
moshauer,
I'm
the
program
director
for
justice
council
thanks
again
for
having
us,
and
I
apologize
for
not
being
on
video,
I'm
at
a
conference
or
the
internet
is
not
not
strong
or
there's
too
many
of
us
for
what
we've
got
available.
I
think
just
the
last
thing
I'd
add
to
what
ben
and
matt
mentioned
was
that
justice
counts
has
more
and
more
value
than
more
agencies
that
participate,
but
it
isn't
an
all
or
nothing
sum
game
and.
H
Agency
that
starts
to
contribute.
You
know.
Data
actually
starts
the
snowball
rolling
down
the
hill
in
terms
of
what
we
know
so
you're,
absolutely
right
that
you
don't
necessarily
need
a
broad
authority
to
mandate,
but
that
that's
part
of
the
role
of
the
csu
justice
center
as
one
of
the
ta
providers
for
the
project,
is
to
be
out
there
pounding
the
pavement
and
helping
to
make
a
really
strong
case
for
reporting
some
data
from
as
many
agencies
as
we
can
get
on
board.
E
Thank
you.
I
have.
I
have
a
few
other
questions,
but
one
comment
I'd
like
to
make
in
regards
to
that
question.
So
I'm
appointed
on
this
commission
by
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association,
which
represents
the
all
the
elected
district
attorneys
in
the
state
of
nevada.
There's
other
individuals
on
this
commission
that
have
similar
roles.
For
example,
chief
bayes
is
appointed
by
the
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association,
which
represents
all
the
a
vast
majority
of
the
sheriffs
and
chiefs
in
our
state.
E
My
point
would
be,
it
would
be.
Very
I
don't
know
if
a
motion
is
is
something
to
be
contemplated
today,
but
it
would
be
very
difficult
for
myself,
for
example,
to
give
any
input
as
to
whether
or
not
we
should
embrace
this
without
me
at
least
going
to
my
association.
E
You
need
significant
contribution.
I
doubt
that
any
of
you
would
agree
with
disagree
with
that.
So
that's
just
one
point
I
wanted
to
make
a
few
other
questions.
I
had
so
data
data
data.
Everybody
here
loves
that
word
data
as
we've
all
I've
been
on
this
commission,
since
it
started,
as
we
all
have
learned
is,
is
not
easy.
E
It
is
very
complicated,
especially
in
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
might
there
are
just
so
many
variables
that
have
to
be
considered,
and
so
one
thing
that
troubled
me
a
bit
when
I
looked
at
the
metrics
that
your
entity
is
putting
forward
for
justice
counts.
Is
that
one
they
may
be
too
general
and
and
and
there
are
some
other
concerns
I
have
so
I
guess
my
preliminary
question
is:
if
we
were
to
engage
with
justice
counts.
Can
we
change
the
metrics.
Q
H
Okay,
that
is
a
great
question
that
I'm
actually
curious.
If
you
want
to
take
a
first
go
out,
and
then
I
can
elaborate
a
little
bit
more,
maybe
about
the
breakdowns
that
we're
working
on
some
additional
components
of
tier
one.
Q
Sure
sure,
so
again,
thank
you
for
the
question,
mr
hicks.
We
are
working
right
now
on
a
series
of
what
we're
calling
technical
implementation
guides
that,
as
they've
highlighted
in
her
portion
of
the
presentation
today,
do
provide
additional
context
and
definition
around
each
of
the
metrics,
so
certainly
understandable
that
in
looking
at
them
in
their
in
their
current
iteration
on
the
website
that
they
seem
to
be
to
be
too
general.
Q
But
we
are
working
on
providing
additional
definition
to
each
of
those
to
include
components
that
we
would
recommend
that
agencies
include
or
exclude
again
if
they
have
the
ability
to
to
analyze
and
collect
data
in
those
ways.
So
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
And
again,
as
viva
noted
there
are,
there
is
an
opportunity
for
each
participating
agency
to
utilize
their
own
definition
for
what
what
is
contained
in
in
those
metrics.
Q
So
you
know
we
talk
about
use
of
force,
for
example
in
a
correctional
context,
and
that
you
cannot
just
compare
use
of
force
data
from
one
agency
to
another,
because
definition
of
use
of
force
in
those
agencies
differs
significantly.
So
we
want
to
be
sure
that
agencies
participating
can
attach
their
definition
and
their
metadata
to
whatever
they
report
through
through
just
through
justice
council,
that
that
definition
cannot
be
divorced
from
the
the
data
that
they
they
present
and
then.
Q
Secondly,
I
would
say
that
the
tier
1
metrics
are
effectively
a
baseline,
from
which
we
would
encourage
states
and
agencies
to
conduct
more
granular
analysis
to
also
report
additional
metrics
as
they
as
they
see
fit.
We
are
working
on
a
second
tier
of
metrics,
as
I
noticed,
but
again
a
noted,
but
again
we
would
encourage
states
that
are
dealing
with
their
own
policy
issues
and
and
their
own
areas
of
emphasis
or
focus
to
expand
on
those
metrics
as
they
as
they
see
fit.
Hello
kitty,
I
don't
know
if
that's
helpful
or
you've
got
additions.
H
Yeah
that
was
very
helpful,
thanks
ben,
so
a
few
additional
pieces
is
that
the
the
metrics
that
we
displayed
both
on
the
website
and
like
that
matrix
that
ben
showed
earlier.
Those
are
like
the
formal
like
top-line
metrics,
and
there
are
also
up
to
about
five
breakdowns
that
are
will
also
be
published
underneath
each
of
those.
H
For
example,
if
you're
looking
at
prison
admissions,
there
will
be
breakdowns
by
things
like
you
know,
like
violent
offense,
property
offense,
you
know
public
order,
events
and
other,
so
there
will
be
some
additional
layers
that
are
still
forthcoming,
that
are
also
very
custom
of
customizable
by
the
state
definition
of
what
could
be
incorporated.
So
there
will
be
a
little
bit
more
detail,
even
within
tier
one
than
what
was
kind
of
on
the
page
today.
H
But
I
do
think
that,
as
you
mentioned
your
role
in
an
association,
there
could
be
some
guidance.
You
know
given
to
you
know,
for
example,
district
attorney
offices
in
nevada
that
we'd
all
really
like
to
use
this
field
to
measure
this
kind
of
thing,
and
then
that
can
be
put
in
the
context.
Notes
that
you
all
really
think
that
it's
important
to
measure
you
know
a
specific
metric
in
a
specific
way
and
that
we
can
help
configure
for
you.
H
So
while
the
framework
for
what's
included
in
the
digital
infrastructure,
will
you
know,
be
a
little
bit
static,
there's
ways
you
can
manipulate
it.
I'll
also
mention
that
we're
building
on
an
open
source
platform,
which
means
that
if
there
are
really
custom
metrics
that
are
critical
to
what
nevada
sees
as
the
important
pieces,
there
are
ways
you
could
kind
of
bring
in
some
engineering
resources
to
add
whatever
you
want
to
kind
of
go
on
top
of
and
in
addition
to
what
exists.
E
Thank
you,
so
you
brought
you
brought.
You
gave
me
a
segue
to
another
point.
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about
so,
for
example,
prison
admissions.
When
I
look
at
the
metrics
on
your
prison
admissions.
E
Give
me
one
second,
as
you
just
as
you
just
indicated
new
admit,
like
you
break
it
down
into,
was
it
a
lifetime,
a
life,
prison
admission,
a
life
sentence
or
just
a
prison
sentence
or,
and
then,
as
you
said,
it
might
break
it
down
further
into
a
property
offense
a
victim
crime,
but
but
we
already
have
that
we
have
that
readily
available.
E
Our
director
and
her
department
have
been
wonderful
about
providing
us
that
data
that
data
is
not
enough,
because
what
we
we
we've
seen
for
years
is,
you
might
have
two
defendants,
both
of
which
were
sentenced
on
a
burglary
offense
and
because
of
the
demographic
breakdown
that
you
have
in
here
that
you
hope
to
collect.
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
use
specific
demographics,
there
may
be
an
african-american
defendant
and
a
and
a
caucasian
defendant
both
charged
with
a
burglary
one
may
get
a
four
to
ten
prison
sentence.
E
One
may
get
a
two
to
five
prison
sentence
and
if
the,
if
the
data
only
goes
down
that
far,
the
the
very
one
of
the
conclusions
that's
going
to
be
reached
is
well.
There's
there's
inequity
in
the
system
because
the
african-american
inmate
got
a
larger
sentence
than
the
caucasian
one,
or
vice
versa.
E
But
when
you
I'm
comfortable
in
saying
having
been
a
prosecutor
for
20
years,
worked
in
three
different
da
offices
in
our
state
that
the
the
whole
story
is
probably
that
one
of
those
defendants
had
committed
multiple
burglaries
and
perhaps
it
was
reduced
down
to
one
for
a
plea.
Bargain
or
one
of
those
defendants
had
a
significantly
larger
criminal
history.
E
And
if
we
don't
collect
that
data
too,
the
data
becomes
misleading,
and
so
that
is
to
to
the
point
that
I
think
it
was
katie
just
brought
up
I'm
interested
in
and
how
far
those
metrics
are
going
to
go.
E
Because
that's
something
we've
talked
about
for
a
long
time
in
this
commission
and
it's
essential,
and
I
will
say
that
the
director
we
have
right
now
in
that
in
our
department
have
already
come
up
with
some
incredible
reports
that
do
show
those
very
metrics
those
very
important
variables,
so
that
that
is
one
of
the
many
concerns
I
have
about.
The
metrics
is:
how
far
are
you
going
to
go
on
the
variables
that
are
out
there?
E
E
Commission
are
to
to
put
it,
to
put
it
very
generally,
there's
a
statute
that
lays
out
all
the
duties,
but
to
summarize
it-
and
this
is
on
the
website-
is
to
make
data-driven
recommendations
for
sentencing
and
corrections,
evaluate
the
effectiveness
and
fiscal
impact
of
sentencing,
with
consideration
for
certain
objectives
and
goals
for
sentencing
and
tracking
and
access
accessing
the
outcomes
of
ab236.
E
That's
the
that
is
the
duties
statutorily
by
that
this
statutorily
created
commission
has
I
struggle
with
how
a
lot
of
these
metrics
fall
within
the
duties
of
this
commission,
for
example,
I
start
with
law
enforcement
tier
one
metrics.
I
don't.
I
just
see
a
lot
of
this
as
being
outside
the
wheelhouse
of
the
sentencing
commission,
for
example,
the
annual
budget
of
all
our
law
enforcement
entities.
E
I
don't
know
how
that's
relevant
to
the
duties
of
the
nevada
sentencing
commission,
the
use
of
force
incidents
by
law
enforcement
entities
again
I'd
very
important
data
to
have
very
important
to
analyze,
but
I
don't
know
that
it
falls
within
the
duty,
statutory
duties
of
this
commission
fairness.
E
The
total
number
of
civilian
complaints
sustained
by
law
enforcement
agencies
again
has
nothing
to
do
to
do
with
sentencing,
with
corrections
with
ab236.
With
the
mission
of
this
the
duties
of
this
sentencing,
commission,
I
look
at
the
prosecution
entities.
The
total
number
of
attorneys
my
office
might
have.
I
have
a
criminal
division
and
a
civil
division
has
nothing.
You
know
all
my
civil
deputies
really
have
nothing
to
do
with
corrections
with
sentencing
with
ab236.
E
I
don't
know
how
that
metric
has
anything
to
do
with
the
duties
of
this
commission,
and
so
that's
why
I
think
it's
important
to
know
if
we
can
use
the
kind
of
tailor
these
metrics
to
what's
the
duties
of
this
commission,
because
if
the
overall,
if
the,
if
it's
an
all
or
nothing
proposition,
I
I
think
you're
going
to
have
a
very
difficult
time
getting
entities
in
our
state
to
buy
on
to
it,
so
that
that
is
a
I'm
sure.
You've
heard
it
before.
E
E
E
You
know.
I
think
it
would
be
incredibly
valuable
to
have
a
victims
of
crime
metric
that
would
lay
out
all
the
demographics
of
the
victims
of
crime
just
like
for
four
defendants,
and
perhaps
you
have
a
metric
for
restitution
ordered
for
victims
of
crime
and
then
another
metric
of
restitution
actually
collected
for
victims
of
crime.
So
I
think
there
is
an
underrepresentation
of
a
very
important
element
of
the
criminal
justice
system
in
these
metrics
and
I'm
curious,
if
you
guys
have
ever
thought
about
that
or
if
that
is
something
that
you
would
add.
H
Thank
you
so
much
for
that.
Really
through
a
list
of
questions,
I
have
good
news
for
you.
We've
thought
about
all
of
those
things,
so
I
really
appreciate
that
you
are
hitting
a
lot
of
the
highlights
that
we've
heard
in
a
lot
of
places.
So
I
think
there
was
three
key
things
that
I
think
I
can
respond
to.
One
was
like
the
existing
availability
of
some
data
or
the
depth
of
the
metrics.
H
So,
in
the
the
first
part
about
the
like
available
data,
you
currently
have
from
corrections
that
makes
total
sense
to
me
that
your
you
know
doc
was
able
to
produce
some
really
valuable,
exciting
data
and
that's
true
in
most
states,
you
know,
department
of
corrections
in
particular
have
the
most
capacity
for
data
in
most
states,
so
we
definitely
see
just
discounts
as
not
being
the
end-all
be-all
for
data.
H
We
know
that
there's
really
common
go-to
things
that
guests
get
asked
every
session
or
really
regularly
that
this
can
hopefully
take
some
of
that
off
of
their
plate
so
that
they
can
dedicate
their
resources
a
little
differently.
We
also
know
that
not
every
sector
has
the
same
resources
as
a
doc
in
terms
of
their
research
capacity.
H
You
also
mentioned
you
know.
The
really
important
part
about
equity
is
that
if
you
get
a
little
slice
of
an
equity
metric,
you
can
jump
to
the
wrong
conclusion
and
that's
really
important
and
very
carefully
considered
in
the
way
that
the
metrics
are
constructed
as
well.
The
equity
metric
really
focuses
on
kind
of
following
people
through
the
system,
so
we
can
really
think
about
our
disparities
increasing
or
decreasing.
H
So
we're
not
going
to
get
to
the
level
of
the
example
that
you
gave
in
these
metrics
specifically
because
it
would
be
just
enough
to
get
people
to
the
wrong
conclusion
and
not
enough
to
do
something
useful.
So
we
are
trying
to
right-size
the
information
a
little
bit
to
avoid
some
of
those
really
big
pitfalls
that
we've
seen
happen
and
happy
to
follow
up
on
any
of
this
offline
or
in
follow-up
questions
as
well.
So
your
second
point
about
the
purview
of
the
committee.
H
I
absolutely
hear
you
and
understand
that
the
budget
piece
we
put
in
because
we
thought
about
like
the
decisions
that
policy
makers
make
are
often
around
budget
and,
if
you
don't
know,
what's
being
dedicated
or
how
much
an
agency
is
sourcing
from
grants,
you
don't
really
know
what
they
need
to
do
their
jobs
effectively.
So
that
was
a
little
bit
of
like
why
we
thought
that
that
might
be
something
everyone
would
want
to
know.
H
But
viva
showed
a
screen
in
the
presentation
where
there
were
little
toggles
next
to
each
of
the
overall
metric
categories
and
any
agency
or
any
state
can
say
you
know
what
we
can
recommend
that
you
report
on
the
metrics
that
are
under
our
purview
and
the
other
ones
are
up
to
you.
So
any
agency
can
say
you
know
what
this
use
of
force
thing
is
not
really
something.
That's.
You
know
required
by
my
commission,
I'm
not
going
to
report
that,
so
there
is
flexibility
so
that
you
wouldn't
be
getting
yourself
outside
of
your
scope.
H
If
there
was
a
recommendation
to
proceed
with
justice
counts
because
it
could
be
like
a
qualified
or
a
narrow
approach.
That
fits
your
mission.
So
just
to
reiterate
that
point
and
third
on
the
victim's
piece,
I
absolutely
think
that
that's
an
incredibly
important
call
out
so
on
the
feasibility
metric
in
the
first
round,
we
found
that
a
lot
of
the
metrics
associated
with
victims
we're
not
meeting
our
feasibility
bar.
We
also
know
that
behavioral
health
is
thoroughly
lacking
as
our
re-entry
metrics.
H
So
those
are
pieces
that
we
believe
that
we
believe
that
we
are
prioritizing
for
inclusion
in
tier
two
and
as
part
of
the
tier
two
development
process,
we'll
also
be
seeing
if
there
are
any
victim-centric
metrics
that
we
could
elevate
back
to
tier
one,
because
we
do
believe
that
there
are
elements
for
victim
services
and
our
obligations
to
victims.
That
should
be
measured
at
every
point
in
the
system
that
are
not
currently,
you
know
forward-facing
that
need
to
be
thinned
there.
So
that
is
to
come.
We're
hoping
we
know.
H
E
When
do
you
expect
to
have
that
done,
I
mean,
would
it
be
better
to
reconsider
this
opportunity
once
you
you
all
have
have
have
have
gained
that
the
realization
of
those
additional
needs?
Because
and
I'm
not
I'm
not
being
disrespectful
to
your
particular
agency.
E
I
will
just
say
there
is
a
history
in
nevada
of
entities
coming
from
outside
of
our
state,
taking
certain
positions
on
our
criminal
justice
data
that
have
had
lasting
implications
on
on
criminal
justice
in
our
state,
and
it's
really
there
has
been
promises
made,
but
not
necessarily
the
data
it
never
came
to
fruition,
and
so
I
I
feel
like
it's
a
duty
of
mine
based
on
the
entity.
E
I
represent
to
raise
those
issues
because
we
don't
want
to
be
a
year
into
this
and
then
come
to
the
realization
that
that
what
was
talked
about
as
being
something
you
may
do
in
tier
two
never
happened,
and
so
you
know
I
I
don't
want
to
go
on
too
long.
I
could
because
I
do
have
grave
concerns
about
this,
but
I
I
do
want
to
share
them
with
you
because,
as
I
said,
I
I
think
it's
a
commendable
mission.
E
I
just
I'm
not
convinced
yet
that
it's
something
that
this
commission
based
on
our
statutory
duties
should
should
take
on
and-
and
I
I
don't
say
that
lightly-
it's
it
helps
me
to
say
it
because
I
know
how
good
of
a
job
our
department
of
sentencing
policy
is
doing
right
now.
So
my
question
is:
is
it
an
absolute
commitment
by
your
organization
to
work
directly
with
our
department
of
sentencing
policy?
H
Yeah,
it
is,
I
feel,
very
confident.
The
whole
idea
of
the
founding
state
program
is
that,
like
there
is
an
immense
amount
of
effort
that
went
into
a
consensus
building
process,
but
when
the
rubber
hits
the
road
we're
going
to
learn
a
lot
and
the
founding
states
are
going
to
shape
this
program
immensely,
and
that
is
really
a
critical
element
of
the
founding
state
program
is
to
understand
what
is
working.
What
isn't?
H
We've
made
a
commitment
to
bja
as
well
to
review
the
metrics
on
a
very
regular
basis
and
to
bring
recommendations
about
what's
working
and
what's
not
and
what
needs
to
be
changed
and
added.
We
have
also.
We
have
made
the
commitment
to
include
victims
metrics
going
forward,
so
that
is
something
that
is
in
our
public
facing
materials
and
that
we
have
made
to
all
of
our
constituents
so
that
there
is
like
a
good
faith.
You
know
offer
on
the
table
to
be
collaborators
in
the
process
together.
E
I'm
going
to
stop
with
my
questions,
I'm
taking
up
a
lot
of
time,
but
I
I
thank
you
all
very
much
for
your
time
and
I
I
really
strongly
encourage
you
to
consider
some
of
the
issues
I've
raised,
because
I
I
would
just
hate
for
us
to
see
hate
for
this
commission
to
get
in
an
area
where
we're
not
getting
any
better
data
than
we're.
Then
we're
already
managing
to
do
or
as
an
entity,
and
I
don't
want
it
to
be
misleading.
So
thank
you
very
much.
E
I
I
would,
if
we
do
in
fact
move
this
along
to
another
to
a
formal
vote
at
another
meeting.
I
would
very
much
like
to
take
you
up
on
that.
B
Victoria
gonzalez,
for
the
record,
I
appreciate
this
conversation.
Our
entity
never
existed
before.
It's
really
exciting
to
have
this
agency
here.
The
problem
has
been,
nothing
was
ever
centralized
and
it's
their
conversations
that
I
don't
know
if
they
were
started
if
they
were
continued
there,
but
the
intent
for
my
vision
for
this.
Our
agency
and
this
commission
is
to
be
the
leader
in
criminal
justice
data.
B
The
concern
that
I
have
as
well
about
previous
entities
coming
in
and
conducting
studies
was
they
were
doing
their
data
collection
for
their
purpose
and
they
move
along,
and
there
was
nobody
in
place
to
continue
the
data
after
they
did
it,
and
I
am
our
agency-
is
there
to
stop
that
cycle,
and
this
commission
is
tasked
with
a
very
important
duty
in
being
a
criminal
justice
data
leader
and
I
think,
there's
a
way
to
think
about.
You
know:
we've
been
in
existence
for
two
and
a
half
years.
B
Where
are
we
going
to
go
next
and
we
are
setting
the
stage
for
nevada
we're
doing
something
that
wasn't
done
before,
and
I'm
really
excited
about
that,
and
I'm
excited
about
the
conversation
for
this
commission
to
have,
because
we
get
to
bring
these
concerns
to
the
table
and
figure
out.
What
are
we
going
to
do
next?
A
couple
of
things.
I
would.
B
I
really
appreciate
the
partnership
with
every
member
on
this
commission
and
I
appreciate
what
district
attorney
hicks
is
bringing
as
a
concern
that
I
think,
makes
sense
from
what
has
happened
previously
and
I
would
like
to
make
sure
my
vision
is
expressed
in
this
meeting
and
I've
talked
to
justice
counts.
I've
talked
to
all
the
commissioners
about
this,
but
I
want
to
remind
everyone
of
that,
as
we
move
forward
that
my
statutory
duty
as
the
director
is
to
collect
data
from
every
criminal
justice
agency.
B
I
am
so
it
lists
specific
agencies
in
my
statutory
duties
and
then
it
adds
and
any
other
criminal
justice
agency.
I
already
have
that
separate
from
the
commission
are
its
duties,
but
they
do
align
and
where
I
see
us,
we
are
asked
to
provide
resources
to
the
commission,
and
so
I
think
our
agency,
being
the
point
of
contact
and
the
leader
in
the
data
is
very
important
in
this.
B
For
what
comes
next
and
and
is
consistent
with
my
statutory
duty,
an
example
I
can
think
of
too,
where
we
are
already
getting
requests
for
data
that
if
we
can
centralize
it
can
come
through
our
agency.
I
already
came
across
a
request
for
data
regarding
doc.
B
Metrics,
it's
data
we
already
collect
the
entity,
tried
to
contact
doc
directly
and
I
worked
with
doc
to
say:
send
them
our
way.
We
will
take
care
of
this
metric.
We
will
take
care
of
reporting
this
and
we
will
make
sure
the
variable
is
defined
appropriately,
and
I
already
noticed
where
there
was
a
concern
with
the
variable
that
they
wanted
to
collect
and
how
it
had
been
previously
collected,
and
I'm
going
to
work
with
that
entity
to
correct
that
definition
and
make
sure
the
data
is
properly
corrected.
B
It
probably
reported-
and
I
see
justice
counts
as
being
similar.
There
is
this
effort
to
create
these
dashboards
and
to
create
this
data
across
for
every
single
state,
and
if
we
centralize
it,
we
can
provide
the
information
that
will
be
consistent
and
reliable
if
it
goes
through
us.
I
just
wanted.
That
is
my
vision
for
this
by
us,
working
with
justice
counts.
B
We
collect
this
information,
we
would
enter
in
the
metrics
and
and
work
with
the
agencies,
but
it
would
still
come
through
us
because
it's
almost
like,
I
see
us
reporting
this
for
the
purpose
of
the
justice
council
effort
and
in
case
anything
would
ever
happen.
I
don't
think
it
will.
We
already
have
the
data.
We
can
keep
it
going
right.
B
So
I
wanted
to
add
that,
as
part
of
my
vision
and
I
will
say
that
when
we're
in
the
business
of
analyzing
data
related
sentencing
corrections,
it
gets
really
fuzzy
really
fast
about
where
it
should
come
from,
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
even
today-
and
I
was
thinking
about
all
the
times-
I've
been
asked
to
make
comparisons
to
other
metrics
requires
me
to
try
and
get
this
from
other
entities.
B
At
a
previous
meeting,
we've
talked
about
cost
avoided.
We've
been
asked
to
analyze
the
cost
diverted
from
the
local
that
are
being
diverted
back
to
local
jurisdictions
to
make
that
as
a
full
cost
analysis.
That's
something
I
want
to
do
with
our
analysis,
and
I
would
say
this
is
consistent
with
that
data.
We
would
collect
for
that
fiscal
analysis.
B
It
gets
broad
and
I'm
I'm
not
afraid
of
that,
and
I
I
trust
the
relationship
I
have
with
this
commission
and
that
I
have
with
my
staff
that
we
will
all
work
together
to
make
sure
that
we
agree
on
the
metrics
and
how
we
want
to
collect
it.
So
we
can
again
break
this
cycle
of
how
criminal
justice
data
is
being
collected
and
shared,
and
it's
going
to
be.
B
I
think
some
growing
pains
to
figure
that
out,
but
I
appreciate
the
input
and
just
wanted
to
offer
that
as
some
of
the
my
vision
of
what
I
I
see
for
that
and
what
I
see
for
the
opportunities-
and
I
I
don't
want
to
be
afraid-
to
collect
data
from
everywhere
and
then
have
it
housed
in
our
agency,
and
we
can
truly
be
a
criminal
justice
data
hub
as
I've
articulated
for
anything
and
then
any
requests
that
were
submitted
from
any
entity,
whether
it's
local
or
from
a
national
perspective
can
come
through
us.
A
Thank
you,
director
chief
base.
R
Q
Thank
you
chief
for
that
question.
We
do
not
have
an
assessment
of
costs
per
agency
would
obviously
be
different
for
every
every
agency.
Q
We
have
had
agencies
that
are
testing
the
infrastructure
right
now
and
utilizing
the
metrics
right
now
that
have
said
that
it
is
very
quick
and
easy
for
them
to
participate
and
and
really
doesn't
incur
much
of
any
additional
cost,
and
we've
had
agencies
that
have
been
on
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum
as
well,
where
it
does
require
more
staff
time
for
them
to
to
participate,
but
I
do
not
have
an
estimate
of
those
costs
with
regard
to
grant
opportunities
again.
This
is
a
federally
funded
effort.
Q
We
back
back
at
the
end
of
I
believe
june.
There
was
a
an
opportunity,
through
bja,
for
states
to
sign
up
to
receive
funding
to
participate
in
justice
counts.
That
opportunity
has
now
closed,
although
I
believe,
hopefully,
I'm
not
speaking
out
of
term
when
I
say
that
I
believe
there
may
be
future
funding
opportunities
again
for
state-level
entities,
primarily
with
regard
to
funding
for
local
entities
to
participate.
Q
H
Yeah,
that's
a
great
summary.
I
think
the
couple
of
additional
pieces
that
we've
really
been
thinking
about
are
how
we
can
leverage
the
researchers
on
our
team
and
some
of
the
contractors
in
our
scope
to
help
write
some
of
those
reports.
So
a
little
bit
of
how
can
we
take
on
some
of
that
technical
cost
of
helping
to
pull
data
that
currently
exists?
The
other
piece
is
that
we
really
want
to
recognize
is
meeting
agencies
where
they're
at
with
starting
with
data
that
exists
and
then
moving
forward.
H
R
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
then
just
some
follow
up
on
the
reporting
part
of
it.
Are
there
any
states
that
have
got
farther
along
where
there's
some
available
reports
or
data
that
to
look
at
and
then
also
when
you
do
and
at
the
point
when
you
do
collect?
All
of
that
is
the
raw
data
then
continually
available
to
whatever
state
or
entity
that
it's
collected
from.
Q
Chief
again,
this
is
a
new,
a
relatively
new
project,
where
only
about
two
and
a
half
years
in
in
terms
of
actual
operation
and
enough
to
speed
on
justice,
counts
and
and
the
tier
one
metrics
were
only
released
back
in
may.
So
we
do
not
yet
have
any
states
that
are
on
board
so
to
speak
or
fully
fully
up
and
running
in
terms
of
providing
data
through
the
infrastructure.
Q
So,
unfortunately,
no
nowhere
to
guide
guide
you
all
on
that
again,
we
do
have
agencies
that
are
testing
the
infrastructure
right
now
and
utilizing
that
and
that's
a
question
that
I
can
turn
back
to
the
team.
Q
H
No
worries
yeah,
there's
a
cohort
of
states
that
are
in
a
very
similar
space
to
you.
So
you
all
are
the
front
runners,
but
I've
been
mentioned.
It's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
until
we
have
an
active
example
to
be
able
to
share
directly,
but
you
mentioned,
like
will
data
be
available
in
an
ongoing
way
to
states
that
are
participating
and
the
answer
is
yeah.
H
So
the
idea
is
once
data
has
been
like
released
to
public
facing
dashboards,
that
there
would
be
ways
to
download
that
that
aggregate
data
either
in
chart
form
or
an
excel
form,
so
that,
like
you,
all,
could
see
it
and
use
it
and
from
the
individual
agency
perspective,
the
control
panel
allows
a
lot
of
access
behind
the
scenes
to
the
data,
as
well
as
to
making
updates
and
adjustments
as
well.
R
H
We're
really
thinking
about
you
know
what
are
the
protective
factors
so,
for
example,
under
public
safety,
are
there
metrics
around
things
like
releases
with
housing
or
with
employment
that
could
be
measured
there
as
a
way
to
measure
successful
re-entry
efforts
and
pieces
like
that?
So
those
are
the
three
primary
elements
that
are
not
currently
represented
in
the
metrics
that
you
can't
anticipate,
seeing
we'll
be
kicking
off
the
tier
two
process
mid-september
there
will
be
a
public
comment
period
on
the
metrics
across
all
the
sectors
in
early
2023
and
then
in
may
of
2023.
M
Even
looking
at
number
two,
it
says
evaluate
the
effectiveness
and
fiscal
impact
of
various
policies
and
practices
regarding
sentencing
sentencing
which
are
employed
in
the
state
and
other
states,
including
without
limitation.
The
use
of
plea,
bargaining,
probation
programs
of
enhanced
supervision,
programs
of
regimental
discipline,
imprisonment,
sentencing
recommendations,
mandatory
and
minimum
sentences
mandatory
sentences
for
crimes.
The
list
goes
on
so
at
the
ag's
office.
M
One
of
the
things
that
has
been
enough
frustrating
for
me,
working
in
in
the
state
and
I've
had
this
conversation
with
ms
gonzalez
on
many
occasions-
is
that
we
are
the
legislature,
often
tasks
the
ag's
office
with
collecting
data.
M
They
also
task
the
the
department
of
parole
and
probation
with
collecting
data
and
the
department
of
public
safety
with
collecting
data,
and
I've
had
conversations
with
leaders
within
those
other
departments,
and
we
all
lament
on
how
the
data
is
difficult
to
come
by
and
how
we
are
decentralized
in
nevada,
which,
in
and
of
itself,
isn't
necessarily
a
bad
thing.
But
as
we
are
trying
to
make
data
driven
and
driven
recommendations
to
the
legislature,
it
hurts
us
when
we
don't
have
the
data
to
look
at.
M
And
so
I
think
that
what
this
proposes
is
in
line
with
the
duties
of
the
sentencing
commission
and
from
a
state
perspective.
I
think
that
it
will
help
us
in
fulfilling
some
of
the
mandates.
The
legislature
has
put
on
not
only
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
but
other
offices
within
the
state
of
nevada,
who
don't
have
the
resources
or
don't
currently
have
the
resources
to
collect
the
data
or
are
not,
or
as
they
reach
out
to
the
local
entities.
M
Those
local
entities
don't
have
the
resources
to
or
the
wherewithal
to
have
already
collected
this
data.
So
I
think
this
will
help
one
thing.
I
would
like
to
speak
with
you
all
if
we
do
move
forward
on
this
about
rural
nevada
and
what
you
are
going
to
do
to
help
states
to
help
the
sheriffs,
the
prosecutors
and
so
forth
in
rural
nevada,
collect
and
report
out
on
this
data.
Thank
you.
A
A
If,
mr
callaway,
you
can
just
run
point
for
me
until
the
senator
gets
back
that'd
be
great.
A
N
We
did
have
a
couple
questions
your
honor
and
I
was
one
so
I'll.
Stop
I'll
start
with
me.
If
that's
okay.
First
of
all,
I
I
I'm
going
to
keep
my
comments
brief,
because
I
think
d.a
hicks
touched
on
a
lot
of
my
concerns.
N
This
is
a
broken
record
and
we're
back,
in
my
opinion,
starting
the
same
process
over.
We
have
a
entity
from
outside
of
the
state
of
nevada
coming
in
to
collect
our
data
for
us,
which
we
have
it's
or
if
we
don't
have
it,
we
have
the
capability
to
to
determine
how
to
obtain
it
and
how
to
use
it
for
our
own
needs.
I
don't
I
don't
in
my
opinion,
believe
we
need
to
have
another
outside
entity.
N
Come
in
to
do
this,
and
in
looking
at
the
presentation
I
mean
I
have
a
number
of
questions
about
the
ma
metrics,
I
believe
the
metrics.
Just
when
I
looked
at
it
is
very
generic
in
nature.
It
doesn't
take
into
account
it
talks
about
number
of
arrests
calls
for
service.
It
doesn't
take
into
account,
for
example,
just
one
of
many
examples
in
metro's
jurisdiction
we
have
43
million
tourists
a
year.
How
do
they
play
into
these
metrics?
We
handle?
N
N
You
know,
for
example,
programs
that
law
enforcement
uses
in
lieu
of
arrest,
such
as
the
harbor
or
diversion
programs
to
avoid
arrest-
and
you
know
again
I
agree
with
with
mr
hicks-
and
I
I
respect
the
comments
made
by
vice
chair
brady,
but
I
don't
see
how
you
know
the
department's
annual
budget,
or
maybe
even
use
of
forced
data
fits
in
with
the
statutory
obligations
of
the
sentencing
commission
when
it
comes
to
to
sentencing
you
know,
of
course,
we
already
report
use
of
forced
data,
but
in
this
metrics
it's
not
clear
on
what
that
is.
N
N
I'm
also
concerned.
I
think
commissioner
bay
talked
about
this.
One
about
is
our.
If
we're
all.
If
the
goal
is
to
collect
data
that
we're
already
collecting
and
compile
this
data.
Okay,
fine,
you
know
it's
out
there,
but
if
the
goal
is
to
collect
additional
data,
then
how
is
that
collected?
N
We
have
to
use
our
department
resources,
we
have
to
assign
people
to
start
collecting
this
data,
or
is
it
incumbent
upon
an
officer
in
the
field
to
collect
this
data
on
car
stops,
for
example,
or
calls
for
service,
and
then
does
that
increase
the
time
of
response
for
calls?
N
There's
just
a
lot
of
unanswered
questions
when
it
comes
into
this
and
I'm
concerned
about
how,
once
the
data
being
collected,
the
interoperability
between
the
agencies
with
this
data,
because,
for
example,
it
was
mentioned
that
an
agency
could
opt
out
or
an
agency
could
report
based
on
their
own
metrics.
So
if,
if
lvmpda
is
reporting,
certain
metrics
but
washoe
county
is
reporting
different
metrics,
and
this
is
all
going
into
the
same
pool
of
data.
How
is
this
data,
then,
being
analyzed
correctly
to
determine
for
our
use?
N
I
guess
if
it's
muddy
data
from
from
different
metrics
and
then
finally,
I
guess
I'll
just
leave
it
on
this-
is
that
a
comment
was
made
at
the
end
where
it
says.
After
this
you
know
trial
period
or
or
whatnot
that
an
agent
we
can
discuss
ongoing
access
to
the
digital
structure.
N
So
that
makes
me
wonder:
is
the
intent
to
compile
all
of
this
data
into
some
type
of
a
digital
structure
that
is
owned
in
essence
by
justice,
counts
and
then
moving
forward?
If
we
decide
not
to
participate
or
we
don't
have
additional
grant
funding,
then
that
data
belongs
to
justice
counts
and
we
no
longer
have
access
to
it,
I'm
not
sure,
quite
on
on
how
that
comment
was
was
stated
but
moving
forward.
I
do
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about
this
particular
process.
J
Yes,
we
have
a
question
from
miss
mull,
kimberly
moore
for
the
record.
I
it's
just
more
of
a
comment.
After
seeing
how
passionate
washoe
county
d.a
is
on
the
subject.
J
So
I
know
the
victim
aspect
was
mentioned
and
about
the
component
missing,
but
I
think
that
there
are
aspects
of
that
that
are
also
in
here.
J
J
Participated
law
enforcement
and
everything
and
then
the
washington
d.a,
declined
to
prosecute
and.
K
J
Asked
the
da's
office
if
I
could
get
the
numbers
for
the
number
of
cases
that
are
referred
to
them
by
law
enforcement,
the
number
of
cases
they
decline
and
the
number
of
cases
they
actually
prosecute,
because
I
was
curious
of
how
my
case
fell
in
with
that,
since
it
wasn't
prosecuted,
which
are
questions
that
are
actually
asked
on
here
or
numbers
that
are
pulled
from
here.
I
was
told
as
a
victim
that
I
it
was
inappropriate
for
me
to
ask
that
that
question
and
ask
for
those
numbers,
and
then
it
was
quote
unquote.
J
I
wasn't
entitled
to
those
numbers
and
that
nobody
outside
of
their
organization
can
have
those
numbers
so
whether
it's
through
this
entity
or
just
through
the
our
department,
I
think
getting
these
numbers
does
help
victims
and
it
is
encountered
in
here
because
I
think
making
sure
that
the
cases
are
being
prosecuted
and
being
prosecuted
fairly
from
both
sides
for
victims
and
for
those
who
are
accused
is
equally
important.
So
I
just
wanted.
J
K
Thank
you
senator,
so
my
first
question
is:
I
I'm
also
curious
about
a
point
that
mr
callaway
raised.
K
So
we,
let
me
explain
my
understanding
and
then
the
justice
counts.
People
could
tell
me
if
I'm
incorrect,
so
we
would
sign
up
to
be
a
founding
state.
You
guys
would
help
set
up
this
database
get
people
on
board
with
reporting
data
and
then
what
happens
with
the
database
is
that
do
you
guys
keep
that?
Does
the
state
keep
that
if
we
later
decide
to
drop
out
of
the
program,
can
we
still
use
the
database
or
do
we
lose
access?
How
does
this?
How
does
this
work?
I
guess
is
my
first
question.
G
Sure
so
this
data
ultimately
belongs
to
the
agency's.
G
Ultimately,
justice
counts
is
really
just
intended
to
be
another
tool
and
toolbox
for
agencies
and
for
the
nevada
department
of
sentencing
policy.
This
is
the
agencies
can
still
will
still
own
their
data.
They
can
still
edit
and
remove
data
at
will.
If
an
agency
decides
to
stop
participating
in
just
discounts,
they'll
be
removed
from
our
list
of
agency
reporting
agencies
and
that
data
will
no
longer
be
reported
on
an
ongoing
basis
and
it
yeah
agencies
agencies
will
ultimately
own
the
data
that
they're
using.
K
G
H
H
Yeah,
just
to
add
a
little
bit
more
to
that
is
like
the
benefit
of
being
a
founding
state,
is
simply
that
you
like
that
agencies
get
like
hands-on
help,
those
in
recruitment
and
configuring,
the
data,
because
it's
a
new
program
once
this
agency
is
on
board.
They
have
like
perpetual
access
to
the
infrastructure
to
keep
reporting
for
as
long
as
they
want
to
participate.
So
it's
not
something
that,
if
you
all
decided
to
like
not
be
a
part
of
the
founding
state
program
anymore,
some
people
chose
to
continue.
Others
didn't.
H
It
is
very
much
like
the
offering
and
the
opportunity
that
we
are
providing
is
assistance
in
kind
of
making.
It
happen
the
first
time
and
then
what
happens
next
is
really
up
to
you.
We
will
continue
to
provide
access
to
the
tools
that
have
been
afforded
to
you
as
part
of
the
program,
and
that
would
be
something
like
in
an
ongoing
way
as
part
of
justice.
K
Q
Q
Justice
counts
in
the
in
the
infrastructure,
but
we're
also
again
mindful
that
capacity
is
limited,
that
some
of
these
data
are
readily
available,
while
others
are
not,
and
so
there
is
an
a
process
by
which
either
state
leaders
or
agencies
can
get
together
and
kind
of
identify
those
that
they
want
to
prioritize
for
implementation.
Q
I
think
there
is
far
more
utility
in
having
one
or
two
or
a
handful
of
metrics
collected
and
data
supplied
for
those
metrics
by
agencies
across
the
state
than
it
is
to
have
several
agencies
reporting.
Only
these
few
metrics
and
several
agencies
reporting
only
those
two
metrics
and
again,
there's
not
alignment
between
those
two.
Q
I
hope
that's
helpful
and
responsive
and
and
certainly
kitty,
is
there's
anything
else
or
not.
K
Thank
you.
That
is
very
helpful,
and
so
the
last
thing
I
want
to
say
is
more
of
a
comment.
K
K
K
A
Again,
thank
you
anything
further
in
las
vegas,
I'm
not
seeing
any
your
honor
all
right.
Thank
you.
Senator
mr
arascada.
I
Thank
you,
john
erascada,
for
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
clear
up
a
couple.
Questions
in
your
name:
justice
counts,
you're,
just
providing
a
tool
that
will
allow
a
state
like
nevada
to
gather
data
is
that
right.
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
Thank
you,
chair
victoria,
gonzalez,
for
the
record
I
just
wanted
to
mention.
We
presented
the
justice
counts
effort
at
our
update
to
the
judiciary
of
the
legislative
judiciary
committee
and
at
their
work
session.
They
voted
to
submit
a
letter
to
express
support
for
the
effort
of
justice
counts,
one
of
the
things
that
is
really
important
to
me
when
it
comes
to
data,
and
I
think,
to
the
effort
of
justice
counts
and
should
be,
for
everyone
is
that
we
all
are
in
this
together,
and
so
we
would
be
looking
for.
B
You
know,
support
across
all
the
three
branches
of
government,
and
so
I
wanted
to
mention
that
the
legislature
obviously
is
not
going
to
be
the
body
that
would
be
working
with
this,
but
they
would
support
this
effort
along
with
whatever
we
do
here,
and
this
would
advance
what
they're
looking
for
as
well
with
the
with
the
legs.
With
the
session
coming
up,
I
will
mention
as
well
which
justice
counts
touch
base
on
that
you
know.
Individual
agencies
could
report
this.
B
Data
already
to
justice
counts
and
by
being
a
founding
state,
nevada
really
could
be
a
leader
here.
No
one
else
has
done
this
yet,
and
so
I
think
the
conversations
here
could
lead
us
to
we.
Nevada
would
be
a
participant,
and
what
does
this
look
like
and-
and
these
conversations
are
going
to
be
helpful
for
other
states
when
they're
trying
to
decide
how
do
we
engage
with
this?
B
And
what
do
we
do
and
what
I
think
is
a
great
opportunity
for
this
young
commission
and
our
young
department
is
to
how
do
we
want
this
to
look
and
we
can
set
that
example.
So
again,
I
think
there'll
be
some
growing
pains
associated
with
that.
But
it's
a
great
opportunity
for
us
to
define
that
and
everything
we're
talking
about
right
now
would
inform,
what's
going
to
happen
in
other
states
and
then
and
then,
as
just
as
I
just
want
to
emphasize
the
the
other
states.
B
If
it
doesn't
come
through
us
again,
this
could
happen
somewhere
else
and
if
our
body,
if
this
public
body
and
our
department
is
in
the
business
of
trying
to
help
criminal
justice
data
in
the
state,
I
think
trying
to
centralize
something
like
this
for
a
reporting
mechanism
to
justice
counts
will
set
the
stage
for
future
efforts
like
this.
If
another
entity
were
to
come
along
and
request
data,
they
would
come
to
us.
We
would
have
a
similar
discussion.
The
commission
would
decide
how
we
want
to
report
these
metrics.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you,
ms
caffrotta.
J
J
J
So
I
think,
we'll
start
to
see
our
legislators
asking
how
you
know
how
we
can
get
in
on
this
and
use
this
information,
so
it
will
be.
I
don't
think
we
should
underestimate
the
amount
of
work
that
will
go
into
getting
this
right,
but
I
do
think
data
collection
and
indicators
really
have
moved
on
to
a
new
level
because
of
the
technology.
A
I
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion-
and
I
I
think
I
need
a
point
of
clarification-
we've
applied
to
be
a
fountain
this
week,
director
gonzalez
my
understand,
is:
we've
applied
to
be
a
founding
state
and
we're
being
considered
as
a
founding
state.
So
would
a
motion
be
to
continue
the
process
of
being
considered
to
be
a
founding
state
or
a
motion
to
be
a
founding
state.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
I
believe
it'd
be
the
latter
I'll
touch
base.
I
don't
know
justice
council
to
comment
on
this.
As
our
provisional
acceptance,
I
would
say
that
the
vote
would
be
that
we
want
to
be
the
founding
state.
If
I
could
clarify
what
you
just
asked
versus
just
being
considered
yeah,
so
I
guess
I
would
say.
Maybe
the
motion
would
be
that,
if
approved
by
justice
counts,
we
would
participate.
B
A
Q
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you
chair,
so
this
this
is
not
a
a
clearance
or
a
decision
that
we
can
make
as
as
a
kind
of
co-lead
on
on
the
project.
This
would
require
the
consultation
of
the
bureau
of
justice
assistance
who
again
funds
this
work
and
co-leads.
This
work
with
us,
I
I
would
say
to
can
to
continue
engagement
with
justice
counts
in
pursuit
of
becoming
a
founding
state.
Q
Is,
is
an
endorsement
from
the
commission
that
that
we
would
gladly
take
back
to
our
partners
at
bja
at
this
time.
Katie,
I
don't
know
if
you've
got
additions
or
extra
thoughts.
There.
H
I
don't
think
I
had
much
to
add.
You
all
submitted
a
letter
we
with
the
conversation
of
bja,
offered
the
provisional
acceptance.
So
I
think,
like
you
said
director,
if
this
is
like
yes
we'd
like
to
take
advantage
of
that
opportunity.
Obviously
there's
a
lot
more
conversations
that
we
need
to
come
after
that
to
address
some
additional
concerns
in
the
room,
but
I
think
that's,
that's
kind
of
our
perspective.
B
On
it
for
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
so
what
I
would
propose
is
what
I
would
say
would
be.
The
commission
could
consider
is
that
it
would
be
a
combination
of
those
two
things.
So
a
combination
of
the
we
would
continue
to
pursue
the
effort.
The
commission
and
the
department
would
continue
to
pursue
the
efforts
to
become
a
founding
state,
with
the
provisional
acceptance
and
with
that,
if
granted
would
participate
in
the
effort.
I
R
Chief
michelle
bates
for
the
record-
I
just
I
guess
I
wanted
to
clarify
so
the
end
of
this
would
be
if
in
fact,
we're
accepted.
Then
we
are
going
forward
with
that.
But
did
we
get
any
clarification
as
far
as
costs?
And
you
know
what
what
that
would
be?
I
think
we
had
an
off
offline
conversation
just
briefly
on
that,
so
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
at
the
sticking
point
is
going
to
incur
any
costs
on
the
agencies
going
to
incur
any
costs
on
the
agencies,
particularly
the
rural
agencies,.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
if
I
comment
and
list
and
then
see
if
justice
council
wants
to
comment
on
this,
so
the
technical
assistance
is
being
funded
by
the
grant.
That's
funding
the
justice
accounts
initiative
and
that's
what
we'd
be
granted.
B
We
wouldn't
have
to
pay
anything
from
our
agency
from
the
commission,
and
what
I
would
offer
is
that,
with
the
technical
assistance,
my
intent
is
for
our
agency
to
fill
those
fill
those
gaps
and
we
can
in
the
collection
of
data,
it's
something
we're
already
trying
to
do,
and
so,
where
agencies,
whether
they're
in
the
larger
counties
or
the
rural
counties
or
wherever
they
are.
B
So
I
would
say
it's
a
combination
of
the
justice
council
effort
is
intended
to
meet
agencies
where
they're
at
that
is
consistent
with
our
effort
to
meet
agencies
where
they're
at
and
that
they
do
not
have
to
report
any
data
that
they
are
not
capable
of
reporting.
And
if
there
are
areas
where
our
staff
can
fill
that
in,
we
will
offer
that
and
support
that,
because
I
think
that
will
lend
itself
to
sustainability
and
then
the
technical
assistance
that
we
would
provide
are
provided
from
justice
counts
would
enhance
that.
B
I
would
say
the
efforts
that
we're
already
doing
so.
My
take
is
that
there's
not
any
additional
cost
to
us
directly
and
anywhere,
where
it
is
it.
It
is
assessed
that
that
might
be
a
burden
on
any
of
these
agencies.
I
would
offer
my
staff
and
the
technical
assistance
of
justice
counts
to
fill
in
those
efforts.
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
I
just
want
to
put
a
comment
on
the
record.
As
this
is
discussion
I
am,
I
will
be
a
vote
of
a
yes
on
this
and
it's
in
large
part
because
of
my
confidence
in
director,
gonzalez
and
and
her
support
of
it.
I
just
want
to
suggest
to
cs
or
justice
counts
that
you
that
you
really
consider
or
start
taking
steps
to
include
a
victim
metrics.
E
R
Hi
share
bradley
for
the
record,
just
just
one
more
quick
question.
I
don't
think
I
heard
this
mentioned
in
any
of
the
metrics.
J
But
can
you
could
we
if
we
decided
we,
this
would
be
useful,
include
data
collection
about
competency,
to
stand
trial,
referrals,
adjudications
of
those
cases
etc?
There's
a
huge.
Q
There's
there
certainly
is
that,
by
virtue
of
work,
we've
done
with
a
number
of
different
states
so
wholeheartedly
agree.
Those
were
all
issues
that
were
discussed
by
the
courts
and
pre-trial
subcommittee
and
in
the
process
of
identifying
the
tier
one
metrics
for
courts.
That
was
one.
Q
I
think
that
also
fell
to
the
feasibility
requirement
that
those
data
are
either
not
collected
or
not
collected
in
a
consistent
way,
and
so
that
is
why
metrics
around
competency
to
stand
trial
are
not
represented
in
the
current
tier,
but
again,
very
mindful
of
of
the
impact
of
competency
and
those
are
are
under
consideration
for
as
tier
two
metrics.
G
B
A
All
right,
thank
you.
The
motion
passes
so
we'll
close
agenda
item:
seven
I'll
now,
open
agenda
item
number,
eight
presentation
on
the
department
of
indigent
defense
services,
holistic
resource
center
and
request
for
the
nevada
sentencing
commission
to
recommend
the
reinvestment
of
costs
avoided
to
provide
financial
support
to
the
center
staff
from
the
department
of
indigent
defense
services
or
dids,
contacted
our
staff
to
request
this
opportunity
to
present
information
about
their
holistic
resource
center
and
make
a
request
of
this
commission
to
the
members
of
the
commission
and
the
public.
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
justice,
diglitch
and
thank
you
director
gonzalez
for
this
opportunity
to
appear
in
front
of
this
commission.
We
also
are
a
brand
new
agency.
My
name
is
marcy
reba.
I
serve
as
the
executive
director
of
the
department
of
indigent
defense
services,
and
I'm
here
with
thomas
calls.
Our
deputy
director,
our
department,
was
created
at
the
same
time
as
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
and
and
that's
how
I
got
the
opportunity
to
know
director
gonzalez
because
we're
actually
homeless
at
the
same
time
in
the
same
building.
L
L
Like
I
said
we're
created
in
2019,
we
were
passed
by
an
assembly
bill
ab-81,
which
created
the
board
of
the
department
or
the
department
of
indigent
defense
services,
and
the
passage
of
this
bill
marked
a
culmination
of
almost
three
decades
of
judicial
and
legislative
analysis
of
indigent
defense
services,
and
I
know
that
there's
many
members
on
this
commission
that
were
active
in
the
creation
of
our
department,
but
to
just
give
everyone
else.
A
little
bit
of
a
background.
L
Following
that
task
force
report,
the
supreme
court
created
the
implementation
committee
in
1998
and
at
the
end
of
that
committee,
they
made
the
recommendation
that
the
independence
of
the
defense
function
was
jeopardized.
The
state
lacked
oversight
and
binding
indigent
defense
standards.
Indigent
defenders,
labored
under
excessive
caseloads
and
the
state
lacked
comprehensive,
reliable,
indigent
defense
data
tsg.
L
That
committee
recommended
that
the
state
take
a
leadership
leadership
role
in
the
provision
of
indigent
defense
services
by
relieving
more
of
the
counties
of
their
financial
burden,
establishing
a
state
oversight,
commission
promulgating,
minimum
standards
and
formalizing
regular
performance
evaluation
of
indigent
defense
providers.
Seven
years
later,
the
supreme
court
issued
an
order
forming
the
indigent
defense
commission.
L
In
2007,
the
indigent
defense
commission
recommended
that
we
need
to
adopt
workload.
Standards
adopt
attorney
performance
standards,
ensure
the
independence
of
the
defense
function,
require
indigent
defendants
outside
of
clark,
elko
and
washoe,
to
be
represented
by
the
state
public
defender
and
have
that
totally
funded
by
the
state
and
institute
uniformed
data
collection
and
reporting.
L
In
response,
the
supreme
court
issued
80
kt
411.
In
that
order,
they
asked
each
county
to
establish
a
uniform
standard
for
determining
indigency
required
that
the
judiciary
be
excluded
from
the
selection
of
council.
Approval
of
compensation
and
data
expenses
and
determination
of
indigency
adopt
attorney
performance
standards,
require
weighted
caseload.
Studies
in
clark
and
washoe
require
administrative
office
of
courts
to
determine
uniform
practices
and
establish
a
statewide
commission
of
oversight.
L
After
numerous
concerns
from
criminal
justice
stakeholders
across
the
state,
the
supreme
court
revised
that
order
in
2008
and
they
temporarily
stayed
the
implementation
of
that
for
our
rural
counties
and
they
also
temporarily
stayed
the
implementation
of
performance
standards,
extended
deadlines
for
completing
caseload
and
reconvene.
The
indigent
defense
commission
rules
subcommittee
for
further
analysis.
L
In
2017,
the
legislature
passed
senate
bill
377,
creating
the
nevada
right
to
commission
council
and
in
that
commission
council,
they
ended
with
making
certain
recommendations
where
they
had
a
sixth
amendment
report.
Finding
that,
in
part,
rural
indigent
defense
systems
suffer
from
pervasive
lack
of
judicial
and
political
independence.
L
A
pervasive
lack
of
institutionalized
attorney
supervision
and
training,
a
pervasive
lack
of
independent
defense
investigation
in
all,
but
the
most
serious
felony
cases,
a
pervasive
lack
of
support
services,
flat
fee
contracts
and
excessive
case
load.
In
response,
they
made
a
recommendation
that
the
department
and
board
should
be
created.
L
So
in
2019,
when
we
were
created
by
ab81,
we
have
been
tasked
with
doing
certain
requirements,
including
providing
resources
to
our
rural
counties,
collecting
data,
providing
training
and
assisting
with
these
rural
counties.
Overall,
our
board
has
the
ability
to
create
minimum
standards
for
indigent
defense,
and
we
have
worked
with
the
rural
counties
to
help
them
implement.
L
For
the
first
time,
plans
for
the
provision
of
indigent
defense
services,
so
at
this
time
all
counties
have
a
plan
for
the
provision
of
indigent
defense
service
and
we
have
those
minimum
standards
in
place
in
order
to
assist
those
rural
counties
with
the
added
cost
for
complying
with
these
minimum
standards.
Our
board
also
has
the
ability
to
create
a
maximum
contribution
formula
where
that
board
says
after
a
certain
point,
any
expenses
over
and
above
that
are
an
expense
to
the
state.
L
So
we
can
help
those
rural
counties
and
the
reason
that
I
wanted
to
focus
on
this
a
little
bit
more
before
I
I
passed
it
to
tom,
and
the.
Why
are
we
here
is
what
we're
here
for
is
a
recommendation
from
this
committee
to
set
aside
funding
or
to
make
a
recommendation
that
reinvestment
should
be
made
in
indigent
defense,
specifically
the
rurals,
with
our
holistic
holistic
resource
program
like
many
of
the
other
directors.
L
We
are
asking
that
this
not
be
taken
as
part
of
a
local
application,
because
it
may
not
happen
in
the
rurals
when
we
started
collecting
data,
we
asked
for
indigent
defense
data,
and
one
county
gave
us
indigent
burial
costs.
They
didn't
really
know
what
we
were
asking
for
and
they
didn't
have
anyone
that
was
tracking
it.
L
So
that's
why
we're
asking
and
what
our
proposal
is,
that
you're
going
to
hear
about
is
to
create
a
resource,
a
state
resource
that
we
give
access
to
the
rural
counties.
The
rural
public
defenders
too,
because
there
just
aren't
these
resources
in
those
rural
counties
and
there's
not
one
point
person
to
be
able
to
apply.
L
P
Thank
you,
director,
reba,
thank
you,
chair
and
commission
members
for
inviting
us
here
and
hearing
about
what
it
is
that
we're
working
on
and
building.
One
of
our
main
tasks
is
to
create
more
effective
and
sustainable
and
indigent
defense
systems
in
the
rural
counties.
P
P
So
one
of
our
top
priorities
in
supporting
and
creating
these
more
sustainable
systems
is
the
creation
of
a
holistic
resource
center.
Now
mr
erascada,
in
the
washa
county
pd's
office
and
the
clark
county
pd's
office
have
these
more
holistic
resources,
social
workers,
access
to
things,
sort
of
that
are
collateral
to
the
criminal
charges
that
their
faces,
but
these
rural
indigent
defense
providers
are
kind
of
out
there
on
their
own
and
they
don't
know
how
to
access
this
or
there's
nobody
in
their
area
that
can
provide
some
of
these
necessary
services.
P
I'll
elaborate
a
little
bit
more.
What
I
mean
on
about
holistic
defense
for
those
of
you
that
aren't
familiar
with
it?
It's
the
idea
that
you
provide
more
than
just
defense
for
the
discrete
specific
charges
that
these
people
are
facing,
because
oftentimes
in
their
lives.
The
reason
they
are
in
the
system
has
a
lot
to
do
with
all
of
these
collateral
circumstances.
P
Again.
It's
poverty,
various
health
issues,
domestic
violence,
substance,
abuse,
mental
health
issues,
housing
and
security,
unemployment
and
just
a
general
lack
of
information
about,
or
access
to,
social
support
mechanisms,
and
so
what
holistic
defense
does
is
that
it
creates
a
little
bit
of
an
interdisciplinary
team
that
addresses
these
collateral
circumstances.
So,
hopefully
we
can
get
these
people
and
their
families
stabilized,
which
in
turn
stabilizes
communities
and
again
our
main
focus
is
giving
the
rural
rural
communities
access
to
this
the
same
as
are
available
in
the
larger
urban
areas.
P
Our
solution
of
having
public
defenders
fill
this
role
in
their
offices
and
their
teams
is
because
of
the
unique
access
that
public
defenders
have
and
the
time
in
which
they
have
to
these
people.
They're
often
one
of
the
first
contacts
after
their
initial
law
enforcement
arrest
to
be
able
to
interview
these
people
find
out
more
about
what's
going
on
in
their
lives
and
bring
these
collateral
resources
to
bear
early
on
in
the
process
we
have
we've
been
looking.
P
We've
been
working
with
a
number
of
different
organizations,
including
the
fast
organization
here,
to
try
to
learn
all
the
steps
in
the
process
and
what
resources
are
available
where
this
that
you're
looking
at
is
called
a.
I
always
forget
the
name
of
it.
This
is
a
sequential
intercept
model
and
it's
developed
by
an
organization
called
samha
samsa.
I
never
can
say
that
right
either.
P
It's
the
substance,
abuse
and
mental
health
services
administration,
and
so
this
sort
of
addresses
all
the
different
stages
along
the
line
of
you
know
a
criminal
justice
entanglement
if
you
will
all
the
way
from
first
contact
through
alternative
sentencing,
maybe
prison
and
release,
and
I
know
that
this
commission
studies
all
of
the
different
stages
and
there's
a
lot
in.
P
But
where
we're
looking
at
holistic,
defense
and
public
offenders,
intervention
in
this
is
in
intercept
two
where,
according
to
the
people
that
we
have
talked
to
about
this
and
the
various
stakeholders
is
in
intercept
two
and
that's
exactly
you
know
the
the
initial
public
defender
contact
and
intervention
and
that's
a
place
where
there's
not
adequate
resources
and
there's
not
adequate
attention
and
especially
in
the
rurals,
not
adequate
funding.
So
that's
what
we're
creating
the
holistic
resource
center
to
address,
and
you
know
again,
as
marcy
noted.
P
The
reason
we're
here
is
just
asking
to
be
considered
in
that
chain
and
on
that
list
of
recommendations
as
an
entity
that
can
provide
assistance
there
and
and
cost
effective
program.
That
also
will
result
in
more
cost
avoidance.
P
P
So
the
three
models
that
we
looked
at
in
creating
our
own
model
specific
to
nevada
was,
you
know
the
gold
standard
is
kind
of
the
brock's
bronx
defenders.
P
They
work
with
other
over
20
programs
across
the
country
in
both
urban
and
rural
settings
and
so
they've
they've
kind
of
figured
out
the
juxtaposition
of
both.
So
that's
the
model
that
we
created
for
nevada
and
specifically
for
the
rural
communities
that
we
support
is
based
upon
those
three
just
a
little
bit
of
data.
I
don't
want
to
go
too
far
down
the
rabbit
hole.
It's
one
of
the
reasons
we
provided
you
with
the
extensive
reports
that
we
have
and
we
actually
have
more
if
the
commission
is
interested
in
it.
P
The
results
of
the
evaluation
of
the
bronx
defenders
showed
that
the
program
reduced
the
likelihood
of
a
custodial
sentence
by
16
percent
reduced
the
sentence
lengths
by
24
percent
averted
a
1.1
million
days
of
custodial
punishment
over
the
study
period
and
saved
taxpayers
over
160
million
dollars
again,
including
in
saved
incarceration
costs
all
without
increasing
future
crime
or
inject,
or
jeopardizing
public
safety
at
all.
P
Just
to
explain
a
little
bit
about
kentucky's
alternative
sentencing,
workers
model
they
and
here's
an
important
port
point
to
make
here
and
how
this
is
a
little
bit
distinguishable
from,
say,
alternative
sentencing,
as
we
commonly
know
it
and
specialty
courts,
and
the
like
is
that
those
are
mostly
court
driven
and
they're
kind
of
more
towards
the
end
of
the
case
versus
this
being
early
early
on
in
the
in
the
process,
and
it's
also
more
collaborative
models.
P
So
the
asw
workers
work
with
the
attorneys
and
the
clients
to
create
a
alternative
sentencing
proposal
and
that
proposal
again
often
includes
more
than
just
say,
a
drug
court
or
a
mental
health
court.
It
talks
about
all
of
the
wraparound
needs
that
they
have,
that
can
be
addressed
there
and
then
that
is
presented
to
the
court
as
a
collaborative
thing
and
then
the
you
know
the
court
process
either
approves
or
modifies
that
proof
of
concept
of
kentucky's
program.
P
It
showed
that
over
a
12-month
period-
and
this
is
a
shocking
like
statistic-
so
I
went
back
and
made
sure
that
that's
correct,
but
it's
a
reduction
of
80
percent
of
the
potential
sentence
compared
to
those
the
history
of
cases
without
the
use
of
this
alternating
sensitive
model-
and
this
is
another
one
where
the
roi
is
actually
higher
than
that
one
to
three
for
every
dollar
that
kentucky
spent.
There
was
a
3.76
return
on
investment
from
incarceration
costs
that
were
avoided
due
to
these
interventions.
P
The
partners
for
justice
model
they're
advocates-
and
this
is
really
inventive
too,
because
they
they
sort
of
address
the
areas
of
the
life.
The
the
the
factors
that
don't
maybe
rise
to
the
level
that
a
social
worker
would
handle
or
that
a
mental
health
professional
might
handle,
but
they
look
at
go
forward
just
for
a
second,
then
we
can
go
back
to
that.
P
You
know
this
is
a
an
area
where
we
talk
about.
We
can
save
money
on
the
back
end
in
a
lot
of
ways
by
addressing
these
issues
up
front
in
a
holistic
way,
getting
these
people,
hopefully
out
of
the
system
connecting
them
to
the
services
and
resources
that
they
need.
So
we
don't
have
to
spend
more
money
on
the
back
end
by
ignoring
or
not
having
the
resources
to
to
manage
all
these
other
aspects.
P
We
have
this
is
our
this
is
our
current
organization
chart
proposed
for
our
holistic
resource
center,
the
executive
director
miss
reba
and
then
a
dedicated
deputy
director
would
be
over
the
holistic
resource
center.
As
you
can
see,
it
will
include
both
social
workers
and
advocates.
So
you
have
a
multi-tiered
interdisciplinary
team
there,
working
with
these
attorneys
and
their
clients
and
as
well
as
social
services,
manager,
mitigation
specialists
and
investigators
that
can
be
dispatched
as
needed
in
these
cases.
P
So
that's
it
in
a
nutshell.
In
conclusion,
our
holistic
resource
center
building
is
designed
from
these
three
proven
models:
evidence-based
systems
that
we
are
tailoring
for
use
here
in
nevada,
specifically
as
a
rural
resource.
P
P
Roi
with
the
resources
you
know
brought
in
in
the
beginning
to
save
money
on
the
back
end
to
address
mr
aeroscotta's
question
as
well
as
a
number
of
other
points.
Mr
hicks
and
others
brought
up
about
data
data
collection.
We
know
well
the
complexities
and
that
the
devil
is
in
the
details
in
data
collection,
because
that
is
one
of
our
mandates
as
well,
is
to
collect
uniform
data
across
the
state
and-
and
so
we
have
rolled
out
a
case
management
system
to
all
of
the
counties
at
no
cost
to
them.
P
We
can
be
a
data
partner
with
this
commission,
with
justice
counts
if
they
come
online
to
help
answer
some
of
those
questions
and
to
make
sure
that
some
of
that
granular
data
that
maybe
is
hard
to
catch
is
collected.
So
that's
it
in
closing.
We
just
respectfully
request
that
in
the
future,
this
commission
add
us
to
that
list
of
appropriate,
cost-effective
reinvestment
recipients.
A
L
Thank
you,
assemblyman.
That's
a
wonderful
question.
So,
to
start
off,
we
went
to
a
training
once
and
someone
brought
up
the
idea
of
what
happens
when
you
provide
a
social
worker
to
police
officers.
If
someone
makes
an
admission
to
them
that
can
be
used
against
them
and
they
could
face
new
charges.
L
What
happens
if
you
provide
a
social
worker
to
a
specialty
court,
they're
likely
going
to
face
a
penalty
or
a
punishment
for
any
admissions
generally
use
carries
two
days
in
jail
if
you
use
that
and
then
you'll
get
right
back
into
treatment.
But
if
you
provide
that
social
worker
to
the
public
defenders,
the
public
defenders
are
focused
on
getting
you
into
the
treatment
that
you
need
and
addressing
the
issues
in
addressing
housing.
L
If
we
have
access
to
social
worker
that
could
help
set
them
up
with
housing,
resources
that
are
available,
food
stamps
or
any
other
issues
that
they're
having
that
we
could
address
early
on
part
of
the
issue
is
that
there's
on
that
sequential
intercept
method?
You
see
you
see
a
lot
of
funding
for
intercept
point
one:
that's
where
the
police
officers
initially
have
contact
with
them.
L
We
have
most
teams
where
we
can
get
them
into
treatment
if
appropriate,
but
sometimes
those
people
go
to
jail
and
when
they
go
to
jail,
there's
not
really
a
resource
for
them.
Until
we
get
to
intercept
point
three,
so
the
entire
time
that
they're
waiting
in
jail,
the
main
person
that
has
contact
with
them
is
their
public
defender,
and
if
we
give
that
public
defender
a
social
worker
to
work
with,
we
can
sit
down
with
that
person.
L
Try
to
find
out
what
led
to
this
arrest
and
see
if
we
can
assist
with
housing
food
stamps,
any
other
resources
that
they
need
obtaining
evaluations
to
see
if
it's
mental
health
or
substance
abuse
related
and
starting
to
get
them
into
the
treatment
program.
Before
sentencing,
I
think
there's
about
a
period
of
60
to
90
days.
In
most
cases
before
you
see
the
judge
and
you're
actually
sentenced.
So
if
we
can
start
these
individuals
in
a
treatment
program,
we
can
start
them
in
that
treatment
program.
L
You
know
two
to
three
months
earlier
than
they
would
otherwise,
if
we're
waiting
for
the
judge
to
recommend
it.
So
the
key
is
is
just
earlier:
access
to
services
earlier
access
to
treatment
and
many
of
the
rural
public
defenders
do
struggle
with
knowing
what
treatment
is
available
out
there.
Sometimes
they
wait
for
the
judge
to
order
it
and
again
that's
a
90-day
delay,
so
we're
hoping
to
reduce
that
reduce
those
incarceration
costs
and
place
these
people
earlier
into
treatment.
P
Thomas
calls
for
the
record
I'll
just
add
something
in
response
to
your
question
about.
You
know
how
that
differs
from
maybe
just
a
normal
criminal
defense
case
or
one
that
doesn't
have
a
a
public
vendor
that
doesn't
have
access
to
any
of
these
resources
in
the
rural
counties.
One
of
the
things
that
I
touched
on
but
didn't
go
into
a
lot
of
depth,
one
one
county
that
has
contract
public
defenders
that
we
are
assisting
right
now
and
trying
to
build
up
their
contract.
P
There's
not
there's
neither
the
time
for
the
public
defender
to
address
a
lot
of
these
issues
or
even
to
find
them
out
nor
the
resources
to
connect
them
with
if
they
did
find
them
out
and
so
we're
working
on
multiple
fronts:
we're
working
to
increase
funding
and
build
sustainability
in
these
counties
by
reducing
the
caseloads
and
increasing
the
number
of
attorneys
and
resources
that
they
have.
K
Thank
you
senator
thank
you
justice,
so
I
represent
the
basically
all
of
the
defense
attorneys,
who
aren't
represented
by
clark
or
washoe
public
defenders
here,
so
that
includes
the
private
bar,
but
it
also
includes
rural
public
defenders.
K
In
that
capacity,
I
was
at
a
conference
that
the
department
of
indigent
defense
services
hosted
here
in
las
vegas
a
few
months
ago.
There
was
a
this
is
an
anecdote
I
want
to
share.
There
was
a
really
good
panel
discussion
about
mental
illness
and
substance
abuse
and
how
those
can
impact
a
criminal
case,
but
then,
after
the
panel,
a
lot
of
the
rural
attorneys
who
were
attending
got
up
and
were
like.
Well,
that's
all
really
great,
but
I
don't
know
anything
about
those
services
in
my
county.
K
I
don't
know
how
to
get
a
psychologist
to
examine
my
client.
I
don't
know
how
to
get
them.
Substance,
abuse
treatment,
there's
just
a
really
big
problem
of
lawyers,
not
having
good
access
to
these
supports
that
exist
there,
because,
as
deputy
director
qual
said
it
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
figure
that
out
the
clark
county,
public
defender
or
the
washoe
county
public
defender
have
professional
people
whose
entire
job
it
is
to
understand
what
resources
are
available
and
help
connect
clients
with
the
resources.
K
K
K
F
Murray
julia
murray
for
the
record.
I
too
wanted
to
voice
my
support
for
this
type
of
an
endeavor
whether
it
ends
up
coming
through
this
exact
model
through
dids
but
or
something
else
that
we
see
down
the
road.
F
The
whole
goal
here
is
to
figure
out
what,
if
anything,
ab-236
is
doing.
How
can
we
reduce
prison
populations?
Well,
part
of
reducing
prison
population
starts
not
just
at
intercept
one,
not
just
at
intercept
three,
but
in
our
gap
at
intercept
two
as
we're
educating
defendants
in
a
hands-on
model
as
we're
educating
the
system
as
we
move
forward
we're
creating
a
an
answer
to
that
piece.
That's
currently
missing,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
as
one
who
does
practice
in
a
area
that
this
that
I
see
this
every
day,
the
actual
void.
F
That
is
there.
If
you
look
at
a
practitioner
who
has
no
access
to
these
resources
and
the
outcomes
in
their
cases
and
the
likelihood
of
success
of
those
individuals
as
they
work
through
the
system,
it
is
significantly
lower
than
those
that
have
hands-on
treatment
throughout
all
of
the
phases
of
the
system.
F
So
there's
a
huge
gap
in
our
state
when
you
look
at
the
rural
communities-
and
this
is
a
really
good
idea
at
starting
to
create
an
outreach
based
answer
to
that
gap
that
perhaps
increases
rates
of
success
in
the
specialty
courts
as
they
continue
to
expand
in
the
state
or
even
if
they
just
stay
where
they're.
Currently,
at
we've,
everybody
we've
continued
to
see
data
that
those
that
graduate
from
the
specialty
courts
have
high
success
rates
in
the
population
to
not
return
to
criminal
behavior.
F
In
a
window
of
three
years,
we've
seen
success
rates
on
other
outreach
based
programs
that
intercepts
four
and
beyond
through
programs
such
as
reentry
programs,
but
we
really
have
nothing
going
on
in
the
rural
portion
of
the
state
in
this
gap
of
intercept
two,
and
this
is
an
attempt
to
answer
that
void.
So
I
just
wanted
to
voice
my
support
for
that.
J
I
L
Thank
you,
assemblyman.
You
are
correct
in
our
plan.
We
have
an
idea
to
have
it
stationed
in
carson
city,
because
that's
where
we're
at
that's
also
the
central
location
for
the
state
public
defender,
so
we'd
like
to
provide
them
with
access
to
that
social
worker,
but
at
the
top
of
our
holistic
resource
center
is
a
mental
health
coordinator.
And
what
we're
hoping
to
do
is
have
that
person
make
connections,
statewide
connections
with
the
north,
the
south
east,
the
west,
who
are
the
social
workers
out
there,
who
are
the
mental
health
providers?
L
L
So
I
think
that
that's
the
main
part
of
our
plan.
We
also
want
to
provide
them
with
access
to
names
of
social
workers
where
they
could
apply
for
funding
from
the
courts
to
hire
that
social
worker
on
an
hourly
basis
and
have
that
social
worker
do
a
case
management
if,
if
a
higher
level
of
care
is
needed
and
I'll
pass
it
to
thomas.
P
Thomas
calls
for
the
record
just
to
add
to
peace
too,
that,
yes,
a
significant
amount
of
work
would
be
done
remotely.
I
mean
the
the
pandemic
sort
of
taught
us
how
effective
we
can
be
remotely
and
created
this
infrastructure
for
us
to
use
that.
So
we
would
do.
We
would
use
all
the
tools
that
we'd
have.
There
would
be
some
boots
on
the
ground
and
there
would
be
a
lot
of
remote
work.
P
The
the
organization
chart
that
we
showed
you
is
sort
of
our
our
beginning,
our
pilot
project
of
this,
and
we
would
hope
to
expand
it
in
the
future.
But
again
it
would.
The
main
thing
would
be
to
create
a
statewide
network
to
increase
the
number
of
lists
of
available
mental
health,
practitioners
and
other
resources,
and
to
build
this
network,
build
these
relationships
and
build
this
network
larger
and
larger,
so
that
coordination
is
not
only
more
possible
but
easier.
So
we
would
they'll
use
all
aspects
and
all
of
the
tools
that
are
available
to
us.
A
Thank
you
I
think
for
myself.
This
is
chair
stiglitz.
I
it's
not
well
strike
that
everything
that
you're
proposing
is
necessary.
Laudable
coordinating
services
in
the
rurals
is
difficult
because
there's
not
a
lot
of
services
to
coordinate
so
you
have
you
have
a
much
bigger
issue
in
in
problem.
A
Sequential
intercept
method
is
is
a
great
framework
because
we
want
every
touch.
Somebody
has
with
the
criminal
justice
system
to
have
value
it's
intercept.
Can
I
take
you
out
at
this
point?
Can
I
take
you
out
of
the
system
at
that
point,
so
it
makes
sense
conceptually
and
it's
important.
The
question
I
have
that
I
don't
know
that
I
can
reconcile
today
is
not
whether
it
is.
A
It
is
important,
worthy
and
needed
it's
whether
the
reinvest,
the
reinvestment
dollars
are
the
proper
dollars
to
direct
here
when
they're
they're
supposed
to
be
directed
toward
recidivism,
which
presupposes
that
you
you've
already
gone
through
the
process
to
keep
people
from
coming
coming
back,
and
I
and
I-
and
I
understand
your
your
point-
well,
they
don't
come
in
in
the
first
place,
we're
winning.
So
I
definitely
agree
with
that.
I
think
for
myself.
I
just
need
a
little
more
information
about
where
we
have
directed
those
funds
because
then
otherwise,
it's
a
wide.
A
It's
a
wide
open
area,
but
you
definitely
it's
it's
a.
It
is
a
need
in
what's
going
on
in
the
rules,
I
I
I
appreciate
all
your
efforts
and
expertise
and
the
challenges
that
you
face
are
are
insane,
so
I
just
wanted
to
to
mention
that
at
least
that's
what
I'm
thinking
about
here,
carson
city,
any
other
questions
this
time,
mr
arskada.
I
Could
you
please
clarify
exactly
what
you're
asking
us
to
do?
My
impression
was
at
the
beginning:
is
that
you're
asking
for
this
committee's
support
during
the
legislative
session
to
request
funds
from
the
general
fund
to
to
create
the
holistic
defense
unit?
That
you're
talking
about?
Is
that
right
or
am
I
wrong.
L
L
And
we
believe
that
this
is
appropriate.
There's
not
a
lot
of
data
on
indigent
defense
out
there.
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
people
may
or
may
not
know
that,
but
the
national
institute
of
justice
has
given
the
bronx
holistic
center
a
promising
rating,
so
there's
very,
very
limited
data
on
indigent
defense
and
indigent
defense
services.
L
So,
yes,
we
are
asking
for
your
support.
We
are
hoping
to
be
added
to
that
list
of
bullet
points,
of
where
the
reinvestment
should
be
done,
because
indigent
defense
isn't
isn't
in
any
of
those
bullet
points.
So
we're
hoping
to
just
bring
us
to
the
table
because
I
think
we're
part
of
the
solution.
I
You
I
would
just
like
that,
because
we
are
washable
county
public
defender
is
a
holistic
defense
office.
I
think
over
half
of
our
attorneys
have
actually
gone
to
the
bronx
to
train
in
the
holistic
method,
and
it
actually
is
a
method
that
is
directed
to
prevent
recidivism,
which
is
one
of
our
mission
goals
as
a
as
a
board
or
commission
commission,
because
to
simplify
it.
What
holistic
defense
is
is
when
you
have
a
client,
that's
charged
with
a
crime,
so
now
he's
in
the
system
you're.
I
I
What
can
we
provide
during
this
time
that
they're
having
this
interaction
with
the
law
enforcement
system,
to
get
them
out
of
that
cycle
in
order
for
them
not
to
come
back,
and
so
really,
I
think
what
you're
proposing
your
holistic
resource
center
and
I
support
the
telehealth
model,
because
there's
very
there's
scant
resources
in
our
rural
counties,
and
I
think
we
all
acknowledge-
that
is
that
it
actually
is
preventing
recidivism,
because
it's
catching
at
that
intercept
where
the
arrest
has
already
been
made.
The
person
has
a
record
now
and
it's.
I
How
do
we
stop
that
from
occurring?
And
that's
what
holistic
approach
is
really
all
about?
It's,
not
stopping
it.
At
the
beginning,
before
someone
has
contact
with
law
enforcement,
that
would
be
a
dream,
but
it's
once
they're
involved,
and
I
I
support
this
100
and
I
support
also
the
the
use
of
telehealth
resources
to
help
provide
the
mental
health
and
the
substance
abuse
counseling.
I
I
can
just
anecdotally
tell
you
that
about
eight
years
ago,
I
litigated
in
lyon
county
whether
someone
could
be
placed
into
a
dui
diversion
court
and
the
judge
there
ruled
that
lyon
county
did
not
have
the
resources,
the
funding
or
the
availability,
to
provide
the
the
dui
court.
That
was
active
in
clark
and
washoe,
and
it
actually
took
a
nevada
supreme
court
ruling
to
say
that
these
courts
diversion
courts
must
be
provided
statewide.
R
I
think,
there's
a
presumption
about
the
resources
existing
for
your
center
to
be
effective
and
my
concern
would
be:
wouldn't
you
be
using
funds
using
up
funds
that
would
be
better
spent,
actually
augmenting
those
rural
resources
that
don't
exist
like
the
court.
You
just
mentioned,
mr
escada,
that
that's
a
concern.
R
You
know
I
have
some
other
some
others
as
well.
I
think
they're
probably
predictable
concerns
about
it,
but
the
really
the
main
one
is
is
the
the
problem.
Is
that
the
re?
The
rules?
Don't
have
resources
available?
So
while
you
may
have
a
center,
that
has
somebody
who
can
point
them
in
that
direction.
R
There
is
no
direction
for
them
to
go
so
that
that
I
think,
is
a
concern.
I
also
think
that
the
two
two
areas
that
you
you
point
to
kentucky
and
the
bronx
are
having
some
really
significant
crime
problems
right
now.
R
So
you
know
that's
a
concern
when
you
know
you're
pointing
to
an
effective
program
in
a
jurisdiction,
that's
not
having
an
effective
experience
and
then
I
think
the
last
thing
that
the
social
workers
were
mentioned.
R
Social
workers
are
privileged,
they
work
with
you
know,
either
a
state
or
a
county
agency,
so
they're
they're
available
in
the
rural
they're
available
in
washoe
county
clark
county
throughout
the
state
to
point
somebody
in
that
direction
to
to
provide
whatever
resources
might
be
there,
but
again
there
are
very
limited
resources
and
in
the
rules-
and
I
would
expect
that
the
the
best
use
of
funds
would
be
to
just
simply
augment
those
programs.
P
Thomas
qualls,
for
the
record,
I
could
respond
to
some
of
your
concerns
and
I
I
certainly
hear
what
you're
saying
in
building
sustainable
solutions
we
sort
of
have
to
start
somewhere
the
idea
of
building
this
holistic
resource
center
and
having
it
centralized
and
being
able
to
dispatch
care.
Yes,
mostly
from
urban
areas.
P
To
these
places,
either
through
telehealth,
some
other
remote
work
or
travel,
is
how
it
would
need
to
start
and
then,
over
time
again,
we
are
working
on
numerous
fronts
to
try
to
build
up
resources
in
all
of
these
counties
and
over
time
it
would
be
great
and
it's
our
plan
to
for
there
to
be,
as
director
reba
mentioned
earlier,
more
resources
actually
on
location
in
these
places.
It's
not
there
right
now,
and
so
it
seems
to
us.
P
The
most
cost
effective
way
to
start
is
to
say:
where
are
the
resources,
and
we
can
connect
you
to
them
through
this
center,
and
so
that's
the
proposal
to
your
concerns
about
safety.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
included
that
research
and
those
findings
in
there
is
that
both
the
models,
actually
all
three
of
the
models
that
we
are
looking
to
and
that
we
presented
on
have
shown
no
increase
in
public
safety.
P
Attached
to
that,
and
one
of
the
reasons
is
that
what
you
do
is
you
create
more
stability
through
this
model?
Instead
of
has
been
mentioned,
you
know
these
people
cycling
through
and
maybe
things
escalating
and
then
and
then
the
economic
and
other
ripples
through
the
family
and
the
community
spreading
out
and
causing
more
problems.
P
We
really
try
to
address
that
earlier
on
and
sort
of
stitch
that
up
to
prevent
future
recidivism
to
chair
stiglitch's
concern
about
recidivism.
This
is
one
of
those
tools
again
along
the
line
at
the
appropriate
intercept
in
that
gap
to
help,
along
with
the
other
tools
that
are
there
to
help
to
help
reduce
recidivism
and
stabilize
communities
and
again,
I'm
we're
not
pitching
it
as
a
panacea,
because
none
of
the
programs
that
are
talked
about
are
recommended
here
can
fix
all
of
the
problems,
but
it
is,
as
has
been
noted,
an
existing
gap.
P
Right
now
that
we
can
fill
in-
and
the
saying
I
like
to
use
a
lot
is
the
the
best
time
to
plant
a
tree
was
10
years
ago.
The
next
best
time
is
today.
So
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do?
We're
trying
to
plant
trees,
address
the
issues
that
exist
and
find
the
gaps
that
we
can
provide
services
in.
J
Thank
you.
I
guess
I
don't
have
to
introduce
myself
after
you.
You
recognize
me,
so
I
just
my
quick
question
and
then
a
couple
of
observations.
I
didn't
hear
a
budget
number.
I
rough
roughly
guessing
10-ish
people
million-ish
dollars.
J
J
So
I
I
know
you're
looking
for
our
support,
but
I
would
say,
based
on
the
questions,
maybe
what
we
want
to
do
is
get
some
clarification.
J
If,
if
this
recommendation
for
adding
this
to
the
list
of
allowable
reinvestment
projects,
get
some
clarification
if
it's
truly
allowable
but
also
at
the
same
time,
maybe
have
some
conversations
about.
Are
there
alternative
funding
sources
that
we
could
support
going
forward
and
maybe
come
back
to
the
next
meeting
and
say
we
support
that?
J
We
would
go
to
the
legislature
and
support
evaluation
of
a
variety
of
funding
sources
for
this
concept,
with
the
understanding
that
you
would
be
making
these
investments
and
tracking
the
data
and
seeing
how
effective
it
is
because
there's
some
questions
about
that,
but
you
just
if
we're
going
to
be
supportive,
I
think
we
want
to
actually
support
real
dollars,
not
potentially
partial
saving,
maybe
there's
money.
So
that
would
be
my
comment.
A
E
I
just
ask
a
few
questions
since
they're
here.
Thank
you
just
a
few
questions
and
it
was.
I
want
to
build
off
what
commissioner
cafferetta
had
to
say.
So
it's
750
000
a
year
that
you
want
to
add
for
this
org
chart
is
that
right.
E
Okay,
so
you're
just
looking
for
a
letter
of
support
or
you
want
to
be
added
to
the
list,
but
nothing
whether
we
support
you
or
not.
It
doesn't
affect
your
ability
to
go
to
the
legislature
and
ask
for
this
give
this
very
same
presentation,
correct.
L
That's
correct
we're
just
hoping
for
this
commission's
support,
since
it
is,
you
know,
part
of
the
the
sentencing
portion.
We
are
part
of
the
justice
group
that
has
been
described
earlier,
so
we're
just
hoping
for
support.
E
Okay
in
regards
to
those
bodies
that
org
chart
you
showed,
would
any
of
those
bodies
be
used
in
actual
criminal
defense
work.
L
They're
generally
social
workers,
so
they
would
be
part
of
the
indigence
defense
team,
so
indigent
defense
services
is
defined
in
the
nrs.
As
you
know,
the
defense
of
an
individual,
so
I
think,
preparing
your
sentencing
argument
would
be
considered
part
of
indigent
defense
services,
because
if
you
decided
to
negotiate
your
case,
the
next
biggest
step
is
what
are
we
going
to
present
for
the
judge
as
a
possible
sentence?
L
So,
yes,
they
would
be
involved
in
that
in
working
with
the
client
and
the
public
defender
to
try
and
find
evaluations
that
are
necessary
treatment
programs
that
we
could
place
them
in
mental
health
programs
if
necessary,
medication
that
they
need
to
be
on
so
that
the
time
that
we'd
come
before
the
judge.
We
have
all
of
this
information
that
could
be
presented.
E
So
I
look
at
the
org
chart
and
I
see
social
workers,
two
three
social
workers.
I
get
that,
but
I've
been
prosecuting
a
long
time
and
I
know
what
a
mitigation
specialist
does,
and
I
know
what
a
public
defense
investigator
does
and
that's
work
to
defend
the
person
accused
of
a
crime
and
the
point
I'm
getting
at
is
justice.
Reinvestment
was
never
contemplated
to
fund
public
defenders,
offices
or
district
attorney's
offices,
and
mr
qualls
pointed
out
the
beginning:
it's
bleak
in
the
rules.
E
I
know
it
is,
and
I
I
do
appreciate
that
I'm
not
trying
to
argue
against
the
holistic
approach
you're
putting
forth.
It's
also
bleak
for
the
da's.
There
resources
are
what
they
are,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
very
bad
precedent
for
this
commission
to
set
to
start
supporting
those
entities
in
receiving
reinvestment
dollars,
because
I
can
tell
you
you're
going
to
get
a
bunch
of
prosecutors
here
too
say
you
know
what
we
could
sure
use
a
victim
advocate.
E
So
I
think
it
is
very
much
outside
the
scope
of
what
one
this
commission
should
be
doing
and
two
how
those
justin
justice
reinvestment
dollars
are
supposed
to
be
used.
They're
not
supposed
to
be
used
to
fund
public
defense
of
people
accused
of
a
crime.
E
The
other
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
you
had
indicated
that
your
social
workers
might
help
those
accused
of
a
crime
with
getting
some
housing,
or
perhaps
some
food
stamps
or
different
services
that
are
provided
for
the
state.
E
I
looked
up
the
while
you
were
saying
that
the
division
of
human
and
health
and
services,
which
is
the
state
social
services
entity,
and
it's
got
816
million
dollar
budget,
all
those
all
those
things
are
available
to
all
of
our
citizens
who
qualify
right.
They
don't
have
to
be
charged
with
a
crime
to
seek
those
out.
So
it
seems
a
little
bit
deplicative
to
me
to
now
fun
to
now
recommend
that
we
support
funding
an
additional
realm
of
of
health
and
human
services
when
it
already
exists
to
the
tune
of
816
million
dollars.
E
The
last
question
I
had
is:
am
I
accurate
in
reading
your
or
looking
at
your
statistics
that
that
that
comes
from
the
harvard
law
review
article
that
studied
the
bronx
defenders,
the
one
that
said
it's
16,
less
less
of
a
prison
sentence
and
24
percent,
like
less
likely
of?
Is
that
correct?
Mr
qualls.
P
Tom
calls
for
the
record
that
comes
from
the
rand
corporation
study.
I
believe,
okay.
E
Well,
yes,
it
was
done
by
the
harvard
law
review
in
conjunction
with
rand,
and
so
I
read
that
yesterday
and
did
you
guys
know
that
that
that
study
actually
found
that
holistic
work
such
as
this
particularly
bronx
defenders,
has
no
effect
on
recidivism?
P
Know
that
tom
calls
for
the
record,
I
think
it's
inconclusive
as
to
recidivism
and
again
I
think
that
goes
to
the
number
of
variables
and
the
lack
of
overall
data
we
have
on
indigent
defense.
E
Okay,
well
just
for
the
record
I'll
read
what
the
harvard
law
review
found
and
that
is
holistic
representation
has
no
measurable
effect
on
future
criminal
justice
contacts
with
estimates
sufficiently
precise
so
as
to
preclude
modest,
positive
or
negative
effects.
These
results
suggest
holistic
representation
does
not
dramatically
reduce
recidivism.
E
Moreover,
I
believe
it's
it's
outside
the
scope
of
what
we
have
here
at
what
our
duty
is,
and
we
have
the
own.
The
very
study
that
is
being
cited
found
that
it
doesn't
show
any
measurable
effect
on
recidivism
and
the
priorities
of
this
commission
is
to
put
reinvestment
dollars
towards
recidivism,
so
deep
respect
for
what
you
guys
are
trying
to
do
sincerely,
but
not.
I
do
not
think
that
this
commission
should
be
in
the
business
of
supporting
a
715
750
000
budget
request
for
indigent
services.
Thank
you.
A
A
I
will
now
open
up
agenda
item
9,
update
on
implementation
of
assembly,
bill
number
236
when
ab236
was
enacted,
staff
from
the
crime
and
justice
institute
or
cgi
began
providing
technical
assistance
to
help
nevada's
agencies
implement
the
policies
and
changes
that
resulted
from
the
bill
july.
1St
2022
marked
two
years
since
ab36
went
into
effect.
A
T
T
T
The
ta
was
requested
from
bj
by
the
state.
We
have
been
working
with
nevada
since
the
summer
of
2019
and
are
funded
through
september
of
this
year.
D
The
acha
included
representatives
from
various
nevada,
criminal
justice
agencies,
policymakers
and
other
key
justice
system
stakeholders.
The
acij
conducted
an
extensive
review
of
internal
data
and
research
and
compared
nevada
with
best
practices
from
other
states.
From
this
research,
they
released
a
report
of
findings
and
recommendations
in
january
of
2019..
D
D
D
D
Ab-236
was
created
with
five
goals
in
mind.
The
first
was
focusing
prison
resources
on
those
who
have
committed
serious
and
violent
offenses,
then
improving
and
the
efficiency
and
effectiveness
of
community
supervision.
Strengthening
responses
to
behavioral
health
needs,
minimizing
barriers
to
successful
re-entry
and
ensuring
the
sustainability
of
criminal
justice
reforms.
T
Thanks
abigail's
straight
for
the
record,
we're
going
to
go
through
each
of
these
goals,
we'll
give
a
very
brief
overview
of
the
provisions
of
ab236
that
relate
to
those
goals.
Just
briefly,
as
I
know
that
you
all
are
familiar
with
us
already
and
for
the
sake
of
time
and
then
we'll
hear
from
agencies
involved
in
implementing
each
of
these
goals.
One
note,
when
possible,
we
will
hear
these
updates
from
a
representative
from
that
agency
directly.
T
T
Oh
briefly,
before
getting
into
that,
one
thing
I
just
wanted
to
note
from
the
research
about
implementation
is
that
it
happens
in
stages.
The
important
thing
I
want
to
just
say
about
this
graph
is
that
it
takes
implementation
takes
time.
It
takes
a
long
time
to
go
into
full
implementation,
and
sometimes
we
go
back
and
forth
through
the
stages.
It
could
be
that
something
isn't
working
as
intended
and
we
need
to
go
back
a
stage
in
order
to
revise
and
re-implement
that
that
practice.
T
T
So
the
first
goal
of
ab236
was
to
focus
prison
resources
on
those
who
have
committed
serious
and
violent
offenses,
among
other
things,
that
ab236
did
related
to
this
goal.
It
decreased
penalties
for
certain
substance,
offenses
and
established
certain
penalties
for
low-level
trafficking
and
high-level
trafficking.
T
T
K
Thank
you.
I
can
do
it
from
here
or
I
can
go
down
to
the
table
at
the
chair's
pleasure
again.
John
mccormick
for
the
record.
The
administrative
office
of
the
courts
in
this
bill
didn't
necessarily
have
any
specifically
delegated
tasks.
One
of
the
tasks
was
all
the
courts
were
required
to
ensure
that
district
court
judges
had
sufficient
training.
Regarding
sentencing
and
using
the
psi.
K
Since
that
was
changed,
we
did
conduct
that
training
on
july
9th
of
2020,
so
we
slacked
off
for
eight
days
after
it
became
effective
and
that
training
is
actually
still
available
on
our
distance
education
portal.
If
anyone's
particularly
interested,
they
can
contact
me
the
then
the
bulk
of
sort
of
where
the
aoc
touches.
This
is
continuing
to
support
specialty
courts.
As
you
know,
sections
19,
20,
22,
23,
24,
27,
etc.
K
Expanded
specialty
court,
expanded,
specialty
courts.
So
just
a
little
update
on
that
in
fiscal
year
21
we
we
provided
7
million
six
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
and
some
change
to
courts
to
conduct
specialty
court
programs.
You
know
in
2000
fiscal
year
21
we
graduated
1320
graduates.
K
At
the
end
of
that
fiscal
year
there
were
2985
participants
in
specialty
court
programs
and,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
and
I
think
I
misspoke
earlier
of
all
the
participants
who
graduated
from
specialty
court
programs
in
the
state
in
2017,
75
percent,
went
on
to
not
reoffend
or
rather
to
have
to
not
have
another
conviction
within
three
years.
On
that
of
note,
specialty
courts
be
being
a
primary
component
of
this.
We
are
experiencing
some
decrease
in
funding
for
that
in
fiscal
year.
22.
K
The
administrative
assessment
revenue
pursuant
to
176.0613
that
supports
specialty
court
programs
is
down
31.58
percent
over
fiscal
year
21..
So
that's
just
more
of
a
news.
Note
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
questions
and
also
indicate
that
ongoing
training
regarding
criminal
sentencing
etc
is
part
of
our
sort
of
judicial
education
regime,
and
it's
one
of
the
core
competencies
that
we
do
focus
on
every
year
with
district
court
judges.
T
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
abigail
straight
for
the
record.
Next
update
is
from
the
parole
board
chairman
eureko's,
not
able
to
be
here.
So
I
will
read
update
on
his
behalf.
T
After
ab236
passed,
the
board
got
to
work
updating
regulations
to
comply
with
legislation.
This
included
regulations
regarding
early
discharge
and
geriatric
parole,
the
board
finalized
the
updated
regulations
and
sent
all
to
the
legislative
commission
for
approval
by
the
summer
of
2020.
These
regulations
were
approved
late
in
2020..
T
The
board
also
developed
new,
a
new
process
for
temporary
revocations
and
compliance
with
ab236.
This
is
one
of
the
most
impactful
changes
for
the
board,
although
they
don't
have
firm
numbers
on
this.
At
this
time,
chairman
jorico
did
say
it
appears
that
parole
hearings
have
increased
and
one
possible
reason
for
this
is
that
before
the
board
would
hear
someone
once
for
a
pro
violation.
However,
with
ab236,
they
may
see
someone
multiple
times
for
violations
for
the
first
30-day
revocation
and
then
for
succeed,
revocation,
etc.
T
I
know
ndsb
has
talked
more
about
outcomes
earlier
and
maybe
we'll
again
later
in
the
presentation,
but
here
are
just
a
few
outcomes
related
to
goal.
One,
as
we've
been
talking
about
the
ndoc
month,
end
count
dropped
from
12
912
in
july
2019,
so
right
before
236
was
passed
to
10
thousand
and
two
in
july.
Twenty
twenty
two,
the
ndoc
month
account
is
now
below
the
projections
from
jfa
which
the
acha
had
used
in
their
in
their
study.
T
T
Of
course,
one
big
caveat,
as
we
have
been
talking
about
in
this
meeting
today,
is
that,
with
all
these
outcomes
we'll
talk
about
today,
one
difficulty
with
ab236
is:
it
became
effective
in
the
midst
of
covid.
So
it's
difficult
to
untangle.
How
much
was
the
result
of
that
legislation
versus
covet
impacts
and
precautions.
D
S
So
since
the
passage
of
ab236
in
2019
staff
and
leadership,
we've
worked
together
to
implement
and
comply
with
the
legislation,
including
updating
our
policies,
so
nevada,
pro
probation,
created
working
groups
to
update
existing
and
create
policies,
procedures
to
comply
with
the
legislation
and
that
included
policies
on
case
planning,
responding
to
violations
and
creating
psi
reports.
S
In
addition,
we
also
created
corresponding
documents
to
a
company's
policies
which
include
two
case
planning
documents.
One
that's
done
at
the
intake,
which
is
our
baseline
case
plan,
and
then
the
other
is
our
progressive
case
plan,
which
is
completed
by
the
officer
approximately
every
90
days.
S
We
also
updated
our
graduated
response,
matrix,
which
I've
seen
has
been
talked
about
in
this
meeting
many
times
and
then
npp,
finalized
and
rolled
out.
These
policies
in
2020.
we've
made
some
tweaks
since
since
rolling
those
out
and
in
some
cases,
are
still
working
to
finalize
the
accompanying
more
constructions
as
well.
S
Training
staff
mid-2020
right
after
finalizing
the
new
and
updated
policies,
pro-information
developed
training
to
educate
our
staff
on
the
changes,
ab-236
required.
That
npp
train
staff
on
evidence-based
practices
at
the
same
time
as
educating
staff
on
the
new
policies.
Mpp
step
also
developed
basic
training
for
staff
on
the
topics
required
by
ab236.
S
At
the
time
that
happened,
it
was
it
came
out
through
covid,
so
most
of
those
were
done
virtually.
However,
after
completing
these
trainings,
we
have
now
implemented
all
new.
All
new
officers
are
getting
that
in-person
training
so
and
when
we
implemented
that,
obviously
we
got
some
questions
about
these
new
policies
and
procedures
to
address
that
we
dove
deeper
to
the
training
topics
required
by
ab236.
S
Cgi
is
delivering
these
trainings
to
training
in
a
training
the
trainer
format.
So
that
means
that
for
us
at
pearl
probation,
we
can
carry
on
these
trainings
after
cgi.
Technical
assistance
ends,
the
training
trainer
process
will
be
completed
in
september
and
npp
will
be
rolling
out
these
trainings
to
all
staff
and
we'll
incorporate
them
in
our
required
training
for
all
new
staff.
S
Now,
in
addition,
ensuring
fidelity
to
the
changes
after
we
roll
out
these
new
policies,
we
want
to
create
a
quality
assurance
measure
related
to
these
policies.
So
we
created
an
ab236
fidelity
working
group
to
look
at
ways
to
track
the
fidelity
to
changes.
We
made
cgi's
help
facilitate
this
and
create
materials
for
meetings
of
this
group
as
well,
given
that
the
current
training
that
mpp
and
cgi
is
rolling
out,
much
of
the
group's
recent
work
has
centered
around
the
ensuring
that
staff
are
creating
case
plans
as
required.
This
has
included
identifying
barriers
to
case
planning.
S
Training
needs
around
the
case,
planning
and
ideas
how
to
track
work
and
outcomes
related
to
case
planning
with
support
from
cgi.
The
fidelity
group
is
working
to
develop
recommendations
relating
to
fidelity
to
case
planning,
which
will
be
informed
by
feedback
from
staff
versus
participating
in
the
caf
case
management
training,
tracking
performance
metrics
ab-236
requires
mpp
to
report
certain
performance
metrics
to
the
nevada
sentencing
commission.
However,
we
face
significant
barriers
in
pulling
or
reporting
data
from
our
current
offender
management
system.
S
We
are
looking
forward
to
having
our
new
data
system
up
and
running
and
once
that's
on
we'll
be
able
to
track
everything
that
we
are
required
to
per
ab236
and
then
communication.
Finally,
through
implementation
of
ab236
npp
has
communicated
closely
with
other
criminal
justice
partners,
especially
nevada
department
of
corrections,
parole
board
and
department
sensing
policy,
including
quarterly
meetings
facilitated
by
cji,
and
this
collaboration
has
helped
us
quickly
resolve
any
issues
and
help
this
work
work
together
very
well.
S
S
However,
despite
those
barriers,
we
have
been
able
to
adapt
and
make
great
progress
in
implementing
ap,
236
and
mpp
plans
to
continue
to
ensure
the
fidelity
of
these
changes,
establishing
a
system
to
track
performance
measures
and
communicating
closely
with
our
criminal
justice
partners.
D
Thank
you,
valerie
meade,
for
the
record.
So,
while
npv's,
the
new
data
system
is
still
in
progress,
there
are
a
few
outcomes
that
we
can
look
at
related
relating
to
supervision.
Again,
these
outcomes
come
from
the
ndsp
dashboard,
so
between
2017
and
2021,
ndaoc
admissions
for
people
admitted
for
a
probation
violation
without
a
new
conviction.
D
D
Additionally,
ndoc
admissions
for
people
admitted
for
a
parole
violation
without
a
new
conviction.
As
a
percentage
of
the
total
admitted,
population
rose
from
9.94
to
2,
23.36
and
admissions
for
those
admitted
for
a
parole
violation
with
a
new
conviction
rose
slightly
from
2.26
percent
to
0.4
percent.
One
thing
to
note
here
is
that
the
prison
population
and
emissions
rate
in
editing
dlc
in
general,
were
also
declining
in
this
period
and
again
I'll
note
that
the
timing
of
ab236
and
onset
of
coveted
complement
complicates
some
of
these
metrics.
T
Abigail
straight
for
the
record
third
goal
of
236
was
strengthened.
Behavioral
health
responses.
T
Among
other
things,
ab236
authorized
courts
to
assign
a
condition
of
completion
of
a
specialty
court
program
as
a
part
of
a
deferred
judgment.
It
expanded
eligibility
for
certain
specialty
court
programs.
It
required
district
court
judges
and
doc
and
parolin
probation
staff
to
be
trained
on
behavioral
health
issues
and
interactions
with
people
who
have
behavioral
health
needs.
It
required
posts
to
develop
and
approve
a
standard
curriculum
of
certified
training
program
and
crisis
intervention.
T
It
required
each
law
enforcement
agency
to
establish
a
policy
and
procedure
for
interacting
with
individuals
who
experience
behavioral
health
needs
and
authorize.
The
development
of
a
behavioral
health
field
response
grant
program
which
subjected
to
the
availability
of
funds
would
help
support
law
enforcement
agencies
contract
with
or
employ
a
behavioral
health
specialist.
To
help
respond
to
a
crisis
situation.
T
T
That
application
was
approved,
and
this
contractor
established
the
structures
for
the
new
cramp
program.
It
has
not
yet
been
funded
by
the
legislature.
However,
if
it
is
post
is
now
prepared
to
administer
this
grant
program
and
second
ab236
required
posts
to
develop
a
standard
curriculum
and
crisis
intervention
for
law
enforcement
professionals.
T
Given
all
that
post
is
compliant
with
all
recommend
all
requirements
in
ab-236.
As
far
as
next
steps
post
will
continue
to
deliver
the
crisis,
intervention
curriculum
and
will
continue
tracking
officer
participation
in
that
training
and
post
is
prepared
to
administer
the
paper
health
field
response
grant
program
if
it
is
funded
by
the
legislature.
T
T
T
In
the
18-month
pilot
program
of
that
south
dakota
program,
80
of
people
in
crisis
were
diverted
from
involuntary
hospitalization
or
jail.
After
that
pilot
program,
the
south
dakota
legislature
provided
state
funding
to
continue
the
program
in
the
pilot
sites
and
to
expand
it
to
additional
law
enforcement
departments.
T
Virtual
crisis
care
was
specifically
designed
to
be
implemented
in
rural
areas
to
do
a
couple
different
things:
firstly,
to
connect
people
to
timely
professional
and
appropriate
care,
regardless
of
where
they
live.
Secondly,
to
reduce
law
enforcement
transports
to
mental
health
hospitals
and
help
keep
people
in
their
communities
for
public
safety
functions.
T
D
Valerie
need
for
the
record
next
we'll
talk
about
minimizing
barriers
to
re-entry,
so
it
for,
for
this
goal,
ab-236
required
that
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
develop
a
re-entry
plan
no
later
than
six
months
before
release
and
the
ndoc
must
ensure
every
releasing
individual
has
photo
id
clothing.
Certain
transportation
costs,
if
appropriate,
released
to
a
transitional
living
facility
if
eligible,
completing,
enrollment
application
paperwork
for
medicaid
and
medicare
and,
if
applicable,
applicable
a
30-day
supply
of
prescribed
medication.
C
Good
afternoon
deputy
director
williams,
deputy
director
of
programs
for
the
nevada
department
of
corrections,
everything
seems
to
be
going
relatively
well,
our
risk
assessment,
our
enrass
we
recently
ran
into
a
bump
there.
They
switched
their
programming
for
their
systems
and
our
facilities
to
the
internet,
which
are
banned
within
within
our
facilities,
is,
is
lacking.
Therefore,
we
had
a
little
bit
of
issue
there,
but
our
it
department
was
able
to
work
that
out
and
get
that
resolved
for
us.
C
C
Medical
releases,
ab236
added
additional
methods
for
medical
releases
to
be
requested
and
submitted
to
the
director
and
increased
eligibility
for
medical
releases
early
on
in
implementation,
ndoc
updated
our
policy
on
medical
releases
to
reflect
this
change
and
has
been
operating
under
the
revised
policy,
as
the
population
impacted
by
this
change
was
small.
There
wasn't
much
else.
Ndoc
had
to
do
to
prepare
for
this.
C
C
Ab-236
also
required
ndoc
to
make
a
re-entry
plan
for
each
offender
in
advance
of
their
release
and
provide
certain
documentation,
support
for
other
needs.
People
often
have
upon
release.
Ndoc
had
already
created
re-entry
plans
for
each
person
prior
to
ab236
implementation,
but
we
did
update
our
policies
to
recognize
to
require
those
be
completed.
No
later
than
six
months
before
release,
we
have
continued
to
hold
regular
meetings
with
pnp,
parole,
board
and
other
stakeholders
to
address
any
barriers.
People
are
meeting
upon
release
and
ensuring
that
parole
and
probation
is
getting
all
documentation
they
need
from
ndoc.
C
C
What's
some
of
the
things
that
are
we
we're
required
to
do?
Dlc
is
required
to
develop
a
re-entry
plan
for
each
offender
no
later
than
six
months
before.
Release
must
ensure,
which
you
already
went
over
most
of
that
information.
So
I'll
skip
this
section,
we're
continuing
to
conduct
training,
as
required
by
ab236
for
all
our
staff
and
they're
all
being
trained
in
evidence-based
practices.
C
C
C
We
also
were
in
conversation
with
cji
about
delivering
these
curriculas
as
trained
the
trainers
for
ndoc,
but
we
currently
lost
our
current
training
coordinator,
and
so
we
had
to
pause
those
discussions.
C
Performance
metrics
ab236
required
ndlc
to
track
certain
performance
data
and
submit
results
to
sentencing
commission
early
on.
We
work
with
department
of
sentence
and
policy
and
cgi
to
develop
a
full
list
of
metrics
that
ndoc
would
report
to
the
citizens.
Commission.
C
Most
of
that
data
was
already
recorded
somehow
in
our
system,
although
there
were
a
few
metrics
like
sexual
orientation
that
we
did
not
track
in
in
that
way,
but
easily
that
we
didn't
track
in
a
way
that
would
be
easily
to
collect
the
department,
assistance
and
commission.
The
department
of
cities
and
policy
has
been
helpful
as
we
work
to
report
as
many
of
the
metrics
as
possible.
T
Thank
you.
Abby
go
straight
for
the
record
I'll
go
on
to
the
next
goal
of
ab236
the
final
goal,
which
was
to
sustain
the
criminal
reforms
simultaneously
jb-236.
T
The
tournament
policy
was
created
to
support
the
work
of
this
commission
ab236
required
the
sentencing
commission
track
and
assess
outcomes
resulting
from
the
enactment
of
legislation
and
submit
a
biannual
report
and
also
required
doc
mpp
and
the
central
repository
for
nevada
records
of
criminal
history.
To
report
data
to
the
sentencing,
commission
required
this
commission
to
track
and
assess
any
costs
avoided
by
the
enactment
of
baby
236
and
make
recommendations
for
reinvestment.
T
It
also
created
the
nash,
the
nevada,
local
justice
reinvestment
coordinating
council
to
advise
the
sentencing
commission
on
matters
related
to
ab236,
as
they
relate
to
local
governments
and
require
the
council
to
identify
county
level.
Programming
and
treatment
needs
for
individuals
involved
in
the
justice
system
to
reduce
recidivism
and
make
recommendations
to
the
sentencing
commission
regarding
grants
to
local
governments
and
non-profit
organizations
from
the
state
general
fund.
B
For
the
record
victoria
gonzalez,
thank
you.
I
will
keep
my
comments
relatively
brief,
because
I
think
this
meeting
is
evidence
of
the
status
of
our
implementation
of
ab236,
the
the
ability
for
cgi
to
use
the
dashboards
for
your
data
reporting
and
and
the
fact
that
probably
most
of
the
reports
that
came
before
me
mentioned
our
partnerships
and
collaborations
from
the
very
beginning,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
comment.
B
As
I
was
preparing
my
comments,
though
I
did
reflect
on
where
this
all
started,
and
I
was
thinking
about
what
brian
williams
or
deputy
director
williams
just
mentioned,
that
first
meeting
we
had
where
it
was.
I
mean
I
can't
remember
people
at
that
table
at
doc,
going
over
those
metrics
with
cgi
staff
and
getting
us
off
on
the
right
foot,
and
I
really
appreciate
that
and
look
how
far
we've
come.
It's
really
exciting.
So,
as
we
know,
the
commission
has
complied
with
the
statutory
duty
of
measuring
those
costs
avoided
and
submitting
those
reports.
B
We
are
really
on
track
to
collecting
that
correctional
data,
and
our
next
meeting
will
be
able
to
have
a
lot
of
those
metrics
in
order
to
measure
the
ab-236
outcomes
and
help
the
commission
comply
with
its
statutory
duty
related
to
those
we're
absolutely
on
track.
For
that,
and,
as
was
mentioned
before,
was
the
that
we're
working
with
parole
probation
with
the
data
they
can
report
and
we'll
stay
updated
on
the
implementation
of
their
new
system,
2.0,
which
we're
really
excited
about.
B
And
then,
of
course,
the
corning
council
is
up
and
running
and
working
on
their
recommendations,
which
this
commission
heard
today
and
so
looking
forward
to
our
ongoing
collaboration
and
partnerships
that
we've
been
able
to
establish
in
this
commission
supporting
its
are
complying
with
the
efforts
related
to
measuring
the
outcomes.
Ab-236.
T
Thank
you,
as
director
just
said,
I
feel
like
one
of
the
great
outcomes
here
of
this
is
that
this
commission
is
meeting
the
requirements
of
legislation
right
you're.
You
have
released
reports,
as
required
by
ab236
from
assistance
and
policy
has
been
working
with
the
state
agencies
to
collect,
metrics
and
assess
costs,
avoided
and
report
that
information
and
local
council
has
been
established
in
his
meeting.
D
So
finally,
we'd
like
to
review
next
steps,
so
what
are
kind
of
the
remaining
pieces
to
work
on
and
and
where,
where
to
go
from
here,
along
with
the
next
steps
mentioned
by
agencies
during
their
updates,
there
are
some
other
continuing
pieces
that
agencies
are
doing
to
get
through
to
that
full
implementation
that
we
mentioned
earlier
regular
communication
between
agencies
in
both
formal
and
informal
settings.
This
communication
has
been
helpful,
as
agencies
have
worked
to
implement
ab236,
as
it
has
allowed
them
to
communicate
about
barriers
and
problem
solved
quickly.
D
Oversight
from
this
body,
so
oversight
and
data
tracking
from
this
body
and
in
dsp
is
also
essential
to
make
sure
things
are
on
the
right
track
and
help
course
correct
if
they're
not,
and
if
the
body
believes
that
some
data
trends
aren't
going
in
the
right
direction,
it's
also
a
chance
to
assess
if
other
changes
are
needed
for
things
to
work
as
they
should
with
the
data
infrastructure.
The
ndsp
and
agencies
are
creating
as
a
result
of
ab236.
D
This
will
allow
nevada
to
continue
to
use
your
own
data
to
make
data-driven
decisions,
which
was
already
discussed
in
at
length
in
this
meeting.
Finally,
we're
working
on
with
support
with
agencies
that
we
have
ongoing
work
with
to
support
a
plan
for
sustainability
after
our
technical
assistance
ends
at
the
end
of
next
month.
D
As
a
reminder,
implementation
happens
in
stages,
moving
all
the
way
to
full
implementation,
which
is
the
doing
it
well
and
business,
as
usual.
Piece
can
take
years,
even
without
major
barriers
like
a
global
pandemic
at
minimum
two
to
four
years,
so
it's
normal
for
implementation
to
take
a
while,
it's
normal
for
barriers
to
come
up
along
the
way
implementation
can
be
tricky.
Many
of
you
mentioned
today
of
change
is
hard.
When
we
discuss
change,
it's
really
easy
to
talk
about
the
ending
and
the
new
beginning,
and
too
often
we
approach
change.
D
By
discussing
these
two
points.
Only,
however,
there
is
this
middle.
That's
called
we
like
to
call
the
messy
middle
in
making
a
change
within
the
messy
middle.
It's
only
by
getting
comfortable
in
this
messy
middle
that
sustainable
change
occurs.
Change
is
not
going
to
be
easy.
It's
emotional
things
will
go
wrong
by
sticking
out
the
messy
middle.
The
new
beginning
will
be,
will
happen
and
be
a
better
result.
It's
normal
for
this
middle
part
to
take
a
while
and
for
agencies
to
be
at
different
places
in
their
implementation
journey.
D
N
Thank
you
chair,
just
a
quick
comment
and
I
know
I've
been
mr
negative
today
it
seems
like,
but
I'm
gonna
do
it
one
more
time.
You
know.
N
I
I've
made
my
point
about
ab236
on
numerous
occasions
over
the
interim
during
these
meetings,
and
you
know
I
just
want
to
just
make
one
quick
point
in
in
the
fact
that
we
we
we
receive
these
presentations
and
you
know
a
picture
is
painted
that
we're
achieving
these
goals
or
we're
on
track
to
achieve
these
goals
and
that
great
things
are
coming
from
this
and
and
I'd
just
like
to
point
to
to
one
of
these
goals
in
particular.
N
Recently,
on
friday
august
12th
at
interim
joint
judiciary
committee
meeting,
there
was
a
presentation
done
by
a
department
of
parole
and
probation,
and
a
document
was
submitted
that
states
that
the
their
office
currently
has
a
73
vacancies
out
of
312
sworn
positions,
which
leaves
them
with
239
sworn
officers
supervising
about
20
508
offenders.
N
We've
seen
in
addition
that
the
graduated
sanctions
that
were
created
by
ab236
provide
people.
These
multiple
bytes
of
the
apple
that
I
spoke
about
before
any
action
is
taken
to
hold
them
accountable,
and
another
case
in
point
is
on
page
43
of
ab236
the
definition
that
was
created
of
absconding,
where
it
was
brought
before
this
body.
I
think
in
one
of
our
last
meetings
about
the
requirement
to
wait
a
continuous
60
days
before
action
can
be
taken
against
an
offender
who
absconds
who
basically
just
doesn't
show
up,
disappears
off
the
grid.
N
They
can
run
around
for
60
days
or
20
days
and
come
back
and
then
go
another
20
days
long.
It's
not
60
days
continuously.
They
can
be
off
the
radar
gone
their
victim
in
fear
or
not
knowing
where
they're
at
or
what's
going
on,
and
no
action
can
be
taken
until
that
60
days
occurs.
N
A
reliable
source
from
parole
and
probation.
A
very
reliable
source
told
me
that
currently
pmp
has
approximately
2
700
active
warrants
for
absconders
and
another
600
offenders
in
the
queue
that
they're
waiting
to
try
to
get
warrants
on
for
absconding.
Once
they
meet
that
60-day
criteria,
so,
in
addition,
we
see
in
this
report
talk
about
you
know.
N
So
I
I
mean
I,
I
guess,
as
we
move
forward
this
last
flow
chart,
that
was
in
the
presentation,
talks
about
the
messy
middle
and
we're
definitely
in
the
messy
middle,
in
my
opinion,
from
a
law
enforcement
perspective,
and
I
think
that,
as
we
identify
these
areas
that,
in
my
opinion,
we're
not
meeting
the
goals
and,
in
fact
we're
failing
in
the
goals
and
it's
having
a
negative
impact
on
public
safety,
and
it's
also
impacting
victims
which,
ironically
again,
we
do
not
see
in
these
goals.
I
don't
see
anything
about
victims
in
these
goals.
N
A
A
As
you
know,
our
staff's
been
dedicated
to
visiting
every
ndoc
facility.
We
want
to
thank
the
director
and
his
staff
for
being
so
collaborative
and
sharing
the
work
that
that
you
do
specifically
we're
told
about
the
experience
that
our
staff
had
when
they
visited
the
lovelock
correctional
center
and
they
observed
the
structured
living
program
or
slp
in
action.