If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
155446 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice
This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating It. POints of view or opinions stated In thiS document are ttlose of the authors and do not necessarily represent the offiCial POSition or policies of the National Institute of Justice Permission to reproduce thiS cOPYrighted material has been granted by _~Je\lada --Di vi s j on o£ Parol e gng];l:(oPi:tP-QP ______~ to ttl" Natlo'1al Criminal JustlCll Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the cOPYright owner BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VECHICLES & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION
AUG 9 1995
ACQUISITrON~
Bob Miller Governor of Nevada
Richard Wyett, Ch ief Pete English, Deputy Chief Carlos Concha, Deputy Chief Tom Davis, Management Analyst
December 1994 .'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OUR PURPOSE AS A DEPARTMENT Supervise, Test, Collect, Enforce, Recommend ...... 1
HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT A Brief History ...... 3
WHO WE ARE Division Overview ...... 7 Staff Breakdown by position type ...... 12 Officer Training ...... 13 Parole and Probation Officer Education Levels ...... 1 5 Workunit Definition and Totals ...... 16 Workunit Trends ...... 17 Presentence Investigations ...... 1 8 Restitution Ordered ...... •...... 1 9 Restitution Collected ...... 20 Supervision Fees Collected ...... 21
WHO WE SUPERVISE Supervision Caseload ...... 23 I,- Parolee/Probationer Caseload Ratios ...... 24 Average Supervision Time (Normal Termination) ...... 25 Average Supervision Time (Revocations) ...... 26 Criminal Status At Time of Offense ...... 27 Residence Prior to Offense .•...... 28 Drug/Alcohol Incidence ...... 29 Parolee/Probationer Prior Convictions ...... 30 Parolee/Probationer Education Levels ...... 31 Parolee/Probationer Social Programs Used ...... 32 Parolee/Probationer Social Program Use Trends ...... 33 Interstate Compact Description ...... 34 Compact in Nevada ...... 35 Compact in Other States ...... 36 Special Services Unit Description ...... 37 Special Services Unit Workload ...... 38 Pre-release Unit Description ...... 39 Pre-rele,ase Unit Workload ...... 40 Pre-release Unit 305 Program ...... , .. 41 THE NATURE OF CRIME e. Crime Categories ...... 43 Controlled Substance Crime ...... 44 Property Crime ...... ,...... 45 Violent Crime ...... 46 White Collar Crime ...... 47 Traffic/DUI Crime ...... 48 Crimes Against Children ...... 49 Gaming Crime ...... 50 Sex (Non-assault) Crime ...... 51 Weapon Types Used in Commission of a Crime ...... 52 Handgun Use During Commission of a Crime ...... 53
RECOMMEND AND SENTENCE Felony Sentence Concurrence ...... 55 Sentencings by Judicial District ...... 56 Prison Sentence by Age ...... 61 Probation Sentence by Age ...... 62 Drug/Alcohol Incidence, Prison Sentence ...... 63 Drug/Alcohol Incidence, Probation Sentence ...... 64 Prison Sentence Length, Trend ...... 65 Violent Crime Sentencing ...... 66 Controlled Substance Sentencing ...... 67 Property Crime Sentencing ...... 68 • Felony Sentencing ...... 69 Sentencings, Count by Felony/Gross Misdemeanor...... 70
THE BUSINESS OF SUPERVISION Special Programs and Services ...... 71 Parolee Supervision Levels ...... 77 Probationer Supervision Levels ...... 78 Parole Success Rates ...... 79 Probation Success Rates ...... 80 Parole Revocations ...... 81 Probation Revocations ...... 82 Why Paroles Are Revoked ...... • 83 Why Probations Are Revoked ..•...... 84 Technical Violations, Parolees ...... 85 Technical Violations, Probationers ...... 86 New Convictions Violations, Parolees ...... 87 New Convictions Violations, Probationers ...... 88 Parole Drug/Alc Abuser Use of Programs ...... 89 Probationer Drug/Alc Abuser Use of Programs ...... 90
._------~---~------, I
I lOUR- PURPOSE I AS A DEPARTMENT
-----~---~--~- OUR PURPOSE AS A DIVISION
The Division of Parole and Probation has respons ibilities in both law enforcement and casework; however, its primary responsibility is public protection.
The division conducts investigations of persons convicted of felony or gross misdemeanor offenses and makes sentencing recommendations to district court judges.
Division officers supervise and monitor the activ-ities of parolees and probationers. They assist and encourage offenders to make acceptable adjustments within the community. The division arranges for, and often conducts educational programs and it assists parolees and probationers in obtaining employment. Officers routinely identify needs for COlllECT and make referrals to state and local social service agencies.
Officers monitor the behavior of offenders to deter future crimina! activity. Parolees and probationers are systematically tested for drug and alcohol abuse. The officers also arrange for and encourage partici pation in substance abuse counseling and treatment programs. When appropriate, officers collect and the lE~fO[RClE division distributes restitution to victims of crime. Officers also collect supervision fees from offenders to reduce the tax burden on the public.
When probable cause exists to believe that offenders under supervision have seriously violated the con ditions of parole or probation or have broken the law, officers take them to the Board of Parole Commis [RlECOMMlE~[) sioners or to the sentencing court for violation proceedings.
-1- H~S10RV OF lHE DEPAR1MENl • A BRIEF HISTORY
In 1864, the people of the State of Nevada recog nized that all criminals should not be viewed as being the same when provisions for commuting punish ments and granting pardons were written into the Nevada Constitution. The Legislature of 1867 passed into law regulations for such provisions and granted powers to the Governor, Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General to author ize such actions. Nevada's first pardons board was created. Inmates who were released from the Nevada State Prison prior to expiration of their sentences were released with commuted sentences.
In 1909, the legislature expanded the authority of the Pardons Board to parole prisoners. The Governor's private secretary was designated as the secretary of the Board and all paroled prisoners were required to report to him at least once per month.
The Department of Parole was established on July 1, 1945. Ward Swain was appointed as the first Chief Parole Officer.
In 1951, the legislature created the Adult Probation Department, enabled district courts to suspend sentences, grant probations and set forth conditions of probations. The law also designated parole officers as parole and probation officers and gave them additional responsibilities of preparing presentence reports for the district courts and supervision of those granted probation.
Over the next 14 years, a system of parole and probation supervision was developed.
The pattern for future developments of the depart ment was created in 1964. Qualifying standards for the appointment of parole and probation officers were established. District parole and probation offices were established in Carson City, Reno, Las Vegas, and Elko. Standards for the supervision of offendel's were established and community resources were developed.
-3- In 1969, the Department of Parole and Probation was created by the Legislature.
In 1 971, the department began a decade of growth and development unprecedented in its history. A training officer position was created and ongoing training programs for staff and mandatory training programs for new officers were developed. A formalized monthly reporting system was developed for caseload accounting. Specialized units were created to provide enhanced or intensive supervision and services to specific cases. Community pro grams, including inpatient and outpatient treatment facilities, were developed. The legislature authorized the collection of restitution as a condition of parole or probation and systems for collection and distri bution to victims were established.
The number of parole & probation officers increased to 117 by the end of the 1970's. There were dramatic increases in the workload as well. Pre sentence investigations completed increased from 705 in 1971 to 3,160 in 1980 and the supervision caseload rose from 785 to 3,363 probationers and parolees.
Growth and development continued through the 1 980' s as the department entered an era of special programs and more advanced technology. The de partment now has a staff of 337.
In fiscal year 1993, the department completed 7,069 presentence investigations and officers supervised an average of 10,522 offenders. In fiscal year 1994, the department completed 8,164 pre-sentence investiga-tions and officers supervised an average of 11,200 offenders. The 1980's marked the beginning of the Street Readiness Program, a pre release project for inmates and parolees near their release dates. The department's case management system was devel-oped to provide an appropriate risk and needs assessment of offenders and develop strategies for case supervision. Job search workshops, offender literacy projects and life skills seminars were developed to meet offender needs. In-house drug testing of offenders was begun
-4- statewide. A computerized information system was devsloped for the department. Community service became avail-able to district courts as a sentencing alternative. Supervision fees were collected to help defray the costs of superVISion. An electronic monitoring program was developed to enforce court or board-ordered residential confinement. A mandatory parole release program was established for inmates within 1 year of discharge.
As the department has moved into the decade of the 1990' s, the residential confinement programs have been expanded. Nevada law was amended granting authority to the sentencing courts to, at the time of sentencing, place an offender on probation and require a period of residential confinement with electronic monitoring. The parole board was granted like authority in the initial granting of parole releases. NRS 209,213, and 484 were also amended allowing certain prisoners convicted of DUI offenses to be released from prison and supervised in the community by the Department of Parole and Probation. Prisoners conditionally released to the Department of Parole and Probation continue to be prisoners. However, they must be gainfully employed within the community and are placed into residential confinement with electronic monitoring.
On October 1, 1993, The Department of Parole and Probation became a division of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. Department personnel are now in the process of exploring ideas for a new information system that will moderized the Divsion as well as I.,ake it possible to communicate and share data with other public safety and law enforcement personnel at the local, county, state and federal level.
-5------WHO WE ARE .'
DIVISION OVERVIEW:
The Division of Parole and Probation is an agency within the Division of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and as such, is under the Executive Branch, with its Chief appointed by the Governor.
The organization of the division reflects the geographical characteristics of the state. The division has 12 offices located throughout the state, with its central office located in Carson City. The two urban offices, Reno and Las Vegas, account for 81 % of the division's workload. The rural offices, while accounting for 19% of the workload, are responsible for coverage of 87,699 square miles, or 75% of the state's geography.
The Reno and Las Vegas offices are divided into three specialized operational units: a Court Services Unit (CSU); a Supervision Unit (SU); and an Intensive Supervision Unit (lSU). In rural Nevada, an indivi dual officer will perform all of the functions of the specialized units.
Parole and probation officers maintain excellent working relationships with local law enforcement agencies throughout the state and routinely assist them in matters of mutual concern. Nevada parole and probation officers are peace officers who have statewide enforcement authority. They carry weapons and are peace officers as described in Nevada Revised Statutes.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
The central administrative offices are headquarters for the Chief Parole and Probation Officer and administrative support functions for the district offices. The personnel section, central accounting department, statistical unit, records section, interstate compact services, and special services operations are centrally located to provide support services to the administrative districts.
-7- . CENTRAL OFFICE 702-687-5040 1445 Hot Springs Road, Suite 104 Carson City, NV 89710 (Fax) 702-687-5402
RICHARD E. WYETT Chief Parole and Probation Officer
PETE ENGLISH Deputy Chief, Operations
CARLOS CONCHA Acting Deputy Chief, Admin. Servo
NANCY BREEDEN Principal Accountant
TOM DAVIS Management Analyst
JUDY FOSTER Personnel Analyst
DISTRICT I - CARSON CITY:
District I, with its administrative office in Carson City and a sub-office in Fallon, provides parole and pro bation services in Carson City, Storey, Lyon, Douglas and Churchill counties and prepares presentence reports for the First, Third, and Ninth Judicial District Courts. The district produces approximately 11 % of the divisional workload and supervises more than 1200 offenders.
DISTRICT I - CARSON CITY 702-687-5045 119 E. Long Street Carson City, NV 89710 OIST. ADMIN.(Acting) MIKE EBRIGHT •
-8- "
Fallon Sub-Office 702-423-7188 102 W. "8" Street Fa"on, NV 89406
Operations Supervisor Glenn James
DISTRICT II - RENO:
District II, with its administrative office in Reno, provides parole and probation services in Washoe County and prepares presentence reports for the Second Judicial District Court. The district super vises illore than 2,000 parolees and probationers and produces approximately 24% of the divisional workload. Significant increases in workload have occurred in District II over the last biennium, particularly in presentence investigations.
DISTRICT II - RENO 702-688-1000 1301 Cordone Ave. Reno, NV 89502 (Fax) 702-688-1039
DIST. ADMIN. (Acting) WARREN LUTZOW
DISTRlc'r III - ELKO:
District III, with its administrative office in Elko and sub-offices in Ely, Tonopah, and Winnemucca, pro vides parole and probation services to the largest geographical area of the state. Elko, Eureka, Mineral, White Pine, Lincoln, Humboldt, Nye, Lander, Pershing and Esmeralda counties are served by Dis trict III and presentence reports are prepared for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Judicial District Courts. District III supervises more than 900 of fenders and produces approximately 8% of the division workload.
-9- DISTRICT III - ELKO 702-738-4088 3920 E. Idaho St. Elko, NV 89801 (Fax) 702-738-6726
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR ROBERT STREIF
Ely Sub-Office 702-289-1636 P.O. Box 89 Ely, NV 89301
Operations Supervisor Jim Peters
Winnemucca Sub-Office 702-623-6540 530 Melarkey St. Shepard Building, Room 210 Winnemucca, NV 89445
Operations Supervisor Charles Lizer
Tonopah Sub-Office 702-482-9627 P.O. Box 1709 Tonopah, NV 89049
Operations Supervisor Anthony DeCrona
DISTRICT IV - LAS VEGAS:
District IV, with its main administrative office in Las . Vegas and sub-offices in Henderson, West Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, supervises more than 6,600 offenders throughout Clark County. District IV prepares presentence reports for the Eighth Judicial District Court.
-10- "
DISTRICT IV - LAS VEGAS 702-486-3001 215 E. Bonanza las Vegas, NV 89101 (Fax) 702-388-1132
Division Manager Carol Cohen
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR WILSON TYLER
Court Services Division 486-3620 Phoenix Building 330 South Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101
Henderson Sub-office 702-486-6736 882 South Boulder Highway • Henderson, NV 89015 Operations Supervisor Donald Silveria
Belrose Sub-office 702-486-5279 620 Belrose las Vegas, NV 89030
Unit Manager Frank Dixon
North Las Vegas sub-office 702-486-5623 2719 Donna Street North las Vegas, NV 89030
Operations Supervisor Ed Gross
-11- DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION
STAFF POSITION TYPES AND RELATIVE PERCENTAGES STATEWIDE
OPER. SUPERVISORS (With Oaseloads)
LINE OFFIOERS MANAGERS •
ADMINISTRATORS
POSITION TYPE DIS. I DIS. II DIS. III DIS. IV CENT. TOTALS
Adm in istrators 1 1 1 2 3 8
Managers 1 4 1 8 5 19
Alc & Drug Coun. 0 2 0 2 0 4
Operations Super. 2 6 3 17 4 32
Line Officers 14 46 8 113 7 188
Support Staff 5 17 5 35 24 86
TOTALS 23 76 18 177 43 337
NOTE: PERCENTAGES DO NOT ADD TO 100% DUE TO ROUNDING.
-12- OFFICER TRAINING
Parole and Probation officers complete 200 hours of training during their first year of employment. This training covers such topics as history and organi zation of the criminal justice system, Nevada Revised Statutes, department policy and procedures manual, legal liability issues, ethics, time management, and personnel matters. Officers also receive instruction in caseload supervision; this curriculum includes the case management system, program referrals, pre release, prison and parole board liaisons, substance abuse, crisis intervention and domestic relations, child abuse laws and skills in handling cases, report writing, and agency file set-up. In addition, all officers receive pre-sentence investigation training. This course includes invest-igative techniques with use of NCIC, SCOPE, CJIS, FBI, CII, CADOJ, ar,d other investigative resources. Officers are also trained in interviewing and listening skills, dictation skills, and courtroom demeanor.
Peace officer skills are presented during i'i separate course of instruction. This is a curriculum of basic firearms orientation and use of deadly force, range practicum, arrest procedures, control of prisoners and handcuffing, officer survival and defensive tactics skills, search, seizure and control of evidence, warrant processing and new charges, police communications, gangs, drugs and the occult, and home visit practicum. Each officer also receives quarterly weapons training and must qualify quarterly in addition to an annual firearms update session. Additional firearms training is provided when a 9mm pistol is an officer's duty weapon.
Officers are also required to complete training courses in defensive driving, health issues, sexual harassm19nt in the workplace, affirmative action/EEO, stress management and burnout, cultural issues and awareness, interpersonal relations and conflict resolution.
Finally, officers must complete the Category I Basic Law Enforcement Academy of 560 hours during their first year of employment. Officers and supervisors
-13- are required to participate in a minimum of 24 hours of refresher training a year. Staff members must also complete 5 days of state personnel supervisory training when promoted into a management or supervisory position.
ADDITIONAL TRAINING
Many officers and supervisors have attended additional training to enhance their professional skills. These courses have included the Drug Enforcement Administration's Basic Narcotics Invest igation School, and training by other agencies in Officer Survival, Gang Seminars, Legal Liability Issues, Basic Management, First Line Supervision, Drug Abuse, Aids Training, Aids Refresher Training, Stress Management, Time Management, Affirmative Action, Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, Working With Female Offenders, Training for Staff Trainers, Advanced Training for Trainers, and Strategies for Case Supervision for Trainers.
LEVELS OF POST CERTIFICATION
Officers c;lre encouraged to attain additional POST certification beyond Basic at the Intermediate, Advanced, Management, and Executive levels. Each level requires 200 additional hours of training in several areas, including some college course work. The department has approximately 260 sworn per sonnel; 235 are Basic POST certified; and 25 are awaiting Basic POST certification. Approximately 50 officers are certified at the intermediate level, 20 at the advanced level, and 12 at the management level. The department is encouraging officers to pursue additional POST certifications as they become eli gible for application to each level. These additional certifications are optional.
-14- j PAROLE & PROBATION OFFICER EDUCi~TION LEVELS
PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICER MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Graduation from an accredited college or university with major course work in criminal justice, psych ology, sociology, social work, or related field; or
An equivalent combination of education and exper ience in which the applicant has demonstrated the required knowledge, skills and abilities, and two years of experience condueting casework services and investigations, developing detailed reports, making program eligibility determinations, providing supervision services, conducting enforcement activ BACHELOR OF ARTS OR SCI ENCE ities and preparing and presenting legal documents MASTER OF ARTS and/or reports in a court of law. Qualifying exper OR SCIENCE ience may be obtained in a parole and probation, law enforcement, or correctional setting. LJ PHD OR LAW ASSOCIATE OF ARTS OR SCIENCE OTHER EDUOATION NOTE: Percentages do not add to 100% •LJ OR EXPERIENCE due to rounding.
-15------
WORKUNITS TOTAL YEARLY WORKUNI TS OVER 5 YEARS UP OVER 32c;b SINCE FISCAL 1990
210,000
180,000
150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000
30,000
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
WORKUNIT DEfiNED
A Department of Parole and Probation officer's daily activities are measured in workunits. These workunits are values assigned to the pre-preparation of presentence investigation reports and to the different levels of supervision of probationers and parolees. Parole and Probation officers are assigned workloads based on the following work-unit standards:
Assignment Workunits Performance Standard Court Services 65 (1 6 Presentence Reports) Supervision 75 (75 Parolee/Probationers) Intensive Super. 30 (30 Parolee/Probationers) Warrants 150 (1 50 Fugitives/Absconders) House Arrest 30 (30 Parolee/Probationers)
The staffing of the Department is based on these workunit ratios.
-16- WORKUNITS
INCREASES OVER FISCAL YEARS 1993 AND 1994
MONTH BY MONTH GROWTH 14,000 ,------.,
13,000
12,000 +-_+-_+-_+--f"""
11,000
10,000
9,000
......
8,000 -I- FY 1993 * FY 1994 7,000 -1---,--,,---.,---.,---,.--,.--,.--,.--,---,---1 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
LINEAR GROWTH TREND 14,000 .,.------
13,000 * + 12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000 -I- FY 1993 * FY 1994 7,000 -I--.--.---,---....,.--....,.--....,.--....,.--....,.--....,.--....,.-----i JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
-17- ,...------.------~ ~~.------.
PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORTS AND SENTENCE RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED FOR DISTRICT COURTS
YEARLY COMPARISON PSI's 9,000
7,500
6,000
4,500
3,000
1,500
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
FIVE-YEAR TREND 9,000
7,500 + - + 6,000
4,500
3,000
1,500
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
~18~
L ______~ ____~~~_.~~_ RESTITUTION ORDERED THE NUMBER OF OFFENDERS EACH FISCAL YEAR THAT WERE ORDERED TO PAY RESTITUTION
CASES YEARLY GROWTH 2500
2000
1500
1000
500
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
CASES FIVE YEAR TREND 2500.------~~~----~------_,
2000
1500
1000
500
O~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-19- RESTITUTION COLLECTED SINGLE VICTIM AND MULTIPLE VICTIM RESTI TUTION PROGRAM COLLECTIONS FOR THE VICTIMS OF CRIME
YEARLY COMPARISON $2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
SIX-YEAR TREND $2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 SUPERVISION FEES OFFENDERS PAY A SUPERVISION FEE TO DEFRAY THE COST OF SUPERVISION.
ECTIONS $1,750,000
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$500,000
$250,000
$0 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
COLLECTION TREND $1,760,000
$1,1500,000 + + $1,250,000
$1,000,000
$760,000
$600,000
$250,000 J
$0 I-----r---~-,.-- FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-21- WHO WE §U[PERV~§E
I •
~------SUPERVISION CASE LOAD PAROLEE/PROBATIONER SUPERVISION FIVE-YEAR CASELOAD COMPARISON
9,000 8072
6,000
3,000
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
_ PAROLEES 0 PROBATIONERS
THE DEPARTMENT'S CASELOAD HAS INCREASED OVER 51% SINCE FISCAL 1990.
NOTE: A 12-month average is depicted for each fiscal year. Nevada offenders being supervised out of state not included.
-23- SUPERVISION CASELOAD RATIOS PAROLEE/PROBATIONER SUPERVISION FIVE-YEAR CASELOAD COMPARISON
100%
78%. . 75% ··74% 72% 72% 80%
60%
40%
20%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
_ PAROLEES D PROBATIONERS
THE DEPARTMENT'S CASELOAD MIX OF PAROLEES AND PROBATIONERS HAS CHANGED MARKEDLY OVER 5 YEARS
NOTE: A 12-month average is depicted for each fiscal year. Nevada offenders being supervised out of state not included.
-24-
~------~------~-~-~---~------AVERAGE SUPERVISION TIME NORMAL TERMINATION (NON REVOCATION)
MONTHS FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94
I - PAROLE C:JJ PROBATION I
MONTHS FIVE-YEAR TREND 35~------~
25
10
5
o+------~------~------.------~ FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94
I --j-. PAROLE ""'"*- PROBATION I
-25- e AVERAGE SUPERVISION TIME REVOCATIONS
MONTHS FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON 20
15
10
5
o FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94
I - PAROLE D PROBATION I
MONTHS FIVE-YEAR TREND 20~------+
15 .. --... -- .,. .- ...... _...... , .... "... .
10
5-
o+------~------~------~------~ FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94
I-+- PAROLE ~ PROBATION I ... '"
-26- CRIMINAL STATUS AT TIME OF OFFENSE FISCAL 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
NO CRIMINAL STATUS --
, , , , , , , . KNOWN , , I , I , I OFFENDERS , I , I , I , I , I , I , : I " , I , I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I, NEVADA: MULTI-STATUS PAROLEE'
INMATE
JUV, OR FED. PAR.lPROB,
NON-NEVADA PAROLEE
-27-
L-..______~_~~ ______RESIDENCE PRIOR TO OFFENSE YEARLY COMPARISON
100% 82.3% 80.9% 80.3% 79% 80%
60%
40%
20%
0% FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
_ Other 0 Nevada
FOUR-YEAR TREND 100%.------
80% ... "
40% ..... _.·· .. ··· ... ···.··.H"··· ...... "." ...... - ..... ".. " .
O%+------.------.------~ FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-+- Other """*- Nevada
NOTE: Residence is based upon the state where the offender resided six months prior to offense.
-28- DRUG/ ALCOHOL INCIDENCE FISCAL YEARS 1990 ... 1994 (FROM PSI CHECKLIST)
SENTENCE OF PRISON
Drug Abuser
; Addict
Drug Related Offense
0% 10%
SENTENCE OF PROBATION
Drug Abuser ~;=5===5=E5!!::--l Addict ~ ~
Drug Related Offense 1~!§r=~~~ _ FY 1990 Alcohol Abuser D FY 1991 _ FY 1992 Alcohol Related Ofse i D FY 1993 _ FY 1994 Drug! Alcohol Involv -51
UnknownNone&~~
I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
-29- PROBATIONER/PAROLEE PRIOR CONNVICTIONS FISCAL YEAR 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
NO PRIORS _---~ 1 PRIOR
2 PRIORS
3 PRIORS ___
4 PRIORS -.~~
5 PRIORS -..
6 TO 25 PRIORS
OVER 25 PRIORS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
I fEJ PROBATIONER - PAROLEE I
OVER 40% OF PROBATIONERS HAVE HAD NO PRIOR CONVICTIONS, WHILE OVER 30% OF PAROLEES HAVE HAD MORE THAN 5 PRIOR CONVICTIONS,
e·
-30- PAROLEE/PROBATIONER EDUCATION LEVELS
GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 HS GRAD SOME CaLL COLL GRAD
GRAD SCHOOL FY 1990 GRAD DEGREE -0 FY 1991 SPEC eDUC FY 1992 0 FY 1993 TECH/VOC - • FY 1994 GED - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
NOTE: Education information is provided by offender during initial presentence • interview and cannot always be confirmed.
-31- SOCIAL PROGRAMS
PAROLE/PROBATIONER PROGRAMS USED
Out-patient Drug
Out-patient Alc.
In-patient Drug
In-patient Alc.
Mental Health
Employment _ FY 1990
Educational o FY 1991 _ FY 1992 Vocational _ FY 1993
Other -e!!!!i!:~~--_--~'~·~I ~F;Y~1;99~4~U 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
OF THE OFFENDERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN VARIOUS SOCIAL PROGRAMS, THE LARGEST NUMBER ATTEND OUT-PATIENT DRUG AND/OR ALCOHOL RELATED COUNSELING.
•
-32-
------~--~------~~~------' SOCIAL PROGRAMS TRENDS IN PAROLEE/PROBATIONER USE OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON 75%
60%
45%
30%
15%
0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
_ OBTAINED ASSISTANCE D NO ASSISTANCE
LINEAR TREND 75%.------~ + ;- 60%
45%
30% *
15%
O%+------~------~------~------~ FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
--+- OBTAINED ASSISTANCE -+- NO ASSISTANCE
-33-
------~-.. -- INTERSTATE COMPACT
In addition to the offenders being supervised in one of the 4 districts, the department also monitors approximately 2,100 parolees and probationers who have been transferred from Nevada to other states for supervision. Reciprocally, the department super vises approximately 1,200 parolees and probationers who have transferred to Nevada from other states.
The percentage increase between fiscal year 1 990 and 1994 for offenders transferring out of Nevada was nearly 22 %. The percentage increase between fiscal year 1 990 and 1 994 for offenders transferring into Nevada was just under 25%. Most parolees and probationers transferring out of state go to California and Arizona. Most offenders transferring into Nevada come from California.
-34- ~-.------
COMPACT IN NEVADA
OFFENDERS FROM OTHER STATES BEING SUPERVISED IN NEVADA
AVERAGE YEARLY CASELOAD 1000 881 847 813 800
600
400
200
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
- PAROLEES D PROBATIONERS
CASELOAD TREND 1000
800 *
600
+ 400 ...... _--+
200
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-+- PAROLEES "'""*- PROBATIONERS
NOTE: A 12-month average is depicted for each fiscal year.
-35- COMPACT IN OTHER STATES
NEVADA PAROLEES AND PROBATIONERS SUPERVISED IN OTHER STATES
AVERAGE YEARLY CASELOAD 1,600
1,200
800
400
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
_ PAROLEES D PROBATIONERS
1,600 .,------CASE LOAD TREND__ .______--, * 1,200 ",~ .....
800 +
400
o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-!- PAROLEES -*- PROBATIONERS
NOTE: A 12-month average is depicted for each fiscal year.
-36- "
SPECIAL SERVICES
The Special Services Division is comprised of an operations supervisor, 2 sworn officers, and 1.5 clerical persons. This unit is responsible for issuing all retake warrants as well as the entry and clearing of retake warrants and bench warrants in National Crime Information Center (NCIC) data base and the instate Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS).
When a Nevada parole or probation violator is arrest ed out of state, the Division initiates the process necessary to return the violator to Nevada. In addition, the Special Services Division monitors all Nevada cases in the violation process and maintains appropriate statistical data. e
-37- SPECIAL SERVICES UNIT WARRANT CASES PROCESSED
FISCAL YEAR 1993 CASES 8000 I - PAROLE - PROBATION I
6000
4000
2000
o
PROBATION 2658 1920 4578 PAROLE 1201 958 2159 •
FISCAL YEAR 1994 CASES 8000 I - PAROLE - PROBATION I
6000
4000
2000
o INCOMING VIOL RESOLVED CASES TOT TRANSACTIONS PROBATION 2146 1298 3444 PAROLE 896 450 1346 .'
-38-
L--______------PRE-RELEASE
The Pre-Release Unit coordinates the parole release process between the Nevada Department of Prisons and the four Parole and Probation district offices in Nevada. Pre-Release also initiates Interstate Compact transfer requests for Nevada inmates who wish to be supervised in other states.
The three Operations Supervisors in the Pre-Release Unit each supervise a caseload of prison inmates concurrently on active parole and/or probation while actually incarcerated on other cases.
The Pre-Release Unit oversees the Street Readiness Programs at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, the Nevada State Prison, the Northern Women's Correctional Center, and the Southern Desert Correctional Center. Prior to the closing of the institution at Jean, a Street Readiness program was operating there as well.
In addition, the Unit Manager of the Pre-Release Unit oversees the 305 residential confinement program for DUI offenders.
-39- PRE-RELEASE SUPERVISION UNrr PAROLE RELEASES
QUARTER BY QUARTER GROWTH
3rd Qrtr. 1992 . I . 4th Qrtr. 1992 I 1st Qrtr. 1993 I 2nd Qrtr. 1993 J 3rd Qrtr. 1993 I 4th Qrtr. 1993 J 1st Qrtr. 1994 I· .• : ·~L.·.~. J . ,.. ,:::.:. 2nd Qrtr. 1994 .. .. , ..>: . :.: J 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 • QUARTER BY QUARTER TREND 3rd Qrtr. 1992
4th Qrtr. 1992 1st Qrtr. 1993 * 2nd Qrtr. 1993 3rd Qrtr. 1993 * 4th Qrtr. 1993 * 1st Qrtr. 1994
2nd Qrtr. 1994 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
NOTE: Fiscal years depicted are FY 1993 AND FY 1994
-40- DUI "305" PROGRAM SUCCESS JANUARY 1, 1992 TO PRESENT
Expired Sen tence
Paroled
Returned to NDOP
• Rec'd Probation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
THE 305 PROGRAM PLACES NDOP INMATES UNDER 01 VISION SUPERVISION WHILE ATTENDING DUI COUSELING. THE INMATES ARE CONFINED IN THEIR HOMES. AS CAN BE SEEN, LESS THAN 20% WERE DROPPED FROM THE PROGRAM AND WERE RETURNED TO NDOP.
-41- THE NATURE OF CR~ME
I- '------.J
'------.. _--_.. _ .. CRIME CATEGORIES
AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
Controlled Substance
Property
Violent
White Collar
Traffic
Child Related _ FY 1990
Gaming D FY 1991 _ FY 1992 Sex (Non-Assault) o FY 1993
Other ~::~~~ ____~ ______~~~F;Y~1~99~4~~ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
WI-fiLE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTIONS CONTINUE TO OUTNUMBER EVERY OTHER TYPE OF CONVICTION, AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CRIMES, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CRIMES ARE DROPPING.
-43- CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 45%
30%
15%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
TREND OVER 5 YEARS 45%.------.
15% -
O%+------.------.------.------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-44- PROPERTY CRIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 35%
30% 26.2% 26% 26.4%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
TREND OVER 5 YEARS 40%~------______~
30%
_I
20%
10%
O%+------~------~------~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-45- VIOLENT CRIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 20%
15.1%
FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
TREND OVER 5 YEARS 20%.------~
15% + +
10% - ...... ~.
O%+------.------.------.------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-46-
L..-_____. ______WHITE COLLAR CRIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 15%
11.6%
10%
5%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 I • TREND OVER 5 YEARS 15%~------~
+ 10% + ..
5%
O%+------~------_.------_.------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-47- TRAFFIC CRIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE
6% 5.1% 4.8% 4.7% 4.4% 3,9% ..... 4%
2%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
_ Other Traffic Crimes 0 DUI Crimes
TREND OVER 5 YEARS 6%
~ , * 4% *
2%
+ T T 0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-l- Other Traffic Crimes -*""" DUI Crimes
-48-
--.-~---~---~------.---. ------' CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 4%
3.1% 3%
2%
1% I e 0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
TREND OVER 5 YEARS 4%~------~
3% + + 2%
1%
O%+------~------~------~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-49- GAMING CRIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 2% 1.8%
1.5%
1%
0.5%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
TREND OVER 5 YEARS 2%~------~
1.5% .....
+
1%
0.5%
O%+------~------_,r_------._------l FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 •
-50- SEX CRIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONVICTIONS
YEARLY CHANGE 2.8% 2.4%
2.1%
1.4%
0.7%
O%~= • FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 TREND OVER 5 YEARS 2.8% .,------,------,
2.1%
1.4%
0.7%
O%+------.-----.------.------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
NOTE: SEXUAL ASSUA1.T INCLUDED IN VIOLENT CRIME SECTION.
-51-
~------~
WEAPON TYPES THE WEAPONS MOST OFTEN USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME
NO WEAPON USED
FY 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
WEAPON , USED , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • , , , ,
, . I
KNIFE
WEAPON UNKNOWN
BLUNT INSTRUMENT
OTHER WEAPON
NOTE: PERCENTAGES MAY NOT ADD TO 100,*, DUE TO ROUNDING.
-52-
~------.----- HANDGUN USE DURING COMMISSION OF A CRIME FY 1990 - FY 1994
8%~------~ 7.5%
6%
4% • 4.4%
• 2%
I
O%+------~------~------~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
THE GENERAL TREND FOR HANDGUN USE DURING COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS SHARPLY UP OVER A FI VE YEAR PERIOD.
I ;.I I
I
-53- [RECOMMEND AND SENTENCE
• ------1
FELONY SENTENCING CONCURRENCE HOW OFTEN DO THE DISTRICT JUDGES CONCUR WI TH THE DEPARTMENT'S SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS?
RECOMMENDED SENTENCE WAS PROBATION AND OFFENDER RECEIVED PROBATION
•
RECOMMENDED SENTENCE WAS PRISON AND OFFENDER RECEIVED PRISON
NOTE: FISCAL YEAR 1994 IS DEPICTED
-55-
.------~--- SENTENCINGS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECOMMENDED SENTENCINGS - ACTUAL SENTENCINGS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (CARSON CITY AND STOREY COUNTY· 2 JUDGES)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FY90 FI91 FI92 FY93 FY94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 130 151 147 150 148 726
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 52 70 44 frl 59 282 PROBATION GRANTED 49 69 41 54 58 271 PRISON SENTENCE 3 1 3 1 1 9 OTDER SENTENCE 0 0 0 2 0 2
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 78 81 103 93 89 444 PRISON SENTENCE 72 70 86 84 80 392 PROBATION GRANTED 6 9 17 8 9 49 OTHER SENTENCE 0 2 0 1 0 3
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 69 66 69 55 63 322 TOTAL SENTENrnNGS 199 217 216 205 211 1048 •
)
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT (WASHOE COUNTY· 9 JUDGES)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FlOO Fl91 FY92 Fl9S FY94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 1108 m 943 1006 1397 5431
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 508 432 365 432 624 2361 PROBATION GRANTED 485 416 358 417 611 2287 PRISON SENTENCE 12 10 6 11 8 47 OTDER SENTENCE 11 6 1 4 5 27
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 600 545 578 574 773 3070 PRISON SENTENCE 526 472 493 498 665 2654 PROBATION GRANTED 69 71 83 74 104 401 OTHER SENTENCE 5 2 2 2 -4 15 GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 630 665 549 513 620 ?J117 •• TOTAL SENTENCINGS 1738 1642 1492 1519 2017 8408
-56- " SENTENCINGS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECOMMENDED SENTENCINGS - ACTUAL SENTENCINGS
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT (CHURCHILL AND LYON COUNTIES·2 JUDGES)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY ri90 Fi91 F";92 ri93 ri94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 142 164 136 118 131 691
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION ffl 60 56 '.rl 53 273 PROBATION GRANTED 55 52 49 30 47 233 PRISON SENTENCE 12 7 7 7 5 38 OTHER SENTENCE 0 1 0 0 1 2
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 75 104 80 81 78 418 PRISON SENTENCE 71 !Jl 79 78 72 397 PROBATION GRANTED 3 6 1 3 5 18 OTHER SENTENCE 1 1 0 0 1 3
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 77 75 68 56 54 330 • TOTAL SENTENCINSS 219 239 204 174 185 1021
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (ELKO COUNTY· 2 JUDGES)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY ri90 ri91 Fi92 ri93 ri94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 75 72 70 97 128 442
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 23 19 17 32 39 130 PROBATION GRANTED 22 19 17 31 34 123 PRISON SENTENCE 1 0 0 1 5 7 OTHER SENTENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 52 53 53 65 89 312 PRISON SENTENCE 48 52 51 60 78 289 PROBATION GRANTED 4 1 2 5 9 21 OTHER SENTENCE 0 0 0 0 2 2
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 48 47 40 55 54 244
TOTAL SENTENCINGS 123 119 110 152 182 686
-57- SENTENCINGS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECOMMENDED SENTENCINGS - ACTUAL SENTENCINGS
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (MINERAL, ESMERALDA, AND NYE COUNTIES -1 JUDGE)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FI90 FI91 FY92 Fi93 FY94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 60 47 58 77 99 341
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 22 11 11 22 '.fl 103 PROBATION GRANTED 19 10 11 22 35 !fl PRISON SENTENCE 3 1 0 0 0 4 OTHER SENTENCE 0 0 0 0 2 2
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 38 36 47 55 G2 238 PRISON SENTENCE 36 28 41 41 48 194 PROBATION GRANTED 2 7 6 12 14 41 OTHER SENTENCE 0 1 0 2 0 3
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 51 38 51 42 44 226 TOTAL SENTENCINGS 111 85 109 119 143 567 •
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (HUMBOLDT, LANDER, AND PERSHING COUNTIES - 2 JUDGES)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FY90 FI91 FY92 FY93 FY94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 93 95 85 G2 71 406
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 33 45 25 25 21 149 PROBATION GRANTED 33 45 24 25 21 148 PRISON SENTENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTIIER SENTENCE 0 0 1 0 0 1
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 60 50 60 37 50 257 PRISON SENTENCE 43 43 43 34 44 207 PROBATION GRANTED 16 7 17 3 6 49 OTHER SENTENCE 1 0 0 0 0 1
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 15 24 39 34 26 138
TOTAL SENTENCINGS 108 124 96 !fl 544 • 119
-58-
------SENTENCINGS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECOMMENDED SENTENCINGS - ACTUAL SENTENCINGS
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (WHITE PINE, EUREKA, AND UNCOLN COUNTIES ·1 JUDGE)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FY90 FY9t FY92 FY93 FY94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 51 48 48 65 ffl 279
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 17 16 11 24 15 83 PROBATION GRANTED 17 15 11 24 15 82 PRISON SENTENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER SENTENCE 0 1 0 0 0 1
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 34 32 :rl 41 52 196 PRISON SENTENCE 31 32 36 40 51 190 PROBATION GRANTED 2 0 1 1 1 5 OTHER SENTENCE 1 0 0 0 0 1
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 31 33 44 37 44 189 • TOTAL SENTENCINGS 82 81 92 102 111 468
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (CLARK COUNTY .16 JUDGES)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FY90 FI91 FY92 FY93 FY94 TOTALS
- FELONY COUNTS 2763 2758 2765 3037 3164 14,487
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 974 1119 1124 1245 1245 57rJl PROBATION GRANTED 943 1093 1087 1221 1209 5553 PRISON SENTENCE 27 20 34 21 28 130 OTHER SENTENCE 4 6 3 3 8 24
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 1789 1639 1641 1792 1919 8780 PRISON SENTENCE 1570 1404 1443 1580 1641 7638 PROBATION GRANTED 210 223 194 208 268 1103 OTHER SENTENCE 9 12 4 4 to 39
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 978 998 1068 1037 1219 5300
TOTAL SENTENCINGS 3741 3756 3833 4047 4383 ~ 19,787 I------~
I I SENTENCINGS I I BY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECOMMENDED SENTENCINGS - ACTUAL SENTENCINGS
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (DOUGLAS COUNTY - 2 JUDGES)
RECOMMENI!ATION SUMMARY FY90 FY9t FY92 FY93 FY94 TOTALS
FELONY COUNTS 98 72 109 91 108 478
PROBATION RECOMMENDATION 'Sl 30 39 34 52 192 PROBATION GRANTED 34 27 33 31 50 175 PRISON SENTENCE 3 2 6 3 2 16 OTHER SENTENCE 0 1 0 0 0 1
PRISON RECOMMENDATION 61 42 70 57 56 286 PRISON SENTENCE 56 36 69 50 50 261 PROBATION GRANTED 4 6 1 7 4 22 OTHER SENTENCE 1 0 0 0 2 3
GROSS MISDEMEANOR COUNTS 49 30 42 48 fj/ 236
TOTAL SENTENCINGS 147 102 151 139 175 714 '.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FY90 Fi91 FY92 FY93 FY94 TOTALS
STATESIDE GM SENTENCE TOTAL 1948 1976 1970 1877 2191 9962
STATEWIDE GM SENTENCE % 30% 31% 31% 29% 29% 30%
STATEWIDE FEL SENTENCE TOTAL 4520 4384 4361 4703 5313 23,281
STATEWIDE FEL SENTENCE % 70% 69% 69% 71% 71% 70%
STATEWIDE GRAND TOTALS 6468 6360 6331 6580 7504 33,243
NOTE: THERE WERE 39 INCIDENCES OVER '!'HE 5 YEARS DEPICTED WHERE A RECOMMENDED SENTENCE FOR A FELONY COON'!' WAS JAIL AND THE ACTUAt. SENTENCE WAS EITHER JAIL, PROBATION OR PRISON. '!'HESE SENTENCES HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FORGOING CHARTS. •
-60- PRISON SENTENCE BY AGE HOW OLD ARE OFFENDERS RECEI VING A PRISON SENTENCE?
AGE GROUP 17-21
22-26
27-31
32-36
37-41
42-46 • r--' _ FY 1990 47-51 1 D FY 1991 52-56 _ FY 1992 57-61 -~ D FY 1993 • _ FY 1994 61-up -! I I I I I I I I I I 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
THE AGE GROUP MOST LIKELY TO RECEI VE A PRISON SENTENCE IS THE 27-31 YEAR OLDS, AND, 17-21 YEAR OLDS ARE INCREASINGLY MORE LIKELY TO GET PRISON.
-61- ~I
I I
PROBATION SENTENCE BY AGE HOW OLD ARE OFFENDERS RECEI VING A SENTENCE OF PROBATION?
AGE GROUP 17-21
22-26
27-31
32-36
37-41
42-46
47-51 _ FY 1990 ~ o FY 1991 52-56 _ FY 1992
57-61 D FY 1993 a .. FY 1994 • 61-up I I I I I -e I I I I 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
THE AGE GROUP MOST LIKELY TO RECEIVE A PROBATION SENTENCE IS THE 22-26 YEAR OLDS.
•
-62- DRUGI ALCOHOL INCIDENCE SENTENCE OF PRISON FISCAL YEARS 1990-1994
None
Drug Abuser
Addict
Drug Related Offense
Alcohol Abuser Alcohol Related Ofse e Drug/ Alcohol Involv ~
Unknown i55~=- I __ -r-_---r---JI I • 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% _ FY 1990 0 FY 1991 _ FY 1992 D FY 1993 _ FY 1994
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS OBTAINED FROM THE PSI CHECKLIST FORM
-63- I I I I
I
DRUG/ALCOHOL INCIDENCE PROBATIONER FISCAL YEARS 1990-1994
Drug Abuser i5======!:=~-l~ Addict
Drug Related Offense
Alcohol Abuser Alcohol Related Ofse -e Drug/ Alcohol Involv ~
Unknown'None e~~. ==~~ I I I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% • _ FY 1990 1>1 FY 1991 _ FY 1992 D FY 1993 _ FY 1994
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS OBTAINED FROM THE PSI CHEOKLIST FORM
•
-64- .'
PRISON SENTENCE LENGTH FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON
MONTHS
70.------~
60 5-?;{3 56:9··
57.5 56.7 56.2 50
40
30 ---- .. -......
O~------~------L------~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
THE LINEAR TREND IN PRISON SENTENCE LENGTH IS SLIGHTLY DOWN.
NOTE: Offenders sentenced to life in prison • are not included.
-65- --~--~
"
VIOLENT CRIME SENTENCING TRENDS IN PRISON AND PROBATION SENTENCING FOR VIOLENT CRIMES
FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON 75%
~ 60% " 8w :=; 5 45% z :c... ~ w 30% ~ zw w~ c. 15%
0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
D PRISON _ PROBATION _ OTHER
LINEAR TREND 75%
> II: 0 60% v " V 0 U~ w ;;! 45% II: U Z :c... + + ~ w 30% "j5 zw (.'I II:w 15% c. ,.,
0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 -+-PRISON -+- PROBATION --r OTHER ."j
-66- CONTROLLED SUBST g SENTENCING TRENDS IN PRISON AND PROBATION SENTENCING FOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CRIMES
FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON 75%
~ 60%
0~ w ~ 5 45% ;!; :c ~ w 30% z~ w w~ IL 15%
0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 • II PRISON _PROBATION _ OTHER
LINEAR TREND 75%
+ .. _---r-----t----i ~ 4-__",.,-,-"..,.~ ...~ .. 7 .. ::_:_... ~...... -t. 0 60% CI
0~ w :::!l 45% 5 ;!; :c... ~ w 30% CI ~ Z W ~ w 15% IL
0% FY90
L____ ~ __ _ -67- PROPERTY CRIME SENTENCING TRENDS IN PRISON AND PROBATION SENTENCING FOR PROPERTY CRIMES
FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON 60%
~ ~ 45% o UJ ::; 5 ~... 30% ~ UJ ~ ~ 15% UJ II.
FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 D PRISON _ PROBATION _ OTHER •
LINEAR TREND 60%
+ -l- >- -l- II: 0 (!) UJ 45% !;c 0 w :::;: ii: 0 z 0 :E 30% l- §: W (!) ~ z1!' UJ .... ' IE 15% . '" " UJ * II.
0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
--+- PRISON -+- PROBATION -+- OTHER
-68------~
FELONY SENTENCING PRISON/PROBATION SENTENCING TRENDS FOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
CASES YEAR BY YEAR GROWTH 3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 • o Probation _ Prison
CASES LINEAR GROWTH TREND 3000~------
2500 ~------~·~·~------~+~--~_===~+======-1t * 2000 *
1500
1000
500,.
O~------FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 • --*- Probation .~ Prison
-69- SENTENCING TYPES FELONY/GROSS MISDEMEANOR OOMPARISON
6000 4703 5000 4520 4384 4361
4000
3000
2000
1000 o FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 _ GROSS MISDEMEANOR 0 FELONY •
80% 70% 69% 69% 71% 71%
60%
40%
20%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
_ GROSS MISDEMEANOR 0 FELONY e'
-70- ~_ ~~~~~ _~ ~ _____ ~ ______J •
•
'------'------~--~- SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Since the early 1 970' s, the Division of Parole and Probation has worked to develop innovative programming. It has grown from an agency that supervised parolees through mailed-in monthly reports in 1945, to a division which addresses a wide variety of offender supervision requirements while remaining dedicated to the protection of the community.
RESTITUTION TO VICTIMS
The payment of restitution by offenders to victims of crime has been given special emphasis. In fiscal year 1993, $1,625,220.57 was collected and in fiscal year 1994, $1,538,650.59 was collected for a biennial total of $3,163,871.16
SUPERVISION FEES PROGRAM
Enacted in 1983, NRS 213.10973 requires that • anyone placed on probation or parole supervision pay a fee to defray cost of that supervision. Offenders are required to pay $20 per month, with exceptions being possible for financial hardship. In fiscal year 1993, $1,453,320.10 was collected and in fiscal year 1994, $1,439,596.99 was collected for a total over the biennium of $2,892,917.09
STREET READINESS PROGRAM (SRP)
The Nevada Street Readiness Program began in March, 1981, as a pre-release project at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City. Since its beginning, the program has spread to four other prisons in Nevada. The Street Readiness Program is operated in cooperation with the Depart ment of Prisons, but is under the direction of the Division of Parole and Probation.
SRPs basic format consists of a classroom setting for inmates about to be released into the community
-71- L on parole and those committed by district courts for 120 day evaluations. These inmates become students for 3 hours a day for 3 to 4 weeks. Twenty-five to thirty presentations are made to them. Topics range from "Parole Rules and Expectations", "Substance Abuse", and "Employ ment skills", to "Impulse Control", "Goal Setting", "Labor Law", and "Affirmative Action". The key to the program's effectiveness has been use of com munity volunteers as instructors. The inmates have been particularly responsive to the volunteers who care enough to donate their time to help them "make it on the streets" rather than return to prison with a new conviction or as a parole violator.
Since a feature article appeared in CORRECTIONS TODAY, December, 1982, the Nevada Street Readiness Program has gained international as well as national attention. Inquiries about the program have been received from England, Canada, Bermuda, Australia, as well as from many states and the District of Columbia.
As of June 30, 1994 the division had conducted 361 sessions of the SRP at five prison sites and has • graduated 6,298 inmates.
LIFE SKILLS SEMINARS
Life Sills Seminars are conducted in Las Vegas. Probationers and parolees alike attend this nine-week program one night each week. Life Skills Seminars are directed toward improving the offenders' abilities to make positive adjustments and to have successful relationships within the community. Topics taught by volunteers and division staff include" Sub-stance Abuse", "Coping with Change", "Self Esteem", "Family Relations", "Parenting Skills", "Financial Management", "Relations with Law Enforcement", Expectations While on Parole or Probation", and "Decision Making Skills". Judges have ordered participation in the program as a Special condition of probation for many first-time offenders. Officers use the program as a resource referral to meet specific needs of offenders under supervision.
-72- "
During March of 1988, the Life Skills Program was awarded Nevada's Public Safety Award. This award recognized the Life Skills Program volunteers for their ongoing support and participation in presenting the nine-week program to offenders. The program has been expanded to ten weeks including graduation.
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
The division has developed an academic assessment program in the Las Vegas office which includes literacy screening and a GED pretest. Referrals were made by staff to the appropriate community agencies or to the GED classes taught in-house by the Clark County School District Monday through Thursday (4 nights) from 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. In the remaining districts throughout the state, academic referrals are coordinated with local community agencies providing academic resources.
COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING (CAS) PROGRAM
Since 1 981, supervised community service has been a sentencing alternative available to the district judges as a condition of probation. The Community Alternative Sentencing (CAS) Program is a vital link between the non-profit agencies in urgent need of volunteers, the criminal justice system, and the offenders ordered to perform community service work. This program not only provides the division with a valuable sentencing alternative when making sentencing recommendations, but also provides the offender with an opportunity to repay the community in part for the offense committed. The CAS Program is provided in all areas of the state in cooperation with HELP of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas, Project Restart in Reno, and J.O.I.N. (Job Opportunities In Nevada) in the rural areas.
-73- VOLUNTEERS IN PROBATION (VIP)
The VIP Program began in 1972 and operated from 1975 to 1977 with the assistance of a LEAA Grant. The division has continued the operation of the program through the efforts of dedicated staff and community volunteers.
Volunteers perform a number of services under the supervision of a VIP coordinator or a parole and probation officer. Volunteer work includes clerical assistance, employment development, counseling, training, probable cause hearings, restitution technicians, and foreign language translators. Some volunteers work with officers supervising minimum caseloads or assist in the preparation of presentence investigations. Others provide instruction at pre release workshops, offender life skills seminars, literacy programs, and in academic programs.
Our VIPs come from many parts of the community: students, housewives, professionals, retirees, service organizations, and law enforcement. The special talents they provide and the time they donate significantly enhances offender assistance programs.
The division is proud of its volunteers who give unselfishly for the benefit of the community. The fiscal savings they afford the taxpayer is significant and the assistance they lend to offenders is im measurable.
CASE MANAGEMENT AND CLASSIFICATION
The division has a case management system in which each offender is classified according to his risk to the community and need for community services. This classification system allows the division to place offenders at appropriate levels of supervision and to make optimum use of its resources. Based upon a risk and needs assessment, offenders are placed into one of four possible supervision levels: intensive, maximum, medium, or minimum. Each level of supervision has different officer contact guidelines.
-74- INTENSIVE SUPERVISION (lSU)
Intensive Supervision Programs are operated in Las Vegas and Reno. The program was begun in 1973 in Las Vegas and was expanded to Reno in 1978. The Intensive Supervision Program was developed with the assistance of federal grants from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). The division uses the program for high-risk offenders.
The Intensive Supervision Units provide supervision to those offenders identified as career criminals, serious drug abusers, drug dealers, violent offenders, and offenders with specialized supervision or treat ment needs. ISU officers are able to make frequent contacts with offenders. They administer frequent and random drug tests. Officers identify special problems or needs of offenders and make appropriate referrals for counseling or treatment programs. Intense enforcement and frequent contacts are key elements of the ISU program.
RESIDENTIAL CONFINEMENT WITH ELECTRONIC • MONITORING (HOUSE ARREST) The 1991 legislature significantly increased the scope of the residential confinement program. The courts may now use residential confinement as a condition of probation and the board of parole commissioners may use it as a condition of parole as well as an alternative to probation or parole revocation. The division was given the authority to use it as an alternative to incarceration pending probation or parole violation hearings. The legislature also passed Assembly Bill 305 which enabled the Department of Prisons to release certain drug and alcohol offenders for supervision in the community by the Division of Parole and Probation with electronic monitoring, alcohol testing, and alcohol counseling. The program began in January, 1992.
-75- MANDATORY PAROLE RELEASE
The 1987 Legislature amended NRS 213 to order offenders who have been sentenced to a term of three years or more and who have not been released on parole previously for that sentence and who are otherwise eligible for parole, to be released on parole nine months before the end of their terms.
The law further provided that these mandatory release parolees be closely supervised, except in remote areas where enhanced supervision was not available. If a mandatory parolee is revoked, all credit for good behavior earned prior to parole is forfeited and the offender must serve the entire unexpired term of his original sentence and may not be released again on parole. The division has one mandatory release officer in Reno and two in Las Vegas. In both Reno and Las Vegas, the mandatory release parolees are supervised with the intensive supervision caseloads.
DRUG TESTING
The division has drug testing capability in each of the • four district offices. The use of illegal drugs has been identified by the division as one of the primary obstacles to an offender successfully completing probation or parole. The longer an offender remains drug-free, the better his chances are of completing successful community supervision.
-76- • PAROLEE SUPERVISION LEVELS
YEAR BY YEAR GROWTH 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
INTENSIVE MAXIMUM 34% 34% 3'5% 37% 38% MEDIUM 42% 40% 38% 36% 33% MINIMUM 18% 19% 19% 20% 21%
_INTENSIVE _ MAXli\~UM CJ] MEDIUM _ MINIMUM
LINEAR GROWTH TREND 50%~------·------·------
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 INTENSIVE 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% MAXIMUM 34% 34% 36% 37% 38% MEDIUM 42% 40% 38% 36% 33% MINIMUM 18% 19% 19% 20% 21%
-I- INTENSIVE -- MAXIMUM - MEDIUM -- MINIMUM
NOTE: PERCENTAGES MAY NOT ADD TO 100% DUE TO ROUNDING.
-77- PROBATIONER • SUPERVISION LEVELS
YEAR BY YEAR GROWTH 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 INTENSIVE 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% MAXIMUM 34% 34% 36% 37% 38% MEDIUM 42% 40% 38% 36% 33% MINIMUM 18% 19% 19% 20% 21% _ INTENSIVE _ MAXIMUM EJJ MEDIUM _ MINIMUM • LINEAR GROWTH TREND 50%.------~
O%~------_r------_.------r_------._------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY "1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 INTENSIVE 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% MAXIMUM 34% 34% 36% 37% 38% MEDIUM 42% 40% 38% 36% 33% MINIMUM 18% 19% 19% 20% 21%
-+- INTENSIVE -- MAXIMUM -Iii- MEDIUM -- MINIMUM
NOTE: PERCENTAGES MAY NOT ADD TO 100% DUE TO ROUNDING.
-78- PAROLE SUCCESS
AN AVERAGE OF 79% OF ALL PAROLEES SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THEIR PAROLE TERMS.
FY 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
•• FY 1994
FY 1993
SUOOESSFUL • PAROLE · UNSUOOESSFUL D. PAROLE • NOTE: Compacts from other states not included.
-79------
PROBATION SUCCESS
AN AVERAGE OF 77% OF ALL PROBATIONERS SUOOESSFULLY OOMPLETE THEIR PROBATION TERMS.
FY 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
'. FY 1994
FY 1993
~ SUCCESSFUL ~ PROBATION ·. UNSUCCESSFUL PROBATION NOTE: Compacts from other states not included. D
-80- PAROLE REVOCATIONS FISCAL YEAR 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
OF THE PAROLEES I;VHO REVOKE SUCCESSFUL PAROLE 7895 DO SO WI THIN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THEIR RELEASE TO PAROLE.
, , , , , " , UNSUCCESSFUL " PAROLE " , , , , , , , , , , , , , LESS THAN , , TWO YEARS , , • , , ,
LESS THAN THREE YEARS
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
I ~. NOTE: Offenders from other states being supervised in Nevada are not included.
-81- PROBATION REVOCATIONS FISCAL YEAR 1993 & 1994 AVERAGE
OF THE PROBATIONERS WHO REVOKE, SUCCESSFUL PROBATION 78% DO SO WI THIN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THEIR RELEASE TO PROBATION,
, , , , , , UNSUCCESSFUL , , PROBATION , , , , , , , , , , , , LESS THAN , , , TWO YEARS •
LESS THAN THREE YEARS
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
NOTE: Offenders from other states being supervised in Nevada are not included.
-82- • WHY PAROLES ARE REVOKED
FY 1988-1994 AVERAGE
• FY 1994
FY 1993
IN LIEU OF PROSECUTION PAROLE CONDITIONS • VIOLATION NOTE: Nevada offenders supervised in other NEW states, and out of state offenders CONVICTION supervised in Nevada not included. NEW CHARGES Percentages may not add to 100% PENDING due to rounding. D
-83- WHY PROBATIONS ARE • REVOKED
FY 1988-1994 AVERAGE
FY 1994 •
FY 1993
IN LIEU OF PROSECUTION PROBATION CONDiTIONS • VI OlATI ON NOTE: Nevada offenders supervised in other NEW states, and out of state offenders CONVICTION supervised in Nevada not included. r-l...... NEW CHARGES Percentages may not add to 100% PENDING due to rounding. L...J
-84- • TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS PAROLEES PERCENT,4GE OF ALL REVOCATIONS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO CONDITIONS OF PAROLE VIOLATIONS
PERCENTAGE EACH YEAR 50%
43% 42% 40%
30%
20%
10%
• FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
LINEAR TREND 50%~------__~
...... *-~ ...... * *
30%
20%
10%
O%+------~------·--~------~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-85- TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS PROBATIONERS PERCENTAGE OF ALL REVOCATIONS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO CONDITIONS OF PROBATION VIOLATIONS
PERCENTAGE EACH YEAR 60% 52% 51% 50% 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 •
LINEAR TREND 60%.------.
20% ."
10%
O%+------.------.------.------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-86- • NEW CONVICTION VIOLATIONS PAROLEES PERCENTAGE OF ALL REVOCATIONS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO NEW CONVICTIONS
PERCENTAGE EACH YEAR 60% 53% 47% ...... '"48%'""' 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
• FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
LINEAR TREND 60%~------~
50% ~ ____----*=------~*~------~ 40% * 30%
10%
O%+------~------~------~------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 NEW CONVICTION VIOLATIONS • PROBATIONERS PERCENTAGE OF ALL REVOCATIONS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO NEW CONVICTIONS
PERCENTAGE EACH YEAR 30%
24% 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 •
LINEAR TREND 30%.------.
* 20% ...... - ......
15%·" ......
10%
O%+------.------.------.------~ FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
-88- • PAROLEE DRUG/ ALCOHOL ABUSER USE OF PROGRAMS
NORMAL TERMINATION
Productively used
Needed-not available -t
Used-not beneficial
Available-rejected
Not needed or N/A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
_ FY 1990 D FY 1991 _ FY 1992 • OJ FY 1993 _ FY 1994
SUBSEaUENT~ REVOKED Productively used t o Needed-not available -I ~
Used-not beneficial Ji!~~~::::::J~~~~ Available-rejected . ,.,,',' " ." ,'I " " ' " ,.- '" }
Not needed orN/A 1;;;;;~~~~~--~----r---~--__ --~ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
_ FY 1990 Q FY 1991 _ FY 1992 OJ FY 1993 _ FY 1994 r I L, __ -89- .'
PROBATIONER DRUG/ALe ABUSER • USE OF PROGRAMS
NORMAL TERMINATION
Productively used ~::::::::::::;~;;--l
Needed-not available -I
Used-not beneficial -=:~
Available-rejected
Not needed or NI A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
_ FY 1990 o FY 1991 _ FY 1992 CJ FY 1993 _ FY 1994 • SUBSEQUENTLY REVOKED Productively used i
Needed-not available 'i
Used-not beneficial .Jl
Available-rejected
Not needed or NI A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
_ FY 1990 CJ FY 1991 ~ FY 1992 D FY 1993 _ FY 1994
-90- END