Huge lapses reported in supervision of parolees, probationers

Friday, Oct. 15, 1999 | 11:38 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Inmates, some of them violent or sex offenders, who were paroled from the state prison were able to roam the streets in Nevada with only moderate or no supervision, a legislative audit reported Thursday.

Many of these parolees or probationers escaped paying the required $30 a month supervision fee that totaled up to a $900,000 loss to the state. Drug testing, required for some, was never done.

And while the agency has failed to do a good job keeping tabs on parolees and probationers, its costs are the highest among the Western states in supervision.

The highly critical audit of the state Parole and Probation Division, for the years 1993-1998, was released at a meeting of the legislative audit committee. Its chairman, Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said this was "quite a disappointment."

"In this new technology age, we have an agency going downhill," he complained.

But Assemblyman John Marvel, R-Battle Mountain, said things are changing.

"We have a new man in charge of the agency. We will see some definite improvements." He was referring to Division Director Carlos Concha who blamed part of the problem on the "constant turmoil in management," in past years.

Since 1993 there have been three division chiefs and each district administrator has turned over at least twice. Concha said the audit "opened our eyes to a lot of issues," and changes are being made.

The Legislature ordered new programs for the agency to supervise, Concha said. "The problems did not show up until the mid-90s and they started getting worse and worse."

Deputy Legislative Auditor Darin Conforti said his team found division officers visited those on parole or probation only 60 percent of the required time. Some offenders did not receive any supervision. In Las Vegas, officers made only 54 percent of the contacts required by the regulations.

In cases where there was a shortage of staff, some cases are assigned to a supervisor who does not have a duty to oversee the parolees or probationers. In sampling the cases in Las Vegas, auditors said three out of four cases did not receive any supervision. In one case a man on probation for possession of a dangerous weapon had no oversight from January to June 1998.

Fourteen of the 62 files reviewed by auditors were either sex offenders or were people who required intensive supervision because of their danger to society. But state agents checked on these ex-felons only 66 percent of the required time.

Visits to the homes of offenders by officers was largely ignored. Only 36 percent of the home visits required were made. In Las Vegas, it was a little higher at 43 percent.

The division regulations require the first home visit within 10 days. Conforti said on average it took the division 123 days to make the first visit and for some offenders it was 250 days.

In 21 cases reviewed, drug testing was required. But in four of the cases, the tests were never conducted. And there was an inconsistency in the testing. One offender under supervision for 23 months was tested six times. Another in the program for 30 months was tested only once.

"The division has a poor process for collecting offender supervision fees," the audit team said.

For fiscal 1998, only 55 percent or $1.9 million was collected. If the agency had achieved an 80 percent collection rate, that would have meant another $900,000. As a result, the division had a $600,000 shortfall in his budget, which taxpayers had to make up.

Some parole and probation officers felt it was not part of their job to collect the $30 a month fee.

In addition, the auditors said there are not adequate internal controls to safeguard the money collected. "While we did not identify instances of fraud, the division's controls are so weak that fraud and abuse could go undetected."

The division, as required by law, failed to periodically reassess the supervision level of the ex-felons. This is required to determined if contacts should be increased because of a higher risk or if they might be lowered as the person is doing well.

The law, enacted in July 1997, required a review every six months. "Yet, the division did not conduct 50 percent of the required reassessments between July 1997 and June 1998."

The audit said, "Inefficient operations contribute to Nevada having the highest cost of offender supervision among Western states. Nevada's daily cost per offender of $5.20 far exceeds other Western states and the national average of $3.13."

The division could have saved $2.7 million by eliminating inefficiencies in the cost of supervision, according to the legislative examination. There are duplications, too many supervisors whose duties are the same and excessive training for parole officers.

The audit said the Legislature provided adequate staff for the division to perform the job. But it said management had failed to supervise the agents to make sure they are doing their jobs in making the contacts, doing the home visits and performing the drug testing.

In addition, the management failed to fill job vacancies quick enough. "The division lacked policies and procedures, management information on vacancies, and consistent management oversight of hiring.

"These weaknesses resulted in the division not testing or recruiting applicants from April 1996 to March 1997. Consequently, by July 1997, the division has 41 parole and probation officer positions vacant," the audit said. Part of the problem then, Concha said, was the loss of the division's personnel officer.

Currently there are only 11 vacancies, excluding the new positions authorized by the 1999 Legislature starting this month.