Editorial: Offenders need more oversight

Tuesday, Oct. 19, 1999 | 10:42 a.m.

A legislative audit of the state Parole and Probation Division contains some troubling information. As the Sun's Cy Ryan reported Friday, the overview of the agency from 1993 to 1998 found that offenders, who had been convicted of violent or sex offense crimes, received just moderate oversight or sometimes no supervision at all. In addition, so many of the parolees and probationers dodged paying the required $30 monthly fee to offset their supervision in fiscal year 1998 that this resulted in a $900,000 loss to the Parole and Probation's budget.

Some of the audit's findings were eye-openers. For instance, officers in Las Vegas made only 54 percent of the contacts mandated by regulations. Visits to offenders' homes also were found to be deficient, with just 43 percent of home visits made. Division regulations also require the first home visit to be done within 10 days, but the average time it took was 123 days, and in some cases it took as long as 250 days.

One of the reasons cited by the auditors for the lack of oversight was a failure of supervisors to ensure that officers were doing their jobs. Another factor is that during 1993-98 there was high turnover in key management positions within the division: During that time there were three division directors and at least two different district administrators. The division director, Carlos Concha, said changes already are being made to correct some of the problems and a key member of the Assembly's budget committee, Assemblyman John Marvel, R-Battle Mountain, predicted there will be improvements under Concha's direction.

The 1999 Legislature did boost the agency's operating budget by $5.4 million -- 27.2 percent -- for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, and increased it $1.2 million -- 4.6 percent -- for the following fiscal year. Included was funding to hire more employees so that supervision of offenders could be increased. Overall the ratio of parolees and probationers to officers improved from 75:1 to 70:1. Even more impressive is that the ratio of sex offenders to officers decreased from 75:1 to 45:1.

Still, one part of the division's budget that should be re-examined is the Legislature's insistence on the $30 monthly parolee supervision fee, a fee that is highly unreliable. A $600,000 shortfall last year in the fee forced cuts elsewhere in the division's budgets, resulting in less supervision of offenders. Another area that needs to be reassessed by both the Legislature and Gov. Kenny Guinn is the salaries paid to Parole and Probation officers. A failure to pay them adequate wages not only means it is likely the division will be unable to retain the best employees, but it also makes it even that more difficult to recruit new hires. As more prisoners get released from prison as a way to stem the increasingly higher costs of incarceration, both the executive and legislative branches need to devote more attention to the Parole and Probation Division, ensu ring that its employees have all the tools to do their jobs.