Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Children Mental Health Campus For Hope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates press Nevada interim finance committee to protect children’s mental health services amid Campus for Hope plans
Summary
Parents, advocates and providers told the Interim Finance Committee there is no clear plan to relocate children’s mental‑health services after proposed demolition at the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services campus; state officials say short‑term placements and a multiyear plan are being developed with Clark County and providers.
Get email alerts on the Children Mental Health Campus For Hope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urged the Nevada Interim Finance Committee on public comment and during an informational briefing to halt demolitions and ensure continuous care for children who receive mental‑health services on the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (SNAMHS) campus.
The concerns centered on demolition plans for several buildings and whether children currently served there would retain access to crisis response, residential and specialty programs. "Please make the right decision for Nevada's youth by keeping these buildings open and their critical services available to our most vulnerable population," said Rebecca Acosta, identifying herself as a pediatric health advocate and mother, during the committee's public comment period. Acosta asked the committee to "halt the demolition of buildings 7 through 16" and to require a comprehensive relocation plan.
Why this matters: witnesses said the campus houses programs intended to keep children out of emergency rooms, juvenile justice facilities and other inappropriate placements. Several nonprofit providers that received one‑time appropriations from the 82nd Legislature said disruption of those services would strain local child welfare and mental‑health systems. "We cannot afford to lose even one piece of our already fragile children's mental health system," said Tara Raines of the Children's Advocacy Alliance.
What officials told the committee: In an informational presentation (agenda item L1A), Jack Rowe and Division of Public and Behavioral Health staff described a two‑track approach. Rowe said the Office of the Governor and partners are working with Clark County and private providers to secure short‑term capacity while they identify and develop longer‑term licensed placements. "Since the last time we met and had a very robust conversation about this item, we have been very diligent working with partners, working with Campus for Hope, and finding ways that we can ensure that this $3,800,000 is spent," Rowe told members.
Division administrator Cody Finney said 18 youth were receiving services on the campus at the time of the briefing and that several placement options were being discussed. "There are 18 youth receiving services on the campus," Finney said. He described St. Jude's and Silver State Pediatrics as potential partners for some placements and said additional foster or licensed beds are being considered.
Areas of uncertainty and next steps: Advocates and committee members repeatedly asked for clearer, public plans and exact counts of youth placed out of state. Char Frost, a member of the Clark County Children's Mental Health Consortium, told the committee there was "no way to know whether the state will be able to find office space where it would be possible to co‑locate all of the programs that provide direct services to families." Committee members also asked the agencies when a firm plan would be available; officials said they expect to return to the IFC with an update in approximately six to eight weeks and invited further oversight.
Quotes and attributions in this article come from witnesses and officials recorded in the meeting transcript. No formal vote on demolition or relocation was taken at this meeting; the item was informational and under active development.

