Senate panel hears compromise on officer training; ABA board opposes RBT temporary registration provision

Senate sponsor James Orange presented Senate Bill 380 and an amendment that makes autism‑awareness training for peace officers optional rather than mandatory and adds a temporary registration pathway for registered behavior technicians (RBTs) to begin supervised work while longer state background checks and formal registration are processed.

Supporters described two related policy goals. First, advocates and families urged statewide training for peace officers on how to identify and safely interact with people with autism and developmental disabilities. Julie Ostrowsky, parents and advocates, and multiple autism organizations said optional, locally delivered training could help prevent escalations and improve officer interactions. Several witnesses noted existing agency training and volunteer capacity to provide courses and offered to train agencies at low or no cost.

Second, witnesses representing providers and some employers urged a temporary registration mechanism so RBTs could begin supervised work after an initial federal/contractor check and while the state board completes its registration. Supporters, including providers and family advocates, argued the current state registration process delays entry of RBTs into the workforce, thinning the available clinician pool and lengthening wait lists for services.

Opposition-centered testimony came from the Nevada Board of Applied Behavior Analysis and professional groups that oversee licensing. Dr. Bridget Fronapfel, chair of the Nevada Board of Applied Behavior Analysis, told the committee the board and a majority of its members oppose the temporary authorization in section 4(2). The board said data presented to justify the change was inaccurate and that the bill would impose unaccounted costs on the board’s small staff. The board and allied groups said background checks and registration details are variable by state, that background‑check sharing may violate federal law, and that allowing employers to rely on an employer attestation could weaken consumer protections.

Gwen Johnson of the Nevada Association for Behavior Analysis Public Policy Committee repeated concerns that the state board has the required knowledge and data and recommended leaving direct criminal background checks under the board’s jurisdiction to preserve consumer protection. The board’s executive director, Wendy Knorr, said the board had processed thousands of applications and that average turnaround times had improved; she urged employers or applicants to contact the board for assistance rather than adopt the proposed temporary pathway.

Supporters said the amendment preserves law enforcement training as optional to reduce fiscal notes and still allows agencies to choose the training. Jan Crandy and other advocates said they already have a Nevada training coalition ready to deliver courses and that many agencies would opt in. Sponsors and proponents asked for follow‑up conversations about precise registration requirements and background‑check scope; opponents called for removal of the RBT temporary registration language to avoid weakening board authority.

The committee closed the hearing without a vote. No formal amendments were adopted at the hearing; parties agreed to continue negotiations.