Assembly committee hears bill to allow jail-based forensic mental health restoration

Carson City — The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday held a hearing on Assembly Bill 467, a measure sponsored by Assemblywoman Erica Roth that would permit Nevada's Division of Public and Behavioral Health (DPBH) to contract with county jails to provide forensic competency restoration services and would add provisions aimed at speeding placement of juveniles who are found not competent.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Erica Roth, said AB467 aims “to increase access to forensic mental health care” and to reduce long waits for admission to state forensic hospitals and outpatient restoration programs. She told the committee that Nevada has seen waits of “up to 1 year” for some defendants and that the delays have led to repeated litigation and court-ordered fines when transports were not made within statutory timelines.

Proponents framed the bill as a way to add capacity and flexibility. Jennifer Raines, Chief Deputy Washoe County Public Defender, told the committee the bill is guided by the sequential intercept model and would focus on “intercept 3, the courts and the jail.” She said Washoe County’s competency court and a jail-based mental health unit have shown how treatment in a custody setting can be delivered safely and effectively.

Judge Egan Walker, who presides over the Washoe County competency docket, urged support and called the approach “smart on justice,” saying it can reduce time to admission at Lakes Crossing, shorten stays at the forensic hospital and improve outcomes when individuals return to the community.

Bridget Duffy, assistant district attorney in Clark County’s juvenile division, described long waits for youth placements and said one recent case involved a child who waited about four months in juvenile detention before transport to a state treatment facility. Duffy said the amendments to section 20 of AB467 would require the administrator to accept placement or provide available treatment while locating an appropriate facility, bringing juvenile practice closer to adult processes.

Washoe and Clark County officials described local programs. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office said “the Clark County Detention Center is the largest mental health provider in the entire state.” Jason Walker (identified in the hearing as representing the Washington County Sheriff’s Office) and Cadence Matejevich, Washoe County government affairs liaison, described jail-based mental health units that have reduced transfer waits — Walker described reductions from roughly six months to about four months on average.

Supporters noted a history of legal interventions: Roth and others said Nevada previously entered consent decrees over transport waits (a decree after litigation in 2005 and again after 2013), and that judges have imposed fines (one account cited a $500 per-inmate-per-day fine that the Supreme Court upheld in 2023). Committee testimony said Clark County had an average wait time of about 123 days in 2023 and that fines to date totaled nearly $200,000.

Some stakeholders urged caution. Jennifer Noble of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said she and prosecutors support the bill’s objective but want more time to work through the civil–criminal intersection and certain language in the conceptual amendment. Marla McDade Williams, administrator for the Division of Child and Family Services, said secure placement for youth is a barrier; she noted Desert Willow Treatment Center is secure but that private facilities often lack forensic-level staffing and can have high failure rates for these youth.

Several speakers described the bill’s current amendment package: sponsors said section 2 of the original draft was removed after stakeholders raised concerns; section 3, as amended, uses permissive language to allow DPBH to enter into contracts with sheriff’s offices to provide restoration services in jail-based facilities while maintaining state administrative oversight. Supporters said the change would not strip the state of oversight but would add another treatment option intended to reduce wait lists for Lakes Crossing and similar forensic inpatient beds.

The hearing included public testimony by county officials and telephone testimony from Clark County representatives who said their local jail-based programs are models that reduced wait times. No formal committee vote on AB467 was recorded during the hearing; the chair closed the hearing after testimony and indicated the committee would take other business on its agenda.

Why it matters: Committee members and stakeholders said the bill could shorten the time people found incompetent spend in detention waiting for restoration, reduce the risk posed by long waits without treatment, and ease pressure on state forensic beds. Supporters argued that timely treatment is both a legal and human-rights issue; opponents and process-focused stakeholders asked for clearer statutory language and safeguards where civil and criminal standards intersect.

Next steps: The committee closed the AB467 hearing without a recorded committee vote. Sponsors said they would continue to work with stakeholders on amendment language.