[1] NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

 

Only the most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Papen

 

DATE TYPED:

01/29/02

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

3rd Judicial District Alternative Disposition Pilot

 

SB

25

 

 

ANALYST:

Hayes

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY02

FY03

FY02

FY03

 

 

 

$500.0

 

 

Recurring

General Fund

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Public Defender Department (PD)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

Senate Bill 25 adds a new section to the Delinquency Act and appropriates $500.0 from the general fund to the Third Judicial District Court for the purpose of creating and funding an Alternative Disposition Pilot Program.

 

The provisions of this act are effective July 1, 2002.

 

     Significant Issues

 

1.     The Alternative Disposition Pilot Program provides the children’s court judges with an opportunity to order an alternative disposition for a child in instances where the department does not offer sufficient services or programs for that child.  The judge is authorized to place a child on probation and, as a condition of that probation, place the child in a long-term facility either in or outside of New Mexico.

 

2.     According to AOC, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) facilities statewide do not have an effective mental health component or effective treatment for youthful offenders.  This may necessitate out-of-state treatment.

 

3.     While this legislation enables judges to send children in need of services to either in-state or out-of-state programs, it bypasses CYFD and shifts treatment resources to the courts.  It is unclear why the court is performing treatment or social services functions.  If CYFD is lacking the funding to provide such services, the funding may be better served in CYFD or related agency whose agency function is to help children.

 

4.     Neither the program nor funding for an Alternative Disposition Pilot Program were approved in the judiciary’s Unified Budget.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The appropriation of $500.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.  Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY03 shall revert to the general fund

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

While the program goals are defined in the bill, it is unclear for what the $500.0 is needed.  Are there FTE positions associated with this program?  This needs to be clarified in the bill.  In addition to legal services, is the court itself going to be providing long-term treatment services?  The bill simply states that the funding is for the purpose of “operating an alternative disposition pilot program” whereby a judge sentences a youth to treatment in a facility somewhere.  In what manner is the court “operating” this program?  What are those services?  Why does the 3rd District court need $500.0 for this function? 

 

CMH/ar

 [1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode.  Do not add or delete spaces.