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 for
other purposes.
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 in
SPONSOR: |
Snyder |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Drug and DWI Court Expansion |
SB |
90 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Hayes |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$2,042.3 |
|
|
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to SB91 and SB92
Responses
Received From
Administrative
Office of the Courts (
Highway
and Transportation Department, Traffic Safety Bureau
Review of
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 90 appropriates
$1,520.0 from the general fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts (
In addition, SB90
appropriates $522.3 from the general fund to the Administrative Office of the
Courts to create new juvenile and adult drug courts and DWI courts in the 4th,
5th, 12th and 13th Judicial District Courts
along with the Dona Ana magistrate court.
Significant
Issues
1.
Drug
Court Audit. The LFC
audit staff completed a review of certain drug courts in
a) Except for Bernalillo
County Metropolitan Court (BCMC), New Mexico drug courts do not have specific
statutory authority to charge client fees even though they charged drug court
participants anywhere from $8 to $425 when receiving treatment.
b) Some treatment providers were contracted to
collect client fees on behalf of the court, obtain bank accounts and deposit
the fees in the provider’s account; however, the accounts were used by the courts
to purchase items such as clothes and shoes for drug court staff, and to pay
for parking, computers, palm pilots, trips, food, hotels, cameras, belt
buckles, wall art, etc.
c) Drug courts do not have constitutional
authority to expend fees which have not been appropriated by the
Legislature. Fee revenue was not
included in courts’ budgets as required.
In addition, some of the expenditures did not comply with state Procurement
Code. In some courts, receipts were missing
and capital purchases were not documented on fixed assets lists.
d) Databases vary greatly among drug courts due
to different software versions, meaning that a uniform, reliable analysis of
drug court performance or their cost effectiveness is difficult. Data entry by drug courts is not always
complete or timely either. Courts need
standardized codes and formats to ensure data integrity. LFC’s audit noted
that
e)
Drug courts have not kept a complete
accounting of total costs to operate drug courts.
Consequently, previous reports of program
costs submitted by the drug courts are understated. LFC auditors also recommended transferring
drug court probation officers from the Department of Correction to the district
courts in which they work so that court administrators and program managers can
better manage funding and coordination of functions.
LFC committee members is
to adopt unified policies and procedures which apply to all drug courts
statewide. Although a Drug Court Advisory
Committee drafted drug court standards, LFC auditors believe they
fail to address the audit recommendations or procedures regarding fiscal
accountability, nor does the document promulgate uniformity. Everything from collection of participant
fees to written security procedures may be developed by each individual court.
is for a drug
court administrator position. A
permanent administrator is needed not only for administrative oversight of the
state’s drug courts, but to assist in developing and enforcing uniform procedures. A drug court administrator could standardize
and review treatment services contracts, perform audits, collect performance
data, assist with grant writing and provide training.
whether or not smaller courts in
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $2,042.3
contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any unexpended
or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2004 shall revert
to the general fund.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
There will be a major
administrative impact on the courts, especially on judges and court administrators
as the result of expanded drug courts.
Caseload will increase and administrative duties for managing drug
courts will become more complex. If
judgeships and/or staffing at the courts do not increase, operation of drug
courts could become burdensome. However,
if judges and staff are willing to devote the necessary overtime to drug court,
the results may be rewarding for both the participant and the taxpayer alike.
RELATIONSHIP
SB91 authorizes drug
courts to collect fees from clients (up to $160 per month) and creates non-reverting
drug court funds in each court in which those fees are deposited.
SB92 appropriates
general fund to certain courts whose federal grants, currently supporting drug
courts, are terminating.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Funding for drug court
or any other court-related program is typically funded directly to the individual
court. It is suggested that SB90 be
amended to appropriate specific amounts to each court mentioned in the bill,
not to the Administrative Office of the Courts, and to specifically designate
whether any FTE are associated with the appropriation.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
2. How can taxpayers or legislators ensure fiscal accountability from drug courts when there
are no uniform policies
and procedures in place guiding
such fiscal transactions?