Fiscal impact
reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for
standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they are used for other
purposes.
Current FIRs (in
HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments,
whereas HTML versions may not.
Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR |
Rawson |
DATE TYPED |
|
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT
TITLE |
Payments for Probation and Parole Services |
SB |
563/aSFl#1 |
||||
|
|
ANALYST |
Reynolds-Forte |
|||||
REVENUE
|
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
|
FY04 |
FY05 |
|
|
|
|
|
$105.0-$450.0 |
|
Recurring |
Community
Corrections
Grant Fund |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Relates to HB 318
Relates
to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Corrections
Department
Attorney
General’s Office
Public
Defender
Administrative
Office of the Courts
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of SFI Amendment #1
Senate Floor Amendment #1 provides a language
change to allow the Parole Board to waive the payment of parole fees. This language was suggested by the
Corrections Department in their bill analysis.
Synopsis of Original
Bill
Senate Bill 563 makes changes relating to
payment of probation and parole service fees.
First, it increases the minimum and maximum amount of probation as well
as parole supervision fees that offenders are supposed to pay. The bill increases the minimum monthly fee
from $15 to $25, the maximum monthly fee from $85 to $150, and the maximum
total annual amount from $1,020 to $1800.
The bill also provides these supervision fees shall not be waived unless
the Court holds an evidentiary hearing and finds the defendant is unable to pay
these fees. If the court waives payment
and the defendant’s financial circumstances change sothe
defendant is able to pay these fees, the appropriate probation and parole
supervisor is to advise the court and to determine whether the
waive should be rescinded.
Second, the bill provides the Corrections Department
shall require criminal offenders who participate in a community corrections
program and who receive program services to make a co-payment to offset the
cost of such services. The amount of the
co-payment is to be based on the offender’s ability to pay. These co-payments are to be deposited in the
community corrections grant fund.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The Correction Department usually collects approximately
$900 thousand per year in probation and parole supervision fees. Since the bill increases the minimum amount
of the monthly fee from $15 to $25, and makes it somewhat less likely that the
court will waive probation supervision fees, the Department roughly estimates
the bill could result in an additional $100 thousand to $400 thousand in revenue
from these fees.
Senate
Bill 563 also requires community corrections participants to make a co-pay to
offset the cost of programs; the Department roughly estimates this could
generate new revenue of approximately $5 thousand to $50 thousand per year.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The Corrections Department believes there will
be a slight increase in the administrative burden on probation and parole
personnel to collect the co-pay from community corrections participants. There could also be a slight increase in the
administrative burden on probation and parole officers to notify the court of a
change in financial circumstances and to attend hearings on such matters.
Senate Bill 563 adds a provision that prevents the district supervisor of the adult probation and parole division from waiving the defendant’s obligation to pay his or her costs unless the court holds an evidentiary hearing and finds that the defendant is unable to pay the costs. The Administrative Office of the Courts thinks the added requirement of holding evidentiary hearings to determine the defendant’s ability to pay for supervised probation & parole services may increase caseloads and dockets in the courts, thus requiring additional resources to handle the additional work associated with these evidentiary hearings.
RELATIONSHIP
Senate Bill 563
relates to House Bill 318 which renames the corrections department intensive
supervision fund and expands the purpose for which the fund may be used.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The Corrections Department suggests that on
pages 8 and 9, the bill is intended to address parole supervision fees, and the
new language should refer to the “parole board” rather than the “court.”
The Attorney General’s Office notes that on
page 9, line 25 and page 10, line 1, the bill says “criminal offenders who participate in
a program and who receive services” will make co-payments. As it is possible to only receive
services, or only participate in a program, and should the “and” be changed to
“or” so it reads “offenders who participate in a program or receive services?
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The Corrections
Department points out the bill should generate additional revenue to offset the
increasing costs to the Department of supervising and providing services to
offenders in the community. They believe
is good public policy to have those offenders who can afford it, pay some of
the costs of the supervision and program services they receive. Judges often routinely waive probation
supervision fees, without justification.
This bill would only allow judges to routinely waive fees if there was
evidence the defendant could not afford to pay.
The Public
Defender has concerns that this is a significant increase, especially for
Public Defender clients who are either indigent or making contract payments to
the Public Defender for their representation, and who may also be making
restitution payments.
PRF/yr:dm:lg