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 a vailable 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 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 Cervantes
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
01/21/05
HB 182
SHORT TITLE Expand and Create Drug Courts
SB
ANALYST McSherry
APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)
Appropriation
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY06
FY07
$1,160.1
Recurring
General Fund
$530.8
Recurring
General Fund
$883.2
Recurring
General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
House Bill 182 is a companion to Senate Bill 134, and relates to Senate Bill 144.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Responses Received
Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD)
Public Defender (PD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 182, “Expand and Create Drug Courts,” appropriates a total of $2,574.100 thousand
from the general fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) for the purposes of:
Replacing lapsing drug court funds in the 1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
, 11
th
12
th
and 13
th
judicial districts,
McKinley County and for administrative support ($1,160.1 thousand);
Expanding existing drug courts in the 3
rd
, 4
th
, 5
th
, 6
th
, 8
th
, 11
th
, 12
th
, and 13
th
judicial dis-
tricts ($530.8 thousand); and
Creating new drug courts in the 4
th
, 7
th
, 8
th
, 9
th
, and 13
th
judicial districts ($883.2 thou-
sand).
pg_0002
House Bill 182 – Page
2
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $2,574.100 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the gen-
eral fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2007
shall revert to the general fund.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Both the LFC and executive budget recommendations include the $1,160,000 included in this
bill for replacement of lapsing drug court funds. The executive recommendation for the 7
th
and
9
th
judicial districts includes expansion drug court funding in the amount of $200,000 and 3 as-
sociated FTE for each district. The House Appropriations and Finance Committee has included
the replacement and executive-recommended expansion funds their recommendation at this
point.
According to CYFD, an additional 8 juvenile probation officer staff would be needed to super-
vise a specialized caseload in the proposed new and expansion programs.
Most drug courts in the state demonstrate a lower recidivism rate for offenders who participate in
a drug court program than the recidivism rate for those offenders who do not participate in a drug
court program.
The average cost per day for drug court ($11 -$40/day per client) is substantially less than the
cost per day for juvenile detention or jail time; however, the length of a drug court program is
typically greater (1 year +) than the time an individual would have spent incarcerated.
The Corrections Department during the 2005 session asserted that minimal savings will be in-
curred by the Corrections Department through the increase in number and size of drug courts.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
Districts proposed to introduce new drug court programs do not yet have performance measures
established. Drug courts which are in existence have measures such as recidivism rates, gradua-
tion rates and cost per client per day.
The courts have not yet proposed whether improvements to current performance targets would
result from the proposed expanded and new drug court programs.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
Increasing the funding for this program will increase the responsibilities for the oversight for the
programs by the individual districts and AOC.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
The general appropriations act as it is currently written includes the funds for drug court lapsing
funds replacement. HAFC has adopted expansions of $200,000 and 3 FTE for the 7
th
and 9
th
ju-
dicial districts for a total of $400,000 in expansion for drug courts.
pg_0003
House Bill 182 – Page
3
House Bill 182 is a companion to Senate Bill 134, and relates to Senate Bill 144 which proposes
the conversion of drug court Corrections Department staff into judicial employees.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
Not enacting the bill will result in the drug court programs continuing as they are currently situ-
ated as all replacement funds are included in the general appropriations act already.
Not enacting the bill would result in funding of lapsing funds only once.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1.
What criteria are used to determine continuation of funds for and/or managing these pro-
grams.
2.
How were districts prioritized as to their readiness to introduce a new or expanded drug
court program. Where all districts which wanted to expand included in the request for
additional drug courts.
3.
How many FTE are associated with each of the proposed expansions of existing pro-
grams and/or introduction of new drug court programs.
4.
How many new clients would be part of the new and expanded drug court programs.
5.
Are all districts requesting expanded drug courts currently at capacity with their existing
programs.
6.
Is the demand for drug courts uniform among those courts requesting new programs.
How does the level of drug court demand relate to the level of funding requested.
7.
What is the average savings per drug court participant when comparing total drug court
cost per person to total incarceration/other consequence cost.
8.
Have other sources of funding been pursued for any or all of the requested drug courts.
Where courts required to extinguish all funding options before proposing state sponsored
funds.
EM/yr