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).

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.

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