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 Tripp

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

01/21/05

HB 220

SHORT TITLE 7

th

Judicial District Drug Court Programs

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

$214.0

Recurring

General

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Duplicates current HAFC recommendation for a $200 thousand dollar Appropriation in the Gen-

eral Appropriation Act

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 220, “7th Judicial District Drug Court Programs” appropriates $214,000 from the

general fund to the 7

th

Judicial District Court for the purpose of creating an adult drug court.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $214 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general

fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2007 shall

revert to the general fund.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The 7

th

Judicial District is one of two districts in the state which does not have a drug court pro-

gram. Personnel and a judge from the 7

th

Judicial District have already received training for

starting a drug court.

It is not clear whether there are FTE associated with the proposed appropriation.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

The District has not yet proposed performance measures for the proposed program, however

other drug courts monitor “cost per client per day, number of drug court graduates, recidivism

rate of drug court graduates, and percent graduation rate of drug court participants.”

House Bill 220 – Page

2

Drug courts typically incur lower costs per client per day than incarceration. The recidivism rate

is also lower for drug court graduates than other offenders. However, participants in drug courts

participate for a longer time period (1 year+) than they may have spent in jail for the same of-

fense. Also, drug court participants cannot be violent offenders.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The funding of additional programs will result in greater administrative responsibilities and

workload for the 7

th

Judicial District Court.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

This bill duplicates current HAFC budget recommendation for the 7

th

Judicial District Court,

which includes a $200 thousand dollar appropriation in the General Appropriation Act

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

The 7

th

Judicial District Court may receive a majority of the funding included in this bill through

the General Appropriations Act; the current HAFC recommendation includes $200 thousand of

the proposed $214 thousand.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

How many FTE, if any, are associated with the proposed drug court.

2.

How has the level of need for the drug court been determined.

3.

Has the level of need for drug court treatment been ranked against the other drug court

proposals in the state. If so, how does the 7

th

District rank.

4.

How was the need for an adult rather than a juvenile drug court determined.

5.

What is the anticipated outcome if this program is funded.

6.

Is there a collaboration planned for the proposed drug court with any other state agencies

such as the public defender. If so, what is the nature of the collaboration and are the other

state agencies adequately prepared.

EM/mt