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 Swisstack

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/7/07

2/14/07 HB 517/aHGAC

SHORT TITLE Juvenile Justice Hearing and Processing

SB

ANALYST Lucero

ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)

FY07

FY08

FY09 3 Year

Total Cost

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

Total

$0.1*

$0.1*

$0.1* Recurring General

Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

*See Fiscal Implications narrative.

Relates to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Public Defender Department (PDD)

Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HGAC amendment

The House Health and Government Affairs Committee (HHGAC) amendment to House Bill 517

deletes many of the original bill’s major changes to the Delinquency Act. The bill as amended,

only adds eight new principles to the purpose statement of the Act. The eight new principles

mirror Annie E. Casey detention system reform principles.

Synopsis of Original Bill

Senate Bill 517 proposes several, mostly minor, changes to the Delinquency Act of the

Children’s Code.

•

Broadens the purpose of the Delinquency Act under Section 32A-2-2 to incorporate eight

Annie E. Casey detention and system reform principles including encourage

collaboration between government agencies, to develop juvenile justice policies and

procedures that are supported by date, to develop objective risk assessment instruments to

be used for pre and post adjudication admissions to juvenile detention centers, to

House Bill 517/aHGAC – Page

2

encourage efficient processing of cases, to develop community-based alternatives to

detention, to eliminate or reduce disparities based on race or gender, to improve

conditions of confinement, to achieve reductions in the number of warrants issued,

probation violations, and number of youth awaiting placement.

•

Proposes to clarify that a “court order" means a “court issued warrant" under Section

32A-2-11(A), and also replaces “he" with the gender neutral “child";

•

third, Section 32A-2-13(G) contains language that would allow a child on conditions of

release to have the child’s case processed as if the child were placed in detention;

•

Replaces in Section 32A-2-19 “he" with “child",

•

Allows for pre-adjudication credit under Section 32A-2-19(A)(9), a child placed in a

detention facility for a period not to exceed fifteen days for a probation or program

violation at any point during the child’s term of probation under Section 32A-2-19(B)(3),

•

Replaces “he" with “the parent or legal guardian" under Section 32A-2-19(I).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The financial impact is unclear at the present time, the manpower required, detention alternative

programs, and services which will be impacted needs to be determined. Estimates range from

one (1) additional FTE per county and costs of 5-10 dollars per day per youth out of detention

awaiting disposition. There could also be $150.00 to $300.00 per client every month for

electronic monitoring.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

This bill adds sections D through K to Section 32A-2-2 NMSA 1978. These eight (8) additions

are essentially the Annie E. Casey principles of detention and system reform. Adding these

sections to the act would amount to philosophical additions to the Children’s Code. The

Department has been supportive of detention and system reform and has made recent changes in

policy and procedure that support reform. Measuring several of these amendments, although not

required, may be difficult. Part (K.) for example, to achieve reductions in the number of

warrants issued, the number of probation violations and the number of youth awaiting placement

:

The Department has limited control over treatment and program options in communities,

particularly in the rural areas of the state. Requiring reductions in warrants and probation

violations without support by providers in the communities could create public safety concerns.

32A-2-11. CRITERIA FOR DETENTION.

A Judge would have to issue a warrant for youth to be detained on probation violations and

specialty court (drug court and similar court programs) violations instead of detention hold (eg. 2

and 4 day holds) being at the discretion of the JPPO or Specialty Court Judge. Two (2) and four

(4) day holds are utilized by JPPO’s and Judges as an alternative to revocation of probation.

Eliminating this discretionary authority would likely result in an increase of probation violations

filed and warrants issued. A direct contradiction to other proposed amendment Part (K.) above

requiring reductions in warrants and probation violations. New Mexico has limited resources and

program alternatives to date for youth as a detention alternative.

Should a client violate the conditions of probation or parole, the state would be responsible for

alternative graduated sanctions/interventions. A cost and personnel resources would be required

at a greater level, therefore a financial impact would take place.

House Bill 517/aHGAC – Page

3

32A-2-13. DETENTION HEARING REQUIRED ON DETAINED CHILDREN - PROBABLE

CAUSE DETERMINATION—COURT DETERMINATION—DISPOSITION:

Children released under court ordered conditions restricting their movement such as house arrest,

electronic monitoring, etc, shall have their case processed under the same time frames as if the

child were in detention. This change would have an impact on the Department. Expediting

cases benefits the client and allows the JPPO to provide supervision and services at an earlier

point in time, but would require JPPO supervision on cases otherwise not supervised. This would

have a workload impact for JJS.

32A-2-19. DISPOSTION OF AN ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT OFFENDER:

A.

(9): Gives Judges discretion to allow children credit for time served in a detention

facility toward their final disposition. Juvenile dispositions are indeterminate (up to one

year, up to two years, up to age twenty-one (21). For a youth committed for one year (12

months), there is the potential that this change could limit the departments ability to

impact a committed youth’s behavior because it would reduce the amount of time the

department has to work with that youth. If a youth was committed for 12 months and

had his/her commitment reduced by 3 months of detention time and 3 months of

mandatory parole, the department would only have 6 months to actually program with

the youth before he/she is paroled. That amount of time would be inadequate for some

youth. The Department already has discretion to release children from probation early

when the conditions of the order have been achieved and similar discretion exists as to

when a child can be released from a juvenile correctional facility.

B.

(3): This amendment would not have a negative impact on the Department.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

It is unclear how this bill will affect performance measures for CYFD.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Administrative costs to track outcomes related to the new items D through K of Section 32A-2-2

NMSA may burden the Department’s data resources. The bill may require additional JPPO

positions and may limit their authority and discretion.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

None identified at this time.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

None, other then those identified under significant issues.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

None, other then those identified under significant issues.

House Bill 517/aHGAC – Page

4

ALTERNATIVES

None, other then those identified under significant issues.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

Status Quo.

DL/mt