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 King, R.

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1/25/08

HB 421

SHORT TITLE

Torrance County Drug Court

SB

ANALYST C. Sanchez

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY08

FY09

$50.0

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)

FY08

FY09

FY10 3 Year

Total

Cost

Recurring

or Non-

Rec

Fund

Affected

Total

Indeterminable

Recurring General

Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMAT

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Court (AOC)

Department of Corrections (DOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

This bill appropriates $50,000 from the general fund to the seventh judicial district for

expenditure in fiscal year 2009 to start a drug court in Torrance County. Any unexpended

balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2009 reverts to the general fund.

House Bill 421 – Page

2

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

HB 421 appropriates $50,000 in recurring general funds to start a drug court in Torrance County.

The initial cost of the program of $50 thousand in fiscal year 2009 is subject to increased costs

resulting from any increases in participants and treatment costs.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

According to the AOC, drug court performance measures show that the drug court programs are

good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. Cost-per-client-per-day for drug courts is significantly

lower than the costs of incarceration, averaging $25.27 in FY07 versus the average cost of

incarceration of $81.35. Though quantifying the exact savings of drug courts in New Mexico in

criminal justice and victimization costs is difficult, a recent study by the Washington State

Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) provides some helpful points of comparison. It was

commissioned by that state’s legislature to identify alternative options to incarceration that could

(a) reduce the future need for prison beds, (b) save money for state and local taxpayers, and (c)

contribute to lower crime rates. WSIPP found and analyzed 571 rigorous comparison-group

evaluations of adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention programs. Among other

findings, WSIPP determined that both adult and juvenile drug courts provided significant

reductions in recidivism over treatment as usual, and even more importantly determined that

each could lead to overall costs savings of over $4600 per participant. Using that general savings

figure with the number of adult and juvenile drug court participants in FY07 would indicate an

overall savings to the citizens of New Mexico in criminal and victimizations of almost

$3,000,000 in FY07.

Other studies have looked at the cost benefits of drug court programs from a larger perspective,

considering not just avoided incarceration costs, but the following comparisons with

probationers: (1) drug court graduates’ wages are higher during and after drug court than

probationers; (2) they work longer than probationers, resulting in higher taxes and FICA

payments, lower TANF and food stamps use; and (3) drug court graduates health care costs and

mental health services were significantly lower than those for probationers. Various city and

county studies around the country have traced such cost savings for their drug court programs

and realized that for every $1 they spent on their drug court programs they were saving from $2

to $10 in other costs.

According to the AOC, other cost savings are realized through the birth of drug-free babies to

participants of the drug court programs. There were at least 20 drug-free babies born to program

participants in FY05, many of whom would have been drug-effected if not drug-addicted without

the mother’s participation in the drug court program. Hospitalization and ongoing health care

costs for drug-effected or addicted babies are substantial. For example, children with fetal

alcohol syndrome can require $1.4 million in treatment over their lifetime.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Probation/parole caseloads typically increase in districts that add adult drug courts. If existing

staff must supervise these additional drug court cases with no additional staffing, it could have a

significant impact on the supervision of the drug court participants. Typically, probation and

parole officers are required to spend more time with drug court participants, i.e., more drug

House Bill 421 – Page

3

testing, more time spent on case management, and more time spent in court appearances.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Drug Court Advisory Committee (DCAC) five-year strategic plan states that a drug court is

a specially designed court calendar or docket, the purposes of which are to achieve a reduction in

recidivism and substance abuse and to increase the participants’ likelihood of successful

rehabilitation through early, continuous, and intense judicial oversight, treatment, supervision,

mandatory periodic drug testing, and use of appropriate sanctions, incentives, and other

community-based rehabilitation services.

Drug courts all share three primary goals: (1) to reduce recidivism, (2) to reduce substance abuse

among participants, and (3) to rehabilitate participants.

Achieving these goals requires a special organizational structure. Specifically, the drug court

must include the following 10 key components:

•

Incorporating drug testing into case processing

•

Creating a non-adversarial relationship between the defendant and the court.

•

Identifying defendants in need of treatment and referring them to treatment as soon as

possible after arrest.

•

Providing access to a continuum of treatment and rehabilitation services.

•

Monitoring abstinence through frequent, mandatory drug testing.

•

Establishing a coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’

Compliance.

•

Maintaining judicial interaction with each drug court participant.

•

Monitoring and evaluating program goals and gauging their effectiveness.

•

Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning,

implementation, and operations.

•

Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based

organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court effectiveness.

In New Mexico, there are four basic types of drug courts: Adult, Juvenile, DWI, and Family

Dependency Drug Courts. Adult Drug Courts take participants 18 years of age or older. Juvenile

Drug Courts treat participants within their jurisdiction. DWI Drug Courts focus on DWI

offenders. Family Dependency Drug Courts target abuse, neglect, and dependency cases where

parental substance abuse is a primary factor.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

Drug offenders will not receive the treatment and attention they need. Thus, they may violate

their probation conditions and be sent back to prison.

CS/nt