NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

The LFC is only preparing FIRs on bills referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee and the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. The chief clerks are responsible for preparing and issuing all other bill analyses.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Corrections Department (CD)

Attorney General (AG)

Criminal Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (CJJCC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

SB 649 requires privately operated corrections facilities to:

• •disclose information regarding out-of-state and federal prisoners incarcerated in their facilities,
• •develop a written emergency response plan, to be approved by the secretary of correction,
• •require prospective correctional officers to participate in the same training program required of state correctional officers, at the cost of the private correctional facility, and
• •notify the secretaries of corrections and public safety and the county sheriff of the facilities' location of
• •inmate escapes
• •hostage situations
• •firearm discharges
• •disturbances involving three or more inmates.

Significant Issues

The bill requires privately operated corrections facilities to abide by the same requirements as state-run corrections facilities and may avoid potential disasters in emergency situations.

According to CD, SB 649 requires the private operator to provide certain information to the Secretary of Corrections regarding out of state inmates, there is little if anything the secretary can effectively do with such information. For example, if the private facility begins to house extremely dangerous inmates, the bill does not provide the Secretary of Corrections with any authority to prohibit or place any limitations upon the housing of such inmates. On a related manner, classification criterial varied from state to state and system to system and therefore, knowing the classification level of an inmate from a different system may be somewhat misleading.

Next, existing Section 31-20-2 (G) NMSA 1978 already requires those entities which contract with the CD for the housing of department inmates to have their correctional officers trained at the CD Academy. However, this bill would require all privately operated correction facilities to have their correctional officers trained at the CD Academy, regardless of whether they contract with CD for housing department inmates. This could create a significant increase in the administrative burden upon the departments training academy, particularly upon the effective date of the act and the start up period of any new privately operated correctional facility.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The bill will create some additional work for the corrections department., the department of public safety and county sheriffs.

CD reports there is no appropriation in the bill to cover the minimal to moderate increase in costs to the department that will result from the required oversight. The bill requires the private contractor to reimburse the state for the expense of having his correctional officers trained at the department's Training Academy. The bill does not require the private operator to reimburse CD for the costs of reviewing their emergency plans or the information regarding out of state inmates. Perhaps most importantly, the bill does not require the private operator to reimburse the department for responding to a disturbance at the correctional facility. Although the bill does not explicitly require the department to respond to a disturbance at the correctional facility, such a response may be implied by the provision of the bill which requires the privately operated facility to notify the corrections department of such a disturbance.

CJJCC reports there is no fiscal impact from this bill for the agency.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

CJJCC reports there is no administrative impact on the agency.

CD reports in both the short term and the long term, this bill will result in a significant increase in the administrative burden upon the department's Training Academy, which will be required to train all of the correctional officers from all of the privately operated correctional facilities within the state. There are already such facilities, including Santa Fe County, Torrance County, Cibola County, and others. The bill will also increase the administrative burden upon department staff who will be required to review emergency plans as well as the classification level and other information regarding inmates from out of state. The bill may require an increase in the number of FTE.

The Department of Public Safety reports there is administrative impact on the state police division, which would have to provide ground level support advice and response. The impact would be localized to those district areas where the private corrections facilities are located. The affected state police districts are:

District 3 - Roswell

District 5 - Moriarty

District 9 - Santa Rosa

Analyst comments: Currently the private facilities utilized by the Corrections Department are located in Santa Rosa, Hobbs and Grants.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

CJJCC reports:

a) Frequency of Reporting

33-1-17, Subsection D, Paragraph 4; and the new Section 2, Subsection A of the bill require private corrections facilities administrators to provide information regarding out-of-state and federal inmates held at the facilities. However, no periodicity is specified for providing the information. Corrections populations sometimes fluctuate quite rapidly, as prisoners are transferred in an out. Therefore, information provided one month may begin to lose currency by the second month. The bill should define the periodicity with which reports are to be filed.

b) Definition of a "corrections" facility

The bill does not include a definition of a "corrections facility." Do those facilities include jails (which are used for housing petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor offenders), or is the term limited to facilities that house felons? Without clarification, the provisions of this bill could apply to privately operated jails that merely house petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor offenders for the county. If that were the case, why should privately operated county jails be required to send their prospective correctional officers to training at the corrections department, when public county jails would not be required to do so?

c) The "same" training program

Does this mean the training program provided at the New Mexico Corrections Academy, or does it mean an equivalent program provided in another state (and presumably subject to approval by the New Mexico corrections department)?

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

CJJCC reports SB 649 allows for more full accounting of out-of-state and federal prisoners. By requiring the development of an emergency response plan and requiring notification of certain incidents involving prisoners in privately operated correctional facilities, potentially dangerous situations may be averted or dealt with in a more efficient manner. Having all correctional officers, private or state, participate in the same training programs helps ensure that the same procedures will be followed and that all officers are prepared to handle their positions. The bill covers facilities under contract to the corrections department and those not under contract.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL?

CJJCC reports out-of-state and federal prisoners located in private facilities will not be included in lists that are available to the corrections department, the department of public safety and county sheriffs. Privately run corrections facilities will not necessarily have emergency response plans in place in the case of an emergency. Private correctional officers will not have the benefit of the same training state correctional officers receive. Incidents occurring at private facilities may go unnoticed, and may not be properly dealt with.

AMENDMENTS

CJJCC suggests:

a) Amend 33-1-17, Subsection D, Paragraph 4; and the new Section 2, Subsection A of the bill to include the requirement that information on out-of-state and federal inmates be provided each month by private corrections facilities.

b) Include a definition of "correctional facility" to indicate: "any facility used for incarcerating convicted felons who are under the supervision of a state corrections department or the federal bureau of prisons."

c) To avoid any ambiguity regarding the training program that correctional officers in private facilities are required to undertake, amend 33-1-17, Subsection D, Paragraph (6), and the new Section 2, Subsection C, to read as follows:

"...as a condition of employment, require all his prospective correctional officers to successfully complete the training program offered by the corrections department. The contractor shall reimburse the state for the expense of having his prospective correctional officers participate in the corrections department's training program."

LAT/gm