[1] NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only 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.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office 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:
|
Martinez
|
DATE TYPED:
|
01/27/02
|
HB
|
273
|
|
SHORT TITLE:
|
Expand Drug Court Programs
|
SB
|
|
|
|
ANALYST:
|
Hayes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained
|
Estimated
Additional Impact
|
Recurring
or Non-Rec
|
Fund
Affected
|
|
FY02
|
FY03
|
FY02
|
FY03
|
|
|
|
|
$6,706.0
|
|
|
Recurring
|
General Fund
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates
SB35
SOURCES
OF INFORMATION
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
LFC files
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 35
appropriates $6,706.0 from the general fund to various courts throughout New Mexico
for the purpose of supplementing and expanding juvenile and adult drug courts.
The effective date of
the bill is fiscal year 2003.
Significant
Issues
- No
cost-benefits analysis. Even though drug court judges state
that drug courts are effective, no comprehensive analysis has been
completed to support that claim.
There has been no cost-benefit analysis performed by the courts to
compare with incarceration costs to determine drug court
effectiveness. A meaningful
analysis needs to be compiled in a comprehensive and systematic manner so
that informed decisions can be made and so that legislators and taxpayers
alike can evaluate the savings and the benefits of instituting and/or
expanding drug courts throughout New Mexico. The Legislature should clarify whether it is automatically
going to take on the funding obligation of drug court programs after
federal grants terminate, or whether it plans on appropriating money based
on proven program performance—the standard by which all other state
agencies must adhere under performance-based budgeting.
- Reporting. The University of New Mexico’s Institute
of Social Research (ISR) has been engaged by the AOC to conduct a
comprehensive, historical evaluation of the state’s drug courts. In short, ISR will compare drug court
participants with similar offenders who did not attend drug court to
determine any difference in behavior or criminal activity. The study has not yet been completed
because, according to Paul Guerin at ISR, he has been unable to obtain
drug court information/client data from certain drug courts in order to
proceed. The LFC has experienced
the same lack of cooperation in obtaining data from certain drug
courts. As a result, the LFC
recommended deferring additional funding until such time that ISR’s
analysis can be completed in order to determine the actual level of success
of drug courts.
- Internal
Control Issues.
Various financial control problems and procurement code issues have
also recently surfaced in drug courts, along with matters concerning the
assessment of client fees plus the expenditure and disposition of that fee
revenue collected. Because there
are questionable practices and transactions, the LFC audit manager will be
conducting an audit of all drug courts to document the extent of these
problems along with ensuring that fixed assets are being properly recorded,
that grant money is being properly spent, etc. In the meantime, the Supreme Court is also identifying areas
of improvement and will be recommending new, uniform policies and
procedures that will be applicable to all drug courts.
- FY03
Budgets for Drug Courts. The LFC did not recommend additional
funding for drug courts or related expansions above their FY02 levels due
to the lack of analysis and the financial issues outlined above. However, members of the LFC acknowledge
the merits of drug court. Legislators
should be aware that LFC’s budget recommendations with the inclusion of
both general fund and grant money provide sufficient funding for all drug
courts through FY03.
- Drug
Court Administrator. The only additional drug court funding
that LFC supports is for a drug court administrator position. A permanent administrator is needed not
only for administrative oversight of the state’s drug courts, but to
assist in developing and enforcing minimum standards of uniformity (also
suggested by the Judicial System Study Committee). A drug court administrator could
standardize and review treatment services contracts, perform audits,
collect performance data, develop a policies and procedures manual, assist
with grant writing and provide training.
- Implementation of
New Drug Courts. The question
arises whether or not smaller courts in New Mexico will be able to handle
the workload and caseload involved with drug courts. In addition, are the judges and staff
able and willing to conduct drug court along with regular courtroom
duties? Some judges have expressed
that they are not. Are those
courts included in Section 1(b) of this bill? The availability of treatment providers is also an issue in
smaller communities along with facilities and staffing.
- Accelerated
Expansion of Drug Courts. The appropriations in this bill do not
represent incremental growth.
House Bill 273 more than doubles the funding for drug courts and expands
them without consideration of existing drug court problems and without
evaluation of the programs’ success or effectiveness. Funding and expanding drug courts at an
accelerated level, plus doubling the number of clients and implementing
drug courts in almost every district in the state is a major
undertaking. A graduated
implementation schedule may be more manageable for all parties involved,
and may be more prudent and fiscally sound at this juncture.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of
$6,706.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general
fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered
balance remaining at the end of FY03 shall revert to the general fund.
The amount requested
in this bill is in addition to the money already appropriated to drug courts;
in FY02, drug courts statewide have funding totaling $4,690.0. FY03 budget recommendations are approximately
the same.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
There
will be a major administrative impact on the courts, especially on judges and
court administrative time, as the result of an increase in caseload and drug
courts’ general programmatic needs. If
judges and staff are willing to devote the necessary additional time to drug
court operations, the results may be rewarding for both the participant and the
taxpayer.
Another
issue is that needs to be addressed internally by the judiciary is cooperation
and collaboration between drug court staff and the regular court staff. At some courts, this has not been the
case. Drug court should be viewed as
another “specialty” program within the court-- just like the domestic violence
program, mediation program, grade court, teen court and child support hearing
program. They should not operate
independently nor outside the administrative structure of the court.
DUPLICATION
Senate Bill 35
duplicates this drug court expansion bill.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The AOC does not have a drug court, so it is
unclear why this bill is appropriating money to that agency. Drug court funding has always been
appropriated directly to the recipient court.
The only proper funding for AOC would be an appropriation for the
permanent Drug Court Administrator position and associated expenses, along with
funding to complete the ISR study.
Section 2 of SB35 does not specify types of
positions, number of positions, which court or district to whom they are appropriated. This information is necessary to fully
understand the funding request.
In Section 3, appropriations to the Public
Defender Department need to specify types of positions and associated “costs.”
Are there capital costs/one-time non-recurring
expenses included in this appropriation?
This needs to be clarified and separated from recurring expenses.
If any of the appropriation contained in this
bill is for a judgeship, separate legislation is required.
CMH/njw