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 Snyder
DATE TYPED 02/02/05 HB
SHORT TITLE Drug Court Expansion
SB 212
ANALYST McSherry
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY05
FY06
FY05
FY06
NFI
$529.6
NFI Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
NFI
$708.9
NFI Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
NFI
$857.4
NFI Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
NFI
$160.0
NFI Indeterminate Recurring General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Senate Bill 212 largely duplicates the executive recommendation for the General Appropriation
Act
which includes $529.6 thousand in increased base funding for drug courts and expansion
funding in the amount of $1,654.2 thousand for a total of $2183.8 thousand in new drug court
funding.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD)
Public Defender (PDD)
Department of Health (DOH)
Corrections Department (CD)
SUMMARY
FOR THE CORRECTIONS OVERSIGHT, COURTS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE.
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 212 appropriates $2,255,900 thousand from the general fund to the Administrative
Office of the Courts for the purpose of replacing federal and transferred state funds used for drug
court programs ($529.6 thousand), expanding drug court programs ($708.9 thousand), creating
new adult and family drug court programs ($857.4 thousand), and evaluating drug court pro-
grams in the state ($160 thousand).
Significant Issues
pg_0002
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 2
According to the Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD), drug court programs de-
crease substance use and thereby improve level of behavioral functioning.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) reports that the number of drug courts has in-
creased from one drug court in 1994 to 28 programs in the state today, and that New Mexico is
part of the national trend of “embracing” drug court programs. The Office asserts that national
studies have consistently demonstrated that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies
for drug-involved offenders. AOC cites recidivism of drug court graduates as much less than the
recidivism of similar offenders, and that the cost-per-client of drug court participants as signifi-
cantly less than incarceration. The Corrections Department, however, asserts that minimal sav-
ings will be incurred by the Corrections Department through the increase in number and size of
drug courts.
There are drug court programs in 10 of the state’s 13 judicial districts, and 15 of the state’s 33
counties. The AOC asserts that funds requested in SB 212 are necessary for the continued opera-
tion of four programs, the expansion and improvement of nine programs, and the implementation
of four new drug courts in underserved areas of the state. Senate Bill 212 also proposes to fund
ongoing program and outcome evaluations of the state’s drug court programs.
Attachment I, pages 1 and 2 NM Drug Courts Performance Measures Comparison, Reporting
Period FY04, include current drug court statistics and performance measure results.
Attachment II is NM Drug Courts, Funding Sources and Timelines.
pg_0003
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 3
The following table shows the AOC proposed breakdown of each of the categories of funds pro-
posed by Senate Bill 212.
Proposed Replacement Funds ($529,600)
According to AOC, four drug court programs will end or severely cut back services in FY06 if
they cannot replace lapsing funds. Two of the four of these programs were initiated with federal
“seed” funds from the Department of Justice and have existed for several years (Fifth and Thir-
teenth Districts). The other two programs were started in FY05 through a transfer of other state
funds from the Human Services Department and have existed for a few months (First District).
The AOC reports that federal Department of Justice monies for the drug court programs are in-
tended to seed, not permanently support, drug court programs. The Judiciary places a high prior-
ity on institutionalizing such programs through recurring state funding. The four programs pro-
posed for receiving replacement funds are the juvenile drug court in Valencia County, family
drug court in Lea County, and the juvenile and adult drug courts in First District’s Rio Arriba
County which focus on heroin abuse.
Proposed Expansion Funds ($708,876)
AOC proposes that nine drug court programs would use the expansion funds to improve services
and increase program capacity in answer to local demand. The agency cites increased supplies,
staffing, and treatment contracts, these programs would increase the courts’ capacity by over 100
participants, an increase of almost one-third their current capacity. See the attached chart for in-
dividual district’s current capacities, retention rates, graduation rates and historic data.
Replacement
of Lapsing
Funds
Requests
Expansi on
Requests
New Drug
Cour t
Requests
Dr ug Cour t
Evaluations
Fi r st Di str i ct
Juveni l e (Sant a Fe and Ri o
Arriba Co.)
$125,080
1
Adul t ( Santa Fe and Ri o
Arriba Co.)
$89,920
1
Thi rd Di st ri ct
Juveni l e (Dona Ana Co. )
$34, 991
Adul t ( Dona Ana Co. )
$128, 500
Fami l y (Dona Ana Co. )
$50, 900
Four th Distr ict
Juveni l e (San Mi guel Co.)
$79, 800
Fi ft h Di stri ct
Fami l y (Lea Co.)
$171,400 $16, 000
Seventh Distr ict Adul t ( Socor ro Co. )
$249,300
Ei ght h Di str i ct
Family (Taos Co.)
$164,780
Ni nth Distr ict
Adult (Curry Co.)
$240,000
El event h Di stri ct Adul t ( San Juan Co. )
$110, 600
Thi rteenth Di st ri ct Juveni l e (Sandoval Co.)
$54, 600
Juveni l e (Val enci a Co. )
$143,200 $26, 885
Juveni l e (Ci bol a Co. )
$206, 600
Adul t ( Sandoval Co. )
$203,300
Admini str at ive Ofc. of
the Courts
$160, 000
$529,600 + $708, 876 + $857,380 + $160, 000
= $2,255, 856
Not es:
1
- - Repl acement of FY05 one-t i me award of Ot her St ate Funds
FY06 Appr opri ati on Total
** * AOC pr oposed FY06 Dr ug Cour t Appr opr iati on * **
pg_0004
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 4
Proposed New Drug Court Funds ($857,380)
According to the AOC, these proposed funds would allow district courts to implement four new
drug court programs. Two of the new drug courts would be in judicial districts that do not have a
drug court, while the other two would provide new programs targeting underserved populations
in communities that are already benefiting from the drug court model. The Judiciary places a
high priority on the implementation of drug courts throughout the state, with the goal of making
them accessible to everyone who needs them.
Proposed Evaluation Funds ($160,000)
Many of New Mexico drug courts were started with federal seed money and according to AOC
were programmatically evaluated according to the differing requirements depending upon the
particular federal funding organization and type of grant. The AOC reports that over the last
several years, the state has replaced lapsing federal funding of drug courts but that standardized
programmatic evaluation criteria has not been established.
According to AOC, the judiciary would like to perform outcomes analysis, cost-benefit, and op-
erational evaluations in order to substantiate drug court programs and to improve the courts per-
formance. AOC asserts that the evaluations would compare long and short-term outcomes to
each program’s set goals, the outcomes of other New Mexico and national drug courts, and out-
comes compared with similar populations (such as probationers) who have not been through a
drug court program. The Office states that cost-benefit and operational studies would promote
efficient and effective use of funds, staff, contractual entities, and cooperating agencies and
community services. The appropriation of evaluation funds, relates AOC, would enable the
funding for a single contract organization to develop a standardized set of programmatic evalua-
tion criteria and schedule evaluations for a “significant” number of the drug court programs in
FY 06.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
FY 06 is the second year that the courts will participate in performance-based budgeting. The
Drug Court Advisory Committee and the state’s drug court coordinators have worked with the
LFC to establish performance measures for New Mexico drug court programs. The AOC asserts
that funding proposed in this appropriation is necessary to gather the data to calculating and re-
port performance measures.
According to the Corrections Department
there may be a very minimal decrease in the Depart-
ment administrative workload due to a very minimal decrease in prison population that may oc-
cur.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $2,255.9 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.
Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2006 shall revert
to the general fund.
The Corrections Department cites a very minimal increase in funds saved that would be saved
due to the fact that the Department might have a very insignificant decrease in inmates and a
very slightly decreased load of probationers/parolees.
pg_0005
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 5
The contract/private prison annual costs of incarcerating an inmate is $20,720 per year for males.
The cost per client to house a female inmate at a privately operated facility is $26,313 per year.
The Corrections Department reports that, because state owned prisons are essentially at capacity,
any net increase in inmate population will be housed at a contract/private facility.
The cost per client in Probation and Parole for a standard supervision program is $1,452 per year.
The cost per client in Intensive Supervision programs is $2,852 per year. The cost per client in
department-operated Community Corrections programs is $4,371 per year. The cost per client in
privately-operated Community Corrections programs is $9,151 per year. The cost per year for
male and female residential Community Corrections programs is $20,725.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The AOC reports that drug court evaluations require some commitment of administrative per-
sonnel and resources in providing program access, requested materials, and database reports to
the evaluation team.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Senate Bill 212 largely duplicates the executive recommendation for the General Appropriation
Act
which includes $529.6 thousand in increased base funding for drug courts and expansion
funding in the amount of $1,654.2 thousand for a total of $2183.8 thousand in new drug court
funding.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
According to CYFD the expansion appropriation language is not clear as to which type of drug
court in the thirteenth district is to be expanded and which is to be added.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.
Should the appropriation not be continued four drug court programs, two which began this fiscal
year using funds from the Human Services Department, and two which were started with federal
grant funds several years ago would have significantly reduced budgets or would be required to
find funding from a source other than the general fund.
The AOC reports that the expansion and improvement of nine courts, and the implementation of
four new drug courts in “underserved” areas of the state would not occur without the enactment
of this bill. However, the four new proposed programs have not received federal “seed” funds
which have been granted to other drug courts when first created in the state as cited by the
agency.
According to the AOC, the loss of funds for existing programs, and without funds to expand or
implement programs in underserved areas, would lead to increased problems with substance
abuse in the affected areas, including increased workload for law enforcement, caseload for the
judiciary, and need for beds in detention and corrections facilities.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
What percentage of the current percent capacity of each of the programs proposed to receive ex-
pansion funding.
pg_0006
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 6
Have the four newly proposed drug court programs already applied for federal funds. Are any
of the existing programs eligible for continuing or existing federal funds.
Would studies proposed to be funded include comparisons of drug court participants with control
groups that would have been qualified to participate in drug courts.
What is the projected cost of full state funding of drug courts should the state eventually assume
responsibility for all federal funds currently awarded.
EM/lg:yr
Attachments
pg_0007
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 7
Attachment I
New Mexico Drug Courts
Performance Measure Comparison: FY04
Judicial District, Court Type, and
Location
Recidivism
1
Cost-per-
Client-per-
Day
3
Number of
Graduates
Graduation
Rate
Retention
Rate
Employment of
Drug Court
Graduates
(Adult Drug
Courts Only)
Educational
Attainment of
Drug Court
Graduates
(Juveniles Only)
1st Adult Santa Fe & Espanola
8.33% $14.63
16 27.00% 49.00%
100.00%
1st Juvenile Santa Fe & Espanola
36.33% $20.35
16 46.00% 83.00%
100.00%
2nd Adult Albq
11.65% $10.38
183 51.00% 46.00%
83.00%
2nd Juvenile Albuquerque
9.33% $25.40
12 63.00% 90.00%
100.00%
2nd Family Albq
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3rd Adult Las Cruces
15.35% $23.09
24 58.50% 68.40%
91.67%
3rd Juvenile Las Cruces
18.73% $47.96
20 70.00% 80.00%
90.00%
3rd Fam ily Las Cruces
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4th Juvenile Las Vegas
0.00% $26.63
0 0.00% 90.50%
0.00%
5th Family Hobbs
40.00% $43.05
5 100.00% 83.40%
100.00%
6th Juvenile Deming
30.33% $26.97
3 10.00% 80.00%
100.00%
8th Adult Taos
7.67% $25.80
15 73.50% 91.00%
100.00%
8th Juvenile Taos
10.00% $25.32
6 50.00% 87.00%
100.00%
11th Adult Aztec
11.63% $10.98
25 63.00% 87.50%
100.00%
11th Juvenile Farm ington
22.67% $31.97
11 61.00% 61.00%
100.00%
12th Juvenile Alamogordo
15.87% $38.68
9 69.00% 77.42%
100.00%
12th Juvenile Ruidoso
N/A $95.75
4
N/A
N/A 71.43%
N/A
13th Juvenile Bernalillo
16.33% $23.61
23 74.00% 88.24%
91.30%
13th Juvenile Los Lunas
12.50% $14.95
17 83.00% 95.00%
100.00%
13th Juvenile Grants
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bernalillo Co. Metro DW I Drug Court 5.95% $16.00
182 66.00% 83.00%
100.00%
McKinley Magistrate DWI Drug Court 17.33% $14.20
23 71.00% 34.00%
99.00%
16.11% $28.20
590 57.56% 76.10%
Recidivism and Cost Averages
Graduation and Retention Avgs
Notes:
1
-- As a point of comparison, the drug court national average for recidivism is 25.7% two years after graduation.
-- As a further point of com parison, similar offenders who did not attend a drug court recidivate at a 40-70% rate.
2
3
4
Recidivism calculation includes all graduates for last three fiscal years, since July 1, 2001
"N/A" indicates a relatively new drug court that has not yet collected enough data to calculate performance measures
Cost is high due to unusually low number of active participants. If court was operating at even 90% capacity (11 participants),
cost would drop to $43.52. Court is optimistic that referrals are on the increase and cost will drop accordingly.
As a point of comparison, the average daily cost of incarceration across New Mexico, for both m ales and females, is $80.98
Attachment II
New Mexico Drug Courts
Performance Measure Comparison: FY04
Judicial District, Court Type, and
Location
Program
Started
Program
Capacity
Total
Graduates
Since
Inception
Total
Participants
Since
Inception
Currently
Acti ve
Participants
on 6/31/04
1st Adult Santa Fe & Espanola
Jan-97
40
110
367
27
1st Juvenile Santa Fe & Espanola
Jan-01
40
39
150
24
2nd Adult Albq
Sep-95
210
720
2122
178
2nd Juvenile Albuquerque
Aug-98
30
58
143
21
2nd Family Albq
Apr-04
5
0
1
1
3rd Adult Las Cruces
Oct-98
80
101
252
30
3rd Juvenile Las Cruces
Dec-97
70
139
297
36
3rd Family Las Cruces
Sep-04
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
4th Juvenile Las Vegas
Jul-03
18
0
19
12
5th Family Hobbs
Aug-02
15
5
21
12
6th Juvenile Deming
Jul-00
15
9
47
7
8th Adult Taos
Sep-99
25
49
118
21
8th Juvenile Taos
Aug-01
30
16
54
19
11th Adult Aztec
Oct-97
50
91
338
50
11th Juvenile Farmington
Sep-00
30
21
132
24
12th Juvenile Alamogordo
Mar-00
20
26
68
19
12th Juvenile Ruidoso
Sep-03
12
0
7
5
13th Juvenile Bernalillo
Oct-99
30
54
135
17
13th Juvenile Los Lunas
Feb-02
40
17
57
32
13th Juvenile Grants
Jul-04
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bernalillo Co. Metro DWI Drug Court
Jun-97
350
660
1345
274
McKinley Magistrate DWI Drug Court
Mar-00
75
79
241
67
1200
2194
5914
876
pg_0008
Senate Bill 212 -- Page 8
ADC - Espanola &
Santa Fe
292.3
292.3
303.6
89.9 FY05
89.9
JDC - Espanola &
Santa Fe
47.1
282.2
322.4
125.1 FY05
125.1
ADC - Albq
61.9
106.2 22.4 108.5 22. 4
JDC - Albq
279.6
386.4 20 410.2 20
FDC - Albq
102.6 FY05 73.6 FY06
73.6
ADC - Las Cruces
366.6
366.6 38.4 408.1 38.4
JDC - Las Cruces
274.9
517.2 34.7 544.5 34.7
173.8 FY06
173.8
FDC - Las Cruces
153.9 FY05 201.1 FY06
201.1
DWI - Las Cruces
63.3
63.3
JDC - Las Vegas
107.3
107. 3
FDC - Hobbs
63.9
63. 9 171.4 FY05
171.4
JDC - Deming
168.8 26 168.8 26
ADC - Taos
244
244
244
JDC - Taos
247.2
231.5
ADC - Aztec
119
119 28.1 130.9 28.1
JDC - Farmington
108.4
108.4 40.4 174.6 40.4 40 FY05 100 FY06 40 100
DWI - Gallup
14.6
14. 6
57.3 FY06
57.3
JDC - Ruidoso
83.5
83.5 449.2 FY07
449.2
JDC - Alamogordo
52.1
241.6
270.4
69.9 FY05 69.9 FY06 69.9 69.9
JDC - L os Lunas
48.2 1.2 49.5 143.2 FY05 134.2 FY06 143.2 134.2
JDC - Bernalillo
40.6
216 36.1 218.3 37. 4
JDC - Grants
49.5 0.1 48.2
DWI Court
462.5
553.1 823.6 624.3 823. 6
Urban Native
American
Mental Health
DMV Court
Homeless
Totals
0 2349
3849 1500 4161.4 1501. 3 1345.2 0 809.9 0 639.5 809.9 449.2
***** FY 2005 *****
***** FY 2004 *****
***** FY 2003 *****
State
Funds
Other State
Funds
none
none
State
Funds
Other State
Funds
Funding Sources and Timelines
Terminal
funds 06
Terminal
Funds 07
FY Fed
Funds
End.
Federal
Funds
(OJP
Grant)
FY
Funds
End.
Terminal
funds 05
State
Funds
13
6
7
8
5
Other State
Funds
Federal
(or Non-
Recur.)
Funds
1
2
3
4
**** FY06 ****
Metro
none
Total Current
Funding
Court Type
District
9
10
11
12