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

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1/24/07

1/25/07 HB

SHORT TITLE

Drug Court Funding & Expansion

SB

259

ANALYST C. Sanchez

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

$0

$1,350.0

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Duplicates Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act:

The LFC budget contains $296.0 of the Drug Court Replacement request, $69.8 of the

Expansion request, and $386 of the New Drug Court request (total of $751.8 out of SB259’s

$1,350.0).

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of The Courts (AOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 259 seeks to appropriate $1,350,000 from the General Fund to the AOC for

expenditure in FY08 to replace lapsing federal and other funds for drug courts ($296,800), as

well as to expand ($526,600) and create ($526,600) drug courts.

The following table presents a breakdown of the entire appropriation:

Senate Bill 259 – Page

2

FY '08 Funding Requests

Judicial Unit

Drug Court Type and Location

Replacement

of Lapsing

Funds and

Resources

Requests

Expansion and

Enhancement

Requests

New Drug

Court Requests

Seventh District

Adult (Socorro/Torrance Co.)

60.0

Eighth District

Family Court (Taos Co.)

17.8

Adult (Union Co.)

216.0

Eleventh District Adult (San Juan Co.)

131.8

Juvenile (McKinley Co.)

60.0

Twelfth D istrict

Juvenile (Lincoln Co.)

158.8

Adult (Otero Co.)

16.0

Thirteenth District Juvenile (Valencia Co.)

18.0

Juvenile (Cibola Co.)

120.0

Adult (Sandoval Co.)

198.1

Eddy Magistrate

DWI

28.4

Quay Magistrate

DWI

3.1

Valencia Magistrate DWI

171.5

Administrative Ofc. of the Courts (AOC)

150.5

SubTotals

296.8

526.6

526.6

Grand Total =

1350.0

The LFC Recommendation is for $751.8

SB259 Appropriates an additional $598.2

Replacement Funds ($296,800):

Three drug court programs are at risk of shutting down or

cutting back services in FY08 if they cannot replace lapsing funds and resources. The federal

Department of Justice monies for the drug court programs are intended to seed, not permanently

support, drug court programs. In addition, the drug court in Cibola County was unable to secure

federal grant funds but was able to begin serving its community with the help of volunteer

treatment services and donated supplies. The judiciary places a high priority on institutionalizing

with recurring state funding such programs that have been successfully serving their community

through federal or volunteer resources. These programs enjoy strong support in their

communities, targeting juvenile offenders in Lincoln, Valencia, and Cibola Counties.

Expansion Funds ($526,600)

: Four drug court programs would use the expansion funds to

improve services and increase program capacity in answer to local demand. Through increased

supplies, staffing, and treatment contracts, these programs would be able to increase their

participant capacity as well as the extent and quality of services offered to their participants. In

addition, the AOC would add two staff members to aid in oversight of the state’s drug court

programs.

New Drug Court Funds ($526,600)

: These funds would allow district and magistrate courts to

begin implementation of six new drug court programs around the state. Three of the proposed

new drug courts would be in counties (Torrance, Union, and Quay) that do not yet have a drug

court of any kind (currently, drug courts exist in 18 of the state’s 33 counties), while the other

Senate Bill 259 – Page

3

three 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 could benefit from such programs. One of the main goals of the Judiciary’s Five-

Year Plan for Growth of New Mexico Drug Courts is to implement a drug court in every county

in the state. This request is contained in the judiciary’s unified budget.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $1,350,000 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.

Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2008 shall revert

to the general fund.

State funding for existing and new drug court programs would allow programs to expand

services and new programs to begin offering services in areas of the state where either limited

services or no services exist. Both efforts require administrative personnel and resources to

oversee and operate drug court programs.

In January 2006, The New Mexico Supreme Court approved a Five-Year Plan for Growth of

New Mexico Drug Courts (available at www.nmadcp.org). That plan has two main goals: (1) to

implement a drug court program in every county of the state (there are currently programs in 18

of the state’s 33 counties); while (2) providing a predictable and stable funding request to the

legislature each year of the plan. FY08 will be the second year of the Five-Year Plan. The

Judiciary reviewed over $3.25 million in drug court requests from courts around the state in

preparation for this legislative session, but by applying the priorities outlined in the Five-Year

Plan, and focusing on those courts with the greatest need and best preparation to implement state

funds, the Judiciary was able to reduce the overall requests to match the $1.35 million funding

cap for FY08 set by the plan.

The drug court program’s 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 $24.11 in FY06 versus the average cost of

incarceration of $81.35. There were 620 graduates in FY06. If those graduates had not had

access to drug court programs, but had instead gone through the normal probation process, a

conservative estimate is that 40% of them would have soon come before the courts again for

similar crimes. 40% of 620 is 248, which is 248 offenders who would likely come before the

courts again and face a charge leading to a period of incarceration. The cost of incarceration for

one month for those 248 reoffenders equals $605,244, and if they were felony charges leading to

a full year’s incarceration, that’s $7,363,802. Over the course of a year, that’s more than $7.3

million in avoided incarceration costs due to the drug court programs.

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

Senate Bill 259 – Page

4

to $10 in other costs.

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-affected if not drug-addicted without the mother’s

participation in the drug court program. Hospitalization and ongoing health care costs for drug-

affected or addicted babies are substantial. For example, children with fetal alcohol syndrome

can require $1.4 million in treatment over their lifetime.

Family Drug Courts seek permanency for the child separated from its parents due to an abuse

and neglect petition caused by the parents’ substance abuse. Studies show that Family Drug

Court parents reunify with their children significantly faster than parents who are not part of such

programs, benefiting the child as well as avoiding further foster care, social worker, and

Medicaid costs.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

National studies have shown that 60 to 80 percent of prison and jail inmates, parolees,

probationers, and arrestees are under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of

their offense, committed the offense to support a drug addiction, were charged with a drug- or

alcohol-related crime, or are regular substance abusers.

Incarceration on its own has not resolved the problem, as within 3 years of release from prison,

approximately 2/3 of all offenders, including drug offenders, are rearrested for a new offense; 1/2

are convicted of a new crime; and 1/2 are reincarcerated for a new crime or parole violation.

Court-mandated treatment on its own is also insufficient as approximately 70% of probationers

and parolees drop out of drug treatment or attend irregularly prior to a 3-month threshold, and

90% drop out prior to 12 months. These thresholds are significant as an evaluation of the Drug

Abuse Treatment Outcome Study suggests that 3 months of drug treatment may be a minimum

for detecting response effects of the intervention, while 6 to 12 months hold greater promise of a

lasting reduction in drug use.

By combining treatment with the coercive power of the judiciary, the drug court model has

repeatedly shown through national studies that it outperforms virtually all other intervention

strategies for drug involved offenders: recidivism of drug court graduates is much less than for

similar offenders, the cost-per-client of drug court participants is significantly less than that for

incarceration, and even those who do not successfully complete a program have a greater chance

of long-term success due to the longer period of treatment received during their involvement in a

drug court program.

Such results have led to the spread of drug courts nationwide, from the first in 1989 in Dade

County, Florida, to the over 1600 active today. New Mexico has also benefited from the success

of the drug court model, with its drug court programs growing from 1 in 1994 to 30 active today,

with several more in the pilot and planning stages. Because of the success of its drug court

programs, the New Mexico Judiciary continues working with communities around the state to

maintain existing programs as well as establish new drug court programs. Currently, there are

drug court programs in 12 of the state’s 13 judicial districts, and 18 of the state’s 33 counties.

Senate Bill 259 – Page

5

The funds requested in this bill are necessary to the continued operation of three programs, the

expansion and improvement of four others, startup funds for six new drug courts in underserved

areas of the state, and two staff positions at the AOC to aid in oversight of the state’s expanding

drug court programs.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

The courts are participating 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 drug court programs provide

performance measure data quarterly to the LFC.

The funding outlined in this appropriation is necessary to the programs’ ability to gather the data

necessary to calculating and reporting those performance measures.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

As the drug court programs continue to increase around the state, so does the need for further

administrative oversight staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts. Current AOC staff

dedicated to the drug court programs is made up of one Statewide Program Director and a half-

time administrative assistant. Additional AOC staff, as requested in this bill, is important to

continued oversight of the state’s programs.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

The LFC budget contains $296.0 of the Drug Court Replacement request, $69.8 of the Expansion

request, and $386 of the New Drug Court request (total of $751.8 out of SB259’s $1,350.0).

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The AOC has worked closely with the state’s Behavioral Health Collaborative, and the new

statewide entity Value Options, to exchange information on the state’s drug court programs, the

services required by the program participants, and the availability of such services in the area of

each drug court program. Drug courts exist in urban, suburban, and rural communities. The

availability of treatment and social services needed by drug court participants varies widely

around the state, both in cost and accessibility. Value Options has pledged to work with the AOC

and the courts to help identify applicable services in each area and to help make those services

accessible and cost-effective, as well. In fact, Value Options has begun a tour of the state’s drug

court programs, bringing their statewide and regional staff to each location for discussions with

the judge, treatment provider, and the rest of each drug court team. The AOC and the courts in

turn are committed to working with the Behavioral Health Collaborative to ensure that they

provide evidence-based treatment to their participants.

Through this collaborative effort, the courts hope to improve the treatment and social services

necessary to help the citizens of each community recover from the disabling effects of substance

abuse and mental health disorders.

Senate Bill 259 – Page

6

ALTERNATIVES

Reduce this bill (SB259) by $751.8 to avoid duplication. Only $598.2 is needed since the LFC

recommendation includes the remaining balance.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

As stated earlier, the funds requested in this bill are necessary to the continued operation of three

drug court programs, the expansion and improvement of four others, and the startup of six new

drug courts in underserved areas of the state. Given the success of these programs, the loss of

existing programs and the failure to expand or implement programs in underserved areas will

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.

As drug courts successfully treat their participants for substance abuse, they often find

participants suffering from a co-occurring disorder that had previously been masked by the

participant’s substance abuse. Identification of the participant’s schizophrenia, bipolar disorder,

severe depression or any other mental health issue allows the drug court to refer, and in some

cases provide, the treatment necessary to provide the participant their first chance of full

recovery. An ancillary consequence of not enacting this bill is the continued substance abuse by

those with co-occurring disorders who will remain doubly afflicted, often unaware of their own

underlying mental health issue.

CS/nt