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 Garcia, MJ

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1/25/06

HB

SHORT TITLE Dona Ana Mental Health Court

SB 136

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

$250.0

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Department of Health (DOH)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 136 appropriates $250,000 from the general fund to the 3

rd

Judicial District Court,

Dona Ana Magistrate Court and city of Las Cruces Municipal Court ($162,000), 3

rd

Judicial Dis-

trict Attorney ($44,000) and Public Defender Department ($44,000) for the purpose of providing

salaries and operating costs for officers of a mental health court.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $250,000 contained in this bill is a expense to the general fund. Any unex-

pended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2007 shall revert to the gen-

eral fund.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

There is currently one district with a mental health court, the 2

nd

Judicial District in Bernalillo

County. The Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court also has a mental health court.

Senate Bill 136 – Page

2

Mental health courts have a similar strategy as other “problem solving courts” such as drug

courts and combine treatment with the “coercive power of the judiciary” and close supervision,

according to AOC.

AOC asserts that mental health courts require treatment staff, such as psychologists or psychia-

trists and family counselors as well as court staff to administer and fund the program who are

trained for mental health diversion or supervised release services. In light of these requirements,

AOC reports that the bill does not propose sufficient funding at the district, magistrate, and mu-

nicipal courts to start such a program. AOC estimates that the $162 thousand proposed to appro-

priate to the courts would fund a program director and psychologist but would not fund treatment

services or other positions.

The proposed program is not part of the judiciary’s unified budget proposal.

According to the Department of Health, the Forensic Intervention Consortium of Dona Ana

County, a community organization which the Behavioral Health Services Division

(BHSD)/DOH helped start, has been active in working on local mental health and law enforce-

ment issues. DOH asserts that the Consortium is seeking the establishment of a mental health

court, and that it would be “likely to succeed.”

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

Performance measures and targets have not yet been established for mental health courts. Ide-

ally, mental health courts would reduce recidivism rates for participants and have a lower cost

than incarceration resulting in overall lower costs to the state and local governments and a

healthier population.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

A mental health court program would increase the administrative responsibilities of the 3

rd

Judi-

cial District.

AOC predicts added judicial and staff time needed to dispose of mental health court cases; the

agency also states that ideally a mental health court would reduce workload for courts as a suc-

cessful program would allow participants to recover and lead more law-abiding lives.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

It is not clear how districts qualify for unified budget inclusion for programs such as mental

health courts.

It is not clear what the relationship between the district, magistrate and municipal courts is pro-

posed to be; for example, whether the three entities would share personnel or treatment services.

It is not clear what relationship the Forensic Intervention Consortium of Dona Ana County

would have with the proposed mental health court.

Senate Bill 136 – Page

3

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

If Senate Bill 136 is not enacted, funding for a mental health court will not be appropriated in

FY07.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

What factors were considered to determine Dona Ana’s need and preparedness for a men-

tal health court.

2.

What is the proposed relationship between the district, magistrate and municipal courts in

the coordination of the plan. Would there be a shared director.

3.

Why wasn’t this program proposed to the judiciary budget council to gain support as a

part of the unified budget.

4.

What involvement would the Forensic Intervention Consortium of Dona Ana County

have in the development of the proposed mental health court.

EM/mt:yr