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)

Conflicts with SB182

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 184 appropriates $229.0 from the general fund to the Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA) for the purpose of contracting for the implementation of a statewide system to provide crime victims with access to information regarding criminal offenders. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY2000 shall revert to the general fund.

Significant Issues

This bill appropriates monies so that the AODA can provide crime victims with information about their individual criminal offenders regarding custody status, court hearings, parole hearings, and probation and parole events.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

According to AODA, the fiscal impact would be great due to the amount of the appropriation; however, the agency feels that it should not be too difficult to administer, especially if there is only one contractor.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The agency believes HB 184 carries significant implications since AODA and the various DA offices have personnel in place handling crime notification duties. The AODA feels that if these monies are used by a contractor to hire people to make notifications or to computerize notifications, it would be duplicative. Since the DA offices are currently responsible for victim notification, the AODA presumes the bill could lead to the reduction or elimination of trained personnel now performing these services.

CONFLICT

According to AODA, HB 184 conflicts with SB 182, which adds "clean up" language to the existing statute which gives the DA offices responsibility for crime notification. This statute would have to be amended in order for these duties to be contracted out, and the duties would have to be expanded to include probation events and custody status.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

Contracting for these services may not be possible with the way the existing statute reads.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

Clarification is needed regarding custody status and whether it applies to pre-sentencing or post-

sentencing.

RP/njw