Date Requested:February 21, 2011
Time Requested:02:04 PM
Agency: Corrections
CBD Number: Version: Bill Number: Resolution Number:
2011R2872 Introduced HB3213
CBD Subject: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE
FUND(S)
Sources of Revenue
General Fund
Legislation creates:
A New Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.

    1. There could be a concern that pressure to increase funding could influence officer’s and/or administrator’s decisions to continue to supervise or revoke their status. This could have an negative effect on public safety.
    2. Although the bill makes special provisions to account for felony revocations a significant portion of parole revocations (around 40 to 45%) are due to technical reasons but with pending charges that are punishable by jail or prison time involved. The bill does not account for this public safety issue.
    3. It appears that the bill makes some attempt to distribute some of these funds to other supervision agencies other than the Supreme Court. However, it is non-specific about these items except for in the case of the Director of Probation Services. If other agencies are to benefit, the language should be specific as too how.
    4. Agencies that are doing well statistically when it comes to revocations and new felony convictions would naturally be at a disadvantage over agencies that have a higher rate as the baseline. For example, If Agency A had a 2008 revocation rate of 60% and Agency B had a rate of 40% it could be argued that Agency A has more opportunity to improve and therefore would benefit by receiving a higher percentage of funds. In other words, Agency A would be rewarded for having poor performance in past years.
    5. Is this extra money for one year? Is it extra money for years 2-5? How long would they get to keep this money budgeted from year to year.
    6. The provision that requires the WVDOC to provide this information to the Supreme Court is problematic. Court orders received on probation revocations do not always specify that the offender is a revocation. They sometimes appear as regular commitments. If the WVDOC is to provide this information we need the Supreme Court’s assistance to ensure that the information on the court order is clear.
    7. The calculation requirements are unclear and confusing.
    8. The WVDOC cannot provide the level of services that Supreme Court Probation can due to the disparity in officer pay, benefits, education, & training.
    
    

Fiscal Note Detail
Over-all effect
Effect of Proposal Fiscal Year
2011
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
2012
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost 0 0 0
Personal Services 0 0 0
Current Expenses 0 0 0
Repairs and Alterations 0 0 0
Assets 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
2. Estimated Total Revenues 0 0 0
3. Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):
    


Memorandum
Person submitting Fiscal Note:
Loita Butcher
Email Address:
loita.c.butcher@wv.gov
    1. There could be a concern that pressure to increase funding could influence officer’s and/or administrator’s decisions to continue to supervise or revoke their status. This could have an negative effect on public safety.
    2. Although the bill makes special provisions to account for felony revocations a significant portion of parole revocations (around 40 to 45%) are due to technical reasons but with pending charges that are punishable by jail or prison time involved. The bill does not account for this public safety issue.
    3. It appears that the bill makes some attempt to distribute some of these funds to other supervision agencies other than the Supreme Court. However, it is non-specific about these items except for in the case of the Director of Probation Services. If other agencies are to benefit, the language should be specific as too how.
    4. Agencies that are doing well statistically when it comes to revocations and new felony convictions would naturally be at a disadvantage over agencies that have a higher rate as the baseline. For example, If Agency A had a 2008 revocation rate of 60% and Agency B had a rate of 40% it could be argued that Agency A has more opportunity to improve and therefore would benefit by receiving a higher percentage of funds. In other words, Agency A would be rewarded for having poor performance in past years.
    5. Is this extra money for one year? Is it extra money for years 2-5? How long would they get to keep this money budgeted from year to year.
    6. The provision that requires the WVDOC to provide this information to the Supreme Court is problematic. Court orders received on probation revocations do not always specify that the offender is a revocation. They sometimes appear as regular commitments. If the WVDOC is to provide this information we need the Supreme Court’s assistance to ensure that the information on the court order is clear.
    7. The calculation requirements are unclear and confusing.
    8. The WVDOC cannot provide the level of services that Supreme Court Probation can due to the disparity in officer pay, benefits, education, & training.