|Date Requested:January 18, 2012
Time Requested:05:23 PM
| FUND(S) |
Sources of Revenue
Legislation creates:A New Program
Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.
| DJCS on behalf of Governor's Committee on Crime, Delinquency and Correction would be involved in following activities:
1: Upon request of legislative services, produce a "Corrections Impact Statement" (CIS) on bills that create new or increased criminal penalties;
2: Study and determine a baseline of costs for maintaining jails and prisons, and estimating cost reductions based upon implementation of risk assessments and "Evidence Based Practices" (EBP) in both community and institutional correctional programs, followed by annual determination of actual costs avoided, and;
3: Develop and promulgate legislative rules relating to community corrections that would require implentation of "evidence based practices" in supervision and treatment of offenders and ultimately require that all practices of community corrections programs be evidence based for funding.
Mainstream criminal justice thinking would suggest that faithful implementation of EBP will allow for savings from future institutional costs, and that by using CIS's, the legislature will be more aware of the costs of incarceration penalties, therefore both limiting increases in penalties and providing funding to replace the estimated cost of providing institutional punishment with funding of correctional treatment programs.
|Effect of Proposal||Fiscal Year|
|1. Estmated Total Cost||180,000||180,000||180,000|
|Repairs and Alterations||0||0||0|
|2. Estimated Total Revenues||0||0||0|
3. Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):
In order to accomplish these activities, one must assume that legislative services will require a substantial number of CIS's during legislative sessions, and extensive work in compiling and analysing data for estimates of savings. Since these activities can be done seasonally in sequence, DJCS would require 2 FTE's in addition to current staff which does some similar but more limited work.
In order to develop legislative rules, implement EBP in community based corrections programs, and monitor those programs for fidelity and quality of EBP's for determination of qualification for funding, DJCS would require 1 additional FTE above current activities.
We estimate that each FTE would require $5,000 in equipment to put into service in the first year. We anticipate that an increase in current expenses of $15,000 the first year and $20,000 the second and subsequent years would allow the necessary level or research and analysis capabilities to be inserted into our staff.
Without creating a baseline as required by Sections 15-9-5 and 15-9-6, it is impossible to estimate new revenues. In fact, this bill anticipates no new revenues, but rather savings because of re-investment of some of the savings from not having built and maintained new prison cells.
| 1: The bill gives no indication of how often the legislature would require Correctional Impact Statements. This makes it difficult to determine costs. In addition, collecting information as required in the bill bor the CIS's may not be possible from the sources named, or may not be available at all. Access to criminal justice information in this state is still a work in progress.
2. The concept of EBP's originated in the health/mental health fields and was brought over into criminal justice in recent years. One must be careful in considering which activities need to be evidence based. Traditionally, it makes more sense to require "treatment" type services be evidence based, while the security side of corrections not be measured. For example, it is true that a jail cell makes it less likely that an offender will disappear than putting that person on home electronic incarceration. Evidence supports that statement, but that is not what is implied in this bill. Words to limit the EBP's to treatment, education, training in job skills, substance abuse prevention and cognitive behavioral counseling would more clearly enable the program to move forward without fear that a community that doesn't use home electronic incarceration would lose all funding even though its other programs were evidence based.