Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
STATE FUND |
FY 2007* |
FY 2008 |
FUTURE YEARS |
General Revenue Fund
(GRF)** |
|||
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain
in locally collected state court costs |
Potential negligible gain
in locally collected state court costs |
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
Factors potentially drive
up operating costs for certain state agencies, magnitude uncertain |
Factors potentially drive
up operating costs for certain state agencies, magnitude uncertain |
Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) |
|||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
Potential negligible gain
in locally collected state court costs |
Potential negligible gain
in locally collected state court costs |
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
Potential increase for
certain victim services |
Potential increase for
certain victim services |
Other State Funds** |
|||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
Factors potentially drive
up operating costs for certain state agencies, magnitude uncertain |
Factors potentially drive
up operating costs for certain state agencies, magnitude uncertain |
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2007 is July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007.
* For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, it is assumed
that any of the bill's state fiscal effects would occur sometime after FY 2007.
** The bill requires various
state entities, in particular, the Attorney General and the departments of
Health, Mental Health, and Job and Family Services, to undertake certain tasks,
the cost of which, and the manner of payment, are uncertain as of this writing.
·
Incarceration expenditures. As a result of violations of
the bill's prohibition, there could potentially be a relatively small number of
additional offenders sentenced to prison.
Such an outcome would, theoretically at least, increase the Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction's GRF-funded incarceration expenditures, with
the size of any such increase likely to be no more than minimal annually. This is because the number of persons who might
violate the bill's prohibition in any given year appears likely to be
relatively small. For the purposes of
this fiscal analysis, "minimal" means an estimated cost in GRF moneys
of less than $100,000 per year for the state.
·
Court cost revenues. The bill
may also produce a revenue gain to the GRF and the Victims of Crime/Reparations
Fund (Fund 402) in state court costs collected from offenders who violate the
new felony offense. Given the
expectation that there would likely be a relatively small number of new cases
per year in which individuals are charged with a violation of the bill's
prohibitions, the additional state revenue will likely be negligible. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis,
"negligible" means an estimated revenue gain of less than $1,000 for
either state fund per year.
·
Other state expenditures. As of this writing, LSC fiscal staff has not had the opportunity
to contact all of the affected state agencies and complete the research
necessary to determine how all of the specific provisions in the bill would impact
state expenditures, including non-GRF sources of moneys that might be tapped to
perform any required duties and responsibilities.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2007 |
FY 2008 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
Counties, Municipalities,
and Townships |
||||
Revenues |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, likely to be minimal at most |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, likely to be minimal at most |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, likely to be minimal at most |
|
Expenditures |
Factors likely to drive up
operating costs for certain jurisdictions, magnitude uncertain |
Factors likely to drive up
operating costs for certain jurisdictions, magnitude uncertain |
Factors likely to drive up
operating costs for certain jurisdictions, magnitude uncertain |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
Local criminal justice expenditures. Any resulting increase in a county's criminal justice system
expenditures is likely to be no more than minimal annually because of the
likelihood that the commission of human trafficking offenses as prohibited by
the bill will likely be relatively rare in Ohio. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal expenditure
increase means an estimated annual cost of no more than $5,000 for any affected
county.
·
Local criminal justice revenues. The bill could also increase the amount of court cost and fine
revenues collected by counties from offenders.
Given that the number of cases in which a violation of the bill's
prohibitions might apply appears likely to be relatively small, the amount of
additional court cost and fine revenues that counties may actually collect
annually is likely to be no more than minimal.
For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal revenue increase
means an estimated gain of no more than $5,000 for any affected county per
year.
·
Other revenues and expenditures. As of this writing, LSC fiscal staff has not had the opportunity
to contact all of the affected agencies and complete the research necessary to
determine how all of the specific provisions in the bill would impact local
revenues and expenditures. It is also
the case that, even after one has sorted out all of the provisions potentially
affecting local governments, the quantification of their impact will be
problematic. Thus, the net fiscal
impact of all of the bill's provisions on any affected local government is
uncertain.
|
For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, the bill
most notably:
·
Prohibits
a person from engaging, or conspiring to engage, in a pattern of trafficking in
persons.
·
Requires
forfeiture by an offender of proceeds derived from trafficking in persons.
·
Creates
a civil cause of action based on trafficking in persons.
·
Authorizes
payment from the Reparations Fund of the costs of services for victims of
trafficking in persons.
·
Requires
the Attorney General to provide training for peace officers in investigating
and handling trafficking-in-persons cases, include information on restitution
to victims of trafficking in persons in the crime victims' rights pamphlet,
compile statistics on trafficking in persons, promote public awareness of
trafficking in persons, and develop a victims' services plan for victims of
trafficking in persons.
·
Requires
law enforcement agencies to identify and provide reasonable protection to
victims of trafficking in persons.
·
Requires
the Supreme Court of Ohio to develop special procedures for witnesses who are
minors.
·
Requires
the departments of Health and Mental Health to develop procedures for providing
special physical and mental health care tailored to the needs of minors who are
victims of trafficking in persons.
·
Requires
the Department of Job and Family Services to develop procedures for reuniting a
minor victim of trafficking in persons with family members in the minor's
country of origin or destination.
·
Creates
the Ohio Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Task Force.
Offense of trafficking
The bill prohibits a person from engaging in a pattern of trafficking
in persons. Whoever violates this prohibition is guilty of the offense of
"trafficking in persons," which is a felony of the first degree. While upon preliminary analysis, it
appears that human trafficking is not extremely prevalent in Ohio, the bill
will undoubtedly create some new felony cases in the criminal justice system,
which will affect local law enforcement agencies, the courts, public defenders,
county prosecutors, local jails, and the state prison system. However, given the particular time frame at
hand, it is difficult to develop a precise estimate of how many new cases would
likely be created by the enactment of this bill.
State fiscal effects
As a result of violations of
the bill's felony prohibition, there could potentially be a very small number
of additional offenders sentenced to prison.
Such an outcome would, theoretically at least, increase the Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction's GRF-funded incarceration expenditures, with
the size of any such increase likely to be no more than minimal annually. This is because the number of persons who
might violate the bill's prohibition in any given year appears likely to be
relatively small. For the purposes of
this fiscal analysis, "minimal" means an estimated cost in GRF moneys
of less than $100,000 per year for the state.
As a result of violations of
the bill's prohibition, additional revenue, in the form of state court costs,
may be collected locally and forwarded for deposit in the state treasury to the
credit of the GRF and the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402). The state court costs for a felony offense
total $45, of which the GRF receives $15 and Fund 402 receives $30. Given the expectation that there would
likely be a relatively small number of new cases in which individuals are
charged with trafficking in humans, the additional state revenue will likely be
negligible. For the purposes of this
fiscal analysis, "negligible" means an estimated revenue gain of less
than $1,000 for either state fund per year.
It is also important to note that collecting court costs and fines from
certain offenders can be problematic, especially in light of the fact that many
are unable or unwilling to pay.
Local fiscal effects
As noted, it appears
unlikely that the bill will create a large number of new cases for county
criminal justice systems to process.
That said, any new criminal case that is created as a result of
violating the bill's prohibition, theoretically at least, carries the potential
to increase related county criminal justice system costs, for example, expenses
related to investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, and sanctioning the
offender, as well as paying for defense counsel if the offender is
indigent. Any resulting increase in a
county's criminal justice system expenditures is likely to be no more than
minimal annually because of the likelihood that the commission of human
trafficking offenses as prohibited by the bill will likely be relatively rare
in Ohio. For the purposes of this
fiscal analysis, a minimal expenditure increase means an estimated annual cost
of no more than $5,000 for any affected county.
Furthermore, the bill could
also increase the amount of court cost and fine revenues collected by counties
from offenders. Given the number of cases
in which a violation of the bill's prohibition might apply appears likely to be
relatively small, and the likelihood that the federal government would probably
take a lead role in many of these matters, the amount of additional court cost
and fine revenues that counties may actually collect annually is likely to be
no more than minimal. For the purposes
of this fiscal analysis, a minimal revenue increase means an estimated gain of
no more than $5,000 for any affected county per year.
Other provisions
The bill also
creates numerous other court and agency related functions and responsibilities
such as allowing civil cases to be filed by the victims, providing for offender
restitution to certain victims, setting a statute of limitations for both
criminal and civil actions, requiring the Attorney General to publish data
related to said offenses, providing exemptions regarding privileged
communications to trafficking-in-persons caseworkers, and requiring law
enforcement agencies to make every effort in identifying other victims and to
provide protection services to the victim or victims and their families. The bill also requires:
(1) the departments of Health and Mental Health to develop procedures
for providing special physical and mental health care tailored to the needs of
minors who are victims of trafficking in persons, and (2) the Department of Job
and Family Services to develop procedures for reuniting a minor victim of
trafficking in persons with family members in the minor's country of origin or destination.
As of this writing, LSC
fiscal staff has not had the opportunity to contact all of the affected
agencies and complete the research necessary to determine how all of the
specific provisions in the bill would impact state and local revenues and
expenditures. It is also the case that,
even after one has sorted out all of the provisions potentially affecting local
governments, the quantification of their impact will be problematic. Thus, the net fiscal impact on any affected
local government is uncertain.
LSC fiscal staff: Joseph Rogers, Senior Budget Analyst