Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
Proposed Sub. S.B. 244 (LSC 127 1137-1) |
DATE: |
|||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REQUIRED: |
|
|
||||||
|
CONTENTS: |
|||||||
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2009 is July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009.
·
Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402). The bill requires the Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) to be used for the costs of installation and
monitoring of an electronic monitoring device if the court determines that the
respondent is indigent. LSC fiscal
staff's analysis suggests that the potential increase in the fund's annual
expenditures could be up to between a couple of hundreds of thousands of
dollars and tens of millions of dollars. As discussed further on in this fiscal
analysis, according to data provided by the Office of the Attorney General,
Fund 402, based on current revenue and expenditure patterns, could become
insolvent in the next biennium.
Assuming that the Office of the Attorney General's analysis is
reasonably accurate, then the bill would accelerate the fund's projected cash
flow crisis.
·
Court cost revenues. From a
state revenue perspective, if a respondent is convicted of violating a
protection order, then the state potentially collects state court costs that
the court is generally required to impose on that individual. Although LSC fiscal staff is unable to
quantify the number of additional respondents that might be convicted of
violating a protection order annually statewide, we assume that the amount of
court cost revenue likely to be generated for either state fund annually is
unlikely to exceed minimal. For the
purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal revenue gain means an increase
estimated at less than $100,000 for either state fund per year.
·
Incarceration expenditures. From a state expenditure perspective, if a respondent is convicted of a
felony protection order violation, then it is possible that the court will
sentence the offender to a prison term, the practical effect of which,
dependent upon the dynamics in the prison population at that time, may be to
increase the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's GRF-funded
incarceration costs. If
all of the mitigating factors noted in this document's "Detailed Fiscal
Analysis" were true, then LSC fiscal staff assumes that the effect of
felony protection order violations on state incarceration costs will be
minimal. For the purposes of this
fiscal analysis, a minimal expenditure increase means an additional annual cost
estimated at less than $100,000.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2009* – FUTURE YEARS |
|
|
Courts of Common Pleas
(divisions handling civil protection orders) |
||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
|
|
Expenditures |
(1)
Potential increase to make electronic monitoring decisions; (2)
Potential increase, if state's Fund 402 becomes insolvent, to pay for law
enforcement's electronic monitoring of indigent respondents estimated at up
to between a couple of hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of millions
of dollars annually statewide |
|
|
County Sheriffs and Other Law Enforcement Agencies
(electronic monitoring systems) |
||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain of up to
between approximately one million dollars and tens of millions of dollars
annually statewide to electronically monitor respondents, with range reduced
if state's Fund 402 becomes insolvent and courts of common pleas do not pay
for costs of electronically monitoring indigent respondents |
|
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase of up
to between approximately one million dollars and tens of millions of dollars
annually statewide, wholly or partially reimbursed depending on whether
state's Fund 402 becomes insolvent and courts of common pleas pay for costs
of electronically monitoring indigent respondents |
|
|
County and Municipal Criminal Justice Systems
Generally (processing protection order violators) |
||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, annual magnitude for any affected local criminal justice
system uncertain |
|
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase to
investigate, prosecute, adjudicate, defend, and sanction violators, annual
magnitude for any affected local criminal justice system uncertain |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
* This fiscal analysis assumes that the bill's effective date and potential local fiscal effects will occur no sooner than FY 2009.
·
Electronic monitoring systems. The bill requires that:
(1) the respondent pay all costs associated with the installation and
use of the monitoring device, and (2) the state's Victims of Crime/Reparations
Fund (Fund 402) to be used for the costs of installation and monitoring of an
electronic monitoring device if the court determines that the respondent is
indigent. LSC fiscal staff estimates
the potential statewide local electronic monitoring cost at between
approximately one million dollars and tens of millions of dollars annually, an
amount that may be wholly or partially reimbursed depending upon the respondent
indigency rate, the future solvency of the state's Fund 402, and a court of
common pleas responsibility for the costs of electronically monitoring indigent
respondents.
·
Court of common pleas. From the
perspective of the divisions of the courts of common pleas whose subject matter
jurisdiction includes ruling on petitions requesting the issuance of a civil
protection order, the bill presents several areas of potential fiscal
concern. However, quantifying those
areas of concern relative to their effect on the workload and annual operating
expenses of courts of common pleas is problematic. Although any affected court of common pleas may be able to
reallocate resources and reengineer decision-making processes in an effort to minimize
costs, it is not clear how those courts will handle the apparent uncertainties
surrounding who is responsible for the payment of electronic monitoring costs
that, for whatever reason, cannot be collected from the respondent or covered
by moneys drawn from the state's Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund.
·
County sheriffs and other local law enforcement agencies. The annual magnitude of the costs
incurred by any affected law enforcement agency will likely be a function of
the fixed cost to establish and maintain an electronic monitoring system and
the marginal cost, which will be dependent on the number of respondents ordered
to be electronically monitored and the length of time that the order is in
effect. Presumably, some, but perhaps
not all, of these costs will be recovered by the requirement that respondents
pay the cost of the installation and monitoring of the electronic monitoring
device. That said, it seems likely that
the respondent payment stream in certain local jurisdictions will not fully
cover the electronic monitoring system's annual operating expenses and that the
"gap" between those expenses and the earmarked revenue stream may
exceed minimal, perhaps significantly so.
For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a local cost in excess of
minimal means an estimated expenditure increase of more than $5,000 for any
affected law enforcement agency per year.
·
County and municipal criminal justice systems generally. If additional respondents are arrested and prosecuted for
violating the terms of a stalking/sex offense-related civil protection order,
then the affected local criminal justice system's expenditures may increase,
including costs related to investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, defending
(if the person is indigent), and sanctioning the violator. Whether the number of violators in any given
county or municipal criminal justice system and associated costs will be
sufficient to exceed LSC fiscal staff's "minimal local cost"
threshold is uncertain. A minimal local
cost means an expenditure increase estimated at no more than $5,000 for any
affected county or municipality per year.
If collected from violators, court cost and fine revenues may offset
all, or a portion, of the expenses incurred in the local criminal justice
system's handling of the violation. The
magnitude of the revenues that any affected local jurisdiction may collect
annually is uncertain.
|
|
Overview
For purposes of
this fiscal analysis, the bill most notably:
·
Requires a court that makes certain findings at a full hearing on a
petition for a stalking/sex offense-related civil protection order to order the
respondent be subjected to "electronic monitoring" for a period of
time and under the terms and conditions that the court determines are
appropriate.
·
Requires the court to direct the county sheriff or other
appropriate law enforcement agency to install the electronic monitoring device
and to monitor the respondent.
·
Requires the court to order the respondent to pay the cost of the
installation and monitoring of the electronic monitoring device.
·
Requires the existing Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund to be used
for the costs of installation and monitoring of an electronic monitoring device
if the court determines that the respondent is indigent.
·
Provides, pursuant to existing law, that violating the terms of a
stalking/sex offense-related civil protection order is generally a misdemeanor
of the first degree and enhances to a felony of the fifth or third degree
depending upon the circumstances present.
Local fiscal effects
Number of
stalking/sex offense-related civil protection orders issued
LSC fiscal staff
took as its starting point for this fiscal analysis the need to determine how
many stalking/sex offense-related civil protection orders are being issued by
Ohio's courts annually statewide.
Unfortunately, finding a reliable and straightforward answer to that
question is difficult, as the details associated with the issuance of any given
protection order are not entered into a centralized depository or database
available to court and law enforcement personnel statewide, and by extension
such information is not readily available to persons interested in researching
related matters. As an alternative, LSC
fiscal staff contacted several courts of common pleas and affiliated court
personnel, but had great difficulty collecting responses that would permit one
to generate a reliable estimate of protection order activity statewide.
Based on some
informal research conducted by staff of the Judicial Conference of Ohio and
conversations with knowledgeable local court personnel, LSC fiscal staff has
estimated the following:
·
In calendar year (CY) 2006, approximately 15,000 to 25,000
requests for the issuance of a stalking/sex offense-related civil protection
order were filed statewide.
·
Approximately 65% of filings noted in the immediately preceding
dot point resulted in the court issuing such a protection order, which suggests
that the number of stalking/sex offense-related civil protection orders issued
was in the approximate range of 9,750 to 16,250.
An additional
uncertainty needs to be noted. Under
existing law, a person can seek different types of civil protection orders – a temporary protection
order, a civil protection order, or a stalking/sex
offense-related civil protection order – and there appears to be some
degree of flexibility in permitting a person to determine the type of
protection order sought. If this is
indeed the case, then it is possible that the availability of electronic monitoring
of the respondent may create an incentive for certain persons that would have
filed a request for a temporary protection order or a civil protection order to
instead file a request for a stalking/sex
offense-related civil protection order.
To the degree that this phenomenon actually occurs, then our estimated
range may have undercounted to some degree the actual number of stalking/sex
offense-related civil protection orders that will be filed and issued annually
statewide subsequent to the bill's becoming effective.
Number of
respondents subject to "electronic monitoring"
Filing and
content of petition. The bill provides that, in addition to an allegation and a request
for relief as required under existing law, a petition seeking relief in the
form of electronic monitoring must contain an allegation that the respondent
engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe their safety
was at risk and that the respondent presents a continuing danger to the person
seeking protection. If the court finds
by "clear and convincing evidence" that the previously described
circumstances are true, then the court is required to order the respondent be
electronically monitored.
To assess the
potential fiscal implications of the provisions described in the immediately
preceding paragraph, one needs to measure the following occurrences: (1) the frequency with which a person filing
a petition will seek relief in the form of electronic monitoring of the
respondent, and (2) the frequency with which a court will order a respondent be
subject to electronic monitoring. In
order to measure these "frequencies," one has to in effect predict
the future actions of petitioners and courts.
From the perspective of local court and law enforcement personnel, these
measurements constitute a problematic task, as the bill represents an arguably
dramatic departure from the manner in which civil protection orders are
currently issued and enforced. LSC
fiscal staff's research into this matter revealed no clear consensus or
response patterns.
Petitions requesting
electronic monitoring order. Under existing law, a person filing for a stalking/sex
offense-related civil protection order indicates to the court what type of
relief is sought by checking the appropriate boxes in the form provided by the
court. Presumably, this form would be
amended to incorporate electronic monitoring as an additional type of relief
available to a petitioner and that the petitioner would simply check the
appropriate box to request the court do so.
From LSC fiscal
staff's perspective, if a person is motivated enough to file a petition, then
that person is highly likely to add electronic monitoring to the relief sought
by simply checking the appropriate box under the belief that it enhances their
personal safety. Thus, for the purposes
of this fiscal analysis, we assume that all of those petitioning the court to
issue a stalking/sex offense-related civil protection order will include a
request for electronic monitoring of the respondent.
Electronic
monitoring orders issued.
In researching the matter of the frequency with which the court
will order a respondent to be electronically monitored, LSC fiscal staff
generally found two distinct perspectives.
Some individuals felt that a court would be very selective in its use of
electronic monitoring and reserve its use for circumstances present in which
the respondent represented a substantial threat to the petitioner's
safety. This could mean that only about
5% of respondents would be ordered to be electronically monitored. Conversely, the court may want to use all
available tools to enhance the safety of petitioners, in which case a court may
order a respondent to be electronically monitored in as many as 95% of the
petitions filed.
Table 1
immediately below takes our previously estimated range of stalking/sex
offense-related civil protection orders issued (9,750 to 16,250) and shows,
assuming that this estimate is a reasonably accurate approximation of the true
number, the number of respondents that could be ordered to be electronically
monitored as a percentage of the total number of petitions filed.
|
Table 1 |
||
|
Estimated Statewide Number of Respondents Subject to
"Electronic Monitoring" |
||
|
Percentage of Orders Issued with
Electronic Monitoring of Respondent |
Estimated Number of Orders Issued |
|
|
9,750 |
16,250 |
|
|
5% |
488 |
813 |
|
25% |
2, 438 |
4,063 |
|
50% |
4,875 |
8,125 |
|
75% |
7,313 |
12,188 |
|
95% |
9,263 |
15,438 |
Electronic
monitoring costs
Although it may
be a simplification to do so, one may view electronic monitoring as involving
three distinct tools or technologies, as described generally below: radio frequency, active global positioning
satellite (GPS), and passive global positioning satellite (GPS).
·
Radio
frequency monitoring essentially involves the imposition of a curfew on an offender
and monitoring whether that offender is at their residence at required times.
·
Active
GPS uses global positioning
satellites to track an offender's location in the community, and also allows
officers to enter parameters that restrict an offender from being in certain
geographic areas. If the offender
violates the boundaries of those areas, an alert is registered at the
monitoring center and relayed to the officer and, if a victim chooses to be
notified, he/she is alerted by a beeper signal.
·
Passive
GPS system has many of the same features of the active GPS system, but it does
not report the monitored offender's movements in "real time." Instead, the system maintains a log of the
offender's location throughout the day and uses landline telephones to transmit
a summary of this data to officers the following day.
Costs of
electronic monitoring appear to range from $5 to $18 a day, with
"active" monitoring being on the more expensive end of this cost
spectrum in comparison to what can be termed "passive"
monitoring. According to a December
2005 report by the Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global
Positional Systems in the State of Maryland (herein referred to as the
"Maryland Task Force"), a survey found that active monitoring systems
typically cost between $9 and $12 a day.[1] More recently, however, I-Secure Trac
made a product presentation to members of the Ohio General Assembly's Senate
Criminal Justice Committee and stated that electronic monitoring through a
global positioning system would cost $18 a day.[2]
The bill
requires that the respondent pay all costs associated with the installation and
monitoring of an electronic monitoring device.
It seems highly likely, however, that some respondents will be
determined indigent and thus unable to pay these monitoring costs. LSC fiscal staff's research into this matter
suggests that the indigency rate associated with this population of respondents
is likely to be around 30%. The bill
requires the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) to be used for the
costs of installation and monitoring of an electronic monitoring device if the
court determines that the respondent is indigent. As discussed further on in this detailed fiscal analysis,
according to data provided by the Office of the Attorney General, Fund 402,
based on current revenue and expenditure patterns, could become insolvent in
the next biennium. If that were true,
then, in the case of the court ordering an indigent respondent to be
electronically monitored, that court may end up being responsible for ensuring
that the law enforcement entity ordered to monitor the respondent is paid for
the costs it incurs in doing so.
Table 2 below
summarizes our best estimate of the statewide costs associated with the
electronic monitoring of certain respondents.
It incorporates, from Table 1, our estimated numbers of respondents that
might be electronically monitored, and a range of potential average daily
electronic monitoring costs ($5, $9, $12, $18) to calculate two cost figures: (1) the estimated statewide average daily
electronic monitoring costs that are theoretically to be paid by respondents,
and (2) the amount of the figure from (1) that represents respondents who may
be determined to be indigent and from whom costs may not be collected.
The intent of
Table 2 below is to suggest the magnitude of the electronic monitoring costs
that might be incurred by county sheriffs and other local law enforcement
personnel statewide, and of that amount, how much might not be collected
because some respondents being electronically monitored are deemed indigent.
Under the bill,
the court will direct the county sheriff or any other appropriate law
enforcement agency to install the electronic monitoring device and to monitor
the respondent. It is not clear,
however, that local law enforcement would have the authority to contract out
all or some portion of the associated duties and responsibilities to private
sector vendors. Thus, for the purposes
of this fiscal analysis, LSC fiscal staff has assumed that local law
enforcement authorities will directly perform these duties and responsibilities
and incur all of the associated costs.
Also unclear is who would be responsible for the billing and collecting
of costs from electronically monitored respondents, and if some respondents are
deemed indigent, how will those costs be absorbed. Will the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund or the court ordering
the electronic monitoring of indigent respondents be required to reimburse the
local law enforcement agency for the costs of monitoring such persons?
|
Table 2 |
||||
|
Estimated Statewide Average Daily Electronic Monitoring Costs |
||||
|
Estimated Number of Electronically
Monitored Respondents |
Average Daily Electronic Monitoring
Cost* |
|||
|
$5 |
$9 |
$12 |
$18 |
|
|
488 |
$2,440/$732 |
$4,392/$1,318 |
$5,856/$1,757 |
$8,784/$2,638 |
|
813 |
$4,065/$1,220 |
$7,317/$2,195 |
$9,756/$2,927 |
$14,634/$4,390 |
|
2,438 |
$12,190/$3,657 |
$21,942/$6,583 |
$29,256/$8,777 |
$43,884/$13,165 |
|
4,063 |
$20,315/$6,095 |
$36,567/$10,970 |
$48,756/$14,627 |
$73,134/$21,940 |
|
4,875 |
$24,375/$7,313 |
$43,875/$13,163 |
$58,500/$17,550 |
$87,750/$26,325 |
|
7,313 |
$36,565/$10,970 |
$65,817/$19,745 |
$87,756/$26,327 |
$131,634/$39,490 |
|
8,125 |
$40,625/$12,188 |
$73,125/$21,938 |
$97,500/$29,250 |
$146,250/$43,875 |
|
9,263 |
$46,315/$13,895 |
$83,367/$25,010 |
$111,156/$33,347 |
$166,734/$50,020 |
|
12,188 |
$60,940/$18,282 |
$109,692/$32,908 |
$146,256/$43,877 |
$219,384/$65,815 |
|
15,438 |
$77,190/$23,157 |
$138,942/$41,683 |
$185,256/$55,577 |
$277,884/$83,365 |
*
The calculated amounts in each cell contain two figures separated by a slash as
follows: (1) the total average daily
electronic monitoring cost based on the estimated number of electronically
monitored respondents, (2) the amount of estimated costs in (1) that might not
be recovered if one assumes a 30% indigency rate.
Courts of common
pleas
From
the perspective of the divisions of the courts of common pleas whose subject
matter jurisdiction includes ruling on petitions requesting the issuance of a
civil protection order, the bill presents several areas of potential fiscal
concern, as summarized immediately below.
·
The bill appears unlikely to discernibly change the number of
civil protection order petitions filed annually in any given court of common
pleas. However, it is possible that the
additional decision regarding electronic monitoring could lead to longer and
more complex hearings.
·
The bill: (1) requires the
court order the county sheriff or other appropriate law enforcement agency to
electronically monitor certain respondents, and (2) requires respondents to pay
for the costs of being electronically monitored. LSC fiscal assumes that, based on what appears to be current
practice, the local law enforcement agency charged by the court to
electronically monitoring certain respondents would also be responsible for
establishing and maintaining a system for collecting the costs of
electronically monitoring from the respondents. The bill, however, does not clearly assign that duty to either
the court or the other appropriate law enforcement agency.
·
The bill requires the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund to pay for
the costs of installation and monitoring of an electronic monitoring device if
the court determines that the respondent is indigent. However, given the questions surrounding the future ability of
the fund to meet this requirement, what fiscal exposure does the court of
common pleas have regarding these respondents?
·
If certain respondents are financially capable of paying the costs
associated with electronic monitoring, but chose not to do so, will the court
that ordered the electronic monitoring being involved in the matter, how
frequently, and at what cost?
From LSC fiscal
staff's perspective, quantifying the above-noted areas of concern relative to
their effect on the workload and annual operating expenses of courts of common
pleas is problematic. Although any
affected court of common pleas may be able to reallocate resources and
reengineer decision-making processes in an effort to minimize costs, it is not
clear how those courts will handle the apparent potential uncertainties
surrounding who is responsible for the payment of electronic monitoring costs
that, for whatever reason, cannot be collected from the respondent or covered
by moneys drawn from the state's Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund.
County sheriff
and other local law enforcement agencies
What is not
clear from LSC fiscal staff's perspective is whether the cost estimates
calculated in Table 2 above incorporate all of the potential costs that a law
enforcement agency could incur in establishing and maintaining an electronic
monitoring system.
For example, a
law enforcement agency would presumably need to purchase equipment, connect
respondents, monitor data, reclaim lost or damaged equipment, and enforce
protection order violations. Additional
potential costs also include: (1) staff
to analyze the constant stream of data on the location of all electronically
monitored respondents, the amount and timing of which would be a function of
the type of electronic monitoring utilized, (2) office space, travel, and
storage, and (3) reallocation or redeployment of personnel to handle the likely
increase in the number and frequency of respondents appearing to violate the
terms of the court order.[3] According to the Maryland Task Force, most
"jurisdictions recommended a caseload of anywhere from twenty (20) to
twenty-five (25) offenders per agent" for GPS monitoring systems.[4]
In the specific
case of Ohio, local law enforcement personnel contacted by LSC fiscal staff
noted that installing the appropriate equipment on the respondent would require
approximately one hour, and that personnel would need to be available to
replace equipment due to malfunctions, battery failures, destruction
(accidentally or purposefully) by the respondent, tracking down lost or damaged
equipment, and interpreting, analyzing, and responding to data provided by the
GPS units. The Maryland Task Force
determined that these personnel costs "may well turn out to be the most
expensive element of the system."[5]
The annual
magnitude of the costs incurred by any affected law enforcement agency will
likely be a function of the fixed cost to establish and maintain an electronic
monitoring system and the marginal cost, which will be dependent on the number
of respondents ordered to be electronically monitored and the length of time
that the order is in effect.
Presumably, some, but perhaps not all, of these costs will be recovered
by the requirement that respondents pay the cost of the installation and
monitoring of the electronic monitoring device. That said, it seems likely that the respondent payment stream in
certain local jurisdictions will not fully cover the electronic monitoring
system's annual operating expenses and that the "gap" between those
expenses and the earmarked revenue stream may exceed minimal, perhaps
significantly so. For the purposes of
this fiscal analysis, a local cost in excess of minimal means an estimated
expenditure increase of more than $5,000 for any affected law enforcement
agency per year.
Criminal
justice systems generally
As
noted, the ordering of respondents to be electronically monitored may increase
the likelihood that certain respondents will be discovered violating the order,
and subsequently arrested, prosecuted, and sanctioned for doing so. Under current law, unchanged by the bill,
violating the terms of a stalking/sex offense-related civil protection order is
generally a misdemeanor of the first degree, and can be enhanced to a felony of
the fifth or third degree depending upon the circumstances present. Misdemeanor offenses generally fall under
the subject matter jurisdiction of a municipal court or a county court; felony
offenses fall under the subject matter jurisdiction of a court of common pleas.
Expenditures. If additional respondents are arrested and
prosecuted for violating the terms of a stalking/sex offense-related civil
protection order, then the affected local criminal justice system's expenditures
may increase, including costs related to investigating, prosecuting,
adjudicating, defending (if the person is indigent), and sanctioning the
violator. Whether the number of
violators in any given county or municipal criminal justice system and
associated costs will be sufficient to exceed LSC fiscal staff's "minimal
local cost" threshold is uncertain.
A minimal local cost means an expenditure increase estimated at no more
than $5,000 for any affected county or municipality per year.
Revenues. If additional respondents are convicted of
violating the terms of a stalking/sex offense-related civil protection order,
then the sentencing court is generally required to order the violator pay a
fine and associated court costs. If
collected, these revenues may offset all, or a portion of, the expenses
incurred in the local criminal justice system's handling of the violation. The magnitude of the revenues that any
affected local jurisdiction may collect annually is uncertain.
State fiscal effects
Victims of Crime/Reparations
Fund (Fund 402)
The bill will
affect the cash flow of the Attorney General's Victims of Crime/Reparations
Fund (Fund 402) by increasing its annual expenditures potentially by hundreds
of thousands and perhaps tens of millions of dollars.
According to
data provided by the Office of the Attorney General, Fund 402, based on current
revenue and expenditure patterns, will become insolvent in FY 2011. The fund's end of year cash balance
decreased from $34.6 million in FY 2006 to $23.2 million in FY 2007, is
projected to decrease to $2.6 million by the close of FY 2010, and is projected
to post a deficit by FY 2011. Assuming
that the Office of the Attorney General's analysis is reasonably accurate, then
the bill will accelerate the fund's projected cash flow crisis.
Based on
information provided by the Office of the Attorney General, this decrease in
the fund's end of year cash balance is due to a variety of factors. First, the fund is taking in less revenue in
the form of court costs. In FY 2003,
$18.5 million in court costs was collected; in FY 2007, $16.1 million in
court costs was collected.
Second, the
magnitude of the fund's annual disbursements has increased. For example, disbursements on: (1) DNA services have expanded from $400,000
in FY 2003 to $2.3 million in FY 2007, (2) crime victim compensation awards
have increased from a total of $19.7 million in FY 2003 to $25.5 million
in FY 2007, and (3) victim assistance program subsidies have increased from
$2.8 million in FY 2003 to $5.2 million in FY 2007. Costs associated with child and elder protection were $0 in
FY 2003, but increased to $1.7 million in FY 2007.
Overall, the
fund's total annual revenues have decreased from $25.7 million in FY 2003 to
$25.6 million in FY 2007, while the fund's total annual expenditures have
increased from $24.1 million in FY 2003 to $37.0 million in FY 2007 (an
increase of 53.5%).
Violating
a protection order
As noted, under existing
law, the offense of violating a protection order is generally a misdemeanor of
the first degree, but is elevated to a felony of the fifth or third degree if
other circumstances are present. As a
result of the bill, certain respondents will be electronically monitored for a
period of time ordered by the court, which presumably increases the possibility
that some respondents, who might not have been caught violating a protection
order, will be caught in violation of the protection order, arrested for doing
so, and successfully prosecuted for the offense of "violating a protection
order." Such an outcome has
potential fiscal implications for state revenues and expenditures, which are
discussed in more detail in the paragraphs immediately below.
State revenues. From a state revenue perspective, if a respondent is convicted of
violating a protection order, then the state potentially collects state court
costs that the court is generally required to impose on that individual. Those locally collected court costs are
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.
The state costs for a misdemeanor offense total $24, of which the GRF
receives $15 and Fund 402 receives $9.
Although LSC fiscal staff is unable to quantify the number of additional
respondents that might be convicted of violating a protection order annually
statewide, we assume that the amount of court cost revenue likely to be
generated for either state fund annually is unlikely to exceed minimal. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a
minimal revenue gain means an increase estimated at less than $100,000 for
either state fund per year.
State expenditures. From a state expenditure perspective, if a respondent is
convicted of a felony protection order violation, then it is possible that the
court will sentence the offender to a prison term, the practical effect of which,
dependent upon the dynamics in the prison population at that time, may be to
increase the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's (DRC) GRF-funded
incarceration costs. As of May 2008,
DRC's web site indicates that its budgeted average incarceration cost per
inmate is $68.97 per day, or $25,174.05 per year.
LSC fiscal staff does not
have a reliable estimate of the number of respondents that might be sentenced
to a prison term for a felony protection order violation. That said, there appear to be several
factors that may combine to keep the number of prison-bound respondents to a
relatively small group. First, the mere
act of monitoring respondents electronically may be sufficient incentive for
some respondents to abide by the terms of the protection order. Second, some number of respondents will
likely be convicted of a misdemeanor protection order violation for which a
court can order a stay in a local jail, but cannot impose a prison term. Third, some number of respondents convicted
of a felony protection order violation may also be convicted of other related
felony conduct for which a prison term would have been imposed independent of
the felony protection order violation.
If all of the mitigating
factors noted in the immediately preceding paragraph were true, then LSC fiscal
staff assumes that the effect of felony protection order violations on state
incarceration costs will be minimal.
For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal expenditure increase
means an additional annual cost estimated at less than $100,000.
LSC fiscal staff: Matthew L. Stiffler, Budget Analyst
[1] Tewey, John F., Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positional Systems in the State of Maryland, Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly, December 31, 2005, page 5.
[2] Gongwer News Service Ohio, Senators Told GPS Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Could Save State $148 Million, Volume #77, Report #22, Article #09 -- Friday, February 1, 2008.
[3] Ibid, page 21.
[4] Tewey, John F., Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positional Systems in the State of Maryland, Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly, December 31, 2005, page 20.
[5] Ibid, page 20.