|Date Requested: January 10, 2018
Time Requested: 02:51 PM
||Supreme Court of Appeals |
General Revenue Fund
Sources of Revenue:
Creates New Expense
Fiscal Note Summary
Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.
The bill would impose a substantial additional cost upon the state judiciary. The Supreme Court of Appeals ran a pilot program of mental health/veterans' court in the northern panhandle, serving two circuits for several years. That program imposed the following approximate costs as of 2015 and 2016:
Salaries $172,040.50 $171,348.00
Drug Testing $33,510.47 $30,755.22
Psychological Evals $7,920.00 $8,100.00
Total: $215,485.97 $212,219.22
The pilot program did not pay for any mental health treatment or other medical treatment. The pilot program did not collect any fees from participants to defray the cost of the program. Nor did the pilot program pay for any mental health treatment for participants. Conservatively, we estimate that were a MH/Vet court to have to pay for mental health treatment, the cost of those services would be on the order of $100,000 per year, per court.
Given that the goal of the bill is to create a statewide system, we believe it would be necessary to create a position of statewide coordinator to manage and serve these courts. That position would cost approximately $60,000 per year.
Extrapolating from these numbers, we estimate the bill would cost the judiciary $215,000 per year per court, if no mental health treatment costs come from the court itself. To that cost would be added the additional administrative cost of $60K per year. That translates as follows, for two courts per year until ten courts are established:
Year 1: $490,000
Year 2: $920,000
Year 3: $1,350,000
Year 4: $1,780,000
Year 5: $2,221,000 (and each year thereafter)
Should the courts pay for mental health services, we would expect the bill to cost an additional $100K per court per year:
Year 1: $690,000
Year 2: $1,120,000
Year 3: $1,550,000
Year 4: $1,980,000
Year 5: $2,421,000 (and each year thereafter)
Given the financial circumstances of the state and its citizens, and given the fact that many likely participants would be indigent, we do not expect that fee revenue from the courts would be sufficient to offset these in a meaningful way.
Fiscal Note Detail
|Effect of Proposal
|1. Estmated Total Cost
|Repairs and Alterations
|2. Estimated Total Revenues
Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):
As noted, the estimates are made by extrapolating the costs of a prior pilot program.
This fiscal note was compiled with the help of Jennifer Singletary, Interim Director of Mental Hygiene Services; Cammie Chapman, Director of Court Services; Stephanie Bond, Director of Probation Services; and Sue Troy, Director of Financial Services.
Person submitting Fiscal Note:
Christopher S. Morris
Email Address: email@example.com