OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS
Legislative Office Building, Room 5200
Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240-0200
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa
sSB-1019
AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND
PAROLES, ERASURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR CERTAIN
MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, PROHIBITING
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON ERASED CRIMINAL HISTORY
RECORD INFORMATION AND CONCERNING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING
COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO MIS DEMEANOR SENTENCES.
As Amended by Senate "A" (LCO 8737)
Senate Calendar No.: 349
Primary Analyst: PR 5/19/21
Contributing Analyst(s):
Reviewer: ME
OFA Fiscal Note
State Impact:
Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 22 $ FY 23 $
Correction, Dept. GF - Cost Up to 25,000 Up to 5,000
Judicial Dept. GF - Cost Up to
500,000
None
Judicial Dept. GF - Cost None 89,088
State Comptroller - Fringe
Benefits
1
GF - Cost None 36,793
Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection
GF - Cost Up to
$650,000
None
Resources of the General Fund GF - Potential
Revenue Loss
See Below See Below
Human Rights & Opportunities,
Com.
GF - Cost None 127,254
State Comptroller - Fringe
Benefits
2
GF - Cost None 52,556
Correction, Dept. GF - Potential
Savings
See Below See Below
Note: GF=General Fund
1
The fringe benefit costs for most state employees are budgeted centrally in accounts
administered by the Comptroller. The estimated active employee fringe benefit cost
associated with most personnel changes is 41.3% of payroll in FY 22 and FY 23.
2
The fringe benefit costs for most state employees are budgeted centrally in accounts
administered by the Comptroller. The estimated active employee fringe benefit cost
associated with most personnel changes is 41.3% of payroll in FY 22 and FY 23. 2021SB-01019-R01-FN.DOCX Page 2 of 4
Municipal Impact: None
Explanation
The bill establishes a process for automatic erasure of certain
criminal convictions and prohibits discrimination based on someone's
erased criminal history and results in the impact described below.
Section 1 requires the Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOPP) to
provide additional training for staff resulting in an annual cost of up to
$5,000 to the Department of Correction (the BOPP resides under the
DOC).
Section 2 requires the BOPP to provide a written statement when
denying a pardon and results in a one-time cost of approximately
$20,000 in FY 22 to modify their case management system to meet the
requirements of the bill.
Section 3-5 establishes a process to erase conviction for most
misdemeanors and certain felony convictions and results in a Judicial
Department one-time cost of approximately $500,000 in FY 22 for IT
consultants to complete necessary system changes and a one-time cost
to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection
(DESPP) in FY 22 of up to $650,000. To meet the requirements of the
bill the DESPP will require an information technology consultant to
make necessary technology changes.
The bill results in a cost for up to 3 positions at an annual cost of
$178,176 (one court planner and two administrative assistants) to
identify cases where automatic erasure may pose a problem to the
Judicial Department. As the effective date for these changes is January
1, 2023, the bill results in a half year cost of $89,088 in FY 23 to the
Judicial Department and $36,793 for fringe benefits.
The bill may result in an additional cost to the Division of Criminal
Justice if additional staff are needed to complete court ordered erasure.
The bill results in a potential cost to municipalities to the extent 2021SB-01019-R01-FN.DOCX Page 3 of 4
additional staff are hired, or overtime is incurred, from the
requirement that certain electronic records be deleted. It is anticipated
potential costs will be isolated to municipalities with greater volumes
of criminal records.
Section 7 allows DESPP to waive the $75 fee for certain criminal
history information record searches resulting in a potential revenue
loss to the General Fund depending on how many record search fees
are waived.
Sections 9-32 and 34 prohibit discrimination based on someone’s
erased criminal history and classifies this type of discrimination under
CHRO's laws. The bill also allows individuals to file housing and
employment discrimination complaints with CHRO, effective January
1, 2023. Additionally, the bill would result in costs of $127,254 to the
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunity (CHRO) and fringe
benefits of $52,556 in FY 23 (partial year), associated with additional
staff to handle the increased number of expected discrimination
complaints filed with the agency.
It is expected that CHRO would need to hire two additional Human
Rights Attorney I and two Human Rights and Opportunities (HRO)
Trainee positions, each starting January 1, 2023, to process the
increased number of filed complaints under the bill's provisions. One
HRO Trainee can generally handle 50 complaints annually, and the
number of complaints is expected to double under the bill.
These sections make other changes that are not anticipated to result
in a fiscal impact to the state or municipalities.
Section 35 reduces the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from
one year to 364 days resulting in a potential marginal savings to the
Department of Correction (DOC) to the extent inmates are released
earlier from DOC facilities. On average, the annual marginal savings 2021SB-01019-R01-FN.DOCX Page 4 of 4
to the state for releasing an offender is $2,200.
3
The bill makes additional changes that do not result in an
anticipated fiscal impact.
Senate "A" makes changes to eligibility for erasure in the underlying
bill, removing class C felonies, and does not result in a fiscal impact.
The Out Years
The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would
continue into the future subject to inflation.
The preceding Fiscal Impact statement is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly,
solely for the purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the
General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose. In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety
of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge. Whenever applicable, agency data is
consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any
specific department.
3
Inmate marginal savings is based on decreased consumables (e.g. food, clothing,
water, sewage, living supplies, etc.). This does not include a change in staffing costs
or utility expenses because these would only be realized if a unit or facility closed.