LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AGENCY
OFFICE OF FISCAL AND MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
200 W. Washington, Suite 301
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 233-0696
iga.in.gov
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LS 6480 NOTE PREPARED: Jan 21, 2022
BILL NUMBER: SB 9 BILL AMENDED: Jan 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Electronic Monitoring Standards.
FIRST AUTHOR: Sen. Walker K BILL STATUS: CR Adopted - 1
st
House
FIRST SPONSOR:
FUNDS AFFECTED:XGENERAL IMPACT: State & Local
XDEDICATED
FEDERAL
Summary of Legislation: (Amended) This bill has the following provisions:
A. Electronic Monitoring – It establishes standards, including staffing minimums and notification time
frames, for persons and entities responsible for monitoring individuals required to wear a monitoring
device as a condition of probation, parole, pretrial release, or community corrections.
B. Immunity – It provides immunity for acts or omissions performed in connection with implementing
monitoring standards.
C. Escape – It provides that a defendant commits escape if the defendant disables or interferes with
the operation of an electronic monitoring device.
D. Juvenile Status Offender – It makes escape committed by a juvenile status offender a status offense
under certain circumstances.
E. It makes conforming amendments.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022.
Explanation of State Expenditures: Escape – A Level 6 felony is punishable by a prison term ranging
from 6 to 30 months, with an advisory sentence of 1 year. The sentence depends on mitigating and
aggravating circumstances. Assuming offenders can be housed in existing facilities with no additional staff,
the marginal cost for medical care, food, and clothing is approximately $4,333 annually, or $11.87 daily, per
SB 9 1 prisoner. However, any additional expenditures are likely to be small.
(Revised) Division of Parole Services – DOC indicates that it should be able to meet these requirements with
current resources. DOC currently sends information to the parole board when a parolee violate conditions
of home detention.
(Revised) Statewide Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council – The Council will compile the quarterly reports
that it receives from local justice reinvestment councils and publish these online. The Indiana Supreme
Court’s Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) would likely be required to publish these reports. The OJA
currently publishes an annual statewide Home Detention Report.
Explanation of State Revenues: Escape – If additional court cases occur and fines are collected, revenue
to both the Common School Fund (from criminal fines) and the state General Fund (from court fees) would
increase. The maximum fine for a Level 6 felony is $10,000. However, any additional revenues would likely
be small.
Explanation of Local Expenditures: (Revised) Juvenile Status Offender – Under current law, status
offenders who are on home monitoring and violate certain home detention orders can be prosecuted as a
Level 6 felony. This provision would likely not have any effect on state or local operations. It is unknown
how frequently prosecuting attorneys file felony charges against juvenile status offenders who violate this
law.
(Revised) Electronic Monitoring – This provision would add new requirements to community corrections
agencies and probation departments that monitor persons who have been charged (pretrial) and have been
convicted of felonies that are both violent and nonviolent. Whether each agency has the capability to meet
these new requirements will depend on their current resources.
First, these agencies would be required to: 1) operate at certain staff to tracked individual ratios, 2) conduct
face to face meetings with tracked individuals every 30 days who are either charged with or convicted of a
violent crime, and 3) have the capability of transmitting details to obtain an arrest warrant within 15 minutes
of detecting certain violations by the tracked individual.
Second, community corrections agencies and probation departments would be required to transmit quarterly
reports to the local justice reinvestment advisory council concerning the following statistics:
• the total number of persons under supervision, whether they are under pretrial or post-disposition
supervision, and the charges they are facing or have been convicted of
• the number of persons under supervision assigned to each employee
• the total costs and fees levied and collected
• the number of persons under supervision whose supervision has been terminated and the reason for
termination, and
• the number of false location alerts or device malfunctions in the case of each person under
supervision.
(Revised) Additional Information – LSA surveyed community corrections agencies and probation
departments which operate electronic monitoring of persons who are on home detention about whether these
agencies met the standards specified in this bill. LSA received survey responses from 36 agencies that
monitor offenders on home detention. These agencies received 6,116 incoming cases that were committed
SB 9 2 by courts for the period between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020. The survey included questions
about the capability of each agency to track offenders with adequate staff, the agency's capability to meet
with offenders on a scheduled and random basis every 30 days, and each agency’s capability to contact courts
or prosecuting attorneys to obtain arrest warrants for violent offenders within 15 minutes. Because not all
programs accept violent offenders into their monitoring programs, some programs responding as not meeting
these standards did not have qualifying people in their programs.
The following table displays the survey results.
Standard
Meet or
Exceed
Standard
Incoming
Persons
Tracked
Not
Meeting
Standard
Incoming
Persons
Tracked
Ratio of Staff to Tracked Individuals
30 or fewer persons per staff if the tracked individual is
charged with violent crime
15 2,550 21 3,556
30 or fewer persons per staff if the tracked individual has
been convicted of violent crime
16 2,716 20 3,400
75 or fewer persons per staff if the tracked individual has
been charged with a nonviolent crime
19 3,515 17 2,601
75 or fewer persons per staff if the tracked individual has
been convicted of a nonviolent crime
20 3,681 16 2,435
Face to face meetings with tracked individuals
Scheduled with each tracked individual charged with a
violent crime every month
35 5,928 2 288
Scheduled with each tracked individual convicted of a
violent crime
33 5,676 3 440
Random visit with each tracked individual charged with a
violent crime
30 5,539 6 557
Random visit with each tracked individual convicted of a
violent crime
31 5,539 5 577
Issue arrest warrant within 15 minutes if a tracked
individual
Charged with a violent crime experiences unexplained or
undocumented communication loss with monitor
15 2,386 21 3,730
Charged with a violent crime and enters a prohibited
exclusion zone
20 3,812 16 2,304
Charged with a violent crime and removes, disables, or
interferes with a monitoring device
20 3,812 16 2,304
SB 9 3 Standard
Meet or
Exceed
Standard
Incoming
Persons
Tracked
Not
Meeting
Standard
Incoming
Persons
Tracked
Convicted of a violent crime and experiences
unexplained or undocumented loss of communication
with the monitor
15 2,386 21 3,730
Convicted of a violent crime and enters prohibited
exclusion zone
16 2,304 20 3,812
Convicted of a violent crime and removes, disables, or
interferes with a monitoring device
16 2,304 20 3,812
Escape – If more defendants are detained in county jails prior to their court hearings, local expenditures for
jail operations may increase. However, any additional expenditures would likely be small.
Explanation of Local Revenues: Escape – If additional court actions occur and a guilty verdict is entered,
local governments would receive revenue from court fees. However, the amounts would likely be small.
State Agencies Affected: Department of Correction, Division of Parole Services; Indiana Supreme Court,
Office of Judicial Administration.
Local Agencies Affected: Community Corrections Agencies; Probation Departments; Trial courts, local law
enforcement agencies.
Information Sources: LSA survey; 2020 Indiana Home Detention Report, Indiana Office of Court Services,
Indiana Supreme Court.
Fiscal Analyst: Mark Goodpaster, 317-232-9852.
SB 9 4