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 25, 2022
BILL NUMBER: SB 9 BILL AMENDED: Jan 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Electronic Monitoring Standards.
FIRST AUTHOR: Sen. Walker K BILL STATUS: As Passed Senate
FIRST SPONSOR: Rep. Torr
FUNDS AFFECTED:XGENERAL IMPACT: State & Local
XDEDICATED
FEDERAL
Summary of Legislation: 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: (1) the defendant disables or interferes
with the operation of an electronic monitoring device; or (2) the defendant violates certain conditions
of home detention (under current law, any violation of a condition of home detention constitutes
escape).
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 – This provision makes two changes to escape as a Level 6
SB 9 1 felony. First, it makes disabling or interfering with the operation of an electronic monitoring device a Level
6 felony. This could increase the number of offenses that could be prosecuted as felony escape. Secondly,
it excludes possessing or consuming alcohol or controlled substances while in a person’s home, missing
appointments with a supervising staff due to tardiness and failing to pay user fees from being prosecuted as
home detention violations as a Level 6 felony. These offenses would likely be prosecuted as probation or
parole violations instead.
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 prisoner. However, any additional expenditures are
likely to be small.
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.
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: 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.
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
SB 9 2 • 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.
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 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
SB 9 3 Standard
Meet or
Exceed
Standard
Incoming
Persons
Tracked
Not
Meeting
Standard
Incoming
Persons
Tracked
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
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