LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 82ND LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION April 13, 2011 TO: Honorable Jerry Madden, Chair, House Committee on Corrections FROM: John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB1787 by Farias (Relating to establishing a restorative justice pilot program for juvenile offenders in certain counties.), As Introduced Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1787, As Introduced: a negative impact of ($1,772,712) through the biennium ending August 31, 2013. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 82ND LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
April 13, 2011
TO: Honorable Jerry Madden, Chair, House Committee on Corrections FROM: John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB1787 by Farias (Relating to establishing a restorative justice pilot program for juvenile offenders in certain counties.), As Introduced
TO: Honorable Jerry Madden, Chair, House Committee on Corrections
FROM: John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB1787 by Farias (Relating to establishing a restorative justice pilot program for juvenile offenders in certain counties.), As Introduced
Honorable Jerry Madden, Chair, House Committee on Corrections
Honorable Jerry Madden, Chair, House Committee on Corrections
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
HB1787 by Farias (Relating to establishing a restorative justice pilot program for juvenile offenders in certain counties.), As Introduced
HB1787 by Farias (Relating to establishing a restorative justice pilot program for juvenile offenders in certain counties.), As Introduced
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1787, As Introduced: a negative impact of ($1,772,712) through the biennium ending August 31, 2013. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1787, As Introduced: a negative impact of ($1,772,712) through the biennium ending August 31, 2013.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact: Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds 2012 ($886,356) 2013 ($886,356) 2014 $0 2015 $0 2016 $0
2012 ($886,356)
2013 ($886,356)
2014 $0
2015 $0
2016 $0
All Funds, Five-Year Impact: Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) fromGeneral Revenue Fund1 2012 ($886,356) 2013 ($886,356) 2014 $0 2015 $0 2016 $0
Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) fromGeneral Revenue Fund1 2012 ($886,356) 2013 ($886,356) 2014 $0 2015 $0 2016 $0
2012 ($886,356)
2013 ($886,356)
2014 $0
2015 $0
2016 $0
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would create Chapter 62 in the Family Code, which would create a restorative juvenile justice pilot program in two counties for juveniles convicted of a violent crime as defined by Article 17.032 (a), Code of Criminal Procedure. The bill would require that the counties involved establish certain services for youth related to the principle of restorative justice, and that they submit a report to the Juvenile Probation Commission (JPC) on the progress of the pilot program by December 1, 2012. The bill would take effect on September 1, 2011 and expire on September 2, 2013.
Methodology
The bill specifies that the Juvenile Probation Commission must provide sufficient funds to the counties for the establishment of the pilot program in eligible counties if funds are appropriated for the purposes of Chapter 62. Bexar and Travis counties would qualify for the pilot program under the eligibility requirements of the bill. Bexar County reports that it would need to hire a project coordinator, mediation manager, mediation coordinator, an office assistant, a prosecutor, a victim advocate, and a paralegal in order to fulfill the specifications of the program. The counties would also need to expend funds for interpreter services and printing and publication. The salaries of the seven local employees identified by Bexar County as necessary for the establishment and operations of the program total $435,490 per fiscal year. In addition, Bexar County reports that it would need approximately $7,688 per fiscal year for translation services and printing and publication costs. This analysis assumes that the same costs would apply to the program in Travis County, for a total of $443,178 per year per county.
The bill specifies that the Juvenile Probation Commission must provide sufficient funds to the counties for the establishment of the pilot program in eligible counties if funds are appropriated for the purposes of Chapter 62. Bexar and Travis counties would qualify for the pilot program under the eligibility requirements of the bill. Bexar County reports that it would need to hire a project coordinator, mediation manager, mediation coordinator, an office assistant, a prosecutor, a victim advocate, and a paralegal in order to fulfill the specifications of the program. The counties would also need to expend funds for interpreter services and printing and publication.
The salaries of the seven local employees identified by Bexar County as necessary for the establishment and operations of the program total $435,490 per fiscal year. In addition, Bexar County reports that it would need approximately $7,688 per fiscal year for translation services and printing and publication costs. This analysis assumes that the same costs would apply to the program in Travis County, for a total of $443,178 per year per county.
Technology
The bill would not have an effect on the technology resources of the state.
Local Government Impact
Because the bill would not have statewide impact on units of local government of the same type or class, no comment from this office is required by the rules of the House/Senate as to its probable fiscal implication on units of local government.
Source Agencies: 665 Juvenile Probation Commission
665 Juvenile Probation Commission
LBB Staff: JOB, ESi, GG, MWU, JGA, KKR
JOB, ESi, GG, MWU, JGA, KKR