Detailed Fiscal Analysis
INTRODUCTION
LBO would like to emphasize that this fiscal
analysis is a work in progress, and that revisions to this document are likely
to be made in the future, as we hopefully acquire more information and
insights. At this time, the fiscal picture that we have been able to draw has
been limited by the nature of the available data and the lack of a consensus
among the various stakeholders as to how the bill will operate in practice. As
a result, we have had to frequently rely on differing perspectives as to the
bill’s fiscal effects to establish a potential range of costs, and where
possible, we have made out “best” estimate as to what a particular provision of
the bill might cost the state and local governments.
TRUANCY & PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Current Law. Existing law provides a
series of remedies for truancy. Under section 3321.19 of the Revised Code, when
a board of education determines that a student has been truant, and that the
parent or guardian failed to cause the student to attend school, the board may
require the parent or guardian to attend an educational program. Section
3313.663 of the Revised Code permits a board of education to create these
education programs and to adopt policies to require parents or guardians to
attend these programs.
Under section 3321.38 of the
Revised Code, a parent who fails to send a child to school may be required by
the court to give bond in the sum of $100, with sureties to the approval of the
court, conditioned that the child will attend school as required by the
compulsory school attendance statute (section 3321.04 of the Revised Code).
Violators of section 3321.38 of the Revised Code are to be fined not less than
$5 or more than $20.
If a parent or guardian is determined to have caused
a child to be unruly through truant behavior, a parent may be found guilty of
the offense of contributing to unruliness or delinquency, a misdemeanor of the
first degree (section 2929.24 of the Revised Code). Juveniles in some cases may
also be charged as unruly by being habitually or chronically truant. Under
current law, truant juveniles can be adjudicated as unruly, and a juvenile can
be sent to a detention center after violating a court order to attend school.
If a juvenile violates a court order, LBO assumes that a juvenile could, in
rare cases, then be adjudicated delinquent.
Provisions of the Bill. The bill adds several
definitions to truancy law, including definitions for habitual truants and
chronic truants. Under the bill, a habitual truant has one or more of
the following series of unexcused absences:
- 5 or more in 1 school week;
- 7 or more in 1 school month; or
- 12 or more in 1 school year.
A juvenile who is chronically
truant has one or more of the following series of unexcused absences:
- 7 or more consecutive school days;
- 10 or more in 1 school month; or
- 15 or more in 1 school year.
Under the bill, a child who appears before juvenile
court on a charge of habitual truancy and who previously has been adjudicated
as a habitual truant may be charged as a delinquent. A juvenile found to be
chronically truant is also subject to delinquency proceedings.
The bill makes several changes in definitions of
delinquent and unruly children. Under existing section 2151.02 of the Revised
Code, a delinquent child includes the following:
1. A
juvenile who violates any Ohio or U.S. law, or any ordinance or regulation that
would be a crime if committed by an adult, except if the juvenile is a traffic
offender;
2. A
juvenile who violates any lawful order of a court;
3. A
juvenile who purchases or attempts to purchase a firearm illegally; or
4. A
juvenile who illegally obtains or attempts to obtain tattooing, body piercing,
or ear piercing services.
The bill expands this definition to include:
5. A
juvenile who is a habitual truant, and who previously has been adjudicated an
unruly child for being a habitual truant; and
6. A
juvenile who is a chronic truant.
Existing
section 2151.022 of the Revised Code states that an unruly child includes the
following:
1. A
juvenile who does not subject him/herself to the reasonable control of parents,
teachers, guardians, or custodians, by reason of being wayward or habitually
disobedient;
2. A
juvenile who is a habitual truant from home or school;
3. A
juvenile who so deports him/herself so as to injure or endanger the juvenile’s
own health or morals or those of others;
4. A
juvenile who attempts to enter into marriage without consent of parents,
custodian, legal guardian, or other legal authority;
5. A
juvenile found in a disreputable place, visits or patronizes a place prohibited
by law, or associates with vagrant, vicious, criminal, notorious, or immoral
persons;
6. A
juvenile who engages in a prohibited occupation or is in a situation dangerous
or injurious to the juvenile’s health or morals, or to those of others; and
7. A
child who violates a law, other than purchasing or attempting to purchase a
firearm, that is applicable only to juveniles.
The bill expands the second category to include a
juvenile who is persistently truant from home, and then adds a category for a
juvenile who is a habitual truant from school and who has not been previously
adjudicated as an unruly child for being a habitual truant.
If a juvenile is adjudicated an unruly child for
habitual truancy, the juvenile court is given a series of sanctions, which may
be used in lieu of or in addition to any other unruly child dispositional
order. These include:
1. Ordering
the board of education in the juvenile’s school district to require the
juvenile to attend an alternative school in that district, if such a school
exists;
2. Requiring
the juvenile to attend any academic or community service program;
3. Requiring
the juvenile to attend a drug or alcohol abuse counseling program;
4. Requiring
that the juvenile receive appropriate medical or psychological treatment or
counseling;
5. Making
any other order that the court finds proper to address the truancy problem,
including issuing an order requiring that the child not be absent without
legitimate excuse from school for 5 or more consecutive days, 7 or more days in
a month, or 12 or more days in a year; or
6. Ordering
the child to participate in a “truancy prevention mediation program.”
If a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent for chronic
truancy, the court is authorized to issue a court order that requires the child
not be absent without legitimate excuse from school for 5 or more consecutive
days, 7 or more days in a month, or 12 or more days in a year.
The bill facilitates filing of truancy charges
jointly against juveniles and parents. In a case in which a juvenile is alleged
to be habitually or chronically truant, and that a parent or guardian failed to
cause the juvenile’s attendance, the court must order the parent or guardian to
appear at the hearing.
If the court finds that the parent or guardian failed
to cause the juvenile to attend school, the court must hold a separate hearing
to determine what sanctions are appropriate for the parent or guardian. The
parent or guardian may be sentenced to community service if: (1) the juvenile
is determined to be unruly through habitual truancy; (2) the juvenile is
determined to be delinquent through chronic truancy; or (3) the juvenile is
determined to be a second-time habitual truant. Criminal nonsupport charges may
be filed against these parents if further incidents occur.
The bill also requires parents or guardians to
attend court hearings regarding delinquents, unrulies, or juvenile traffic
offenders. If the parent or guardian of the juvenile fails to attend, the
parent or guardian may be charged with contempt of court. Courts would be
required to hold additional hearings for these offenders.
The penalties for contempt
of court are as follows:
- For a first offense, a fine not to exceed $250, and/or a definite
term of imprisonment not to exceed 30 days in jail;
- For a second offense, a fine not to exceed $500, and/or a definite
term of imprisonment not to exceed 60 days in jail;
- For a third or subsequent offense, a fine not to exceed $1,000,
and/or a definite term of imprisonment not to exceed 90 days in jail.
LBO believes that parents or
guardians frequently attend court hearings regarding their children under
current law. The bill may generate some additional contempt cases, especially
in larger jurisdictions. However, we expect increases in expenditures to generally
be minimal in most jurisdictions.
Under current law, a parent
who fails to send a child to school may be required by the court to give bond
in the sum of $100, conditioned that the child will attend school as required
by the compulsory school attendance statute. Violators of section 3321.38 of
the Revised Code are to be fined not less than $5 or more than $20. The bill
increases the amount of the bond to be not more than $500, and permits a court
to fine a parent up to $500 and may order the person to perform not more than
70 hours of community service work.
Prevalence of Truancy and
Fiscal Effects. The Department of Education has indicated that truancy is a reasonably
widespread problem. In any given year, the Department of Education estimates that
approximately 4,000 juveniles are reported to their agency as truant.
Additional cases likely do occur that are not reported to the Department of
Education.
However, under existing law and
practice, enforcement of truancy provisions has not been widespread or
especially severe. Under existing law and the provisions of the bill, the onus
of reporting truancy and bringing these cases to the attention of local
prosecutors is still upon school boards. In many jurisdictions, LBO believes
that relatively few parents of truant children are brought to the attention of
prosecutors to face fine or imprisonment penalties. The bill permits persons
other than school employees to bring truant juveniles and their parents to the
attention of the court. By broadening the base of individuals who could report
such activity, the bill will likely result in increased numbers of juveniles
being found unruly or delinquent than is currently the case.
Some jurisdictions may
experience more substantial increases in expenditures stemming from the
provisions of the bill. For example, in Franklin County Juvenile Court, 1,298
cases involving truant juveniles were referred to that court in FY 1998. Of
these cases, there were 339 formal filings, and in excess of 700 are pending
while the court is attempting to resolve these issues with the families
involved before filing charges.
Under current law, the
parents of these juveniles could face fines of between $5 and $20, or up to six
months in jail or a fine of up to $1,000 as first-degree misdemeanants.
Discussions with the Franklin County Juvenile Court indicate that parents of
truant juveniles are rarely charged with an offense; however, greater efforts
are being made to charge these parents and bring them to court. LBO assumes
that increasing the fine and bond levels up to $500 would result in gains in
county fine revenue, which LBO expects to be minimal.
LBO assumes that counties
with higher caseloads would likely experience increases in expenditures
associated with increased sanctioning costs for truant juveniles. However, LBO
believes that school boards are generally reticent to bring charges and would
prefer to work with parents for resolution, but the volume of cases reported to
LBO by the Department of Education and the Franklin County Juvenile Court
suggests that the bill may increase sanctioning costs in a substantial number
of cases. LBO believes that truant juveniles are generally declared unruly as
status offenders, and may be held in detention centers for up to 24 hours. LBO assumes
that, by clarifying that this offense is a delinquency offense under the
provisions of the bill, that counties may incur greater expenditures associated
with sanctioning these juveniles more harshly than they otherwise may be able
to do under current circumstances. LBO expects that these expenditures could
extend into the thousands of dollars, depending on: caseload volume of the
jurisdiction in question; willingness of schools to bring these cases to the
attention of the court; and willingness of the court to seek alternative
sanctions.
Additional
public defender costs are likely to occur in these cases, as new criminal cases
are likely to be generated. According to the 1997 Public Defender Annual
Report, the average cost per juvenile case is $347. Depending on caseload,
these increases could be in the tens of thousands of dollars annually
statewide. However, some of these increases are expected to be offset by the
State Public Defender at a rate of up to 50 percent. The total increase in
expenditures to the State Public Defender could be up to one-half of the total
amount expended by counties, potentially in the tens of thousands of dollars.
These expenses are expected to be incurred in the following GRF line items:
019-403 Multi-County Public Defense – State Share; 019-404 Trumbull County –
State Share; and 019-501 County Reimbursement – Non-Capital Cases.
Under the bill, more populous jurisdictions may
experience larger increases in net expenditures, perhaps in the thousands of
dollars, associated with adjudicating and sanctioning these juveniles. LBO
assumes that the per diem cost of housing a juvenile offender in a detention
center to be approximately $100 per day, and it is likely that these costs
could add up quickly in many jurisdictions.
Places in which Truants may be Held and Effects
on Federal Funding. Currently the state receives formula grants through the
Juvenile Justice Delinquency & Prevention (JJDP) Program that are
specifically used for the rehabilitation of juveniles who have been charged
with a status offense (an offense that would not be a criminal offense if
committed by an adult, and which includes truancy). According to the Office of
Criminal Justice Services, JJDP funding totaled approximately $2.7 million in
FY 1999. Of this amount, approximately $500,000 is kept by OCJS, and $2.2
million is passed on in the form of subgrants, some of which are awarded to
local law enforcement, courts, and other entities that deal with juvenile
delinquency. In order for the state to continue to receive JJDP funding, the
state must be incompliance with JJDP standards, which specifically prohibit
juveniles who are charged with status offenses to be placed in secure
facilities.
LBO assumes that the bill complies with JJDP
standards by doing the following:
·
Specifying that a person taking a juvenile into custody
may hold him/her for processing purposes in a place where adults are held
(i.e., jail) for no more than three hours if the juvenile is alleged to be
delinquent for being a chronic truant or an habitual truant who previously has
been adjudicated unruly for being a habitual truant, if the juvenile is beyond
the range of touch of all adult detainees, if the juvenile is supervised by
jail personnel at all times, and if the child is not handcuffed or otherwise
secured to a stationary object.
·
Permitting alleged or adjudicated truant delinquents to
be held in a detention home only if the child violates a court order to not be
absent without legitimate excuse from school for 5 or more consecutive days, 7
or more in a month, or 12 or more in a year. This would apply to juveniles who
are alleged or adjudicated delinquent by reason of chronic truancy and to those
who are alleged or adjudicated delinquent by reason of being an habitual truant
who previously has been adjudicated unruly.
·
Allows the court to make any order of disposition
authorized for a juvenile adjudicated delinquent by reason of chronic truancy
or by reason of habitual truancy with previous adjudications for habitual
truancy, except that the court is prohibited from committing the juvenile to
the custody of a facility operated for the care of delinquent children unless
the juvenile violates a court order requiring school attendance as described
above.
NOTICE TO SCHOOLS
Current Law. Under current law, within ten days of a juvenile’s
delinquency adjudication, the court must provide notice to the superintendent
of a school system if the juvenile is at least 16 years old at the time of the
offense, and the offense meets one of the following characteristics:
·
The
offense involves illegal conveyance or possession of a deadly weapon or
dangerous ordinance on school premises;
·
The
offense involves carrying a concealed weapon committed on school premises;
·
The
offense was a drug trafficking or drug possession violation committed on school
premises that is not a minor drug possession offense;
·
The
offense is one of the following, committed on school premises, if the victim is
a school employee: aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary
manslaughter, aggravated assault, felonious assault, rape, or gross sexual
imposition; or
·
Complicity
in any of the above.
Provisions of the Bill. Under the provisions of the
bill, within ten days of a juvenile’s delinquency adjudication, the court must
provide notice to both the superintendent of the school system and to the
principal of the juvenile’s school if the juvenile is at least 14 years old at
the time of the offense, and the offense meets one of the following
characteristics:
·
The
offense was a felony;
·
The
offense was an act of violence;
·
The
offender used or brandished a firearm;
·
The
offense was a misdemeanor sex offense (including corruption of a minor, sexual
imposition, importuning, voyeurism, public indecency, soliciting, and prostitution);
·
The
offense was a misdemeanor for carrying a concealed weapon on school grounds;
·
The
offense was a misdemeanor for trafficking or possessing drugs on school
grounds; or
·
Complicity
in committing any of the above.
Clearly, the provisions of the bill greatly expand
the notification requirements in existing law. LBO believes that a large number
of offenses would qualify for these notification provisions. According to 1995
Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data, the last year for which Ohio juvenile arrests
were readily available to LBO for disaggregating, there was a grand total of
115,050 arrests of juveniles for the Part I and Part II arrests. The 1995 UCR
arrest data include a mix of felonies and misdemeanors, as shown in Table 1
below.
Caveat. The bill would only apply to
adjudications, and not arrests, so it is likely that the numbers described
below represent an overcount of the number of actual notices that would need to
be generated. In 1995, the Ohio Courts Summary reported 90,188 new delinquency cases
filed in juvenile courts statewide. For that same year, UCR data shows 115,050
total arrests. Based on this data, we then estimate that 78 percent of all
juvenile delinquency arrests result in court filings (90,188 ¸ 115,050 = 0.784). Beyond this, LBO assumes
that juvenile court filings have a high successful prosecution rate, and that
the vast majority of juvenile court filings will result in conviction. However,
the numbers presented below are likely to represent a slight overcount that
includes those offenders found not guilty by the court.
We also assume that these
numbers represent an overcount, due to the fact that current law allows for
some notifications to occur to superintendents of school districts when certain
offenses occur on school premises. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, in 1995, about 14 percent of incidents of violent crime on a
national basis occur at school. Therefore, LBO reduced the number of incidents
subject to the bill’s notification provisions by 14 percent, to arrive at a
closer estimate of local cost.
Table 1: 1995 UCR Data for Arrests of Ohio Juveniles
|
|
|
|
|
LBO case
estimate
|
|
Offense
|
Number
of Reported Cases
|
Approximate
Penalty Equivalent
|
Low
estimate
|
High
estimate
|
Best
estimate
|
|
Murder
|
97
|
Felony
|
97
|
97
|
97
|
|
Rape
|
320
|
Felony
|
320
|
320
|
320
|
|
Robbery
|
1,814
|
Felony
|
1,814
|
1,814
|
1,814
|
|
Aggravated Assault
|
2,268
|
Felony
|
2,268
|
2,268
|
2,268
|
|
Burglary
|
4,602
|
Felony
|
4,602
|
4,602
|
4,602
|
|
Larceny*
|
16,331
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
16,331
|
3,103
|
|
Motor Vehicle Thefts
|
3,004
|
Felony
|
3,004
|
3,004
|
3,004
|
|
Arson
|
524
|
Generally felony
|
524
|
524
|
524
|
|
Other assaults
|
9,628
|
Generally felony
|
9,628
|
9,628
|
9,628
|
|
Forgery and counterfeiting*
|
245
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
245
|
47
|
|
Fraud*
|
96
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
96
|
17
|
|
Embezzlements*
|
12
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
12
|
2
|
|
Having stolen property**
|
3,060
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
3,060
|
2,662
|
|
Vandalism
|
4,631
|
Felony
|
4,631
|
4,631
|
4,631
|
|
Weapons***
|
1,726
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
1,726
|
1,001
|
|
Prostitution/Vice
|
45
|
Generally misdemeanor
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
|
Sex offenses
|
541
|
Generally felony
|
541
|
541
|
541
|
|
Drug abuse+
|
6,541
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
6,541
|
4,710
|
|
Drug possession+
|
4,782
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
4,782
|
3,443
|
|
Gambling
|
117
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Offenses against family++
|
3,788
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
3,788
|
3,788
|
3,788
|
|
DUI
|
586
|
Generally misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Liquor law violations
|
5,661
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Drunkenness
|
586
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Disorderly conduct
|
6,193
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Vagrancy
|
70
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
All other except traffic +++
|
25,000
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
25,000
|
12,500
|
|
Suspicion
|
142
|
Felony & Misdemeanor
|
0
|
142
|
0
|
|
Curfew
|
9,750
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Runaway
|
7,612
|
Misdemeanor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total Arrests:
|
115,050
|
|
27,474
|
89,197
|
58,747
|
|
Total Likely Court Filings: #
|
89,739
|
|
21,430
|
69,574
|
45,823
|
|
*In
Franklin County in 1997, there were 773 felony theft cases and 3,254
misdemeanor thefts, for a total of 4,027.
If we then assume that this proportion
applies to juvenile theft and fraud offenses, then approximately 19% of all
thefts and frauds are felonies.
|
|
**In Franklin County in 1997, there were
1,274 felony receipts of stolen property and 187 misdemeanor charges,
for a total of 1,461. If we apply the same
logic, then 87% of receipts of stolen property should be felonies.
|
|
***In Franklin County in 1997, there were
424 felony charges of carrying concealed weapons and
304 misdemeanor charges, for a total of
728. Therefore, 58% of these offenses are estimated to be felonies.
|
|
+ In Franklin county in 1997, there were
2,922 felony drug abuse charges and 1,123 misdemeanor charges, for a
total of 4,045 drug abuse charges.
Therefore, 72% of drug abuse charges should be felonies.
|
|
++ Includes domestic violence.
|
|
+++ LBO decided to split this
miscellaneous category by 50% for the final estimate.
|
|
# Based on 78% court filing rate.
|
Low Estimate of Affected
Cases. LBO’s
low estimate of affected cases only includes those available offense categories
that are entirely comprised of felonies. The low estimate, which likely
represents a gross undercount of affected cases because it excludes many
felonies and misdemeanors, is approximately 21,430 cases annually statewide.
High Estimate of Affected
Cases. LBO’s
high estimate of affected cases includes those available offense categories
that include any felony offenders. This count likely represents a gross
overestimation of the number of cases addressed by the bill, because it
includes many misdemeanor arrests not covered by the bill. The high estimate is
approximately 69,574 cases annually statewide.
LBO’s Best Estimate. LBO’s best estimate attempts to take into account the proportion of
offenses in each category, which are likely to be felonies and misdemeanors.
LBO has reviewed the 1997 Franklin County Municipal Court report, which shows
breakdowns of the numbers of felonies and misdemeanors for theft, receipt of
stolen property, concealed weapons, and drug abuse. LBO then applied these
proportions to the UCR offense categories, providing us with a more likely
estimate of around 46,000 cases that would fall under the notification
provisions of the bill annually statewide.
Cost
for Processing Notifications. In 1993, the Ohio Criminal Sentencing
Commission estimated the cost of notifications from courts to eligible victims
under the adult court system. At that time, they estimated the cost of one
notification to be $2.50, which included staff and postage costs. LBO adjusted
this figure to reflect inflation using a GDF deflator, and determined that the
cost of one notification in 1999 dollars would be $4.62. LBO would like to
emphasize that the $4.62 estimate used in this analysis is a rough estimate,
and that the actual cost of providing notification will vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. This estimate also assumes that one notification letter will
be sent per offender independently of all others. In practice, courts may
consolidate these notices in weekly reports, or may accomplish these
notifications in other, less costly manners.
If we
assume that 46,000 cases would fall under the notification provisions of the
bill, then we might estimate a statewide notification cost of around $212,520
(46,000 x $4.62 = $212,520). However, as stated above, existing law allows for
notification to superintendents of school districts of certain crimes. If we
assume that 14 percent of these cases already require notification of superintendents,
then we arrive at an estimate of around $183,000 (46,000 x 0.14 = 6,440 and
46,000 – 6,440 = 39,560, so 39,560 x $4.62 = $182,767).
The
bill requires notification of district superintendents and principals of
the school in which the offender is enrolled (for the purpose of this analysis,
we assume that all offenders are enrolled in school). Therefore, two
notifications are required. First, we assume an additional notification to
principals for cases in which superintendents are currently notified, at a cost
of around $30,000 (6,440 current notifications x $4.62 = $29,752). Then, we
must assume two notifications for the principals and superintendents of
juveniles who are currently not subject to notification requirements, at a cost
of around $366,000 ($182,767 for the cost of one notice per offender x 2 =
$365,534). If we add these two figures together, the maximum statewide cost for
these notifications would be around $396,000.
LBO
would like to emphasize that the estimate of up to $396,000 in expenditures is
a maximum potential expenditure for courts, based on the following assumptions:
- We assume that all offenders charged will be convicted;
- We assume that all offenders are enrolled in school; and
- We assume that each notice will be processed and sent separately
to principals and superintendents by U.S. mail.
LBO believes that costs
associated with this provision may be partially mitigated by mass mailings, by
mailing weekly lists to affected school districts, and by the possibility of
using existing personnel.
LAW ENFORCEMENT INSPECTION OF RECORDS
Existing
Law. Current law specifies that, two years after the termination of any
order made by a juvenile court or two years after the unconditional discharge
of a person from the Department of Youth Services (DYS) or another institution,
the court that issued the order must do one of the following: (1) if the person
was adjudicated an unruly child, order their record to be sealed, or (2) if the
person was adjudicated a delinquent child or a juvenile traffic offender,
either order the record of the person sealed or send the person notice of their
right to have the record sealed. To
“seal a record” means to remove a record from the main file of similar records
and to secure it in a separate file that contains only sealed records and that
is accessible only to the juvenile court.
The
inspection of sealed records, under existing law, is only permitted by the
court upon the application by the person who is the subject of the sealed
record.
Provisions
of the Bill. Under the bill, in addition to inspection by the persons named
in the record, if the records in question pertain to an act that would be a
felony offense of violence if committed by an adult, any law enforcement
officer or any prosecutor may inspect the records that have been ordered sealed
for any valid law enforcement or prosecutorial purpose.
Currently,
the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCII) and local courts
have either electronic or copied access to juvenile sealed records. LBO assumes
the bill will result in additional minimal expenditures for BCII and local
courts due to the administrative burdens of law enforcement inspection of
specific sealed records.
OTHER PROVISIONS
Community
Corrections Facility Advisory Boards. The bill provides that, if the board
of a community corrections facility establishes an advisory board, the board
must reimburse the board members for expenses incurred in the performance of
their duties. The bill also states that these board members must serve without
compensation. According to the Department of Youth Services, community
corrections centers are not currently providing reimbursements. LBO assumes
that counties may be required to change the way in which their RECLAIM dollars
are spent, and this provision may result in negligible increases in
expenditures to counties.
DYS
Facilities. The bill repeals provisions that require DYS to gain General
Assembly consent before changing the purposes for which the Maumee and Mohican
Youth Camps may be operated or significantly reduce their level of operations.
LBO assumes that this provision serves to facilitate changes in DYS facility
operations, and has no substantive fiscal effect.
SUMMARY OF STATE &
LOCAL FISCAL EFFECTS
Below, we have summarized
our estimate of the fiscal effects of the major provisions of the bill on units
of state and local government.
Summary of State Fiscal Effects
- The State Public Defender will likely incur increases in
expenditures, potentially in the tens of thousands of dollars, associated
with public defense of additional delinquency cases involving truant
juveniles.
- BCII may incur some additional minimal administrative expenditures
associated with making sealed records available to law enforcement.
·
There
will be, at most, a negligible annual gain in locally collected state court
costs that are generated for the GRF and the Crime Victim Reparations Fund
through the parental responsibility and truancy provisions of the bill.
Summary of Local Fiscal Effects
- Statewide costs to county juvenile courts to provide notice to
schools of certain offenses are expected to be up to $400,000 annually.
- The truancy and parental responsibility provisions of the bill
will likely result in increases in expenditures, potentially in the
thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per county. Under the bill, more
truant juveniles would be charged delinquent than is currently the case,
increasing prosecution, indigent defense, adjudication, and sanctioning
costs. Parents or guardians may be found in contempt of court on an
infrequent basis, increasing expenditures for prosecution, indigent
defense, adjudication, and sanctioning in these cases.
·
Counties may experience minimal annual gains in fine revenue
stemming from the truancy and parental responsibility provisions of the bill.
·
Counties may incur minimal increases in expenditures for
providing reimbursements to advisory board members for expenses incurred in the
performance of their duties.
q LBO staff: Laura Bickle, Budget/Policy
Analyst
Amy Frankart, Budget/Policy Analyst
\\Budget_office\isis_vol1.lbo\FN123\SB0181HP.docCrimes,
Correction, and Law Enforcement
