Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restitution Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to standardize restitution data collection; amendment removes fiscal note
Summary
The Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 1081, sponsored by Rep. Martinez, to standardize collection and public reporting of restitution data. Committee adopted two amendments, including L3 which lawmakers said aligns reporting to existing judicial data and eliminated a previously noted $680,000 fiscal estimate.
The Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 1081 after adopting amendments that lawmakers said remove an initial fiscal cost and align the measure with data already collected by the judicial department.
Rep. Martinez, sponsor of House Bill 1081, told the committee the bill would clarify and standardize data collection on restitution — who owes restitution, how much is owed, to whom and who is paying — to help policymakers evaluate the impact of restitution practices on victims and people reentering the community. Martinez said the measure has a broad coalition of supporters, including district attorneys, victims’ rights advocates and criminal-justice reform groups, and that after amendment L3 the bill would not impose additional costs on the judicial department.
The bill drew a one-witness remote testimony from Krista Spurgeon, who identified herself as executive director of Stanford Children Colorado, who said the organization supports the bill to increase government transparency and better understand how restitution affects families from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
A fiscal analyst in the hearing explained that the fiscal note on the introduced bill reflected costs to modify the judicial department’s case-management system to capture additional demographic categories not currently collected (the analyst gave “Pacific Islander” as an example). Amendment L3, the analyst and sponsor said, aligns the bill to demographic and case data already collected by the judicial department; the committee adopted L3 and members said that action eliminated the $680,000 fiscal note.
Amendment L001, added earlier in the hearing, requires the bill’s reporting to include counts of cases in which restitution was requested, ordered and not requested; the sponsor said that change came from stakeholders.
Members debated the need for a bill versus informal data-sharing. Some members said they were concerned that converting the bill into reporting requirements could be confusing; others said the bill ensures the data will be reported in the state’s SMART Act process and therefore be publicly reviewed.
The committee voted to move House Bill 1081 as amended to the committee of the whole. A roll call recorded seven votes in favor and four opposed.
