Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Management Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Corrections seeks ongoing funding for recidivism analytics, transparency tools and training equipment
Summary
Idaho Department of Correction asked the Legislature for ongoing funding to continue a data partnership (Recidiviz), buy transparency and law‑library software, and purchase training equipment and IT replacements within the Management Services Division.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Management Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Idaho Department of Correction asked the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee on Feb. 4 to approve ongoing and one‑time funding in the Management Services Division for a suite of technology and training items, including an extension of its data partnership with the nonprofit Recidiviz.
Department budget analyst Noah Peterson told the committee the Management Services Division is seeking both ongoing and one‑time appropriations that include funding for recidivism case management tools, transparency software to handle public‑records and legal research access, training mannequins and a light‑duty vehicle, and several IT replacement items.
The request follows prior one‑time appropriations for Recidiviz in fiscal 2021 and 2023. Director Josh Tewalt described Recidiviz as a nonprofit data partner that aggregates disparate corrections data to produce dashboards and automated case‑triage tools. He said the tool has been used to help probation and parole officers prioritize caseloads and to identify supervisory outliers, and the department now proposes transitioning that functionality into prison case management.
Tewalt said Recidiviz’s work focuses on surfacing inexisting data across older systems and on applying philanthropic matching dollars; he told senators and representatives that private foundations match public dollars Recidiviz raises. He and analysts said hard ROI figures were not available in the hearing but committed to provide data to the committee on dashboards and outcome measures the department uses.
Specific items discussed in the presentation included: - Recidiviz / case‑management tools: the department described prior one‑time appropriations and asked for ongoing appropriation to support continuous development; no hard ROI data was presented on Feb. 4 and the department offered to provide the committee dashboards and utilization data. - Transparency software: $668,100 total requested (about $611,000 ongoing and $57,000 one‑time) to maintain GovQA (public records management), Power Apps licenses (backend), LexisNexis (digital legal materials for people in custody), and an access‑to‑courts database (access and process materials). The department said LexisNexis replaces periodic purchases of hard law books with an ongoing subscription. - Training equipment: a $77,400 one‑time request for 16 training mannequins (~$1,900 each) and a light‑duty “crash” vehicle (noted in the presentation at about $47,000) for the Meridian training center; the items are for CPR, first‑aid and other use‑of‑force training drills. - IT replacements and hardware: $1,515,000 for replacement items recommended by the Office of Information Technology Services, including roughly $665,000 for laptops/desktops and $850,000 for other IT hardware. - GPS tracking and community reentry operations: earlier enhancements were described, including an ongoing GPS tracking implementation at the Idaho State Correctional Institution and seven FTP for administrative duties at the Pocatello Community Reentry Center; those were presented as part of the division’s recent enhancements.
Committee members asked for evidence of Recidiviz’s effectiveness and for copies of dashboards and cost‑benefit materials. Peterson said he did not have hard ROI figures in the hearing but would work with the agency to provide them. Director Tewalt said the department controls the underlying data and that Recidiviz pulls data under data‑sharing agreements; he also emphasized private philanthropic matching of public dollars.
The presentation did not include any formal committee votes; the department and its analyst said they would supply follow‑up materials at committee request.
