Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Idaho DOC seeks ongoing funding for case-management analytics and transparency tools
Summary
Department leaders told lawmakers they want to expand a partnership with the nonprofit Recidiviz to bring case‑triage and classification tools into prisons and asked for continued funding for public‑records and in‑custody legal access software; committee members pressed for ROI data and assurances about data control.
The Idaho Department of Correction told the Joint Finance Preparations Committee on Feb. 4 that it seeks ongoing funding to continue a partnership with Recidiviz, a nonprofit data-aggregation and analytics partner, and requested subscriptions for public‑records management and in‑custody legal research tools.
Noah Peterson, budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, outlined Management Services Division budget items and noted the division “gained an appropriation … for recidivism case management software” and described both one-time and ongoing software requests in the agency’s package.
Director Josh Tewalt described Recidiviz to the committee as more than “software.” “Recidiviz is a nonprofit tech company … their mission was to help surface data in correctional systems in ways that hadn't been possible before because of outdated and disparate data systems,” he said, adding the platform aggregates data from existing sources and creates overlays that let case managers prioritize work and compare outcomes across officers and sites.
Committee members asked for evidence the tool delivers a measurable return on investment. Senator Cook pressed for hard data showing whether earlier appropriations had reduced recidivism or otherwise produced measurable benefits. Peterson said he did not have “hard data” in the meeting but offered to obtain it; Tewalt said the agency could share dashboards and visualizations they use.
Tewalt said the department controls the underlying data and uses data‑sharing agreements with Recidiviz. He emphasized the nonprofit status of the partner and said philanthropic matching leverages every state dollar with private foundation funds; committee members asked for details on partners and matching arrangements to be provided in follow-up materials.
Separately, the agency requested ongoing subscriptions and operating funds for transparency and in‑custody legal access: GovQA to manage public-records requests (cited ongoing operating cost), LexisNexis to provide digital access to case law for people in custody, and an access-to-courts (ATC) database to help residents file process documents. Peterson said the transparency package includes about $668,100 in total operating dollars ($611,000 ongoing and $57,000 one-time) and listed a $69,700 ongoing LexisNexis cost.
Other Management Services requests described were modest training equipment and IT replacement items recommended by the Office of Information Technology Services. The committee asked the director and analysts to provide outcome data and cost comparisons for the Recidiviz model and to return with any available ROI or performance metrics before the legislature decides on ongoing funding.
No formal committee action was taken at the hearing; the agency pledged to provide additional documentation and dashboards to answer legislators’ questions about effectiveness, data control and long-term cost implications.
