House rejects $2.7 million recidivism grant; sponsor denies conflict‑of‑interest concerns

The South Dakota House on March 2 rejected House Bill 10‑86, a five‑year appropriation of $2,700,000 to create an annual grant program administered by the Department of Corrections to fund nonprofit recidivism programming and training for corrections staff. The bill required a two‑thirds majority because it included an emergency clause; the clerk reported ayes 42, nays 23, excused 5 and the motion failed.

Supporters, led on the floor by Representative Mulder, said the program is aimed at reducing the state’s high recidivism rate and preparing people for work after release. "This is a solution that is proven to be working," Representative Mulder said, urging colleagues to back an RFP‑based grant that would provide roughly $570,000 per year for staffing, travel and program materials. Mulder told the House the nonprofit partner currently works in three prisons and said program data showed recidivism falling from 75 percent to below 35 percent for graduates.

Opponents pressed both policy and ethics concerns. Representative Jordan said the bill "structurally expands government" by directing taxpayer dollars to a private nonprofit and questioned whether the statutory design preserved competitive neutrality. Representative Jensen raised a constitutional and ethical objection under Article 3, subsection 12, arguing that the sponsor’s employment relationship with a nonprofit created an "indirect interest" that could expose the state to legal challenge. "The representatives dual roles represent a substantive conflict," Representative Jensen said, urging members to vote no.

Representative Mulder responded on the House floor, denying any conflict. He told colleagues he has volunteered with the cited program and observed it firsthand but said "this contract has nothing to do with Volunteers of America" and that the appropriation is not directed at his employer. He reiterated the program’s claimed benefits and said the proposal would expand staff development across Department of Corrections facilities in Sioux Falls, Rapid City and other locations.

Several members asked technical and eligibility questions on the bill’s language. Representative Fitzgerald asked how the $2.7 million would be spent and how many staff positions would be supported; the sponsor described program‑scale staffing, travel reimbursement and equipment costs but said he did not have an exact headcount for grant‑funded employees. Representative Poirier questioned a provision that would require a provider to have delivered programming at a state correctional facility within six months before the act’s effective date; the sponsor said the clause was intended to prevent unproven operators from seeking funds.

Because the final passage vote fell short of the two‑thirds requirement, the appropriation did not pass. The sponsor’s denial of a conflict and the committee‑level eligibility safeguards were heard on the record, but no formal referral or judicial resolution of the ethical question occurred during the floor debate. The House moved on to consider other measures after the vote.