Bill Summary: This proposal creates the crime of selling a fraudulent diploma or transcript. (Missouri Diploma and Transcript Act)

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE	0	0	0

☐ Estimated Total Net Effect on All funds expected to exceed $100,000 savings or (cost).

☐ Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund expected to exceed $100,000 (cost).

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Officials at the Department of Higher Education, Metropolitan Community College, University of Missouri, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Lincoln University, Linn State Technical College, and the Missouri State University assume that there is no fiscal impact from this proposal.

Officials at the Office of the Attorney General assume any potential costs arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing resources.

For the purpose of this proposed legislation, officials at the Office of State Public Defender (SPD) cannot assume that existing staff will provide competent, effective representation for any new cases arising where indigent persons are charged with the proposed new crime of selling a fraudulent diploma or transcript.

Passage of bills increasing penalties on existing crimes, or creating new crimes, requires the State Public Defender System to further extend resources. While the number of new cases (or cases with increased penalties) may be too few or uncertain to request additional funding for this specific bill, the SPD will continue to request sufficient appropriations to provide competent and effective representation is all its cases.

Oversight assumes the SPD can absorb the additional caseload that may result from this proposal.

Officials at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education assume there is no state cost to the foundation formula associated with this proposal. Should the new crimes and amendments to current law result in additional fines or penalties, DESE cannot know how much additional money might be collected by local governments or the DOR to distribute to schools. To the extent fine revenues exceed 2004-2005 collections, any increase in this money distributed to schools increases the deduction in the foundation formula the following year. Therefore the affected districts will see an equal decrease in the amount of funding received through the formula the following year; unless the affected districts are hold-harmless, in which case the districts will not see a decrease in the amount of funding received through the formula (any increase in fine money distributed to the hold-harmless districts will simply be additional money). An increase in the deduction (all other factors remaining constant) reduces the cost to the state of funding the formula.

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) stated that they could not predict the number of new commitments which could result from the creation of the offense(s) outlined in the proposal. An increase in commitments would depend on the utilization of prosecutors and the actual sentences imposed by the courts. If additional persons were sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this legislation, the DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (FY 2007 average $42.21 per inmate, per day or an annual cost of $15,040) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (FY 2007 average $2.43 per offender, per day or an annual cost of $887).

• DOC assumes the narrow scope of the crime will not encompass a large number of offenders.

• The low felony status of the crime enhances the possibility of plea-bargaining or imposition of a probation sentence.

• The probability exists that offenders would be charged with a similar but more serious offense or that sentences may run concurrent to one another.

In summary, supervision by the DOC through probation or incarceration would result in some additional costs, but it is assumed the impact would be $0 or a minimal amount that could be absorbed within existing resources.

Oversight assumes that the conviction and incarceration of only one person would create a minimal fiscal impact of less than $100,000 annually.

No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 2009 (10 Mo.)	FY 2010	FY 2011


	$0	$0	$0