The Idaho Spending Index serves to provide a fiscally conservative perspective on state budgeting while providing an unbiased measurement of how Idaho lawmakers apply these values to their voting behavior on appropriations bills. Each bill is analyzed within the context of the metrics below. They receive one (+1) point for each metric that is satisfied by freedom-focused policymaking and lose one (-1) point for each instance in which the inverse is true. The sum of these points composes the score for the bill.

Analyst: Niklas Kleinworth

Rating: (-5)

Bill Description: Senate Bill 1175 is an enhancement of $23,763,500 and 12.00 new full-time positions for the Department of Correction for fiscal year 2026. This legislation appropriates a total of $400,744,000 and 2,266.85 full-time positions to the agency.

Does this budget incur any wasteful spending among discretionary funds, including new line items? Conversely, does this budget contain any provisions that serve to reduce spending where possible (i.e. base reductions, debt reconciliation, etc.)? 

Senate Bill 1175 funds $85,000 for a special assistant U.S. attorney in North Idaho. According to the Legislative Budget Book, “this position will be employed by the U.S. Attorney’s office, housed by Shoshone County, and would be funded at $75,000.” The discrepancy between the total appropriation and the cost of this position is because the remaining $10,000 will be used to support existing U.S. Attorney positions in East Idaho and the Treasure Valley. These positions are federally appointed and enforce federal law. It is not the appropriate role of the state government to fund them.

(-1)

Is the continuation or growth in ongoing spending, if any, inappropriate for the changes in circumstances, scope of the agency, or current economic environment? Conversely, is the continuation or growth in ongoing spending appropriate given any change in circumstances or economic pressures?

This legislation funds ongoing spending for the Department of Correction at $387,605,700 for all divisions, growing from the base by 35.0% in the last three years. This rate is nearly 21 points faster than what would be prescribed by inflationary pressures and growth. 

Four of the five divisions grew faster than the rate of inflation, including the divisions of Community Corrections (50.6%), County and Out of State Placement (34.9%), Management Services (57.8%), and State Prisons (46.6%). The only division that grew less than inflation — even seeing negative growth — was the Medical Services Division, decreasing from the base appropriation from the 2023 fiscal year by 3.2%.

Because of the accelerated growth in many divisions included in this budget over the last three years, a truly fiscally responsible enhancement budget for FY2026 would reverse the growth with a negative appropriation — a reduction to the base budget.

(-1)

Does this budget perpetuate or expand state dependence on federal dollars, thereby violating principles of federalism? Conversely, does this budget actively reduce the amount of federal dollars used to balance this budget?

The State Prisons Division requests a $1 million one-time supplemental for the 2025 fiscal year and an additional $505,000 ongoing line item for the 2026 fiscal year for a body-worn camera grant. These funds would go to support a pilot program for maximum security facilities. Just over $1 million of this grant is federal funding in the form of a supplemental request. Not only does this increase federal dependency, but this starts a program with the intention to make it a more expensive, and expansive, program down the road.

(-1)

Does the budget grow government through the addition of new permanent FTPs or through funding unlegislated efforts to create new or expanded entitlement programs? Conversely, does this budget reduce the size of government staff and programs except where compelled by new legislation?

This budget adds another 12.00 FTPs and adds $963,500 in general funds as part of an initiative involving  transportation safety. Specifically, it  is to add security personnel during medical transports. It comes in response to an inmate escape in the summer of 2024, where officers were ambushed by a lone gunman. It is unclear how additional personnel would have prevented this incident from recurring.

(-1)

Does this budget contain hidden fund transfers or supplemental expenditures that work to enact new policy or are not valid emergency expenditures? Conversely, are fund transfers only made to stabilization funds or are supplemental requests only made in the interest of resolving valid fiscal emergencies?

In addition to other supplemental requests mentioned in this rating, the Department of Correction funds additional surveillance technology and transportation safety expansion initiatives by using supplemental requests. These initiatives have a combined cost of $1,943,000. The additional funds for surveillance technology ($795,000) would be used for drone detection, phone screening, and mail scanning. Though an inmate escape was used to justify these expenses, it is not apparent these initiatives address problems specific to the incident. The other $1,148,000 will be used to start the transportation safety initiative mentioned above.

Though it is possible that some of these reforms are necessary to address security holes that led to the inmate escape last year. But not all of these items are related to the incident, and they do not constitute emergency expenditures. Largely, this is an inappropriate use of a supplemental request.

(-1)