Q00C02
Division of Parole and Probation
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Operating Budget Data
($ in Thousands)
FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 06-07 % Change
Actual Working Allowance Change Prior Year
General Fund $81,422 $76,704 $81,935 $5,231 6.8%
Special Fund 101 8,352 8,675 323 3.9%
Reimbursable Fund 1,612 796 462 -334 -41.9%
Total Funds $83,134 $85,852 $91,072 $5,220 6.1%
! The approximately $5.2 million general fund increase may be attributed to increases for
salaries and wages, grants, vehicle purchase, laboratory testing, and decreased insurance costs.
! The approximately $334,000 decrease in reimbursable funds is due to decreases in
management studies and consultants and telecommunications lines.
Personnel Data
FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 06-07
Actual Working Allowance Change
Regular Positions 1,295.00 1,253.50 1,255.50 2.00
Contractual FTEs 82.95 136.70 139.70 3.00
Total Personnel 1,377.95 1,390.20 1,395.20 5.00
Vacancy Data: Regular Positions
Turnover, Excluding New Positions 82.24 6.55%
Positions Vacant as of 12/31/05 111.00 8.86%
! The fiscal 2007 allowance includes three new parole and probation agent positions in the
Field Operations unit offset by one abolished administrative position. The division has also
added three new contractual full-time equivalents (FTEs). The new regular and new
contractual FTEs are all for the expansion of the Collaborative Supervision and Focused
Enforcement program.
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
For further information contact: Keri Beth Cain Phone: (410) 946-5530
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
1
Q00C02 – DPSCS – Division of Parole and Probation
Analysis in Brief
Issues
Collection Rate for Division of Parole and Probation Fees: In response to a request from the budget
committees, the Office of Legislative Audits (OLA) studied and reported on supervision fee
collection rates. The audit report found that parolees are the least likely to pay supervision fees while
Drinking Driver Monitor Program (DDMP) participants pay at the highest rate. The department
should be prepared to present an updated estimate of how much revenue the increase in the
supervision fee will generate, based on the collection rate determined by the Office of
Legislative Audits. The Division of Parole and Probation should be prepared to discuss its
plans regarding the reevaluation of its estimation methodology.
Drinking Driver Monitor Program Fee: During the 2005 legislative session, a program fee was
created with the aim of making the DDMP fully fee-supported. The department should be
prepared to comment on DDMP program fee collections year-to-date and should provide an
estimate for total fee revenues for fiscal 2006.
Recommended Actions
Funds Positions
1. Delete grant for Baltimore Re-entry Employment Center. $ 500,000
2. Delete three new positions and associated funds. 102,316 3.0
3. Adopt committee narrative directing the Division of Parole and
Probation to evaluate and report on their information technology
needs in reference to case management and fee collection
tracking.
Total Reductions $ 602,316 3.0
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
2
Q00C02
Division of Parole and Probation
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Operating Budget Analysis
Program Description
The Division of Parole and Probation (DPP) provides offender supervision and investigation
services. DPP’s largest workload involves the supervision of probationers assigned to the division by
the courts. DPP also supervises inmates released on parole by the Parole Commission or released
from the Division of Correction because of mandatory release. The Drinking Driver Monitor
Program (DDMP) supervises offenders sentenced by the courts to probation for driving while
intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI). DPP also monitors offenders in the
Correctional Options Program, which diverts offenders from the prison system whose criminal acts
result from drug abuse.
Performance Analysis: Managing for Results
The DDMP supervises offenders sentenced by the courts to probation for DWI or DUI.
Exhibit 1 shows the number of active cases under the supervision of the DDMP program. Active
participation declined by 8.6% between fiscal 2003 and 2005. In the 2005 session, the legislature
authorized a new program fee for DDMP participants. The department should be prepared to
discuss its revenue forecasts in light of declining participation.
One objective the division has set forth is to have the percentage of cases where the offenders
had satisfactorily completed substance abuse treatment programs when the case was closed by a
Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) Office increase by one percentage point over the previous
fiscal year, starting in fiscal 2005. As Exhibit 2 shows, the division has successfully achieved this
objective since fiscal 2004. However, the division should be prepared to discuss what measures
are taken to increase the percentage of participants who complete substance abuse treatment.
The division should also address why the goals for increased participation are not more
ambitious.
DPP does not currently have the ability to track recidivism rates for specific programs. The
department should be prepared to comment on whether or not the new Offender Case
Management System will allow them to track recidivism rates by program. DLS recommends
that the system include the ability to track recidivism rates by program and that this
information be included in future Managing for Results submissions once it is available.
The number of cases under DPP oversight has grown by 10,182 offenders, or 7.6% since
fiscal 1998. Exhibit 3 charts the growth in the number of cases of parolees, probationers, mandatory
supervisions, and the total population under DPP supervision. Some offenders may have multiple
cases under supervision, so the numbers do not accurately reflect the number of individuals under
DPP supervision.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
3
Q00C02 – DPSCS – Division of Parole and Probation
Exhibit 1
Drinking Driver Monitor Program Participation
17,500
17,000
Number of Cases
Being Monitored
16,500
16,000
15,500
15,000
14,500
2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Exhibit 2
Offenders Successfully Completing Substance Abuse Programs
40% 39%
39%
38%
38%
Percent of PCS
37%
Cases Closed
36%
35% 34.3%
34% 33%
33%
32%
31%
30%
2003 Actual 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Est.
Fiscal Years
PSC – Proactive Community Supervision
Source: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
4
Q00C02 – DPSCS – Division of Parole and Probation
Exhibit 3
Cases Under Supervision
160,000
140,000
120,000
Cases Under Supervision
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fiscal Years
Parole Mandatory Probation
Source: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
At the same time that the number of cases under DPP supervision has increased, the number
of positions in the field operations unit has also increased overall. However, in the most recent years,
the number of supervisees has remained relatively stable but very close to the peak numbers seen in
fiscal 2001. Exhibit 4 shows that there was a significant increase in field operations positions
between fiscal 2001 and 2002, but since fiscal 2002, the number of authorized field operations
positions has decreased by 57.5 positions, or approximately 4.4%. The department should be
prepared to discuss agent caseloads and how those caseloads compare to nationally
recommended caseload levels. The department should further be prepared to discuss future
plans for caseload management – be it hiring of more agents, the implementation of new
technology, or some other strategy.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
5
Q00C02 – DPSCS – Division of Parole and Probation
Exhibit 4
Field Operations Authorized Positions
1,350
1,300
1,250
1,200
Positions
1,150
1,100
1,050
1,000
950
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fiscal Years
Source: Governor’s Budget Books
Fiscal 2006 Actions
Personnel
As a result of across-the-board position abolitions in the 2005 legislative session, DPP lost
12.0 PINs. In addition to this, prior to the end of fiscal 2005, the Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services (DPSCS) transferred 8.0 PINs out of DPP (positions went to Patuxent
Institution, the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, and the Office of the Secretary). During
fiscal 2006 the department added 1.5 PINs to DPP. Exhibit 5 shows these changes. The
department should be prepared to discuss the impact of the PIN reduction on DPP operations.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
6
Q00C02 – DPSCS – Division of Parole and Probation
Exhibit 5
PIN Changes
Allowance Across-the-board Transfers Changes to Work. Approp.
FY 2006 Abolitions (Prior to 6/30/05) Work. Approp. FY 2006
1,272.0 -12.0 -8.0 1.5 1,253.5
Source: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Governor=s Proposed Budget
As seen in Exhibit 6, the Governor’s fiscal 2007 allowance for DPP increases by
approximately $5.2 million, or 6.1%. The allowance includes increases for drug testing, vehicle
purchases, equipment for a staff safety initiative, and a grant for a non-state run re-entry program.
The allowance for General Administration increases by approximately $381,000, or 8.7%.
Salaries and wages ($227,000) and a $500,000 grant to support the operational costs of the Re-Entry
Employment Center in northwest Baltimore City account for most of the increase. The Re-Entry
Employment Center currently receives funding from the Abell Foundation and Baltimore City and is
expected to serve approximately 1,800 inmates seeking employment in fiscal 2006. State
participation would allow the center to double its enrollment. The increase is offset by decreased
expenditures for insurance coverage ($234,000), contractual services including office assistance
($64,000), and communications including capital lease telecommunications ($61,000).
In the Criminal Supervision and Investigation area, the allowance increases by approximately
$3.3 million. Approximately $2.9 million of the increase is for salaries and wages. Some of the
increase is also due to a staff safety initiative that includes funds for protective vests and cell phones.
There are also funds for the purchase of 28 replacement vehicles and 28 new vehicles. The new
vehicles are for the continuation of a multi-year initiative begun in fiscal 2006 to increase the DPP
fleet by 131 vehicles. The remaining increase is the net result of increases for in-state travel for
routine operations based on prior year spending and a decrease in spending for management studies
due to a reduction in the amount of available grant funding.
The DDMP has an increase of approximately $313,000 in the fiscal 2007 allowance. All the
funds in the allowance for the DDMP are special funds generated from the DDMP program fee
adopted in the 2005 session. Approximately $295,000 of the increase is for salaries and wages.
There is also a $19,000 increase for office assistance, based on prior year actual spending.
The allowance for the Collaborative Supervision and Focused Enforcement program increases
by approximately $447,000. The increase is largely due to the proposed staff expansion, which
results in an approximately $137,000 increase for salaries and wages and approximately $137,000 for
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
7
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Exhibit 6
Governor's Proposed Budget
DPSCS – Division of Parole and Probation
($ in Thousands)
General Special Reimb.
How Much It Grows: Fund Fund Fund Total
2006 Working Appropriation $76,704 $8,352 $796 $85,852
2007 Governor's Allowance 81,935 8,675 462 91,072
Amount Change $5,231 $323 -$334 $5,220
Percent Change 6.8% 3.9% -41.9% 6.1%
Where It Goes:
Personnel Expenses
New positions .................................................................................................................. $102
Employee and retiree health insurance ............................................................................ 3,210
Increments and other compensation ................................................................................ 1,279
Retirement ....................................................................................................................... 693
Deferred compensation.................................................................................................... 147
Workers' compensation premium assessment ................................................................. 34
Abolished/transferred positions ....................................................................................... -36
Overtime .......................................................................................................................... -61
Turnover adjustments ...................................................................................................... -1,137
Other fringe benefit adjustments ..................................................................................... -31
Other Changes
Grant for Re-Entry Employment Center in Baltimore City............................................. 500
Laboratory costs for drug tests ........................................................................................ 368
Vehicle purchase (28 replacement sedans and 28 new sedans)....................................... 244
Equipment (security vests for staff safety initiative) ....................................................... 178
In-state routine operations ............................................................................................... 106
Rent.................................................................................................................................. 49
Management studies and consultants............................................................................... -202
Insurance.......................................................................................................................... -234
Other ................................................................................................................................ 11
Total $5,220
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
8
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
contractual payroll. This money funds three new full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and three new
contractual FTE positions. The remaining increase is the net result of increases for consultants
($100,000), and office and computer equipment ($70,000) and decreases in communications
spending.
The allowance for Urinalysis and Treatment Services increases by approximately $406,000.
The majority of this increase is for drug testing materials and purchase of care services. The cost for
reagents used in drug testing increased from $1.00 to $2.50 for a five-drug test in the most recent
departmental contract. The department estimates that it will conduct 485,000 tests at the Guilford
Avenue lab in fiscal 2007.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
9
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Issues
1. Collection Rate for Division of Parole and Probation Fees
In the 2005 Joint Chairmen’s Report, the budget committees requested that the Department of
Legislative Services’ (DLS) Office of Legislative Audits (OLA) review and submit a report on the
collection rates for DPP fees. OLA prepared and submitted a report entitled Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services Division of Parole and Probation Supervision Fee Collection Rates.
The review attempted to determine DPP’s collection rates for the three-year period ending
June 30, 2004. It was not possible to reliably calculate a historically accurate collection rate for
active cases because they often remain open for many years, and the supervision fees may not be
collected until the end of the supervision period. As such, the examination was limited to the
historical collection during the lifetime of any case closed during the three years of the audit period.
Also, since unpaid fines, costs, and fees are referred by DPP to the Department of Budget and
Management’s (DBM) Central Collection Unit (CCU) for collection assistance, the audit included
CCU recoveries in the collection rates. Exhibit 7 shows the collection rates for DPP’s four types of
cases.
Exhibit 7
Fee Collection Rates
Fiscal 2002 - 2004
70%
63.9%
60%
50%
Fee Collection Rate
40%
33.5%
30%
16.2% 16.5%
20%
10%
0%
Parole Mandatory Supervision Probation Drinking Driver
Monitor Program
Source: Office of Legislative Audits
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
10
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Parole and Mandatory Supervision Fees
The audit report found that parolees are the least likely to pay supervision fees. The collection
rate among parolees was 16.2%. Those under mandatory supervision pay at only a slightly higher
rate – 16.5%. Offenders are released on mandatory supervision after they have served out the length
of their sentence less the diminution credits for confinement they have earned.
Probation Fees
Probationers pay their supervision fees at a rate of 33.5%. The audit reports that DPP used a
flawed estimation methodology when the division estimated its probationer supervision fee collection
rate at 50%. The estimated 50% rate is the rate that was presented to the budget committees during
the 2005 session. When estimating the collection rate for probationer supervision fees, the rate was
based on data from three case types (probation, parole, and mandatory supervision cases). Also, DPP
used actual fee collections from both open and closed cases in its estimate.
Using the collection rate estimate of 50%, DPP asserted that a $15 increase in the monthly
probationer supervision fee would generate $709,635 in additional revenue during fiscal 2006 and
$1.3 million in fiscal 2007. The department should be prepared to present an updated estimate
of how much revenue the increase in the supervision fee will generate, based on the collection
rate determined by OLA.
OLA’s review recommended that DPP reevaluate its estimation methodology to improve the
accuracy of supervision fee collection rate estimates. DPP agreed to the recommended action in its
response to the audit findings. DPP should be prepared to discuss its plans regarding the
reevaluation of its estimation methodology.
Drinking Driver Monitor Program Fees
Participants in the DDMP paid their fees at a rate of 63.9%.
Offender Based State Correctional Information System Flaws
The report found that, although historical collection data for supervision fees existed in the
Offender Based State Correctional Information System (OBSCIS), there were no OBSCIS reports
available with sufficient specificity to determine fee collection rates. As such, DPP is unable to
easily determine fee collection rates. This also results in management being unable to monitor
collection rates and detect unusual fluctuations in a timely manner. The audit also determined that
similar collection reports for other imposed costs such as restitution, fines and courts costs were also
not available from OBSCIS.
OLA recommended in its report that the department determine the feasibility of developing
reports which could be used by DPP to periodically monitor the payment plan collection rates. DPP
agreed with the need to monitor collections, but reports that OBSCIS does not have the ability to
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
11
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
produce the needed reports to evaluate payments by category. OBSCIS is over 20 years old and was
not originally designed for managing billing or accounts receivable. DLS recommends that DPP
study and evaluate its information technology needs as they pertain to both supervision and
collections data and report to the committees at the conclusion of its evaluation.
2. Drinking Driver Monitor Program Fees
In the DDMP, the legislature authorized a $45 per month program fee during the
2005 legislative session. The fee is assessed in addition to the $40 DPP monthly supervision fee that
all probationers pay. The program fee was levied with the aim of making the DDMP fully
fee-supported. To this end, no general funds were available for the DDMP program for fiscal 2006.
The committees were concerned about the ability of DPP to generate enough revenue to
adequately fund the DDMP. As such, the committees approved budget bill language encouraging the
Governor to provide a deficiency appropriation if the revenues generated were not adequate to cover
operating expenses.
The supervision fee collection rate for DDMP participants was evaluated by OLA in its audit
of all DPP collection rates. The collection rate for DDMP participants was found to be 63.9%.
The department reports that, between July 1, 2005, and mid-December 2005, it had collected
$3,075,351.61 from the DDMP program fee. The fiscal 2006 allowance, which is entirely funded by
the program fee, was $8,251,830. Based on year-to-date collections (through mid-December), the
revenues should only total approximately $6.7 million for the full year, a difference of approximately
$1.5 million.
The department should be prepared to comment on DDMP program fee collections
year-to-date and should provide an estimate for total fee revenues for fiscal 2006.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
12
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Recommended Actions
Amount Position
Reduction Reduction
1. Delete grant for Baltimore Re-entry Employment $ 500,000 GF
Center. The center is currently funded by Baltimore
City and the Abell Foundation. State funding would
allow the center to double its enrollment. The
services offered by the center are already offered
through various programs elsewhere in the
Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services.
2. Delete three new positions and associated funds. 102,316 GF 3.0
The fiscal 2007 allowance turnover rate for the
Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services (DPSCS) is 6.6%, which necessitates that
749 positions be held vacant. As of January 1, 2006,
DPSCS had 1,049 vacancies or 300 more vacancies
than are needed to meet turnover. This action would
delete three new positions and associated funds.
Existing PINs can be converted to fulfill the intended
function.
3. Adopt the following narrative:
Case Management and Fee Collection Information Technology Needs: The committees
are concerned that the technology that the Division of Parole and Probation is using for case
management and fee collection tracking purposes is inadequate. The committees direct that
the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) evaluate and report on
their information technology needs to improve case management and supervision fee
collection tracking. The report shall be provided by December 1, 2006.
Information Request Author Due Date
Report on case management DPSCS December 1, 2006
and fee collection
information technology needs
Total General Fund Reductions $ 602,316 3.0
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
13
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Appendix 1
Current and Prior Year Budgets
Current and Prior Year Budgets
Division of Parole and Probation
($ in Thousands)
General Special Federal Reimb.
Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
Fiscal 2005
Legislative
Appropriation $80,980 $99 $0 $932 $82,011
Deficiency
Appropriation 0 0 0 0 0
Budget
Amendments 734 10 0 1,479 2,223
Reversions and
Cancellations -293 -9 0 -799 -1,101
Actual
Expenditures $81,422 $101 $0 $1,612 $83,134
Fiscal 2006
Legislative
Appropriation $75,916 $8,352 $0 $796 $85,064
Budget
Amendments 788 0 0 0 788
Working
Appropriation $76,704 $8,352 $0 $796 $85,852
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
14
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Fiscal 2005
General fund spending for fiscal 2005 was approximately $81.4 million.
• Budget amendments increased the appropriation by approximately $734,000. The $752
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) amendment added approximately $1.1 million to the
legislative appropriation. The appropriation was reduced by approximately $317,000 as part a
departmentwide amendment that realigned funds in accordance with actual expenditures.
• The division cancelled approximately $293,000 of funds designated for employee and retiree
health insurance.
Reimbursable fund spending totaled approximately $1.6 million.
• Budget amendments increased the appropriation by approximately $1.5 million. The funds
were transferred from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention for two
separate grants − “Proactive Community Supervision” and “Warrant Apprehension Unit.”
• The division cancelled approximately $799,000 of unexpended grant funds.
Fiscal 2006
The general fund working appropriation for fiscal 2006 is approximately $76.7 million. This
includes an approximately $788,000 increase from the 1.5% COLA budget amendment.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
15
Q00C02 – DPSCS Division of Parole and Probation
Appendix 2
Audit Findings
Audit Period for Last Audit: January 18, 2001 – February 11, 2004
Issue Date: January 2005
Number of Findings: 6
Number of Repeat Findings: 1
% of Repeat Findings: 17%
Rating: (if applicable) n/a
Finding 1: Deposit verification procedures were not adequate.
Finding 2: Reconciliations of cash balances to the State Comptroller’s records were not
reviewed and approved by supervisory personnel, and an unreconciled difference
of approximately $585,000 has gone unresolved since June 2002.
Finding 3: The division did not refer certain unpaid fines, costs, and fees to DBM’s Central
Collection Unit.
Finding 4: The review process for a critical security report was inadequate.
Finding 5: Certain audit reporting deficiencies could restrict management’s ability to adequately
monitor functions performed by the division’s field offices.
Finding 6: Controls over changes made to critical offender financial data were not sufficient.
*Bold denotes item repeated in full or part from preceding audit report.
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
16
Object/Fund Difference Report
DPSCS − Division of Parole and Probation
FY06
FY05 Working FY07 FY06 - FY07 Percent
Object/Fund Actual Appropriation Allowance Amount Change Change
Positions
01 Regular 1295.00 1253.50 1255.50 2.00 0.2%
Q00C02 – DPSCS − Division of Parole and Probation
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
02 Contractual 82.95 136.70 139.70 3.00 2.2%
Total Positions 1377.95 1390.20 1395.20 5.00 0.4%
Objects
01 Salaries and Wages $ 68,853,274 $ 71,331,812 $ 75,531,794 $ 4,199,982 5.9%
02 Technical & Spec Fees 2,370,366 2,800,218 2,704,177 -96,041 -3.4%
03 Communication 1,445,212 1,407,328 1,405,892 -1,436 -0.1%
04 Travel 584,082 478,300 591,250 112,950 23.6%
06 Fuel & Utilities 154,892 136,500 163,600 27,100 19.9%
07 Motor Vehicles 469,512 685,873 988,006 302,133 44.1%
17
08 Contractual Services 3,056,742 3,459,253 3,240,677 -218,576 -6.3%
09 Supplies & Materials 1,401,123 1,355,721 1,736,050 380,329 28.1%
10 Equip - Replacement 107,751 25,442 26,000 558 2.2%
11 Equip - Additional 134,542 9,000 206,874 197,874 2198.6%
12 Grants, Subsidies, and Contributions 659,155 0 500,000 500,000 N/A
13 Fixed Charges 3,897,610 4,162,532 3,977,238 -185,294 -4.5%
Total Objects $ 83,134,261 $ 85,851,979 $ 91,071,558 $ 5,219,579 6.1%
Funds
01 General Fund $ 81,421,588 $ 76,704,041 $ 81,934,786 $ 5,230,745 6.8%
03 Special Fund 100,575 8,351,830 8,674,553 322,723 3.9%
09 Reimbursable Fund 1,612,098 796,108 462,219 -333,889 -41.9%
Total Funds $ 83,134,261 $ 85,851,979 $ 91,071,558 $ 5,219,579 6.1%
Appendix 3
Note: The fiscal 2006 appropriation does not include deficiencies, and the fiscal 2007 allowance does not reflect contingent reductions.
Fiscal Summary
DPSCS − Division of Parole and Probation
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY06 - FY07
Program/Unit Actual Wrk Approp Allowance Change % Change
01 General Administration $ 4,535,795 $ 4,368,574 $ 4,749,451 $ 380,877 8.7%
02 Field Operations 78,598,466 81,483,405 86,322,107 4,838,702 5.9%
Analysis of the FY 2007 Maryland Executive Budget, 2006
Total Expenditures $ 83,134,261 $ 85,851,979 $ 91,071,558 $ 5,219,579 6.1%
Q00C02 – DPSCS − Division of Parole and Probation
General Fund $ 81,421,588 $ 76,704,041 $ 81,934,786 $ 5,230,745 6.8%
Special Fund 100,575 8,351,830 8,674,553 322,723 3.9%
Total Appropriations $ 81,522,163 $ 85,055,871 $ 90,609,339 $ 5,553,468 6.5%
Reimbursable Fund $ 1,612,098 $ 796,108 $ 462,219 -$ 333,889 -41.9%
Total Funds $ 83,134,261 $ 85,851,979 $ 91,071,558 $ 5,219,579 6.1%
18
Note: The fiscal 2006 appropriation does not include deficiencies, and the fiscal 2007 allowance does not reflect contingent reductions.
Appendix 4