LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 15, 1997
TO: Honorable Judith Zaffirini, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 155, As Engrossed
Committee on Health & Human Services By: Greenberg
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB155 ( Relating
to the listing and registration of family homes; providing penalties.)
this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB155-As Engrossed
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of $(253,996) to General Revenue Related Funds
through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend Chapter 42 of the Human Resources Code
relating to the regulation of child-care facilities. Current
law requires family homes that care for 4 or more children,
excluding the caretaker's own children, to register with the
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS). The
bill would require family homes to list or register with the
department if they provide compensated care for 3 or fewer children
who are unrelated to the caretaker. This new requirement would
only apply to family homes that provide child care on a regularly
scheduled basis for more than nine consecutive weeks.
The
bill would require all family homes to undergo a background
and criminal history check when the operator applies for listing
or registration, and at least once every two years thereafter.
It would not authorize PRS to charge family homes a fee to
recover the administrative costs of conducting the background
and criminal history check.
The bill would require the department
to investigate a listed family home when an abuse or neglect
complaint, as defined by Chapter 261 of the Family Code, is
received.
The bill would specifically authorize the department
to enforce the family home regulation statute by taking a variety
of actions, such as denying or revoking a listing or registration.
It would establish a $50 to $100 per day civil penalty for
unlisted or unregistered activity, and for threatening serious
harm to a child. It would also allow the department to sue
in district court for injunctive relief or to recover the civil
penalty.
The bill would require the department to charge
each listed family home a $20 annual fee to cover a portion
of the department's regulatory costs.
Methodolgy
PRS reports that there were 12,192 registered family homes in
1996. It is assumed that the proposed listing or registration
requirement for small family homes would cause the total number
of regulated family homes to increase by 1,250 in 1998 and 1,250
in 1999. It is assumed that every small family home would choose
listing over registration, and that the number of listed family
homes would remain constant in the year 2000 and beyond. There
would be a 21% turnover rate among listed family homes in the
year 2000 and beyond.
PRS routinely conducts background and
criminal history checks when a family home applies for registration.
However, the department does not routinely conduct background
and criminal history checks after a family home is registered.
It is assumed that implementation of the bill's provisions
requiring biennial background and criminal history checks for
registered family homes, and background and criminal history
checks for listed family homes, would result in additional costs.
These costs would only be partially offset by new revenue from
the $20 annual listing fee.
The provision requiring the department
to investigate a listed family home when an abuse or neglect
complaint is received would have no fiscal impact because the
department already investigates these complaints under Chapter
261 of the Family Code.
The new enforcement provisions would
have no significant fiscal impact for the department, the Office
of the Attorney General, or local governments.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Probable Revenue Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) Gain/(Loss) from of State
from General General Revenue Employees from
Revenue Fund Fund FY 1997
0001 0001
1998 ($136,060) $25,000 3.5
1998 (192,936) 50,000 4.7
2000 (192,936) 50,000 4.7
2001 (192,936) 50,000 4.7
2002 (192,936) 50,000 4.7
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($111,060)
1999 (142,936)
2000 (142,936)
2001 (142,936)
2002 (142,936)
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source: Agencies: 530 Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,NM