LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
March 9, 1997
TO: Honorable Harvey Hilderbran, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 155
Committee on Human Services By: Greenberg
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB155 ( Relating
to the listing and registration of certain child-care services;
providing penalties.) this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB155-As Introduced
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of $(546,554) 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
Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. The
bill would require family homes that care for 3 or fewer children
unrelated to the caretaker to list or register with the department.
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 also require each
family home to pay a fee in an amount not to exceed 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 $30 annual
fee to cover a portion of the department's regulatory costs.
Methodolgy
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services 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.
The department reports that child-care licensing
workers carry a caseload of approximately 82 facilities which
are inspected once a year. Since registered family homes are
inspected every three years, child-care licensing workers can
carry a caseload of approximately 246 registered family homes.
The workload associated with listing family homes is assumed
to be about one-half of the workload associated with registering
family homes. Therefore, it is assumed that a child-care licensing
worker could carry a caseload of about 500 listed family homes.
The department would have to increase its licensing staff to
accommodate the additional workload.
The department estimates
that it would cost $272,000 to add a new category for "listed"
family home to existing automation data entry screens and management
reports currently maintained by the Department of Human Services.
It is assumed that the department would be able to compile,
update, and routinely disseminate current information on listed
family homes in a more cost-effective manner by hiring a part-time
licensing worker.
The department estimates that the background
and criminal history check requirement would encompass an average
of 2.5 persons per family home. It is assumed that each person
would be checked for a history of child abuse or neglect using
the department's own records, and for a criminal history using
records kept by the Texas Department of Public Safety. A very
small number of these individuals would also require an FBI
fingerprint check. The department would have to increase its
licensing staff to accommodate the additional workload. It
is assumed that the department would establish a fee to recover
the full administrative cost of conducting the background and
criminal history checks.
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 ($511,973) $219,946 8.6
1998 (511,973) 257,446 8.6
2000 (393,850) 257,446 4.3
2001 (393,850) 257,446 4.3
2002 (393,850) 257,446 4.3
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($292,027)
1999 (254,527)
2000 (136,404)
2001 (136,404)
2002 (136,404)
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government
is anticipated.
Source: Agencies: 405 Department of Public Safety
302 Office of the Attorney General
530 Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,NM