LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 15, 1997
TO: Honorable Toby Goodman, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 34, As Engrossed
Committee on Juvenile Justice and Family Issues By: Zaffirini
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB34 ( Relating
to the parent-child relationship, suits affecting the parent-child
relationship, and the protection of children.) this office has
detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB34-As Engrossed
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
positive impact of $4,670,558 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 numerous provisions in the Family Code
and the Government Code relating to the parent-child relationship,
suits affecting the parent-child relationship, and the protection
of children.
Implementation of several provisions in the
bill would have no significant fiscal impact. These include
authorizing the court to use new grounds for terminating the
parent-child relationship; requiring the Department of Protective
and Regulatory Services (PRS) to maintain a computerized database
of adoption and substitute care information; and requiring the
Office of Court Administration to prepare an annual report on
judicial efficiency.
The bill's provisions relating to permanency
planning for children in the managing conservatorship of PRS
would have a significant fiscal impact. The bill would require
the court to dismiss a suit affecting the parent-child relationship
on the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date
the court rendered an order appointing PRS as temporary managing
conservator, unless the court had already rendered a final order
or granted an extension of up to 180 days. The bill would also
allow the court to retain jurisdiction over the child, and not
dismiss the suit or render a final order, under certain circumstances.
The effective date for these provisions would be January 1,
1998, and the provisions would apply to all suits commenced
before, on, or after this date. The court could establish a
later dismissal date for suits involving children in PRS temporary
managing conservatorship before September 1, 1997.
The bill
would require county attorneys, district attorneys, or criminal
district attorneys to provide legal representation for PRS in
court actions brought under the Family Code. It would require
an attorney employed by or contracting with PRS to provide the
legal representation in cases where there is a conflict of interest
or special circumstances exist. It would also allow PRS to
reimburse county attorneys, district attorneys, criminal district
attorneys, the attorney general, or private attorneys from any
available state or federal funds for the costs of representing
PRS in these court actions. A potential exists for increased
costs due to implementation of the provision allowing PRS to
reimburse attorneys for the cost of legal representation in
court actions under the Family Code, but this would be dependent
on board rules and agency implementation policies. The effective
date for these provisions would be September 1, 1997.
The
bill would require the Texas Department of Health (TDH) to establish
a paternity registry for men to claim paternity and to expedite
adoptions of children whose biological fathers are unwilling
to assume responsibility for their children. A fee may not
be charged for filing with the registry a notice of intent to
claim paternity of a child or a denial of a registrant's paternity.
TDH may charge a fee for processing a search of the paternity
registry and for furnishing a certificate. These provisions
would be effective on September 1, 1997.
Methodolgy
It is assumed that the provisions relating to permanency planning
for children in PRS temporary managing conservatorship would
significantly increase the workload of the department's child
protective services program. The workload increase would be
heaviest in the first two fiscal years, when the department
would implement new permanency planning procedures and begin
moving about 3,500 foster children who have been in conservatorship
for 12 or more months through the court system. Additional
child protective services staff would be needed to handle the
new permanency planning requirements. The cost estimate assumes
a ratio of six child protective service workers per clerk.
It
is also assumed that the provisions relating to legal representation
would increase the workload of the department's legal staff.
The department estimates that the new workload could be accommodated
without cost to local prosecutors by adding six attorneys, three
legal secretaries, and one legal assistant. These individuals
would provide litigation support, training, and legal case management
statewide. The legal secretary would also maintain a statewide
legal tracking system for all PRS legal cases.
The cost of
the additional workload would be more than offset by a savings
in foster care and other purchased service payments, because
the provisions of the bill would cause some children to leave
the system more quickly. The cost estimate uses federal revenue
from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
In the event that TANF funds are unavailable for allocation,
General Revenue may need to be substituted.
Estimated costs
and savings have been revised slightly to reflect new information
received from PRS on March 31, 1997, after the previous fiscal
note was issued. The most significant change is that 11.5 fewer
FTE positions would be added in fiscal year 1999.
The assumptions
used to develop estimates for the paternity registry include:
1) there would be 1,000 registry filings per year; 2) there
would be approximately 2,700 requests for searches per year;
and 3) there would be a fee of $9 per search. There would be
a 0.5 FTE increase in the number of state employees over fiscal
year 1997.
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 Probable Probable Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost) of State
from General from General from Federal Funds from Federal Funds Employees from
Revenue Fund Revenue Fund FY 1997: PRS
0001 0001 0555 0555
1998 ($2,828,922) $562,862 ($2,066,809) $360,918 103.4
1998 (5,579,392) 12,516,010 (4,067,016) 6,144,442 217.0
2000 (2,757,152) 18,168,770 (2,031,160) 8,821,369 101.8
2001 (1,980,999) 12,390,049 (1,476,951) 6,027,335 67.4
2002 (2,050,479) 12,389,345 (1,535,426) 6,028,686 67.7
Fiscal Year Probable Probable Revenue Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) Gain/(Loss) from of State
from Vital Vital Statistics Employees from
Statistics Account/ FY 1997: TDH
Account/ GR-Dedicated
GR-Dedicated
0019 0019
1998 ($29,900) $24,300 0.5
1999 (17,087) 24,300 0.5
2000 (17,087) 24,300 0.5
2001 (17,087) 24,300 0.5
2002 (17,087) 24,300 0.5
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 ($2,266,060)
1999 6,936,618
2000 15,411,618
2001 10,409,050
2002 10,338,866
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
Implementation of the provision allowing PRS to reimburse county
attorneys, district attorneys, and criminal district attorneys
from any available state or federal funds for the costs of representing
PRS in court actions brought under the Family Code could increase
local government revenues. However, this potential would be
dependent on board rules and agency implementation policies.
Source: Agencies: 302 Office of the Attorney General
501 Department of Health
530 Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
LBB Staff: JK ,CB ,NM