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