LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                                   Austin, Texas
         
                                   FISCAL NOTE
                               75th Regular Session
         
                                  May 26, 1997
         
         
      TO: Honorable Bob Bullock            IN RE:  Senate Bill No. 34, As Passed 2nd House
          Lieutenant Governor                Zaffirini
          Senate
          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 Passed 2nd House
         
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net 
positive impact of $4,468,614 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 
requiring the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services 
(PRS) to maintain in its central database specific information 
concerning adoption and substitute care, 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.  The effective date for these provisions 
would be 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.  The net additional 
cost to the General Revenue Fund under this scenario would be 
about $900,000 in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Estimated savings 
have been revised slightly to reflect updated information received 
from PRS on April 25, 1997.  This information corrected a data-entry 
error on the agency's previous cost estimate.

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 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           
            0001               0001               0555               0555                                  
       1998      ($2,828,922)          $360,918      ($2,066,809)          $562,862             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
 
 
         Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
 

 
              Fiscal Year      Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
                               General Revenue Related Funds
                                             Funds
               1998         ($2,468,004)
               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.

Implementation 
of another provision authorizing presiding judges to appoint 
a court master to handle child protection cases would have fiscal 
implications for local government.  The salary paid to a court 
master would be dependent on the decisions of local county officials.
          
   Source:            Agencies:   302   Office of the Attorney General
                                         530   Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
                                         501   Department of Health
                      LBB Staff:   JK ,CB ,NM