LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 16, 1997
TO: Honorable Toby Goodman, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 181, As Engrossed
Committee on Juvenile Justice and Family Issues By: Shapiro
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB181 ( Relating
to the conservatorship of a child by the Department of Protective
and Regulatory Services.) this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB181-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 two chapters in the Family Code relating
to the conservatorship of children by the Department of Protective
and Regulatory Services (PRS).
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 for an additional 180
days, under certain circumstances. The effective date of the
act 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 January 1, 1998.
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 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) $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
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:
LBB Staff: JK ,CB ,NM