LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 12, 1997
TO: Honorable Harvey Hilderbran, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 359, Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
Committee on Human Services By: Brown
House
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB359 ( Relating
to the continuation and operation of the Department of Protective
and Regulatory Services, the provision of services to children
and families, and suits affecting the parent-child relationship;
providing penalties.) this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB359-Committee Report 2nd House, Substituted
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
positive impact of $6,098,614 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 provide for the continuation of the Department
of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS) for the standard
12-year Sunset review cycle. DPRS is subject to the provisions
of the Texas Sunset Act. The amount set forth for the administration
of the agency in the General Appropriations Bill, as introduced,
($526,225,721 for fiscal year 1998 and $540,736,010 for fiscal
year 1999) would be contingent upon passage of Senate Bill 359
or similar legislation. The appropriation would be financed
from the General Revenue fund, federal funds, appropriated receipts,
and interagency contracts, and would provide for approximately
5,907 employees.
Implementation of several provisions relating
to permanency planning for children in the temporary managing
conservatorship of DPRS would have a significant fiscal impact.
These provisions would require the court to dismiss a suit
affecting the parent-child relationship on the first Monday
after the first anniversary of the child's entry into temporary
managing conservatorship, unless the court had already rendered
a final order or granted an extension of up to 180 days. The
court could 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 they 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 DPRS temporary managing
conservatorship before September 1, 1997.
The bill would
require the county attorney to represent DPRS in any action
under the Family Code, unless the district attorney or criminal
district attorney elected to provide representation. It would
require the Attorney General to represent DPRS if the county
attorney, district attorney, or criminal district attorney were
unable to do so. It would require the Attorney General to deputize
a DPRS attorney to provide representation if the Attorney General
was unable to do so. It would also authorize DPRS to contract
with a private attorney to provide representation, and to represent
itself, in any action under the Family Code. The effective
date for these provisions would be September 1, 1997.
The
bill would require DPRS to conduct a background and criminal
history check on certain individuals when a child-care facility
or family home applies for licensure or registration. It would
also require DPRS to conduct a background and criminal history
check when certain individuals become associated with a licensed
child-care facility or registered family home. The child-care
facility or family home would be required to pay a fee that
could not exceed the department's administrative costs. The
effective date for these provisions would be on or before November
1, 1997.
The bill would implement Texas Performance Review
(TPR) recommendation HHS 5, in Disturbing the Peace: the Challenge
of Change in Texas Government, by requiring DPRS to coordinate
state monitoring inspections of licensed day care centers, licensed
group day care homes, and registered family homes. It would
require DPRS, the Texas Workforce Commission, the Texas Department
of Human Services, and the Texas Department of Health to implement
a new inspection protocol by June 1, 1998. It would also require
DPRS to establish a computerized database containing inspection
information from other state agencies and political subdivisions.
The
bill would implement TPR recommendation HHS 7, by requiring
the Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules establishing
results-oriented standards for providers of substitute care
services. The effective date for this provision would be not
later than January 1, 1998. The bill would require health and
human service agencies to include the standards in provider
contracts and to report on their effectiveness by January 31,
1999.
The bill would partially implement TPR recommendation
HHS 8, by requiring representatives from each state agency that
purchases substitute care services to assess the total need
for substitute care services, and to develop and implement a
competitive bidding process. DPRS would be required to develop
and implement a pilot competitive bidding program by September
1, 1998 (which is one year later than the date recommended by
TPR).
The bill would address concerns raised by the Sunset
Advisory Commission's Staff Report, and TPR issue HHS 9, relating
to the use of assessment services to determine the most appropriate
placement for children entering substitute care. It would require
DPRS to regulate assessment services provided by child-care
facilities or child-placing agencies, and to use these services
before placing a child in substitute care. It would also require
the Board of Protective and Regulatory Services to establish
minimum standards for assessment services by November 1, 1997.
The
bill would partially implement TPR recommendation HHS 10 by
authorizing DPRS to represent itself in certain child protection
cases, and by requiring DPRS to establish a working group of
representatives from the Office of Court Administration, the
Texas Supreme Court, and district and county attorneys' offices
to coordinate the processing of child protection cases. The
working group would be required to report its recommendations
to the Texas Supreme Court by September 1, 1998. The Texas
Supreme Court would be required to adopt rules regarding the
processing of child protection cases after considering the working
group's recommendations.
The bill would address other concerns
raised by the Sunset Advisory Commission's Staff Report, and
TPR issue HHS 10, by providing for the legal representation
of DPRS in actions brought under the Family Code, and by authorizing
the presiding judge of an administrative judicial region to
appoint a court master to process child protection cases.
Implementation
of two provisions in the bill would result in a gain to the
General Revenue fund. The first provision would require DPRS
to charge licensed child-care facilities for the reasonable
cost of providing services related to corrective action plans.
The second would authorize the Board of Protective and Regulatory
Services to impose an administrative penalty when child-care
providers violate the licensing statute, or a rule or order
adopted under the licensing statute.
Methodolgy
It is assumed that the provisions relating to permanency planning
for children in DPRS 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 assistants, and one legal secretary. 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 DPRS 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.
It is assumed
that implementation of the bill's provisions relating to background
and criminal history checks would require DPRS to search for
information on more than 22,000 persons associated with child-care
facilities and family homes each year. Each person would be
checked for a history of child abuse and 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
would also require an FBI fingerprint check. DPRS would need
to increase its licensing staff by 4 FTE positions to accommodate
the new workload. It is assumed that the department would establish
a fee to recover the full administrative cost of conducting
the checks.
The Comptroller of Public Accounts estimates
that implementation of the bill's provisions relating to child-care
monitoring inspections (TPR recommendation HHS 5) would result
in a net annual General Revenue savings of $498,000. This includes
a $13,000 cost to maintain the DPRS database which would be
offset by a $511,000 savings from streamlining the inspection
process. The savings would be allocated among DPRS ($247,023),
the Texas Workforce Commission ($254,895), and the Department
of Human Services ($9,082). The method of financing would be
100% General Revenue funds.
The Comptroller estimates that
implementation of provisions relating to the DPRS pilot competitive
bidding program for substitute care services (TPR recommendation
HHS 8) would result in an $850,000 annual savings, including
$634,000 in General Revenue funds and $216,000 in federal funds.
It is assumed that these savings would begin to accrue in fiscal
year 1999.
The Comptroller estimates that implementation
of provisions relating to the use of assessment services for
children entering substitute care would result in a $8,921,000
annual savings in foster care payments, including $6,651,000
in General Revenue funds and $2,270,000 in federal funds (these
savings would begin to accrue in the second half of fiscal year
1999). However, the bill does not fully implement the recommendations
in TPR issue 9, which would have required DPRS to create a separate
licensing program for assessment "centers." This fiscal note
assumes that implementation of the bill's provisions relating
to the regulation and utilization of assessment "services" would
have no significant fiscal implication beyond that already included
in the permanency planning provisions cited above.
The Comptroller
estimates that implementation of provisions relating to the
legal process for child protective services would result in
a net annual savings to the General Revenue fund of $657,000
(these savings would begin to accrue in the second half of fiscal
year 1999). However, the bill does not fully implement the
recommendations in TPR issue 10, which assumed that state law
would be amended to require that all legal actions on child
protection cases be processed through the Attorney General's
Child Support Enforcement court masters system. This would
speed-up the resolution of child protection cases, and increase
the collection of child-support payments that would used to
fund DPRS legal staff and county court master programs. This
fiscal note assumes that implementation of the bill's provisions
relating to DPRS legal representation and the discretionary
appointment of court masters would have no significant fiscal
implication beyond that already included in the permanency planning
provisions cited above.
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 ($3,093,475) $871,918 ($2,066,809) $562,862 107.4
1998 (5,843,945) 13,661,010 (4,067,016) 6,360,442 221.0
2000 (3,021,705) 19,313,770 (2,031,160) 9,037,369 105.8
2001 (2,245,551) 13,535,049 (1,476,951) 6,243,335 71.4
2002 (2,315,032) 13,534,345 (1,535,426) 6,244,686 71.7
Fiscal Year Probable Revenue
Gain/(Loss) from
General Revenue
Fund
0001
1998
1999 251,553
2000 251,553
2001 251,553
2002 251,553
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 ($1,970,004)
1999 8,068,618
2000 16,543,618
2001 11,541,051
2002 11,470,866
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
Implementation of a provision requiring DPRS to develop and
implement an outreach program to assist counties in applying
for federal funds could result in increased funding for local
units of government.
Source: Agencies: 530 Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,NM