LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 2, 1997
TO: Honorable Judith Zaffirini, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 359, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Committee on Health & Human Services By: Moncrief
Senate
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 1st House, Substituted
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
positive impact of $6,300,558 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 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 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 reimbursement of the reasonable cost of providing
services related to corrective action plans. The second provision
would authorize the Board of Protective and Regulatory Services
to impose an administrative penalty when a child-care provider
violates the licensing statute or a rule or order adopted under
the licensing statute.
Implementation of several provisions
in the bill would have no significant fiscal impact. These
include provisions that would improve contract monitoring; establish
new conditions for substitute care licensure; require DPRS to
regulate assessment services; and require the Board of Protective
and Regulatory Services to establish a flexible response system
for child abuse and neglect cases. There are also provisions
that would require DPRS to convene an interagency working group
to coordinate the processing of child protection cases, and
require the Texas Supreme Court to adopt rules regarding the
processing of child protection cases after considering the recommendations
of the working group.
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 county attorneys, district attorneys, or criminal
district attorneys to provide legal representation for DPRS
in court actions brought under the Family Code. It would require
an attorney employed by or contracting with DPRS to provide
the legal representation in cases where there is a conflict
of interest or special circumstances exist. It would also allow
DPRS 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
DPRS in these court actions. A potential exists for increased
costs due to implementation of the provision allowing DPRS 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 bill
would require family day care homes to undergo a background
and criminal history check when the operator applies for registration,
and at least once every two years thereafter. It would also
require each family day care home to pay a fee in an amount
not to exceed the administrative costs of conducting the background
and criminal history check.
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 child-care facility inspections performed
by agencies and subdivisions of the state. The bill would require
all agencies and subdivisions to give DPRS a copy of their inspection
forms by September 15, 1997. It would also require DPRS to:
1) assign items that may be inspected by more than one agency
or subdivision to only one agency or subdivision, 2) adopt each
inspection form through the rulemaking process, and 3) establish
a computerized database of information from each inspection
performed by an agency or subdivision.
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 no later than January 1, 1998.
The bill would require health and human service agencies to
include the results-oriented standards in their provider contracts,
and it would require agencies that purchase substitute care
services to report on the effectiveness of the results-oriented
standards by January 31, 1999.
The bill would 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 in the state. The
bill would require state agencies that purchase substitute care
services to implement a competitive bidding process as soon
as possible after September 1, 1997. It would also require
DPRS to develop and implement a pilot program that uses the
competitive bidding process no later than September 1, 1998
(which is one year later than the date recommended by TPR).
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.
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.
The background
and criminal history check requirement would encompass more
than 15,000 persons associated with registered 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 of these individuals
would also require an FBI fingerprint check. The department
would have to increase its licensing staff by three positions
to accommodate the additional workload. It is assumed that
the department would establish a fee to recover the full administrative
cost of conducting the background and criminal history checks.
Implementation
of the bill's provisions relating to the coordination of child-care
facility inspections (TPR recommendation HHS 5) would result
in a $13,000 annual cost to maintain the computerized database.
This cost would be more than offset by a $511,000 annual savings
due to the elimination of redundant inspection activities.
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.
Implementation of the bill's provisions relating
to competitive bidding 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 the savings would begin to accrue 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 ($2,950,464) $1,073,862 ($2,066,809) $360,918 106.5
1998 (5,722,694) 13,661,010 (4,067,016) 6,360,442 220.0
2000 (2,900,454) 19,313,770 (2,031,160) 9,037,369 105.0
2001 (2,124,300) 13,535,049 (1,476,951) 6,243,335 70.5
2002 (2,193,781) 13,534,345 (1,535,426) 6,244,686 70.5
Fiscal Year Probable Revenue
Gain/(Loss) from
General Revenue
Fund
0001
1998
1999 130,302
2000 130,302
2001 130,302
2002 130,302
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 ($1,768,060)
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: 116 Sunset Advisory Commission
530 Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,NM