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