LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                              Austin, Texas
                                     
                    FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
  
                              April 8, 1999
  
  
          TO:  Honorable Toby Goodman, Chair, House Committee on
               Juvenile Justice & Family Issues
  
        FROM:  John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
  
       IN RE:  HB3272  by Goodman (Relating to the enforcement and
               collection of child support.), Committee Report 1st
               House, Substituted
  
**************************************************************************
*  Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for    *
*  HB3272, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted:  positive impact     *
*  of $129,094 through the biennium ending August 31, 2001.              *
*                                                                        *
*  The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal      *
*  basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of    *
*  the bill.                                                             *
**************************************************************************
  
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:
  
          ****************************************************
          *  Fiscal Year  Probable Net Positive/(Negative)   *
          *               Impact to General Revenue Related  *
          *                             Funds                *
          *       2000                            $(19,321)  *
          *       2001                              148,415  *
          *       2002                              148,415  *
          *       2003                              148,415  *
          *       2004                              148,415  *
          ****************************************************
  
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
  
**************************************************************************
*Fiscal    Probable Revenue         Probable        Change in Number of  *
* Year     Gain/(Loss) from    Savings/(Cost) from State Employees from  *
*        Retained Collections Retained Collections        FY 1999        *
*           Account in the       Account in the                          *
*        General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund                       *
*                0001                 0001                               *
*  2000               $341,611           $(360,932)                 36.0 *
*  2001                683,222            (534,807)                 36.0 *
*  2002                683,222            (534,807)                 36.0 *
*  2003                683,222            (534,807)                 36.0 *
*  2004                683,222            (534,807)                 36.0 *
**************************************************************************
  
Fiscal Analysis
  
The bill would allow the presiding judges of the administrative judicial
regions to appoint or authorize the Office of Court Administration to
contract with as many as thirty-six child support court monitor to
support the Title IV-D masters.  The duties given to these child support
court monitors, which include the referral of obligors to employment
programs and the monitoring of the amount and timeliness of child
support payments owed, would impact child support collections and
increase the amount of collections retained by the state.
  
  
Methodology
  
The child support court monitor position is roughly equivalent to the
state Child Support Officer II (B5) and Child Support Officer III (B7)
classifications.  Assuming the thirty-six positions authorized by the
bill are split equally between the two positions, and that the B5
position would be slotted at the minimum ($24,732), while the B7 position
would be slotted at the mid-range ($32,082), salary costs for fiscal
year 2001 and each year thereafter would be $1,022,652 each fiscal year.
Associated benefits at 27.59% of salary costs would amount to an
additional $285,831 in fiscal year 2001 and each year thereafter.  Fiscal
year 2000 would have reduced salary and benefit costs due to a phase-in
of the program for which this methodology assumes that there would be no
monitors employed on September 1, 1999, and all 36 employed on August 31,
2000.  This would result in a 50 percent discount to the salaries and
associated benefits in fiscal year 2000 for a total cost of $654,242.  It
is estimated that one-time capital equipment purchases (PC's, printers,
software licences) for the 36 monitors  would cost $240,912 in fiscal
year 2000.  Using estimates provided by the Office of Court
Administration, and discounting those figures as a result of program
phase-in, other operational, travel and administrative costs would be
$187,641 in fiscal year 2000.  In fiscal year 2001 and each year
thereafter, these costs would remain level at $295,938.  The Title IV-D
program under which these monitors would be operating is financed by a
2:1  federal-state split.  As a result, the state would have costs of
$360,932 in fiscal year 2000 and $534,807 each fiscal year thereafter.

The Comptroller's Texas Performance Review estimates that the use of
court monitors would increase the amount of child support collected for
Texas children by $6,149,000.  This increase would not be realized until
the program was fully phased in.  Assuming that one-third of the $6.1
million in increased collections will be on behalf of TANF recipients,
the Office of the Attorney General will retain $683,222 (one-third of the
TANF recovery remains with the state, the remaining two-thirds is
returned to the federal government) in fiscal year 2001 and each year
thereafter for the use of child support enforcement activities. In fiscal
year 2000, the Office of the Attorney General would retain $341,611 as a
result of the phase-in of the monitors.

Information from the Office of Court Administration and the Office of the
Attorney General was used to determine programmatic costs and associated
impacts on collections.
  
  
Local Government Impact
  
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
  
  
Source Agencies:   
LBB Staff:         JK, MD, DG, SC