Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
STATE FUND |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
General Revenue Fund (GRF) |
|||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain in locally
collected state court costs, magnitude uncertain |
Potential gain in locally
collected state court costs, magnitude uncertain |
Potential gain in locally
collected state court costs, magnitude uncertain |
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|
Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) |
|||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain in locally
collected state court costs, magnitude uncertain |
Potential gain in locally
collected state court costs, magnitude uncertain |
Potential gain in locally
collected state court costs, magnitude uncertain |
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2008 is July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.
·
Court cost revenues. Given the
uncertainty regarding the number of new child neglect cases per year that may
be generated as a result of the bill, as well as the uncertainty regarding the
number of additional individuals that may be arrested and prosecuted for
violating the offense of endangering children, it is difficult to estimate the
additional court cost revenue that might be collected and deposited to the
credit of either the GRF or the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund
402).
·
State expenditures. As of this writing, it does
not appear that the bill will have an immediate and direct effect on state
expenditures. This is because (1) the
amount of moneys allocated by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
for disbursement to county public children services agencies (PCSAs) are drawn
from a fixed pool of funds, and (2) the likelihood of additional offenders
being sentenced to prison for violating the felony prohibitions of the offense
of endangering children is relatively small.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2007 |
FY 2008 |
FUTURE YEARS |
||
|
County Public Children
Services Agencies (PCSAs) |
|||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
||
|
Expenditures |
Likely increase to
investigate additional neglected child cases, cost could exceed minimal in
certain counties |
Likely increase to
investigate additional neglected child cases, cost could exceed minimal in
certain counties |
Likely increase to
investigate additional neglected child cases, cost could exceed minimal in
certain counties |
||
|
Juvenile Courts |
|||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
||
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase to
dispose of additional neglected child cases, magnitude uncertain |
Potential increase to
dispose of additional neglected child cases, magnitude uncertain |
Potential increase to
dispose of additional neglected child cases, magnitude uncertain |
||
|
County and Municipal Criminal Justice Systems |
|||||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines |
||
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase to
prosecute and sanction additional misdemeanants, magnitude uncertain |
Potential increase to
prosecute and sanction additional misdemeanants, magnitude uncertain |
Potential increase to
prosecute and sanction additional misdemeanants, magnitude uncertain |
||
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
County public children services agencies (PCSAs). While LSC fiscal staff is not able to estimate the exact number of
additional reports, or how many additional referrals, PCSAs will receive as a
result of the bill each report or referral will likely trigger some
investigative action and related costs.
The cost of an investigation is paid almost entirely from local, and a
fixed pool of state, funds. Therefore,
any increase in the number of investigations and the costs associated with them
are likely to be covered almost exclusively by local funding sources
(children's services levies and/or county general funds). From LSC fiscal staff's perspective, based
on PSCA estimates, a handful of additional investigation could easily generate
additional annual costs for an affected PCSA in excess of minimal. For the purposes of this fiscal
analysis, minimal means an estimated cost of more than $5,000 per year for any
given county.
·
Juvenile courts. The bill will in all
likelihood result in some increase in the number of child neglect cases
requiring the involvement of the juvenile court. After completing an investigation, the PCSA in many cases would
most likely be required to present its findings to the juvenile court and seek
an appropriate legal remedy relative to the home situation of the affected
child or children. The magnitude of the
potential impact on the caseload, and related operating expenses, of any given
juvenile court is, as of this writing, uncertain.
·
County and municipal criminal justice systems. Given the uncertainty regarding the number of new child neglect cases
per year that may be generated as a result of the bill, as well as the
uncertainty regarding the number of additional individuals that may be arrested
and prosecuted for violating the offense of endangering children, it is rather
difficult to assess the potential fiscal implications for any given county or
municipal criminal justice system.
Presumably, if additional individuals are charged with a misdemeanor of
the first degree, then there is a possibility of a related increase in the
local costs to prosecute, adjudicate, defend (if the offender is indigent), and
subsequently sanction any individuals so charged. Whether those costs, if quantifiable, will exceed minimal in any
given county or municipal criminal justice system is difficult to reliably
discern at this time.
·
Court cost and fine revenues. Given the uncertainty regarding the number of new child neglect cases
per year that may be generated as a result of the bill, as well as the
uncertainty regarding the number of additional individuals that may be arrested
and prosecuted for violating the offense of endangering children, it is
difficult to estimate the additional court cost and fine revenues that might be
collected and deposited to the credit of the general fund of any affected
county or municipality.
|
|
Overview
This bill expands the
definition of neglected child to include parents, guardians, or custodians who
knowingly allow a person who has been convicted of, has plead guilty to, or has
been adjudicated a delinquent child for, committing a sexually oriented offense
to reside in the same residence as the child.
For the purposes of this
analysis, LSC fiscal staff has identified three notable effects that
potentially result from the bill:
(1)
The
number of cases in which county public children services agencies (PCSAs) have
to investigate and subsequently provide care for a child or children will
likely increase.
(2)
The
number of cases in which juvenile courts will need to make disposition
decisions will likely increase.
(3)
The
number of cases processed by county and municipal criminal justice systems will
likely increase, as parents, guardians, and custodians may be criminally liable
for child endangerment, which is generally a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Sexually
oriented offenders in Ohio
Legislative Service
Commission fiscal staff, through contact with the Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction (DRC) and other law enforcement agencies has gathered enough
information to paint a general picture as to the number of sexually oriented
offenders residing in Ohio. (As of this
writing, LSC fiscal staff is still gathering information from the Department of
Youth Services relative to juvenile sex offenders in Ohio.)
According
to the Office of the Attorney General's web site, the number of sex offenders
registered with Ohio's Electronic Sex Offender Registration and
Notification (eSORN) is currently 15,720.
This number represents a starting point for estimating the number of
sexually oriented offenders in Ohio.
According to data provided by DRC, the number of inmates released in
calendar year 2005 from state prison for committing a sexually oriented offense
was 2,154. And according to data
provided by DRC, as of July 1, 2005, there were 9,282 inmates identified as sex
offenders currently incarcerated in Ohio.
This information does not tell the complete story regarding the number
of sexually oriented offenders in Ohio, but it does demonstrate that the
potential size of this pool of individuals is rather large.
Additionally, it is
difficult to estimate the number of parents, guardians, and custodians
currently living with a child or children in which a sexually oriented offender
or juvenile also resides. Sexually
oriented offenders who are parents or youth who are sexually oriented offenders
with siblings are particularly likely to find themselves settled into living
arrangements that the bill will prohibit.
At this time, estimating the number of these cases and determining how
many offenders could or would take the steps necessary to remain in compliance
with this prohibition is rather difficult.
Local fiscal effects
County PCSAs
One result of the bill is likely to be an increase in the number
of reports of child abuse and neglect received by PCSAs and/or local law
enforcement officers. Similarly, the
bill is likely to increase the number of referrals of child abuse and neglect
made to PCSAs. While LSC fiscal staff
is not able to estimate the exact number of additional reports, or how many
additional referrals PCSAs will receive as a result of the bill, each report or
referral will likely trigger some investigative action and related costs.
The Public Children Services Association of Ohio (PCSAO) estimates
in its County Child Protection Workload Analysis that intake assessments and
interviews take an average of 14.38 hours.
The average cost for investigation activities is $98.65 per hour. Total cost for investigation activities is
$1,418.59 ($98.65/ hr x 14.38 hours).
(The average cost for report screening and intake only is $110.17
($95.80/ hr x 1.15 hours). The cost of
an investigation is paid almost entirely from local, and a fixed pool of state,
funds. Therefore, any increase in the
number of investigations and the costs associated with them are likely to be
covered almost exclusively by local funding sources (children's services levies
and/or county general funds).
From LSC fiscal staff's perspective, a handful of additional
investigation could easily generate additional annual costs for an affected
PCSA in excess of minimal. For the purposes
of this fiscal analysis, minimal means an estimated cost of more than $5,000
per year for any given county.
Once
a PCSA has completed its investigation into the treatment of a child or
children and a determination has been made regarding the status of that child
or children, current law requires the court to take one of the following
actions.
·
Place the child in
protective supervision.
·
Commit the child to the
temporary custody of a public children services agency, a private child placing
agency, either parent, a relative residing within or outside the state, or a
probation officer for placement in a certified foster home, or in any other
home approved by the court.
·
Award legal custody of the
child to either parent or to any other person who, prior to the dispositional
hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of the child or is identified
as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to the
dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings.
·
Commit the child to the
permanent custody of a public children services agency or private child placing
agency.
·
Place the child in a
planned permanent living arrangement with a public children services agency or
private child placing agency.
·
Order the removal from the
child's home until further order of the court of the person who committed abuse
against the child, who caused or allowed the child to suffer neglect, or who is
the parent, guardian, or custodian of a child who is adjudicated a dependent
child and order any person not to have contact with the child or the child's
siblings.
The costs associated with
each of the above dispositional options available to the court vary
considerably. Removing an offender from
the home can result in a reasonably low cost to the county, whereas placing a
child in a foster care setting can lead to substantial local costs. There are several different foster care settings, including family
foster care, treatment foster care, and residential and group foster care. Each setting has a different per diem
rate. A PCSA may face an increase in
placement costs should neglected children have to be removed from their
homes. A PCSA may place a child directly in a foster home or the child
may be placed through a private agency.
Each private agency negotiates its own per diem rate. The average cost for the different settings
ranges from $21.73 for a public agency foster home to $129.07 for a residential
setting. For FY 2006, the average cost
per day of foster care was $57.58. The
funding for these types of activities comes from a federal match of local
funds. As a result of the bill's
prohibition, there may be an increased demand for these types of services as
the number of neglected children increases.
The fiscal impact of these dispositional options on any given PCSA is
unclear due to the difficulty in estimating the number of potential new neglect
cases and determining the likely outcomes.
Juvenile
courts
The bill will in all
likelihood result in some increase in the number of child neglect cases
requiring the involvement of the juvenile court. After completing an investigation, in many cases the PCSA would
most likely be required to present its findings to the juvenile court and seek
an appropriate legal remedy relative to the home situation of the affected
child or children. The magnitude of the
potential impact on the caseload, and related operating expenses, of any given
juvenile court is, as of this writing, uncertain.
County and municipal criminal justice systems
By expanding the
definition of "neglected child," the bill creates the possibility
that parents, guardians, and custodians may be charged, prosecuted, and
sanctioned for violating the offense of "endangering children." A violation of this offense is generally a
misdemeanor of the first degree, which is punishable by a jail stay of not more
than 180 days and/or a fine of not more than $1,000.
Given the uncertainty
regarding the number of new child neglect cases per year that may be generated
as a result of the bill, as well as the uncertainty regarding the number of
additional individuals that may be arrested and prosecuted for violating the
offense of endangering children, it is rather difficult to assess the potential
fiscal implications for any given county or municipal criminal justice
system. Presumably, if additional
individuals are charged with a misdemeanor of the first degree, then there is a
possibility of a related increase in the local costs to prosecute, adjudicate,
defend (if the offender is indigent), and subsequently sanction any individuals
so charged. Whether those costs, if
quantifiable, will exceed minimal in any given county or municipal criminal justice
system is difficult to reliably discern at this time.
Court cost and
fine revenues
Given
the uncertainty regarding the number of new child neglect cases per year that
may be generated as a result of the bill, as well as the uncertainty regarding
the number of additional individuals that may be arrested and prosecuted for
violating the offense of endangering children, it is difficult to estimate the
additional court cost and fine revenues that might be collected and deposited
to the credit of the general fund of any affected county or municipality. It should also be noted that (1) courts
rarely impose and collect the maximum fine, and (2) collecting court costs and
fines from certain offenders can be problematic, especially in light of the
fact that many are unwilling or unable to pay.
State fiscal effects
State
expenditures
As
of this writing, it does not appear that the bill will have an immediate and
direct effect on state expenditures.
This is because (1) the amount of moneys allocated by the Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services for disbursement to PCSAs are drawn from
a fixed pool of funds, and (2) the likelihood of additional offenders being
sentenced to prison for violating the felony prohibitions of the offense of
endangering children, is relatively small.
Court cost revenues
The bill may produce a
revenue gain to the GRF and the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) in
state court costs collected from offenders who are exposed to new criminal
liability after a judgment that they have neglected a child. Following a declaration of neglect, an
individual may be prosecuted for child endangerment, a misdemeanor of the first
degree, and if convicted assessed locally collected state court costs totaling
$24 ($15 for deposit in the GRF and $9 for deposit in Fund 402).
Given the uncertainty
regarding the number of new child neglect cases per year that may be generated
as a result of the bill, as well as the uncertainty regarding the number of
additional individuals that may be arrested and prosecuted for violating the offense
of endangering children, it is difficult to estimate the additional court cost
revenue that might be collected and deposited to the credit of either state
fund per year. As noted, collecting
court costs and fines from certain offenders can be problematic, especially in
light of the fact that many are unwilling or unable to pay.