Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
CONTENTS: |
Improves foster caregiver background checks, clarifies when a court
must order a person to be fingerprinted, establishes the retained applicant
fingerprint database |
STATE FUND |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
General Revenue Fund (GRF) |
|||
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) |
|||
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
General
Reimbursement (Fund 106)* |
|||
Revenues |
Potential gain of
uncertain magnitude from:
(1) criminal records check fees; and (2) database utilization
fees |
Potential gain of
uncertain magnitude from:
(1) criminal records check fees; and (2) database utilization
fees |
Potential gain of
uncertain magnitude from:
(1) criminal records check fees; and (2) database utilization
fees |
Expenditures |
(1) Minimal one-time
increase to establish required database and modify weekly case report
summaries; (2) ongoing operating expenses of approximately $90,000 to
maintain required database; (3) potential increase to process additional
criminal records checks, offset by related fee collections |
(1) Ongoing operating
expenses of approximately $90,000 to maintain required database;
(2) potential increase to process additional criminal records checks,
offset by related fee collections |
(1) Ongoing operating
expenses of approximately $90,000 to maintain required database;
(2) potential increase to process additional criminal records checks,
offset by related fee collections |
Various
State and Federal Funds in the Department of Job and Family Services |
|||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Expenditures |
Potential increase: (1) of over $3.5 million to extend SACWIS
to private agencies; (2) to collaborate with BCII; (3) to receive
notification of prior revocation with offsetting cost savings; (4) to
review and, if necessary, revoke a certification; (5) due to work group
involvement; (6) to adopt rules Potential minimal
decrease: (1) due to fewer day care
licensures; (2) due to fewer foster caregiver certifications and
recertifications |
Potential increase: (1) of over $3.5 million to extend SACWIS
to private agencies; (2) to receive notification of prior revocation with
offsetting cost savings; (3) to review and, if necessary, revoke a
certification; (4) due to work group involvement Potential minimal
decrease: (1) due to fewer day care
licensures; (2) due to fewer foster caregiver certifications and
recertifications |
Potential increase: (1) to receive notification of prior
revocation with offsetting cost savings; (2) to review and, if necessary,
revoke a certification; (3) due to work group involvement Potential minimal
decrease: (1) due to fewer day care
licensures; (2) due to fewer foster caregiver certifications and
recertifications |
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2007 is July 1, 2006 June 30, 2007.
* For the purposes of this
analysis, LSC fiscal staff assumes that the costs to implement and maintain the
required database, any related utilization fee revenues, and to modify weekly
case report summaires will be processsed through the General Reimbursement Fund
(Fund 106).
·
Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database. The Office of the Attorney General estimates that it will cost
approximately $40,000 to develop a Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database
(RAFD), and require two AFIS operators whose salaries and benefits are expected
to total approximately $90,000 a year.
The magnitude of the annual revenue stream that BCII might generate
annually if a database utilization fee were to be adopted is uncertain.
·
Weekly case report summaries. The Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Investigation (BCII) may incur costs associated with the need to modify and
distribute a new form to capture certain new information in the weekly report
summaries sent by clerks of courts. As of this writing, LSC fiscal staff has
acquired no information suggesting that the need to collect this additional
information will create a significant ongoing fiscal effect for BCII.
·
Criminal records checks. Presumably,
as a result of the bill, additional criminal records checks will be requested
and performed, and related records check fees will be collected. Currently, the Attorney General
charges $15 per BCII records check and an additional $24 per FBI national
records check (if applicable). The $24
pays for the $22 cost from the FBI as well as an additional $2 to pay for
BCII's administrative processing costs.
All of this cash flow activity takes place within the Attorney General's General
Reimbursement Fund (Fund 106). As of
this writing, the number of additional criminal records checks that will be
performed is uncertain, as is the magnitude of the effect on Fund 106's annual
cash flow activity.
·
Court cost revenues. If, as
assumed, the number of violations of the bill's criminal prohibitions occurring
annually statewide is relatively small, then the magnitude of the potential gain
in locally collected court cost revenues that are deposited in the state
treasury to the credit of the GRF and the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund
(Fund 402) will be negligible. For the
purposes of this fiscal analysis, a negligible revenue gain means an estimated
annual increase in state court cost collections of less than $1,000 for either
state fund.
·
Notifications of an arrest,
guilty plea, or conviction. The bill requires the
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) to work with BCII to develop
procedures and formats necessary to produce notices of the arrest, guilty plea,
or conviction for a disqualifying offense of a person connected to a
participating entity of the RAFD. This provision
will increase administrative costs for ODJFS to work with BCII.
·
Access to SACWIS. The bill removes ODJFS's
rule-making authority regarding a private child placing agency's or private
noncustodial agency's access to the database and instead statutorily permits a
private child placing agency and a private noncustodial agency to access the
information. The Department estimates that
the cost of rolling out SACWIS to the 243 private agencies could cost as much
as $7,150,000. The Department will be
conducting additional research to determine if 50% of these costs will be
eligible for federal reimbursement under Title IV-E.
·
Foster caregiver notices. This
provision requiring notification of a prior revocation and the prohibition
against ODJFS issuing a foster home certificate to the prospective foster caregiver
may have a minimal increase in administrative costs for ODJFS to receive such
notification. However, there would be
an offsetting decrease in administrative costs since ODJFS would not be
continuing the certification process if a prospective foster caregiver were to
make such notification.
·
Certification of institutions and associations for children. This provision, essentially prohibiting a type A family day care
home from also being a foster home and prohibiting a type B family day care
home from being a specialized day care home, may decrease administrative costs
of ODJFS as there may be fewer foster families to certify or recertify. However, any decrease in costs is likely to
be minimal.
·
Revocation of a foster caregiver's certificate for OVI or OVUAC
violations. The provision requiring
ODJFS to review, for possible revocation of a foster caregivers certificate if
certain crimes of household members are discovered, may increase administrative
costs for ODJFS to review and, if necessary, revoke a foster caregiver's
certificate. LSC is unable to estimate
how many foster caregiver certifications would be at risk of revocation under
the bill and the magnitude of the impact on ODJFS's administrative costs.
·
No licensure or certification if the home is a foster home. The provision in the bill
regarding licensure of type A family day care homes may decrease administrative
costs to ODJFS as it may conduct fewer licensures due to the restrictions on
being both any kind of foster home and type A day-care provider. Any decrease in administrative costs would
be minimal.
·
ODJFS work group. To the extent that those who
are involved in the work group do so in their official capacity as ODJFS
employees, the Department will incur an increase in administrative costs (time
and travel reimbursement) for those employees to participate in the work
group. ODJFS will also incur some
administrative costs in preparing the executive summary of the work group's
recommendation and distribution to the Governor and legislative leaders of the
majority party.
·
Adoption of rules. There are several provisions in the bill
that requires ODJFS to adopt rules. The Department maintains a
staff that works specifically on the formulation and codification of
rules. Therefore, any additional
administrative costs to develop the rules will be absorbed within ODJFS's
existing resources.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2007 |
FY 2008 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
County and Municipal Civil
and Criminal Justice Systems |
||||
Revenues |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, not likely to exceed minimal |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, not likely to exceed minimal |
Potential gain in court
costs and fines, not likely to exceed minimal |
|
Expenditures |
(1) Potential one-time
increase to modify databases generating weekly case report summaries; (2)
potential one-time increase to establish and equip new fingerprint areas;
(3) potential increase to staff new fingerprint areas;
(4) potential minimal increase to process additional misdemeanor cases;
(5) potential civil immunity savings effect on court operations; (6)
potential increase for additional permanent custody motions |
(1) Potential increase to
staff new fingerprint areas; (2) potential minimal increase to process
additional misdemeanor cases; (3) potential civil immunity savings effect on
court operations; (4) potential increase for additional permanent
custody motions |
(1) Potential increase to
staff new fingerprint areas; (2) potential minimal increase to process
additional misdemeanor cases; (3) potential civil immunity savings effect on
court operations; (4) potential increase for additional permanent
custody motions |
|
Public Childrens Services
Agencies |
||||
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|
Expenditures |
Potential decrease due
to: (1) sharing of records
checks; (2) fewer day care certifications Potential increase due
to: (1) FBI checks; (2) work
group involvement |
Potential decrease due
to: (1) sharing of records
checks; (2) fewer day care certifications Potential increase due
to: (1) FBI checks; (2) work group
involvement |
Potential decrease due
to: (1) sharing of records checks;
(2) fewer day care certifications Potential increase due to:
(1) FBI checks; (2) work group involvement |
|
·
Clerks of courts. The bill's
requirement that the clerks of courts add certain information to the weekly
report sent under current law to the state's Bureau of Criminal Identification
and Investigation (BCII) may necessitate one-time database modifications, the
cost of which is, as of this writing, uncertain.
·
Local law enforcement agencies. Based on conversations with the Buckeye State Sheriffs'
Association (BSSA), it appears that the bill's fingerprinting requirement
relative to a person appearing pursuant to a summons may in fact generate a
noticeable increase in the expenditures of certain local law enforcement
agencies. To effectively implement
this requirement, separate fingerprinting areas may need to be constructed, or
provided for, that are independent of the intake process for new arrests. This would mean that additional
fingerprinting machines and equipment (Webcheck, AFIS[1]
or standard ink card stations) would be necessary to accommodate persons
appearing pursuant to a summons. It
should also be noted that it is often the case that sheriffs perform most of
the fingerprinting duties within the county, as most municipal police
departments have disbanded their internal booking systems and instead rely on
the services of the sheriff. If additional AFIS machines
are needed, each affected local jurisdiction may experience a one-time cost
increase estimated at $6,200 (the cost of an AFIS machine), plus additional
costs in other staffing and related equipment costs (i.e., computer work
station, desk, and chairs).
·
County and municipal criminal justice systems generally. Each instance in which a person is charged with a violation of
one of the bill's criminal prohibitions creates an additional case that the
municipal or county criminal justice system with jurisdiction over the matter
must process. And this processing may
include additional costs to prosecute, adjudicate, defend (if the offender is
indigent), and sanction the violator.
Assuming the number of violators will not be, relatively speaking,
large, then any additional case processing and offender sanctioning costs
generated for any affected municipal or county criminal justice system would
likely be minimal at most. For the
purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal cost means an estimated annual
expenditure increase of no more than $5,000 for any affected county or
municipality.
·
Court cost and fine revenues. If, as assumed, the number of violations of the bill's criminal
prohibitions occurring annually in any given local jurisdiction is not,
relatively speaking, large, then the magnitude of the potential court cost and
fine revenues collected would be minimal at most. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a minimal revenue gain
means an estimated annual increase in court cost and fine collections of no
more than $5,000 for any affected county or municipality.
·
Civil immunity. From LSC
fiscal staff's perspective, a possible consequence of the bill's civil immunity
provision might be to reduce the filing of civil actions alleging harm in the
context of a Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database, or, if filed, such civil
actions might be more promptly adjudicated than might otherwise have been the
case. Either outcome theoretically
generates some form of operational savings realized in various involved courts
resulting from a decrease in judicial dockets and in the related workload of
other court personnel. However, the
precise magnitude of the resulting potential savings in annual operating costs
for any given court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court is, at
the time of this writing, a rather problematic calculation.
·
Confidentiality of criminal records check. The
bill adds a public children services agency to the list of who may have access
to the otherwise confidential criminal records check. The changes made by the bill will make sharing of such
information permissible, thereby reducing costs of the public agency that would
otherwise be required to request and pay for a new check.
·
Criminal records checks. The bill removes the
provision regarding the five-year period and instead requires an FBI check at
licensure, every other license renewal, certification, and every other
certification renewal, as applicable.
This provision will increase costs for PCSAs to conduct criminal records
checks. While this provision could have
a significant fiscal impact on the public agencies, it should be noted that Am.
Sub. H.B. 119 of the 127th General Assembly (main operating budget) includes
$9.0 million in general revenue funds that have been identified for supporting
the county child welfare agencies in implementing the reforms to the child
welfare system included in this bill and other pending legislation.
·
No licensure or certification if the home is a foster home. The provision in the bill
regarding certification of type B family day care homes may decrease
administrative costs to county departments of job and family services as they
may conduct fewer certifications due to the restrictions on being both a
specialized foster home and type B day-care provider. Any decrease in administrative costs would be minimal.
·
Permanent custody of a child. If, due to consideration of
time spent in temporary custody in another state, an agency were to move
forward more quickly on filing a motion requesting permanent custody, there may
be an increase in costs to the courts to entertain such motions and rule on the
case. The magnitude of this impact is
difficult to estimate since LSC was not able to obtain information on the
number of children who were in temporary custody in another state and for how
long.
·
ODJFS work group. To the extent that those who
are involved in the work group do so in their official capacity as employees of
a local government entity, those employers will incur an increase in
administrative costs (time and travel reimbursement) for those employees to
participate in the work group.
|
Criminal justice system
For the purposes of this
fiscal analysis, from a criminal justice perspective, the bill most notably:
·
Requires
clerks of courts to include additional information in the weekly report of case
summaries sent to the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation
(BCII).
·
Clarifies
that if a person or child has not been arrested and first appears before a
court or magistrate in response to a summons, the court must order the person
or child to appear before the sheriff or chief of police within 24 hours for
fingerprinting.
·
Directs
BCII to establish and maintain a Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database
(RAFD).
·
Creates
two criminal offenses associated with the improper usage of information
contained in the RAFD.
· Provides to certain officials immunity from civil liability related to the dissemination or failure to disseminate information contained in the RAFD.
·
Imposes
additional requirements relative to criminal records checks for out-of-home
care providers, foster parents, and adoptive parents.
· Permits the clerks of courts of common pleas to sign the public children services agency memorandum of understanding.
Clerks of courts and weekly
BCII reports
The bill requires the clerks
of courts to add the date of the offense, summons, or arraignment to the weekly
report sent under current law to the state's Bureau of Criminal Identification
and Investigation (BCII). During a
conversation with the Lucas County Clerk of Courts relative to this provision,
LSC fiscal staff was informed that clerks of courts might need to modify their
databases so that this additional information is captured in their weekly
report. Such modifications may result
in a one-time expense to alter computer-related applications, the cost of which
is uncertain. As of this writing,
however, LSC fiscal staff has not acquired any more precise information on how
this requirement to provide additional information will affect clerks of courts
of common pleas, municipal courts, and county courts.
BCII may also incur costs
associated with modifying and distributing new forms to include a space for the
date of offense, summons, or arraignment for each case. As
of this writing, LSC fiscal staff has acquired no information suggesting that
the need to collect this additional information will create a significant
ongoing fiscal effect for BCII.
Court-ordered fingerprinting
The
bill requires fingerprinting of a person who is not arrested, but appears in
court for any of certain offenses pursuant to a criminal summons. Based on conversations with the Buckeye State
Sheriffs' Association (BSSA), it appears that this requirement may in fact
generate a noticeable increase in the expenditures of certain local law
enforcement agencies. Apparently, it is
fairly common to issue a summons in lieu of arrest.
As the bill clarifies that the court must order the
person or child to appear before the sheriff or chief of police within 24 hours
for fingerprinting, BSSA envisions that a new system will be necessary to
accommodate these persons who appear for fingerprinting. To effectively implement this requirement,
it is BSSA's belief that separate fingerprinting areas will need to be
constructed, or provided for, that are independent of the intake process for
new arrests. Arrested individuals are
processed in secure areas and their mingling with persons who report for
fingerprinting pursuant to a summons would be strongly discouraged.
This would mean that additional
fingerprinting machines and equipment (Webcheck, AFIS[2]
or standard ink card stations) would be necessary to accommodate persons
appearing pursuant to a summons. It
should also be noted that it is often the case that sheriffs perform most of
the fingerprinting duties within the county, as most municipal police
departments have disbanded their internal booking systems and instead rely on
the services of the sheriff.
If additional AFIS machines
are needed, each affected local jurisdiction may experience a one-time cost
increase estimated at $6,200 (the cost of an AFIS machine), plus additional
costs in other staffing and related equipment costs (i.e., computer work
station, desk, and chairs).
Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database
BCII. The bill directs the Superintendent
of BCII, an organizational unit of the Office of the Attorney General, to
establish and maintain a Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database (herein
referred to as RAFD). The database is
to be kept separate and apart from all other records maintained by BCII. The purpose of the database is to notify a
participating entity when an individual who is licensed, certified, or employed
by, or volunteers with, the participating entity is arrested for, pleads guilty
to, or is convicted of an offense that would disqualify that individual from
licensure, certification, employment, or volunteering with that particular
entity. The Superintendent is required
to adopt rules relating to the administration of the RAFD, including, but not
limited to, the charging of a reasonable fee for utilizing the database.
The Office of the Attorney
General estimates that it will cost approximately $40,000 to develop the
Retained Applicant Fingerprint Database, and require two AFIS operators whose
salaries and benefits are expected to total approximately $90,000 per year.[3] The magnitude of the annual revenue stream
that BCII might generate annually if a database utilization fee were to be
adopted is uncertain.
Criminal
offenses
The bill creates two
criminal offenses associated with the improper usage of the information
contained in the RAFD as follows:
(1)
The
offense of unlawful dissemination or use of retained applicant fingerprint
database information, a violation of which is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.[4]
(2)
The
offense of harassment or intimidation using retained applicant fingerprint
database information, a violation of which is a misdemeanor of the first
degree.[5]
A misdemeanor violation
falls under the subject matter jurisdiction of a municipal court or a county
court. Thus, each instance in which a
person violates one of the above noted criminal offenses creates an additional
case that the municipal or county criminal justice system with jurisdiction
over the matter must process. And this
processing may include additional costs to prosecute, adjudicate, defend (if
the offender is indigent), and sanction the violator. As of this writing, LSC fiscal staff does not have any evidence
at hand suggesting that a relatively large number of persons would violate
these criminal offenses in any given local jurisdiction in any given year. Assuming that were true, then any additional
case processing and offender sanctioning costs generated for any affected
municipal or county criminal justice system would likely be minimal at
most. For the purposes of this fiscal
analysis, a minimal cost means an estimated annual expenditure increase of no
more than $5,000 for any affected county or municipality.
For each guilty plea or
conviction for a violation of the bill's misdemeanor offenses, the county court
or municipal court processing the matter may collect related court cost
revenues. As for any fines imposed for
such violations, the county in which the violation occurred receives any fine
revenues collected for a state-created misdemeanor, while fine revenues
collected from locally created misdemeanors (local ordinances) are forwarded to
the municipality or township where the offense was committed. If, as assumed, the number of violations
occurring annually in any given local jurisdiction were not, relatively
speaking, large, then the magnitude of that potential revenue would be minimal
at most. For the purposes of this
fiscal analysis, a minimal revenue gain means an estimated annual increase in
court cost and fine collections of no more than $5,000 for any affected county
or municipality.
As a result of violations of
the bill's criminal offenses, the state may gain locally collected court cost
revenues that are deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the GRF and
the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402). State court costs for a misdemeanor conviction total $24, with $9
of that amount being credited to the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund
402) and the remainder, or $15, being credited to the GRF. If, as assumed, the number of violations
occurring annually statewide were relatively small, then the magnitude of that
potential revenue gain for either state fund would be negligible. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, a
negligible revenue gain means an estimated annual increase in state court cost
collections of less than $1,000 for either state fund.
Civil immunity
From the
perspective of local civil justice systems, the most readily apparent effect of
the bill's immunity provision may be to reduce the number of tort claims that might
otherwise have been filed in a court of common pleas, municipal court, or
county court. An additional possibility
is that, if filed, such civil actions may be resolved more promptly than might
otherwise have been the case under current law.
From LSC fiscal staff's
perspective, a possible consequence of the bill might be to reduce the filing
of civil actions alleging harm in the context of the RAFD, or, if filed, such
civil actions might be more promptly adjudicated than might otherwise have been
the case under current law and practice.
Either outcome theoretically generates some form of operational savings
realized in various involved courts resulting from a decrease in judicial
dockets and in the related workload of other court personnel. However, the precise magnitude of the
resulting potential savings in annual operating costs for any given court of
common pleas, municipal court, or county court is, at the time of this writing,
a rather problematic calculation.
Clerk of the court of common
pleas and the memorandum of understanding
The bill permits the clerks
of courts of common pleas to sign a required memorandum of understanding to
minimize interviews of children who are the subjects of alleged child abuse. Under current law, unchanged by the bill, each public
children services agency is required to prepare a memorandum of understanding
signed by various public officials. The
memorandum must set forth the normal operating procedure for all concerned officials
in the execution of their respective responsibilities in the investigation and
prosecution of child abuse. If the
clerk signs the memorandum, the clerk must execute all relevant
responsibilities as required of officials specified in the memorandum. At the time of this writing, the potential
effect on the workload and related operating expenses of any participating
clerk of court is unclear.
Criminal background checks
The bill requires: (1) that, if an FBI check is performed as
part of BCII's criminal records check for out-of-home care providers, foster
parents, or prospective adoptive parents, it must include fingerprint based
checks of national crime information databases, and (2) requires that for a
prospective foster caregiver and any adult who resides with the foster
caregiver the check must include certain information from the FBI prior to
issuing a foster home certificate, or upon every other foster home
recertification.
Currently,
the Attorney General charges $15 per BCII records check and an additional $24
per FBI national records check (if applicable). The $24 pays for the $22 cost from the FBI as well as an
additional $2 to pay for BCII's administrative processing costs. All of this cash flow activity takes place
within the Attorney General's General Reimbursement Fund (Fund 106). Presumably, as a result of the bill,
additional criminal records checks will be requested and performed, and related
records check fees will be collected.
As of this writing, the number of additional criminal records checks
that will be performed is uncertain, as is the magnitude of the effect on Fund
106's annual cash flow activity.
Child
Welfare System
Notifications of an arrest, guilty plea, or conviction
The
bill requires the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
(ODJFS) to work with BCII to develop procedures and formats necessary to
produce notices of the arrest, guilty plea, or conviction of a disqualifying
offense of a person connected to a participating entity of the RAFD. ODJFS must also adopt rules, as if they were
internal management rules, necessary for this collaboration. Additionally, ODJFS must adopt rules that
are necessary for utilizing the information received from the Database.
Fiscal
effect This provision will increase administrative costs for ODJFS to
work with BCII and to adopt rules. With
regard to the rules, the Department maintains a staff that works specifically on the
formulation and codification of rules.
Therefore, any additional administrative costs to develop the rules
discussed here will be absorbed within ODJFS's existing resources.[6]
Access to SACWIS
ODJFS
operates a uniform statewide automated child welfare information system
(SACWIS). The information system
contains records regarding investigations of children and families and
children's care in out-of-home care,
care and treatment provided to children and families, and other
information related to children and families that state or federal law,
regulation, or rule requires ODJFS or a public children services agency to
maintain.
Current
law specifies that this information may only be accessed by ODJFS and a public
children services agency in specified circumstances. Current law, however, also gives ODJFS rule-making authority
regarding a private child placing agency's or private noncustodial agency's
access to the database.
The
bill removes ODJFS's rule-making authority regarding a private child placing
agency's or private noncustodial agency's access to the database and instead
statutorily permits a private child placing agency and a private noncustodial
agency to access the information.
Fiscal effect The Department is currently
in the process of rolling out SACWIS to the 88 county agencies and is in the
process of planning how and when to extend SACWIS to about 240 private
agencies. There are some challenges the
Department is considering, such as making sure that the private agency has the
proper computer equipment and Internet capabilities to run the system, as well
as issues like training and security.
The current plan is to have all public agencies part of SACWIS by the
end of calendar year 2007. Once that is
complete, the Department can then turn its attention to bringing the private
agencies into the system. Based on
current contract negotiations with the vendor that is conducting the rollout of
SACWIS to the public agencies, the Department estimates that the cost of
rolling out SACWIS to the 243 private agencies could cost as much as
$7,150,000. The Department will be
conducting additional research to determine if 50% of these costs will be
eligible for federal reimbursement under Title IV-E.
Criminal records checks for
out-of home care providers, foster parents, and prospective adoptive parents
Disqualifying offenses. Current law includes a list of offenses that disqualifies a
person from providing out-of-home care, being an adoptive parent, or being a
foster caregiver (of a person age 18 or older who resides with the prospective
adoptive parent or foster caregiver who has been convicted of or pleads guilty
to one of the defined offenses, the prospective adoptive parent or foster
caregiver is disqualified).[7]
The bill expands the list of
disqualifying offenses to include the following: cruelty to animals, permitting
child abuse, menacing by stalking, soliciting or providing support for act of
terrorism, making terroristic threat, terrorism, identity fraud, inciting to
violence, aggravated riot, ethnic intimidation, or state operating a vehicle
while intoxicated (OVI) or state operating a vehicle after underage consumption
(OVUAC).
The bill also prohibits the
appointing or hiring authority from appointing or employing a person as a
person responsible for a child's care in out-of-home care, ODJFS from issuing a
certificate to a prospective foster caregiver, and the probate court from
issuing a final decree of adoption or an interlocutory order of adoption making
a person an adoptive parent if the prospective appointee, employee, foster
caregiver, or adoptive parent, or any person 16 years of age or older residing
with any of those persons, has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or
adjudicated a juvenile traffic offender for committing state OVI or state OVUAC
or a violation of an existing or former law of Ohio, any other state, or the United
States that is substantially equivalent to a violation of state OVI or state
OVUAC, two or more times within the three years immediately preceding the
submission of the application or petition.
This prohibition does not apply if the person with the prior state OVI
or state OVUAC violations meets ODJFS rehabilitation standards.
Fiscal effect When BCII conducts a check, all offenses that the
person who is the subject of the check has committed appear on the report. Therefore, the additional crimes that must
be checked for under the bill will not cause any increase in costs to BCII.
The provision described
above regarding OVI and OVUAC of an individual 16 years of age or older may
cause a decrease in the number of certificates to prospective foster caregivers
issued by ODJFS and final decrees of adoption or interlocutory order of
adoption issued by the court. However,
this provision is unlikely to affect administrative costs of ODJFS and the
court since the Department and court may still do much of the work only to
discover at a later point in the process that the prospective foster caregiver
or adoptive parent is disqualified due to the offenses of a 16 year old or
older person living in the home.
Although, it is also possible that a prospective foster caregiver or
adoptive parent who knows that they would be disqualified may not apply in the
first place.
Confidentiality of criminal
records check. Under current law, a criminal records check
for an out-of-home care provider, prospective adoptive parent, or prospective
foster caregiver is not a public record under the Public Records Law. Only certain persons have authority to
access the information.
The bill adds a public
children services agency to the list of who may have access to the otherwise
confidential criminal records check.
Fiscal effect Under current law, if a
prospective adoptive parent or prospective foster caregiver was working with a
private agency that recently conducted a criminal records check on that person
and that person switches to working with the public agency, the private agency
cannot share the criminal records check with the public agency. The changes made by the bill will make
sharing of such information permissible, thereby reducing costs of the public
agency that would otherwise be required to request and pay for a new check.
Foster caregiver notices. Prior to certification as a foster caregiver, the bill requires
the foster caregiver to notify the recommending agency of the revocation of any
foster home license, certificate, or other similar authorization in another
state occurring within five years prior to the date of application to become a
foster caregiver in Ohio. If a person
has had such a revocation, ODJFS is prohibited from issuing a foster home
certificate to the prospective foster caregiver.
Fiscal effect This provision may result in
a minimal increase in administrative costs for ODJFS to receive such
notification. However, there would be
an offsetting decrease in administrative costs since ODJFS would not be
continuing the certification process if a prospective foster caregiver were to
make such notification.
Certification of
institutions and associations for children. Under continuing law, every two years, ODJFS must pass upon the
fitness of every institution and association that receives, or desires to
receive and care for children, or places children in private homes (except for
facilities under the control of the Department of Youth Services, places of
detention for children, and child day-care centers). When ODJFS is satisfied as to care given such children, and that
the requirements of the statutes and rules covering the management of such
institutions and associations are being complied with, the Department is to
issue to the institution or association a certificate to that effect.
The bill specifically
prohibits ODJFS from passing upon the fitness of, or issuing a temporary or
two-year certificate to, a prospective foster home or prospective specialized
foster home pursuant to this specific statutory authority if the prospective
foster home operates as a type A family day-care home. Additionally, the bill prohibits ODJFS from
passing upon the fitness of, or issuing a temporary or two-year certificate to,
a prospective specialized foster home if the prospective specialized foster
home operates as a type B family day-care home.
ODJFS is required by the
bill to adopt rules that require a foster caregiver or other individual
certified to operate a foster home, as described above, to notify the recommending
agency that the foster caregiver or other individual is certified to operate a
type B family day-care home. There is
not a similar requirement regarding notice that the foster caregiver operates
as a type A family day-care home.
Fiscal effect This provision may result in
a decrease in administrative costs for ODJFS, as there may be fewer foster
families to certify or recertify due to the restrictions described above. However, any decrease in costs is likely to
be minimal since a recent assessment by ODJFS revealed only 65 out of
approximately 10,300 foster homes are also child care providers (all were type
B homes). Not every one of the 65 homes
identified would necessarily have to make the choice between being a foster
home or child care provider since it is permissible for a family foster home to
also be a type B child care provider.
The bill only restricts specialized foster homes from also being a type
B day-care home.
Revocation of a foster caregiver's
certificate for OVI or OVUAC violations
The bill directs ODJFS to
review, for possible revocation, a foster caregiver's certificate if ODJFS
learns that the foster caregiver or any person 16 years of age or older who
resides with the foster caregiver has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or
adjudicated a juvenile traffic offender for committing a violation of state OVI
or state OVUAC or a violation of an existing or former law of Ohio, another
state, or the United States that is substantially equivalent to state OVI or
state OVUAC, two or more times within a three-year period. ODJFS is prohibited from revoking a foster
caregiver's certificate on this basis if the person with the state OVI or state
OVUAC violations meets ODJFS's rehabilitation standards.
Fiscal effect This provision may result in
an increase in administrative costs for ODJFS to review and if necessary revoke
a foster caregiver's certificate.
According to data provided by the Department of Public Safety, in
calendar year 2006, there were 156 individuals age 16-20 arrested for DUI who
had a previous DUI on their record. It
is not known how many of these individuals lived in a home that is a certified
family foster home. Therefore, LSC is
unable to estimate how many foster caregiver certifications would be at risk of
revocation under the bill and the magnitude of the impact on ODJFS's
administrative costs.
Search of the uniform
statewide automated child welfare system before certification as a foster home
Under current law, before
a child is placed in a foster home, an association or institution
certified to place a child into a foster home must obtain a summary report of a
search of the uniform statewide automated child welfare information system
(SACWIS).
The bill requires that before
a foster home is certified or recertified a recommending agency must
obtain this summary report from an entity that is authorized to access the
system. Based on the summary report,
and when considered within the totality of the circumstances, ODJFS may deny a
foster home certification or recertification.
ODJFS may not deny certification or recertification solely based on the
summary report.
Fiscal effect This provision affects the
timing of when a private agency must obtain a summary report of a search of
SACWIS. Currently, ODJFS handles all
requests for SACWIS searches for the public and private agencies. Once SACWIS has been rolled out to all 88
agencies, the burden on ODJFS to provide the summary reports will be lessened
as the public agencies will then be able to conduct their own searches and then
even more so once the private agencies are brought into SACWIS and are able to
conduct their own searches as well.
Provisions regarding child
day-care centers, type A homes, and type B homes
Requirement that a type B
family day-care home notify parents that the home is also certified as a foster
home. Current law requires ODJFS to adopt rules
governing the certification of type B family day-care homes. Current law also includes a list of topics
that ODJFS must address in these rules.
The bill adds to the required rules that ODJFS must adopt by specifying
that the type B family day-care rules must include requirements for the type B
home to notify parents with children in the home that the home is also
certified as a foster home.
Fiscal effect The Department maintains a
staff that works specifically on the formulation and codification of
rules. Therefore, any additional
administrative costs to develop the rules discussed here will be absorbed
within ODJFS's existing resources.[8]
Criminal records checks. Existing
law, unchanged by the bill, requires ODJFS, as part of the process of licensure
of child day-care centers and type A family day-care homes, to request BCII to
conduct a criminal records check with respect to any owner, licensee, or
administrator of a child day-care center or type A family home, and, for a type
A family home, any person 18 years of age or older who resides in the type A
home. Current law also requires the
director of a county department of job and family services, as part of the
process of certification of type B family day-care homes, to request BCII to
conduct a criminal records check with respect to any authorized provider of a
certified type B family day-care home and any person 18 years of age or older
who resides in the home.
Currently, if a person
subject to a criminal records check does not present proof that the person has
been an Ohio resident for the five-year period immediately prior to the date
upon which the criminal records check is requested or does not provide evidence
that within that five-year period BCII has requested information about the
person from the FBI in a criminal records check, then BCII must also request
information from the FBI regarding the person.
If the person does present proof of Ohio residency for the prior five
years, the criminal records check may include information from the FBI.
The bill removes the
provision regarding the five-year period and instead requires an FBI check at
licensure, every other license renewal, certification, and every other
certification renewal, as applicable.
Fiscal effect This provision will result
in increased costs for PCSAs to conduct criminal records checks. The current cost for a BCII check is $15 and
an FBI check is $24. (The FBI does not
accept all arrests and convictions and without both checks certain crimes
committed in Ohio could be missed.)
This provision not only requires both types of checks be conducted but
also that they be done more often.
While this provision could have a significant fiscal impact on the
public agencies, it should be noted that Am. Sub. H.B. 119 of the 127th General
Assembly (main operating budget) includes $9.0 million in general revenue funds
that have been identified for supporting the county child welfare agencies in
implementing the reforms to the child welfare system included in this bill and
other pending legislation.
No licensure or
certification if the home is a foster home
The bill prohibits ODJFS
from licensing a prospective type A family day-care home if that prospective
home is certified to be a foster home or specialized foster home. Additionally, the bill prohibits a county
department of job and family services from certifying a prospective type B
family day-care home if that home is certified as a specialized foster home.
Fiscal effect This provision may result in
a decrease in administrative costs to ODJFS as it may conduct fewer licensures
of type A homes due to the restrictions on being both a foster home and type A
day-care provider. However, as noted
earlier, a recent assessment by ODJFS revealed only 65 out of approximately
10,300 foster homes are also child care providers and all were type B
homes. Therefore, any decrease in
administrative costs would be minimal.
Of the 65 foster homes
identified as being certified type B home providers, it is not known how many
of those are specialized foster homes.
There could be a decrease in administrative costs to county agencies in
certifying fewer type B day-care homes.
However, since it would be some number fewer than 65, unless there is a
concentration in a particular county, the fiscal impact will be minimal.
Permanent custody of a child
who has been in the temporary custody of a public children services agency for
12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period
Under current law, if a
child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services
agencies or private child placing agencies for 12 or more months of a
consecutive 22-month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, the agency with
custody of the child, unless specified circumstances are present, must file a
motion with the court who issued the current temporary order requesting
permanent custody. If the court finds
that it is in the best interests of the child and specified circumstances are
present, the court may grant permanent custody of the child to the agency.
The bill specifies that time
spent in temporary custody in another state must be applied to the time in
temporary custody in Ohio and allows the court to consider such time when
deciding custody of the child. Unless
specified circumstances are present, if the time spent in temporary custody
equals 12 months or more of a consecutive 22-month period, the agency with
custody may file a motion requesting permanent custody.
Fiscal effect If, due to consideration of
time spent in temporary custody in another state, an agency were to move
forward more quickly on filing a motion requesting permanent custody, there may
be an increase in costs to the courts to entertain such motions and rule on the
case. The magnitude of this impact is
difficult to estimate since LSC was not able to obtain information on the
number of children who were in temporary custody in another state and for how
long.
ODJFS work group
Not later than 30 days after
the effective date of the bill, the bill requires the Director of ODJFS to
convene a work group to study and make recommendations to the Director
regarding both of the following:
(1)
Support
for positive child and family outcomes offered to public children services
agencies, private child placing agencies, and private noncustodial agencies by
ODJFS;
(2)
The
establishment of fines and sanctions for public children services agencies,
private child placing agencies, and private noncustodial agencies that do not
comply with foster care related laws or rules.
The work group must include
representatives of public children services agencies, private child placing
agencies, private noncustodial agencies, the Ohio Family Care Association, the
Ohio Association of Child Caring Agencies, the Public Children Services
Association of Ohio, the Ohio Job and Family Services Directors' Association,
the County Commissioners' Association of Ohio, foster caregivers, and current
and former foster children. By June 30,
2008, the work group must prepare a report that contains recommendations
regarding ODJFS's support for local agencies and the establishment of fines and
sanctions either in law, rule, or both.
The Director of ODJFS must review the recommendations and create an
executive summary of the recommendations for submission to the Governor, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate. The work group ceases to exist upon
submission of the executive summary.
Fiscal effect To the extent that those who
are involved in the work group do so in their official capacity as employees of
the state or a local government entity, those employers will incur an increase
in administrative costs (time and travel reimbursement) for those employees to
participate in the work group.
Presumably those who attend from private entities will do so voluntarily
at their own expense.
ODJFS will also incur some
administrative costs in preparing the executive summary of the work group's
recommendation and distribution to the Governor and legislative leaders of the
majority party.
References to former Ohio
laws and the laws of other states
The bill includes references
to existing or former laws of Ohio, any other state, or the United States that
are substantially equivalent to specified sections of the Revised Code in
provisions that:
(1)
Require
a court to enter a finding that a child for whom a public children services
agency or a private child placing agency is requesting permanent custody cannot
be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not
be placed with either parent because the parent has had parental rights
involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to
R.C. 2151.214, 2151.353, or 2151.415 or
under an existing or former law of this state, another state, or the United
States that is substantially equivalent to those sections.
(2)
Require
a court to make a determination that a public children services agency or a private
child placing agency is not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the
removal of the child from the child's home, eliminate the continued removal of
the child from the child's home, and return the child to the child's home
because the parent from whom the child was removed has had parental rights
involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child pursuant to
R.C. 2151.353, 2151.414, or 2151.415 or
under an existing or former law of this state, another state, or the United
States that is substantially equivalent to those sections.
Fiscal effect This provision will not have
a fiscal impact on the court besides the costs to consider additional factors
in the cases described above. However,
there may be an indirect increase in costs to the child welfare system in so
far as more children may come in to the state's custody when legal actions in
another state are considered.
LSC fiscal staff: Maria E. Seaman, Senior Budget Analyst
Jamie Doskocil, Senior Budget Analyst
[1]
AFIS: Automated Fingerprint Identification
System.
[2] AFIS: Automated
Fingerprint Identification System.
[3] Salary costs of AFIS Operator II: $16.05 per hour + 35% benefits = $45,069 ($90,137 for two operators).
[4] A misdemeanor of the fourth degree is punishable by a jail term of not more than 30 days, a fine of not more than $250, or both.
[5] A misdemeanor of the first degree is punishable by a jail term of not more than 6 months, a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
[6] Am. Sub. H.B. 119 of the 127th General Assembly (main operating budget) includes funding that will support state level administrative expenses for reforms to the child welfare system included in this bill and other pending legislation.
[7] For a complete list of current disqualifying offenses, see the LSC bill analysis.
[8] Am. Sub. H.B. 119 of the 127th General Assembly (main operating budget) includes funding that will support state level administrative expenses for reforms to the child welfare system included in this bill and other pending legislation.