Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 (Agenda)
Item A1
A 1 is receive briefing on the cost benefit analysis on the office of parental representation and the office of child representation.
>> we have a very brief few slides we want to show you.
roger jeffries, county executive for public safety.
I'm here with leslie hill, managing attorney for the office of child representation.
laurie kennedy, the managing attorney for the office of parental representation and kimberly pierce.
we came to you about a month ago, I suppose, and gave you an update on the operations of the office -- offices of child and parental representation.
at the time we told you we were going to be working on a cost benefit analysis which we have completed and we would like to present to you the results and make a couple of recommendations.
as you recall the purpose of the -- these two offices, one were to improve the quality of representation for in the case of opr, the primary parent, in cps cases and for the children in the office of child representation.
and also to reduce the number of private attorney appointments and helping to reduce private attorney costs, which we have seen grow at pretty steep rate over the last few years.
I can tell you in a nutshell we are achieving both those goals and would like to briefly get into the highlights of that.
I'm going to pass this over to tanya mills who did this really outstanding cost benefit analysis to give you the details and then like to come back and offer recommendations going forward.
>> Commissioners, one of the first things we looked at was the quality of representation in the office of parental representation.
since inspection they had closed 65% of cases.
in these instance the child or children were returned to the primary parent or to a family member where the parent then would have ongoing contact with them.
and then specifically with the reduction of private attorney appointments between fiscal year 9 and 10 there was a decrease of 30% in private attorney appointments for the purpose of representing mothers.
and -- which was defined as a primary parent for purposes of this report.
in fiscal year 10, there was a 11% growth in new cps case filings.
so that reduction of 30% that we saw in mother appointments was 11% increase in case filings so a significant increase in private appointments.
October through June as compared to October through January of fiscal year 10, there's been a 77% increase in new c.p.s.
case filings.
the --
>> has that been statewide or just in Travis County?
>> we looked at region 7, 30-county region around us, and it -- we've noticed it here.
we don't see any trends statewide.
I don't know if the judge can speak to that.
>> I can tell you anecdotally judges across the state are saying their dockets are burdened.
certainly bexar county is one.
but I can get that number if you would like that number, what the --
>> it would be good to have for comparison, judge.
pretty interesting to know whether it's statewide.
>> 77% is a big number.
>> that's a real big number.
>> and we looked at some projections through the rest of fiscal year 11 to try to get a handle on what we thought the rest of the year might look like and we had a couple of models that ranged from 29% growth to 69 on the high end.
and we're -- we're ranging in your reports you'll see we're tracking right now about the mid, which is 60%, I believe.
one of the things to make note of though is during this time where we're having this huge growth, they have a finite number of resources within their office to represent cases and they have reached capacity to handle cases.
so during this time more appointments have been going to the private attorneys and the result will be we'll see an increase in private attorney fees associated with parental appointments for the purposes of primary parents.
and the mid model growth is 47%.
what we're projecting would be a 47% growth by the end of the year.
>> what page is that on?
>> 14.
>> 14 in your hard copy report or your bound report.
so we looked at what -- what capacity the opr would have based on their closure rates throughout the rest of the year.
and added -- added a single attorney to the office for the purpose of seeing how many more cases they could handle if they add add single attorney.
based on their closure rates what more could they take in.
adding a single attorney would allow them to take an additional 54 appointments throughout this year.
based on the average billing per case of $2,344 for the purposes of primary parent or mother representation, that would be a cost avoidance of $126,618.
we reduced that by the cost of an attorney of 84-5.
and there would be an overall cost savings or cost avoidance for the county of 42,000.
by adding an attorney to that office rather than allowing though appointments to go to the private attorneys.
>> but you could add a lawyer without support staff and the other things that lawyers need to perform?
>> yes, sir.
at this point we believe we could.
>> we will do everything in our power to make it work, your honor.
absolute we can do it.
>> do we get that commitment in blood or writing?
>> [laughter]
>> in both.
>> okay.
>> so the opr is meeting our primary objectives and we're actually recommending or would ask that the court would consider adding an attorney to the opr within f.y.
11.
that would help with this off run of cases this year and help build what we're calling manageable capacity within the opr where when whatever is going on with the new c.p.s.
case filings calms down, it's our belief that those offices could then -- or this office could then handle the majority of the parental -- primary parent appointments and there wouldn't be any need to have those go to the bar.
>> we realize it's an extraordinary request in a tough budget year, but we were compelled because we felt the county is going to have to pay it one way or the other.
one way to do it as lesser cost is add the attorney as opposed to farming it out to private attorneys.
that's why we felt we should make this recommendation.
>> have you made it to p.b.o.?
>> we have talked to p.b.o., yes, sir.
>> how is the overtime line item looking for this -- for this function?
>> overtime within these offices?
>> yeah.
>> actually we don't pay overtime.
>> we don't have overtime.
everybody is salary except for the two paralegals, your honor, and they are hourly and they are off at 5:00.
>> but we budgeted overtime for private lawyers, court appointed lawyers for these two purposes, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> a good yes is how is that overtime looking?
>> you are talking about the earmarks for the additional?
>> well, there's an amount budgeted for court appointed lawyers.
>> yes, sir.
>> for these two offices.
not for the offices themselves but court appointed lawyers because we knew we would have court appointed lawyers, right?
>> yes.
>> we budgeted some amount.
>> I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but at the beginning of the year based on analysis we did in late summer y'all put up two earmarks in f.y.
11 budget for additional private attorney time and I believe these earmarks are 400,000 apiece.
p.b.o.
feels like because of the increase in case filings we're going to eat up at least that first 400,000.
>> there needs to be another conversation with p.b.o.
we are posted for a briefing.
p.b.o.
needs to hear about this request and do the analysis for us.
one question would be what amount that we budget for overtime for court appointed lawyers and how much of that have we used.
this request would be funding for now or whenever the lawyer is hired through the end of the fiscal year.
and the longer it takes to hire the lawyer, a shorter period of time the budget would be needed.
is your budget been submitted already?
>> for the additional attorney?
>> for next year.
>> we have prepared a budget submission.
depending on --
>> this is in it for next year?
>> yes, sir, in case you decided not to go in f.y.
11.
our recommendation if we could get the attorney on in June, the county could see savings in both opr and cpr.
but if you chose to go through the budget process, we have prepared two budget requests for f.y.
12.
so depending on which way you go.
my understanding is if for 11 -- we realize we weren't posted for action today.
we were under p.b.o.'s consult we would be sending a letter making a request for the attorney for f.y.
11 based on their analysis.
>> seems to me it's easy if we're going to spend it anyway and we spend less with a regular lawyer rather than court appointed one, the easiest place to tap is the overtime budgeted.
and if there is an earmark, it's pretty much the same for us.
but the numbers are such that it makes us do it.
>> yes, sir.
>> p.b.o.
is a lot more reasonable than you think sometimes.
>> is that so?
>> when it comes back also again we just hear a briefing from you today, I'm concerned also about the disposition of the children.
especially if there is a need to have them in safe haven type situations.
I'm concerned about the c.p.s.
end of it.
how is that being worked out as far as the other end of that presentation?
how is it intertwined as far as making sure that the services for some of the children needing assistance -- because you go to these court settings, and we really don't know exactly what's going to happen to the children.
>> I can tell you what the parents -- one of the things we touted is better representation.
one of the successful outcomes on the office of parental representation is 61% of the cases closed by the opr have closed with successful outcomes as defined by children placed back with their family or parents.
>> right, but there are times that sometimes that may not be the case.
and I'm looking for those times it may not be the case.
in other words that is correct 61%, we've still got another percentage we're dealing with.
I want to get down to the need and the welfare of the children.
and sometimes it's kind of difficult to place children in a safe haven with relatives or loved ones that they know just means that, well, there maybe have to be other alternatives that may need to be looked at for that type of safe haven other than a loved one or a relative.
>> junior judge -- senior judge at juvenile court and judge burn is here as well as can answer some of those questions.
the opr and the cpr, the opr is the parent and the cpr is the child.
and representing that in the representation and in the appropriate services for the child and/or children in any case whether they should go home to family or relative or placement in residential treatment.
we're talking about the legal component to assure the needs of the children are met.
then the other part of this component is your c.p.s.
budget, your state budget which requires the funding for many of the resources that you are talking about.
>> exactly.
>> that, of course, is up right now and there are steep cuts within that budget and the senate is trying to put money back into some of that area, but we are facing a budget crises statewide and c.p.s.
no doubt is facing that crunch.
I think that's why it's so imperative that these offices do exist and that the children and the parents do have extremely good and adequate representation because it pushes the department and the state to meet its responsibilities to not remove children unless there is a danger, and if you are going to remove children to help the families get them back and/or if you are going to remove them, make sure you are making life better for them and not worse for them.
so I think from the standpoint of this budget, these offices are intended to achieve what you are talking about, but it's a much bigger picture as far as --
>> it is bigger and that's why -- you know, it's a much bigger picture than what's being presented here today.
I'm looking at the big picture because even though this is very significant, as you stated, judge, on what you stated is very significant, but at the end of the day there is someone that's going to have to maybe placed through the c.p.s.
setting whether that be, again, foster home or relative of a loved one.
at the end of the day, that's the funding that is going to be really necessary and need to be available to make sure that these children aren't lost to us as we go through this process.
so it's a big deal.
it is all across.
and I just want to make sure that wasn't left out of all of this because it's a very integral part of what we're talking about here today.
in my opinion.
>> and judge Biscoe, I wanted to address, I think there's approximately, I don't know, close to 700,000 that was originally budgeted for the private attorney fees.
that's over and above for those cases in which the offices either cannot take the cases or there's conflicts or we have an extra parent involved somewhere in there.
and then the earmark for the overages, I think that's what you are talking about is the overruns either for accruals because we're having expenses above the budgeted amount that were put back into and I think it's the reserve funding that we could pull down as needed.
I think that's a total amount of about $800,000.
and tanya, please correct me if I am wrong, aren't we somewhere in the vicinity that we're going to use up at least the first 400,000 of it, but that we still may come in within that total amount that's put into reserve even if county accruals and even with this cost increase?
>> yes.
and in talking be amanda and planning and budget, it's likely we will need some of the first 400 within this year.
but what they -- what we found that they do is the other would roll into next year to cover accruals that were expended this year, and that's really a big concern for us because there will be work performed in this year.
that will be billed out in next that's going to be difficult to capture in the budget number.
and that -- that's going to roll over as the accrual for next year.
I think that was p.b.o.s concern and certainly amanda's concern is knowing throughout this year that these offices are limited in the number of cases they can take and have been most of the fiscal year.
they've done a fantastic job grabbing cases as they could.
but -- and as we get into the summer months and see these things ramp back up, that's where we're going to see a lot spill over into the next fiscal year.
that's the concern with the earmarks and pulling them down.
>> and we deal with that every budget cycle.
>> right.
>> the attorney --
>> the money immediately is a source of funding question more than anything else.
it seems to me based on the numbers you gave us, this is something we ought to do.
at the appropriate time.
so I would take care of that as an immediate need and during the budget process we will know that there will be invoices coming in next year for work performed this year.
that was a real big issue -- was it a year ago we discussed that?
>> yes, sir.
>> I don't know that we really fixed it.
we probably understand it a whole lot better.
>> we have not fixed it, judge, but we're trying.
another thing about the office, they do eliminate the accruals.
because it's built in to the office itself so you don't have to worry so much about.
but we are working on it and tanya is still trying to make sure we're getting better numbers and continuing to make the accruals less, quote, unpredictable, which is what we're trying to achieve.
>> somebody will talk about the quality of reputation?
>> yes, sir.
>> we have two reasons, quality of reputation and we thought the cost per case might well go down.
right?
>> yes, sir.
and what we held up as the quality of representation, the office of parental representation was that disposition rate.
that kids are being put back with families and family members at a higher rate than we had seen before.
that was important quality of representation measure that we looked at.
>> and judge, darleen burns, district judge in Travis County.
I preside over most of these cases and see these lawyers as well as their staff and their other attorneys in court regularly.
I can at least tell from the bench's perspective, you are definitely seeing lawyers equipped with a great deal of legal knowledge.
I believe these office are also a resource to the private bar as well with regard to legal expertise, community resources that maybe the department of family and protective services do thought have direct access to.
you are seeing the private bar utilize these offices for questioning and resource support as well.
so I'm definitely in the courtroom seeing a raising of the bar certainly, and I believe in the reports that you have in front of you, as you can measure quality, exactly the thing that mr. Jeffries mentioned about the definition of success is can we reunify healthy families, can we keep children with biological families.
and if we can't do that safely, can we get them, children, to a permanent home sooner rather than later.
and I think you are seeing the times compress.
we've got some information about our disposition time, the final order that we've been tracking for a couple of years.
and slowly but surely that number is reducing to getting to that final order.
and that's the purpose of getting the final order is children are getting the court system out of their lives and they are getting to be kids.
and they are either in home with their mom and dad, in home with aunts, uncles, cuss continues, grandmas or in a forever adopt family that will forever be their home.
so that is the goal.
and you are seeing that number to final order slowly but surely come down.
and I can't say it totally, I don't have the data to say it's totally as a result of these offices.
I think there are numerous court systems that we're putting into place to make that happen, but I can tell you they are a key to that puzzle, getting that number down as quickly as we possibly can.
>> okay.
we interrupted the presentation of the report, I think.
>> well, I think is there anything you want to add to this?
unless you all have some further questions, again, we'll go back to p.b.o.
and consult with them and hopefully come back to you with --
>> also know where the state is on funding.
>> from the funding?
>> yes.
if there's not funding, that will definitely be a hardship for those people that aren't able to be placed in the children -- may not be able to placed in a setting that's relative such as
>> [indiscernible] or other probable places where the kids would --
>> I love this story.
I love it.
thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> one problem that came to our attention recently was the fact that a lot of these kids are placed in foster homes a long way from Travis County.
>> yes.
>> yes, sir.
in fact, in your report there's actually a map that shows placements across the state of Texas.
>> and it's still a problem is my question?
that's still a problem for us?
>> it's still a problem.
I think if you will look at the map in your materials, you are going to see the numbers of placements further away from Travis County are smaller numbers.
and I can definitely tell you many of those numbers are affiliated with where residential treatment facilities are located.
the youth that have pretty severe mental health concerns or behavioral concerns, run-away, perpetual run-away concerns or safety concerns that may compromise safety, numerous of those placements you are going to see in harris county because that's where numerous agencies are that Texas contracts with.
you are going to see some out in west Texas.
I know that foster care redesign that is going through and being touted up at the capitol right now, one of the primary focus of foster care redesign is more of a community base, an acknowledgement by the state of Texas that it is better to keep our children closer to home.
and being able to recraft their contracting methodologies so that we can get our children closer to home.
now, we are fortunate in Travis County in that we are a lot more resource rich.
I believe certainly the rural areas in our state are --
>> resource rich or just not as poor?
>> we're not as poor.
that's a good correction, judge Biscoe.
we certainly do not have enough resources for these families because their needs are complex.
but imagine what it's like out in east Texas in a very rural county of those youth are oftentimes placed 150, 200, 250 miles away from their family.
and being able to reunify families with just that geographical distance is very differences with the reentry program stand.
if one of our children is 200 miles away, that's too many.
so you will see in your map where we've got -- and I can't remember, tanya, what page is that on?
>> it's page 22 in the ocr report.
>> page 22.
it will show you exactly those regions, and miss mills did a great job capturing that with the department of family services where our children are placed.
so it is a problem.
foster care redesign, I wanted to address your question related to budgetary changes coming down for the department.
I will tell you daily it is a changing landscape at the capitol.
what we were hearing at the beginning of the session, we actually got a letter in writing from the department that all parenting services cease as of March 1.
adoption subsidies cease as of this spring time.
I can't remember what date that was.
my understanding some of that at the legislature, some of that harshness is rolling back, but I don't think we're going to really know until we know what the budget numbers are.
because they are changing constantly.
>> and judge, you are right, if the state of Texas is not stepping up to the plate for k-12 for children who are in families that are functioning, they are certainly not going to be stepping up for these children.
and we will step up.
and you have stepped up.
and I -- I thank you for what it's doing for the health of our community and what it's doing nor those children and their families.
>> it's a big deal.
>> I consider this to be a mandate for us.
we need to take care of this issue.
>> this is one mandate the state hasn't given us, we're picking it up on our own and thank you for your work.
>> travel related expenses are borne by the local governmental entity or the state?
>> we've been paying them locally.
they've been coming out of their budget.
>> and this is in a child is 200 miles away, the lawyer in order to provide effective representation really needs to visit that child.
>> that's right, your honor.
>> even though that child is --
>> I think you have to.
>> yes, we have a statutory duty to visit with our children and our clients and we meet with them before hearings and when they are placed further away, that is a significant challenge.
we do what we can when we're going to group -- when we're going to dallas, we try to do as many dallas visits at a time, but it's definitely a challenge, as you've heard today.
>> and we pay for it locally.
>> yes.
>> okay.
keep up the great work.
>> you are doing a great job.
thank you all very much.
>> judges, thanks for coming over.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
