Antecedentes históricos del cantón Zaruma

These recommendations, once fully implemented in fiscal year 2023, would have a positive fiscal impact to the State including annual savings of $148.1 million, revenue gains of $88.1 million, and a reduction of 6,516 FTEs. This impact results primarily from savings tied to serving people with IDD in the community for about a third of the cost of serving them in an SSLC; and from revenue gains tied to the sale of SSLC properties. Savings to state and federal funds would be based on approximately 43 percent state and 57 percent federal. While full implementation will take eight years, the following information and chart detail the impact in the first five years.

For Recommendation 1.1, the closure of the Austin SSLC would result in estimated annual savings of $22.6 million for operating costs once fully closed in August 2017. However, this would be phased in with savings of $7.4 million in FY 2016 based on a one-third reduction of operating costs, $11.3 million in FY 2017 based on a one-half reduction of operating costs, and the full $22.6 million in savings for all remaining years. While Sunset staff calculated savings to operations from closing the Austin SSLC based on a conservative assumption of 65 percent of the residents moving into the community at a savings of $113,000 per year, per resident, the agency should strive to move at least 80 percent of the residents to the community. The sale of the Austin SSLC property would result in a one-time revenue gain of at least $25.1 million in fiscal year 2018. No market value estimate is currently available.

The estimate assumed a gradual reduction of staff beginning with 408 FTEs in FY 2016, 618 FTEs in FY 2017, and the full 1,236 FTEs in each of the remaining years. Sunset staff estimates that 25 percent of the 760 staff that have a direct role in client care will still be employed until the SSLC’s closure, and thus eligible to receive retention bonuses of $2,000 each at an estimated cost of $380,000 in fiscal year 2017.

Department of Aging and Disability Services Staff Report Issue 1

28

May 2014 Sunset Advisory Commission

For Recommendation 1.2, the SSLC Closure Commission would cost an estimated $150,000 over fiscal years 2016 and 2017 while the commission evaluates the centers and makes decisions on closures. This estimate is based on the cost of two FTEs to support the Commission’s work and travel reimbursements for members.

For Recommendation 1.3, for this five-year estimate, the closure of three additional SSLCs would result in an estimated annual savings of $25.1 million in operating costs phased in as each facility is closed. Thus, the savings would be $25.1 million in FY 2018, $50.2 million in FY 2019, and $75.3 million in FY 2020. Assuming a year from closure to sale, two properties would be sold within this five-year period. An average of the remaining 10 SSLC property values, excluding any value for property owned by DSHS for the San Antonio and Rio Grande SSLCs and for the Austin SSLC, was calculated at $12.6 million. Thus, this estimate includes revenue gains of $12.6 million in FY 2019 and FY 2020 for each center sold. The estimate also assumes a reduction of 1,056 FTEs for each closure beginning in FY 2018, increasing to 2,112 in FY 2009 and 3,168 in FY 2020.

Department of Aging and Disability Services

Fiscal Year and Federal Funds*Savings to State

Revenue Gain to State Funds Change in Number of FTEs 2016 $7,250,000 $0 -406 2017 $10,770,000 $0 -616 2018 $47,700,000 $25,100,000 -2,292 2019 $72,800,000 $12,600,000 -3,348 2020 $97,900,000 $12,600,000 -4,404

* To avoid the loss of federal funds, the Legislature should consider reinvesting these savings to reduce the waiting list for the Home and Community-based Services program.

1 _{Sections 531.002(17) and 532.001(b)(9-21), Texas Health and Safety Code.}

2 _{Total funding includes funding for the individual centers, SSLC division at the state office, capital budget, quality assurance fee}

payment, cost pools, oversight bills, and non-SSLC divisions: Ombudsman, IT, Legal.

3 _{Mexia SSLC is the only designated forensic center, but DADS sends female offenders to the San Angelo SSLC to separate them}

from the male population at Mexia. Section 555.002, Texas Health and Safety Code.

4 _{Department of Aging and Disability Services, Annual Report on Forensic Services in State Supported Living Centers, accessed April 28,}

2014, http://www.dads.state.tx.us/News_info/publications/legislative/forensic-FY2013/2013forensicreport.pdf.

5 _{42 C.F.R. Part 483, Subpart I, Sections 483.400 to 483.480.}

6 _{Sheryl Larson et al., Residential Services for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends Through Fiscal}

Year 2011, accessed April 16, 2014, http://rtc.umn.edu/risp/docs/risp2011.

7 _{Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).}

8 _{Linda H. Parrish et al., Executive Report Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Facility Review Task Force}

(Austin: Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 1992), p. iii.

9 _{Sheryl Larson et al., Residential Services for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends Through Fiscal Year}

2011.

10 _{David Braddock et al., State of the States in Developmental Disabilities 2013: The Great Recession and Its Aftermath, 9th ed.,}

(Washington, D.C.: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2013), p. 24.

11 _{Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 824 F. 2d 372 (5th Cir. 1987).}

12 _{Linda H. Parrish et al., Executive Report Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Facility Review Task Force, pp. iii}

and 5.

13 _{Abuse means the negligent or wilful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or cruel punishment with resulting}

physical or emotional harm or pain to a resident by the resident’s caregiver, family member, or other individual who has an ongoing relationship with the resident; sexual abuse of a resident, including any involuntary or nonconsensual sexual conduct committed by the resident’s caregiver, family member, or other individual who has an ongoing relationship with the resident. Neglect means the failure to provide for one’s self the goods or services, including medical services, which are necessary to avoid physical or emotional harm or pain or the failure of a caregiver to provide such goods or services. Exploitation means the illegal or improper act or process of a caregiver, family member, or other individual who has an ongoing relationship with the resident using the resources of a resident for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain without the informed consent of the resident. Section 260A.001-.004, Texas Health and Safety Code.

14 _{Section 40.0315, Texas Human Resources Code.}

15 _{Department of Aging and Disability Services, Annual Report on Forensic Services in State Supported Living Centers.}

16 _{Linda H. Parrish et al., Executive Report Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Facility Review Task Force, p. 2.} 17 _{Legislative Budget Board, Transform State Residential Services for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, accessed April}

16, 2014, ww.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Policy_Report/Transform%20 State%20Residential%20Services%20for%20Persons%20 with%20Intellectual%20and%20Developmental%20Disabilities.pdf.

18 _{42 C.F.R. Part 489.3.}

19 _{Andrea Ball, “$1.2 million spent on consultants, yet problems linger at Austin living center.” Austin American-Statesman, April 13,}

2013.

20 _{General Land Office, State Agency Property Recommended Transactions Report to the Governor, February 2013, accessed April 25,}

2014, http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/state-lands/_documents/state-land-reports/ Governors% 20Report%202013%20-%20Full%20 Report%20-.pdf.

Department of Aging and Disability Services Staff Report Issue 1

30

issue 2

To Transition From SSLCs to the Community, People With Higher