County Information Program
2014
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
COUNTY INFORMATION PROGRAM
CONTRIBUTORS
Authors
Tim Brown
Laura V. Garcia
Laura Nicholes
Map Designer
Bruce Barr
Project Manager
Paul K. Emerson
Editor
Joel Nihlean
Cover Design
David Garcia
Printing
Raul Martinez
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the county judges, auditors, treasurers and
staff from each of the participating counties for their dedication and hard
work. Thank you again for your time and commitment to the 2014 County
Expenditures Survey.
Published August 2015.
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
Inmate Medical, Dental and Mental Health Costs
IMPACT ON COUNTIES:
By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program
What are the total expenditures for inmate
BACKGROUND
medical, dental and mental health costs in your
Expenditures over which counties have limited control
county jail?
include medical, dental and mental health costs
associated with inmates in county jails. Budgeting for
We clarified that respondents should “[i]nclude costs
these costs can be particularly tricky in counties that
associated with either a county jail or a privately run jail
have small jails, as even a single inmate with medical
holding county inmates under contract with the county.”
issues can greatly impact overall expenditures. However,
The responding counties provided the following
growing medical, dental and mental health costs concern
information on these expenditures:
every county in the state as the costs continue to grow.
Total Expenditures
To illustrate that growth, the 19th Annual Towers
Watson/National Business Group on Health Employer
60 million
Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care found that
50 million
“2013 cost trend increases remained low, but still more
than double the rate of inflation.” While this report
tracks employers’ health care strategies and practices
rather than county expenditures for jail inmates, it
serves to illustrate that health care costs continue to
drive budgets.
40 million
60 million
30 million
50 million
20 million
40 million
60 million
million
10
30 million
50 million
0
20 million
40 million
10 million
30 million
0
20800,000
million
Note that while the same
number of counties responded
52,983,962
45,711,870
45,711,870
52,983,962
2012
2013
45,711,870
2012
2013
Average Expenditures
-3% 0%
5%
10%
2004
15%
10.6
2005
8.5
2006
8.0
2007
6.0
2008
6.0
2009
7.0
2010
6.0
10700,000
million
600,000
0
500,000
800,000
400,000
700,000
300,000
600,000
200,000
500,000
800,000
100,000
400,000
700,000
0
300,000
600,000
200,000
500,000
100,000
400,000
0
3.5 million
300,000
200,000
3.0 million
100,000
2.5 million
3.5 million
million0
2.0
3.0 million
million
1.5
2.5 million
million
1.0
2.0
million
3.5
.5 million
2011
5.4
1.5
3.0 million
0
2012
5.2
.5 million
2.0
1.0
2.5 million
1.5 million0
2013
2014
4.1
4.4
1.0 million
630,761
2012
544,189
2013
630,761
544,189
2012
630,761
for each year, there is a
difference in which counties
52,983,962
responded. Henderson reported
expenditures for FY2012 only.
Potter reported expenditures
for FY2013 only. Excluding
those two counties would result
in slightly higher average
expenditures of $633,537 and
$547,169 for FY 2012 and FY
2013 respectively.
2013
544,189
2012
2013
3,042,647
2012 Deviation
2013
Standard
1,919,111
3,042,647
3,042,647
2012
2012
1,919,111
2013
1,919,111
2013
.5 million
0
2012
2013
Health care trend after plan and contribution changes
Consumer Price Index(CPI-U)
1
Aug. 2015
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
Harris
2013 pop. 4,336,853
Inmate Medical, Dental and Mental Health Costs (continued)
35,000,000
The 2013 population
30,000,000
estimate is from the
25,000,000
U.S. Census Bureau.
Expenditure data for 2009,
20,000,000
15,000,000
2010 and 2011 comes from
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Bell
Expenditures Survey which
contained the
3,500,000
2013 pop. 326,843
the 2012 TAC County
same question.
3,000,000
CONCLUSION:
Just as employee health
2,500,000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
care costs continue to
grow, so to do inmate
medical, dental and
Bastrop
2013 pop. 75,825
600,000
mental health care costs.
However, while businesses
500,000
can choose to reduce their
staffing levels, counties
400,000
have significantly less
Andrews
2013 pop. 16,799
300,000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
ability to control the
number of individuals
35,000
they must cover. As
30,000
a result, while there
25,000
may well be short term
20,000
fluctuations, both up and
down, inmate medical,
15,000
10,000
dental and mental health
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
care costs can be expected
to continue growing over
80,000
the long term.
Crane
2013 pop. 4,773
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2
2013
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
Legal Representation Costs in Child
Protection Cases
By Laura V. Garcia, Deputy Legislative Director
BACKGROUND
In many child abuse investigations, the Texas Department
of Family and Protective Services will seek removal of
the child from the household in order to protect the child’s
safety. This removal, which is sought in state court,
requires the appointment of counsel for the child, as well as
indigent parents.1
The costs associated with court appointed attorneys
for indigent parents and their children in these child
Loving County
Harris County
Population 95
Population 4.337 million
With 254 diverse counties, ranging from just under 100 in
population to over 4 million, expenditures for court appointed
attorneys in these cases vary from county to county.
Population is just one factor that may affect the amount of
expenditures. Other factors that can affect expenditures
are the number of actual cases filed, which can sometimes
increase dramatically in extraordinary circumstances; the
amount of compensation for the attorneys; as well as the
number of attorneys appointed in each case.
protection cases are borne entirely by counties, and the
state does not provide any funding. The mandate is
$4,964,256 (’10)
an increasingly significant cost driver for many
$4,620,010 (’09)
Texas counties.
$4,702,005 (’13)
$4,804,249 (’11)
$4,505,341 (’12)
Harris County
IMPACT ON COUNTIES:
pop. 4, 336,853
What are the total county costs for court appointed
$294,972 (’12)
attorneys in family law cases?
$295,672 (’13)
$191,990 (’10)
$179,503 (’09)
Number of Counties
79
80
FY of Expenditures
2012
2013
$193,990 (’11)
Jefferson County
pop. 252,358
$482,550 (’10)
$14,472,001.74
of these attorney
$458,531 (’11)
$352,000 (’09)
$14,838,464.98
$223,737 (’12)
Bastrop County
Average Expenditures
$183,189.90
pop. 75,825
$185,480.81
$58,502 (’10)
It should be noted that the total statewide expenditures reported in the table
above only reflect the costs incurred by 79-80 counties out of 254. Costs for
some of the more populous counties are not included, so the figures do not
provide a complete representation of total statewide costs. Additionally,
some counties may combine these costs with those associated with appointed
counsel in criminal cases. Consequently, it is difficult to ascertain exact
expenditures for all counties.
1
cost driver for many
the expenses incurred
by counties to provide
for indigent defendants
in criminal cases. It is
$9,824 (’12)
$5,940 (’13)
$4,600 (’10)
becoming a significant
court appointed counsel
pop. 26,926
$6,375 (’11)
Dickens County
pop. 2,291
Tex. Fam. Code §§ 107.012 and 107.013.
$64,791 (’13)
Uvalde County
$1,819 (’09)
_____________________
$88,709 (’12)
appointments is
counties — much like
$47,575 (’11)
$31,233 (’09)
As illustrated here, some counties
have experienced an increase
in costs for court appointed
attorneys in child protection
cases, while others have seen
costs hold steady or decrease.
Ultimately, the cost
$309,666 (’13)
Total Expenditures
Because expenditures vary from
county to county, it is difficult
to select a sampling of counties to
illustrate any trends statewide.
The expenditures from the
following counties are presented
as examples only.
a significant unfunded
mandate for counties
that will likely continue
to strain county budgets
in the years to come.
3
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
State Juvenile Justice Savings Increase
County Costs
By Laura Nicholes, Legislative Liaison
Expenditure Survey that demonstrate noticeable
variations in funding based on county resource availability
BACKGROUND
and community/juvenile offender need:
More and more juveniles are being supervised and treated
in communities, and counties are increasingly feeling the
Bastrop County
pressure to help fund local programs to serve the increased
$158,403 (’13)
CONCLUSION:
$115,500 (’09)
number of local offenders that would have been otherwise
A pattern has been
under state jurisdiction. Counties must provide a minimum
$76,000 (’12)
established by statewide
level of support for juvenile probation departments (based
Coryell County
on their 2006 expenditures for juvenile probation), however,
policymakers to cut
$145,231 (’12)
support of community programs is a discretionary item
programs or funding for
$138,603 (’13)
in the county budget and contributions may increase or
programs that still need to
be administered (often at
$16,453 (’09)
decrease according to the available resources and local
the local level) to accomplish
demands placed on the county.
an end goal of “justice
Dickens County
In 2007, the Legislature prohibited misdemeanor
reforms” or “saving taxpayer
$4,165 (’12)
money.” While these goals
offenders from being sent to the Texas Youth Commission
(TYC) and data reflected an increase in funding from
$855 (’13)
may appear to save taxpayer
money at the state level, the
counties; juvenile probation departments experienced an
Henderson County
unanticipated loss of federal grant money that helped with
burden trickles down to the
local level where property
$97,696 (’09)
placement of children. Counties had to make up that loss
taxes are the only source of
of revenue in 2008 and it continues to affect the budgets
$0 (’12)
and range of services in many smaller counties. In 2009,
the Legislature appropriated about $50 million in grant
Kaufman County
funds to establish new programs to serve juveniles in their
$0 (’13)
funding to make up what
the state just “saved.” With
several juvenile justice
$288,000 (’12)
home communities and divert more commitments from
$172,812 (’13)
topics on the table in 2015,
including raising the age
TYC. Since then, several state operated youth prisons have
of juvenile jurisdiction
$35,000 (’09)
closed, and the target numbers for committing youth to
state facilities has fallen to 1,100 per year.
Midland County
How much did the county contribute for support of
$110,500 (’13)
$101,500 (’12)
community programs directed to the housing, care,
which will increase juvenile
caseloads and require more
specialized community
treatment and programming
$54,000 (’09)
school, rehabilitation and treatment of youths?
for older, higher-need
Young County
SURVEY RESULTS:
$481,297 (’13)
offenders, this will
continue to be a category of
As mentioned above, the funding for Community Youth
expenditures to monitor.
Programs is discretionary and fluctuates according to
$116,953 (’12)
the demands of the county budget. Below are several
examples submitted in response to the 2014 County
4
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
County Jails are Not Mental Hospitals!
By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program
Local Mental Health Authority Service Area
July 2007
BACKGROUND
The economic impact of mental illness on state and local
governments in Texas is believed to be more than $1.5
Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Lipscomb
Hartley
Moore Hutchinson Roberts Hemphill
Potter
Oldham
Deaf Smith
billion per year.1
Gray
Carson
Wheeler
Randall Armstrong Donley Collingsworth
Castro Swisher
Parmer
Bailey
More than 4.3 million Texans, including 1.2
Lamb
Hale
Hall Childress
Briscoe
Cottle
Motley
Floyd
Cochran Hockley Lubbock Crosby
Dickens King
Hardeman
Wilbarger
Wichita
Foard
Knox
Clay
Montague Cooke
Archer
Baylor
Grayson
Lamar
Red River
Fannin
Bowie
Delta
million children, live with some form of
Yoakum
mental health disorder. Of this number, 1.5
million Texans cannot function at work,
Dallam
Terry
Gaines
Andrews
El Paso
school or in the community due to their illness. During the
Loving
Hudspeth
last 10 years, reduced state funding has eroded Texas’
Culberson
Winkler
Ward
Reeves
Crane
Garza
Dawson Borden
Scurry
Martin Howard
Upton
Reagan
Nolan Taylor
Irion
Crockett
Coke
availability of services declined, these patients, insured
Brewster
Tom
Green
Schleicher
Mills
Concho
McCulloch
Menard
Kinney
emergency rooms. Texas’ prison and jail systems also
Maverick
Uvalde
Kendall
Bandera
Frio
Austin Waller
Colorado
Tyler
Polk
Harris
Fort Bend
Wharton
De Witt
Karnes
Duval
Live Oak
Galveston
Jasper
Hardin
Orange
Jefferson
Chambers
Galveston
Brazoria
Bee
Jackson Matagorda
Victoria
Calhoun
Refugio
Aransas
San Patricio
Jim
Wells Nueces
Kleberg
Zapata Jim Hogg Brooks Kenedy
Starr
More recently, the Texas Legislature found the means to
Fayette
Bexar Guadalupe Gonzales Lavaca
La Salle McMullen
Webb
Local Mental Health Authority
Community Center
Bastrop
Caldwell
Wilson
Newton
Trinity
Walker
Goliad
Dimmit
psychiatric bed or community help to become available.2
Williamson
Atascosa
Brazos
Shelby
NacogdochesSan
Angelina Augustine
Sabine
San
Grimes
Jacinto
Burleson
Montgomery
Lee
Liberty
Washington
Travis
Comal
Houston
Robertson Madison
Milam
Hays
Cherokee
Anderson
Leon
Falls
Bell
Burnet
Medina
Zavala
Navarro
Freestone
McLennan Limestone
Coryell
Gillespie Blanco
Kerr
Real
Llano
FranklinTitus
Hopkins
Morris Cass
Hunt
Camp
Marion
Rockwall Rains
Wood Upshur
Dallas
Harrison
Van
Kaufman
Zandt
Gregg
Smith
Ellis
Rusk Panola
Henderson
Collin
Hill
Bosque
San Saba Lampasas
Mason
Kimble
Edwards
and uninsured alike, had to seek care in hospital
warehouse mentally ill patients who are waiting for a
Erath
Comanche
Runnels Coleman Brown
Hamilton
Sutton
Val Verde
Hood Johnson
Somervell
Eastland
Callahan
Terrell
Presidio
Denton
Wise
Stephens
Jones Shackleford
Palo Pinto Parker Tarrant
Fisher
Mitchell
Midland Glasscock
Sterling
Pecos
Jeff Davis
ability to care for patients with mental disorders. As the
Ector
Lynn
Jack
Kent Stonewall Haskell Throckmorton Young
Hidalgo
Willacy
Cameron
increase state funding during the 83rd legislative session.
Each MHMR center is a unit of local government with its
Local Mental Health Authorities in Texas
own governing board representing local entities such as
In 1965, the state Legislature passed the Texas Mental
counties, cities, hospital districts and school districts.
Health and Mental Retardation Act, which established
the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental
Counties have the option of providing funds directly to the
Retardation (MHMR) and authorized local entities to
local MHMR center when budgets allow. Unsurprisingly,
assume responsibility for the administration of MHMR
the level of county funding to local centers fluctuates from
services. The act facilitated a partnership among the state,
year to year as county budget priorities shift.
local agencies and the federal government. At the time,
the federal government provided more than 50 percent of
Local MHMR centers also receive funding from the state
funding for the new local centers.
and other sources. The 2007 and 2009 Legislatures
appropriated millions of dollars each biennium toward
Today, there are 39 local MHMR centers, also called
redesigning the way mental health crisis services are
Community Centers or Local Mental Health Authorities
delivered at the local level. However, as of FY 2011, local
(LMHAs), in Texas providing services in all 254 counties to
funds accounted for 13 percent of total LMHA funding.3
residents who have serious and persistent mental illnesses,
As more consumers are served through increased state
intellectual and developmental disabilities or substance
funding, the amount needed to continue serving the mental
abuse disorders.
health needs of communities has also increased.
5
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
County Jails are Not Mental Hospitals! (continued)
While the majority of the need appears to be in
The two following charts show the growing need among
the adult population, mental health disorders also
the adult and child populations respectively. 8
affect Texas’ children.
WAITING LIST FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, ADULTS
44 percent of all young people sent to
the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
12000
in FY 2011 had a need for treatment by
10000
a licensed or specially trained provider
8000
75 percent of all young people sent to
6000
the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
8369
4798
a licensed or specially trained provider
2000
for alcohol or other drug dependency or
0
2251
2439
23%
1237
4
35%
32%
30%
29%
27%
24%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total Number on Waiting List
2009
2010
2011
2012
30
20%
Percent on the Waiting List Who Are Under-Served
(Waiting for More Intensive Services)
Providing mental health services is very costly for
the state, with total state funding in 2009 reaching
40
38%
2763
60
50
6462
4000
in FY 2011 had a need for treatment by
WAITING LIST FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, CHILDREN
$763 million.5 During the 82nd legislative session, the
Legislature increased overall funding for mental health
600
by $52.2 million and increased General Revenue funding
100
76%
500
for mental health by $46.6 million in order to maintain
2010-11 levels of capacity.
70
10374
9499
for a mental health related issue and
abuse.
80
76%
524
455
400
6
60
300
23%
200
The Texas Senate Committee
on Health and Human Services,
Interim Report to the 83rd
Legislature states, “Despite this
increase in funding, there are still
significant mental health needs in
our state that must be addressed
involving capacity and access to
services, service delivery, outcomes
and costly infrastructure within our
80
38%
217
241
301
35%
30%
297
262
222
40
27%
100
29%
32%
110
20
24%
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total Number on Waiting List
2009
2010
2011
2012
0%
Percent on the Waiting List Who Are Under-Served
(Waiting for More Intensive Services)
Note that while the percentage of those on the waiting
list who are under-served has decreased dramatically,
the actual numbers have risen dramatically for adults, as
seen below in the third chart.9
state hospital system.”
6
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
3500
IMPACT ON COUNTIES:
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ON THE WAITING LIST
FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
At the local level, historically low state funding for
mental health over an extended period resulted in a lack
3112
3000
of sufficient beds at state hospitals. As a consequence,
2500
the Harris County Jail became the de facto largest state
2427
2280
2068
2000
mental hospital in Texas.11
1679
1500
1000
Today, an increasing number of defendants with severe
940
855
561
500
0
mental illness need court-ordered services at the state
746
101
2004
169
2005
101
2006
Adults
69
2007
173
2008
mental hospitals. A commitment to a state hospital by
136
2009
114
2010
42
71
2011
2012
a criminal court is known as a “forensic commitment.”
Unfortunately, the number of forensic commitments often
Children
exceeds the number of forensic beds, and defendants are
forced to wait in the county jails – often for months –
In 2013, the 83rd legislative session produced significant
until a bed becomes available.12
gains for mental health and substance abuse care in
SURVEY RESULTS
the state. The 2014-2015 Department of State Health
What was the county’s total financial support
Services (DSHS) budget increased to $2.6 billion (All
to the local Mental Health/Mental Retardation
Funds) for the public mental health system, of which $1.7
(MHMR) centers?
billion is state General Revenue.
25,000,000
$24,526,574.51
$24,368,247.30
20,000,000
“This welcome attention ends
a decade-long period of limited
funding, and may move Texas
out of the bottom rankings for
per capita behavioral health
spending … for Texas to maximize
progress toward a healthier and
more productive population,
this new level of funding
must be maintained by future
legislatures.”10
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
$2,201,875.07
0
$2,236,173.26
$295,500.90
2012
Number of counties: 83
Total Expenditures
$297,173.75
2013
Number of counties: 82
Average Expenditures
Standard Deviation
Note: There are a different number of counties responding for
each year. For this question, the reason is simply that one county,
Henderson, provided expenditures for 2012 but not for 2013.
As can be seen, standard deviation far exceeded the
average for either year; it is provided as an indicator of
– Katharine Ligon of the Center
for Public Policy Priorities.
how different expenditures are from county to county as
a result of which it is impossible to pick out a “typical”
county. With that caveat in mind, expenditures from the
following counties are presented as examples only.
7
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
County Jails are Not Mental Hospitals! (continued)
$23,397,854 (’09)
$22,304,752 (’11)
$20,264,411 (’13)
$22,862,844 (’10)
$20,077,077 (’12)
Harris County
pop. 4, 336,853
$265,000 (’09)
$265,000 (’11)
$265,000 (’10)
$265,000 (’13)
$265,000 (’12)
Bell County
pop. 326,843
In most of the
session by addressing the need for greater state funding;
counties above,
state funding for mental health services must continue
expenditures were
to grow to meet not only current demands but also
subject to sudden
increased future demands. The number of forensic beds
changes from year
must be increased so that inmates with mental health
to year. For example,
needs can be moved from the county jails to those
Borden, the smallest
facilities where they can get the help they require –
county in the table
county jails should not be used as de facto state
by population, had
mental hospitals.
significant spikes,
__________________
both up and down,
in expenditures. At
$8,000 (’09)
$8,000 (’11)
$6,944 (’13)
$8,000 (’10)
“Mental Health Funding” Texas Medical Association, accessed September 29, 2014,
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=6491
1
the other end of the
2
population spectrum,
$6,422 (’12)
Bastrop County
pop. 75,825
Public Consulting Group, Analysis of the Texas Public Behavioral Health System:
Report to the State of Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Department
of State Health Services, June, 2012, p. 9 in Texas Senate Committee on Health and
Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 2012, p. 96.
3
Harris experienced
multi-million
dollar adjustments
$9,000 (’13)
$8,855 (’09)
$7,500 (’11)
$7,896 (’10)
$5,175 (’12)
Andrews County
pop. 16,799
$1,250 (’10)
$0 (’13)
$0 (’09)
$0 (’12)
Borden County
pop. 637
“Texas Facts,” Mental Health Connection of Tarrant County, accessed September 29,
2014, http://www.mentalhealthconnection.org/tx_facts.php.
4
from year-to-year
although these were
Public Consulting Group, Analysis of the Texas Public Behavioral Health System:
Report to the State of Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Department
of State Health Services, June, 2012, p. 115 in Texas Senate Committee on Health and
Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 2012, p. 96.
5
relatively small
percentage changes.
6
CONCLUSION
House Bill 1, 82nd Regular Session, 2011 (Pitts/Ogden).
Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd
Legislature, December 2012, p. 96.
7
While the state
$1,250 (’11)
Ibid.
made some
Recreated using data found in Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human
Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 2012, pp. 106-107.
8
improvements in
Numbers calculated by TAC using data found in Texas Senate Committee on Health
and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 2012, pp. 106107.
9
funding during 2013,
this followed an
10
extended period of
funding that could be described as lackluster at best. As
Ligon, p. 7.
Amanda Jones, Mental Health Services in Texas: Reforming a Crisis-driven System,
MS PowerPoint presentation accessed September 29, 2014, at http://www.onevoicetexas.
org/13-Mental%20Health%20Services%20in%20TX-%20Reforming%20a%20Crisis%20
Driven%20System.pdf.
11
a consequence, Texas currently lacks the infrastructure
to deal with the growing number of adults and children
12
who need mental health services. The state’s recent
funding increase has offset this to a small extent, but
the depth of the problem ensures that it will be years
before all of the mentally ill inmates can be moved out of
county jails.
And that goal will require future legislators continue
to carry the baton passed during the 83rd legislative
8
Jones, p. 5.
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
What Counties are Spending on Information Technology
By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program
BACKGROUND
For the 2014 County Expenditures Survey, we added a
Average Annual Expenditures on Information Technology
2012-2013
new question, seeking to better understand information
60,000,000
technology expenditures. Unlike previous versions of this
$56,425,616
years, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 in this case.
Eighty-three counties replied to the survey with total
information technology expenditures for fiscal year 2013.
$55,064,418
survey, each question asked for expenditures for only two
50,000,000
One of those responding counties, Henderson, provided
data for fiscal year 2012 but not for fiscal year 2013.
What were your total Information Technology
expenditures including website, email, hardware,
40,000,000
software and personnel?
As a group, the 83 responding counties saw their average
information technology expenditures increase 10.1 percent
from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014. Given that the
data only covered two years, no trend could be determined.
30,000,000
While expenditures remained fairly stable over the period,
it seems reasonable to expect these expenditures generally
to climb over the coming years.
One side effect of using a logarithmic scale is that relatively
minor year-to-year fluctuations become more difficult to see
20,000,000
in the chart.
Using a logarithmic scale allows us to include the average
annual expenditures for all county brackets in a single
chart. Otherwise we’d have to use two charts as the average
Smallest Counties – Bracket E: Average expenditures
for information technology decreased 1.7 percent from
1-10,000
E
10,001-25,000
D
$689,148
$610,160
$168,167
0
$166,220
a factor of ten (for example: 1, 10, 100 rather than 1, 2, 3).
$35,092
line as height increases in this chart, the value increases by
$35,686
largest counties (over $55 million per year). At each step or
25,001-100,000
C
$3,121,056
$35,000 per year) are so much lower than the values for the
$2,604,889
10,000,000
annual expenditures for the smallest counties (around
100,001-1,000,000
B
Counties Grouped by 2013 Population Estimate.
$35,686 in fiscal year 2012 to $35,092 in fiscal year 2013 in
2012
counties with less than 10,000 residents.
9
2013
>1,000,001
A
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
What Counties are Spending on Information Technology (continued)
Small Counties – Bracket D: Expenditures for
capabilities can come from both federal and state
information technology in counties of between 10,000 and
government through both legislation and rule-making.
25,000 increased 1.2 percent from $166,220 to $168,167.
Along with these mandates, pressure to enhance
technical capacity can come from people residing in the
Mid-Sized Counties – Bracket C: Counties with
county, or even those who reside elsewhere but none-the-
populations between 25,000 and 100,000 saw their
less access county services.
average expenditures increase 12.9 percent from
CONCLUSION:
$610,160 to $689,148.
Annual technology costs appear to be fairly stable over
Large Urban Counties – Bracket B: the largest
the two years for which we have data with fluctuations of
percentage increase, 19.8 percent, occurred in counties
less than 20 percent for any bracket of counties. However,
with populations between 100,000 and one million as
given the impossibility of determining trends from only
average expenditures rose from $2.6 million to $3.1
two years of expenditures, it remains to be seen whether
million. While this bracket has the largest percentage
or not that stability continues as costs are expected to
change in average annual expenditures, no trend can be
rise in the future.
determined given that the data only covers two years.
Largest Urban Counties – Bracket A: Only one
county, Harris, of more than a million population
responded to our 2014 County Expenditure Survey. Their
expenditures on information technology fell from $56.4
million to $55.1 million – a drop of 2.4 percent.
While a two-year period is far too short a time frame
from which to determine any trends, there is no
doubt that counties will continue to see expenses
for information technology. From Moore’s Law (an
observation that the number of transistors in an
integrated circuit doubles approximately every two
years), one expects constant improvement in technical
capabilities. However, it also points to constant
obsolescence as hardware that was state of the art a
few years ago is far too slow to run today’s software.
Similarly, technical personnel need to constantly
upgrade their skills just to keep their heads above water.
All of which results in continuing expenses for counties
just to stay current.
Attempts to actually expand a county’s technical
capabilities via hardware, software or personnel result
in increased costs. Mandates to expand technical
10
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
Will Juvenile Probation Costs Continue to Trend Higher?
By Laura Nicholes, Legislative Liaison
A pattern of increased county taxpayer funding of local
juvenile probation departments has been established as a
result of policymaking at the statewide level.
BACKGROUND
Juvenile probation services are administered at the local
level and must adhere to standards set by the state that
address constitutional protections and the well-being of
juveniles, as well as the safety of those working
with juveniles. Services are administered
locally, with state oversight, and funded by
a combination of both state appropriations
and local funds. In addition, various grant
opportunities exist to provide a third source of
funding for juvenile probation.
In 1995, state reforms came with a mandate
that county governments fund local juvenile
probation departments with, at a minimum,
the amount they provided in 1994. In 2006,
that floor-level was increased to the amount
appropriated in 2006. County support may
increase or decrease according to the county’s
available resources and other local demands, but
it cannot dip below the amount funded in 2006.
On the 2014 County Expenditure Survey, 82 counties
reported spending $119,178,389.75 on the operations
of juvenile probation departments in 2012.
On the same survey, 83 counties reported
expenditures of $127,310,076 for juvenile
probation in 2013.
Although this represents an increase of more
than $8 million dollars in one year, $2.9
million of that increase occurred in Ector
County, which was unable to provide their
2012 data. Thus, 82 of the 254 counties in
Texas increased expenditures on juvenile
probation by $5.1 million in a single year!
Statewide, approximately
70 percent of funding
for juvenile departments CONCLUSION:
currently comes from We can expect the Legislature to continue to
county general funds. focus on the statewide budget and initiatives
that will impact county expenditures for
juvenile justice, courts, jails, detention centers
and local service delivery systems.
In 2007 and 2008, county juvenile probation departments
experienced a loss in Federal Title IV-E Foster Care
administrative grant funding and struggled to fill the
unanticipated gaps in their budgets. Also in 2007, the
Texas Legislature prohibited juvenile misdemeanor
offenders from being placed in the Texas Youth Commission
(TYC). As a result, juvenile probation caseloads and county
funding requirements increased. In 2009, the Legislature
directed juvenile departments to further curb the number
of offenders committed to TYC by supervising them and
providing them treatment in their home communities.
(It should be noted that the Legislature provided grant
funding for counties demonstrating a plan for new
treatment and rehabilitative “TYC diversion” programs).
One initiative on the table during the 84th Session has
been raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 17 to 18
years of age. Should the state decide to raise the age and
place 17-year-olds under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
justice system, there will be a shift in caseloads from
criminal district courts to juvenile courts and a shift from
adult probation caseloads to juvenile probation caseloads.
An increase in caseloads and population in juvenile
detention facilities would require additional staffing and
an anticipated higher level of supervision, treatment and
diversion programs for older defendants. However, raising
the age of jurisdiction from 17 to 18 years old would have a
positive impact on county jail operations and the challenges
presented by housing a population of inmates that the
Texas Family Code and federal codes still require to be
accommodated as juveniles.
SURVEY RESULTS:
What were the county’s total expenditures for
juvenile probation (do not include grant money or
state appropriations)?
11
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
Fuel Costs Severely Impact Counties
By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program
However, counties do not collect severance taxes. They
collect property taxes, which may allow counties to raise
BACKGROUND
additional revenue but only if they are willing or even able
The sudden spike in fuel prices during 2008 made many
to raise their property tax rates. State law requires
people aware of how county services, like many businesses,
counties to lower their effective property tax rate when
are dependent on the cost of commodities such as oil and
total county property values increase due to higher
construction supplies. While per gallon fuel costs have
valuation for mineral properties. (The effective tax rate is,
retreated to some extent, they remain highly variable and
basically, the rate counties can adopt to bring in the same
counties are still forced to spend much more for fuel than in
property taxes as they levied in the prior year.) As a result,
the past.
only by adopting a tax rate higher than the effective tax
No additional property tax revenue.
Severance taxes collected by the state from the Permian
Basin, Eagle Ford Shale and other parts of Texas continue
to swell state coffers.
12 million
$11.07
$8.46
taxes ) can the county obtain additional tax revenue with
which they can pay salaries for additional deputies and
other county services required locally by the expanding
commercial activity.
Rainy Day Fund, Historic and
Projected Balances
10 million
rate (which requires a commissioners’ court vote to raise
Plus costs rise faster than inflation.
In addition, counties not only purchase gasoline and diesel
for patrol cars, road graders and other vehicles, they also
purchase other petroleum products such as asphalt.
$8.48
PPI-ASPHALT COMPARED TO CPI-ALL ITEMS 2003-2013
8 million
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
6 million
300
4 million
250
2 million
0
End of Feb. 2015
Aug. 31, 2015
Aug. 31, 2017
Note: Balances for future dates are projected.
100
$16.1
$16.7
50
$14.1
0
10 million
2003
2004
2005
PPI - Asphalt At Refinery
5 million
0
PPI: 209.4%
CPI: 26.6%
150
20 million
15 million
200
Curent
2016-17
budget cycle
2018-19
budget cycle
Note: The current cap is 10 percent of this two-year cycle’s budget (using a certain
measurement that omits about $60 billion of spending.)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
CPI- All Items
This chart compares the change in the Producer Price Index (PPI)
for asphalt to the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from
2003 to 2013; the PPI from prior years is not available for asphalt.
Sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Legislative Budget Board
12
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
ANNUAL GASOLINE AND DIESEL PRICES IN GULF COAST STATES
IN 2003 DOLLARS
$3.50
IMPACT ON COUNTIES:
From the U.S. Energy Information Agency
To find out how much counties have been spending
on fuel, we asked them, for Fiscal Years 2012 and
$3.00
2013, “What are your total county fuel costs?”
$2.50
Gasoline: 78.9%
Diesel: 108.5%
$2.00
Reported total fuel expenditures followed a similar
pattern to that shown in the previous chart by decreasing
$1.50
slightly from FY 2012 to FY 2013. The responding counties
$1.00
provided the following information on expenditures:
Gulf Coast Includes: Alabama, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas.
$0.50
$0.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Retail Gasoline - Adjusted for Inflation
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Diesel - Adjusted for Inflation
While not as dramatic as the 209 percent increase shown on
the previous page, the cost of gasoline and diesel has also risen
dramatically as seen in the following chart. It shows the change
in prices for these commodities, after adjusting for inflation, from
2003 to 2013.
Number of Counties
83
83
FY of Expenditures
2012
2013
Total Expenditures
$65,602,484.17
$62,749,408.11
Average Expenditures
$790,391.38
$756,016.97
Standard Deviation
$2,750,360.75
$2,532,427.45
Note that while the same number of counties responded for each
year, there is a difference in which counties responded. Henderson
County provided a response for FY 2012 only while Potter County
provided expenditures for FY 2013 only. Without the expenditure
data from those two counties, the average expenditures would
still increase for both years ($65,003,822.17 in FY 2012 and
$62,252,287.11 in FY 2013).
Prices for both commodities rose over the period; however,
diesel prices rose significantly more than gasoline. Of
course, overall fuel expenditures can increase even when
unit prices are decreasing, since total fuel costs are a
function of both price and volume. The chart gives some
sense of the difficulty posed for county officials who
As the table indicates, standard deviation far exceeded the
attempted to budget their fuel costs months before their
average for either year by a factor of almost four to one; it is
fiscal years began: large increases occurred from 2007-08,
provided as an indicator of how different expenditures are
2009-10 and 2010-11 while a rapid drop in price occurred
from county to county, making it impossible to pick out a
over 2008-09.
“typical” county. Keeping that caveat in mind, expenditures
from the following counties are presented as examples only.
County
Population
(2013)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Harris
4,336,853
$22,599,291
$17,875,214
$20,528,358
$25,164,431
$23,180,388
Bell
326,843
$948,823
$1,140,723
$1,407,749
$1,452,885
$1,425,060
Bastrop
75,825
$875,976
$750,514
$958,819
$1,079,128
$585,371
Andrews
16,799
$401,562
$333,220
$364,456
$264,853
$443,618
Borden
637
$139,000
$99,196
$116,000
$111,986
$109,421
13
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
Fuel Costs Severely Impact Counties (continued)
The 2013 population estimate is from the U.S. Census
Bureau. Expenditure data for 2009, 2010 and 2011 comes
from the 2012 TAC County Expenditures Survey, which
contained the same question.
CONCLUSION
Fuel costs can severely impact counties. The need
to budget for gasoline and diesel purchases can be
problematic in that these costs are highly variable.
Counties can get around this problem to some extent by
contracting to purchase these commodities in advance
to lock in what appears to be a reasonable price. Yet, the
chart above shows that prices have fallen several times
since 2003. Therefore, these contracts need to be flexible
to prevent the county from overspending during times of
falling prices.
In addition, counties need to plan for possible sudden
increases in volume. For example, sheriff patrols may
need to increase mid-year in response to a sudden influx
of businesses and people.
When that influx includes heavy trucks, as happens
during a shale boom, road crews will need additional
supplies of asphalt to maintain the roads. While counties
did not report expenditures for asphalt on this survey,
higher unit prices, when combined with increasing
numbers of both passenger vehicles and heavy trucks on
the roads, ensure that counties are spending more and
more for road maintenance.
14
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
15
County Information Program
County
Expenditures
Survey
(800) 456-5974 • www.county.org • t @TexasCounties
16
P.O. Box 2131 • Austin, Texas 78768
(512) 478-8753 • (800) 456-5974 • county.org