According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2510 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The legislation establishes two new criminal offenses—both initially classified as Class A misdemeanors—for providing unlicensed personal assistance services in assisted living facilities and for operating such facilities without a license. These offenses can be enhanced to third-degree felonies for repeat offenders. Despite the creation of new penalties, the bill is anticipated to generate only minimal costs or revenue effects due to the likely low number of prosecuted violations​.

Any potential state revenue generated from fines or court costs associated with convictions is expected to be negligible. Moreover, the agencies involved in the fiscal analysis, including the Office of Court Administration and the Comptroller of Public Accounts, do not foresee substantial budgetary burdens related to implementation, enforcement, or adjudication of the new provisions.

At the local government level, the bill is also expected to have only a limited financial impact. While counties and municipalities might incur some costs related to enforcement, prosecution, or supervision of offenders, the frequency and scale of such cases are presumed to be low, keeping overall fiscal consequences minimal for local jurisdictions​.

HB 2510 proposes criminal penalties for individuals who provide personal assistance services in assisted living facilities without a license, or who operate an assisted living facility without being licensed by the state. While the intent of the bill is to enhance accountability and protect vulnerable populations from substandard care, the method it employs—criminalization of unlicensed caregiving—is a significant overreach and raises serious concerns about the proper role of government in voluntary caregiving relationships.

The bill does not limit its penalties to situations involving abuse, neglect, fraud, or exploitation. Instead, it creates criminal offenses based solely on the absence of licensure, regardless of the quality or consent of the caregiving arrangement. Specifically, it imposes a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and elevates it to a third-degree felony for repeat violations. This means that peaceful individuals—family members, friends, faith-based communities, or small-scale independent caregivers—could face jail time and felony records for providing compassionate, competent care without first obtaining government permission.

Texas law already includes civil and administrative penalties for unlicensed operations, and it already criminalizes abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elderly or disabled individuals under other statutes. The new penalties introduced by HB 2510 are not designed to address those harms but rather to punish noncompliance with licensure rules in and of itself. That framework assumes the state has the exclusive authority to define who may care for whom and under what conditions—even when those being cared for are capable of giving full consent.

From the standpoint of liberty and proportional justice, criminalizing unlicensed caregiving crosses a critical line. It treats peaceful, voluntary acts of service as criminal simply because they have not passed through the state's regulatory gatekeeping. While licensing may serve legitimate purposes in some contexts, it should not carry criminal penalties when its absence alone does not cause harm. There are other ways to promote safety—through transparency, informed consent, civil remedies, or voluntary accreditation—without resorting to the blunt instrument of criminal law.

Finally, the bill does not address the deeper structural issues that often push families and caregivers into unlicensed arrangements, such as high regulatory costs, insufficient support for home-based care, or lack of culturally appropriate services. By targeting noncompliant caregivers with criminal sanctions, the bill risks driving compassionate care underground or leaving people with fewer options, not more protection.

For these reasons, HB 2510 should be opposed. It expands criminal law into domains better governed by civil or market-based solutions, threatens voluntary caregiving relationships, and departs from principles of limited government and personal freedom. Public safety can and should be preserved without criminalizing the absence of a license. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote No on HB 2510.

• Individual Liberty: The bill infringes on individual liberty by criminalizing peaceful, voluntary acts of caregiving. It punishes individuals not for harm or abuse, but for lacking state licensure—effectively requiring government permission to care for the elderly or disabled in a residential setting. Even with consent from the person being cared for and no indication of harm, those providing assistance without a license could face arrest, jail time, and a criminal record. This encroachment on the freedom to associate, contract, and provide care in private settings undermines one of the most basic expressions of liberty: the right to help others without government interference.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill purports to promote accountability, it does so by penalizing the wrong kind of responsibility. It does not target those who harm or neglect vulnerable individuals, but rather those who fail to obtain a license—even if they are acting responsibly and competently. This turns the notion of personal responsibility into a regulatory obligation rather than a moral or practical one. A truly liberty-aligned approach would hold individuals accountable for actual misconduct, not for the absence of state authorization.
• Free Enterprise: By imposing criminal penalties on unlicensed providers, HB 2510 creates a powerful barrier to entry for small-scale or community-based elder care models. While large, licensed facilities may benefit from reduced competition, independent caregivers—who may offer affordable, culturally sensitive, or relationship-based alternatives—face legal risk simply for operating. Rather than encouraging innovation or competition in the care economy, the bill restricts free enterprise by favoring those who can afford to navigate the licensing process and penalizing those who cannot.
• Private Property Rights: Operating an assisted living facility often involves using one’s private home or property to offer care. By criminalizing such use without a license, the bill effectively restricts what individuals can do on their own property, even when no harm is caused and services are provided by mutual agreement. This undermines the principle that individuals should be free to use their property peacefully and productively without unnecessary government interference.
• Limited Government: HB 2510 represents a clear expansion of state power by adding criminal penalties to what is currently an administrative or civil matter. It shifts the enforcement of regulatory compliance into the domain of the criminal justice system, with potential jail time and felony convictions. This violates the principle of limited government by converting non-harmful, consensual behavior into criminal conduct and using the heavy hand of the state to enforce bureaucratic compliance rather than addressing actual wrongdoing.