HB 2652 seeks to establish a Certified Caregiver Pilot Program in the Borderplex workforce development area to provide after-hours child care for single-parent households engaged in short-term workforce training. While the bill’s objectives—supporting single parents, expanding workforce readiness, and addressing regional child care shortages- may be well-intentioned, the mechanisms it employs represent an expansion of government involvement in areas that conservatives have long argued should be the domain of families, communities, and the private sector. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2652.
Fundamentally, HB 2652 presumes it is the role of the state government to solve gaps in child care access. It does so by subsidizing new care arrangements and creating a regulatory framework for caregivers who provide after-hours care in their own homes. However, child care decisions are, and should remain, the responsibility of parents, extended families, and local communities. Encouraging the state to facilitate and subsidize these arrangements, even under the guise of a pilot, undermines the principle of self-reliance and further embeds government into the private affairs of family life.
Child care, particularly in the case of non-traditional work schedules, presents a very real challenge. But the solution is not a new taxpayer-funded program administered through the Texas Workforce Commission and licensed by the Health and Human Services Commission. Civil society, churches, community centers, and neighborhood networks are better equipped to innovate in this space than centralized state bureaucracies. HB 2652 shifts the expectation toward a government solution and away from private, voluntary initiatives.
While HB 2652 is structured as a pilot program, limited to 30 families in a specific region and scheduled to sunset in 2029, there is a well-documented pattern of "pilot programs" becoming permanent fixtures of government. The bill requires a comprehensive report on outcomes and costs, including a recommendation on whether to continue or expand the program. History shows that such reports often serve as the justification for broader programs, not objective evaluations with a real option to cancel.
This bill contains the legislative architecture for future expansion, even if it appears modest now. Once a government function exists, complete with a licensing process, eligibility rules, and subsidy structures, it becomes politically difficult to eliminate. The pilot designation should not obscure the fact that HB 2652 is a blueprint for long-term state involvement in subsidized child care, with no clear limiting principle.
HB 2652 also authorizes the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission to adopt procedures for issuing a new form of license, one allowing caregivers to operate as listed family homes under the pilot. While the bill limits this to caregivers with two years of experience, it still creates a new bureaucratic framework for licensing individuals already working in the child care sector.
Those who value limited government have long opposed unnecessary occupational licensing, recognizing it as a barrier to entry, a vehicle for regulatory overreach, and a burden on small-scale entrepreneurs. This bill expands the state's regulatory footprint over caregiving in the home, a domain that ought to remain private and voluntary. There is little justification for adding another layer of licensure to individuals who are already experienced caregivers and could find opportunities through private means.
The fiscal note accompanying the bill indicates that HB 2652 will have "no significant fiscal implication to the state" because the Texas Workforce Commission and other agencies are expected to absorb the costs within existing resources. However, this budgetary language does not change the reality that HB 2652 creates a new public subsidy for child care that did not previously exist for the targeted population.
This “soft expansion” of subsidized care, provided through an existing program but applied to a new class of participants (single parents enrolled in job training), raises the risk of future appropriations and budget creep. Government programs that start as limited-use reallocations often grow into line-item entitlements. In a time when fiscal discipline is urgently needed, especially to guard against the growth of dependency programs, even budget-neutral pilots should be approached with deep caution.
While the bill targets a specific issue in the Borderplex region, namely, a shortage of child care options in El Paso, it uses state law and statewide administrative agencies to address what is ultimately a regional and local concern. Communities facing unique challenges should be encouraged to find unique solutions, not rely on Austin-based agencies to intervene.
This bill represents a breakdown of the principle of subsidiarity, the idea that problems should be solved at the most local level capable of addressing them effectively. Local workforce boards, nonprofit organizations, churches, and private child care entrepreneurs in El Paso and surrounding areas could pilot their own solutions, without setting a precedent that every regional challenge requires state involvement.
The bill mandates a formal report to be submitted by December 1, 2028, evaluating the pilot and recommending whether it should be continued, expanded, or terminated. While this may appear prudent, it practically ensures that proponents of larger programs will point to the report, especially any positive anecdotal outcomes, as grounds for expansion.
Moreover, once state agencies have staff time, procedures, and administrative infrastructure invested in a program, the institutional momentum favors continuation. The inclusion of such a report may suggest accountability, but in effect, it serves as a launchpad for permanent programming and budgetary expansion.
HB 2652 is a small, well-intentioned program that nevertheless violates core conservative principles. It expands government involvement in child care, adds new licensing authority, shifts responsibility away from families and communities, and lays the groundwork for future growth in public subsidies. Though it is structured as a pilot, its design ensures that it will not remain small for long.
Lawmakers should oppose HB 2652 not because the needs of single-parent households are unimportant, but because the method chosen undermines the very principles that have sustained our communities, limited our government, and protected our freedoms. Texas does not need another pilot program; it needs to return to trusting families, churches, and private initiative to solve the challenges we face.
- Individual Liberty: While the bill provides single parents more flexibility to pursue job training, it does so by expanding the state’s role in family life and caregiving. Over time, this government-centric solution may erode personal autonomy and reinforce dependence on state-managed programs.
- Personal Responsibility: By offering additional public subsidies to families already receiving child-care assistance, the bill shifts responsibility for child care from the family and community to the state. This undermines self-reliance and reinforces a culture of dependency rather than empowering families to develop their own support systems.
- Free Enterprise: Though the bill allows for in-home caregiving, it introduces a new state-issued license and oversight requirements. This adds regulatory complexity rather than removing barriers to entry, thereby restricting organic market-driven solutions to child care shortages.
- Private Property Rights: The program allows caregivers to operate from their own homes, which appears to respect property use. However, it conditions the use on state licensing and compliance with minimum standards, opening the door to government intrusion into private homes.
- Limited Government: The bill expands state involvement by creating a new pilot program, regulatory authority, and public subsidy framework, albeit with limited scope. This directly contradicts the principle of limited government and sets the stage for long-term bureaucratic growth.
