According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3453 is not expected to have a significant fiscal implication to the state. The fiscal note assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill could be absorbed using existing resources, meaning the bill is not expected to require a new appropriation or materially increase state agency spending.

The fiscal note identifies the Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, and the Department of Family and Protective Services as source agencies. Because the bill concerns civil liability for certain nonprofit child welfare contractors, any state impact would likely relate to agency administration or court-system effects, but LBB does not project those effects to be significant.

For local governments, LBB anticipates no fiscal implication. The bill does not appear to impose new duties, costs, or revenue effects on counties, municipalities, or other local governmental units.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3453 unless amended as described below to preserve meaningful accountability for nonprofit entities performing state-contracted child welfare functions. The bill addresses a real problem: nonprofit foster care and community-based care providers reportedly face rising liability insurance premiums and limited carrier availability, and the bill seeks to clarify that certain nonprofit providers are covered under the Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987. However, the bill’s chosen mechanism is a broad liability limitation for entities operating within a government-created and government-supervised child welfare system.

The bill does not appear to grow the formal size of government. It does not create a new agency, board, office, program, entitlement, tax, fee, or express rulemaking authority. The bill analysis states that the committee found the bill does not expressly grant additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. In that narrow sense, the bill does not expand bureaucracy. But it does affect the scope of government-contracted service delivery by extending charitable liability protections to nonprofit entities carrying out state-delegated child welfare work. That matters because these providers are not acting purely as private charities in a voluntary market; they are performing functions tied to DFPS and single-source continuum contractors.

The bill also does not appear to increase the burden on taxpayers in a direct fiscal sense. The LBB found no significant fiscal implication to the state and assumed any costs could be absorbed using existing resources. LBB also found no anticipated fiscal implication to units of local government. However, the taxpayer-risk concern is indirect. If the bill reduces private civil accountability for contractors, pressure may shift toward state oversight, administrative enforcement, contract remedies, or future state indemnification. The fiscal note does not project those costs, but a conservative analysis should still recognize the possibility that limiting contractor liability can move risk away from providers and toward the government system that contracts with them.

The bill does not broadly increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses. It does not impose new mandates on ordinary Texans or on businesses generally. The compliance requirements in the bill—background checks, registry checks, misconduct reporting, personnel action, and training—apply as conditions for covered nonprofit child welfare entities to receive liability protection. Those requirements are not a general regulatory expansion, and many reflect existing child-safety expectations. The principal burden created by the bill is not regulatory; it is remedial. It may make it harder for injured children or families to recover damages from covered nonprofit entities unless the claimant can satisfy the bill’s statutory liability test.

That remedial concern is the core reason for a No; Amend recommendation. The committee substitute provides that a covered nonprofit may not be held liable for damages resulting from an act or omission of an employee, volunteer, or caregiver if the entity met the bill’s listed requirements at the time of the act or omission. The claimant may establish vicarious liability only by showing noncompliance, that the requirement was designed to prevent the specific harm, and that the failure to comply was a contributing factor in causing the harm. Although the bill preserves liability for gross negligence and claims otherwise authorized by state or federal law, it still risks turning a procedural compliance checklist into a substantial shield against civil accountability.

The bill protects government contractors from market discipline. Liability exposure is one of the mechanisms that encourages careful hiring, supervision, retention, training, and response to known risks. In a child welfare context, that accountability is especially important because children in care are often there as a result of state intervention. When the state contracts with nonprofits to perform these functions, lawmakers should be cautious about reducing legal remedies available to children or families harmed within that system.

The recommended amendments should be structural, not cosmetic. The bill should be amended to clarify that the liability limitation applies only to truly vicarious liability and does not bar direct claims for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, negligent training, negligent failure to investigate, or negligent failure to act on known risks. It should require covered entities to document and certify compliance with the safety requirements that trigger liability protection. It should prohibit the liability limitation from expanding state indemnification or shifting additional litigation risk to taxpayers through contract terms. It should also include reporting or sunset review so lawmakers can evaluate whether the bill reduces insurance pressure without weakening child safety or accountability.

As written, HB 3453 does not materially grow government, does not directly increase taxpayer costs, and does not impose a broad regulatory burden on private individuals or businesses. But it does expand liability protection for entities performing state-contracted child welfare services, and that expansion may weaken accountability in a setting where government already exercises substantial control over vulnerable children.

The bill may support nonprofit participation in child welfare services by reducing liability uncertainty and addressing insurance-market pressures identified in the bill analysis. In that respect, it could help preserve a broader provider network rather than forcing more child welfare services into direct government operation. However, these entities are government contractors, not ordinary private-market actors, and liability protection can distort incentives by insulating selected providers from the full consequences of operational failures.

The bill has little direct effect on private property rights. It does not authorize takings, regulate land use, impose asset controls, or condition property ownership on compliance with new rules. Its main property-related effect is indirect: it may reduce financial exposure for covered nonprofit entities while limiting potential recovery for injured claimants.

The bill partially supports personal responsibility by conditioning liability protection on specific compliance steps, including background checks, registry checks, required misconduct reporting, personnel action, and abuse-prevention and reporting training. However, it may also weaken institutional responsibility by allowing a covered entity to avoid liability if it satisfies the statutory checklist, even where broader failures in hiring, supervision, retention, or response to known risks may have contributed to harm.

The bill does not create a new agency, program, office, tax, fee, or express rulemaking authority, and the bill analysis states that it does not grant additional rulemaking authority. The Legislative Budget Board also found no significant fiscal implication to the state and no anticipated fiscal implication to local governments. However, the bill expands statutory liability protection for entities performing state-delegated child welfare functions. That creates a limited-government concern because it may reduce private legal accountability within a government-created system and shift more responsibility for oversight, enforcement, or risk management back to the state.

The bill raises individual-liberty concerns because it may limit civil remedies available to children, families, or other claimants harmed by the acts or omissions of employees, volunteers, or caregivers working on behalf of covered nonprofit child welfare entities. Although the bill preserves liability for gross negligence and does not limit claims otherwise authorized by state or federal law, it still creates a higher statutory barrier for certain claims against entities operating within a government-supervised child welfare system.

• SB 1558 (Similar To)