According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 4120 cannot be precisely determined due to uncertainties regarding the impact on public benefits program caseloads. The bill requires the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), in collaboration with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), to assess the eligibility of certain inmates for public benefits programs before their discharge or release. These programs include Medicaid, CHIP, Healthy Texas Women, Family Planning Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SNAP, and WIC.

The LBB notes that the bill could result in a significant increase in caseloads for public benefit programs as more inmates may become enrolled upon release. However, estimating the precise fiscal impact is challenging due to a lack of data regarding how many of the approximately 43,701 inmates released annually would successfully enroll or qualify for specific programs. For example, the average monthly cost for an adult Medicaid recipient in fiscal year 2026 could range from $387.86 (Other Adults eligibility group) to $1,640.77 (Disability-Related eligibility group). Since the number of new enrollees and their program eligibility cannot be accurately predicted, the potential increase in state expenditures remains uncertain.

HHSC anticipates the need to update the Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System (TIERS) to accommodate the new processes required under the bill. The one-time technology upgrade is estimated to cost $1,384,750 from all funds, including $707,337 from the General Revenue Fund, in fiscal year 2026. These updates are necessary to facilitate the processing of inmate applications and ensure that benefits are provided upon discharge or release.

The LBB indicates that any additional costs incurred by TDCJ as a result of the bill could be managed within existing resources, indicating minimal fiscal disruption to the department. Additionally, there is no significant fiscal impact anticipated for local government entities, as the bill primarily affects state-managed benefit programs and agencies.

While HB 4120 may increase the number of public benefit recipients among released inmates, the exact fiscal impact is indeterminate due to variable enrollment factors. The primary anticipated cost is the one-time update to the TIERS system. Managing potential increases in public assistance caseloads will depend on how many inmates successfully enroll and the specific benefits they access upon release.

HB 4120 seeks to streamline access to public benefits for inmates upon release by requiring the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This MOU would facilitate assessing inmates’ eligibility for public assistance programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, Healthy Texas Women, TANF, SNAP, and WIC before discharge. While the bill aims to support successful reentry and reduce recidivism, there are significant concerns regarding fiscal impact, program effectiveness, administrative complexity, and fairness that make a No vote more appropriate.

One of the primary reasons to oppose HB 4120 is the uncertain fiscal impact. The (LBB) has reported that the bill's financial implications cannot be accurately estimated due to the unknown number of inmates who may enroll in public benefit programs upon release. Although the bill targets those likely to be eligible, the exact caseload increase remains speculative.

The potential for significant cost escalation is real, especially since approximately 43,701 inmates are released annually, and many could qualify for high-cost programs like Medicaid. For example, the average monthly cost per recipient can range from $387.86 to $1,640.77, depending on eligibility criteria.

Additionally, the one-time cost to update the Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System (TIERS) is estimated at $1,384,750, including $707,337 from the General Revenue Fund. Lawmakers focused on fiscal conservatism may view this as an unnecessary expenditure given the current budget constraints.

The bill’s approach of actively facilitating benefits for formerly incarcerated individuals could be seen as expanding welfare in a way that some lawmakers and constituents may find objectionable.

Critics may argue that the bill could incentivize dependency on state assistance rather than fostering self-reliance.

The bill might also be perceived as prioritizing public benefits for formerly incarcerated individuals over other vulnerable populations who have not been involved in the criminal justice system. This perceived imbalance could generate public backlash, as some may view it as rewarding criminal behavior rather than addressing public health or social inequities. Lawmakers committed to personal responsibility may find it inappropriate for the state to actively ensure that those who have committed crimes receive public assistance immediately upon release. While the bill’s intent is to reduce recidivism by ensuring access to healthcare and social services, the direct link between public benefits and reduced reoffending is tenuous.

HB 4120 builds on previous legislation (H.B. 1743) that facilitated SNAP benefits for some released inmates, but there is limited evidence to suggest that such measures significantly decrease recidivism rates.

Opponents may argue that the root causes of reoffending—such as lack of education, job skills, substance abuse, or mental health support—are not directly addressed by simply providing access to social services. More effective strategies could include job training, rehabilitation programs, and community-based support, rather than automatic access to welfare programs.

The bill mandates coordination between TDCJ and HHSC, creating potential administrative burdens. Developing and maintaining the MOU, updating eligibility systems, and coordinating between two large state agencies could strain resources and lead to inefficiencies. Lawmakers who prioritize limited government may view this as an overreach of state authority, where the state proactively manages benefit applications rather than placing the responsibility on the individual upon release. Furthermore, the bill’s reliance on federal waivers adds uncertainty, as delays or denials could hinder implementation, creating confusion among agencies and stakeholders.

There is a potential political risk associated with the perception that HB 4120 favors formerly incarcerated individuals over law-abiding citizens who also struggle to access healthcare and social services. Opponents might argue that the bill creates inequity by focusing on the needs of those who have committed crimes, rather than addressing broader systemic issues affecting low-income or marginalized communities.

Lawmakers representing constituents with limited access to healthcare might find it difficult to justify a measure that seems to prioritize ex-offenders over working families or those already on waiting lists for public assistance.

A No vote on HB 4120 is recommended. While the bill’s goal of reducing recidivism is commendable, the potential financial burden, concerns about welfare expansion, administrative complexities, and perceived unfairness outweigh the benefits. Instead of prioritizing public benefits for released inmates, the state could invest in more targeted reentry programs, such as vocational training, addiction recovery, and mental health services, which directly address the underlying factors leading to recidivism. Lawmakers committed to fiscal responsibility, limited government, and equitable resource allocation should oppose this measure. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4120.

• Individual Liberty: HB 4120 seeks to help inmates by facilitating access to essential public benefits for individuals transitioning from incarceration back into society. By ensuring that eligible inmates can receive healthcare, nutrition assistance, and financial support immediately upon release, the bill promotes access to basic services that enhance personal well-being and autonomy. Access to healthcare and social services reduces barriers that formerly incarcerated individuals face, empowering them to make healthier and more independent life choices. However prioritizing benefits for individuals with criminal records could undermine the perception of fairness when compared to law-abiding citizens who also struggle to access assistance.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill has a mixed impact on Personal Responsibility. On one hand, it may be seen as diminishing personal accountability by actively facilitating public benefits for individuals who have committed crimes, potentially reducing the incentive to independently secure housing, employment, and healthcare post-release. Some lawmakers may argue that the state’s proactive role in helping former inmates access benefits could inadvertently foster dependency on government support. On the other hand, proponents might argue that by ensuring a safety net, the bill empowers individuals to make responsible choices and reduces the likelihood of reoffending by addressing basic needs that could otherwise lead to criminal behavior.
• Free Enterprise: HB 4120 has an indirect and minimal impact on Free Enterprise. By providing access to healthcare and social services, the bill might indirectly support workforce reintegration, as healthier and more stable individuals are more likely to find and maintain employment. However, some business owners and taxpayers might view the increased public assistance enrollment as an inappropriate use of state funds, especially if they believe that those funds could be better directed toward supporting working families or small businesses.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly impact Private Property Rights. Its focus on public benefits and inmate reentry does not alter property ownership, usage, or the rights of private individuals or businesses.
• Limited Government: HB 4120 challenges the principle of Limited Government by expanding the state’s role in proactively assessing and enrolling inmates in public benefits programs. By mandating collaboration between the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), the bill increases government intervention in the personal lives of formerly incarcerated individuals. Some lawmakers might argue that this expansion of state responsibilities contradicts efforts to minimize government involvement in individual welfare decisions. Additionally, the required updates to the Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System (TIERS) and ongoing coordination between state agencies may be viewed as bureaucratic overreach and an unnecessary use of public resources.