According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 4870 indicate a negative impact of $241,941 on General Revenue-related funds over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The bill does not include a direct appropriation but establishes the legal framework for the potential allocation of funds necessary to implement its provisions. According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, the bill would require the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to develop and manage the Relative and Kinship Care Grant Program, which provides grants to nonprofit organizations offering legal assistance to caregivers.

The projected financial impact includes an estimated cost of $126,660 in the fiscal year 2026 and $115,281 annually from 2027 through 2030. The primary cost driver is the hiring of a Grant Specialist IV to support the grant program's development and administration. The annual salary, benefits, and payroll contributions for this position total $98,640, while operating expenses are calculated at $28,020 in 2026 and $16,641 annually thereafter. Additionally, technology expenses related to computer equipment and licensing are expected to be $7,846 in 2026 and $706 in subsequent years.

The bill would result in the addition of one full-time equivalent (FTE) position beginning in 2026 and continuing through the following fiscal years. Despite these costs, there is no significant fiscal impact anticipated for local government units. The costs outlined in the fiscal note reflect the OCA's assessment and are primarily related to the administrative functions necessary to support the grant program.

HB 4870, while well-intentioned, presents significant concerns regarding fiscal responsibility, government overreach, and program effectiveness that warrant a No vote. The bill seeks to establish a Relative and Kinship Care Grant Program under the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to fund nonprofit organizations that offer legal assistance to kinship caregivers. While the goal of supporting caregivers who step in when parents are unable to care for their children is commendable, the implementation and funding mechanisms present critical issues that make this bill problematic.

One of the most compelling reasons to oppose HB 4870 is its negative fiscal impact. The bill is projected to cost the state approximately $241,941 over the 2026-2027 biennium, with recurring annual costs of $115,281 through at least 2030. These expenses primarily cover the salary and benefits of a Grant Specialist IV and the associated administrative costs, including technology and operating expenses. In an environment where the state must carefully manage its budget and allocate resources efficiently, creating a new ongoing financial obligation is not advisable. Lawmakers committed to fiscal conservatism may reasonably argue that this program does not justify its cost, particularly given the long-term commitment to state funds.

Another significant issue is the potential for government overreach. While the bill does not create a new government agency, it does expand the role of the OCA by assigning it responsibilities typically managed by community organizations or private entities. This shift could be seen as moving away from the principle of limited government by increasing the state’s involvement in what could be considered a private family matter. Even though the grant program involves nonprofit organizations, state oversight and funding imply a broader governmental role than some legislators might support.

Furthermore, there is concern that the bill sets a precedent for similar programs in other areas, potentially opening the door to increased government spending on related social support initiatives. Lawmakers who prioritize minimal government intervention may view this program as a step toward a more welfare-oriented model, which conflicts with their commitment to self-reliance and community responsibility. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4870.

• Individual Liberty: HB 4870 supports individual liberty by empowering relative and kinship caregivers to legally assume responsibility for children when parents are unavailable or unable to care for them. By funding legal assistance through grants, the bill reduces the legal and financial obstacles that caregivers face when seeking custody or guardianship. This, in turn, enables caregivers to make informed and autonomous decisions regarding the child’s welfare, which aligns with the principle of protecting personal freedoms. However by involving the state in funding legal aid, the bill could indirectly reduce liberty by creating reliance on government assistance rather than encouraging self-sufficiency or private solutions.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages personal responsibility by helping family members step up to care for children in need rather than placing them in state foster care. By making legal support more accessible, the bill allows caregivers to take formal responsibility for the child’s well-being. This aligns with the concept of keeping families intact and reducing the burden on the foster system. On the other hand by providing state-funded legal aid, the bill could diminish the incentive for families to resolve these issues independently or through community support. This could be perceived as shifting responsibility from families to the government, thereby undermining the principle of individual and family accountability.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has a moderate impact on free enterprise since it leverages nonprofit organizations to deliver legal services rather than creating new state-run entities. This approach encourages public-private collaboration, allowing nonprofits to compete for grants based on their capacity to provide effective assistance. By funding existing legal aid infrastructure rather than building new government programs, the bill supports the idea of using private resources efficiently. However, the bill could inadvertently distort the nonprofit legal assistance market by favoring organizations that meet specific grant criteria, potentially disadvantaging smaller or less connected legal aid providers. This could limit market competition within the nonprofit sector.
• Private Property Rights: HB 4870 has no direct impact on private property rights. The bill deals primarily with legal and custodial issues related to children rather than property ownership or use.
• Limited Government: The bill challenges the principle of limited government by expanding the role of the state in supporting kinship caregivers through public funding. Although the program is administered through nonprofit grants, it still requires state oversight and resource allocation. Lawmakers who advocate for minimal state intervention might view this as an unnecessary expansion of government into family affairs. While the bill does not create a new government agency, it does increase the responsibilities of the Office of Court Administration (OCA), including the management, distribution, and oversight of grant funds. The use of public money for private legal aid could be seen as an overreach in situations that some believe should be addressed through community support or private charity.

• SB 1918 (Same As)