According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 5302 would have an estimated negative General Revenue impact of $2.052 million during the 2026–27 biennium, consisting of approximately $1.35 million in fiscal year 2026 and $702,000 annually thereafter. The bill itself does not appropriate funding but would provide the statutory authority for future appropriations necessary to implement the Texas Post-adoption Assistance Program.

The projected costs are primarily driven by the administrative responsibilities assigned to the Comptroller of Public Accounts. The LBB estimates the agency would require eight additional full-time employees, including contract specialists and program specialists, to certify participating organizations, review grant applications, administer the program, conduct compliance oversight, develop audit guidelines, adopt administrative rules, and manage approximately 1,000 applications annually. Annual personnel costs are estimated at $702,000. In addition, the Comptroller anticipates a one-time information technology cost of $648,000 in fiscal year 2026 to develop an online grant management system capable of processing applications, disbursing grant funds, and generating compliance reports.

The LBB also notes that the bill could result in additional indeterminate state costs because certified organizations would be eligible to receive state matching funds for post-adoption assistance grants. Since the number of participating organizations, the amount of private donations received, and the value of grants awarded cannot be predicted, the potential cost of the state matching component cannot be estimated. Finally, the LBB concludes that the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments.

HB 5302 seeks to strengthen permanent adoption by helping families meet the ongoing therapeutic and support needs that often arise after adopting children from the Texas foster care system. By partnering with certified nonprofit organizations to administer grants funded primarily through private donations, the bill attempts to leverage civil society to address a targeted need rather than relying exclusively on direct government service delivery. The committee bill analysis indicates the legislation is intended to improve adoption stability by filling gaps in existing post-adoption support and encouraging more families to adopt children from foster care.

The bill does expand the role of state government by creating a new program within the Comptroller's office, authorizing rulemaking, establishing oversight responsibilities, and requiring ongoing administration. It also increases taxpayer obligations through implementation costs and authorizes state matching funds, creating some uncertainty regarding future fiscal exposure. Participating nonprofit organizations are also subject to certification, auditing, and compliance requirements, although these regulatory obligations are limited to organizations that voluntarily choose to participate in the program.

On balance, however, the bill's targeted approach, reliance on nonprofit partners, and focus on strengthening adoptive families outweigh its limited-government concerns. Stable adoptions can improve outcomes for children while reducing dependence on the foster care system over the long term, and the program is narrowly tailored to support a specific population rather than creating a broad public entitlement. Although the bill grows government modestly, that expansion is sufficiently limited and directed toward promoting permanent family placement that a Vote Yes is warranted.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not impose mandates, prohibitions, or new restrictions on individuals. Participation is entirely voluntary for both adoptive families and nonprofit organizations, and the legislation neither expands criminal penalties nor limits individual rights. While recipients must comply with eligibility requirements and use grant funds for authorized purposes, those conditions are voluntary and tied to acceptance of public assistance rather than coercive government action.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages and supports private individuals who assume the significant responsibility of adopting children from the Texas foster care system. Rather than replacing parental responsibility, it provides targeted assistance to help adoptive families meet the therapeutic and behavioral needs of adopted children. By reinforcing permanent family placement instead of long-term state care, the bill aligns with the principle that families—not government—should be the primary caregivers for children.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has little direct effect on the broader marketplace. It relies on private, nonprofit organizations to administer grants and encourages charitable giving through public-private partnerships, which reflects some reliance on civil society rather than direct government service delivery. However, participating nonprofits become subject to certification, audit, and compliance requirements, creating a modest regulatory framework. Overall, the bill neither significantly advances nor substantially impedes free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect ownership, use, or transfer of private property. It does not create new eminent domain authority, impose land-use restrictions, or otherwise interfere with property rights. Its provisions are limited to the administration of voluntary grants for eligible adoptive families.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the role of state government by creating a new program within the Comptroller's office, authorizing rulemaking, establishing oversight and compliance responsibilities, and creating an ongoing administrative structure. It also increases taxpayer obligations through implementation costs and authorizes state matching funds, resulting in both known fiscal impacts and potential future fiscal exposure. While the program is relatively targeted and leverages private nonprofit partners, it nevertheless represents a measurable expansion of state responsibilities.