According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 1620 project a negative General Revenue impact of $4.83 million over the 2026–2027 biennium and a continuing cost of approximately $2.42 million per year through 2030, when the program is set to expire​. While the bill does not include an appropriation, it does provide a legal framework that would support such an appropriation in future state budgets.

The projected annual cost is primarily composed of three elements: contracts with general academic teaching institutions for the development of forensic science training curricula ($542,760/year), contracts with accredited public crime laboratories to host apprentices ($1.8 million/year), and administrative costs incurred by the Office of Court Administration ($73,313/year). These estimates suggest a structured but modestly scaled investment, focused on creating training pipelines in specific forensic disciplines and expanding laboratory capacity through apprenticeship placements.

Importantly, the bill does not anticipate any significant fiscal impact on local governments. This suggests that the financial burden of the program will fall entirely on the state, with no additional cost-sharing requirements for municipal or county crime labs participating in the apprenticeship program. As a time-limited pilot program expiring in 2030, the fiscal exposure is bounded, though continuation or expansion beyond that date would require additional legislative action and funding. Overall, while the program entails a clear budgetary cost, it reflects a targeted investment in the state's forensic science infrastructure.

SB 1620 proposes the creation of the Texas Forensic Analyst Apprenticeship Pilot Program, a time-limited initiative designed to address workforce shortages in the state’s forensic science sector. Administered by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) in collaboration with the Texas Forensic Science Commission (FSC), the program will fund apprenticeship placements at accredited crime laboratories and support curriculum development at academic institutions with relevant forensic training programs. The program sunsets in 2030, allowing the legislature to evaluate its performance and decide whether to extend or terminate it​.

This legislation is a targeted response to a well-documented public safety need: a shortage of qualified forensic analysts is causing delays in evidence processing, which can stall investigations, prolong pre-trial detentions, and jeopardize fair and timely justice. By expanding the pipeline of trained professionals, the bill aims to strengthen the integrity and efficiency of the state’s criminal justice system.

However, concerns around government expansion and taxpayer burden are valid. The bill will cost approximately $2.42 million annually, totaling over $12 million through FY 2030. While this is a modest line item in the state’s broader budget, it still represents new, ongoing spending. Additionally, it establishes a new state-managed program, which—even if limited and time-bound—expands the state’s operational footprint in the short term.

To address this, the bill’s design includes important constraints that align with limited government principles: it uses existing administrative infrastructure (OCA and FSC), does not create a new agency, and includes a firm expiration date. It also relies on contractual partnerships rather than direct state-run services, allowing for a degree of flexibility and cost containment. These features help mitigate the long-term risk of unchecked growth or permanent bureaucratic expansion.

Another key concern raised is whether private enterprise could solve this workforce gap without state involvement. In theory, the private sector could play a role—but in practice, forensic science in Texas is predominantly a public function, carried out by accredited labs for law enforcement under strict evidentiary and legal standards. The market for private training is thin, and profit incentives are weak in this highly regulated, low-margin field. The bill fills a critical gap that market forces alone are unlikely to address in the short to medium term.

The grant-based model in SB 1620 also warrants scrutiny. While any grant program runs the risk of inefficiency or mission creep, this bill’s structure—including competitive eligibility criteria, measurable outcomes, and legislative sunset—makes it a more disciplined example. Should the legislature reauthorize it in the future, additional performance audits or cost caps could be considered to ensure accountability.

In summary, while SB 1620 does create a temporary expansion in government spending and scope, it does so in a tightly bounded, purpose-driven manner that supports a core public safety and judicial function. With the state’s criminal justice system depending heavily on timely forensic analysis, this investment is both justified and responsible—particularly given its built-in expiration and oversight mechanisms. For these reasons, and with noted reservations addressed through the bill’s design, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1620.

• Individual Liberty: The bill supports individual liberty by helping to ensure that forensic evidence is processed more accurately and efficiently, which is vital for due process and the protection of constitutional rights. When evidence testing is delayed, it can result in innocent individuals staying in jail longer, victims waiting longer for justice, and cases being dismissed due to procedural delays. By bolstering the forensic workforce, the bill enhances the speed and integrity of criminal proceedings, thereby reinforcing the rights of both the accused and victims. A well-functioning justice system is foundational to individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages aspiring forensic professionals to pursue careers in public service through structured apprenticeships. While it does not impose personal obligations on individuals, it promotes a culture of skill development, public service, and scientific integrity. By setting clear eligibility and training requirements, the program helps instill a sense of duty and long-term career commitment among participants.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly promote private-sector solutions, it operates through contracts with academic institutions and public laboratories rather than direct state employment or expansion. This partnership-based approach allows for some competition and flexibility. However, private forensic training providers or labs are not explicitly included, which could be seen as a missed opportunity to better integrate free-market innovation. A potential improvement, consistent with free enterprise, would be to allow private sector institutions to compete for apprenticeship or training contracts. This could increase efficiency and innovation while still meeting public needs.
• Private Property Rights: The legislation does not directly impact property rights. However, by strengthening forensic capacity, it may indirectly support the resolution of property crimes and civil cases involving evidence-based adjudication. This is a secondary, though meaningful, benefit to the principle.
• Limited Government: This is the most nuanced area. The bill does create a new state program and requires public funding—approximately $2.42 million annually. On its face, this may appear to expand government. However, several design elements protect the principle of limited government such as the sunset clause in 2030 which ensures the program is temporary unless proven effective, no creation of a new agency as the program is administered through existing bodies (OCA and FSC), it is a contract-based model rather than expanding bureaucracy, it leverages third-party institutions. With these safeguards, the bill can be seen as a measured and time-limited policy response to a pressing public issue, not an open-ended expansion of state control.

• HB 5293 (Same As)