According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 865 is estimated to have no fiscal implications on the State of Texas. This suggests that implementing the bill’s requirements—mandating CPR and AED certification for designated school employees and volunteers—will not require new state appropriations or the creation of new programs at the state level.

However, there may be fiscal implications at the local level. Specifically, public school districts, private schools, and open-enrollment charter schools subject to the bill's provisions may incur costs associated with providing or facilitating cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) training. These costs could include fees for certification courses from recognized organizations such as the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross, as well as administrative expenses related to tracking compliance.

The degree of local financial impact will likely vary depending on each school’s existing training infrastructure, access to training partnerships, and whether the school already requires or provides CPR/AED certification. Schools that already provide such training may experience minimal fiscal change, while others, particularly those that become subject to the requirements by accepting state-provided AEDs or funding, may need to allocate additional resources to meet compliance. Nonetheless, the bill does not mandate training unless schools receive specific support from the state, which limits the potential financial exposure.

SB 865 presents a well-intentioned effort to increase school preparedness for medical emergencies by requiring CPR and AED certification for designated school employees and student athletic trainers. The bill aims to close a perceived gap in existing law by mandating not just instruction, but nationally recognized certification and maintenance of that certification. This policy would apply to public schools and, conditionally, to private and charter schools that receive AEDs or related funding from the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

The bill reflects responsible refinements in the Committee Substitute that limit its reach to institutions benefiting from public resources, ensuring that private and charter schools are not subject to its mandates unless they accept state-provided AEDs or funding. This conditional application respects institutional autonomy and prevents the state from imposing broad mandates on private education providers. Furthermore, the bill does not expand the size or function of state government and carries no projected fiscal impact to the state, according to the Legislative Budget Board.

However, a significant concern remains: the bill constitutes an unfunded mandate. While it does not impose a financial burden on the state, it shifts costs to local educational entities, particularly for the required training and certification through organizations such as the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross. For districts and schools that do not already provide this level of training, these requirements could pose administrative and financial burdens, especially in smaller or rural communities with limited resources. The absence of state support for implementation may create uneven compliance or strain local budgets.

Additionally, while many of the affected roles—coaches, nurses, and student trainers—operate in high-risk settings and likely receive some form of training already, this bill sets a higher, standardized bar across all qualifying schools. That could be viewed as both a benefit (standardization and quality control) and a burden (costs and logistical implementation), depending on local capacity.

In light of these trade-offs, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on SB 865. The bill advances important public safety goals and is narrowly tailored in its scope, but the lack of funding and potential for local implementation challenges justify hesitation.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly infringe upon individual freedoms in the broader sense—it does not regulate private citizens or intrude on personal decision-making unrelated to public service. However, it does impose training and certification requirements on individuals in specific school roles (e.g., nurses, coaches, student athletic trainers). While these positions involve a duty of care and are already subject to professional standards, some may view mandatory certification, particularly without state funding, as a limitation on individual choice within the workplace. That said, because these roles inherently involve student supervision and safety, the infringement on liberty is minimal and arguably justified by the public interest.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by requiring those entrusted with student well-being to be trained and certified in life-saving measures. This aligns strongly with the principle that individuals, especially professionals in care or supervision roles, should be prepared to respond competently in emergencies. Requiring CPR and AED certification reinforces a culture of preparedness and accountability among school personnel, empowering them to act effectively when needed.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has a negligible impact on free enterprise. It does not regulate private businesses, commercial markets, or restrict competition. If anything, it could increase demand for certification services from private training providers like the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross. These are voluntary-market responses, not state-mandated vendors, preserving the integrity of free-market dynamics.
• Private Property Rights: The bill carefully preserves private autonomy by applying only to private or charter schools that voluntarily accept public resources (i.e., AEDs or related funding from the state). This conditional application upholds the principle that government requirements should be tied to government support, not imposed across the board. Schools that choose not to accept these resources are not bound by the bill, which respects their right to self-govern their operations without state interference.
• Limited Government: The principle of limited government is affected in two ways. Positively, the bill does not create new agencies, expand state enforcement powers, or appropriate public funds. It builds on existing legal infrastructure and leverages the rulemaking authority already present in the Texas Education Code. However, by mandating a new certification requirement, particularly one with associated costs but no state funding, it introduces a modest expansion of state policy into local operations. This raises concerns about unfunded mandates, a frequent point of tension in the limited government framework. While the bill’s narrow scope tempers that concern, it’s not entirely neutral in this area.

• HB 3450 (Same As)
• HB 4684 (Same As)