2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · Senate bill

SB513

SB513 creates a framework for a locally rooted rural child-welfare pilot, with implementation allowed only if it is sufficiently funded.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to a rural community-based care pilot program.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists Senate author(s): Sparks. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

SB513 creates a framework for a locally rooted rural child-welfare pilot, with implementation allowed only if it is sufficiently funded. The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) must develop the model with a lead nonprofit or local government. An eligible region must have received no bids or other expressions of interest after DFPS sought a community-based-care provider, and at least two-thirds of its counties must have populations of 50,000 or less. It is not an automatic statewide transfer of foster care to private providers. Eligibility and funding condition: Sections 264.181–.183 and .195.

A nonprofit lead entity’s entire board must live in the service region. DFPS considers community support, collaborative experience and coordination capacity. The model must address family-based and preservation services, case management, foster and kinship care, adoption and post-adoption support, and services for young people leaving foster care. A community alliance brings families with lived experience and local education, health-care, judicial and other stakeholders into planning and priorities. Local leadership, services and community alliance.

The funding model must account for rural transportation, staffing and provider-network costs, share financial risks and allow reinvestment of savings. A fixed funding rate per child is required only if DFPS finds that approach feasible. An integrated electronic case-management system also requires a feasibility assessment; secure information sharing, technical support and outcome tracking are still required. A workforce plan must address recruitment, retention, training and advancement. Funding, data and workforce provisions.

DFPS retains oversight and responsibility for service quality and compliance with state and federal law. The lead entity can request waivers of department policies or procedures—not a general waiver of statutes. Contract changes require written explanation and cost analysis. A lead entity may reject inadequately funded or substantially altering changes, except those required by law or court order or needed for child health or safety. Contractors must obey applicable court orders; department confidentiality and public-records rules extend to relevant contractor records, and the act addresses attorney-client privilege for representatives of DFPS. Oversight, change orders and records: Sections 264.189–.193.

An independent evaluator must assess outcomes, cost-effectiveness and implementation. A model-development report is due January 1, 2027; annual implementation reports begin December 1, 2028 and include applicable evaluation findings, denied waivers and agreed change orders. Legislative review and expiration are set for September 1, 2031. Signed May 13, 2025, the act took effect September 1, 2025; that date does not establish that the pilot has already begun delivering services. Evaluation, reporting and expiration; History.

What changed along the way?

The Senate committee substitute substantially revised the introduced bill. The original gave DFPS only an advisory implementation role, required a fixed-per-child funding model and an integrated electronic system, and contemplated waivers from statutory or regulatory requirements. The final version instead makes DFPS a partner with retained oversight, tests funding and technology feasibility, limits the waiver provision to department policies or procedures, and expressly conditions implementation on sufficient funding. Introduced proposal; Committee substitute.

The substitute also adds procurement flexibility, the community alliance and records/privilege provisions, removes the proposed governor-appointed dispute panel and 30-day waiver-decision deadline, and adds safeguards for legally required or child-safety contract changes. It replaces the original 2029 review/expiration schedule with the final 2031 schedule and sets the two reporting dates. The Senate committee, engrossed, House committee and enrolled versions have the same operative text. The official amendment index lists no floor amendments, consistent with passage without further amendment. All five versions; Amendment index.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

The intended benefit is a workable child-welfare service network in rural areas that have not attracted a provider, with stronger local participation and funding that recognizes long travel distances and staffing challenges. Those are goals, not demonstrated results. Feasibility work, procurement, oversight and evaluation create costs, and service delivery remains contingent on sufficient funding. Pilot design and limits.

The latest posted fiscal note, March 20 for the committee substitute that became law, estimates a $4,143,056 General Revenue cost for fiscal years 2026–27: $2,056,348 in 2026 and $2,086,708 in 2027 for contracted development/feasibility evaluation. It expressly does not estimate implementation costs because funding and the eventual model are uncertain. Its zero entries for 2028–30 do not mean operating the pilot would be free. No significant local-government fiscal impact is anticipated. Applicable fiscal estimate.

The earlier March 17 revised note estimated $8,661,457 in General Revenue-related costs for the introduced bill and assumed earlier implementation. That is not the estimate for the enacted design. Neither figure is itself an appropriation in SB513. Earlier proposal’s fiscal note.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.