HB 1536 creates a rural community-based care pilot program within Chapter 264 of the Family Code to test a community-based model for delivering child welfare services in an eligible rural region. The Department of Family and Protective Services, working with a selected lead entity, would develop and implement a model intended to improve child and family outcomes, expand service availability, increase community engagement, and create a sustainable approach that could be replicated in other rural areas.
The bill defines eligible rural regions as catchment areas where DFPS sought but did not receive bids for community-based care and where at least two-thirds of the counties have populations of 50,000 or less. It limits lead entities to a nonprofit with a board made up entirely of residents of the catchment area or a local government entity, and directs DFPS to consider community support, regional experience, and coordination capacity when selecting a contractor. The pilot model must address a broad range of services, including family preservation, case management, foster care, kinship care, adoption, post-adoption support, and transition services for youth aging out of foster care.
The bill also establishes a governance and support structure for the pilot, including a community alliance of stakeholders, funding and risk-sharing mechanisms, data management and information-sharing protocols, workforce development planning, waiver procedures, conflict resolution, and a change-order process for contract modifications. It requires an independent post-implementation evaluation and multiple reports to the legislature, and the pilot may only be implemented if sufficiently funded. The subchapter expires September 1, 2031, after legislative review of the program’s outcomes and effectiveness.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new temporary subchapter to the Family Code authorizing DFPS to pilot a rural version of community-based care, with special procurement flexibility and oversight provisions tailored to rural service delivery. It affects DFPS, local governments, nonprofit child welfare providers, subcontractors, families involved in the child welfare system, and community stakeholders in eligible rural regions, while also touching confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and reporting requirements tied to the pilot.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of expanding community-based care into rural areas, with an emphasis on local engagement, flexibility, and measurable outcomes. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is little direct evidence of opposition in the available context. The main points of potential contention are likely to be funding sufficiency, the use of waivers and procurement flexibility, the feasibility of a capitated funding model, and how much authority and discretion the lead entity should have versus DFPS oversight.
HB 1536 amends the Family Code by adding a new subchapter authorizing a temporary rural community-based care pilot program. It gives DFPS authority to contract with a qualified nonprofit or local government lead entity, use special procurement methods, seek waivers from department policies, and require reporting, evaluation, and legislative review. The bill affects child welfare service delivery in eligible rural catchment areas and imposes new planning, data-sharing, confidentiality, workforce, and oversight requirements on DFPS and participating providers.
The bill appears generally favorable toward expanding community-based care, with a policy focus on rural access, local control, and innovation in child welfare. The available record does not include committee testimony or votes showing organized opposition or support, so sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure: it is designed as a pilot with safeguards, reporting, and an expiration date, suggesting an incremental and cautious approach rather than a controversial overhaul.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so specific objections are not documented. Likely areas of contention include whether the pilot will be sufficiently funded, whether rural providers can meet the staffing and infrastructure demands of community-based care, whether DFPS should allow broad waivers and flexible contracting, and whether a capitated funding model can fairly account for rural transportation, recruitment, and service-network costs. Another possible issue is the balance of authority between the department and the lead entity, especially around change orders, oversight, and compliance with court orders and state or federal requirements.