Texas Senate Bill SB77

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 11/8/10
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/14/11
• Voted on by Senate: 3/24/11
• Refer: 1/31/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/5/11
• Report Pass: 3/14/11
• Voted on by House: 5/23/11
• Engrossed: 3/24/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 3/30/11
• Report Pass: 5/4/11
• Enrolled: 5/23/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to certain requirements for certain sponsoring organizations and other institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Impact

The implementation of SB77 is expected to significantly tighten the vetting process for organizations applying to participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. By requiring sponsoring organizations to maintain a performance bond and to submit verification of their principals' identities, the bill seeks to mitigate the potential for fraud and other unethical practices. Additionally, this bill would allow for criminal history checks, which could lead to denying applications or revoking the authority of entities found to have principals with certain criminal convictions. Such provisions serve to protect the integrity of programs designed to provide nourishment to vulnerable populations.

Summary

SB77 introduces amendments to the Government Code and Human Resources Code to establish stricter requirements for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The bill mandates that the Texas Department of Agriculture can access criminal history records for principals of nongovernmental entities involved in the program. This access is intended to enhance the safety and integrity of organizations that serve food to children and adults under state-sponsored programs. The bill aims to ensure that only entities with clean backgrounds can receive state funds for food provision, thereby increasing accountability in the administration of public funds.

Contention

Discussions surrounding SB77 highlighted concerns regarding the balance between ensuring safety and imposing excessive regulatory burdens on organizations operating within the child and adult care food programs. While proponents argue that the measures are necessary to safeguard public funds and the well-being of beneficiaries, opponents worry that the increased scrutiny may deter qualified organizations from participating in valuable programs. The potential for organizations with minor infractions in their history being excluded from participation raises ethical questions about the thresholds set for disqualification and the overall impact on service provision to those in need.