View the Texas Watchdog article Waiting for a Miracle: The Cruelty of Texas’s IDD Support System here. 

View the Texas Watchdog article Death by Ideology: How Texas’s Refusal to Expand Medicaid Is Killing Rural Texans and Destroying Healthcare here. 

The refusal to expand Medicaid in Texas has left hundreds of thousands of low-income Texans, particularly in rural areas, without access to affordable healthcare. This decision, led by the state's conservative political leadership, has had catastrophic consequences for healthcare facilities, patients, and communities across the state. With Texas leading the nation in the number of uninsured residents, the absence of Medicaid expansion has worsened the already precarious situation for rural hospitals, working-class families, and healthcare providers. Rural Texans, who are disproportionately affected by this policy, find themselves trapped in a broken system that seems to care more about ideology than human lives.

This investigation examines the impact of Texas's Medicaid non-expansion policy on rural communities, based on the reporting by KERA News, Texas Tribune, and ruralhealthinfo.org, and will delve into the political motivations behind this decision, the devastating economic and health outcomes, and the preventable deaths that have resulted from this ongoing healthcare crisis.

The Political Ideology That Abandoned Rural Texans

The heart of this crisis lies in the refusal of Texas’s political leaders, spearheaded by Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits Medicaid expansion could provide—including a $5.4 billion influx of federal funds annually—Texas Republicans have doubled down on their ideological opposition to the ACA, often branding it as “Obamacare” to stoke political resentment among their conservative base.

Abbott has called Medicaid expansion a “massive expansion of an already broken and bloated Medicaid program,” choosing instead to stick with the status quo. This rhetoric may play well with conservative voters who fear government overreach, but it leaves nearly 800,000 Texans in a coverage gap—earning too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford private insurance. This ideological grandstanding leaves rural Texans, who often don’t have access to the same wealth of healthcare options as urban areas, struggling to access even basic medical care.

The irony here is palpable. Texas, with its reputation for self-reliance and independence, is sacrificing the health and well-being of its residents, especially in rural areas, on the altar of political ideology. And it’s not just a few people suffering—nearly 15% of Texas’s population lives in rural areas, and many of them are uninsured.

Rural Hospitals on the Brink of Collapse: Closing Doors on Care

If there’s one visible consequence of Texas’s refusal to expand Medicaid, it’s the closure of rural hospitals. In the last decade, 21 rural hospitals in Texas have closed, and another 26% are at risk of closure, according to a 2022 report from Kaufman Hall. These hospitals serve as lifelines for communities spread out over large distances, often with no other healthcare options for miles. Without them, routine medical care, emergency services, and life-saving treatments are out of reach for many rural Texans.

This isn't just a healthcare problem; it's an economic disaster. Rural hospitals are often some of the largest employers in their communities. When a hospital closes, the economic ripple effects are devastating. Jobs are lost, families leave, and local businesses that relied on the hospital’s staff and patients for revenue also suffer. It’s a downward spiral that pushes already struggling rural economies even closer to collapse.

But why are these hospitals closing? One of the biggest reasons is the amount of uncompensated care they provide. Without Medicaid expansion, many rural Texans remain uninsured and cannot afford to pay for medical services. As a result, hospitals are forced to provide care for free, but they still have to cover the costs of staff, equipment, and supplies. In 2019, rural hospitals in Texas faced uncompensated care costs of 3.81% of their operating expenses, compared to 3.12% for urban hospitals. In Medicaid expansion states, this figure is even lower—2.55%—which highlights just how much Texas is losing out on by refusing to expand coverage.

Texas hospitals are hemorrhaging money because the state refuses to take federal funds that would help cover these uninsured patients. It’s as simple as that. And as these hospitals continue to close, more rural Texans are left without access to the care they desperately need.

The Working Poor: Caught in the Coverage Gap

Texas’s Medicaid eligibility criteria are among the most restrictive in the nation. To qualify for Medicaid as a parent in Texas, your income must be less than 17% of the federal poverty level—around $3,733 annually for a family of three. Childless adults, regardless of income, don’t qualify for Medicaid at all. This leaves a huge number of working Texans—people in low-wage jobs, many of whom are essential workers—without access to affordable healthcare.

In industries like construction, food services, and home healthcare, workers often make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. These are people who are vital to Texas’s economy, yet they are being left behind. Around 77% of those in the coverage gap are in families where at least one person works, and 42% are women of reproductive age.

Without Medicaid expansion, these workers are less likely to have a regular source of healthcare, more likely to delay or avoid necessary treatment, and at higher risk of medical debt and bankruptcy. For them, an unexpected illness or injury can be financially ruinous, pushing them further into poverty.

The fact that Texas’s leaders continue to deny these people healthcare while they work for low wages is not just a policy failure—it’s a moral one. These are the people who keep Texas’s economy running, and they are being abandoned by a state government that values ideological purity over human lives.

Community Health Centers: The Last Line of Defense

With rural hospitals closing and Medicaid expansion off the table, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) have become the safety net for many uninsured Texans. These centers provide care for underserved populations, but they are also stretched to their limits. About a third of patients at FQHCs in Texas have Medicaid, while nearly a quarter are uninsured. The demand for services far exceeds the capacity, and with limited resources, these health centers are struggling to keep up.

For uninsured patients, the cost of care is often prohibitive. A visit to an FQHC might cost $350, but an uninsured patient might only be able to pay $30-$40, leaving the center to absorb the rest. This means fewer resources for expanding services, fewer staff to handle the growing number of patients, and longer wait times for care. As a result, uninsured Texans often don’t seek care until their condition becomes severe, which leads to more expensive and complicated treatments down the line.

The lack of Medicaid expansion also impacts the ability of these centers to recruit healthcare providers. Working in a community health center can be financially unstable, and providers may prefer to work in urban settings where salaries are higher and there are more opportunities for career advancement. This staffing shortage exacerbates the already limited access to care in rural areas.

The Health Toll: Preventable Deaths and Poorer Outcomes

The consequences of Texas’s refusal to expand Medicaid are not just financial—they are fatal. Between 2014 and 2017, an estimated 2,920 Texans aged 55-64 died prematurely because the state refused to expand Medicaid. These are deaths that could have been prevented if these individuals had access to regular healthcare.

Chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease go untreated or poorly managed when people don’t have access to care. Without insurance, people are less likely to take medications regularly, less likely to see a doctor for check-ups, and more likely to end up in the emergency room when their condition worsens. The result is a healthcare system that spends far more on emergency care and hospitalizations than it would on preventive care, but with far worse outcomes for patients.

Maternal and infant health in Texas is also a significant concern. The state has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, and uninsured women are at significantly higher risk. Expanding Medicaid would provide prenatal care and reduce the risk of complications for both mothers and babies. Yet, Texas’s leaders continue to deny this coverage, putting the lives of women and children at risk.

What Could Medicaid Expansion Do?

The refusal to expand Medicaid is costing Texas billions of dollars in federal funding—money that could be used to improve healthcare access, keep rural hospitals open, and provide insurance for hundreds of thousands of Texans. Expanding Medicaid would bring in an estimated $5.4 billion per year in federal funds, money that could cover the cost of care for low-income Texans and reduce the financial strain on healthcare providers.

The economic benefits of Medicaid expansion are clear. It would create jobs, strengthen rural economies, and ensure that more Texans have access to the care they need. States that have expanded Medicaid have seen significant improvements in health outcomes, including lower mortality rates, earlier detection of cancer, and better management of chronic diseases. Yet, Texas continues to reject these benefits, leaving its most vulnerable residents to fend for themselves.

Conclusion: Ideology Over People

At the heart of Texas’s Medicaid crisis is a simple truth: the state’s leaders care more about maintaining their ideological opposition to “Obamacare” than they do about the lives of rural Texans. The decision not to expand Medicaid is not based on sound economic reasoning or concern for the state’s healthcare system—it is a political stance that sacrifices the well-being of millions of Texans for the sake of partisan purity.

Rural Texans, the backbone of the state’s economy, are the ones paying the price. They are losing their hospitals, their access to care, and, in many cases, their lives. Until Texas’s leaders put people over politics, this crisis will only continue to worsen.

View Texas Watchdog's original article Bought and Sold: Soros Cash and DA Jose Garza’s Progressive Agenda Leave Austin in Crisis here. 

The Travis County District Attorney, José Garza, has been one of the most controversial figures in Texas politics since taking office in 2021. Backed by substantial funding from George Soros, Garza has implemented a wave of progressive policies that he claims will address systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system. However, critics argue that his reforms have directly led to a significant surge in crime across Austin, damaging public safety and creating a deep divide between law enforcement and the DA’s office.

With Austin experiencing a rise in violent crime rates and the local police force undermanned and demoralized, Garza’s critics—including members of law enforcement, victims' advocates, and even some local Democrats—believe that his policies are contributing to a chaotic breakdown of public order. They accuse him of being too lenient on criminals, prioritizing a political agenda over the safety of Austin’s citizens, and prosecuting police officers more aggressively than criminals.

This investigative piece will delve deep into the impact of Garza’s policies, drawing from data, public records, and interviews to explore whether Austin’s crime wave is a result of his tenure, or simply a convenient scapegoat for deeper societal issues.

The Soros Connection: How Big Money is Reshaping Local Politics

Let’s start with the money—because in politics, that’s always where the story begins. José Garza’s 2020 campaign was fueled by over $1 million from the Texas Justice & Public Safety PAC, a group funded almost entirely by George Soros. Soros has made it his mission to reform America’s criminal justice system by backing progressive prosecutors, believing that these officials can enact the kind of systemic change that national politicians either can’t or won’t.

But Soros’s strategy, while effective in electing reform-minded district attorneys, has drawn sharp criticism—especially in Texas, a state that prides itself on tough-on-crime policies. Critics accuse Soros-backed DAs of pushing lenient policies that make communities less safe. Garza, with his deep ties to Soros’s funding, has become the poster child for these accusations in Texas.

The Texas Tribune and Fox News have reported extensively on the political controversy surrounding Garza’s policies. With funding pouring in from outside the state, many Texans feel that Garza’s priorities are more aligned with progressive think tanks in New York and California than with the citizens of Travis County. This criticism has only intensified as crime rates in Austin have skyrocketed since Garza took office.

Policies That Sparked a Crime Wave?

When José Garza was elected, he made it clear that he intended to overhaul Travis County’s approach to criminal justice. Among his most significant reforms was his decision to deprioritize the prosecution of nonviolent drug offenses and eliminate cash bail for low-level offenses. Garza argued that criminalizing poverty and addiction does nothing to solve the root causes of crime, and that the justice system should focus on violent offenders rather than clogging jails with people arrested for petty crimes.

In theory, these reforms sound humane. In practice, critics argue, they have emboldened criminals and led to a surge in crime.

According to FBI crime statistics, violent crime in Austin rose nearly 40% above the national average in 2023. These statistics are not isolated incidents. Robberies, aggravated assaults, and auto thefts have all spiked dramatically. Auto theft alone surged by 44%, reaching a record high of 14,700 cases in 2023. Local businesses and residents have expressed growing concerns about their safety, and many point the finger directly at Garza’s policies.

But the most glaring issue is Garza’s handling of violent offenders. In several high-profile cases, his office has been criticized for allowing violent criminals to walk free on probation or plea deals. Take the case of Cordero Rios, a man convicted of multiple assaults against women, who was given 10 years of probation instead of prison time. The backlash to this case was swift and severe, with victims' advocates accusing Garza of prioritizing leniency for criminals over justice for victims.

A Dismantled Police Force: Targeting Cops Instead of Criminals?

One of the most contentious aspects of Garza’s tenure has been his aggressive prosecution of Austin police officers. From the beginning, Garza made it clear that he intended to hold law enforcement accountable for instances of police misconduct. Following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Garza’s office indicted 19 officers for their handling of the protests, accusing them of using excessive force.

Garza’s critics claim that this relentless focus on prosecuting police officers has demoralized the Austin Police Department (APD), leading to a mass exodus of officers. The Austin Police Retired Officers Association has stated that the department is now short by at least 500 officers, a significant gap that has crippled the force’s ability to maintain public safety. Officers feel unsupported by the district attorney’s office and many have either resigned or retired early, leaving the department understaffed and struggling to cope with rising crime rates.

Former officers have publicly spoken out about their frustrations, accusing Garza of selectively prosecuting police officers to fulfill a political agenda rather than focusing on reducing crime. This rift between law enforcement and the DA’s office has only grown wider, leading to less proactive policing and fewer patrols in high-crime areas.

Critics argue that Garza’s decision to prioritize the prosecution of police officers has led to a breakdown in public safety. As officers leave the force, crime goes unaddressed, and those who remain are often hesitant to act for fear of being targeted by the DA’s office.

Public Safety Eroded: Victims Left Behind

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of Garza’s tenure is the way in which victims have been neglected. Since taking office, Garza has faced multiple accusations of mishandling cases involving sexual assault, domestic violence, and violent crimes.

One such case involved Conny Branham, whose son was murdered in 2020. Branham was devastated when Garza’s office reduced the charges against all five suspects involved in her son’s murder, with none being charged with capital murder. This case, which was widely reported by local media, exemplifies the deep frustration felt by many victims' families who believe Garza’s office is more concerned with protecting criminals than securing justice for those they’ve harmed.

Moreover, the backlog of criminal cases in Travis County has reached an astounding 7,000, with many cases delayed or dismissed altogether. This has left victims waiting for months—sometimes years—for their day in court, only to find that the DA’s office has offered lenient plea deals that leave them feeling ignored and unsupported by the justice system.

The Austin American-Statesman has chronicled numerous examples of cases where violent offenders were released on probation or reduced charges, only to reoffend. One particularly egregious case involved a convicted sexual predator who was released on 10 years probation after brutally assaulting a woman. Shortly after his release, he was arrested again for a similar offense.

For the victims of these crimes, Garza’s policies have not only failed to deliver justice—they have actively put them at greater risk. The DA’s office, critics argue, is so focused on reform that it has lost sight of its most basic responsibility: protecting the public from dangerous criminals.

The Exodus from Austin: A City in Decline?

Austin has long been one of the fastest-growing cities in the country, attracting new residents with its vibrant culture, booming tech industry, and reputation as a relatively safe and livable city. But under Garza’s tenure, many Austinites are deciding it’s time to leave.

The combination of rising crime, deteriorating public safety, and a perception that the DA’s office is failing to hold criminals accountable has led to an exodus of residents from Austin. According to census data, Austin experienced a net loss in population for the first time in over a decade in 2023. Many residents, particularly families, are citing safety concerns as their primary reason for leaving.

Real estate data shows that more homes are being listed for sale in traditionally desirable Austin neighborhoods, while the surrounding suburbs and smaller towns in the greater Austin area are seeing an influx of new residents. Downtown businesses have also reported a decline in foot traffic, with many owners pointing to public safety concerns as a major factor.

This trend is particularly troubling for a city that has long prided itself on its growth and economic vibrancy. As more residents and businesses leave the city, Austin risks losing not only its reputation as a safe and livable city but also its economic stability.

Conclusion: A City in Crisis

As José Garza prepares to run for re-election, Austin is at a crossroads. His supporters argue that he is fulfilling his promise to reform a broken justice system, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. Rising crime rates, a demoralized police force, and a public increasingly fearful for its safety all point to a city in decline.

Garza’s critics, who now include a broad coalition of law enforcement, victims' advocates, business owners, and even some Democrats, believe that his policies have directly contributed to this crisis. They accuse him of prioritizing a political agenda over the safety of Austin’s citizens and warn that unless there is a dramatic course correction, the situation will only get worse.

Austin was once a city on the rise—a beacon of growth, opportunity, and progress in the heart of Texas. But under Garza’s tenure, it risks becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when ideology trumps public safety.

View the original Texas Watchdog article The Soros Playbook: Inside the Billionaire’s Plan to Rewire Texas Law Enforcement here. 

Texas has always been a state where the battles for power are fought on the most local, gritty, and personal of levels. It’s a place where gun rights and property rights are sacrosanct, and where government intervention is seen with the same suspicion as an outsider at a Friday night football game. Yet in recent years, a new player has entered this political stage — one who couldn’t be more removed from Texas’s boots-on-the-ground, spit-on-the-sidewalk culture. His name? George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire philanthropist whose influence now stretches deep into Texas’s judicial system.

Yes, you read that right. George Soros — the bogeyman of every far-right conspiracy theory, the villain in every “deep state” fever dream — is heavily bankrolling the campaigns of district attorneys (DAs) across Texas. And it’s setting off a political firefight that makes your average Lone Star political squabble look like a Sunday barbecue. What we’re talking about here isn’t just a clash of ideologies; it’s an all-out war over the future of law and order in Texas, where district attorneys funded by Soros are pushing criminal justice reforms that their critics say are turning the state’s cities into anarchic hellscapes.

Let’s dive into the world of Soros-backed DAs in Texas — their rise to power, the policies they’re pushing, and the backlash they’re facing in a state that likes its law enforcement tough and its jail cells full.

The Soros Strategy: District Attorneys as Gatekeepers

For Soros, it’s not about winning flashy gubernatorial or senatorial races. No, Soros is smarter than that. He knows that the real gatekeepers of criminal justice aren’t the politicians you see on TV; they’re the district attorneys — the local prosecutors who decide who gets charged with a crime and who walks free. These are the people who can decriminalize entire categories of offenses with the stroke of a pen or redirect prosecutorial resources toward holding police accountable. In other words, DAs are the perfect vehicle for Soros’s larger project of overhauling the American justice system.

So, starting around 2016, Soros began to funnel millions of dollars into district attorney races across the country, focusing particularly on urban areas where he could elect progressive candidates with a mandate to “reform” the criminal justice system. Texas, home to some of the largest urban centers in the country, quickly became a focal point of this strategy. Soros used his Texas Justice & Public Safety PAC to fund the campaigns of DA candidates in Harris County (Houston), Travis County (Austin), Bexar County (San Antonio), and Dallas County. These candidates, often underfunded in traditional races, suddenly found themselves flush with cash and the ability to launch expensive media campaigns. And it worked. The Soros-backed DAs swept into office, promising to bring a new era of criminal justice reform.

The Rise of Reform DAs: Justice or Chaos?

Once in office, the Soros-backed DAs wasted no time in implementing reforms that they claimed would address the “mass incarceration crisis” and reduce systemic inequities. On paper, it all sounds great — who wouldn’t want a justice system that’s more just? But in practice, the results have been far more divisive.

Take John Creuzot in Dallas County, for example. After being elected with nearly $1 million in Soros funding, Creuzot immediately set about reforming the county’s approach to low-level crimes. He decriminalized thefts under $750, as long as they were considered “crimes of necessity.” In other words, if someone steals from a store because they say they need to feed their family, it’s not a crime. Critics, of course, immediately seized on this as an open invitation for shoplifting sprees — and crime data in the months after Creuzot’s policy shift seemed to back them up. Theft rates in Dallas County spiked, and local businesses were left to deal with the consequences.

Meanwhile, in Harris County, Kim Ogg initially came into office with Soros backing in 2016, although she later fell out of favor with the billionaire’s political apparatus. Under her tenure, Houston’s crime rates fluctuated, with a noticeable rise in violent crime during the pandemic. Ogg faced backlash for appearing soft on crime, particularly from conservative groups and police unions. But by the time she was ousted in 2024 by another Soros-backed DA, Sean Teare, the reformist agenda was back in full force.

Teare, who took over with a hefty $1.5 million war chest from the Soros PAC, has vowed to continue pushing policies that many in law enforcement argue are contributing to Houston’s crime problem. Like other Soros-backed DAs, Teare is focused on reducing incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders and prioritizing police accountability cases — a stance that has put him at odds with local law enforcement.

Crime Rates and the Backlash: A Convenient Scapegoat?

The argument over the impact of these Soros-backed DAs on crime rates is where things get really contentious. On the one hand, proponents argue that crime rates have fluctuated nationwide due to a wide array of factors — the pandemic, economic instability, rising mental health crises — none of which can be pinned directly on prosecutorial policy. On the other hand, critics argue that the rise in crime in cities like Dallas, Austin, and Houston is no coincidence. They point to a string of high-profile violent crimes, committed by individuals who were released or never charged under the more lenient policies of these Soros-backed DAs.

In Austin, José Garza — perhaps the most aggressively progressive of the Soros-backed DAs — has been criticized for creating a revolving door of justice. Garza’s office has repeatedly declined to prosecute cases involving low-level drug offenses and certain nonviolent property crimes. This has led to growing complaints from both law enforcement and community members who feel that Austin is becoming lawless. Garza has also taken heat for his focus on prosecuting police officers, which he argues is necessary to build public trust but which has alienated him from local law enforcement.

Then there’s Joe Gonzalez in Bexar County, where San Antonio has seen similar crime spikes under his tenure. Like his peers, Gonzalez has moved to decriminalize nonviolent offenses and has dramatically cut back on pre-trial detention, arguing that the cash bail system disproportionately punishes poor and minority defendants. But critics, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, argue that the policies of DAs like Gonzalez are emboldening criminals. Abbott himself has vowed to take action against what he calls “rogue prosecutors,” and Texas lawmakers are already exploring ways to rein in the power of district attorneys who refuse to enforce certain laws.

Law Enforcement at War: Police vs. Prosecutors

One of the most striking features of the Soros-backed DA experiment is the way it has pitted local prosecutors against the very law enforcement agencies they’re supposed to work with. Police unions across Texas have come out swinging against these new DAs, accusing them of undermining public safety and making it harder for officers to do their jobs.

In Harris County, the relationship between the district attorney’s office and local police has deteriorated to the point where it’s openly hostile. Police officers complain that they arrest individuals for crimes, only to have the DA’s office refuse to prosecute or offer plea deals that amount to slaps on the wrist. The tension boiled over in 2023 when Sean Teare publicly criticized Houston’s police department for a series of officer-involved shootings, leading to a fiery response from the Houston Police Officers’ Union, which accused Teare of “politicizing” criminal justice.

Meanwhile, in Dallas, John Creuzot has faced similar pushback from law enforcement, particularly over his refusal to prosecute certain drug cases and property crimes. The Dallas Police Association has repeatedly clashed with Creuzot, arguing that his policies are making it impossible to maintain public safety. And yet, despite the tensions, these DAs remain committed to their reformist agendas, arguing that the old system of over-policing and mass incarceration was a failed experiment.

Big Money, Big Influence: The Ethics of Outsized Donations

For all the debate about criminal justice reform, there’s an even bigger elephant in the room — money. Soros’s influence in Texas’s DA races has led to growing concerns about the ethics of outsized campaign donations and whether one man’s millions should have this much sway over local politics.

Texas, of course, has long been a political Wild West when it comes to campaign finance. Thanks to Citizens United, there are essentially no limits on how much wealthy donors can spend to influence elections through PACs and Super PACs. And Soros has taken full advantage of this, spending millions to elect DAs who align with his vision of justice reform. Critics argue that this outsized influence is distorting the democratic process, particularly in local races where candidates typically don’t have access to the kind of funding that national candidates enjoy.

In some cases, Soros-funded PACs have been responsible for 80–90% of a candidate’s total campaign war chest. This has led to accusations that these DAs are beholden not to their constituents, but to their out-of-state benefactor. And it’s not just conservatives raising these concerns. Some local community leaders have questioned whether Soros’s influence is actually undermining trust in the justice system, particularly when the policies enacted by these DAs lead to rising crime and public outcry.

The Fight for the Future: Is Texas Ready for More Soros?

As Texas gears up for another round of local elections, the battle over the role of Soros-backed DAs is only heating up. The state’s political landscape is deeply polarized, and criminal justice reform has become a flashpoint in the broader culture war playing out across the country. On one side, you have the progressive DAs, armed with Soros’s millions and determined to implement reforms that they argue will create a fairer, more just system. On the other side, you have a growing coalition of law enforcement officials, conservative politicians, and concerned citizens who view these reforms as a dangerous experiment that’s making Texas less safe.

What’s clear is that the debate over Soros-backed DAs isn’t going away anytime soon. As crime rates fluctuate and political tensions rise, the future of criminal justice in Texas hangs in the balance. For now, the question is whether the reforms being pushed by these DAs will prove to be the change the system needs — or whether they’ll ultimately lead to a backlash that sweeps them out of office.

One thing’s for sure: the battle for the soul of Texas’s justice system is far from over. And in a state where everything’s bigger, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

View the original Texas Watchdog article Fire, Smoke, and Neglect: Inside the Deer Park Disaster That Texas Tried to Downplay here. 

The Deer Park Pipeline Explosion on the outskirts of Houston, Texas, serves as a stark reminder of the hidden dangers lurking in the massive, aging web of oil and gas infrastructure crisscrossing the state. The explosion, which burned for four days, was sparked by an SUV crashing into an aboveground pipeline valve, killing the driver and triggering an inferno that displaced hundreds of families, disrupted local businesses, and raised serious questions about the safety of the infrastructure that fuels the Texas economy. While Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based company that owns the pipeline, quickly implemented damage control measures, the underlying issues exposed by the incident — lax regulation, insufficient safety protocols, and a dangerously close relationship between industry and government — remain unaddressed. This is not an isolated event. It’s part of a broader, systemic failure to protect the public from the risks posed by Texas’s sprawling pipeline network, which stretches more than 235,000 miles, most of it beneath the feet of unsuspecting residents.

In this investigation, we will break down the critical failures leading up to the Deer Park explosion, the government’s inadequate oversight, and how the disaster is emblematic of larger issues plaguing the state’s energy infrastructure. Our sources include AP News, local reporting from the Houston Chronicle, eyewitness accounts, and independent data on pipeline safety in Texas.

The Explosion: What Happened?

On a hot day in July 2024, a white SUV veered off a road in Deer Park and crashed through a chain-link fence surrounding a pipeline valve owned by Energy Transfer. The vehicle’s impact caused a massive explosion, sending flames high into the sky and shaking nearby homes. Eyewitnesses described the crash as surreal, “like something out of an action movie,” with the SUV briefly airborne before striking the pipeline and igniting a blaze that could be seen for miles. The fire, fueled by the natural gas liquids coursing through the pipeline, raged for four days.

The local authorities ordered evacuations for nearly 1,000 homes, as well as nearby businesses, including a Walmart and H-E-B grocery store. Schools were placed under shelter-in-place orders. While no additional fatalities were reported, the toll on the community was immense — ranging from property damage to heightened anxiety over potential long-term health effects due to the fire’s toxic emissions. Energy Transfer eventually shut down the affected section of the pipeline, allowing the remaining fuel to burn off while air quality monitoring stations scrambled to assess the impact on the surrounding environment.

The SUV’s driver, found deceased in the vehicle, was identified in the following days. Initial investigations by the Deer Park Police Department and the FBI found no evidence of foul play or terrorism, leading officials to conclude that the explosion was the result of a tragic accident — likely caused by a medical emergency or loss of control of the vehicle.

Energy Transfer: Safety Measures or PR Spin?

Energy Transfer wasted no time in rolling out a public relations campaign to contain the fallout. They framed the incident as a rare, unfortunate accident and touted their rapid response efforts, which included immediate firefighting measures, continuous air monitoring, and an assistance program for displaced families. Company officials assured the public that air quality remained within safe limits, a claim met with skepticism by local residents who were choking on smoke and worried about long-term exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Despite the company’s efforts to present a clean image, Energy Transfer’s safety record tells a different story. Since 2021, the company has reported 53 pipeline incidents in Texas alone, with eight occurring in 2024. The Deer Park explosion added to the growing list of disasters under the company’s watch, leading critics to question whether Energy Transfer’s “comprehensive safety measures” are anything more than corporate doublespeak.

According to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the Deer Park explosion is part of a disturbing pattern of accidents involving pipeline infrastructure in the state. Energy Transfer’s pipelines, like many others in Texas, operate close to densely populated areas, often protected by nothing more than chain-link fences, despite carrying volatile materials that pose significant risks to human life and property.

The Hidden Hazards Beneath Our Feet

Texas is home to an extensive pipeline network, stretching across 469,000 miles of natural gas, oil, and hazardous liquid lines. Much of this infrastructure runs underground, unnoticed by the general public until disaster strikes. In Deer Park, as in many parts of the state, the proximity of pipelines to residential areas, schools, and businesses is a ticking time bomb. The sheer number of pipelines crisscrossing the state makes it impossible for regulatory agencies to ensure that all lines are properly maintained, let alone protected from potential accidents.

This incident exposes the glaring vulnerabilities in Texas’s pipeline safety infrastructure. While it’s easy to blame the driver for causing the explosion, the fact that a simple car crash could ignite a four-day inferno points to deeper systemic issues. A chain-link fence was all that stood between the public and an explosion that could have easily killed dozens had the circumstances been just slightly different. Chain-link fences may deter casual trespassers, but they do nothing to prevent vehicles from crashing into critical infrastructure.

Pipeline safety advocates have long called for stronger protections around valves, particularly in areas close to homes and businesses. Suggestions include reinforced barriers, stricter zoning laws to prevent pipelines from running through residential neighborhoods, and more frequent safety inspections. However, such measures are expensive, and neither pipeline operators nor state regulators seem willing to foot the bill.

Regulatory Failure: Who’s Watching the Watchmen?

Texas’s energy infrastructure is regulated primarily by the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC), a body long criticized for its coziness with the oil and gas industry. The RRC, tasked with overseeing everything from drilling permits to pipeline safety, is notorious for prioritizing industry profits over public safety. In recent years, the Commission has been accused of lax oversight, with some critics even claiming that it functions more as a lobbying arm of the oil and gas sector than as a regulatory body.

When asked about the Deer Park explosion, RRC officials were quick to point out that their inspectors were on-site shortly after the accident and that they would be conducting a thorough investigation. But the truth is, the RRC’s capacity to meaningfully regulate Texas’s vast pipeline network is limited at best. For one, the agency is woefully underfunded. According to a 2023 report by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, the RRC’s Pipeline Safety division has fewer than 150 inspectors tasked with overseeing nearly half a million miles of pipeline — an impossible job.

Moreover, the RRC is not particularly motivated to regulate aggressively. A look at the Commission’s financial disclosures shows that several RRC commissioners have significant personal investments in the oil and gas sector, raising questions about conflicts of interest. Energy Transfer, for example, has made substantial political contributions to key members of the Texas Legislature and the RRC, ensuring that the company’s interests are well-represented in Austin.

Even when safety violations are found, the penalties tend to be little more than slaps on the wrist. In the rare instances when the RRC does impose fines, they are often so small that they barely register as a cost of doing business for multi-billion-dollar companies like Energy Transfer.

Environmental and Health Impacts: The Long-Term Fallout

While Energy Transfer insists that air quality remained safe throughout the Deer Park fire, local residents have reason to be skeptical. Deer Park, part of the greater Houston area, is already one of the most polluted regions in the United States, thanks to its proximity to dozens of refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. For years, residents have complained about elevated rates of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other health issues, all of which are exacerbated by the region’s constant exposure to toxic chemicals.

The pipeline explosion released thick black smoke into the air, much of which contained particulate matter and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — a toxic cocktail known to cause respiratory problems, especially in children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting health conditions. The long-term health impacts of exposure to these chemicals remain unclear, but if history is any guide, local residents may be dealing with the fallout of this disaster for years to come.

Environmental groups, including Air Alliance Houston, have called for more stringent monitoring of air quality in the wake of such incidents, but their calls often fall on deaf ears. Industry lobbyists have successfully pushed back against more robust environmental regulations, arguing that they would increase costs and harm Texas’s economy. Meanwhile, local residents are left to deal with the consequences — breathing polluted air and living in constant fear of the next explosion.

Local Communities Left to Pick Up the Pieces

For the people living in Deer Park, the explosion has left a lasting psychological impact. Many residents have been displaced, and even those who have returned home remain anxious about the safety of their community. Local businesses have been hit hard as well — Walmart, H-E-B, and other stores were forced to close for days, leading to significant economic losses. Homeowners worry about the long-term effects of smoke damage and the possibility of another disaster.

Local government officials have done their best to reassure the public, but the reality is that Deer Park is just one of many communities across Texas living with the constant threat of pipeline disasters. Without meaningful reforms — both in terms of regulation and safety measures — these disasters are bound to happen again. The Deer Park explosion is not an outlier; it’s a symptom of a system that places profits over public safety.

Another Disaster Waiting to Happen

The Deer Park pipeline explosion is a tragic but predictable result of Texas’s reckless approach to energy infrastructure. With minimal oversight, weak regulations, and a government more interested in protecting industry profits than the lives of its citizens, it was only a matter of time before a disaster like this occurred. And it will happen again unless something changes.

For decades, Texas has relied on its oil and gas sector to fuel its economy, but this reliance has come at a steep cost. The state’s pipeline infrastructure is aging and poorly maintained, with many lines running through densely populated areas. Regulatory agencies like the Railroad Commission have proven themselves unwilling or unable to enforce even the most basic safety standards, while companies like Energy Transfer continue to rake in billions, even as they rack up safety violations.

If Texas wants to prevent another Deer Park, it needs to overhaul its approach to pipeline safety. That means more inspectors, tougher penalties, and real accountability for companies that put profit over people. But until that happens, Texans will continue to live in the shadow of a system built to fail.

You can view our sources and citations in our research article here.

View the Texas Watchdog article A System Built to Fail: How Texas Turned Disability Care Into a Decades Long Waiting Game here. 

The Texas Home and Community-based Services (HCS) program is supposed to be the gold standard in disability care, offering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) a way to live independently in their communities while receiving critical services. But in Texas, as with so many well-meaning social programs, the reality is something much different. What should be a system of care and support has instead become a bureaucratic nightmare, bogged down by endless waitlists, underfunded agencies, and a Medicaid “unwinding” process that has pushed the system past the breaking point. More than 108,000 Texans are currently on the HCS waitlist as of 2024, with some families facing wait times of 15 years or longer. The program designed to help the state’s most vulnerable has become, in effect, a death sentence for thousands, who simply cannot afford to wait while the system works itself out.

Medicaid Unwinding: The Bureaucratic Disaster

Texas’s HCS crisis is bad enough, but the state’s Medicaid unwinding process has made everything much, much worse. The “unwinding” refers to the bureaucratic recalibration of Medicaid eligibility that followed the end of the COVID-19 pandemic’s continuous coverage policies. Since March 31, 2023, over 2 million Texans — the majority of them children — have lost Medicaid coverage. A staggering portion of these losses didn’t happen because people no longer qualified, but because of procedural errors — paperwork lost in the mail, families missing obscure deadlines, or other administrative failures. Texas’s procedural denial rate is currently at 35%, compared to the national average of 22%. Families aren’t losing coverage because they don’t need it; they’re losing it because the state can’t manage the paperwork.

For families caring for individuals with disabilities, the consequences of this bureaucratic mess are devastating. The loss of Medicaid coverage interrupts critical services — everything from behavioral therapy to dental care. Texas clinics that serve as the safety net for disabled individuals have been financially crippled by the loss of Medicaid revenue. Since the unwinding process began, many clinics have reported a 30% decrease in Medicaid revenue, forcing layoffs, furloughs, and cuts to essential services. The effects of these cuts ripple across the entire disability services network, further stretching an already overburdened system.

The Waitlist Crisis: A System at Breaking Point

The HCS waitlist crisis is not just a story of bureaucratic dysfunction; it’s a story of human suffering. For families stuck in waitlist purgatory, the wait for services can stretch 10, 12, even 15 years. By the time their loved one is finally eligible for services, the individual’s needs have often changed dramatically — if they haven’t died in the interim. This isn’t a small problem affecting a handful of people; as of early 2024, over 108,000 Texans are on the waitlist, making up nearly 30% of the national waiting list for Home and Community-Based Services.

The waitlist isn’t just a logistical challenge; it’s a reflection of a much deeper, more systemic failure. While Texas has continued to funnel money into its troubled State Supported Living Centers (SSLCs), it has woefully underfunded community-based care programs like HCS. SSLCs are not only more expensive — costing more than $210,000 per resident per year — but they’re also rife with abuse and neglect. But Texas has a perverse incentive to keep funding these institutions because the state receives higher federal reimbursement rates for institutional care than for community-based services.

In the meantime, individuals who could be living independently with proper support remain on the HCS waitlist, often forced into institutional care they don’t want and don’t need. It’s an outrageous, morally bankrupt system where people who could live fulfilling lives in their communities are instead warehoused in institutions because the state won’t fund their community-based care.

Crisis Diversion Slots: A False Safety Net

In an attempt to triage the worst cases on the HCS waitlist, Texas has created Crisis Diversion slots — a system designed to give immediate HCS access to individuals at imminent risk of institutionalization. The idea is that if you’re about to be forced into an institution because you can’t get the care you need, you can jump to the front of the line. In theory, it’s a great idea. In practice, it’s a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The slots are extremely limited, subject to the state’s budget whims, and difficult to secure.

The process for obtaining a Crisis Diversion slot is as bureaucratic as you might expect. Families must navigate a mountain of paperwork and submit a formal request through the Local Intellectual and Developmental Disability Authority (LIDDA). This process includes filling out a Determination of Intellectual Disability (DID) form, providing extensive documentation, and crossing your fingers that HHSC will approve the request. Even if a family jumps through all these hoops, the availability of Crisis Diversion slots is always in question. Budget cuts and resource constraints mean that even in dire, life-threatening situations, families may still have to wait.

The Procedural Denial Trap: Bureaucracy Wins, Texans Lose

For the families stuck in the endless cycle of procedural denials, the Texas Medicaid system is a machine built to destroy hope. One-third of Medicaid denials in Texas are based on procedural issues rather than eligibility, and navigating the complex renewal process is a nightmare for families already stretched thin by the demands of caring for a disabled loved one. Lost paperwork, incorrect addresses, missed deadlines — these are the landmines that Texas families face. And the state is in no hurry to fix the problem. While other states have implemented ex parte renewals, which allow Medicaid eligibility to be determined based on existing data without requiring additional paperwork, Texas has been slow to adopt these common-sense reforms. Currently, only 6% of Medicaid renewals in Texas are processed through automated systems, compared to much higher rates in other states.

The result? Thousands of Texans — many of them children — are losing access to life-saving services because the system can’t keep track of its own paperwork. Families are left scrambling to reapply for services, a process that can take months, during which their loved ones go without the care they desperately need.

The Impact on Disability Services: A System on the Verge of Collapse

The Texas HCS system isn’t just failing the people on its waitlist; it’s failing the entire network of care providers who are supposed to deliver services. The Medicaid unwinding process has financially devastated many of the clinics and care centers that provide essential services for people with disabilities. A 30% drop in Medicaid revenue has forced clinics to lay off staff, furlough employees, and cut back on services like behavioral therapy, dental care, and other critical programs. The financial strain has hit safety net clinics the hardest — clinics that are often the last resort for families who can’t afford private care.

The Direct Service Workforce that supports HCS programs has been decimated by the state’s failure to provide adequate funding. Community attendants, personal care assistants, and other workers who provide hands-on care to individuals with disabilities are fleeing the field in droves because they’re overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated. The state has made some half-hearted attempts to address this crisis, but the efforts have been woefully inadequate. The Direct Service Workforce Development Taskforce, created to tackle recruitment and retention issues, has made little progress, and turnover rates remain sky-high. Texas’s refusal to pay these workers a living wage only exacerbates the problem, leaving families without the support they need and workers without the pay they deserve.

Federal Funding: The Money Is There, but Texas Won’t Take It

The federal government has thrown Texas more than a few lifelines to help address the HCS waitlist crisis, but the state has been slow — sometimes outright resistant — to grab them. In 2024, Texas received over $92 million in federal funding to help manage the Medicaid unwinding process, but those funds haven’t been enough to fix the systemic issues plaguing the program. Federal initiatives like ex parte renewals and the Money Follows the Person (MFP) demonstration, which helps transition individuals out of institutions and into community-based care, are grossly underutilized in Texas.

The state’s decision not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act has cost it billions of dollars in federal funding that could have been used to reduce the HCS waitlist and improve services for people with disabilities. Between 2014 and 2024, Texas taxpayers have effectively sent over $36 billion in federal taxes to other states to fund their Medicaid expansion programs. That’s money that could have gone toward reducing the waitlists for services like HCS and improving care for the state’s most vulnerable residents. But instead of taking the money, Texas has chosen to leave its residents in bureaucratic limbo.

Community-Based Care: The Solution That’s Right in Front of Us

The absurdity of the Texas HCS crisis is that the solution is right in front of us, but the state refuses to fully invest in it. Community-based care, provided through programs like HCS and the Community Living Assistance and Support Services (CLASS) waiver, is cheaper and more effective than institutional care. It allows individuals with disabilities to live independently while receiving the support they need, and it prevents the kind of abuse and neglect that are rampant in institutions like SSLCs.

But community-based care is only effective if people can access it. And right now, Texas isn’t funding these programs at the level necessary to meet demand. The state continues to pour money into expensive institutions while neglecting the community-based care programs that are cheaper, more humane, and more effective. It’s a strategy that defies logic but makes perfect sense when you consider that institutional care brings in more federal dollars under the current Medicaid reimbursement system.

The Way Forward: Reform or Collapse

The Texas HCS system is teetering on the brink of collapse, but it’s not beyond saving. Advocates have proposed a range of reforms that could help fix the system, including raising wages for community attendants, streamlining the application process, and increasing the use of automated eligibility checks to reduce the burden on families. Perhaps the most important reform would be expanding Medicaid under the ACA, which would bring billions of federal dollars into the state to help reduce the HCS waitlist and improve services for people with disabilities.

The Time to Care coalition has been leading the charge for these reforms, pushing the Texas Legislature to take action on long-standing issues like worker pay and service funding. But so far, the state’s response has been tepid at best. In 2021, lawmakers allocated $77 million to reduce the HCS waitlist, but that’s barely a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. The systemic issues plaguing the HCS system require a much more significant investment, both in terms of money and political will.

The Price of Indifference

At the heart of the Texas HCS crisis is a fundamental indifference to the lives of the state’s most vulnerable residents. Whether it’s the endless waitlists, the procedural denials, or the chronic underfunding of community-based care, the message from the state is clear: We don’t care enough to fix it. The people who need these services — the children, the adults with disabilities, the families caring for them — are left to fend for themselves in a system that seems designed to make them fail. Until Texas decides to invest in the people it claims to serve, the HCS waitlist will remain a cruel joke, a waiting room with no exit, where the most vulnerable Texans are left to suffer and wait while the state looks the other way.

View the original Texas Watchdog article Dark Money and Misinformation: How Texas School Districts Flunked the Transparency Test here. 

The Texas School Transparency Violations scandal, uncovered by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica, reveals that a significant number of Texas school districts have failed to comply with House Bill 2626—a state law that mandates the public disclosure of campaign finance reports for trustee elections. The law, meant to usher in a new era of transparency in local school board elections, has instead exposed a pervasive lack of compliance, administrative chaos, and systemic underfunding. In this investigative report, we’ll dive into the heart of these violations, the impact of political and bureaucratic dysfunction, and the broader consequences for democratic accountability in the Texas education system.

HB 2626: A Law with Good Intentions, Lousy Execution

House Bill 2626, passed in 2023, was supposed to be a game-changer for local political transparency. The law required school districts, municipalities, and other political subdivisions to post campaign finance reports on their websites within 10 business days of receiving them. The law aimed to give voters a clear view of who was financing their local school board candidates, helping them to make informed decisions about potential conflicts of interest.

The law’s intent was noble, but in execution, it’s been a colossal failure. The ProPublica and Texas Tribune investigation found that not a single one of the 35 districts examined had fully complied with the law. Reports were either incomplete, missing, or never uploaded to district websites, even after the districts were notified of their noncompliance. Of the districts analyzed, 16 were missing reports entirely, while others hadn’t bothered to upload even a fraction of what the law required.

Why? The reasons range from incompetence to a lack of resources. Small, rural school districts, in particular, struggled with the technical requirements of posting the reports online, citing underfunded IT departments and overburdened administrative staff. But in other cases, it appears that the districts simply didn’t bother to prioritize compliance.

Political Transparency or Political Theater?

For all its good intentions, HB 2626 seems to have been more of a political stunt than an actual step toward reform. When you look at how the law was implemented, it’s clear that the Texas Legislature either didn’t think through the logistics or simply didn’t care about enforcing the law. No additional funding was allocated to help smaller districts meet the new requirements. The law was simply dumped on already overwhelmed school districts, leaving them to figure out the details on their own. And figure it out, they did not.

One of the most glaring aspects of the ProPublica and Texas Tribune findings is that even after districts were notified of their violations, some continued to drag their feet. In one particularly egregious example, a district in East Texas took months to post a single campaign finance report after being alerted of its noncompliance. This kind of foot-dragging raises questions about whether the lack of compliance is purely administrative or if there’s something more sinister at play—whether certain school boards are intentionally keeping voters in the dark about who’s funding their campaigns.

The Role of Dark Money in Texas School Board Elections

One of the most significant issues the transparency law was supposed to address is the increasing role of dark money in local school board races. School board elections, once the domain of local parents and teachers, have become a political battleground. Outside interest groups, PACs, and even national organizations are funneling millions into these elections, pushing agendas ranging from school vouchers to curriculum changes related to race and gender issues.

The ProPublica investigation uncovered several instances where school board candidates received significant funding from out-of-state donors and dark money groups, raising concerns about outside influence in local education policy. In one high-profile case in Midland, a group linked to conservative billionaire Tim Dunn funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a local bond election through a shadowy PAC. The lack of transparency surrounding these donations made it nearly impossible for local voters to trace the money back to its source.

The influx of dark money isn’t just a problem for transparency; it’s also a threat to the very nature of local governance. School boards are supposed to represent the interests of the local community, not serve as proxies for national political battles. But as more outside money flows into these races, the voices of local parents and teachers are being drowned out by well-funded special interest groups.

The Compliance Crisis: From Technical Failures to Political Apathy

In many of the districts that failed to comply with HB 2626, administrators cited technical issues and a lack of resources as the main barriers to compliance. Smaller, rural districts, in particular, struggled with the requirements of posting documents online. Many lack dedicated IT staff or the infrastructure to manage online databases. Some districts have websites that look like they were designed in the early 2000s and haven’t been updated since. Expecting these underfunded districts to suddenly comply with a complex web of new transparency requirements without additional resources was, frankly, unrealistic.

But technical issues are only part of the problem. In other cases, the failure to comply appears to be more about political apathy—a general disinterest in transparency and accountability. School boards, already operating with limited oversight, have little incentive to comply with transparency laws, especially when the penalties for noncompliance are negligible. Even when districts were notified of their violations, many failed to act quickly or adequately, raising questions about their commitment to transparency.

The Texas Ethics Commission, tasked with overseeing campaign finance laws, has struggled to enforce even the most basic transparency measures. The commission, which is woefully underfunded and understaffed, relies on the Texas Attorney General’s Office to pursue delinquent filers. But as the Texas Tribune reported, enforcement has been inconsistent at best. The backlog of delinquent filers has grown steadily since 2019, with 750 candidates owing over $3.6 million in unpaid fines as of 2023. This lack of enforcement emboldens noncompliance, creating a culture of impunity among school districts and candidates.

Who Pays the Price? The Impact on Voters

The people who suffer the most from this transparency crisis are the voters. Without access to crucial campaign finance information, voters are left to make decisions in the dark. They have no way of knowing who’s bankrolling the candidates running for school board positions, or what kind of political interests might be influencing local education policy.

In the 2023 school board elections alone, candidates received thousands of dollars in donations from PACs with opaque funding sources. In districts like Harris County, where schools serve predominantly low-income and minority students, these elections are critical for determining the future of education policy, from school funding to curriculum content. The fact that voters in these districts are being denied access to key information about their candidates’ backers is not just a violation of transparency—it’s a violation of democracy.

And while dark money influences loom large in wealthier suburban districts, the impact on rural and lower-income districts is even more damaging. In many smaller districts, school board elections are decided by just a few dozen votes. The lack of transparency in these races gives outsized power to special interest groups, allowing them to shape the future of rural education without any real accountability to the local community.

Parental Rights vs. Public Accountability

As part of the broader debate over school transparency, parental rights activists have emerged as a significant political force, advocating for increased control over school curricula, health policies, and administrative decisions. Groups like Moms for Liberty and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have been vocal in their support for laws that give parents more oversight over what’s taught in public schools, particularly when it comes to issues of race, gender, and sexuality.

But while these groups claim to champion transparency, their influence on local school board races is often anything but transparent. Many of the candidates they support receive funding from dark money PACs and out-of-state donors, making it difficult for local voters to determine who’s really behind the push for greater parental control. The investigation by the Texas Tribune found several instances where candidates endorsed by parental rights groups failed to disclose their campaign finances, further muddying the waters of public accountability.

The clash between parental rights activists and advocates for public transparency is likely to intensify in the coming years, as school board elections become increasingly politicized. But as long as school districts remain lax in their compliance with transparency laws, voters will continue to be left in the dark.

Conclusion: A Transparency Law in Name Only

The Texas School Transparency Violations scandal lays bare the systemic failures in enforcing transparency at the local level. HB 2626, despite its good intentions, has been rendered toothless by a combination of underfunding, technical incompetence, and political apathy. School districts, particularly in rural areas, lack the resources to comply with the law, while wealthier districts, where dark money looms large, have little incentive to act.

The reporting by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica shines a spotlight on a critical issue that goes far beyond individual districts. The lack of transparency in local school board elections is emblematic of a broader crisis in public accountability in Texas. Without significant reforms—both in terms of funding and enforcement—HB 2626 will remain a law in name only, leaving Texas voters without the information they need to make informed decisions about the future of their schools.

In a state that prides itself on independence and local control, the failure to enforce transparency laws is a betrayal of the very principles Texas claims to stand for. As long as dark money continues to flow unchecked into local elections, and as long as school districts remain free to flout the law, Texas voters will continue to be shut out of the democratic process.

You can view the original Texas Watchdog article The Long, Slow Collapse of Texas Disability Care: Who’s Left to Pick Up the Pieces? here. 

The Texas Disability Care Crisis is a stark reflection of a state healthcare system crumbling under its own weight. While Texas once sought to move away from large-scale institutions in favor of a more humane, community-based care model for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), today the entire system is in disarray. Staffing shortages, inadequate funding, and an archaic Medicaid waiver system have driven Texas’s care system to the brink. And despite investigative efforts, policy debates, and incremental reforms, the state has left vulnerable Texans abandoned by the very system meant to support them.

Texas’s year-long investigative reporting efforts, particularly from the Austin American-Statesman’s “Disabled & Abandoned” series, have revealed deep cracks within the infrastructure supporting those with disabilities. The stories of systemic violence, understaffing, and funding shortfalls paint a bleak picture of a system teetering on collapse. This article will examine the key failures in Texas’s IDD care system, how chronic underfunding and labor shortages have worsened, and why reform efforts remain stalled in the face of powerful political and financial obstacles.

The Staffing Crisis: Paying Pennies for Critical Work

At the heart of this issue are Direct Support Professionals (DSPs), the front-line workers tasked with providing hands-on care for individuals with disabilities. These workers assist with basic daily functions, such as feeding, bathing, administering medication, and ensuring the safety of people with sometimes severe medical or behavioral needs. Despite the essential nature of their work, DSPs are paid a paltry $10.60 an hour, a figure barely above minimum wage. And it’s not as if they are part-time workers — many DSPs find themselves working 60 to 100 hours a week due to severe staffing shortages. It’s a burnout cycle in the making, with devastating results for both workers and the people they care for.

According to reporting from the Austin American-Statesman, this meager wage is simply not enough to attract or retain the workers required to meet Texas’s needs. As DSPs leave for better-paying jobs in retail or fast food, vacancy rates have exploded to 34% in 2024. The direct result? Nearly 50% of group homes and care facilities in Texas are unable to meet federal standards for care. This means medication errors, missed appointments, and often unsupervised residents — many of whom require constant care to ensure their health and safety.

The Consequences of Staffing Gaps: A System on the Edge

Facility closures have become the norm rather than the exception. Between January 2023 and February 2024, 179 HCS (Home and Community-Based Services) homes and 50 ICF (Intermediate Care Facilities) shut down across Texas. With an additional 126 closures projected by the end of the year, families are scrambling to find alternative care for their loved ones in a system that simply doesn’t have the capacity to serve them.

As Texas falls further behind, many individuals with disabilities are being institutionalized — not because it’s better for them, but because there are no community-based options left. It’s a reversal of the state’s decades-long effort to move away from large, impersonal institutions and towards small, community-integrated settings. The move toward institutionalization isn’t just costly in terms of taxpayer dollars — it’s a violation of the principle of choice and independence for those with disabilities.

The Medicaid Waiver Disaster: A Bureaucratic Labyrinth

The Texas Medicaid waiver system is meant to provide a safety net for individuals with disabilities, allowing them to receive care and services in their communities rather than in institutions. But the system has devolved into a bureaucratic maze. There are six different waiver programs, each with different eligibility criteria, coverage limitations, and waiting periods that can last more than a decade.

More than 156,000 Texans are currently on waitlists for services. Some wait as long as 16 years to receive essential care — by the time their names come up, many no longer meet the same needs they did when they first applied. In some cases, they have died before receiving services. Families are forced to take on the burden of care in the meantime, often burning through their savings, losing employment opportunities, and facing severe emotional strain.

The waiver system’s complexities and failures were brought to light through extensive reporting by both local and national media outlets, including the Austin American-Statesman and the Dallas Morning News’s “Pain and Profit” series. These investigations found that care is frequently denied, delayed, or insufficiently coordinated, leaving the most vulnerable Texans without a lifeline.

The Funding Gap: Doing More With Less, or Just Less?

The state’s refusal to adequately fund the system has been a consistent theme. Despite increased allocations in recent legislative sessions, the funding still falls short by billions of dollars. Texas providers argue that the $77 million allocated in 2021 to reduce the waiver waitlists wasn’t even close to what was needed to begin addressing the scale of the crisis. Add to that the loss of $300 million in federal special education funding due to improper reporting of Medicaid services, and you have a system that’s choking under its own lack of resources.

The wage increase from $8.11 to $10.60 per hour for DSPs, while celebrated by some as progress, is widely seen by advocacy groups like Time to Care as woefully inadequate. These organizations have pushed the legislature to increase pay to at least $15 an hour, arguing that anything less will do little to address the exodus of workers or to attract new talent into the field. In the meantime, the disparity between DSP wages in the community-based system and those paid at state-supported living centers (SSLCs) — where DSPs make up to $17.50 per hour — has only worsened the staffing crisis in the community system.

The Legislative Bottleneck: Political Inaction and Special Interests

One might wonder, with such obvious problems and such a clear human toll, why the Texas Legislature hasn’t done more. The answer, in part, lies in the influence of powerful special interests that benefit from the status quo. Privatized Medicaid providers, whose services were scrutinized heavily in the Dallas Morning News’s “Pain and Profit” exposé, continue to receive billions of dollars despite failing to provide adequate care. The financial incentives built into the system favor large contractors over small, community-based providers, leaving local agencies to compete with far fewer resources.

Efforts to reform the system, such as House Bill 3659, which sought to streamline services and reduce wait times, have repeatedly stalled in the legislature. Lawmakers, wary of the price tag attached to significant reforms, have chosen to kick the can down the road rather than enact the sweeping changes needed to fix the system.

The Personal Cost: Stories Behind the Statistics

The numbers tell one story, but the real toll of the Texas disability care crisis is felt most keenly by those whose lives have been upended by it. Sandra Adams, a mother of two children with IDD, waited more than 11 years for her family to receive waiver services. By the time her youngest child was finally approved, her family had been forced to sell their home and move into a smaller apartment in order to afford the cost of care in the meantime.

The story of Paul Richards, a 35-year-old with autism, is another tragedy borne out of the system’s failures. After spending eight years on the waiver list, Paul was placed in a group home that was so understaffed that he was left unsupervised for hours. One day, he wandered away from the home and was found hours later, dehydrated and confused, miles from his residence. His mother has since filed a lawsuit against the state, but the family remains unsure if they will ever receive the support they need.

The Push for Reform: Can Texas Fix Its Disability Crisis?

Advocates aren’t giving up, though. Organizations like Disability Rights Texas, The Arc of Texas, and the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities have continued to push for reforms, from wage increases for DSPs to a revamping of the waiver system to prioritize those with the most urgent needs. They’re calling for greater oversight of care providers, higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, and a commitment to ending the backlog of waiver applicants.

In 2023, the Time to Care coalition pushed a legislative agenda that included proposals to reduce wait times, increase funding, and address the geographic disparities in care — rural areas, in particular, have been left behind. But the road ahead is long. Without political will and a commitment to reform, many fear that Texas’s IDD care crisis will continue to deteriorate, further punishing those who are least able to advocate for themselves.

Leaving the Most Vulnerable Behind

The crisis in Texas’s disability care system is, at its core, a story of neglect — not just of individuals with disabilities, but of the very principles of care and community that are supposed to define a just society. The investigative reporting from the Austin American-Statesman and the Dallas Morning News has peeled back the curtain on a system that is failing at every level, from the underpaid DSPs to the families left waiting for years for services. The question now is whether the Texas Legislature will take the bold steps needed to fix the problem, or whether the state will continue to abandon its most vulnerable citizens in the name of fiscal conservatism. Until that answer comes, the lives of more than half a million Texans hang in the balance.

You can view our sources and citations in our research article here.