# Texas Capital Report > Texas Capital Report is Texas’ evidence-based public intelligence newsroom, delivering data-driven reporting on policy, government, business and communities. Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### About Texas Capital Report URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/about/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T20:59:56.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/Texas_Capital_Report_Header-3.png) ### Texas. Business. Policy. Leadership. Texas Capital Report is an independent publication focused on the forces shaping the future of Texas — including business, infrastructure, economic development, public policy, workforce trends, housing, energy, childcare access, regional growth, and geographic intelligence. Through longform reporting, data-driven analysis, statewide mapping projects, and visual intelligence products, Texas Capital Report examines how decisions made today affect communities, industries, and families across Texas. **Our reporting combines:** - investigative storytelling, - geographic intelligence, - economic analysis, - policy interpretation, - and publication-grade data visualization. Our Mission ## Texas deserves clearer intelligence about the systems shaping its future. Texas Capital Report combines reporting, data analysis, mapping, and geographic intelligence to help readers understand where growth, opportunity, infrastructure pressure, and policy decisions intersect. **We believe Texas deserves:** - clearer infrastructure insight, - stronger public-interest analysis, - and more transparent understanding of the systems shaping growth, opportunity, and quality of life across the state. 💡 “We believe Texas deserves clearer infrastructure insight and stronger public-interest analysis.” --- Coverage Areas **Economic Development** Growth, investment, opportunity, and regional strategy. **Infrastructure** Childcare, housing, workforce, energy, and public systems. **Policy** Statewide decisions shaping communities and industries. **Geographic Intelligence** Maps, ZIP-level analysis, and visual reporting. **Texas Capital Report covers:** - economic development, - infrastructure and workforce systems, - childcare and family access, - housing affordability, - regional growth, - demographic and consumer trends, - public policy, - and emerging statewide challenges. Our visual reporting projects use ZIP-level geographic analysis, public datasets, and infrastructure intelligence frameworks to identify where Texas is thriving — and where critical systems are under strain. ### Editorial Focus Texas Capital Report focuses on: - Texas business and economic strategy - infrastructure and workforce systems - statewide demographic shifts - regional opportunity analysis - public-interest intelligence - data journalism and geographic storytelling ### Mission To help Texans better understand the infrastructure, economic, and policy systems shaping the future of the state. ### Publisher Christopher C. Herring Founder & Publisher Texas Capital Report --- ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/Texas_Capital_Report_Footer_Image.png) ### # Leadership & Public Policy URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/leadership-public-policy/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T20:55:04.000Z **Tracking the institutions, decisions, infrastructure systems, and public leadership shaping the future of Texas.** Texas Capital Report examines the elected officials, public institutions, legislative decisions, and policy systems influencing economic development, infrastructure, workforce access, housing, childcare, energy, education, and regional growth across Texas. Our coverage focuses not only on personalities, but on measurable public outcomes and the systems affecting communities throughout the state. Texas State Leadership ## Top Elected Offices in Texas Texas Capital Report tracks the statewide offices, constitutional leadership roles, and public institutions shaping policy, infrastructure, economic development, and the future of Texas. Executive ### Governor Leads the executive branch and sets statewide policy priorities. Legislative ### Lieutenant Governor Presides over the Texas Senate and influences the legislative agenda. House ### Speaker of the House Leads the Texas House and shapes committee and policy direction. Legal ### Attorney General Represents the state in legal matters and major public-policy disputes. Finance ### Comptroller Oversees state revenue estimates, fiscal reporting, and financial transparency. Energy ### Railroad Commission Regulates major parts of Texas energy infrastructure and oil and gas activity. --- Texas Governance Intelligence ## Current Leadership & Policy Coverage Texas Capital Report examines how elected leadership, public institutions, and statewide policy decisions influence infrastructure, economic development, workforce systems, housing, childcare access, energy, and regional growth across Texas. Infrastructure ### Childcare Access & Workforce Policy ZIP-level childcare desert analysis reveals major infrastructure shortages affecting working families across Texas. [Read Coverage → ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-childcare-divide-across-texas/) Public Policy ### State Contracts & Procurement Investigative reporting examining procurement databases, contract structures, and public spending systems. [Explore Reporting → ](#) Geographic Intelligence ### Mapping Texas Systems Interactive statewide maps and regional intelligence projects analyzing opportunity, infrastructure pressure, and public systems. [View Maps → ](#) ### Texas Intelligence Maps URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-intelligence-maps/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T04:18:17.000Z ![Texas Childcare Desert ZIP Codes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/size/w2000/2026/05/zw2xa-texas-childcare-desert-zip-codes-.png) Texas Capital Report uses ZIP-level intelligence, statewide mapping, and geographic systems analysis to identify patterns shaping communities across Texas. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/texas-employer-pressure-index--1.png) Example of NDS MapsMapMav Texas Capital Report Intelligence Maps ## Mapping the systems shaping Texas communities. Texas Capital Report uses ZIP-level analysis, statewide mapping, demographic systems, and geographic intelligence to identify patterns affecting communities across Texas. Our maps are designed to uncover infrastructure gaps, public pressure points, and measurable regional disparities that often remain hidden in traditional reporting. The Texas Childcare Desert project visualizes where licensed childcare infrastructure fails to meet the needs of working families. By combining childcare capacity estimates, working-family demographics, and ZIP-level geographic analysis, the map reveals how access to childcare has become a critical workforce and economic development issue across Texas. These intelligence maps are part of a broader effort to analyze housing pressure, migration patterns, healthcare access, consumer complaints, nonprofit service networks, broadband infrastructure, and regional economic opportunity across the state. > “Geographic systems intelligence allows communities to see patterns that traditional reporting alone cannot reveal.” [Access Texas Intelligence ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/#/portal/signup/free) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/Texas_Capital_Report_Footer_Image-short-1.png) ### Geographic Systems Journalism URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/investigations/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T03:52:21.000Z Texas Capital Report Investigations ## Investigative reporting driven by data, geography, and public systems. Texas Capital Report investigates the infrastructure, institutions, and policy systems shaping communities across Texas. Our reporting combines public records, geographic intelligence, ZIP-level analysis, consumer complaint data, demographic systems, and statewide mapping to uncover patterns that traditional reporting often misses. We examine how decisions made in government offices, corporate boardrooms, regulatory agencies, and public institutions affect families, neighborhoods, businesses, nonprofit systems, workforce access, healthcare infrastructure, housing pressure, and regional economic opportunity throughout Texas. Our investigations are designed not only to expose problems, but to visualize systems — connecting elected leadership, public accountability, geographic patterns, infrastructure gaps, and measurable constituent outcomes into a new form of statewide intelligence journalism. > “Texas Capital Report analyzes the systems shaping Texas — and the measurable realities communities experience because of them.” Texas Capital Report FAQ ## How We Analyze Texas Communities Texas Capital Report uses ZIP-level, district-level, and regional data to examine how public systems affect communities across Texas. These recurring themes help readers understand the broader intelligence behind our reporting. **Housing** Local affordability, housing pressure, and neighborhood change. **Schools** Education quality, access, and community-level outcomes. **Healthcare** Local access to providers, services, and health infrastructure. **Jobs & Workforce** Employment, labor access, and regional workforce pressure. **Politics** Elected representation, district accountability, and public policy. **Childcare** Family infrastructure, childcare deserts, and working-parent access. **Complaints** Consumer frustration, CFPB signals, and complaint geography. **Nonprofits** Assistance networks, service gaps, and civic support systems. Featured Investigations Infrastructure ### Childcare Deserts Across Texas ZIP-level analysis revealing childcare infrastructure shortages affecting working families across Texas communities. Demographics ### The Great Internal Migration Millions of Texans are relocating across the state, reshaping political influence, economic growth, and regional infrastructure pressure. Consumer Protection ### CFPB Complaint Geography Mapping complaint concentrations, consumer distress signals, and financial pressure patterns across Texas ZIP codes. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/Texas_Capital_Report_Footer_Image-short.png) ### Business Intelligence URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/business-report/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T05:17:59.000Z Texas Capital Report Business Intelligence ## Tracking the economic systems shaping the future of Texas. Texas Capital Report analyzes the geographic, economic, infrastructure, workforce, and policy systems influencing business growth across Texas. Our reporting combines demographic intelligence, migration analysis, public policy tracking, consumer data, regional development patterns, and ZIP-level economic indicators to understand how industries and communities are changing throughout the state. We examine the forces shaping Texas business corridors, including population movement, workforce access, childcare infrastructure, tourism economies, housing pressure, transportation systems, public incentives, nonprofit support networks, and regional investment trends. By combining geographic intelligence with investigative reporting, Texas Capital Report identifies patterns often invisible in traditional business coverage. Our business intelligence reporting is designed not only to track economic growth, but to understand the public systems supporting — or constraining — long-term opportunity across Texas communities. From major metropolitan regions to smaller local economies, our reporting focuses on measurable outcomes, regional disparities, infrastructure gaps, and emerging statewide trends. > “Texas Capital Report examines how geography, infrastructure, demographics, and policy systems shape economic opportunity across Texas.” Texas Capital Report is a systems intelligence publication. ### Texas Economic Intelligence URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-economic-intelligence/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T05:59:37.000Z Texas Metro Intelligence ## Regional Intelligence Systems Across Texas Texas Capital Report analyzes the economic, infrastructure, demographic, and policy systems shaping major metropolitan regions across Texas. Each metro presents unique geographic intelligence patterns tied to workforce systems, migration, trade, logistics, healthcare, tourism, infrastructure, and economic growth. Dallas Metro ### Migration + Logistics Population growth, relocation corridors, freight systems, regional expansion, and suburban infrastructure pressure across North Texas. Houston Metro ### Ports + Energy Global shipping, energy infrastructure, petrochemical systems, trade logistics, workforce access, and Gulf Coast economic expansion. Austin Metro ### Tech + Workforce Technology growth, innovation ecosystems, workforce migration, housing affordability, startup investment, and regional expansion. San Antonio Metro ### Cybersecurity + Military Cybersecurity leadership, military infrastructure, healthcare systems, workforce development, tourism, and regional economic transformation. Laredo ### Trade Corridor Cross-border commerce, freight movement, customs infrastructure, logistics systems, international trade, and border economic activity. McAllen Metro ### Border Economy Cross-border business systems, healthcare access, trade activity, demographic growth, workforce mobility, and regional commerce. Corpus Christi ### Shipping + Tourism Port infrastructure, coastal tourism, shipping systems, energy logistics, regional development, and Gulf Coast economic activity. ### Graphics URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/gra/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T02:17:47.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/Global-Chamber-SAT_V-4C.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/GC-Texas-Slide-Presentation_med.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Texas_Employer_Pressure_Index.png) Example of Intelligence Maps ### Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index (TLEI) URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-legislative-effectiveness-index-tlei/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T02:14:47.000Z 💡 The Texas Capitol Report has developed the Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index (TLEI), a data-driven framework designed to evaluate how effectively members of the Texas Legislature convert legislative proposals into enacted public policy. Rather than measuring popularity or publicity, the index focuses on legislative outcomes and measurable policy results. The Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index was developed to answer a simple question: Did this legislator turn ideas into law? Most public discussions of legislative performance focus on how many bills a legislator files. However, filing legislation and producing policy outcomes are not the same thing. A legislator may introduce dozens or even hundreds of measures during a legislative session. Some measures advance through committee, some pass one chamber, some pass both chambers, and a smaller number ultimately become law. The Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index measures performance across the full legislative lifecycle: Legislative Activity → Legislative Movement → Legislative Results → Law Conversion The index evaluates factors including: • Bills authored • Bills coauthored • Bills sponsored • Bills passing the originating chamber • Bills passing both chambers • Bills sent to the Governor • Bills signed into law • Committee influence and institutional leadership The methodology also distinguishes between substantive policy legislation and ceremonial or administrative measures. As a result, the index is designed to reward measurable policy outcomes rather than raw filing volume. The guiding principle of the index is: “Do not confuse activity with impact.” The Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index provides citizens, journalists, researchers, business leaders, and policymakers with a standardized framework for evaluating legislative performance based on documented legislative outcomes rather than political popularity. --- **Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index Methodology** The Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index (TLEI) evaluates legislative performance across five dimensions: 1. Legislative Activity 2. Legislative Movement 3. Governor Pipeline Success 4. Law Conversion 5. Institutional Influence The index rewards legislators who successfully advance legislation through the legislative process and ultimately convert legislative proposals into enacted public policy. Measures that become law receive greater weight than measures that are merely filed. Substantive policy legislation receives greater weight than ceremonial or administrative measures. The index is designed around a core principle: Do not confuse activity with impact. ### Profile: HD124, San Antonio, TX URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/intelligence_profile_hd124/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T02:08:42.000Z National Data System • Community Intelligence Brief # Executive Summary: Texas House District 124 Prepared for Texas State Representative Josey Garcia **192,718** Residents **821** Nonprofit Records **31,043** Persons in Poverty **13,976** Children Ages 0–4 **$28,397** Per Capita Income **13,225** Veterans **8,161** Active-Duty Residents House District 124 is home to approximately **192,718 residents** and includes **821 nonprofit records** within the district’s primary ZIP code geography. The district also includes **31,043 residents living in poverty**, **13,976 children ages 0–4**, a **per capita income of $28,397**, **13,225 veterans**, and **8,161 active-duty residents**. The strongest immediate finding is the gap between community need and specialized workforce and mental-health nonprofit capacity. Faith-based capacity appears strong, while employment and mental-health capacity appear thin. ## Nonprofit Capacity | Mission Area | Organizations | Capacity | | -------------- | ------------- | -------- | | Faith | 139 | Strong | | Human Services | 64 | Moderate | | Housing | 39 | Limited | | Youth | 19 | Limited | | Food | 8 | Thin | | Employment | 4 | Thin | | Mental Health | 4 | Thin | Analysis of the nonprofit ecosystem reveals both strengths and opportunities. Faith-based organizations represent the district’s largest coordinated service network, with **139 organizations**, providing a strong platform for neighborhood outreach and community engagement. Human services organizations also demonstrate meaningful capacity with **64 organizations**, while **39 housing organizations** provide an important foundation for family stabilization efforts. In contrast, only **4 employment-focused organizations** and **4 mental health organizations** were identified within the district geography, indicating comparatively limited specialized capacity in two areas closely associated with long-term economic mobility and family resilience. ## Potential Coalition Networks **Youth Opportunity Coalition:** 337 potential organizations **Housing Stability Coalition:** 254 potential organizations **Veterans & Family Resilience Coalition:** 252 potential organizations **Workforce Mobility Coalition:** 247 potential organizations These networks represent organizations whose missions align with common community outcomes and provide a foundation for coordinated planning, referrals, grant applications, and service delivery. The key insight is not simply that organizations exist, but that HD124 already has enough community infrastructure to organize around urgent priorities. ## Recommended Anchor Organizations NDS identified several organizations with the scale and mission alignment to help convene early coalition work, including **Alamo Workforce Development**, **Haven for Hope of Bexar County**, **Goodwill Industries of San Antonio**, **Our Lady of the Lake University**, **SAY SI**, **San Antonio Food Bank**, and **LiftFund**. ## Strategic Opportunity The primary opportunity for House District 124 is not simply increasing the number of nonprofit organizations, but strengthening coordination among existing organizations while expanding specialized workforce and mental health capacity. The district already possesses a robust community infrastructure; the next step is connecting that infrastructure into intentional, mission-focused partnerships capable of addressing poverty, workforce participation, veteran and military family support, housing stability, youth development, and long-term community resilience. ## Community Network Summary ### Youth Opportunity Coalition **Potential Organizations:** 337 **Network Status:** Strong **Top ZIPs:** 78245, 78251, 78207, 78227, 78238 Youth development, education, human services, faith, and recreation partners. ### Housing Stability Coalition **Potential Organizations:** 254 **Network Status:** Strong **Top ZIPs:** 78245, 78207, 78251, 78227, 78238 Housing, human services, food, mental health, and faith-based partners. ### Veterans & Family Resilience Coalition **Potential Organizations:** 252 **Network Status:** Strong **Top ZIPs:** 78245, 78207, 78251, 78238, 78227 Human services, mental health, housing, faith, and disaster relief partners. ### Workforce Mobility Coalition **Potential Organizations:** 247 **Network Status:** Strong **Top ZIPs:** 78245, 78207, 78251, 78238, 78227 Employment, community improvement, human services, faith, and advocacy partners. These networks do not indicate that all organizations are already working together. They identify organizations whose missions align with shared community outcomes and could form practical collaboration networks. ## Community Leadership Network **Youth Opportunity:** SAY SI, Our Lady of the Lake University, Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, San Antonio Islamic Community Center, Greater San Antonio After-School All Stars **Housing Stability:** Haven for Hope of Bexar County, Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, Apple Orchard, Turner of Life Counseling, San Antonio Islamic Community Center **Veterans & Family Resilience:** Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, Turner of Life Counseling, Haven for Hope of Bexar County, San Antonio Islamic Community Center, District 2 Fire and Rescue **Workforce Mobility:** Alamo Workforce Development, LiftFund, Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, San Antonio Islamic Community Center, Southwest Voter Registration Education ## Strategic Opportunity The primary opportunity for House District 124 is not simply increasing the number of nonprofit organizations, but strengthening coordination among existing organizations while expanding specialized workforce and mental-health capacity. HD124 already possesses a broad community infrastructure. The next step is connecting that infrastructure into intentional partnerships capable of addressing poverty, workforce participation, veteran and military family support, housing stability, youth development, and long-term community resilience. ## Decision-Support Summary NDS does not recommend policy. It identifies existing community capacity, highlights observable gaps, and provides decision-support options based on governed data sources. [District Comparison HD124District Comparison HD124.png302 KBdownload-circle](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/content/files/2026/07/District-Comparison-HD124.png "Download") ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/District-Overview-HD124.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/District-Comparison-HD124.png) ### San Antonio Is Quietly Part of America's $35 Billion Lockheed Martin Defense Economy URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/san-antonio-is-quietly-part-of-americas-35-billion-lockheed-martin-defense-economy/ Last updated: 2026-07-08T23:46:21.000Z This is a much bigger story than "Lockheed Martin won hundreds of federal contracts." The data suggests that **Texas—and especially the San Antonio region—is becoming one of the country's most important defense and aerospace execution hubs.** Although Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, nearly **60% of its trailing 12-month federal obligations—about $35 billion—are tied to work performed in Texas.** ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Texas_Lockheed_economic_relationship.jpeg) Courtesy USASpending.gov That makes Texas the company's largest state for federal contract performance by a very wide margin. For San Antonio, that matters because the city sits inside one of the nation's fastest-growing defense ecosystems. --- ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Lockheed-1.jpeg) ## The Numbers Lockheed Martin received approximately - **$58.9 billion** - **19,332 federal transactions** - **97% from the Department of Defense** The work overwhelmingly supports - aircraft - missiles - space systems - defense research - advanced engineering ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/product_service_codes_lockheed.jpeg) Courtesy USASpending.gov --- ## Texas Dominates Texas accounts for > **$35.0 Billion** > > **59.4% of every federal dollar awarded to Lockheed Martin** No other state comes close. | State | Awards | | ----------- | ------ | | Texas | $35.0B | | Florida | $7.2B | | Connecticut | $4.3B | | Virginia | $4.0B | | Colorado | $2.5B | That concentration tells us the center of gravity for many Lockheed programs is in Texas. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/naisc_codes_lockheed.jpeg) Courtesy USASpending.gov --- # Why San Antonio Benefits San Antonio is not where most fighter aircraft are assembled. Instead, San Antonio specializes in the support systems that keep America's military operating. Examples include - aircraft sustainment - logistics - cyber operations - software engineering - military medicine - intelligence - training - command and control - maintenance - digital modernization The city already hosts major military installations such as Joint Base San Antonio and organizations including the Air Education and Training Command, the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, the Sixteenth Air Force, and numerous defense contractors. That creates opportunities for Lockheed Martin to partner with local firms on engineering, cybersecurity, IT, maintenance, workforce development, and professional services. --- # A Workforce Story These dollars don't simply purchase airplanes. They create demand for - engineers - software developers - cybersecurity specialists - AI professionals - supply chain companies - precision manufacturers - logistics firms - workforce training providers - universities - research organizations Every billion dollars flowing through a defense supply chain generates opportunities for hundreds of subcontractors. --- # Why This Matters to Local Business A San Antonio company does not need to manufacture fighter jets to participate. Many local firms can compete in areas such as - cybersecurity - cloud computing - AI - additive manufacturing - training - facilities management - environmental services - construction - logistics - staffing - accounting - legal services - engineering consulting This is where chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and small-business assistance programs can help connect regional businesses to the defense supply chain. --- # The Hidden Story Perhaps the biggest takeaway isn't Lockheed Martin itself. It is that Texas has become America's largest defense production state. The data show that federal spending is concentrated in advanced manufacturing, missile systems, aerospace engineering, and research and development. Communities with strong military infrastructure—including San Antonio—are positioned to capture secondary economic impacts through suppliers, technology companies, workforce development, and innovation partnerships. --- ### The Future of The Texas Capitol URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-future-of-the-texas-capitol/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T00:54:21.000Z National Data System # The Future of Texas Intelligence How NDS can transform government documents, legislative records, public testimony, and community data into a living knowledge system for Texas. For decades, Texas government has generated an extraordinary amount of knowledge through legislation, committee hearings, testimony, reports, maps, agency publications, economic studies, and citizen participation. Every legislative session has produced thousands of bills, hundreds of committee hearings, millions of pages of supporting documents, and the voices of countless Texans who traveled across the state to share their expertise, concerns, and aspirations. Yet much of that knowledge has remained trapped inside PDFs, archived websites, handwritten testimony, meeting minutes, and disconnected databases. The National Data System, known as NDS, imagines a different future: one where no piece of institutional knowledge is ever lost again. NDS does not simply store government information. It transforms government information into living intelligence. ## From Documents to Intelligence In the NDS vision, a committee appointment is no longer just a roster of names. It becomes a map of expertise, leadership, agency oversight, economic influence, and future legislative opportunity. A hearing is no longer just a meeting. It becomes a searchable network of witnesses, organizations, industries, communities, and policy recommendations. ### Legislators Each elected official becomes a living profile connecting biography, district, bills, committees, expertise, relationships, and outcomes. ### Committees Each committee becomes an operating system of agencies, witnesses, reports, recommendations, industries, and public participation. ### Districts Each district becomes a digital twin containing people, schools, businesses, hospitals, churches, nonprofits, infrastructure, and needs. ### Policy Issues Water, veterans, AI, childcare, housing, education, energy, and healthcare each become connected ecosystems of knowledge. ## The Texas Government Knowledge Graph As these layers connect, the future of Texas changes fundamentally. Instead of asking only what happened during a legislative session, leaders can ask why it happened, who influenced it, what evidence supported it, which communities were affected, what outcomes resulted, and what opportunities remain. ## How NDS Connects Texas People Bills Committees Agencies Districts Organizations Funding Outcomes Instead of reading hundreds of reports to understand water policy, an AI powered by NDS could instantly identify every committee hearing, every expert witness, every engineering firm, every university researcher, every chamber of commerce, every legislative recommendation, every funding opportunity, every affected watershed, and every related bill across multiple legislative sessions. Rather than simply tracking legislation, Texas begins building a permanent institutional memory where every lesson learned strengthens future policymaking. ## Who Benefits? ### Journalists Discover stories hidden inside relationships, testimony, funding streams, and community needs. ### Businesses Identify emerging markets, infrastructure gaps, policy trends, and regional opportunities before they fully mature. ### Nonprofits Find coalition partners, funding pathways, legislative champions, and communities with urgent service needs. ### Legislators Receive data-driven recommendations that align committee work, district needs, public testimony, and funding opportunities. ## The Big Idea NDS becomes the cognitive infrastructure of Texas government — a living Government Knowledge Engine that continuously transforms information into intelligence, intelligence into insight, and insight into action. In that future, every committee hearing, every testimony, every report, every map, every agency document, every coalition letter, every bill, and every legislative decision contributes to an ever-growing knowledge graph that helps Texas make better decisions generation after generation. The result is a state where institutional knowledge is never discarded, where policy is informed by evidence instead of memory, where every community can see how its voice contributes to government, and where the National Data System serves as the permanent intelligence operating system powering a smarter, more transparent, more connected, and more resilient Texas. **National Data System** Turning public information into productive intelligence for the future of Texas. ### On the Rise... URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/media_kit/ Last updated: 2026-07-17T03:35:36.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Viewer_Map_Texas_Capital_Report-7_6_2026-1.jpeg) Viewers in first 30-days of Texas Capital Report Texas Capital Report • Audience Intelligence # Texas Reporting Is Reaching Readers Around the World A 30-day snapshot shows a strong U.S. readership base and an emerging international audience across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. Audience snapshot as of July 16, 2026 **337** U.S. visitors shown **8+** Countries represented **198** Direct visitors **113** Facebook visitors ## A Texas publication with a widening geographic footprint The Texas Capital Report readership map reflects the publication's continuing evolution from a Texas-focused digital newsroom into a broader public-intelligence platform with national and emerging international visibility. During the 30-day reporting period ending July 16, 2026, the overwhelming majority of identifiable readers came from the United States. The analytics dashboard displayed 337 U.S. visitors, confirming that the publication's primary audience remains domestic readers interested in Texas government, public policy, economic development and original data analysis. The map also revealed readership beyond the United States. Visitors were recorded from Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Italy, Morocco, Nigeria and India, together with a small number whose location could not be identified. The international totals remain modest, but the geographic range is meaningful for a growing publication built around state policy and evidence-based reporting. ## Countries Reached Locations visible in the 30-day Ghost analytics map 🇺🇸 **United States**Primary readership market 🇨🇦 **Canada**North America 🇲🇽 **Mexico**North America 🇬🇧 **United Kingdom**Europe 🇮🇹 **Italy**Europe 🇲🇦 **Morocco**North Africa 🇳🇬 **Nigeria**West Africa 🇮🇳 **India**South Asia ### How readers found the publication Direct 198 Facebook 113 Google 14 LinkedIn 5 Instagram 3 Newsletter 3 ### Why the traffic pattern matters Direct traffic was the largest source, suggesting that many readers intentionally entered the publication's address, followed a saved link, or returned after an earlier visit. Facebook was the strongest identifiable external referral source. Google search traffic was present but still developing, leaving substantial room for growth as more original reports, maps and National Data System intelligence products are indexed. Texas Capital Report is beginning to establish a readership footprint that extends beyond Texas and beyond the United States. ## What the map says about the publication's direction The audience map is especially encouraging because Texas Capital Report is still building its library of original journalism and public-intelligence products. Its strongest-performing articles already demonstrate that readers respond to reporting that connects leadership, municipal finance, legislative priorities and ZIP-code-level intelligence to real public decisions. As the publication adds employment intelligence, mortgage lending analysis, consumer complaint patterns, childcare market research, government finance reporting and interactive maps, its potential audience will extend well beyond traditional state political coverage. Texas is one of the world's largest and most closely watched economies. Reporting that explains the state's policies, markets and institutions can therefore attract not only Texans, but also investors, researchers, public officials, journalists and business leaders throughout the United States and abroad. This 30-day map does not yet represent a mature international audience. It does, however, provide early evidence that the Texas Capital Report model can travel: original Texas reporting, strengthened by transparent data and National Data System intelligence, is already reaching readers across several regions of the world. Source: Texas Capital Report Ghost analytics, 30-day web traffic view captured July 16, 2026\. Visitor totals and locations reflect the values visible in the supplied analytics screenshots and may not include every location or all unattributed traffic. ### Texas Capital Report by County URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/county/ Last updated: 2026-07-17T08:13:24.000Z Texas Capital Report County Directory ## Explore All 254 Texas Counties Find Texas Capital Report journalism, public records, rankings and National Data System intelligence organized by county. Search Texas counties 254 of 254 counties [Anderson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/anderson-county/) [Andrews CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/andrews-county/) [Angelina CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/angelina-county/) [Aransas CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/aransas-county/) [Archer CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/archer-county/) [Armstrong CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/armstrong-county/) [Atascosa CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/atascosa-county/) [Austin CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/austin-county/) [Bailey CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bailey-county/) [Bandera CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bandera-county/) [Bastrop CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bastrop-county/) [Baylor CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/baylor-county/) [Bee CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bee-county/) [Bell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bell-county/) [Bexar CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bexar-county/) [Blanco CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/blanco-county/) [Borden CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/borden-county/) [Bosque CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bosque-county/) [Bowie CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bowie-county/) [Brazoria CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brazoria-county/) [Brazos CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brazos-county/) [Brewster CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brewster-county/) [Briscoe CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/briscoe-county/) [Brooks CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brooks-county/) [Brown CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brown-county/) [Burleson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/burleson-county/) [Burnet CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/burnet-county/) [Caldwell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/caldwell-county/) [Calhoun CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/calhoun-county/) [Callahan CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/callahan-county/) [Cameron CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cameron-county/) [Camp CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/camp-county/) [Carson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/carson-county/) [Cass CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cass-county/) [Castro CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/castro-county/) [Chambers CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/chambers-county/) [Cherokee CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cherokee-county/) [Childress CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/childress-county/) [Clay CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/clay-county/) [Cochran CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cochran-county/) [Coke CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/coke-county/) [Coleman CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/coleman-county/) [Collin CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/collin-county/) [Collingsworth CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/collingsworth-county/) [Colorado CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/colorado-county/) [Comal CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/comal-county/) [Comanche CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/comanche-county/) [Concho CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/concho-county/) [Cooke CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cooke-county/) [Coryell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/coryell-county/) [Cottle CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cottle-county/) [Crane CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crane-county/) [Crockett CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crockett-county/) [Crosby CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crosby-county/) [Culberson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/culberson-county/) [Dallam CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dallam-county/) [Dallas CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dallas-county/) [Dawson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dawson-county/) [Deaf Smith CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/deaf-smith-county/) [Delta CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/delta-county/) [Denton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/denton-county/) [DeWitt CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dewitt-county/) [Dickens CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dickens-county/) [Dimmit CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dimmit-county/) [Donley CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/donley-county/) [Duval CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/duval-county/) [Eastland CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/eastland-county/) [Ector CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ector-county/) [Edwards CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/edwards-county/) [Ellis CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ellis-county/) [El Paso CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/el-paso-county/) [Erath CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/erath-county/) [Falls CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/falls-county/) [Fannin CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fannin-county/) [Fayette CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fayette-county/) [Fisher CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fisher-county/) [Floyd CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/floyd-county/) [Foard CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/foard-county/) [Fort Bend CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fort-bend-county/) [Franklin CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/franklin-county/) [Freestone CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/freestone-county/) [Frio CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/frio-county/) [Gaines CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gaines-county/) [Galveston CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/galveston-county/) [Garza CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/garza-county/) [Gillespie CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gillespie-county/) [Glasscock CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/glasscock-county/) [Goliad CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/goliad-county/) [Gonzales CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gonzales-county/) [Gray CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gray-county/) [Grayson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grayson-county/) [Gregg CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gregg-county/) [Grimes CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grimes-county/) [Guadalupe CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/guadalupe-county/) [Hale CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hale-county/) [Hall CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hall-county/) [Hamilton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hamilton-county/) [Hansford CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hansford-county/) [Hardeman CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hardeman-county/) [Hardin CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hardin-county/) [Harris CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/harris-county/) [Harrison CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/harrison-county/) [Hartley CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hartley-county/) [Haskell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/haskell-county/) [Hays CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hays-county/) [Hemphill CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hemphill-county/) [Henderson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/henderson-county/) [Hidalgo CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hidalgo-county/) [Hill CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hill-county/) [Hockley CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hockley-county/) [Hood CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hood-county/) [Hopkins CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hopkins-county/) [Houston CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/houston-county/) [Howard CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/howard-county/) [Hudspeth CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hudspeth-county/) [Hunt CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hunt-county/) [Hutchinson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hutchinson-county/) [Irion CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/irion-county/) [Jack CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jack-county/) [Jackson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jackson-county/) [Jasper CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jasper-county/) [Jeff Davis CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jeff-davis-county/) [Jefferson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jefferson-county/) [Jim Hogg CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jim-hogg-county/) [Jim Wells CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jim-wells-county/) [Johnson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/johnson-county/) [Jones CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jones-county/) [Karnes CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/karnes-county/) [Kaufman CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kaufman-county/) [Kendall CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kendall-county/) [Kenedy CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kenedy-county/) [Kent CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kent-county/) [Kerr CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kerr-county/) [Kimble CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kimble-county/) [King CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/king-county/) [Kinney CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kinney-county/) [Kleberg CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kleberg-county/) [Knox CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/knox-county/) [Lamar CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lamar-county/) [Lamb CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lamb-county/) [Lampasas CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lampasas-county/) [La Salle CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-salle-county/) [Lavaca CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lavaca-county/) [Lee CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lee-county/) [Leon CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/leon-county/) [Liberty CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/liberty-county/) [Limestone CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/limestone-county/) [Lipscomb CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lipscomb-county/) [Live Oak CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/live-oak-county/) [Llano CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/llano-county/) [Loving CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/loving-county/) [Lubbock CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lubbock-county/) [Lynn CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lynn-county/) [Madison CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/madison-county/) [Marion CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/marion-county/) [Martin CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/martin-county/) [Mason CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mason-county/) [Matagorda CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/matagorda-county/) [Maverick CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/maverick-county/) [McCulloch CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mcculloch-county/) [McLennan CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mclennan-county/) [McMullen CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mcmullen-county/) [Medina CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/medina-county/) [Menard CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/menard-county/) [Midland CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/midland-county/) [Milam CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/milam-county/) [Mills CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mills-county/) [Mitchell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mitchell-county/) [Montague CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/montague-county/) [Montgomery CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/montgomery-county/) [Moore CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/moore-county/) [Morris CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/morris-county/) [Motley CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/motley-county/) [Nacogdoches CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nacogdoches-county/) [Navarro CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/navarro-county/) [Newton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/newton-county/) [Nolan CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nolan-county/) [Nueces CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nueces-county/) [Ochiltree CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ochiltree-county/) [Oldham CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/oldham-county/) [Orange CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/orange-county/) [Palo Pinto CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/palo-pinto-county/) [Panola CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/panola-county/) [Parker CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/parker-county/) [Parmer CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/parmer-county/) [Pecos CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pecos-county/) [Polk CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/polk-county/) [Potter CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/potter-county/) [Presidio CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/presidio-county/) [Rains CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rains-county/) [Randall CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/randall-county/) [Reagan CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/reagan-county/) [Real CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/real-county/) [Red River CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/red-river-county/) [Reeves CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/reeves-county/) [Refugio CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/refugio-county/) [Roberts CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/roberts-county/) [Robertson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/robertson-county/) [Rockwall CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rockwall-county/) [Runnels CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/runnels-county/) [Rusk CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rusk-county/) [Sabine CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sabine-county/) [San Augustine CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-augustine-county/) [San Jacinto CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-jacinto-county/) [San Patricio CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-patricio-county/) [San Saba CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-saba-county/) [Schleicher CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/schleicher-county/) [Scurry CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/scurry-county/) [Shackelford CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/shackelford-county/) [Shelby CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/shelby-county/) [Sherman CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sherman-county/) [Smith CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/smith-county/) [Somervell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/somervell-county/) [Starr CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/starr-county/) [Stephens CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/stephens-county/) [Sterling CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sterling-county/) [Stonewall CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/stonewall-county/) [Sutton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sutton-county/) [Swisher CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/swisher-county/) [Tarrant CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tarrant-county/) [Taylor CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/taylor-county/) [Terrell CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/terrell-county/) [Terry CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/terry-county/) [Throckmorton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/throckmorton-county/) [Titus CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/titus-county/) [Tom Green CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tom-green-county/) [Travis CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/travis-county/) [Trinity CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/trinity-county/) [Tyler CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tyler-county/) [Upshur CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/upshur-county/) [Upton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/upton-county/) [Uvalde CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/uvalde-county/) [Val Verde CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/val-verde-county/) [Van Zandt CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/van-zandt-county/) [Victoria CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/victoria-county/) [Walker CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/walker-county/) [Waller CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/waller-county/) [Ward CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ward-county/) [Washington CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/washington-county/) [Webb CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/webb-county/) [Wharton CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wharton-county/) [Wheeler CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wheeler-county/) [Wichita CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wichita-county/) [Wilbarger CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wilbarger-county/) [Willacy CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/willacy-county/) [Williamson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/williamson-county/) [Wilson CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wilson-county/) [Winkler CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/winkler-county/) [Wise CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wise-county/) [Wood CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wood-county/) [Yoakum CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/yoakum-county/) [Young CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/young-county/) [Zapata CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/zapata-county/) [Zavala CountyTexas](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/zavala-county/) No matching Texas county was found. Links use the Ghost tag format **/tag/county-name-county/**, including **/tag/bexar-county/**, **/tag/harris-county/** and **/tag/travis-county/**. ### Texas Capital Report by City URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/cities/ Last updated: 2026-07-17T08:38:13.000Z Texas Capital Report City Directory ## Explore Texas Cities Find Texas Capital Report journalism, public records, rankings and National Data System intelligence organized by city. Search Texas cities 523 cities [ Abilene Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/abilene/) [ Addison Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/addison/) [ Alamo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alamo/) [ Alamo Heights Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alamo-heights/) [ Alice Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alice/) [ Allen Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/allen/) [ Alpine Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alpine/) [ Alton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alton/) [ Alvarado Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alvarado/) [ Alvin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/alvin/) [ Amarillo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/amarillo/) [ Andrews Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/andrews/) [ Angleton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/angleton/) [ Anna Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/anna/) [ Anthony Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/anthony/) [ Aransas Pass Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/aransas-pass/) [ Archer City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/archer-city/) [ Arlington Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/arlington/) [ Aspermont Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/aspermont/) [ Athens Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/athens/) [ Atlanta Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/atlanta/) [ Aubrey Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/aubrey/) [ Austin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/austin/) [ Azle Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/azle/) [ Baird Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/baird/) [ Balch Springs Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/balch-springs/) [ Ballinger Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ballinger/) [ Bandera Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bandera/) [ Bangs Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bangs/) [ Bastrop Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bastrop/) [ Bay City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bay-city/) [ Baytown Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/baytown/) [ Beaumont Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/beaumont/) [ Bedford Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bedford/) [ Bee Cave Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bee-cave/) [ Beeville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/beeville/) [ Bellaire Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bellaire/) [ Bellmead Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bellmead/) [ Belton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/belton/) [ Benbrook Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/benbrook/) [ Big Lake Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/big-lake/) [ Big Spring Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/big-spring/) [ Bishop Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bishop/) [ Blanco Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/blanco/) [ Boerne Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/boerne/) [ Bogata Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bogata/) [ Bonham Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bonham/) [ Booker Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/booker/) [ Borger Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/borger/) [ Bovina Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bovina/) [ Bowie Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bowie/) [ Brady Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brady/) [ Breckenridge Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/breckenridge/) [ Brenham Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brenham/) [ Bridge City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bridge-city/) [ Bridgeport Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bridgeport/) [ Brookshire Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brookshire/) [ Brownfield Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brownfield/) [ Brownsville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brownsville/) [ Brownwood Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brownwood/) [ Bryan Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bryan/) [ Buda Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/buda/) [ Buffalo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/buffalo/) [ Bullard Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bullard/) [ Bulverde Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/bulverde/) [ Burkburnett Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/burkburnett/) [ Burleson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/burleson/) [ Burnet Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/burnet/) [ Cactus Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cactus/) [ Caldwell Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/caldwell/) [ Cameron Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cameron/) [ Camp Wood Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/camp-wood/) [ Canadian Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/canadian/) [ Canton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/canton/) [ Carrizo Springs Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/carrizo-springs/) [ Carrollton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/carrollton/) [ Carthage Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/carthage/) [ Castle Hills Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/castle-hills/) [ Castroville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/castroville/) [ Cedar Hill Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cedar-hill/) [ Cedar Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cedar-park/) [ Celina Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/celina/) [ Center Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/center/) [ Childress Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/childress/) [ Cibolo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cibolo/) [ Cisco Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cisco/) [ Clarendon Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/clarendon/) [ Clarksville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/clarksville/) [ Claude Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/claude/) [ Cleburne Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cleburne/) [ Cleveland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cleveland/) [ Clifton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/clifton/) [ Clute Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/clute/) [ Clyde Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/clyde/) [ Cockrell Hill Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cockrell-hill/) [ Coleman Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/coleman/) [ College Station Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/college-station/) [ Colleyville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/colleyville/) [ Colorado City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/colorado-city/) [ Columbus Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/columbus/) [ Comanche Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/comanche/) [ Conroe Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/conroe/) [ Converse Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/converse/) [ Coppell Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/coppell/) [ Copperas Cove Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/copperas-cove/) [ Corpus Christi Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/corpus-christi/) [ Corsicana Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/corsicana/) [ Cotulla Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cotulla/) [ Crandall Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crandall/) [ Crockett Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crockett/) [ Crosbyton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crosbyton/) [ Crowell Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crowell/) [ Crowley Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crowley/) [ Crystal City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/crystal-city/) [ Cuero Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cuero/) [ Dalhart Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dalhart/) [ Dallas Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dallas/) [ Dalworthington Gardens Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dalworthington-gardens/) [ Dayton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dayton/) [ De Leon Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/de-leon/) [ DeSoto Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/desoto/) [ Decatur Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/decatur/) [ Deer Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/deer-park/) [ Del Rio Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/del-rio/) [ Denison Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/denison/) [ Denton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/denton/) [ Denver City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/denver-city/) [ Diboll Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/diboll/) [ Dickinson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dickinson/) [ Dilley Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dilley/) [ Donna Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/donna/) [ Dripping Springs Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dripping-springs/) [ Dublin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dublin/) [ Dumas Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dumas/) [ Duncanville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/duncanville/) [ Eagle Lake Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/eagle-lake/) [ Eagle Pass Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/eagle-pass/) [ Early Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/early/) [ Eastland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/eastland/) [ Edcouch Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/edcouch/) [ Edinburg Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/edinburg/) [ El Campo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/el-campo/) [ El Lago Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/el-lago/) [ El Paso Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/el-paso/) [ Electra Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/electra/) [ Elmendorf Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/elmendorf/) [ Elsa Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/elsa/) [ Emory Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/emory/) [ Ennis Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ennis/) [ Escobares Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/escobares/) [ Euless Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/euless/) [ Everman Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/everman/) [ Fair Oaks Ranch Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fair-oaks-ranch/) [ Fairfield Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fairfield/) [ Falfurrias Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/falfurrias/) [ Farmers Branch Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/farmers-branch/) [ Farmersville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/farmersville/) [ Fate Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fate/) [ Ferris Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ferris/) [ Flatonia Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/flatonia/) [ Floresville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/floresville/) [ Flower Mound Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/flower-mound/) [ Floydada Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/floydada/) [ Forest Hill Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/forest-hill/) [ Forney Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/forney/) [ Fort Stockton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fort-stockton/) [ Fort Worth Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fort-worth/) [ Franklin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/franklin/) [ Fredericksburg Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fredericksburg/) [ Freeport Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/freeport/) [ Freer Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/freer/) [ Friona Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/friona/) [ Frisco Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/frisco/) [ Fritch Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/fritch/) [ Gainesville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gainesville/) [ Galena Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/galena-park/) [ Galveston Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/galveston/) [ Ganado Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ganado/) [ Garland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/garland/) [ Gatesville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gatesville/) [ George West Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/george-west/) [ Georgetown Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/georgetown/) [ Giddings Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/giddings/) [ Gilmer Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gilmer/) [ Gladewater Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gladewater/) [ Glen Rose Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/glen-rose/) [ Glenn Heights Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/glenn-heights/) [ Goldthwaite Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/goldthwaite/) [ Goliad Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/goliad/) [ Gonzales Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gonzales/) [ Graham Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/graham/) [ Granbury Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/granbury/) [ Grand Prairie Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grand-prairie/) [ Grand Saline Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grand-saline/) [ Grandview Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grandview/) [ Grapeland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grapeland/) [ Grapevine Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/grapevine/) [ Greenville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/greenville/) [ Groesbeck Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/groesbeck/) [ Groves Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/groves/) [ Gun Barrel City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/gun-barrel-city/) [ Hallettsville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hallettsville/) [ Haltom City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/haltom-city/) [ Hamilton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hamilton/) [ Harker Heights Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/harker-heights/) [ Harlingen Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/harlingen/) [ Haskell Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/haskell/) [ Haslet Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/haslet/) [ Hearne Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hearne/) [ Heath Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/heath/) [ Hebbronville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hebbronville/) [ Hedwig Village Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hedwig-village/) [ Helotes Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/helotes/) [ Hempstead Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hempstead/) [ Henderson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/henderson/) [ Henrietta Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/henrietta/) [ Hereford Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hereford/) [ Hewitt Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hewitt/) [ Hico Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hico/) [ Hidalgo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hidalgo/) [ Highland Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/highland-park/) [ Hillsboro Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hillsboro/) [ Hollywood Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hollywood-park/) [ Hondo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hondo/) [ Honey Grove Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/honey-grove/) [ Hooks Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hooks/) [ Horizon City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/horizon-city/) [ Houston Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/houston/) [ Howe Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/howe/) [ Hubbard Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hubbard/) [ Hudson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hudson/) [ Hudson Oaks Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hudson-oaks/) [ Humble Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/humble/) [ Huntsville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/huntsville/) [ Hurst Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hurst/) [ Hutchins Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/hutchins/) [ Ingleside Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ingleside/) [ Iowa Colony Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/iowa-colony/) [ Iowa Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/iowa-park/) [ Irving Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/irving/) [ Italy Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/italy/) [ Jacinto City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jacinto-city/) [ Jacksboro Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jacksboro/) [ Jacksonville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jacksonville/) [ Jasper Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jasper/) [ Jayton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jayton/) [ Jefferson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jefferson/) [ Jersey Village Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jersey-village/) [ Jourdanton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/jourdanton/) [ Junction Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/junction/) [ Justin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/justin/) [ Karnes City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/karnes-city/) [ Katy Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/katy/) [ Kaufman Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kaufman/) [ Keene Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/keene/) [ Keller Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/keller/) [ Kemah Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kemah/) [ Kemp Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kemp/) [ Kenedy Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kenedy/) [ Kennedale Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kennedale/) [ Kermit Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kermit/) [ Kerrville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kerrville/) [ Kilgore Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kilgore/) [ Killeen Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/killeen/) [ Kingsville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kingsville/) [ Kirby Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kirby/) [ Kyle Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/kyle/) [ La Feria Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-feria/) [ La Grange Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-grange/) [ La Joya Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-joya/) [ La Marque Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-marque/) [ La Porte Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-porte/) [ La Vernia Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/la-vernia/) [ Lago Vista Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lago-vista/) [ Lake Dallas Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lake-dallas/) [ Lake Jackson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lake-jackson/) [ Lake Worth Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lake-worth/) [ Lamesa Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lamesa/) [ Lampasas Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lampasas/) [ Lancaster Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lancaster/) [ Laredo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/laredo/) [ Latexo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/latexo/) [ League City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/league-city/) [ Leander Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/leander/) [ Leon Valley Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/leon-valley/) [ Levelland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/levelland/) [ Lewisville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lewisville/) [ Lexington Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lexington/) [ Liberty Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/liberty/) [ Lindale Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lindale/) [ Little Elm Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/little-elm/) [ Littlefield Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/littlefield/) [ Live Oak Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/live-oak/) [ Livingston Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/livingston/) [ Llano Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/llano/) [ Lockhart Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lockhart/) [ Lone Star Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lone-star/) [ Longview Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/longview/) [ Los Fresnos Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/los-fresnos/) [ Lubbock Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lubbock/) [ Lufkin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lufkin/) [ Luling Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/luling/) [ Lumberton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lumberton/) [ Lyford Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lyford/) [ Madisonville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/madisonville/) [ Manor Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/manor/) [ Mansfield Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mansfield/) [ Marble Falls Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/marble-falls/) [ Marfa Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/marfa/) [ Marion Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/marion/) [ Marshall Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/marshall/) [ Mart Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mart/) [ Mathis Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mathis/) [ McAllen Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mcallen/) [ McGregor Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mcgregor/) [ McKinney Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mckinney/) [ Meadows Place Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/meadows-place/) [ Memphis Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/memphis/) [ Mercedes Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mercedes/) [ Merkel Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/merkel/) [ Mesquite Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mesquite/) [ Mexia Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mexia/) [ Midland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/midland/) [ Midlothian Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/midlothian/) [ Mineola Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mineola/) [ Mineral Wells Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mineral-wells/) [ Mission Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mission/) [ Missouri City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/missouri-city/) [ Monahans Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/monahans/) [ Mont Belvieu Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mont-belvieu/) [ Montgomery Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/montgomery/) [ Morton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/morton/) [ Mount Pleasant Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mount-pleasant/) [ Mount Vernon Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mount-vernon/) [ Muleshoe Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/muleshoe/) [ Murphy Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/murphy/) [ Nacogdoches Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nacogdoches/) [ Naples Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/naples/) [ Nash Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nash/) [ Nassau Bay Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nassau-bay/) [ Navasota Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/navasota/) [ Nederland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nederland/) [ Needville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/needville/) [ New Boston Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/new-boston/) [ New Braunfels Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/new-braunfels/) [ New London Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/new-london/) [ Newark Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/newark/) [ Newton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/newton/) [ Nolanville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/nolanville/) [ North Richland Hills Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/north-richland-hills/) [ Oak Point Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/oak-point/) [ Odessa Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/odessa/) [ Olmos Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/olmos-park/) [ Olney Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/olney/) [ Onalaska Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/onalaska/) [ Orange Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/orange/) [ Overton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/overton/) [ Ozona Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ozona/) [ Paducah Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/paducah/) [ Palacios Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/palacios/) [ Palestine Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/palestine/) [ Palmhurst Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/palmhurst/) [ Palmview Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/palmview/) [ Pampa Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pampa/) [ Panhandle Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/panhandle/) [ Paris Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/paris/) [ Pasadena Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pasadena/) [ Pearland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pearland/) [ Pearsall Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pearsall/) [ Pecan Hill Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pecan-hill/) [ Pecos Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pecos/) [ Perryton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/perryton/) [ Pflugerville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pflugerville/) [ Pharr Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pharr/) [ Pilot Point Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pilot-point/) [ Pinehurst Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pinehurst/) [ Plainview Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/plainview/) [ Plano Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/plano/) [ Pleasanton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/pleasanton/) [ Port Aransas Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/port-aransas/) [ Port Arthur Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/port-arthur/) [ Port Isabel Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/port-isabel/) [ Port Lavaca Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/port-lavaca/) [ Port Neches Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/port-neches/) [ Portland Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/portland/) [ Post Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/post/) [ Poteet Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/poteet/) [ Prairie View Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/prairie-view/) [ Presidio Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/presidio/) [ Princeton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/princeton/) [ Prosper Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/prosper/) [ Quanah Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/quanah/) [ Quinlan Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/quinlan/) [ Quitman Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/quitman/) [ Ralls Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/ralls/) [ Raymondville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/raymondville/) [ Red Oak Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/red-oak/) [ Refugio Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/refugio/) [ Reno Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/reno/) [ Richardson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/richardson/) [ Richland Hills Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/richland-hills/) [ Richmond Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/richmond/) [ Rio Bravo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rio-bravo/) [ Rio Grande City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rio-grande-city/) [ Rio Hondo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rio-hondo/) [ River Oaks Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/river-oaks/) [ Roanoke Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/roanoke/) [ Robinson Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/robinson/) [ Robstown Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/robstown/) [ Rockdale Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rockdale/) [ Rockport Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rockport/) [ Rocksprings Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rocksprings/) [ Rockwall Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rockwall/) [ Roma Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/roma/) [ Roscoe Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/roscoe/) [ Rosenberg Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rosenberg/) [ Round Rock Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/round-rock/) [ Rowlett Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rowlett/) [ Royse City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/royse-city/) [ Rule Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rule/) [ Rusk Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rusk/) [ Sachse Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sachse/) [ Saginaw Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/saginaw/) [ San Angelo Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-angelo/) [ San Antonio Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-antonio/) [ San Benito Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-benito/) [ San Diego Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-diego/) [ San Elizario Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-elizario/) [ San Juan Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-juan/) [ San Marcos Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-marcos/) [ San Saba Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-saba/) [ Sanger Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sanger/) [ Santa Fe Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/santa-fe/) [ Schertz Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/schertz/) [ Schulenburg Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/schulenburg/) [ Seabrook Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/seabrook/) [ Seagoville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/seagoville/) [ Seguin Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/seguin/) [ Seminole Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/seminole/) [ Seymour Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/seymour/) [ Shallowater Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/shallowater/) [ Shamrock Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/shamrock/) [ Shavano Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/shavano-park/) [ Shenandoah Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/shenandoah/) [ Sherman Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sherman/) [ Silsbee Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/silsbee/) [ Sinton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sinton/) [ Slaton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/slaton/) [ Smithville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/smithville/) [ Snyder Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/snyder/) [ Socorro Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/socorro/) [ Sonora Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sonora/) [ South Houston Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/south-houston/) [ Southlake Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/southlake/) [ Spearman Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/spearman/) [ Stafford Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/stafford/) [ Stamford Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/stamford/) [ Stanton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/stanton/) [ Stephenville Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/stephenville/) [ Sugar Land Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sugar-land/) [ Sulphur Springs Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sulphur-springs/) [ Sunnyvale Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sunnyvale/) [ Sweetwater Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sweetwater/) [ Taylor Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/taylor/) [ Taylor Lake Village Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/taylor-lake-village/) [ Teague Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/teague/) [ Temple Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/temple/) [ Terrell Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/terrell/) [ Texarkana Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/texarkana/) [ Texas City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/texas-city/) [ The Colony Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/the-colony/) [ The Hills Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/the-hills/) [ Thorndale Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/thorndale/) [ Three Rivers Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/three-rivers/) [ Tomball Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tomball/) [ Tool Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tool/) [ Trinity Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/trinity/) [ Trophy Club Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/trophy-club/) [ Tulia Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tulia/) [ Tyler Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tyler/) [ Universal City Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/universal-city/) [ University Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/university-park/) [ Uvalde Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/uvalde/) [ Van Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/van/) [ Van Alstyne Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/van-alstyne/) [ Venus Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/venus/) [ Vernon Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/vernon/) [ Victoria Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/victoria/) [ Vidor Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/vidor/) [ Waco Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/waco/) [ Wake Village Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wake-village/) [ Waller Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/waller/) [ Watauga Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/watauga/) [ Waxahachie Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/waxahachie/) [ Weatherford Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/weatherford/) [ Webster Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/webster/) [ Weimar Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/weimar/) [ Wellington Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wellington/) [ Weslaco Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/weslaco/) [ West Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/west/) [ West Columbia Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/west-columbia/) [ West Lake Hills Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/west-lake-hills/) [ West Orange Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/west-orange/) [ West University Place Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/west-university-place/) [ Westlake Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/westlake/) [ Wharton Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wharton/) [ White Oak Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/white-oak/) [ White Settlement Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/white-settlement/) [ Whitehouse Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/whitehouse/) [ Whitney Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/whitney/) [ Wichita Falls Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wichita-falls/) [ Willis Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/willis/) [ Willow Park Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/willow-park/) [ Wimberley Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wimberley/) [ Windcrest Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/windcrest/) [ Winnsboro Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/winnsboro/) [ Winters Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/winters/) [ Wolfforth Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wolfforth/) [ Woodway Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/woodway/) [ Wylie Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wylie/) [ Yoakum Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/yoakum/) [ Yorktown Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/yorktown/) [ Zapata Texas ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/zapata/) No matching Texas city was found. Links use the simple Ghost tag format **/tag/city-name/**, including **/tag/san-antonio/**, **/tag/austin/** and **/tag/houston/**. ### Texas Capital Report by Metro URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/metro/ Last updated: 2026-07-17T08:45:47.000Z Texas Capital Report Metro Directory ## Explore Texas Metropolitan Areas Find Texas Capital Report journalism, economic indicators, public records, rankings and National Data System intelligence organized by metropolitan area. Search Texas metropolitan areas 25 metropolitan areas [ Abilene Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 10180** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/abilene/) [ Amarillo Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 11100** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/amarillo/) [ Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 12420** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/austin-round-rock-san-marcos/) [ Beaumont–Port Arthur Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 13140** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/beaumont-port-arthur/) [ Brownsville–Harlingen Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 15180** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/brownsville-harlingen/) [ College Station–Bryan Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 17780** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/college-station-bryan/) [ Corpus Christi Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 18580** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/corpus-christi/) [ Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 19100** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/dallas-fort-worth-arlington/) [ El Paso Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 21340** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/el-paso/) [ Houston–Pasadena–The Woodlands Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 26420** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/houston-pasadena-the-woodlands/) [ Killeen–Temple Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 28660** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/killeen-temple/) [ Laredo Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 29700** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/laredo/) [ Longview Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 30980** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/longview/) [ Lubbock Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 31180** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/lubbock/) [ McAllen–Edinburg–Mission Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 32580** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/mcallen-edinburg-mission/) [ Midland Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 33260** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/midland/) [ Odessa Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 36220** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/odessa/) [ San Angelo Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 41660** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-angelo/) [ San Antonio–New Braunfels Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 41700** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-antonio-new-braunfels/) [ Sherman–Denison Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 43300** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/sherman-denison/) [ Texarkana, TX–AR Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 45500** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/texarkana/) [ Tyler Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 46340** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/tyler/) [ Victoria Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 47020** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/victoria/) [ Waco Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 47380** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/waco/) [ Wichita Falls Texas Metropolitan Area **CBSA 48660** ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/wichita-falls/) No matching Texas metropolitan area was found. Links use simple Ghost metro tags without the CBSA code, including **/tag/san-antonio-new-braunfels/**, **/tag/austin-round-rock-san-marcos/** and **/tag/dallas-fort-worth-arlington/**. The official five-digit CBSA code remains visible on each directory card. ### Texas Capital Report by Zip URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-capital-report-by-zip/ Last updated: 2026-07-22T04:25:33.000Z ## Texas Capital Report ZIP Intelligence ## Find a Texas ZIP Code Search by ZIP code or postal community to open Texas Capital Report reporting and National Data System intelligence for that area. Search Texas ZIP codes Loading Texas ZIP directory… Results link to simple numeric Ghost tags such as **/tag/78205/**. The finder displays up to 36 matching ZIP codes at a time so the page remains fast. ### Trade & Occupational Schools URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/trade-occupational-schools/ Last updated: 2026-07-29T09:28:11.000Z Texas Capitol Report Data Intelligence ## Texas Beauty Schools Directory Search ZIP-linked Texas cosmetology, barbering and beauty-school license records across the statewide beauty publication layer. The underlying beauty dataset spans 1,706 Texas ZIP codes. This directory displays only approved school categories: private beauty schools, public vocational or secondary beauty programs, public junior-college or post-secondary beauty programs, and barber schools. Beauty ZIP layer**1,706** School categories**4** Selected ZIP schools**—** Data scope**Texas** Enter or select a Texas ZIP code Search schools in this ZIP Filter school results School category All school categories Loading the statewide beauty ZIP index… | School | License | Location | Contact | Expiration | | ------ | ------- | -------- | ------- | ---------- | No schools match the selected filters. Expiration status is derived from the recorded expiration date. Verify current standing with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation before enrolling, contracting or making a regulatory determination. Texas Capitol Report data intelligence powered by National Data System. Source: governed beauty-only TDLR ZIP-enriched licensing data. ### San Antonio Fire & EMS Intelligence by NDS URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/san-antonio-fire-ems-intelligence-by-zip/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T19:25:33.000Z Texas Capital Report · National Data System # Search Your ZIP. See Its Fire & EMS Rank. Explore distinct San Antonio Fire Department master incidents by ZIP—not duplicated operational response rows. Five-digit ZIP code Search ZIP Coverage: January 1, 2024–June 30, 2026 2026 is a partial year Loading the SAFD ZIP intelligence file… San Antonio Fire & EMS ZIP intelligence ## ZIP # of ranked ZIPs Distinct SAFD master incidents **%** of all ZIP-assigned incidents citywide Fire-classified EMS-classified Other / unclassified Explicit Fire/EMS mix ### Incident classification composition The gray category may include other source values or records without a usable Fire/EMS label. Fire % EMS % Other % ### Category rankings Rank among the same 93 ZIPs. **#**Fire rank **#**EMS rank **#**Overall **How to read this:** This is a raw incident-volume ranking. It is not adjusted for population, daytime visitors, hospitals, commercial activity or land area. **Data grain:** The ranking uses one incident-level record per `master_incident_number`. It does not treat the 1,068,091 operational source rows as separate emergencies. ### Highest-volume ZIPs Select a ZIP to open its full result. **Texas Capital Report** · Powered by the National Data System Source: San Antonio Fire Department calls-for-service data. ZIP assignments require one consistent incident ZIP. Arson cases are not included. ### Texas ZIP Real Estate Intelligence: A New Mortgage and Market Lens for Every Texas ZIP URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-zip-real-estate-intelligence-a-new-mortgage-and-market-lens-for-every-texas-zip/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T20:26:43.000Z Explore ZIP Loading ZIP 78233… ### Child Care Intelligence Example URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/child-care-intelligence-example/ Last updated: 2026-08-01T03:25:59.000Z Buda, Texas · Child Care Inspection Intelligence # A searchable view of inspection and compliance signals across Buda This data-powered directory converts a structured JSON file into a public-facing Ghost Pro page. Readers can search facilities, compare inspection history, review weighted deficiency signals, and examine the underlying fields used by the SRI model. Data date loading City: Buda State: Texas Lower SRI values indicate fewer weighted risk signals ## What this page shows Each record includes the operation name and identifiers, ZIP code, county, inspection count, deficiency totals by severity, weighted score components, enforcement indicators, recognition status, and the accompanying assessment description. The directory is generated directly from the embedded JSON. When the JSON is replaced with a newly generated Buda file using the same schema, the visible statistics, filters, and records update automatically. ## Reading the results responsibly **This is an analytical directory, not a licensing decision.** A low score does not guarantee quality or safety, and a high score does not by itself establish present conditions. Records with little or no inspection history should not be treated as directly comparable to operations with extensive histories. **—**Buda operation records **—**Total inspections represented **—**Total recorded deficiencies **—**ZIP codes represented **—**Records with zero inspections ## Buda operation directory Search by operation name, identifier, or ZIP code. Use the controls to focus on inspection history, recognition, geography, or score order. Select “View” to examine every supplied field except the excluded grade field. Search ZIP code All ZIP codes Inspection history All records At least 1 inspection At least 5 inspections At least 10 inspections At least 20 inspections Zero inspections Recognition All records Current Top 10 Hall of Fame medal Enforcement signal Sort Published rank SRI: low to high SRI: high to low Inspections: high to low Deficiencies: high to low Operation name **0** matching records Page 1 | Rank | Operation | ZIP | Inspections | Deficiencies | SRI | Recognition / signals | Record | | ---- | --------- | --- | ----------- | ------------ | --- | --------------------- | ------ | No records match the selected filters. ## How the SRI fields are used The supplied model applies larger weights to more serious deficiency categories, smooths the result using the provided inspection-history constant, and adds an enforcement penalty when applicable. The published SRI value is retained exactly as supplied in the JSON. ### Deficiency weights Loading model weights. ### Enforcement penalty Loading enforcement settings. ### Inspection-history smoothing Loading smoothing setting. ### Important comparison rule A record with zero inspections is clearly labeled in the directory. Its score should not be interpreted as evidence of a sustained compliance history. Source: supplied Buda JSON dataset, schema version —. Generated —. This page preserves all supplied operation fields except the exact field named “grade.” ## Posts ### New US Veteran Stability Index (VSI) Shows Where Veterans May Find the Best ZIP Codes for Living... URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/new-us-veteran-stability-index-vsi-shows-where-veterans-may-find-the-best-zip-codes-for-living/ Last updated: 2026-08-17T20:17:30.000Z Texas Capital Report | Veteran Intelligence ## Texas Has a New Veteran Stability Map — and Military City USA Has a More Complicated Story The National Data System’s new Veteran Stability Index ranks core-complete ZIP codes on economic, employment, housing, health and service access, mobility and community support. North Texas and Austin dominate the top of the Texas list, while San Antonio’s results reveal why a famous military identity does not make every neighborhood equally stable for Veterans. By Texas Capital Report Data Desk National Data System analysis | August 2026 **Texas** has long marketed itself to **Veterans** through a familiar vocabulary: jobs, land, military installations, no state individual income tax, warm weather and a culture that is comfortable around uniforms. **San Antonio** has gone further, turning **“Military City USA”** into part civic identity, part economic-development strategy and part shorthand for a metropolitan area shaped by generations of service members and military families. But the newest National Data System analysis asks a different question, one that is more intimate than whether a city is military-friendly: What does the **ZIP** code itself look like for a Veteran who has to live there, pay for housing there, find work there, travel to care there and rely on the institutions around them? ![a man in a blue suit holding a sign](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1714272684812-718a27126c33?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDI3fHxtaWxpdGFyeSUyMGNpdHl8ZW58MHx8fHwxNzg2OTk3ODAxfDA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=2000) Photo by [David Clode](https://unsplash.com/@davidclode?ref=texascapitalreport.com) / [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/?utm%5Fsource=ghost&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcampaign=api-credit) The **National Data System**’s newly certified **Veteran Stability Index**, or **VSI**, is an attempt to answer that question at ZIP-code scale. Developed by a Veteran, the index scores qualified Veteran communities on six dimensions: **Economic Stability at 25 percent**, **Employment Stability at 20 percent**, **Housing Stability at 20 percent**, **Health and Service Access at 15 percent**, **Mobility and Practical Access at 10 percen**t and **Community Support at 10 percent**. The current certified release, VSI V1.0.8, began with 33,772 Veteran ZIP records, applied a minimum threshold of 250 Veterans, and ultimately ranked 13,541 ZIP codes with complete core components. Another 141 ZIPs met the Veteran-population threshold but were held out because they lacked one or more required core inputs. In other words, the index does not turn missing information into a bad score. It ranks communities only when the underlying evidence is sufficient. That matters because VSI is not a measure of patriotism, military tradition or even the size of the local Veteran population. A ZIP can be home to thousands of Veterans and still face economic, housing or transportation pressure. Another ZIP can be far from a major active-duty installation yet offer an unusually stable mix of income, employment, housing and services. The score is therefore best read as a warning-and-opportunity signal: higher values indicate a stronger combination of conditions for Veterans; lower values point to areas where one or more parts of daily life may be under pressure. The public tiers are relative national bands. “Strong Stability” means a ZIP is in the top national decile among qualified, core-complete Veteran communities, not that every household in the ZIP is secure or that no Veteran faces hardship. Texas performs well at the top, but the geography is not evenly distributed. The highest-ranked Texas ZIP in the certified release is 75054 in Grand Prairie, with a VSI of 74.96, a national rank of No. 285 and a national percentile of 97.9\. Richardson’s 75081 follows with a score of 74.32, while Flower Mound’s 75022 ranks third in Texas at 73.56\. Amarillo’s 79119 is fourth at 73.37\. Another Flower Mound ZIP, 75028, is fifth at 73.21\. All of the top 25 Texas ZIPs fall in the national Strong Stability tier, with even the 25th-ranked Texas ZIP, Austin’s 78759, still above the 93rd national percentile. ## Top 10 Texas ZIP Codes in the Certified NDS Veteran Stability Index | TX Rank | ZIP | Community | VSI | National Rank | National Percentile | | ------- | --------- | ------------- | ----- | ------------- | ------------------- | | 1 | **75054** | Grand Prairie | 74.96 | #285 | 97.90th | | 2 | **75081** | Richardson | 74.32 | #348 | 97.44th | | 3 | **75022** | Flower Mound | 73.56 | #426 | 96.86th | | 4 | **79119** | Amarillo | 73.37 | #447 | 96.71th | | 5 | **75028** | Flower Mound | 73.21 | #460 | 96.60th | | 6 | **76655** | Lorena | 73.21 | #461 | 96.60th | | 7 | **75048** | Sachse | 73.19 | #463 | 96.58th | | 8 | **78681** | Round Rock | 72.32 | #576 | 95.75th | | 9 | **78732** | Austin | 72.27 | #585 | 95.69th | | 10 | **76034** | Colleyville | 72.24 | #590 | 95.65th | The map is striking. Fourteen of the Texas top 25 ZIPs sit in the broader Dallas–Fort Worth orbit. Seven are in Austin or Round Rock. Two are in the Waco area. One is in Amarillo. One is in San Antonio. That distribution is a useful rebuke to the assumption that the best Veteran environment must be the place with the largest base, the most uniforms or the loudest military brand. The strongest Texas results are heavily suburban and exurban: Grand Prairie, Richardson, Flower Mound, Sachse, Colleyville, Roanoke, Irving, Carrollton, Keller, Argyle and Aledo all appear. Austin’s high-performing cluster includes Round Rock and several western and northwestern ZIPs. These are places where the index is picking up a broad mix of household stability, employment opportunity, housing conditions, mobility and institutional capacity. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/08/Veteran_Service_Organizations--1-.jpeg) San Antonio is where the story becomes more complicated — and more useful. **Military City USA** does not perform poorly. It performs unevenly. NDS identified 59 San Antonio city-labeled Veteran ZIP rows, of which 53 met the full certification requirements for ranking. Their average VSI is 49.42 and the median is 50.11\. The city’s strongest ZIP, 78248, reaches 70.76, good for No. 22 in Texas and No. 835 nationally. At the other end of the city’s certified range, 78207 scores 29.96\. That is a swing of more than 40 VSI points inside a single military-centered metropolitan area. For a Veteran deciding where to rent, buy, retire, raise a family or start a second career, that spread is more meaningful than the citywide nickname. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/08/VSI-Veteran-Stability-Index.png) San Antonio’s highest‑ranked ZIP codes are clustered in the city’s most familiar northside and Hill Country‑edge communities — the areas known for strong schools, stable neighborhoods, and easy access to shopping, medical care, and outdoor space. At the top is **78248**, covering the **Far North and Shavano Park area**, long recognized for its mix of established neighborhoods and high household stability. Close behind is **78259**, the **Stone Oak / Canyon Springs** corridor, followed by **78231** in **Castle Hills / North Central**, and **78266**, which includes **Garden Ridge** and the **Hill Country edge**. ## Top 10 Texas ZIP Codes in the Certified NDS Veteran Stability Index | TX Rank | ZIP | Community | VSI | National Rank | National Percentile | | ------- | --------- | ------------- | ----- | ------------- | ------------------- | | 1 | **75054** | Grand Prairie | 74.96 | #285 | 97.90th | | 2 | **75081** | Richardson | 74.32 | #348 | 97.44th | | 3 | **75022** | Flower Mound | 73.56 | #426 | 96.86th | | 4 | **79119** | Amarillo | 73.37 | #447 | 96.71th | | 5 | **75028** | Flower Mound | 73.21 | #460 | 96.60th | | 6 | **76655** | Lorena | 73.21 | #461 | 96.60th | | 7 | **75048** | Sachse | 73.19 | #463 | 96.58th | | 8 | **78681** | Round Rock | 72.32 | #576 | 95.75th | | 9 | **78732** | Austin | 72.27 | #585 | 95.69th | | 10 | **76034** | Colleyville | 72.24 | #590 | 95.65th | The numbers also help explain what San Antonio’s military brand gets right — and what it can hide. Compared with Amarillo, San Antonio scores much higher on average Community Support: 56.35 versus 41.01\. That fits the lived reality of a metropolitan area dense with Veteran institutions, military networks, service organizations and a public culture built around military families. But San Antonio trails Amarillo on average Employment Stability by 12.17 points and on Mobility and Practical Access by 15.80 points. Its Economic Stability average is 4.60 points lower and its Health and Service Access average is 7.50 points lower. Housing is essentially a tie. The lesson is not that Amarillo is “more military” than San Antonio. ***It is that military identity and community stability are different things.*** San Antonio’s institutional depth is a strength; its neighborhood-level economic, transportation and housing realities still vary substantially. ![A tree with yellow leaves is in the middle of a street](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1740198681858-56edc182a5a8?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDU3fHxBbWFyaWxsb3xlbnwwfHx8fDE3ODY5OTc0MzV8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=2000) Amarillo, Texas | Photo by [Sergio Rodríguez](https://unsplash.com/@sergiordgz?ref=texascapitalreport.com) / [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/?utm%5Fsource=ghost&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcampaign=api-credit) The contrast between San Antonio’s 78248 and Amarillo’s 79119 shows how different strengths can shape the feel of a community. Both ZIP codes score well, but for very different reasons. In 78248, economic and employment stability run high, with scores in the low‑80s. Amarillo’s 79119 matches that strength but flips the profile: its housing market is steadier, and its mobility score is one of the strongest in the state. On health and access to services, the two ZIPs are almost identical. What separates them is geography. Amarillo’s nearest military installation is nearly 90 miles away, while 78248 sits just 14 miles from its closest base. For Veterans, that difference can change everything — commute times, access to care, daily routines, and the overall cost of staying connected to military and VA resources. The takeaway is simple: strong communities don’t all look the same. Some offer stability through housing and mobility, others through economic strength and proximity to military life. The index highlights those differences so Veterans can see the full picture of what living in each place actually feels like. ![Veterans march together in solidarity](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1745546931891-c4970d90b012?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDIzfHxWZXRlcnxlbnwwfHx8fDE3ODY5OTY2NTV8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=2000) Honoring Veterans | Photo by [David Clode](https://unsplash.com/@davidclode?ref=texascapitalreport.com) / [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/?utm%5Fsource=ghost&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcampaign=api-credit) For Veterans thinking about a move to Texas, momentum matters. The state is growing quickly, and some counties are seeing surges that reshape housing markets and daily life. In Bexar County, for example, recent migration data shows more than **37,000 new residents** arriving in the latest cycle — a sign of just how much pressure is building in the same communities where Veterans may be searching for homes. That number doesn’t tell us how many of those newcomers are Veterans, but it does highlight a reality: **the neighborhoods Veterans are considering are the same ones attracting the most people overall.** More residents mean tighter housing inventory, faster‑moving listings, shifting commute patterns, and rising demand near military bases and VA facilities. For Veterans weighing proximity to medical care, comparing commute times, or deciding whether a higher housing cost is worth being closer to military and VA infrastructure, these migration waves are part of the real picture. Texas isn’t slowing down — and understanding where people are moving helps Veterans make clearer, more confident choices about where to live. That is why VSI is potentially most useful as a relocation tool rather than as a simple ranking. A Veteran moving from another state may know that San Antonio has Joint Base San Antonio, a deep military culture and a large Veteran population. VSI adds the next question: Which San Antonio ZIP offers the best balance for the life that Veteran actually plans to live? Someone prioritizing community support may accept a different trade-off than someone prioritizing mobility, housing or employment. A retired Veteran may weight practical access differently from a 35-year-old Post-9/11 Veteran entering a second career. A family may care about housing stability and commute burden more than raw proximity to an installation. The index does not make the decision. It makes the trade-offs visible. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/08/Texas_Realtor_ad.png) Texas’ top list also suggests that relocation marketing aimed at Veterans should broaden its map. North Texas and Austin-area suburbs are emerging as strong Veteran-stability environments even when they are not the first places associated with military life. **Grand Prairie’s 75054**, **Richardson’s 75081** and **Flower Mound’s 75022** all place ahead of every San Antonio ZIP in the current certified release. **Round Rock’s 78681** and **Austin’s 78732** are also in the Texas top 10\. For economic-development officials, homebuilders, employers and local governments, that creates a new question: Are these ZIP codes intentionally serving Veterans, or are Veterans benefiting incidentally from conditions that are already strong for the broader population? The answer could influence workforce recruitment, housing policy, nonprofit strategy and the location of Veteran-focused services. For San Antonio, the stakes are slightly different. ***Military City USA*** already has the brand. What VSI gives it is a neighborhood-level accountability test. The city can now see where its Veteran ecosystem is translating into broad stability and where the benefits of that ecosystem are not keeping pace with economic hardship, housing instability or mobility pressure. The city’s strongest Veteran ZIPs are not an argument for complacency, and its weakest are not a verdict against San Antonio. Together they show why a citywide military identity can coexist with sharply different day-to-day realities from one ZIP code to the next. The larger significance of VSI is that it turns the Veteran relocation conversation away from slogans and toward evidence. Texas remains a compelling destination for many Veterans, but “move to Texas” is not specific enough to be useful. **The real decision is Dallas–Fort Worth or Austin, Amarillo or San Antonio, and then one ZIP against another.** NDS is now measuring that choice with the same geographic discipline it applies to migration, housing, nonprofit capacity, employment and access. For Veterans, the value is not in finding a perfect ZIP. It is in knowing what kind of stability a ZIP appears to offer before the moving truck arrives. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/08/VSI-Veteran-Stability-Index-1.png) ## How the Veteran Stability Index works **Economic Stability 25%** · **Employment Stability 20%** · **Housing Stability 20%** · **Health & Service Access 15%** · **Mobility & Practical Access 10%** · **Community Support 10%**. Public ranking requires at least 250 Veterans and complete core components. Strong Stability is the top national decile among qualified, core-complete ZIPs. **Data note:** Veteran Stability Index figures are from National Data System certified VSI V1.0.8\. NDS migration context comes from the IRS Migration backbone and related NDS county/ZIP intelligence. IRS migration records describe tax-return migration and do not identify Veteran status. NDS public area labels are descriptive geography intended to make ZIP-level intelligence easier to read. VA hospital-distance detail is supplementary to the broader VA medical-facility access layer and should not be read as a complete inventory of all local VA care. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/08/Texas_Real_Estate_Intelligence_Report-1.jpeg) ***Order Your Zip Code Intelligence Report BEFORE You Call Your Realtor** ### Josey Garcia’s Second-Term Impact Across 147 Legislative Measures URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/josey-garcias-second-term-impact-across-147-legislative-measures/ Last updated: 2026-08-10T21:35:06.000Z Texas Capitol Leadership Series · Second-Term Impact # From Energy and Water to Representation: Inside Josey Garcia’s 89th Legislature Record In her second term, Rep. Josey Garcia held recorded roles on 147 legislative measures while serving on committees responsible for energy, water, natural resources and redistricting—placing the West San Antonio lawmaker inside some of Texas’ most consequential statewide debates. By Christopher C. Herring · Texas Capital Report **Related coverage:** [Read how Garcia’s freshman legislative record reached across 408 measures in the 88th Legislature. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/more-than-passage-the-full-reach-of-josey-garcia-first-session/) Josey Garcia entered her second term in the Texas House with a broader committee portfolio, deeper legislative experience and a record of coalition work already established across hundreds of measures. During the 89th regular session, the House District 124 representative held a recorded legislative role on 147 measures. Forty of those measures reached a successful legislative outcome: 29 bills were enacted, four constitutional-amendment proposals were approved by the Legislature and submitted to voters, and seven House resolutions were adopted. Pharaoh Clark, Chief of Staff HD 124,comments "Representative Garcia’s second-term record also reflected a sharper connection between committee responsibility and statewide policy. We learned so much in our freshman year and have really studied our constituents and their needs. We continue to impact our Veterans and Active Duty Military personnel in San Antonio by listening and acting on their concerns. We were honored by the recognition as Freshman Legislator last session. Josey's assignments placed her in debates over energy production, water security, natural resources and the boundaries that determine political representation."" The result was a portfolio that combined authorship, coalition work and cross-chamber participation with a broader role in questions affecting every region of Texas. 147 Recorded measures Garcia’s complete participation portfolio during the 89th regular session. 40 Successful measures Enacted bills, constitutional-amendment proposals and adopted House resolutions. 29 Enacted bills House and Senate bills connected to Garcia that became part of Texas law. 71 Authorship-team measures Thirty-eight authored measures and 33 joint-authorship roles. 4 Constitutional amendments Joint resolutions approved by the Legislature and submitted to voters. ## A second-term portfolio shaped by statewide responsibility Garcia’s 89th Legislature record included 38 authored measures, 33 joint-authorship roles, 64 coauthorship roles, two joint-sponsorship roles and 10 cosponsorship roles. Those numbers describe several kinds of legislative participation. Authorship identifies measures where Garcia occupied the lead position. Joint authorship reflects shared formal responsibility. Coauthorship and sponsorship roles show where she joined broader coalitions or helped legislation move across chambers. Authored 38 Measures where Garcia held the lead authorship position in the originating chamber. Joint Authored 33 Measures where she shared formal authorship responsibility with other legislators. Coauthored 64 Measures where Garcia joined a broader authorship coalition supporting another lawmaker’s proposal. Joint Sponsored 2 Measures where she shared responsibility for helping legislation move through the opposite chamber. Cosponsored 10 Measures where Garcia joined additional cross-chamber sponsorship coalitions. Total participation 147 One recorded Garcia relationship per measure in the 89th regular session. ## Forty measures reached a successful legislative outcome | Successful outcome | Measures | Meaning | | ---------------------------------- | -------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Enacted bills | 29 | House and Senate bills that completed the legislative process and became effective. | | Constitutional-amendment proposals | 4 | Joint resolutions approved by the Legislature and submitted to Texas voters. | | Adopted House resolutions | 7 | House measures recognizing people, institutions, civic events and public contributions. | | Total successful measures | 40 | Successful legislative instruments across several legal and procedural forms. | Success takes more than one form An enacted bill becomes law. A joint resolution can place a constitutional amendment before voters. A House resolution can be adopted as the formal expression of the chamber. Garcia’s 40 successful measures included all three forms of legislative accomplishment. ## What the successful measures actually did The strongest way to understand Garcia’s second-term impact is to look beyond the totals and examine the measures themselves. Her successful portfolio reached veterans’ mental health, access to veterans’ benefits, disability-related financial protections, property-tax relief, dementia research, water infrastructure and real-estate identity safeguards. ### HB 1965: Veterans’ mental-health services Garcia led HB 1965, which directs the Texas Veterans Commission to study strategies for improving and expanding mental-health services provided to veterans. The study focuses on the services already available through the commission and the steps Texas could take to strengthen access for veterans who need care. ### HB 2193: Access to veterans’ benefits Garcia joined the formal authorship team behind HB 2193, requiring the Texas Veterans Commission to examine how veterans’ benefits are delivered across the state. The measure calls for analysis of where eligible veterans live, how many claims benefit advisors are available and where additional staffing may be needed. ### HB 1041: Financial protections involving disability care Garcia served as a joint author of HB 1041, which addresses when certain people providing care to individuals with disabilities may have an insurable interest in the lives of those individuals. The law creates a more specific framework for disability-related caregiving relationships within Texas insurance law. ### HB 4202: Identity safeguards in real-estate documents Garcia joined HB 4202, which updates the evidence that may be used to verify a person’s identity when acknowledging a written instrument. For residential real-estate transactions, the law allows a current foreign passport to serve as satisfactory identification—an important practical change for some Texas property owners and buyers. ### SB 4 and SB 23: Property-tax relief Garcia’s successful portfolio included SB 4 and SB 23, measures tied to expanded school-district homestead exemptions. SB 4 increased the general school-district residence-homestead exemption, while SB 23 addressed additional relief for homeowners who are elderly or have disabilities. ### SB 5 and SJR 3: Dementia research Garcia also held a recorded role on SB 5 and SJR 3, the statutory and constitutional measures establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. The initiative was designed to support research, prevention and treatment involving dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and related disorders. A water measure with statewide reach HJR 7 proposed dedicating a portion of state sales-tax revenue to the Texas water fund. Garcia’s participation connected her committee work on natural resources to one of the Legislature’s most consequential long-term infrastructure questions: how Texas will finance water supply, conservation and system reliability as the state grows. ## Veterans’ policy remained a defining part of Garcia’s work Garcia’s military background continued to shape her legislative record in the 89th Legislature. HB 1965 and HB 2193 approached veterans’ policy from two related directions. One focused on mental-health services. The other examined whether Texas has enough claims benefit advisors—and whether those advisors are located where veterans need them. For San Antonio, where military service and veteran life are central to the regional economy and identity, these measures are not abstract administrative studies. They concern whether veterans can find care, navigate benefit systems and receive support close to where they live. **Direct leadership:**HB 1965 is one of the clearest examples of Garcia’s second-term authorship. It placed her at the center of a state-level examination of veterans’ mental-health access through the Texas Veterans Commission. ## Property taxes, dementia research and household stability Several of the successful measures in Garcia’s portfolio addressed concerns that reach directly into household finances and family caregiving. SB 4 increased the general school-district residence-homestead exemption to $140,000, while SB 23 provided additional relief connected to homeowners who are elderly or have disabilities. SB 5 and SJR 3 created the legal and constitutional framework for a new state dementia-research institute. The initiative was structured to support research, prevention strategies and treatment advances while building Texas’ capacity in medical and scientific research. Those measures linked taxation, aging, disability and healthcare research—policy areas that affect families long before they become part of a political debate at the Capitol. ## Committee assignments placed Garcia inside four statewide debates 89th Legislature ### Energy Resources The committee addresses oil, gas, energy production and the regulatory systems that shape one of Texas’ most important economic sectors. 89th Legislature ### Natural Resources The assignment placed Garcia in debates involving water supply, conservation, groundwater, infrastructure and the long-term management of natural resources. 89th Legislature ### Redistricting The committee oversees questions involving political boundaries and how communities are grouped for representation in state government. 89th Legislature ### Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting The select committee placed Garcia directly inside the state’s high-stakes debate over congressional boundaries and the future of representation. ## Energy and natural resources connected statewide policy to local life Energy policy can appear distant from the daily concerns of families, but its effects reach household budgets, job markets, transportation, industrial development and the reliability of essential services. For San Antonio and House District 124, energy questions also intersect with military installations, healthcare systems, logistics networks, public facilities and working families whose finances are affected by utility costs. Water and natural-resource policy carry similar consequences. Population growth, infrastructure pressure, drought risk and long-term supply planning are not limited to rural Texas. They shape development, housing, business expansion and quality of life across metropolitan regions. **Committee significance:**Garcia’s second-term assignments moved her into areas where statewide economic policy, public infrastructure and neighborhood stability directly intersect. ## Four constitutional amendments extended her record beyond ordinary legislation Garcia held a recorded role on four joint resolutions that were approved by the Legislature and submitted to voters. The measures addressed water infrastructure, homestead tax exemptions and the creation of a statewide dementia research initiative. Constitutional amendments differ from ordinary bills. The Legislature does not enact them alone. Lawmakers approve the proposal, and Texas voters make the final decision. ### Water and long-term infrastructure HJR 7 proposed dedicating a portion of state sales-tax revenue to the Texas water fund, connecting state finance to long-term water planning and infrastructure. ### Property-tax and health priorities SJR 2 and SJR 85 addressed homestead exemptions, while SJR 3 proposed the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. ## Adopted House resolutions reflected civic and cultural leadership Seven House resolutions connected to Garcia were adopted during the regular session. They recognized Texas Capitol staff, grandparents raising grandchildren, cultural and civic leaders, public service, international relationships and major figures connected to San Antonio and Texas. These measures do not become law, but they are part of the formal record of the House. They document the people, institutions and relationships lawmakers choose to honor through the authority of the chamber. ## One veto and 106 measures that did not reach adoption Not every measure in Garcia’s 147-measure portfolio reached a successful conclusion. One measure was vetoed. Another 106 did not become law or receive final adoption. That pattern reflects the reality of legislative work. Bills can remain pending in committee, advance through one chamber but not the other, be replaced by similar legislation or fail to receive the final procedural action needed for success. A full legislative portfolio therefore captures both accomplishment and effort. It shows what became law, what reached voters or chamber adoption and what remained part of the unfinished policy agenda. ## What the record means for House District 124 House District 124 includes military families, veterans, working-class neighborhoods, historic Hispanic communities and major employment corridors tied to healthcare, logistics, tourism, education and public service. The district’s needs extend across policy categories. Families may face childcare shortages, transportation pressure, housing costs, healthcare access concerns and utility burdens at the same time. Garcia’s second-term record placed her inside statewide debates that can affect those daily realities: energy costs, water security, infrastructure investment, taxation and the political boundaries that shape representation. ## Why this matters Garcia’s 147-measure record shows a second-term legislator working through both authorship and coalition participation. Her 40 successful measures show where part of that work reached law, voter consideration or formal House adoption. Her committee assignments add another dimension. They placed a West San Antonio representative inside debates over energy, water and representation that will influence Texas communities far beyond one district or one legislative session. ## From freshman coalition work to second-term influence Garcia’s freshman record was defined by breadth. Her second term added a more focused connection between legislative participation and institutional responsibility. Thirty-eight authored measures and 33 joint-authorship roles placed her inside the formal authorship team on 71 measures. Twenty-nine bills became law. Four constitutional-amendment proposals advanced to voters. Seven House resolutions were adopted. Together, those outcomes describe a legislator whose role in the Capitol continued to expand after her first session. The 89th Legislature record does not rest on one bill or one committee assignment. It reflects a wider pattern of authorship, partnership and participation across some of the most consequential policy debates facing Texas. ### About this analysis Texas Capital Report examined bill-level legislative records for the 89th Texas Legislature’s regular session and counted each measure once for Garcia’s recorded role. Successful outcomes were classified according to instrument type. Enacted House and Senate bills were counted separately from joint resolutions approved by the Legislature and submitted to voters, and from House resolutions adopted by the chamber. - Regular-session measures only - One Garcia relationship counted per measure - House and Senate bills and resolutions included - Enacted bills separated from constitutional-amendment proposals - Adopted House resolutions separated from laws - Final outcome certification completed for all 147 measures ### Continue reading the Texas Capitol Leadership Series [More Than Passage: The Full Reach of Josey Garcia’s First Session ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/more-than-passage-the-full-reach-of-josey-garcia-first-session/)examines the 408-measure participation portfolio Garcia assembled during her freshman term and the 91 measures that reached a successful outcome. ### Sources - Texas Legislature Online bill histories and member-role records - Texas Legislature Online enrolled texts for HB 1041, HB 1965, HB 2193, HB 4202, SB 4 and SB 5 - Texas House of Representatives committee assignments for the 89th Legislature - Texas Secretary of State constitutional-amendment materials - LegiScan Texas legislative datasets for the 89th Legislature - Texas Capital Report bill-level outcome analysis ### Inside the SD-23 Team That Led Texas in 89R Successful-Measure Volume URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-legislative-intelligence/ Last updated: 2026-08-09T02:20:14.000Z Texas Capital Report · Legislative Intelligence Texas Legislative Intelligence · 89th Regular Session # The Senate Set the Pace in 89R: Senator West' SD-23 Leads Texas in Successful-Measure Volume AUSTIN — Behind every bill that moves through the Texas Capitol is a team. Legislative directors track deadlines. Policy analysts research the law. Chiefs of staff coordinate priorities. Committee staff work through language and amendments. Members negotiate with colleagues across chambers and, often, across party lines. The numbers from the 89th Texas Legislature provide a way to see the cumulative result of that work. A new Texas Capital Report analysis of certified legislative outcomes finds that Senate District 23, represented by Sen. Royce West, recorded the largest volume of successful measures associated with any Texas legislative office during the regular session: 291 successful measures from a portfolio of 499 eligible measures. That figure is more than a ranking. It reflects the amount of legislative work successfully moved through an extraordinarily complicated institution. Sen. Bryan Hughes' SD-001 office followed with 271 successful measures. The offices of Sen. Judith Zaffirini in SD-021 and Sen. Cesar Blanco in SD-029 each recorded 269\. Sen. Lois Kolkhorst's SD-018 office recorded 263. Taken together, the results show something that is often lost in political coverage: the Texas Legislature is also a workplace, and successful legislation is generally the product of teams. A Texas Capital Report analysis of certified 89R legislative outcomes finds Senate offices occupying every volume rank from No. 1 through No. 8 before the first House district appears. The measure tracks successful legislative activity by district office — not simply bills signed into law. **By Christopher C. Herring**Texas Capital ReportAugust 8, 2026Data analysis: National Data System ## Key Findings 291 Successful measures credited to SD-023, the highest volume in the 89R analysis. 1–8 Every volume rank through No. 8 is occupied by a Senate district. 180 Successful measures for HD-023, the first House district in the statewide volume order. 11 District offices occupy the top 10 rank positions because SD-021 and SD-029 tie at No. 3. 62.75% Highest success rate among the offices shown here: SD-020, represented by Juan Hinojosa. The Texas Senate dominates the top of a new 89th Legislature measure-volume analysis, with Senate District 23 leading the state and Senate offices filling every rank from No. 1 through No. 8 before a House district enters the list. Senate District 23, represented by Democrat Royce West, recorded 291 successful measures from 499 eligible measures, a 58.32% success rate. Senate District 1, represented by Republican Bryan Hughes, followed with 271 successful measures from 465 eligible measures, a 58.28% rate. The next two offices tied on successful-measure volume. Senate District 21, represented by Democrat Judith Zaffirini, and Senate District 29, represented by Democrat Cesar Blanco, each recorded 269 successful measures. Their rates differed because their eligible portfolios were different: 58.10% for SD-021 and 60.04% for SD-029. This ranking answers a specific question: Which Texas legislative district offices accumulated the greatest volume of certified successful measures during 89R? It is not an overall score of legislative effectiveness. ## 89R Successful-Measure Volume · Leading District Offices | Volume Rank | Office | Member | Party | Successful Measures | Eligible | Rate | | ----------- | ------ | ---------------- | ----- | ------------------- | -------- | ------ | | 1 | SD-023 | Royce West | D | **291** | 499 | 58.32% | | 2 | SD-001 | Bryan Hughes | R | **271** | 465 | 58.28% | | 3 | SD-021 | Judith Zaffirini | D | **269** | 463 | 58.10% | | 3 | SD-029 | Cesar Blanco | D | **269** | 448 | 60.04% | | 4 | SD-018 | Lois Kolkhorst | R | **263** | 433 | 60.74% | | 5 | SD-012 | Tan Parker | R | **222** | 437 | 50.80% | | 6 | SD-020 | Juan Hinojosa | D | **219** | 349 | 62.75% | | 7 | SD-027 | Adam Hinojosa | R | **199** | 360 | 55.28% | | 8 | SD-030 | Brent Hagenbuch | R | **183** | 342 | 53.51% | | 9 | HD-023 | Terri Leo-Wilson | R | **180** | 451 | 39.91% | | 10 | HD-070 | Mihaela Plesa | D | **171** | 396 | 43.18% | ## Senate offices dominate the top of the volume order Because two Senate offices tie at rank No. 3, nine Senate districts occupy the eight ranking positions before the first House district appears. HD-023, represented by Republican Terri Leo-Wilson, is the highest-volume House office in the group, with 180 successful measures from 451 eligible measures. HD-070, represented by Democrat Mihaela Plesa, follows at volume rank No. 10 with 171 successful measures from 396 eligible measures. The top tier is also cross-partisan. The 11 offices occupying rank positions No. 1 through No. 10 include six Republican offices and five Democratic offices. The ranking therefore should not be read as a party scorecard; it is an office-level measure of certified successful-measure volume. ## Volume and success rate tell different stories A large legislative portfolio can produce a high number of successful measures even when the conversion rate is lower than that of another office with fewer eligible measures. That distinction is visible throughout the list. SD-020, represented by Democrat Juan Hinojosa, is sixth in successful-measure volume with 219 successful measures, but its 62.75% success rate is the highest among the offices displayed in this ranking. By contrast, HD-023 reaches the House-leading volume of 180 successful measures with a 39.91% success rate because its eligible portfolio is much larger. For that reason, Texas Capital Report treats successful-measure volume and success rate as separate dimensions. Volume describes how much certified successful legislative activity is associated with an office. Rate describes the share of that office's eligible portfolio that reached a certified successful outcome. ### What is being ranked? Texas legislative district offices — standardized as SD-### for Senate districts and HD-### for House districts — ordered by certified successful-measure volume. ### What determines the order? The primary ordering field is successful measures, highest to lowest. Equal successful-measure counts receive the same dense rank. ### What does the rate mean? Success rate equals successful measures divided by total eligible measures for that office. The rate is reported separately from the volume rank. ### What does it not mean? This is not an enacted-bills-only ranking, a policy-impact score, or a complete measure of legislative effectiveness, leadership power, constituent service, or district need. ## Why Texas Capital Report is organizing the data by district office Legislative activity belongs not only to an individual lawmaker but also to a public office that represents a defined part of Texas. Using the district office as the reporting unit makes the intelligence easier to connect to communities, constituents and future district-level accountability reporting. The standardized office identifiers also eliminate a basic source of ambiguity. A district number such as 23 means something different in the House and Senate. The HD-023 and SD-023 format makes the chamber explicit and gives every legislative office a distinct reporting key. Future Texas Capital Report analysis can use the same district-office structure to separate successful-measure volume from enacted legislation, sponsorship roles, bipartisan activity, voting records and other legislative outcomes without collapsing those measures into a single score. **Methodology note:** “Successful measures” is a governed National Data System outcome category and is broader than “bills signed into law.” A separate enacted-legislation analysis can produce a different order. Member-office counts also represent credited legislative activity and should not be summed as though every credited measure were a unique statewide bill. **Source:** National Data System analysis of certified Texas 89R legislative measure outcomes and the governed Texas Legislative Accountability Backbone. District assignments were cross-checked against official Texas Senate and Texas House member records. Analysis reflects successful-measure volume associated with each legislative office under the governed 89R methodology. ## Explore Texas Legislative Intelligence Continue into district, accountability and legislative-data reporting from Texas Capital Report. [**Texas Legislature**Session reporting, bills, members and legislative outcomes.](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/texas-legislature/) [**Legislative Accountability**Evidence-driven analysis of public officials and legislative activity.](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/accountability/) [**District Intelligence**House and Senate district reporting connected to communities and constituents.](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/district-intelligence/) [**Data Rankings**Governed comparisons built from certified public records and outcome data.](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/rankings/) [**Research & Methodology**Definitions, evidence rules and methods behind Texas Capital Report intelligence.](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/research/) [**Data Center**Structured legislative data, district intelligence and publication-ready analysis.](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/data-center/) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/08/86_senate.jpg) ### Royce West Leads 89R Legislative Productivity as Spot Bid Fair Expands Business Access URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/royce-west-leads-89r-legislative-productivity-as-spot-bid-fair-expands-business-access/ Last updated: 2026-08-09T02:11:03.000Z Texas Capital Report · Legislative Intelligence Texas Legislative Intelligence · 89th Regular Session # Beyond the Bill Count: Royce West’s 33-Year Senate Record Shows What Institutional Capacity Can Look Like Senate District 23 led the 89R successful-measure volume analysis with 291 successful measures. For Sen. Royce West, that performance comes in his 17th regular Legislature and more than 33 years after he first entered the Texas Senate — alongside a procurement-access system that connected businesses to 98 FY2026 opportunities across 26 Texas agencies and public institutions. **By Christopher C. Herring** Texas Capital Report August 8, 2026 Data analysis: National Data System ## Key Findings 291 Successful measures associated with SD-023, the highest certified 89R volume. 98 Conservatively identified FY2026 Spot Bid Fair procurement opportunities. 26 Texas agencies and public institutions represented in the procurement-opportunity dataset. $464,785 Conservative known reported opportunity value where usable exact estimates were available. 44 Procurement opportunities with usable exact positive reported Estimated Worth values. AUSTIN — The Texas Legislature is often covered as a collection of votes, personalities and partisan fights. But behind every measure that moves is an office full of people doing the difficult, repetitive work of government: researching law, drafting language, managing deadlines, negotiating amendments, coordinating committees, tracking calendars and keeping legislation alive long enough to reach a successful outcome. The National Data System’s certified analysis of the 89th Regular Session gives Texas Capital Report a new way to see that work. Senate District 23, represented by Sen. Royce West, recorded the largest successful-measure volume of any Texas legislative district office in the analysis: **291 successful measures from 499 eligible measures**, a 58.32% success rate. West first entered the Texas Senate on **January 12, 1993**. The 89th Regular Session was his **17th regular Legislature**, placing the 291-measure result inside a public-service career spanning more than 33 years. The Texas Legislative Reference Library also records West as Senate President Pro Tempore during the 79th Legislature. Longevity by itself does not prove legislative effectiveness. But a career of that length can build institutional knowledge, relationships, staff experience and operating systems that help explain why an office is able to carry a large legislative workload. The 89R data gives us a measurable result; West’s service history provides important context for understanding the institution behind it. That number deserves to be read as more than a ranking. It reflects the output of a public office — the senator, chief of staff, legislative director, policy staff, administrative staff and the broader network of committee and Capitol professionals required to move a large body of work through the legislative process. ## Royce West · Three Decades of Senate Service 1993Entered the Texas Senate on January 12, 1993. 17thThe 89th Regular Session was West’s 17th regular Legislature. 33+ YearsContinuous Senate service by the time of this August 2026 analysis. 79thServed as Senate President Pro Tempore during the 79th Legislature. **Institutional context:** West’s tenure does not by itself cause legislative success, but it provides context for the institutional knowledge, relationships, staff continuity and operating capacity that can develop inside a long-serving legislative office. The numbers belong to districts, but the work belongs to people — elected members, chiefs of staff, legislative directors, policy analysts, committee teams and the many Capitol employees who turn legislative ideas into legislative action. ## 89R Successful-Measure Volume · Leading Legislative Offices | Volume Rank | Office | Member | Party | Successful Measures | Eligible | Rate | | ----------- | ------ | ---------------- | ----- | ------------------- | -------- | ------ | | 1 | SD-023 | Royce West | D | **291** | 499 | 58.32% | | 2 | SD-001 | Bryan Hughes | R | **271** | 465 | 58.28% | | 3 | SD-021 | Judith Zaffirini | D | **269** | 463 | 58.10% | | 3 | SD-029 | Cesar Blanco | D | **269** | 448 | 60.04% | | 4 | SD-018 | Lois Kolkhorst | R | **263** | 433 | 60.74% | | 5 | SD-012 | Tan Parker | R | **222** | 437 | 50.80% | | 6 | SD-020 | Juan Hinojosa | D | **219** | 349 | 62.75% | | 7 | SD-027 | Adam Hinojosa | R | **199** | 360 | 55.28% | | 8 | SD-030 | Brent Hagenbuch | R | **183** | 342 | 53.51% | | 9 | HD-023 | Terri Leo-Wilson | R | **180** | 451 | 39.91% | | 10 | HD-070 | Mihaela Plesa | D | **171** | 396 | 43.18% | ## Productivity and efficiency are not the same thing Texas Capital Report treats successful-measure volume as a measure of **legislative productivity** and success rate as a separate measure of **conversion efficiency**. An office can carry an unusually large portfolio and move a large number of measures successfully even if its percentage rate is lower than that of an office carrying fewer eligible measures. That distinction matters when recognizing the people behind the work. SD-020, represented by Sen. Juan Hinojosa, recorded 219 successful measures and the highest success rate among the offices shown here at 62.75%. HD-023, represented by Rep. Terri Leo-Wilson, produced the highest House volume in the group with 180 successful measures from a much larger eligible portfolio. **Members provide leadership** They set priorities, negotiate, build coalitions and make the decisions that determine which measures move forward. **Staff make the process work** Chiefs of staff, legislative directors, policy analysts, schedulers, counsel and administrative staff manage the details that legislative success depends on. **Committee teams matter** Successful outcomes depend on hearings, research, substitute language, calendars, amendments and coordination that extends beyond a single member office. **Public service can be measured more broadly** Legislative productivity is one dimension. Programs that create economic access, constituent services and institutional capacity are another. ## West’s public-service infrastructure extends beyond the bill pipeline The FY2026 dataset for Sen. West’s *Doing Business Texas Style Spot Bid Fair* adds a second dimension to the story. Instead of measuring only what happened inside the legislative process, the dataset shows a public-service structure designed to connect businesses directly to state purchasing opportunities. That matters in the context of a Senate career that began in 1993\. Legislative careers are often judged session by session, but durable public-service institutions can outlast any single bill. The Spot Bid Fair provides a measurable example of an office using relationships with agencies and universities to create a recurring pathway for businesses to see and compete for government purchasing demand. The source contains 169 rows, but those rows should not be mistaken for 169 contracts. After normalizing repeated line items and placeholder solicitation numbers, the National Data System identified **98 conservative procurement-opportunity records**, including **92 unique named solicitations**, across **26 participating Texas agencies and public institutions**. That matters because it shows an elected official using the reach of public office to build an access mechanism — one that puts businesses in front of real state and university purchasing demand. ## FY2026 Spot Bid Fair · Procurement Access 98 Conservatively identified procurement opportunities. 92 Unique named solicitations after repeated line items were normalized. 26 Participating agencies and public institutions represented in the dataset. $464,785 Conservative known reported value from opportunities with usable exact estimates. ## Which agencies brought the most opportunities? Texas Parks and Wildlife supplied the largest number of distinct opportunities in the FY2026 dataset, followed by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, the Texas Workforce Commission, the Texas Water Development Board and UT Southwestern Medical Center. ## Leading Participating Agencies · Unique Opportunities Texas Parks and Wildlife 20 Texas Juvenile Justice Department 11 Texas Workforce Commission 9 Texas Water Development Board 8 UT Southwestern Medical Center 8 ## The purchasing demand was real — but the dataset does not prove awards The largest exact-known opportunity shown in the FY2026 dataset was a $50,000 grinder-pump solicitation from Texas Parks and Wildlife. Other disclosed opportunities included $34,000 for dump trailers, $34,000 for turbine blowers, $25,000 for enclosed cargo trailers, $25,000 for a trailer-mounted generator and $23,000 for equipment trailers. But the data has an important limitation. Only 44 of the 98 conservative opportunities had usable exact positive values in the Estimated Worth field. The remaining records include zeros, blanks, “N/A,” placeholders, upper-bound text and other values that cannot responsibly be treated as exact opportunity dollars. For that reason, the **$464,785** figure is a conservative known-value floor from the subset of opportunities with usable exact estimates. It is **not** the total economic value of the Spot Bid Fair, and it is **not** an awarded-contract total. Legislative productivity shows what an office can move through the Capitol. Procurement access shows what an office can build outside the bill process to connect Texans with opportunity. ## A Note of Recognition Texas Capital Report recognizes the public servants behind these results. Legislative success is rarely the work of one person. It is built through member leadership, staff research, drafting, scheduling, negotiation, committee work, interoffice coordination and persistent follow-through. The offices at the top of this analysis moved an exceptional volume of successful legislative activity during 89R. In the case of SD-023, the FY2026 Spot Bid Fair data also shows an office connected to an economic-opportunity infrastructure that reaches beyond the Capitol itself. ## A broader way to evaluate public service Traditional legislative scorecards often stop at bills authored, bills passed or votes cast. Those measures matter, but they do not capture everything an elected office does. The data now available for Royce West points to at least two measurable dimensions: **high legislative production inside the Capitol** and **institutional economic-access work outside the legislative pipeline**. That broader framework can be applied across the Legislature. Some members may distinguish themselves through high legislative throughput. Others may show exceptional conversion efficiency. Others may build durable systems around workforce development, procurement, education, health, infrastructure, constituent service or other public priorities. The purpose of the National Data System and Texas Capital Report is not to flatten those differences into a single number. It is to make the work visible — and to give Texans a more complete picture of what their public offices are actually producing. For West, the emerging picture now has at least three measurable layers: **more than three decades of institutional experience**, **the highest successful-measure volume in the 89R office analysis**, and **a current procurement-access platform connecting businesses to state purchasing opportunities**. Those measures do not tell the whole story of a legislative career, but together they show why public-service performance can be broader than the number of bills carrying a lawmaker’s name. **Methodology:** “Successful measures” is a governed National Data System outcome category and is broader than “bills signed into law.” Successful-measure volume reflects credited legislative activity associated with an office and should not be interpreted as sole authorship of every outcome. The FY2026 Spot Bid Fair analysis treats source rows as procurement-opportunity records, not contract awards. Repeated line items are normalized conservatively, and reported Estimated Worth values are used only when they can be parsed responsibly. **Sources:** National Data System analysis of certified Texas 89R legislative outcomes and the Texas Legislative Accountability Backbone; Texas Legislative Reference Library member service history for Royce West; FY2026 Senator Royce West Doing Business Texas Style Spot Bid Fair dataset; National Data System procurement-opportunity normalization and data-quality audit. The procurement analysis identified 169 source rows, 26 participating agencies/public institutions, 98 conservative opportunity records, 92 unique named solicitations, 44 opportunities with usable exact positive reported worth, and $464,785 in conservative known reported opportunity value. ## Explore Texas Legislative Intelligence Continue into district, accountability, procurement and legislative-data reporting from Texas Capital Report. [ **Texas Legislature** Session reporting, bills, members and legislative outcomes. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/texas-legislature/) [ **Legislative Accountability** Evidence-driven analysis of public officials and legislative activity. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/accountability/) [ **Texas Procurement** State purchasing opportunities, HUB access and public contracting intelligence. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/procurement/) [ **District Intelligence** House and Senate district reporting connected to communities and constituents. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/district-intelligence/) [ **Research & Methodology** Definitions, evidence rules and methods behind Texas Capital Report intelligence. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/research/) [ **Data Center** Structured legislative data, district intelligence and publication-ready analysis. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/data-center/) ## Senator Royce West - Doing Business Texas Style Spot Bid Fair FY2026 To view the dataset please select the data tab above or use the following link: [https://data.texas.gov/dataset/Senator-Royce-West-Doing-Business-Texas-Style-Spot/3iy3-r5vp/data\_preview](https://data.texas.gov/dataset/Senator-Royce-West-Doing-Business-Texas-Style-Spot/3iy3-r5vp/data%5Fpreview?ref=texascapitalreport.com) Open Data Last Updated August 8, 2026 ### Economist Files Motion in Challenge to Minority Supplier Certification Program Case URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/economist-files-motion-in-challenge-to-minority-supplier-certification-program-case/ Last updated: 2026-08-10T21:35:56.000Z ### Proposed economic analysis examines potential effects on GDP, employment, procurement costs, business formation, tax revenue and supplier competition in amicus brief **By Creative Investment Research** **WASHINGTON — August 6, 2026** — Economist William Michael Cunningham has filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in *American Alliance for Equal Rights v. National Minority Supplier Development Council, et al.*, Case No. 2:26-cv-02126-JWB-JBW, pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The proposed amicus brief offers an independent economic analysis of the potential consequences of enjoining the National Minority Supplier Development Council’s Minority Business Enterprise certification program. Cunningham’s motion asks the court for permission to consider economic evidence and market implications that he says are not addressed in the parties’ pleadings. > “This case raises important legal questions,” Cunningham said. “My proposed brief does not attempt to resolve those legal issues. Instead, it provides an economic framework that quantifies the potential consequences of the requested injunction for businesses, workers, procurement markets, and the broader U.S. economy.” ## Economic Issues Examined The proposed analysis considers potential effects across several major areas of the economy, including: - U.S. gross domestic product and regional economic output; - Employment, wages and labor income; - Supplier competition and procurement costs; - Small-business formation and firm growth; - Federal, state and local tax revenues; - Supply-chain resilience; and - Long-term market efficiency. The analysis draws upon the economic scholarship of Nobel laureates **Gary S. Becker, George A. Akerlof, Michael Spence, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Ronald H. Coase and Oliver E. Williamson**. Their work has examined how discrimination, information asymmetry, transaction costs and institutional design can influence the efficiency and performance of markets. ## Certification as a Market Institution According to the proposed brief, supplier-certification systems can function as market institutions that help purchasers identify and verify suppliers. The analysis argues that certification may reduce information asymmetry between purchasers and suppliers, lower transaction costs, facilitate supplier verification, broaden competition and improve procurement efficiency. Using what Cunningham describes as conservative economic assumptions, the proposed analysis estimates that a significant disruption of the NMSDC certification system could produce reductions in economic activity, employment, business formation and tax revenues. The analysis also examines whether such disruption could increase procurement costs and reduce supplier competition. ## Independent Participation Cunningham states that he is participating solely in his individual capacity as an economist. According to the motion, no party or counsel for any party funded the preparation of the proposed amicus brief. The motion further argues that federal district courts may permit amicus participation when specialized expertise could assist the court in considering issues extending beyond the immediate interests of the litigants. Cunningham’s proposed economic analysis is intended to provide that broader perspective. ## Broader Examination of Supplier Certification In conjunction with the filing, Cunningham has prepared a technical memorandum summarizing the economic issues raised by the case. He is encouraging economists, procurement specialists, business organizations and academic researchers to examine the broader economic implications of supplier-certification systems and potential changes to their operation. ### Case Information **Case:** *American Alliance for Equal Rights v. National Minority Supplier Development Council, et al.* **Case No.:** 2:26-cv-02126-JWB-JBW **Court:** U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas **Filing:** Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief **Amicus Applicant:** William Michael Cunningham **Capacity:** Economist, appearing individually **Proposed brief:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MRy0wObpQ7HSH45FnoB\_gkNC](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MRy0wObpQ7HSH45FnoB%5FgkNC?ref=texascapitalreport.com)... **Contact:** William Michael Cunningham ### Vietnam Financial Gateway is a U.S. and Texas Opportunity URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/vietnam-financial-gateway-is-a-texas-opportunity/ Last updated: 2026-08-09T23:21:14.000Z Texas-Asia Economic Intelligence # Vietnam Is Building a New Financial Gateway. Where Does Texas Fit? Vietnam's financial-center strategy could create openings for Texas energy, technology, manufacturing, logistics and financial-services companies - but only if the opportunity is measured against verified economic trends. By Christopher C. Herring - Texas Capital Report **Article reviewed:** [Vietnam: The New-Generation Financial Gateway to Asia ](https://thelosangelestribune.com/2026/07/09/vietnam-the-new-generation-financial-gateway-to-asia/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) Vietnam is attempting to move beyond its established role as a major manufacturing and export economy. Through the Vietnam International Financial Center, the country is seeking a larger role in connecting international capital, trade finance, technology, green investment and regional growth. The Los Angeles Tribune article presents the financial center as a two-location platform spanning Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang. Ho Chi Minh City is positioned as the broader capital-markets and cross-border finance hub. Da Nang is presented as the fintech, artificial-intelligence, data-infrastructure and green-finance location. The article's strongest contribution is strategic framing. Vietnam wants to become more than a recipient of foreign investment. It wants to participate in connecting and directing capital across Asia. Its limitation is equally important. The article reads as an investment-positioning piece rather than an independent risk assessment. Claims involving committed capital, investor incentives, visa programs and implementation timelines should be attributed and independently verified before they are treated as settled facts. ## What the original article says The Los Angeles Tribune article is explicit about the ambition behind the financial center. It describes Vietnam as moving from an economy that primarily attracts capital toward one capable of connecting and directing regional capital flows. "VIFC offers precisely that opportunity." Los Angeles Tribune, July 9, 2026 The article also frames the project as an invitation to long-term partnership rather than a narrow search for passive investors. "Vietnam is doing more than just inviting investment." Los Angeles Tribune, July 9, 2026 That framing is important for Texas. The strongest opportunity would not come from treating Vietnam as a distant financial market. It would come from connecting Texas energy, technology, manufacturing, finance and logistics capacity to Vietnam's next stage of development. ## Why 2026 changes the story The World Bank data establish the trend line through 2024\. The events of 2026 show how that historical growth is being tested by new institutions, U.S. tariff policy, trade enforcement and a more uncertain global economy. February 11, 2026 ### Ho Chi Minh City's financial center begins operating Vietnam formally launched the Ho Chi Minh City component of its international financial center, with an official emphasis on capital for infrastructure, industry, logistics, green transition, innovation and urban development. May 15, 2026 ### The World Bank updates the near-term outlook Reuters reported that the World Bank expected Vietnam's growth to slow to 6.8% in 2026 after 8% growth in 2025\. World Bank Vietnam Director Mariam J. Sherman warned: "Softer global conditions are making Vietnam's external environment more challenging." July 2, 2026 ### Vietnam's central bank flags currency and inflation pressure Reuters reported that a strong U.S. dollar, geopolitical tensions and trade frictions were complicating monetary policy. The central bank was managing pressure on the dong while inflation had moved above the government's annual target. July 23-24, 2026 ### Trump-era tariff policy raises the stakes Vietnam urged the United States to conclude trade negotiations as President Donald Trump's temporary global tariff expired. Reuters reported that Vietnam faced a 12.5% U.S. tariff rate while talks and a separate Section 301 investigation remained active. July 24, 2026 ### Vietnam approves its financial-center plan through 2035 The official plan calls for legal, supervisory, digital and market infrastructure to be developed during 2026-2030, with priority financial products piloted in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang. July 30, 2026 ### Washington and Hanoi deepen trade-enforcement cooperation Reuters reported that U.S. and Vietnamese officials began a joint effort to combat illegal transshipment and trade fraud, a central issue for American manufacturers concerned about country-of-origin enforcement. What the timeline means Vietnam entered 2026 with strong historical growth, but the opportunity now sits inside a harder U.S. trade environment. Texas companies may benefit from Vietnam's expansion, yet they will also need stronger origin documentation, tariff analysis, currency planning and regulatory due diligence. $476.39B Gross domestic product Vietnam GDP in current U.S. dollars, 2024\. 7.09% Real GDP growth Annual GDP growth reported for 2024\. 173.86% Trade share of GDP A highly trade-connected national economy. $20.17B FDI net inflows Foreign direct investment net inflows in 2024\. 100.99M Population Vietnam's estimated 2024 population. ## What World Bank data show through the NDS Texas Capital Report analyzed World Bank World Development Indicators through the National Data System, using the verified global country identifier **VNM**. The NDS workflow assessed 82 tables, returned no database-access errors, extracted 1,972 Vietnam priority-series observations from source-labeled backbones and summarized 15 candidate economic indicators. The underlying economic figures cited below originate with the World Bank, not with NDS. | Indicator | 2024 value | What it signals | | ------------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | Gross domestic product | $476.39 billion | A large and rapidly expanding economic base. | | Real GDP growth | 7.09% | Strong annual economic expansion. | | Five-year GDP change | 42.5% | Substantial recent growth in nominal economic scale. | | Trade as a share of GDP | 173.86% | Deep dependence on and integration with global commerce. | | Exports of goods and services | $429.48 billion | Strong export capacity and international market integration. | | Imports of goods and services | $398.77 billion | Large demand for foreign goods, equipment and services. | | Foreign direct investment net inflows | $20.17 billion | Continued international investor participation. | | Gross capital formation | $145.60 billion | High levels of domestic investment in productive capacity. | | Inflation | 3.62% | A manageable but important financial-risk indicator. | | Male Internet use | 86.08% | Digital participation among Vietnam's male population. | A field-level caution The male Internet-use indicator measures the percentage of Vietnam's male population using the Internet. It does not represent the country's total population-wide Internet adoption rate. Manufacturing value added was excluded as a U.S. dollar statistic because the identified source series was denominated in current local currency units. ## The Texas-Vietnam relationship is already large - but unbalanced Texas is not approaching Vietnam from a standing start. In 2024, goods trade between Texas and Vietnam totaled **$14.3 billion**. Vietnam ranked as Texas' 13th-largest trading partner. **$1.8 billion** Texas goods exports to Vietnam in 2024. **$12.4 billion** Texas goods imports from Vietnam in 2024. **$10.6 billion** Approximate goods imbalance from the Texas perspective. Vietnam was Texas' 41st-largest export destination but its fifth-largest import source. That imbalance defines the central opportunity: Texas should move from being primarily a buyer of Vietnamese production to becoming a larger supplier, financier, technology partner and logistics gateway for Vietnam's growth. The investment relationship also already exists. The Texas Governor's economic profile identifies 14 Texas-company investment projects in Vietnam during the decade through 2024, representing approximately $2.4 billion and more than 800 projected jobs. Vietnamese companies reported three major Texas projects over the same period. The Texas marketplace question Can Texas convert an import-heavy relationship into more exports, project-finance revenue, professional services, logistics activity and Vietnamese capital investment inside Texas? ## The U.S.-Vietnam marketplace is even larger The state opportunity sits inside one of America's fastest-growing major trade relationships. U.S. goods trade with Vietnam reached an estimated **$209.5 billion in 2025**. U.S. exports totaled $15.7 billion while imports reached $193.8 billion. That produced an estimated U.S. goods deficit of $178.2 billion. The national imbalance reinforces the same conclusion visible in the Texas data: the commercial challenge is not access to Vietnamese goods. It is expanding American market access, exports, services, investment and supply-chain participation. The broader diplomatic foundation is also stronger than it was a decade ago. The United States and Vietnam elevated their relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, creating a framework for deeper work in trade, economic security, technology, supply chains, cybersecurity, education and investment. **U.S. market significance:**A Texas-Vietnam strategy would not be an isolated state initiative. It would operate inside a national relationship that already includes more than $200 billion in annual goods trade and expanding cooperation in technology, supply chains and economic security. ## Why Vietnam's growth matters to Texas The Texas opportunity is not simply to invest in Vietnam. It is to determine which Texas industries can become long-term suppliers, financial partners, logistics providers and technology collaborators as Vietnam expands. ### Houston: Energy and trade finance Houston is positioned to compete in energy finance, commodity services, liquefied natural gas, petrochemicals, maritime logistics, engineering, infrastructure investment and cross-border project finance. ### Dallas-Fort Worth: Finance and aviation North Texas can compete for banking, insurance, aviation finance, payments, corporate services, distribution and the U.S. operations of Vietnamese companies entering central and southern markets. ### Austin: Technology and digital finance Da Nang's focus on fintech, artificial intelligence, data infrastructure and financial innovation aligns with Austin's semiconductor, software, venture-capital and research ecosystems. ### San Antonio: Cybersecurity and small business San Antonio can support cybersecurity, workforce training, bilingual business services, defense-adjacent technology and export assistance for Texas small and medium-sized firms. ## Six potential wins for Texas ### 1\. More Texas exports Vietnam's manufacturing and infrastructure growth could increase demand for Texas industrial equipment, energy systems, chemicals, semiconductor-related technology, aviation products, software and professional services. ### 2\. A Houston-Vietnam energy and finance corridor Houston can compete for the financial, legal, engineering, insurance and data services that surround energy and infrastructure transactions. ### 3\. Dallas-Fort Worth financial and aviation services North Texas could become a center for corporate finance, aviation finance, insurance, payments and regional headquarters support. ### 4\. Austin-Da Nang technology partnerships Texas technology firms and universities may find opportunities in fintech, artificial intelligence, data centers, semiconductor collaboration and digital infrastructure. ### 5\. Vietnamese investment in Texas As Vietnamese companies become larger and more internationally financed, Texas can compete for manufacturing plants, logistics operations, data centers, distribution centers and corporate offices. ### 6\. Texas small-business participation Texas chambers, banks, export-assistance programs and economic-development organizations can help smaller manufacturers, engineering firms, software companies and professional-service providers enter Vietnam. ## The risks Texas must measure ### Commercial and financial risk Texas companies should review currency exposure, inflation, capital controls, financing terms, legal enforcement and the difference between announced and deployed investment. ### Trade and compliance risk Country-of-origin rules, supply-chain concentration, regulatory implementation and changes in U.S.-Vietnam trade policy could affect project viability. **Publication judgment:**The Vietnam International Financial Center should be evaluated as an emerging platform, not as a fully mature financial hub. ## What Texas should measure | Texas-Vietnam measure | Why it matters | | -------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Texas exports to Vietnam by industry | Measures whether Texas is increasing its share of the relationship. | | Vietnamese investment deployed in Texas | Separates real capital formation from announcements. | | Texas jobs, payroll and supplier spending | Shows how much value returns to Texas communities. | | Cargo through Texas ports | Measures logistics and maritime impact. | | Business travel between Texas and Vietnam | Tracks executive, investment and commercial connectivity. | | Texas financial transactions tied to Vietnam | Measures banking, insurance, project-finance and advisory participation. | | Texas small businesses entering Vietnam | Measures whether the opportunity extends beyond major corporations. | ## The bottom line The benefit to Texas is not simply that Vietnam is opening a financial center. The benefit comes if Texas uses VIFC as a platform to sell more Texas goods and services, finance projects, attract Vietnamese investment and connect Texas companies to Southeast Asia. Texas should position itself as Vietnam's Gulf Coast financial, energy, logistics, technology and investment partner. Vietnam supplies a new Asian financial gateway. Texas can supply the energy, technology, machinery, capital, logistics and professional expertise moving through that gateway. ## A recommended Texas response Texas should create a Texas-Vietnam Gateway Initiative involving the Governor's economic-development office, Texas ports, financial institutions, universities, chambers, technology companies and Vietnamese-American business organizations. ### Market-building assignments Establish formal relationships with both VIFC locations, produce a Texas sector and investment dealbook, organize a Texas financial, energy and technology mission, and recruit Vietnamese firms into Texas. ### Measurement assignments Publish annual Texas-Vietnam metro and sector rankings, track investment actually deployed, and build a verified dashboard covering exports, jobs, payroll, supplier spending, cargo and financial transactions. ### About this analysis Texas Capital Report reviewed the Los Angeles Tribune article and analyzed World Bank World Development Indicators through the National Data System using the verified ISO3 country identifier VNM. - 82 DuckDB tables assessed - 0 database-access errors - 1,972 Vietnam priority-series observations extracted - 15 candidate indicators summarized - Field-level semantic review applied before publication - Manufacturing value added excluded from U.S. dollar reporting because the source series used current local currency units - Male Internet use labeled explicitly as a male-population indicator Economic associations discussed in this article should not be interpreted as guarantees of investment performance. All investment, regulatory and financial decisions require independent due diligence. ### Sources - Los Angeles Tribune, "Vietnam: The New-Generation Financial Gateway to Asia," July 9, 2026 - National Data System, Global World Development Indicators Backbone - National Data System, verified Vietnam ISO3 geography layer: VNM - National Data System Texas-Vietnam Dataset Assessment Report, August 1, 2026 - Office of the Governor, State of Texas, Texas and Vietnam Trade and FDI Profile - Office of the United States Trade Representative, Vietnam country trade profile - U.S. Department of State, U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership materials - Government of Vietnam, International Financial Center development plan through 2035, July 24, 2026 - Government of Vietnam, International Financial Center debut in Ho Chi Minh City, February 11, 2026 - Reuters, World Bank forecasts Vietnam 2026 growth at 6.8%, May 15, 2026 - Reuters, Vietnam central bank says global risks complicate policymaking, July 2, 2026 - Reuters, Vietnam reaffirms U.S. trade talks and seeks conclusion of trade investigation, July 23, 2026 - Reuters, U.S. and Vietnam expand cooperation against illegal transshipment and trade fraud, July 30, 2026 ### Current-source reference links - [Los Angeles Tribune article reviewed](https://thelosangelestribune.com/2026/07/09/vietnam-the-new-generation-financial-gateway-to-asia/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Official Ho Chi Minh City IFC launch](https://en.baochinhphu.vn/international-financial-center-makes-debut-in-hcmc-111260211112728619.htm?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Official IFC development plan through 2035](https://en.baochinhphu.vn/viet-nam-approves-international-financial-center-development-plan-through-2035-111260724084749284.htm?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Reuters on the World Bank's 2026 growth outlook](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/world-bank-forecasts-vietnam-2026-economic-growth-slow-68-2026-05-15/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Reuters on monetary and foreign-exchange pressures](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/vietnam-central-bank-says-global-risks-complicate-policymaking-2026-07-02/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Reuters on U.S.-Vietnam trade negotiations](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/vietnam-reaffirms-trade-talks-urges-us-conclude-trade-investigation-2026-07-23/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Reuters on transshipment and trade-fraud enforcement](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/vietnam-us-step-up-cooperation-against-illegal-transshipment-trade-fraud-2026-07-30/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) ### About the Analysis **Christopher C. Herring** is the founder of the **National Data System (NDS)** and publisher of **Texas Capital Report**. He is the Executive Director of **Global Chamber** Austin, Houston, and San Antonio helping Texas business leaders find international trade opportunities around the world. He is a past Chief of Staff, for Texas House District 120\. Christopher is a retired officer, who served in the United States Air Force. He worked on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. as an intern in the Secretary of the Air Force's Legislative Liaison Office. His reporting combines investigative data journalism with governed dataset analysis using authoritative sources including the World Bank, U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, U.S. Department of Commerce, and other federal and international statistical agencies. The National Data System provides the analytical framework used to transform those thousands of datasets into decision-support intelligence for government, business, investors, and the public. ### COVID Stress Revealed in San Antonio's Citizens 311 Calls URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/covid-stress-revealed-in-san-antonios-citizens-311-calls/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T13:08:48.000Z Texas Capitol Report Texas Capitol Report · Government Accountability # 447,783 San Antonio 311 Requests Reveal Where Service Pressure—and Government Responsibility—Meet A new accountability intelligence system connects Council-district service pressure to the departments that must respond, the city leaders who hold operational authority, and the Texas lawmakers who share the same geography without assigning municipal requests to them. By **Christopher C. Herring** Texas Capitol Report July 26, 2026 ## Key Findings 447,783 San Antonio 311 requests assigned to Council Districts 1–10 64,025 Requests in District 5, the city’s highest raw total 469.2 District 5 requests per 1,000 residents after population adjustment 153,223 Solid Waste requests, the largest citywide issue category 2,982 Source requests outside the Council-district comparison 0 Municipal 311 requests allocated to Texas state legislators **Explore the San Antonio Government Accountability Intelligence system** Compare districts, departments, city leadership, and shared Texas legislative geography. [Open the accountability explorer → ](https://311-calls-accountability-san-antonio.netlify.app/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) ## 🏛️ A service request is also an accountability record San Antonio’s 311 system records the moment a resident asks local government to address a neighborhood condition. The new intelligence model follows that request beyond the complaint count. It identifies the Council district where the request belongs, the department recorded by the original 311 source, the councilmember who represents the area, the mayor and city manager who sit within the municipal leadership chain, and the state representatives and senators whose districts overlap the same geography. The model deliberately keeps two forms of responsibility separate. Councilmembers and state legislators provide elected representation. Operational departments and the city manager carry the administrative responsibility for service delivery. > Accountability becomes clearer when residents can see not only where a problem occurred, but which department owns the response, which city leaders oversee the system, and which elected officials share the affected geography. ### Leading San Antonio 311 issues Citywide complaint pressure across the governed Council-assigned backbone. Solid Waste Services 153,223 Property Maintenance 132,169 Animals 81,014 Streets & Infrastructure 31,624 Traffic Signals & Signs 26,291 Parks 12,035 Health & Sanitation 5,176 Information 3,886 Original San Antonio 311 category and department fields control attribution and request counts. ## 📍 Five districts carry the largest raw request totals District 5 led the city with 64,025 Council-assigned requests, followed closely by District 1 with 62,557\. Districts 3 and 2 each exceeded 58,000 requests, while District 4 recorded 46,604\. The ranking is not simply a count of who complained most. Districts contain different service environments. Downtown and the central city bring visitors, businesses and a large daytime population. The Medical Center brings patients, workers and students. Older East, South and West Side neighborhoods face different housing and infrastructure pressures from rapidly growing suburban districts. **District 5** 64,025 Teri Castillo · 14.3% of Council-assigned requests **District 1** 62,557 Sukh Kaur · 13.97% of Council-assigned requests **District 3** 59,087 Phyllis Viagran · 13.2% of Council-assigned requests **District 2** 58,453 Jalen McKee-Rodriguez · 13.05% of Council-assigned requests **District 4** 46,604 Edward Mungia · 10.41% of Council-assigned requests ## 🔎 District 5 shows how the accountability chain works District 5 provides the clearest example because it recorded the highest raw total and the highest population-adjusted rate. Solid Waste Services led the district with 21,729 requests. Property Maintenance followed with 17,962, and animal-related requests totaled 14,589\. Those three categories accounted for most of the district’s recorded service pressure. ### District 5 leading issues Solid Waste Services 21,729 Property Maintenance 17,962 Animals 14,589 Streets & Infrastructure 3,660 Traffic Signals & Signs 2,534 ### Municipal leadership Council representative **Teri Castillo** Citywide elected leadership **Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones** Operational executive **City Manager Erik Walsh** ## 🏢 Departments carry the operational responsibility The accountability model starts with the original department field in San Antonio’s 311 source data. That source controls which department receives the request and how many requests are counted. A governed responsibility registry then supplies plain-language descriptions and official department context without changing the original assignment. Original 311 source ### Solid Waste Management 153,223 Provides residential collection and responds to municipal solid-waste and illegal-dumping service matters. Original 311 source ### Development Services 132,169 Investigates and enforces property-maintenance, zoning, and municipal code complaints. Original 311 source ### Animal Care Services 81,014 Receives, prioritizes, dispatches, and resolves animal-related calls for service. Original 311 source ### Public Works 58,816 Maintains municipal streets, sidewalks, traffic assets, and drainage infrastructure. Original 311 source ### Parks and Recreation 12,290 Maintains city parks, recreation assets, trails, urban forestry, and related facilities. Original 311 source ### Metro Health 5,176 Investigates eligible public-health, food-safety, and environmental-health concerns. ## 🗺️ State lawmakers share geography—not municipal request totals The Texas House and Senate layers show where legislative districts overlap a selected Council district. The percentages represent the share of Council-district land area inside each legislative district. They do not allocate 311 requests to state lawmakers, and they do not imply that a representative or senator manages a city department. Instead, the overlap identifies where elected officials may share constituent geography and where coordination could become relevant. ### District 5 Texas House overlap Share of selected Council-district land area. **Josey Garcia · HD 124** 22.21% Largest House land-area share. **Diego Bernal · HD 123** 21.72% Shared central and West Side geography. **Ray Lopez · HD 125** 17.52% Shared western geography. **Elizabeth Campos · HD 119** 14.16% Shared southern geography. **Philip Cortez · HD 117** 13.25% Shared southwest geography. **Trey Martinez Fischer · HD 116** 10.84% Shared northern geography. ### District 5 Texas Senate overlap State senators share representation geography but do not manage city departments. **José Menéndez · SD 26** 84.32% Largest Senate land-area share. **Roland Gutierrez · SD 19** 15.68% Remaining Senate land-area share. ### What the overlap can—and cannot—show Shared geography can support coordination on infrastructure, neighborhood investment, public health, housing conditions, and state policy. It does not transfer municipal operational authority to state legislators, and it does not convert Council-district requests into legislative request totals. ## 📊 Population adjustment confirms the service-pressure divide The next governed phase joined Council-district requests to a Census-block population denominator. The adjustment did not erase the ranking. District 5 remained first at 469.2 requests per 1,000 residents, followed by District 1 at 448.0 and District 3 at 409.1\. District 2 recorded 360.7\. The citywide Council-district rate was approximately 290.4 requests per 1,000 residents. 469.2 **District 5** Highest cumulative population-adjusted service-request rate. 448.0 **District 1** Downtown and central-city service pressure remained second after adjustment. 409.1 **District 3** South and southeast service pressure remained third after adjustment. ## ⚖️ Why this matters at the Capitol Local 311 records do not establish state responsibility for city service delivery. They do, however, show the neighborhood conditions state lawmakers encounter within the communities they represent. Repeated problems involving dumping, housing condition, drainage, public health, streets, animals, or aging infrastructure may require more than a single department response. They can also point toward broader questions about state funding, housing policy, environmental enforcement, public-health authority, transportation investment, and coordination across levels of government. The intelligence model therefore creates a disciplined bridge between municipal operations and representative geography—without confusing the two. ## 🔬 Methodology The analysis uses 447,783 San Antonio 311 records assigned to City Council Districts 1–10\. Another 2,982 source requests remain outside the Council-district comparison. Original San Antonio 311 category and department fields control issue and operational attribution. Governed responsibility records supply plain-language department descriptions and official context. Texas House and Senate percentages represent geographic land-area overlap with Council districts. No municipal 311 request was allocated to a state legislator. Population-adjusted rates use a Council-district denominator totaling 1,542,191 residents, built from 2020 Census block population assigned to current Council-district polygons. Rates are cumulative across the full governed dataset rather than annual rates. ## Explore Government Accountability Intelligence Use the interactive system to compare Council districts, inspect service categories, identify responsible departments, and review shared Texas House and Senate geography. [ **Council comparison** Compare all ten Council districts and their leading service issues. → ](https://311-calls-accountability-san-antonio.netlify.app/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) [ **Issue and leadership explorer** Follow a district from resident request to department and elected leadership. → ](https://311-calls-accountability-san-antonio.netlify.app/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) [ **Department profiles** Review source-controlled request totals and operational descriptions. → ](https://311-calls-accountability-san-antonio.netlify.app/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) Texas Capitol Report Intelligence · Evidence, geography, and government accountability ### Bexar County’s Prison Footprint Raises New Reentry Questions URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/bexar-countys-prison-footprint-raises-new-reentry-questions/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T13:07:03.000Z ## Bexar County Represents 6.35% of Texas’ TDCJ Population Snapshot. Nearly 2,000 associated records were in the parole-review process, while several sentencing patterns fell below comparable statewide averages. --- **By Christopher C. Herring** **Texas Capital Report** --- Bexar County was associated with 9,079 records in a May 2026 snapshot of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice population, representing 6.35% of the 143,018 records appearing statewide. The finding places Bexar County among the most consequential local jurisdictions in any discussion about incarceration, parole administration, sentencing, reentry and the public systems that must respond when people eventually return to their communities. The data does not show that all 9,079 people lived in Bexar County before incarceration or will return to San Antonio after release. The county field identifies the county connected to the listed case in the TDCJ record. Nevertheless, the number provides an important measure of Bexar County’s relationship to the state correctional system and the scale of the responsibilities that relationship may create for local courts, families, service providers and public agencies. The Bexar-associated population appeared across 104 TDCJ facilities and included 308 separate offense codes. Its average age was 40.87 years. The average recorded sentence was 14.88 years, while the median was nine years, meaning half of the measured sentences were at or below nine years and half were above it. The 90th-percentile sentence was 35 years, demonstrating that the population includes both shorter-term cases and a substantial group serving much longer terms. These numbers reveal a correctional footprint that extends far beyond the walls of any single prison. Bexar County cases are dispersed throughout the statewide system, which can affect family visitation, legal communication, continuity of healthcare and eventual reentry planning. A person tied to a San Antonio-area case may be incarcerated hundreds of miles away, while family members, attorneys and community organizations remain in Bexar County. May 2026 TDCJ snapshot ## Bexar County by the Numbers A compact view of Bexar County’s relationship to the statewide correctional population. Ghost web display graphic **9,079** Bexar-associated records Records tied to the listed case county—not confirmed residence. **6.35%** Share of the statewide snapshot Based on 143,018 TDCJ records appearing statewide. **1,994** Records in parole review Approximately 21.96% of Bexar-associated records. **104** TDCJ facilities represented The records were distributed widely across the state system. **14.88** Average sentence years A descriptive average across the analytical population. **9** Median sentence years Half of measured sentences were at or below this point. **35** 90th-percentile sentence Illustrates the longer-sentence tail of the population. **308** Unique offense codes Reflects a broad range of listed case classifications. Source: National Data System analysis of the May 2026 Texas Department of Criminal Justice population snapshot. “Records” refers to source rows in the governed county profile. ## Nearly 22% Were in the Parole-Review Process The parole data may be the most immediate operational finding. Of the 9,079 Bexar-associated records, 1,994 were identified as being in the parole-review process. That represents approximately 21.96% of the Bexar-associated analytical population. That figure should not be interpreted as the number of people certain to be released. Parole review is a process, not an outcome. It may involve file preparation, institutional review, voting, reconsideration or a future review date. Nevertheless, nearly 2,000 records in the review pipeline represent a significant administrative workload and a potentially important planning horizon for Bexar County. The dataset also shows that 3,897 Bexar-associated records had a last parole decision recorded as denied, while 991 had a last decision recorded as approved or granted. The denied records equal approximately 42.92% of the full Bexar analytical population. That percentage is not an official parole denial rate. The denominator includes the broader Bexar-associated population, not only people reviewed during a specific period or people who were legally eligible for parole at the same time. A proper approval or denial rate would require a clearly defined cohort of completed parole decisions, along with information about eligibility, offense restrictions, prior reviews and the timing of each decision. Still, the number of recorded denials matters. It suggests a large population whose cases have already moved through at least one stage of parole consideration without producing an approved outcome. For policymakers, the question is not simply how many people are denied. It is how long they remain incarcerated afterward, when they are reviewed again, what information is considered and whether people have meaningful access to programming that could affect future decisions. Scale of the footprint ## About One of Every 16 Records Was Bexar-Associated Ghost web display graphic **6.35%** Statewide share ### 9,079 of 143,018 statewide records The county field identifies the listed case county. It should not be read as a confirmed home address, county of residence or future release destination. 9,079 Bexar-associated records ÷ 143,018 statewide records \= 6.35% Source: National Data System analysis of the May 2026 TDCJ population snapshot. ## Sentencing Patterns Worth Further Examination The Bexar County bundle identifies four county-and-offense combinations classified as having a “compressed structure.” In this analysis, that designation means the average recorded sentence for the Bexar County group was lower than the corresponding statewide average for the same listed offense description. The largest difference among the four examples involved 57 records from 2025 associated with possession of a Penalty Group 1 or 1-B controlled substance in the one-to-four-gram range. The average Bexar sentence was approximately 3.18 years, compared with a statewide average of 5.13 years. The Bexar average was about 1.96 years lower. A second controlled-substance example involved 24 records from 2024 associated with possession in the four-to-200-gram range. The Bexar average was 6.13 years, compared with a statewide average of 9.71 years—a difference of approximately 3.58 years. The firearm-related example involved 26 records from 2025 for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person with a felony record. The average Bexar sentence was approximately 4.08 years, compared with 6.13 years statewide, a difference of about 2.05 years. The fourth example involved 54 records from 2025 associated with another controlled-substance possession category in the four-to-200-gram range. The Bexar average was 4.35 years, compared with 6.23 years statewide, a difference of approximately 1.88 years. All four examples showed lower Bexar averages. That pattern is a legitimate reporting lead, but it is not proof of leniency, favoritism, discrimination, judicial misconduct or improper sentencing. The dataset does not account for criminal history, offense enhancements, plea agreements, evidentiary issues, cooperation, probation eligibility, judicial assignment or the specific facts of each case. Even records sharing an offense code may involve materially different conduct and legal circumstances. The correct next step is deeper analysis, not a rush to judgment. Researchers would need court-level case records, charging histories, plea information and sentencing documents to determine why the averages differ. Parole and decision indicators ## A Significant Review Pipeline Each measure uses the 9,079 Bexar-associated records as its denominator. The categories overlap and should not be added together. Ghost web display graphic Records in the parole-review process 1,99421.96% Last decision recorded as denied 3,89742.92% Last decision approved or granted 99110.92% These are descriptive shares of the full Bexar-associated population—not official parole approval or denial rates. A valid rate requires a common cohort of completed, eligible parole reviews and a clearly stated denominator. Source: NDS story-safe parole and county-profile views derived from the May 2026 TDCJ snapshot. ## A Reentry Planning Question for San Antonio The size of the Bexar-associated population creates a practical question for San Antonio and Bexar County: Is the local reentry system prepared for the number of people who may eventually return? Projected release information should not be treated as a confirmed release schedule. Dates can change because of parole decisions, sentence calculations, disciplinary matters, legal actions or other administrative events. But the broader population and parole-review counts are sufficient to justify planning. People leaving incarceration may need identification documents, transportation, housing, behavioral healthcare, substance-use treatment, employment assistance, veterans’ services, family-reunification support and help complying with supervision requirements. These services are often divided among state agencies, county departments, nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups and workforce providers. The effectiveness of reentry affects more than the person being released. It can influence family stability, homelessness, emergency-room use, unemployment, community supervision outcomes and the likelihood that someone returns to the justice system. For Bexar County, a meaningful reentry strategy should begin before release rather than after a person arrives at a bus station with limited documentation, no housing plan and no connection to treatment or employment. The county’s TDCJ footprint suggests that reentry should be treated as a standing public-system responsibility, not an occasional charitable project. Sentencing comparison ## Four Bexar Averages Fell Below Statewide Comparisons Selected offense-description cohorts identified by the NDS divergence screen. Bar scale: zero to ten years. Ghost web display graphic ### Possession, Penalty Group 1/1-B, 1–4 grams 2025 · 57 Bexar records · Offense code 35990248 Bexar3.18 yrs Statewide5.13 yrs Bexar average: 1.96 years lower ### Possession, Penalty Group 1, 4–200 grams 2024 · 24 Bexar records · Offense code 35990249 Bexar6.13 yrs Statewide9.71 yrs Bexar average: 3.58 years lower ### Unlawful possession of a firearm by a person with a felony record 2025 · 26 Bexar records · Offense code 52120009 Bexar4.08 yrs Statewide6.13 yrs Bexar average: 2.05 years lower ### Possession, Penalty Group 1/1-B, 4–200 grams 2025 · 54 Bexar records · Offense code 35990249 Bexar4.35 yrs Statewide6.23 yrs Bexar average: 1.88 years lower This is a reporting screen—not proof of bias, favoritism, misconduct or illegality. The source does not control for plea agreements, enhancements, criminal history, case facts, judicial assignment or other factors that may affect a sentence. ## What Policymakers Should Ask Next The data raises several questions for state and local leaders. How many Bexar-associated people are expected to complete parole review over the next 12 months? How many have housing plans? How many need behavioral-health or substance-use services? How many are veterans? How many are older adults or people with disabilities? Where are they currently housed, and how far are those facilities from San Antonio? Lawmakers should also examine whether parole-review delays, repeated denials and distant facility placements create avoidable costs for families and the state. Local officials should evaluate whether current reentry providers have sufficient capacity and whether agencies can securely coordinate service referrals before release. The county should not wait until every data field is perfect before preparing. But it should insist on clear definitions, repeatable monthly reporting and a distinction between what the records show and what analysts infer. ## Methodology and Limitations This analysis is based on a governed NDS story bundle derived from a May 2026 TDCJ population snapshot. The statewide population count was 143,018, while the county profile and parole analyses contained 9,079 Bexar-associated records. County refers to the listed case county and should not be interpreted as residence or release destination. The sentencing examples compare county and statewide averages for selected offense descriptions. They do not control for the facts or procedural histories of individual cases. The parole figures describe review status and last recorded decisions; they are not a calculation of official parole approval or denial rates. Race-and-gender cohort findings were withheld from this version because the cohort totals and county-profile denominator require reconciliation before publication. Why it matters ## The Data Points Toward a Systems Question The correctional footprint eventually reaches local families, service systems and public institutions. Ghost web display graphic ### Reentry Capacity A large Bexar-associated population creates continuing demand for housing, identification, transportation, employment and supervision support. ### Behavioral Health Successful transitions may depend on continuity of mental-health care, substance-use treatment, medication and connections to local providers. ### Public Oversight Monthly snapshots can help lawmakers and local leaders track parole workload, sentencing patterns and whether public systems are preparing before release. Projected release information is a planning indicator, not confirmation that a person will be released on a specific date. ## The Larger Meaning The most important finding is not simply that Bexar County accounts for 6.35% of the statewide TDCJ snapshot. It is that thousands of people connected to Bexar County cases remain distributed throughout the Texas correctional system, nearly 2,000 were in the parole-review process and local institutions will eventually feel the effects of decisions being made inside that system. The data offers San Antonio and Bexar County an opportunity to move from reaction to preparation. With stronger coordination, transparent parole reporting and an adequately funded reentry infrastructure, the justice system can be evaluated not only by how it incarcerates people, but also by whether it prepares individuals, families and communities for what comes next. --- ### San Antonio Neighborhoods With the Lowest Arrest Response to Reported Offenses URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/san-antonio-neighborhoods-with-the-lowest-arrest-response-to-reported-offenses/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T13:18:27.000Z Consumer.info Public Safety Intelligence # San Antonio ZIP Codes With the Lowest Measured Police Response in 2025 A ZIP-level ranking identifies the neighborhoods and communities where arrest activity was lowest relative to recorded offenses. The measure reveals enforcement gaps—but it is not a ranking of 911 arrival times. By Christopher C. Herring | July 19, 2026 **What “police response” means in this analysis:**The source data does not contain dispatch times, officer arrival times, call priority, case clearance, or a direct link between each offense and each arrest. Consumer.info therefore uses *arrests per 100 recorded offenses* as a transparent proxy for measured enforcement response. A low rate should prompt questions, not automatic conclusions about officer performance or neighborhood safety. San Antonio’s 78248 ZIP code—associated with the **Deerfield–Inwood area**—recorded the city’s lowest measured enforcement response in 2025 among ZIP codes with substantial call and offense volume. The area produced 406 recorded offenses and 36 arrests—equal to **8.9 arrests for every 100 offenses**. ZIP code 78256 followed closely at 9.3 arrests per 100 offenses. Eight additional ZIP codes remained below 22 arrests per 100 offenses, placing all 10 far below the 2025 systemwide reference ratio of 43.7 arrests per 100 recorded offenses across ZIPs with at least one offense. **78248** Lowest 2025 arrest-to-offense ratio among ZIP codes meeting the publication threshold. **8.9** Arrests per 100 recorded offenses in 78248, compared with a 43.7 systemwide reference ratio. **10 ZIPs** Recorded fewer than 22 arrests per 100 offenses in the published ranking. ## The 2025 ranking The ranking includes San Antonio-area ZIP codes with at least 4,000 calls and 400 recorded offenses in 2025\. Those minimums prevent very small ZIP-year records from dominating the results. __Lowest arrest activity relative to recorded offenses, 2025__ | Rank | ZIP | Neighborhood or area | Calls | Offenses | Arrests | Arrests per 100 offenses | Arrests per 100 calls | | ---- | --------- | ---------------------------- | ------ | -------- | ------- | ------------------------ | --------------------- | | 1 | **78248** | Deerfield–Inwood | 4,240 | 406 | 36 | **8.9** | 0.85 | | 2 | **78256** | Crownridge–La Cantera | 9,681 | 1,308 | 122 | **9.3** | 1.26 | | 3 | **78257** | The Dominion–Leon Springs | 13,978 | 1,754 | 240 | **13.7** | 1.72 | | 4 | **78259** | Encino Park | 10,806 | 1,177 | 182 | **15.5** | 1.68 | | 5 | **78253** | Alamo Ranch–Westcreek | 5,921 | 622 | 98 | **15.8** | 1.66 | | 6 | **78232** | Hollywood Park–Thousand Oaks | 24,746 | 2,806 | 462 | **16.5** | 1.87 | | 7 | **78258** | Stone Oak–Sonterra | 26,718 | 2,301 | 392 | **17.0** | 1.47 | | 8 | **78254** | Braun Station–Wildhorse | 12,971 | 1,234 | 226 | **18.3** | 1.74 | | 9 | **78249** | UTSA–Woods of Shavano | 43,447 | 4,021 | 837 | **20.8** | 1.93 | | 10 | **78244** | Woodlake–Sunrise | 7,927 | 674 | 147 | **21.8** | 1.85 | Rates are rounded. Arrest and offense totals are aligned by ZIP and year but are not necessarily one-to-one case matches. **How the neighborhood labels are used:** ZIP codes are postal geographies, not official neighborhood boundaries. Each label identifies the best-known neighborhood or community area associated with the ZIP, while recognizing that every ZIP may include several subdivisions and adjacent communities. ## The neighborhoods behind the ranking The bottom 10 spans several very different parts of San Antonio—from established North Central communities and luxury-growth corridors to the Far West and Northeast sides. That geographic spread is important: the low arrest-to-offense ratios are not confined to one income level, one development pattern or one side of the city. - **78248 — Deerfield–Inwood:** Deerfield, Inwood, Forests at Inwood, Canyon Creek Bluffs and nearby north-central communities. - **78256 — Crownridge–La Cantera:** Crownridge of Texas, Heights at Crownridge, La Cantera, The Rim and the Friedrich Wilderness area. - **78257 — The Dominion–Leon Springs:** The Dominion, Leon Springs, Cross Mountain and communities along the Fair Oaks Ranch corridor. - **78259 — Encino Park:** Encino Park, Encino Ranch, Redland-area subdivisions and the U.S. 281–Loop 1604 corridor. - **78253 — Alamo Ranch–Westcreek:** Alamo Ranch, Villages of Westcreek, Oaks of Westcreek and Far West Side communities. - **78232 — Hollywood Park–Thousand Oaks:** Hollywood Park, Thousand Oaks, North Central Thousand Oaks, Hidden Forest and nearby subdivisions. - **78258 — Stone Oak–Sonterra:** Stone Oak, Sonterra, Woods at Sonterra and Club at Sonterra communities. - **78254 — Braun Station–Wildhorse:** Braun Station, Braun’s Farm, Bridgewood, Wildhorse, Silver Oaks and Stonefield. - **78249 — UTSA–Woods of Shavano:** UTSA, Woods of Shavano, College Park, Hunter’s Chase, Babcock North, Oxbow and Parkwood. - **78244 — Woodlake–Sunrise:** Woodlake, Sunrise, Ventura and Northeast Side communities along FM 78 and Foster Road. **The central finding** The lowest-ranked ZIP codes did not simply have fewer police calls. Several had thousands of offenses and tens of thousands of calls, yet arrest activity remained low relative to the recorded offense count. ## Where volume makes the finding harder to ignore ### UTSA–Woods of Shavano ZIP 78249 carried the largest offense burden The UTSA–Woods of Shavano area in ZIP code 78249 generated 43,447 calls and 4,021 recorded offenses—more offenses than any other ZIP in the bottom 10\. Its 837 arrests produced a ratio of 20.8 arrests per 100 offenses. That placed it ninth in the ranking even though its workload was among the largest. ### Hollywood Park–Thousand Oaks ZIP 78232 paired high volume with a low arrest ratio The Hollywood Park–Thousand Oaks area in ZIP code 78232 recorded 24,746 calls, 2,806 offenses and 462 arrests. Its rate of 16.5 arrests per 100 offenses was the sixth-lowest in the qualifying group. The data classifies the ZIP as “high offense, low arrest,” reflecting the combination of meaningful offense volume and comparatively limited arrest activity. ### Crownridge–La Cantera ZIP 78256 remained the most persistent low-ratio ZIP The Crownridge–La Cantera area in ZIP code 78256 recorded arrest-to-offense ratios of 9.0 in 2023, 10.4 in 2024 and 9.3 in 2025\. That three-year pattern is more important than a single-year fluctuation because it suggests the low ratio is persistent within the source data. ## A three-year pattern Every ZIP in the 2025 bottom 10 also posted a relatively low arrest-to-offense ratio during earlier years. Some improved in 2025, but the broader pattern did not disappear. __Arrests per 100 recorded offenses, 2023–2025__ | ZIP | Neighborhood or area | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | | --------- | ---------------------------- | ---- | ---- | ---- | | **78248** | Deerfield–Inwood | 12.4 | 12.6 | 8.9 | | **78256** | Crownridge–La Cantera | 9.0 | 10.4 | 9.3 | | **78257** | The Dominion–Leon Springs | 9.4 | 8.6 | 13.7 | | **78259** | Encino Park | 9.6 | 11.7 | 15.5 | | **78253** | Alamo Ranch–Westcreek | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.8 | | **78232** | Hollywood Park–Thousand Oaks | 17.0 | 15.6 | 16.5 | | **78258** | Stone Oak–Sonterra | 11.3 | 12.9 | 17.0 | | **78254** | Braun Station–Wildhorse | 12.4 | 14.5 | 18.3 | | **78249** | UTSA–Woods of Shavano | 18.0 | 17.4 | 20.8 | | **78244** | Woodlake–Sunrise | 15.5 | 20.4 | 21.8 | ## What residents and policymakers should ask next A low arrest-to-offense ratio can have many causes. Some offenses may not have an identifiable suspect. Some investigations may extend beyond the calendar year. Arrests may occur outside the ZIP where an offense was recorded. Certain offenses may be reported after the fact, while other calls may not require an arrest at all. That is why this ranking should become the beginning of a public-accountability conversation rather than the end of one. San Antonio should be able to explain: - whether low-ratio ZIP codes also have longer call-handling or arrival times; - how offense severity and call priority differ across neighborhoods; - what share of offenses are cleared without an arrest; - whether staffing, patrol coverage and investigative resources match workload; - and whether the same ZIP codes remain low after controlling for offense type. The public should not have to choose between raw call counts and broad citywide crime claims. ZIP-level data can show where demand, offenses and enforcement outcomes diverge—and where deeper explanation is warranted. ## Methodology **Primary year:** 2025, the latest complete calendar year in the supplied dataset. The 2026 records were not used for the main ranking because they represent an incomplete year. **Ranking measure:** Total arrests divided by total recorded offenses, multiplied by 100. **Publication threshold:** At least 4,000 calls and 400 offenses in 2025. **Systemwide reference ratio:** 59,154 arrests divided by 135,285 offenses across 2025 ZIP-year rows with at least one recorded offense, equal to 43.7 arrests per 100 offenses. **Important limitation:** The data does not establish that a particular arrest resulted from a particular offense. It also does not measure emergency response time, investigative quality, case clearance or conviction. **Neighborhood labels:** Descriptive community labels were added to make the ZIP-level findings easier to understand. They do not represent official City of San Antonio neighborhood boundaries, and some ZIP codes include multiple subdivisions or communities. **Source:** SAPD ZIP-Year Safety Outcomes supplied to Consumer.info. The dataset aligns calls, arrests and offenses by ZIP code and year and includes arrest-to-call, offense-to-call and arrest-to-offense rates. Neighborhood and community labels are descriptive geographic associations supplied for editorial context; ZIP boundaries may cross or combine multiple neighborhoods. ### San Antonio Fire and EMS Incidents by ZIP: West Side 78207 Leads the City URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/san-antonio-fire-and-ems-incidents-by-zip-west-side-78207-leads-the-city/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T19:29:10.000Z Texas Capital Report · Public Safety Intelligence # One ZIP, 41,825 Incidents A National Data System analysis maps where San Antonio Fire and EMS demand is concentrated, identifies the councilmembers responsible for asking the next questions, and separates city duties from state-supported solutions. By Christopher C. Herring · National Data System analysis · July 2026 **623,480**Distinct SAFD master incidents **621,100**Incidents assigned to a consistent ZIP **93**ZIP codes represented in the ranking **6.73%**Share generated by 78207 alone San Antonio’s emergency-response burden is not distributed evenly. Between January 1, 2024, and June 30, 2026, ZIP 78207 generated 41,825 distinct San Antonio Fire Department master incidents—nearly 18,700 more than the second-ranked ZIP and roughly 81 percent more volume. The 78207 territory falls under the leadership of Councilwoman Teri Castillo in City Council District 5. The leading ZIP covers a broad section of the historic West Side, including neighborhood corridors associated with Prospect Hill, Avenida Guadalupe and communities immediately west of downtown. Its total represents 6.73 percent of all incidents that could be assigned to one consistent ZIP. **78207 did not merely finish first. It separated from the field.** The gap between 78207 and No. 2 ZIP 78228 was 18,693 distinct incidents. No other ZIP in the top 30 reached 24,000. The next tier crosses the city: 78228 on the near Northwest and West sides; 78223 in the Southeast; 78227 near Lackland and Valley Hi; 78229 in the Medical Center; and 78216 along the North Central and airport corridor. The ranking therefore does not point to one simple geographic story. It identifies several different kinds of emergency-demand centers: historic residential neighborhoods, medical and commercial corridors, dense inner-city districts, and fast-growing outer areas. The 10 ZIPs with the most distinct incidents Counts use one incident-level record per `master_incident_number`. The bar scale is indexed to 78207. **78207**West Side 41,825 **78228**Near Northwest / West 23,132 **78223**Southeast Side 23,092 **78227**Far West / Southwest 21,783 **78229**Medical Center / Oak Hills 21,487 **78216**North Central 20,782 **78240**Northwest / Medical Center 20,752 **78201**Inner West / Northwest 19,878 **78218**Northeast Side 19,673 **78237**West Side 18,008 Emergency demand is concentrated Cumulative share of all 621,100 ZIP-assigned distinct incidents. **21.1%**Top 5 ZIPs **37.1%**Top 10 ZIPs **50.2%**Top 15 ZIPs **79.8%**Top 30 ZIPs ## What the neighborhood pattern reveals The top 15 ZIPs account for just over half of the city’s ZIP-assigned incident volume. That concentration creates a practical planning question: are staffing, station placement, specialized units, prevention programs and hospital coordination aligned with the places generating the greatest recurring demand? 78207 ### Historic West Side pressure Prospect Hill, Avenida Guadalupe and nearby West Side neighborhoods form the clearest high-volume cluster in the ranking. 78229 ### Medical-system activity The Medical Center and Oak Hills corridor ranks fifth. Raw volume alone cannot separate resident emergencies from hospital, workforce and institutional activity, but the location demands closer analysis. 78205 ### Downtown intensity Downtown ranks 17th with 14,127 incidents. Its residential population is only one part of the story; visitors, workers, events and public-space activity may also shape demand. 78223 ### Southeast corridor Highland Hills, Hot Wells, Pecan Valley and the Mission corridor place 78223 third citywide with 23,092 distinct incidents. 78227 ### Lackland-area demand Lackland Terrace, Valley Hi and Westwood Village help define the fourth-ranked ZIP, where 21,783 incidents were recorded. 78216 ### North Central corridor Shearer Hills, Ridgeview, North Star and the airport corridor combine residential, commercial and transportation activity in the sixth-ranked ZIP. **These are raw incident totals, not population-adjusted rates.** A high-volume ZIP may be large, densely populated, commercially active, institution-heavy or visited by large numbers of nonresidents. The next analytical layer should compare incidents per 1,000 residents, daytime population, age structure, poverty, hospital locations, station coverage and land use before labeling any neighborhood unusually unsafe or underserved. How the top 10 records were classified The source field does not always resolve to exactly “Fire” or “EMS.” Gray represents records carrying another value or no usable classification. It should not be interpreted as activity outside SAFD. FireEMSOther or unclassified 78207 41,825 78228 23,132 78223 23,092 78227 21,783 78229 21,487 78216 20,782 78240 20,752 78201 19,878 78218 19,673 78237 18,008 ZIP 78207 is the only top-ranked area in which the explicit EMS count exceeds the explicit Fire count: 15,524 EMS incidents compared with 13,558 Fire incidents, with another 12,743 records in the other-or-unclassified category. Several other leading ZIPs have especially large unclassified shares, which means the classification dictionary needs to be audited before the citywide Fire-versus-EMS mix is treated as final. ## The complete top-30 neighborhood ranking The table uses neighborhood shorthand to make ZIP-based findings more readable. ZIP boundaries can cross multiple communities, and a neighborhood can extend into more than one ZIP; the names below are contextual associations, not official boundary determinations. | Rank | ZIP | Neighborhood shorthand | Distinct incidents | Fire | EMS | Other / unclassified | Citywide share | | ---- | --------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ------ | ------ | -------------------- | -------------- | | 1 | **78207** | West Side — Prospect Hill, Avenida Guadalupe and the near-downtown West Side | 41,825 | 13,558 | 15,524 | 12,743 | 6.73% | | 2 | **78228** | Near Northwest / West — Donaldson Terrace, Inspiration Hills and the Woodlawn–Jefferson edge | 23,132 | 7,578 | 6,029 | 9,525 | 3.72% | | 3 | **78223** | Southeast Side — Highland Hills, Hot Wells, Pecan Valley and the Mission corridor | 23,092 | 8,606 | 5,628 | 8,858 | 3.72% | | 4 | **78227** | Far West / Southwest — Lackland Terrace, Valley Hi and Westwood Village | 21,783 | 7,403 | 5,312 | 9,068 | 3.51% | | 5 | **78229** | Medical Center / Oak Hills — University Hospital and the South Texas Medical Center corridor | 21,487 | 7,442 | 5,560 | 8,485 | 3.46% | | 6 | **78216** | North Central — Shearer Hills, Ridgeview, North Star and the airport corridor | 20,782 | 9,206 | 3,694 | 7,882 | 3.35% | | 7 | **78240** | Northwest / Medical Center — Huebner, French Creek and the Leon Valley edge | 20,752 | 6,415 | 4,503 | 9,834 | 3.34% | | 8 | **78201** | Inner West / Northwest — Jefferson, Woodlawn Lake, Monticello Park and Los Angeles Heights | 19,878 | 7,912 | 4,700 | 7,266 | 3.20% | | 9 | **78218** | Northeast Side — Wilshire, East Terrell Hills, Park Village and Camelot | 19,673 | 7,287 | 4,452 | 7,934 | 3.17% | | 10 | **78237** | West Side — Edgewood, Los Jardines and Westlawn | 18,008 | 5,976 | 5,230 | 6,802 | 2.90% | | 11 | **78212** | Midtown / North Central — Tobin Hill, Monte Vista, Beacon Hill and Olmos Park Terrace | 17,588 | 7,322 | 4,340 | 5,926 | 2.83% | | 12 | **78251** | Far West Side — Heritage, Timber Ridge and the Westover Hills edge | 16,810 | 6,220 | 3,015 | 7,575 | 2.71% | | 13 | **78210** | East / Southeast — Denver Heights, Highland Park, Riverside and the Lone Star edge | 16,288 | 5,783 | 4,420 | 6,085 | 2.62% | | 14 | **78221** | South Side — Harlandale, Kingsborough Ridge and the Southcross corridor | 15,532 | 5,432 | 4,143 | 5,957 | 2.50% | | 15 | **78230** | North Central / Northwest — Vance Jackson, Colonies North and the Shavano edge | 15,030 | 5,775 | 3,023 | 6,232 | 2.42% | | 16 | **78249** | Northwest Side — UTSA, University Park, Oxbow and the De Zavala corridor | 14,949 | 5,970 | 2,862 | 6,117 | 2.41% | | 17 | **78205** | Downtown — Alamo Plaza, the River Walk, Hemisfair and the central business district | 14,127 | 7,121 | 2,554 | 4,452 | 2.27% | | 18 | **78217** | Northeast Side — Northern Hills, Perrin Beitel and El Dorado | 13,461 | 4,923 | 2,876 | 5,662 | 2.17% | | 19 | **78209** | Alamo Heights area — Terrell Hills, Oak Park–Northwood and surrounding near-northeast neighborhoods | 13,104 | 5,495 | 2,342 | 5,267 | 2.11% | | 20 | **78214** | South Side — Mission San José, Harlandale and Riverside South | 12,871 | 4,590 | 3,492 | 4,789 | 2.07% | | 21 | **78220** | East Side — Wheatley Heights, Dellcrest and Eastwood Village | 12,747 | 4,177 | 3,292 | 5,278 | 2.05% | | 22 | **78211** | Southwest Side — Quintana, South San Antonio and the Kelly area | 12,635 | 4,198 | 3,535 | 4,902 | 2.03% | | 23 | **78258** | Far North — Stone Oak, Sonterra and the Rogers Ranch edge | 11,943 | 4,052 | 1,836 | 6,055 | 1.92% | | 24 | **78238** | Northwest Side — Leon Valley, Thunderbird Hills and the Ingram corridor | 11,534 | 4,597 | 2,634 | 4,303 | 1.86% | | 25 | **78233** | Northeast Side — Woodstone, Valencia and the Live Oak edge | 11,474 | 4,518 | 2,238 | 4,718 | 1.85% | | 26 | **78213** | North Central — Dellview, Castle Hills and Lockhill Estates | 11,412 | 3,841 | 3,083 | 4,488 | 1.84% | | 27 | **78247** | Northeast Side — Thousand Oaks, Knollcreek and Eden | 11,351 | 4,073 | 1,968 | 5,310 | 1.83% | | 28 | **78245** | Far West Side — Meadow Village, Heritage, Big Country and newer western subdivisions | 11,207 | 4,290 | 2,276 | 4,641 | 1.80% | | 29 | **78250** | Northwest Side — Northwest Crossing, Silver Creek and Great Northwest | 10,831 | 3,377 | 2,104 | 5,350 | 1.74% | | 30 | **78224** | South Side — Palo Alto, Gillette and South San Antonio | 10,304 | 3,953 | 1,983 | 4,368 | 1.66% | ## Who is accountable for the next step? **Accountability is not the same as accusation.** A high incident count does not prove that a councilmember, fire station or emergency crew failed. It does create a public duty to measure response performance, explain resource allocation and show residents what will change when demand remains concentrated. San Antonio operates through a council-manager form of government. Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones and the ten-member City Council set policy, approve the budget and can require public performance reporting. City management and SAFD remain responsible for daily operations, staffing, deployment and execution. Citywide budget and policy ### Mayor and full City Council The full council owns the decisions that determine authorized staffing, station and apparatus investments, overtime resources, capital priorities and the level of public transparency required from SAFD. Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones · Council Districts 1–10 Direct Fire and EMS oversight ### Public Safety Committee The City formally assigns this committee oversight of fire protection, EMS and emergency preparedness. It is the most direct venue for demanding response-time percentiles, unit-availability measures and explanations for persistent ZIP-level demand. Chair Sukh Kaur · Jalen McKee-Rodriguez · Teri Castillo · Misty Spears · Marc Whyte State and federal coordination ### Intergovernmental Relations Committee This committee is positioned to translate city findings into a coordinated state request involving workforce grants, trauma-system investments, Medicaid ambulance policy and behavioral-health crisis capacity. Chair Jalen McKee-Rodriguez · Edward Mungia · Marina Alderete Gavito · Ivalis Meza Gonzalez · Misty Spears Prevention and public health ### Community Health leadership Not every repeat emergency can be solved by adding an ambulance. Community paramedicine, prevention, behavioral-health diversion, aging services and high-utilizer interventions require a health-policy partner. Community Health Chair Ric Galvan · district and city health partners ### District leaders connected to the highest-demand ZIP areas The table below identifies the councilmember who should be an immediate accountability contact for major portions of the listed ZIP areas. ZIP and council boundaries do not align perfectly, so the associations are not exclusive. A specific address may be represented by a neighboring district. | District | Councilmember | Top-30 ZIP areas associated with the district footprint | Immediate accountability question | | ----------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | District 1 | Sukh Kaur | 78216, 78201, 78212, 78205 and 78213; portions of 78209 | As Public Safety chair, when will SAFD publish median and 90th-percentile response times by ZIP and council district? | | District 2 | Jalen McKee-Rodriguez | 78218 and 78220; portions of 78210 | How will East and Northeast Side demand be reflected in deployment, prevention and behavioral-health alternatives? | | District 3 | Phyllis Viagran | 78223, 78221 and 78214; portions of 78210 | Does South and Southeast Side apparatus availability match the volume and type of incidents recorded? | | District 4 | Edward Mungia | 78227, 78211 and 78224; portions of 78245 | What resources are assigned to the Lackland and Southwest corridors, and how are long-duration responses investigated? | | District 5 | Teri Castillo | 78207 and 78237; portions of 78228 and 78210 | What explains 78207’s exceptional workload, and what targeted West Side response and prevention plan will follow? | | District 6 | Ric Galvan | 78251 and 78250; portions of 78245 and 78238 | Can community-health and workforce policy reduce recurring calls while maintaining adequate Far West Side coverage? | | District 7 | Marina Alderete Gavito | 78228 and 78238; portions of 78201 and 78229 | How should Northwest and Medical Center-adjacent demand shape city-state hospital and EMS coordination? | | District 8 | Ivalis Meza Gonzalez | 78229, 78240, 78230 and 78249 | How much incident volume is associated with hospitals, institutions and daytime activity, and what is the effect on unit availability? | | District 9 | Misty Spears | 78258; portions of 78216 and 78213 | Through Public Safety and Intergovernmental Relations, which state resources can strengthen EMS staffing and regional coordination? | | District 10 | Marc Whyte | 78217, 78233 and 78247; portions of 78218 and 78209 | Are Northeast Side response times and apparatus coverage keeping pace with residential and commercial demand? | **Boundary caution:** These ZIP references are accountability shorthand based on district footprints and the National Data System’s dominant ZIP-to-council methodology. They do not mean that an entire ZIP lies within one district. The SAFD source also contains a council-district field, which should be used for the next authoritative district-level report. ### What City Council can require without waiting for Austin 1 **Publish the workload** Monthly distinct incidents by ZIP, district, Fire/EMS class, hour and call type. 2 **Publish the performance** Median and 90th-percentile response seconds, not averages alone. 3 **Audit availability** Units in service, simultaneous demand, overtime, station coverage and hospital turnaround. 4 **Target prevention** Community paramedicine, fall prevention, behavioral-health diversion and high-utilizer care plans. 5 **Align the budget** Explain how staffing and capital priorities respond to persistent geographic demand. ### Where a councilmember should bring in the State of Texas Austin should not be used as an excuse for decisions the City controls. The state does not decide San Antonio’s daily unit deployment or where the City builds a fire station. State partnership becomes relevant where Texas controls funding streams, workforce programs, reimbursement rules and regional health systems. **EMS workforce and training** Texas Workforce Commission grants can support EMT Basic, Advanced EMT and paramedic training through eligible EMS providers and DSHS-approved programs. **Trauma and regional EMS systems** DSHS funds EMS agencies, hospitals and Regional Advisory Councils to improve regional trauma and emergency-care systems. **Medicaid ambulance reimbursement** Texas HHSC sets Medicaid ambulance payment policy and administers supplemental-payment structures affecting governmental ambulance providers. **Behavioral-health crisis capacity** HHSC funds crisis services and community mental-health programs that can provide alternatives to repeated emergency transport when clinically appropriate. **Who should be invited:** San Antonio-area Senators Roland Gutierrez, Judith Zaffirini, Donna Campbell and José Menéndez, together with the overlapping Bexar County House member identified for each affected address. The delegation includes Representatives Trey Martinez Fischer, Philip Cortez, John Lujan III, Liz Campos, Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, Marc LaHood, Mark Dorazio, Diego Bernal, Josey Garcia and Ray Lopez. Rep. Liz Campos serves as vice chair of House Public Health, while Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer serves as vice chair of House Ways & Means—two committee positions relevant to health policy and state revenue decisions. The most useful meeting would not be a ceremonial roundtable. The Public Safety Committee and Intergovernmental Relations Committee should bring a written SAFD data package, identify the affected state districts through address-level or weighted overlays, and present a short list of funding, reimbursement and workforce requests with measurable outcomes. ## A 90-day public accountability agenda The ranking is a demand map, not a performance verdict. It tells leaders where SAFD master incidents accumulate, but the City must add response time, availability, staffing and outcomes before residents can judge whether resources are proportionate. 30 days **Fix the classification and data dictionary** Explain every value in the Fire-or-EMS field, resolve the large other/unclassified category and publish the meaning of the response-seconds measure. 60 days **Present response performance** Report median and 90th-percentile response time, unit availability and simultaneous-demand pressure by ZIP and council district for complete 2024 and 2025. 90 days **Adopt a city-state action plan** Identify city budget actions and a separate state request for EMS workforce, trauma coordination, reimbursement and behavioral-health capacity. The next National Data System publication should calculate population-adjusted rates and compare incidents with station locations, daytime activity, age, disability, poverty, housing age and hospital access. That moves the discussion from “where are the most calls?” to “where is emergency demand greatest relative to people, place and available response capacity?” ## How this analysis was built The National Data System converted San Antonio Fire Department calls-for-service records into a governed DuckDB backbone. The source contained 1,068,091 operational rows but only 623,480 distinct `master_incident_number` values. To avoid overstating emergencies, this ranking uses the incident-level view, not the raw row count. Of the 623,480 distinct master incidents, 621,100 had one consistent incident ZIP and were included in the ranking. Another 2,380 incidents had no usable ZIP or conflicting ZIP values across their underlying source rows. The ranking covers 93 ZIP values. Calendar year 2026 is partial through June 30. Arson case records are maintained separately and are not included in this Fire-and-EMS calls-for-service ranking. **Source:** San Antonio Fire Department calls-for-service data; National Data System, `San_Antonio_Fire_Department_Response_Backbone_TX.duckdb`; incident-level view `publication.v_fire_cfs_incident_index`; ZIP ranking JSON SHA256 `25D7FEF67EEE2F35DEE80D5C0B5C50367CB4D03C7FE4B02065BF813D32A3019A`. Current officeholders and committee assignments were checked against the [City of San Antonio council directory](https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/Mayor-Council/City-Council?ref=texascapitalreport.com), the [City Council committee directory](https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/Mayor-Council/Committees?ref=texascapitalreport.com), the [Texas House member directory](https://house.texas.gov/members?ref=texascapitalreport.com) and the [Texas Senate member directory](https://senate.texas.gov/members.php?ref=texascapitalreport.com). State-program descriptions were checked against official DSHS, TWC and HHSC program pages. Texas Capital Report · Powered by National Data System --- SHARE: ### Texas-Built Intelligence Framework Supports Food Security Planning for Guatemala URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-built-intelligence-framework-supports-food-security-planning-for-guatemala/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T13:57:04.000Z ### National Data System Demonstrates How Data Intelligence Can Strengthen Global Agricultural Resilience SAN ANTONIO, Texas — As international organizations continue to search for innovative approaches to food security and agricultural resilience, a Texas-developed intelligence platform is demonstrating how data-driven decision making can support more effective humanitarian planning. National Data System, a Texas-based geospatial intelligence and decision-support initiative, recently applied its International Data Backbone framework to support agricultural resilience and food security planning efforts focused on Guatemala. Using a governed country intelligence framework anchored to Guatemala's ISO3 country profile (GTM), National Data System developed a geographic prioritization methodology designed to identify regions where food insecurity, agricultural dependence, workforce development opportunities, and resilience-building investments intersect. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/06/KvaGG-guatemala-department-prioritization-framework-gtm-003---1-.png) The resulting GTM-003 Geographic Prioritization Framework evaluated candidate regions across six dimensions: - Food Security Risk - Agricultural Workforce Dependence - Agricultural Opportunity - Extension Service Gaps - Resilience Potential - Operational Feasibility The framework identified Alta Verapaz, Huehuetenango, and Quiché as the highest-priority implementation areas, with San Marcos identified as a secondary expansion candidate. ## Geospatial Assessment: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/06/y3IHk-digital-jesup-wagon-initiative-guatemala-priority-target-departments-.png) According to NationalDataSystem founder Christopher Herring, the effort demonstrates how intelligence infrastructure can be applied to humanitarian planning and agricultural development initiatives. “Food assistance is only part of the equation,” Herring said. “Long-term resilience requires understanding where agricultural opportunity exists, where extension services are needed, where workforce development can have the greatest impact, and how accountability systems can help ensure resources reach the people they are intended to serve.” The Guatemala effort also highlights a broader trend in international development toward data-driven accountability and performance measurement. NationalDataSystem's approach incorporates commodity accountability, beneficiary intelligence, food security monitoring, agricultural resilience measurement, and monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL) frameworks into a single decision-support environment. The initiative was developed in support of a broader Digital Jesup Wagon concept inspired by the historic agricultural outreach model pioneered by Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver at Tuskegee University. The modern Digital Jesup Wagon model combines emergency food assistance, agricultural extension, workforce development, accountability systems, and agricultural intelligence to strengthen food security while reducing long-term dependency on external assistance. While the Guatemala initiative remains in the proposal stage, the project illustrates how locally developed intelligence systems can support international agricultural development and humanitarian planning efforts. NationalDataSystem's International Data Backbone currently supports geographic intelligence, economic indicators, resilience metrics, trade intelligence, and opportunity analysis across multiple geographic levels, creating a reusable framework for future agricultural development, food security, and resilience-focused initiatives. As global food security challenges continue to evolve, initiatives such as GTM-003 demonstrate the growing role of data governance, geographic intelligence, and accountability systems in supporting effective and measurable development outcomes. ### City of Kirby, Texas News URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/city-of-kirby-texas-news/ Last updated: 2026-07-21T18:18:42.000Z Kirby Civic & Financial Report # Who Wanted Kirby’s Bonds? Inside the $161.6 Million Investor Order Book Thirty-one accounts submitted nearly 11 times more orders than Kirby had bonds to sell. The demand helped lower borrowing costs—but it did not make investors owners of the city. Texas Capital Report · Kirby, Texas · July 2026 **The central finding** Kirby’s A+ rating established its credit story and the City Council authorized the borrowing. The investor order book provided a third test: whether the municipal market would actually compete to finance the city. It did—decisively. **$161.59M**Total orders reported during pricing **$14.89M**Series 2026 certificates available for sale **10.8×**Reported level of oversubscription **31**Different accounts reported in the order book The City of Kirby entered the municipal market with $14.89 million in Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation. By the end of pricing, investors had submitted approximately $161.59 million in orders. That does not mean the city borrowed $161.59 million. It means demand for the available securities greatly exceeded supply. According to the Hilltop Securities presentation delivered to the City Council, the oversubscription allowed interest rates on individual maturities to be lowered by 2 to 12 basis points and reduced the proposed true interest cost by approximately 11.6 basis points. For residents, this is the most practical meaning of investor demand: competition among buyers helped Kirby obtain better pricing. The buyers were not bringing private development rights, management authority or a claim on City Hall. They were competing to lend money to the city under the terms of the bond documents. 01 · Reading the order book ## Two categories accounted for nearly two-thirds of demand The investor-type slide divides the $161.59 million order book into ten account categories. “Not disclosed” was the largest category at approximately $52.68 million, followed closely by broker-dealers at approximately $50.19 million. Together, those two categories represented about 63.7% of all reported orders. The “not disclosed” label does not mean the buyers were unknown to the underwriters. It means their category or identity was not disclosed in the public presentation. ### Order book by investor type Amounts shown on the presentation were in thousands of dollars. Percentages are calculated from the reported $161.59 million total. Not disclosed**$52.68M · 32.6%** Broker-dealer**$50.19M · 31.1%** Proprietary trading**$12.92M · 8.0%** Bank portfolio**$11.95M · 7.4%** Institutional**$9.59M · 5.9%** Bond fund**$8.51M · 5.3%** Hedge fund**$7.51M · 4.6%** Money manager**$5.00M · 3.1%** Bank trust / private wealth**$1.91M · 1.2%** Separately managed account**$1.37M · 0.8%** The mix matters because it shows demand did not come from a single buyer or one corner of the market. Banks, broker-dealers, professional money managers, funds, private-wealth channels and trading accounts all appeared in the book. 02 · The names on the slide ## Who the listed financial firms are—and what the list does not prove Hilltop’s slide identified the following “Top 10 Institutional Investors by Amount.” The public presentation did not state the size of each firm’s order, the bonds ultimately allocated to each account or whether any account later sold its position. | Firm named on slide | What the firm is known for | What can be concluded here | | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 16th Amendment Advisors, LLC | A New York registered investment adviser focused exclusively on municipal bonds, operating with affiliated 16Rock Asset Management. | The name reflects specialized municipal-market demand; the slide does not disclose its final allocation. | | Merrill Lynch Co. | A major brokerage and wealth-management platform serving individual and institutional clients. | The order could represent a platform, trading desk or client account; the slide does not identify the beneficial owner. | | Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. | A financial-advice, brokerage and investment-advisory business. | The listed name indicates an order channel, not proof that Ameriprise itself retained the bonds. | | Millennium International MGMT LP | Associated with Millennium, a global diversified alternative-investment firm. | It demonstrates interest from a sophisticated alternative-investment account; allocation is not shown. | | Dinosaur Financial Group | A FINRA-registered full-service broker-dealer with sales and trading capabilities. | The firm may have acted for its own account or a customer; the public slide does not say which. | | ISQ Capital LLC | The presentation names the account but supplies no business description. Texas Capital Report did not identify a sufficiently clear primary source to characterize the exact entity. | No conclusion should be drawn beyond the fact that an account under this name appeared in the order presentation. | | Eaton Vance | An established asset-management name with a large municipal-bond team and a broad range of municipal strategies. | The slide does not identify which Eaton Vance fund, strategy or client account submitted the order. | | Navaid Financial Services | A FINRA-regulated brokerage firm and longtime Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board registrant. | The slide records an order name, not the final amount held after allocation. | | SAMCO Proprietary Trading | An affiliate formed to trade municipal bonds; the wider SAMCO organization is known for municipal underwriting, trading and public finance. | This is the clearest example of a proprietary-trading account in the named list. | | A.H. Williams & Company L.P. | An investment manager specializing in tax-exempt and taxable municipal securities. | Its appearance is consistent with demand from a municipal-bond specialist. | These firms did not become part-owners of Kirby. Municipal bondholders are creditors, not shareholders, council members or development partners. 03 · Orders, allocations and ownership ## Three stages that should not be confused 1 **Order** An account requests a dollar amount during pricing. Orders may exceed the amount available and may later be changed or withdrawn. 2 **Allocation** The underwriting team decides how much of each maturity an account receives. A large order may receive only a partial allocation—or none. 3 **Ownership** After closing, bonds can trade in the secondary market. The holder today may not be the account that ordered during the original sale. This distinction is especially important when a broker-dealer or wealth platform appears by name. That firm may be purchasing for inventory, for an affiliated fund, for an adviser-managed account or on behalf of customers. The public slide does not reveal those underlying relationships. Municipal bondholders also do not obtain a vote in Kirby government. Their legal rights concern repayment and the protections contained in the certificates and transaction documents. Kirby’s elected officials still set policy, city management still administers operations and residents still hold the city accountable. 04 · Why demand was strong ## Credit quality, insurance, yield and scarcity worked together The order book should not be read as an endorsement of every city policy or every project. Professional buyers evaluate securities, not campaign platforms. Kirby’s offering combined several features that can make municipal debt attractive: ### What buyers could evaluate - Kirby’s A+ underlying S&P credit rating with a stable outlook. - Assured Guaranty insurance that reportedly allowed the bonds to be marketed with an AA rating. - A maturity schedule extending from 2027 through 2056. - Yields ranging from 2.65% on the earliest maturity to 4.73% on the longest maturities. - A security pledge supported by ad valorem taxes and limited surplus utility revenues under the financing documents. ### What the order book does not prove - That every listed account ultimately received bonds. - That every original buyer still holds the securities. - That investors approved every project the city may finance. - That Kirby faces no future budget, tax or execution risk. - That market demand replaces public oversight of how proceeds are spent. Bond insurance also mattered. The city’s presentation estimated that insurance reduced the true interest cost by approximately seven basis points, with projected savings greater than the $49,881 premium. The insurance did not erase Kirby’s underlying obligations. It added a guarantor and gave investors another layer of payment protection. 05 · The financial result ## Strong demand converted directly into lower borrowing costs Kirby’s final transaction carried a reported true interest cost of 4.49%, compared with a 5.20% projection presented on May 15\. The proposed structure also delivered $15 million to the project fund while reducing the bond principal to $14.89 million. Projected aggregate debt service fell from $29.66 million in the May presentation to approximately $27.71 million in the final proposal—a reduction of about $1.95 million. Not all of that improvement can be attributed to the order book alone; changing interest rates, structure, premium, insurance and market timing also shaped the result. But the underwriter explicitly reported that investor competition enabled additional yield reductions during pricing. **The bottom line** Kirby’s first test was whether its finances could support an A+ credit rating. The second was whether a council majority would authorize the debt. The third was whether the market would buy it. Thirty-one accounts and a 10.8-times oversubscribed order book answered that question—but the next test is whether Kirby converts the borrowed capital into visible, durable and fully documented public improvements. **Reporting note** The investor names and account-type totals in this article come from Hilltop Securities slides presented during the July 9, 2026 Kirby City Council meeting and photographed by Christopher C. Herring. The slides show orders during initial pricing, not a final allocation report or a current list of beneficial bondholders. ### Sources and further reading - [City of Kirby July 9, 2026 City Council agenda packet and Series 2026 financing documents](https://www.kirbytx.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Regular-City-Council-Meeting-Thursday-July-9-2026-Final-Full-Agenda-Packet.pdf?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - Hilltop Securities investor-orders and investor-type presentations displayed during the July 9 meeting. - [16th Amendment Advisors / 16Rock](https://16rock.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com); [Merrill](https://www.ml.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com); [Ameriprise Financial](https://www.ameriprise.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com); and [Millennium](https://www.mlp.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - [Dinosaur Financial Group disclosure](https://www.dinogroup.com/customerdisclosure?ref=texascapitalreport.com); [Eaton Vance municipals team](https://www.eatonvance.com/about-us/people-and-teams/investment-teams/municipals-team.html?ref=texascapitalreport.com); and [FINRA BrokerCheck profile for Navaid Financial Services](https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/42607?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - [SAMCO Capital Markets](https://www.samcocapital.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) and its [public financial statement describing SAMCO Proprietary Trading](https://www.samcocapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-SAMCO-Capital-Markets-Statement-of-FInancial-Position-PUBLIC.pdf?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - [A.H. Williams & Company](https://www.ahwilliamsco.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - [MSRB EMMA municipal securities database](https://emma.msrb.org/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) for official disclosures and reported secondary-market trades. Orders, allocations and secondary-market holdings are different records. Credit ratings are opinions of credit quality, not guarantees or recommendations to buy, hold or sell securities. ### Texas Report on City 311 Calls URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-report-on-city-311-calls/ Last updated: 2026-07-21T00:46:11.000Z TEXAS CAPITAL REPORT · GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY # America Has No National Standard for 311 Service Requests Why Texas Policymakers Cannot Compare Cities by Complaint Counts Alone An analysis of more than 22.7 million public service requests from New York City, Houston and San Antonio found that America’s largest cities measure neighborhood problems through fundamentally different systems. **22.7M**SERVICE REQUESTS **3**AMERICAN CITIES **432**LOCAL CATEGORIES Every day, residents dial 311 expecting local government to answer a simple request: fix what is wrong. A pothole damages a tire. A traffic signal stops working. Trash is not collected. A water line breaks. An overgrown property becomes a neighborhood concern. A caller may be frustrated, worried or trying to prevent a small problem from becoming a larger one. Behind every call is an expectation that government will document the problem, send it to the correct department and provide a meaningful response. A 311 request is not only a complaint. It is a public record of what residents expect government to fix—and how government organizes the response. Consumer.info analyzed more than **22.7 million** public 311 service records from New York City, Houston and San Antonio. The analysis found that the three cities do not merely record different problems. They use different categories, agency structures, location fields and resolution systems to define what a civic service request means. THE ACCOUNTABILITY GAP ## Public officials often compare city performance without first comparing the systems behind the data. Legislators, mayors, city councils, oversight bodies, journalists and researchers frequently use 311 data to evaluate infrastructure, sanitation, neighborhood conditions and service delivery. Those comparisons often assume that a request means the same thing in every city. It does not. New York City uses hundreds of highly specialized complaint categories. Houston organizes many requests around infrastructure and operational systems. San Antonio relies on a small number of broad departmental categories supported by detailed subcategories. POLICY RULE Before comparing city outcomes, policymakers must first determine whether the cities are classifying equivalent services in equivalent ways. THREE CITY SYSTEMS ## The same public problem can appear under different labels, departments and reporting structures. NEW YORK CITY**271 Categories** ### Specialized complaint reporting New York City’s largest categories include residential noise, illegal parking, heat and hot water, blocked driveways, housing conditions and street issues. The system reflects the detail and density of urban life. - 21.9 million records in the analyzed source - Detailed service categories and subcategories - Written agency outcome descriptions - ZIP, borough and coordinate fields HOUSTON**149 Categories** ### Infrastructure and operations Houston’s leading categories center on water leaks, sewer and wastewater, drainage, traffic signals, potholes, street hazards and solid waste operations. - 361,308 records in the analyzed source - Detailed operational categories - Internal service codes rather than comparable outcome narratives - Coordinates available; ZIP codes absent from the source SAN ANTONIO**12 Categories** ### Broad municipal service departments San Antonio organizes most requests through broad service areas such as solid waste, property maintenance, animal services, streets, traffic signals, parks and health. - 450,765 valid service records - 249 category and subcategory combinations - Detailed service subcategories - ZIP and council district information available for many records THE TEXAS POLICY QUESTION ## What happens when state leaders compare municipalities that define public problems differently? Texas lawmakers and state agencies routinely compare cities when discussing infrastructure, housing, transportation, sanitation, public safety, neighborhood investment and local government performance. But the evidence shows that raw 311 totals may reflect administrative design as much as underlying community conditions. **Infrastructure funding** Road, drainage, water and signal complaints may be classified differently across cities. **Housing oversight** Property, plumbing, heat and code concerns may appear under different departments. **Municipal performance** Higher request counts may reflect easier reporting, broader service coverage or greater public trust. **Legislative analysis** Statewide comparisons require equivalent service definitions before conclusions are drawn. THE SAN ANTONIO EXAMPLE ## Nearly 95% of San Antonio’s requests fall into five broad service categories. Solid Waste Services, Property Maintenance, Animals, Streets & Infrastructure, and Traffic Signals & Signs account for **94.77%** of San Antonio’s records. In New York City, the five largest categories account for 39.98%. In Houston, they account for 31.79%. **San Antonio** **94.77%** Share of requests in the five largest categories **New York City** **39.98%** Share of requests in the five largest categories **Houston** **31.79%** Share of requests in the five largest categories That does not mean San Antonio faces fewer kinds of problems. The city places more detail inside subcategories beneath broad departmental headings. The difference is structural, not necessarily operational. WHAT A COMMON FRAMEWORK COULD DO ## Texas could preserve local flexibility while improving statewide comparability. A common reporting framework would not require every municipality to abandon its local categories. Cities could continue operating systems that fit local needs while mapping equivalent services into shared statewide or national civic domains. LOCAL CATEGORY**Street Condition**City-specific operational label **→** COMMON SERVICE FAMILY**Roadway Maintenance**Comparable municipal function **→** POLICY DOMAIN**Public Infrastructure**Statewide accountability and analysis That translation layer would help lawmakers distinguish genuine differences in community conditions from differences created by local administrative design. WHY RAW COUNTS CAN MISLEAD ## A high number of requests may indicate problems—or a system residents know how to use. **Population**Larger cities naturally generate more service activity. **Reporting access**Phone, web, apps and text options influence request volume. **Agency participation**Some public datasets include more departments and services. **Public trust**Residents report more when they believe government will respond. **Category design**One city may split a service into many categories while another combines them. **Time coverage**Different reporting periods can make totals appear more comparable than they are. THE ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARD ## Transparency is not enough if public data cannot be compared accurately. Open 311 records provide an extraordinary window into neighborhood conditions and local government workload. But publishing data is only the first step. Policymakers also need clear definitions, documented classifications and comparable service families. America currently has millions of public service requests—but no common national standard for understanding what those requests mean. For Texas, the opportunity is clear: preserve local control while building a stronger framework for statewide transparency, oversight and public accountability. **TEXAS CAPITAL REPORT**Government. Policy. Accountability. METHODOLOGY & LIMITATIONS ## About the analysis Consumer.info standardized public 311 records from New York City, Houston and San Antonio into a common civic-response dataset. The analysis examined source categories, subcategory depth, record quality, geographic fields and category concentration. The datasets cover different populations and time periods. Houston’s source covers 2016, San Antonio’s records span 2018 through early 2026, and New York City’s records span 2020 through 2026\. Record totals are presented as dataset counts, not direct performance rankings. ## Explore Texas Capital Report Topics [Government](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/government/) [Public Policy](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/public-policy/) [Local Government](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/local-government/) [Infrastructure](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/infrastructure/) [Accountability](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/accountability/) [Texas Legislature](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/texas-legislature/) [Open Data](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/open-data/) [Cities](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/cities/) [San Antonio](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/san-antonio/) [Houston](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/houston/) [Research](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/research/) [Public Administration](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/tag/public-administration/) EXHIBIT · CITY LEADERSHIP & 311 ACCOUNTABILITY ## City of San Antonio Leadership Accountable for 311 Policy and Oversight San Antonio’s mayor is elected citywide, while ten councilmembers represent single-member districts. Together, the mayor and City Council serve as the City’s policy-making and legislative body, shaping budgets, service priorities and public accountability for the systems residents rely on when they dial 311\. **Accountability distinction** The mayor and City Council establish policy, approve budgets and provide legislative oversight. Day-to-day administration of 311 services is carried out through the City Manager and municipal departments. MAYOR · ELECTED AT LARGE ### Gina Ortiz Jones The mayor presides over the City Council and represents the city as a whole. CITY COUNCIL · TEN SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS District 1 ### Sukh Kaur District 2 ### Jalen McKee-Rodriguez District 3 ### Phyllis Viagran District 4 ### Edward Mungia District 5 ### Teri Castillo District 6 ### Ric Galvan District 7 ### Marina Alderete Gavito District 8 ### Ivalis Meza Gonzalez District 9 ### Misty Spears District 10 ### Marc Whyte **What residents should expect** Clear service standards, transparent reporting, responsible budgeting, district-level follow-up and visible oversight when recurring 311 problems affect neighborhoods. **Source** City of San Antonio Mayor & City Council directory, reviewed July 2026\. ### From Foster Care to Military Service, A Female Veteran Elected to Lead HD124 URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/from-foster-care-to-military-service-a-female-veteran-elected-to-lead-hd124/ Last updated: 2026-07-21T20:22:36.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Josey_Garcia_HD124.jpeg) Texas State Representative Josey Garcia, HD124 Texas Legislature # Josey Garcia Helped Advance 89 Bills Signed Into Law During Her First Texas House Session Who is Josey Garcia that leads Texas House District 124? In 2023, Representative Josey Garcia became the first and only woman veteran to serve in the history of the Texas Legislature. During her first legislative session—the focus of this report—she advanced more than 89 bills on behalf of her diverse and geographically distinct district. She also successfully carried two governor-approved concurrent resolutions, bringing her first-session total to 91 enacted legislative measures. House District 124 stretches across a remarkable cross-section of West San Antonio, from the active-duty military community surrounding Joint Base San Antonio–Lackland, to long-established working-class neighborhoods, rapidly growing suburban developments, historic Hispanic communities, major healthcare and education corridors, and one of the region's largest concentrations of veterans. The district's economy is driven by military service, healthcare, hospitality, logistics, retail, education, and public service—creating a population whose childcare, workforce, housing, transportation, and economic needs are as diverse as the communities they call home. Understanding House District 124 therefore requires looking beyond traditional political boundaries and examining how these interconnected systems influence the daily lives of the families Representative Garcia serves. **By Christopher C. Herring** Texas Capital Report ## One session, one record The legislative record examined in this report comes from the **88th Texas Legislature’s 2023 regular session**, Garcia’s first regular session representing House District 124\. Her caucus leadership and committee assignments in the 89th Legislature are included to show how her responsibilities expanded in her second term, but they are not included in the first-session totals. **89**Bills signed into law **2**Governor-approved resolutions **44**Leadership-level roles **91**Successful measures A lawmaker’s influence is not measured only by the bills carrying that person’s name at the top. It is also reflected in the measures the legislator helps shape, carries through the opposite chamber, strengthens through coalition support and ultimately helps move across the finish line. By that broader measure, Rep. Josey Garcia assembled a substantial record during her first regular session in the Texas House. Garcia held a recorded legislative role on **89 House and Senate bills signed into law** and **two governor-approved House concurrent resolutions** during the 88th Legislature. Each measure was counted once, giving Garcia a total of 91 successful legislative measures during her freshman session. On 44 of those measures, Garcia served in a leadership-level role as a primary author, joint author or House sponsor. On the remaining 47, she joined the legislative coalition as a coauthor or cosponsor. The record is especially notable because Garcia entered the House as a freshman legislator. Elected in 2022, she began representing West San Antonio’s House District 124 in January 2023. Her work crossed traditional policy boundaries. It touched health care, public safety, veterans and military families, workforce policy, family violence, public education, child welfare, child care, transportation, housing and the administration of state government. ## How Garcia participated in the 91 successful measures | Legislative role | Successful measures | | ----------------------------- | ------------------- | | Primary author | 2 | | Joint author | 30 | | Sponsor | 12 | | Coauthor | 35 | | Cosponsor | 12 | | **Total successful measures** | **91** | Those titles describe different levels of responsibility. A primary author leads a bill in the chamber where it begins. Joint authors formally share authorship. A sponsor carries a bill after it crosses from the other chamber. Coauthors and cosponsors add support and help build the coalition needed for passage. **Garcia held a leadership-level role on 44 successful measures:** two as primary author, 30 as joint author and 12 as sponsor. She supported another 47 successful measures as a coauthor or cosponsor. The distinction shows two sides of legislative effectiveness. Garcia was willing to lead measures directly, but she also repeatedly joined broader coalitions whose work survived the full legislative process and reached the governor. > “In the very beginning, most people doubted even why we were here at the Capitol. We made it a point to show that not only did we belong, but we were going to lead.” > > “I am very proud of State Rep. Josey Garcia because she exemplifies humble beginnings and the levels of servant leadership that represent who we are in the state of Texas. Most people don’t know that she experienced foster care. Most people don’t know that she served her nation in the United States Air Force and retired after a full military career. And most people don’t know that her husband is also a veteran.” > > “Everything we do is very personal. We’ve been blessed because we were able to hit the ground running and reach success by working across the aisle on what is good for Texas.” > > “Now we’re trying to do more locally by organizing the community so we can effectively hear the voices of so many. We have deep concentrations of poverty, active-duty military families and veterans. We also have fewer licensed child-care centers, especially centers that can serve nontraditional hours, even though many of our residents leave home at four or five in the morning to open San Antonio’s tourism economy.” > > “We are doing our work now with community partners, and I will be connecting with state agencies to help us do more to improve House District 124 in response to the needs State Representative Garcia hears from her constituents.” > > — Pharoah Clark, chief of staff to Rep. Josey Garcia ## A record that reached across state government Health and Medicaid formed the largest concentration in Garcia’s first-session portfolio, followed by criminal justice and public safety, veterans and military families, government administration, workforce policy and family violence. | Primary policy area | Successful measures | | ---------------------------------- | ------------------- | | Health and Medicaid | 11 | | Criminal justice and public safety | 9 | | Veterans and military families | 8 | | Government administration | 7 | | Workforce and employment | 7 | | Family violence | 7 | | Public education | 5 | | Child welfare and foster care | 3 | | Child care | 3 | | Transportation and infrastructure | 3 | | Juvenile justice | 2 | | Mental health | 2 | | Courts and family law | 2 | ### Health and family stability Garcia’s health-related work included HB 12, which extended Medicaid coverage for women following pregnancy. She joined the measure as a coauthor. Her broader record also included bills affecting access to health services, protections for pregnant and parenting college students, family-care purchases and disability-related services. These measures reached families at moments when public policy can have an immediate effect: after childbirth, during medical treatment, while balancing school and parenthood, and when navigating state benefit systems. ### Veterans and military families Eight successful measures in Garcia’s record centered primarily on veterans and military families. They included legislation involving professional licensing for veterans, military scholarships, disability parking privileges, state park access, veterans’ benefits and services connected to military installations. For Garcia, a retired Air Force veteran, those measures were closely connected to both her personal experience and the military communities within the San Antonio region. ### Public safety and family violence Garcia’s record included measures addressing child endangerment, youth diversion, missing-child alerts, fentanyl awareness, online protections for minors and safeguards for people affected by family violence, stalking and sexual assault. Seven successful measures were centered on family violence, while nine were primarily classified under criminal justice and public safety. Together, they show a legislative portfolio that repeatedly returned to safety inside homes, schools and communities. ## HB 4333: A Bexar County bill with Garcia at the center One of the clearest examples of Garcia’s direct leadership was HB 4333, which extended a family-violence pretrial diversion pilot program in Bexar County. Garcia served as the bill’s primary House author. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, Trey Martinez Fischer, John Lujan and Steve Allison joined as joint authors. Diego Bernal, Liz Campos, Philip Cortez and Ray Lopez were coauthors. Sen. José Menéndez carried the measure in the Senate. The bill reflected the way legislation often moves from a local concern to statewide law. A Bexar County initiative required a lead author, support from lawmakers across the House delegation and a Senate sponsor willing to guide the measure through the second chamber. HB 4333 was not simply a bill Garcia supported. It was a measure she led from the House side on behalf of Bexar County. ## Children, foster youth and child-care safety Garcia’s first-session portfolio also included measures affecting foster youth, child protection and the operation of child-care facilities. The foster-care measures addressed financial independence for young people transitioning out of care, luggage for children moving between placements, runaway-prevention training, residential-treatment oversight and procedures used by Child Protective Services. Her child-care record included legislation on employment screening, safety training and the standards applied to residential child-care providers. SB 1469 required certain information before a person could be employed by a child-care facility. SB 593 required an independent assessment of state rules, minimum standards and contract requirements affecting certain residential child-care providers. Those bills focused on the people and systems responsible for children’s safety: who may work inside a facility, how providers are reviewed and whether state standards adequately protect children in residential care. ## Committee assignments that matched her first-term work During the 88th Legislature, Garcia served on the House Committee on Culture, Recreation & Tourism and the House Committee on Defense & Veterans’ Affairs. 88th Legislature · Freshman term ### Culture, Recreation & Tourism The committee oversees policy involving tourism, state parks, historical resources, cultural institutions and industries that contribute to Texas’ visitor economy and quality of life. 88th Legislature · Freshman term ### Defense & Veterans’ Affairs The assignment placed Garcia, a retired Air Force veteran, on the committee responsible for military installations, veterans’ services and policies affecting military families. Those freshman assignments aligned closely with both San Antonio’s economy and Garcia’s background. Tourism and cultural assets are major parts of the region’s identity, while military service and veterans’ policy are central to a city known nationally as Military City USA. ## Freshman recognition and growing caucus leadership Garcia’s first-session work also drew recognition from fellow lawmakers. The House Democratic Caucus named her its 2023 Freshman of the Year. Garcia’s office also identifies her as a Freshman of the Year honoree of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. 88th Legislature ### Freshman of the Year The House Democratic Caucus recognized Garcia following her first regular session, highlighting a freshman record built through authorship, sponsorship and coalition work. 89th Legislature ### Texas Legislative Black Caucus Secretary In her second term, Garcia serves as secretary of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, adding a formal caucus leadership role to her legislative and committee responsibilities. Those roles trace a progression from freshman recognition to greater responsibility inside the House. Garcia also holds a leadership role within the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, where the caucus lists her among its whips. ## A broader second-term portfolio in the 89th Legislature After winning reelection, Garcia received four committee assignments for the 89th Legislature: 89th Legislature · Second term ### Energy and natural resources - Energy Resources - Natural Resources 89th Legislature · Second term ### Representation and district boundaries - Redistricting - Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting The assignments moved Garcia into statewide debates over energy production, water, natural resources and the political boundaries that determine representation. They also marked a significant expansion from the two committees she served on during her freshman term. The committee and caucus discussion extends into Garcia’s second term. The 89 bills and two resolutions examined in the central legislative analysis remain limited to her first regular session in 2023. ## What the first-session record says Garcia’s two primary-authored successful measures are only one part of her first-session story. Her 30 joint-author roles show that other lawmakers repeatedly brought her into the formal authorship team behind successful legislation. Her 12 sponsor roles show that she also carried Senate bills through the House. Her 47 coauthor and cosponsor roles reflect the breadth of the coalitions she joined. That combination matters in a Legislature where few bills become law through the work of one person. Successful legislation often depends on lawmakers who are willing to share authorship, recruit support, negotiate across chambers and help carry measures that originated with someone else. Garcia’s first-session record shows that she did all of those things. During her first regular session, Josey Garcia participated in 89 bills signed into law and two governor-approved concurrent resolutions, holding a leadership-level role on 44 of the 91 successful measures. The measures reached people whose needs can disappear inside broad political debates: new mothers seeking continued health coverage, veterans navigating benefits, foster youth preparing for adulthood, survivors of family violence, children in regulated care and families trying to remain safe and stable. For a freshman lawmaker representing West San Antonio, that is a legislative footprint with both breadth and consequence—and one that helped position Garcia for expanded committee and caucus leadership in her second term. ## Sources - [Texas House biography for Rep. Josey Garcia](https://house.texas.gov/members/4170/biography?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Official 88th Legislature committee assignments](https://capitol.texas.gov/committees/MembershipMbr.aspx?LegCode=A4170&LegSess=88R&ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Official 89th Legislature committee assignments](https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MembershipMbr.aspx?LegCode=A4170&LegSess=89R&ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Texas Legislature Online history for HB 4333](https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB4333&ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [San Antonio Report coverage of Garcia’s House Democratic Caucus recognition](https://sanantonioreport.org/bexar-county-texas-house-senate-primary-election-results-2024/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Mexican American Legislative Caucus member profile](https://malc.org/members/josey-garcia/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) - [Texas Legislative Black Caucus identification of Garcia as caucus secretary](https://www.facebook.com/txlbc/posts/1463175712519167/) ### Where San Antonio’s 311 Service Demand Is Highest... URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/where-san-antonios-311-service-demand-is-highest/ Last updated: 2026-07-20T03:24:27.000Z Consumer.info Civic Service Intelligence # South and West San Antonio Carry the Heaviest 311 Service Demand A spatial analysis of 450,702 city service calls shows that demand is concentrated in a handful of SAPD substation areas, with South and West accounting for nearly 40 percent of all calls. By Christopher C. Herring | July 19, 2026 **What this analysis measures:**The ranking measures the number and geographic concentration of 311 calls. It does not, by itself, measure whether a service request was valid, how quickly the city responded, whether the issue was resolved, or whether residents in one area are more likely to use 311 than residents elsewhere. South San Antonio generated the largest share of the city’s measured 311 service demand, with **89,164 calls** assigned to the South SAPD Substation area. That represented **19.78 percent** of all calls in the spatial analysis. The West Substation area followed with 84,401 calls, or 18.73 percent. Together, South and West accounted for **173,565 calls—38.51 percent of the citywide total**. In practical terms, nearly two out of every five mapped 311 calls originated in those two service geographies. **450,702** Total 311 calls included in the spatially matched substation analysis. **38.51%** Combined share of all calls assigned to the South and West substation areas. **89,164** Calls recorded in the South Substation area, the largest total in the city. ## The citywide 311 pressure ranking The ranking assigns each call to an SAPD substation boundary and then compares the total volume and share of citywide demand. The pressure classes are analytical labels used to distinguish the most heavily burdened service areas; they are not official SAPD classifications. __San Antonio 311 calls by SAPD substation geography__ | Rank | Substation area | Calls | Share of total | Pressure class | | ---- | ---------------------------- | ------ | -------------- | ---------------------- | | 1 | **South Substation** | 89,164 | **19.78%** | Extreme pressure zone | | 2 | **West Substation** | 84,401 | **18.73%** | Extreme pressure zone | | 3 | **East Substation** | 74,013 | 16.42% | High pressure zone | | 4 | **North Substation** | 68,370 | 15.17% | High pressure zone | | 5 | **Prue Road Substation** | 59,496 | 13.20% | Moderate pressure zone | | 6 | **Central Substation** | 44,381 | 9.85% | Lower pressure zone | | 7 | **Downtown Substation** | 28,092 | 6.23% | Lower pressure zone | | 8 | **Outside / Unmatched Area** | 2,785 | 0.62% | Lower pressure zone | “Outside / Unmatched Area” represents calls that did not fall within the SAPD substation polygons used in the spatial join. **The central finding** San Antonio’s 311 workload is not evenly distributed. South and West alone generate nearly 40 percent of all mapped demand, creating a clear geographic concentration of pressure on city services. ## South and West form the center of service demand ### South leads the city The South Substation area ranked first with 89,164 calls. Its 19.78 percent share means that roughly one out of every five calls in the analysis came from this part of San Antonio. That level of demand matters because raw call volume can reveal where residents encounter the greatest number of issues requiring municipal attention—or where residents rely most heavily on 311 to report them. Without category-level and resolution data, the analysis cannot determine which explanation carries the most weight. It does establish that South San Antonio represents the city’s largest concentration of recorded service demand. ### West is nearly as heavily burdened The West Substation area recorded 84,401 calls, only 4,763 fewer than South. Its 18.73 percent share placed it firmly within the same extreme-pressure tier. The close totals suggest that the city should not view South as an isolated high-demand geography. South and West form a broader service-demand corridor that deserves sustained attention in budgeting, workforce deployment, infrastructure planning and public reporting. ## East and North extend the pressure beyond two areas The East Substation area ranked third with 74,013 calls, representing 16.42 percent of the citywide total. North followed with 68,370 calls and a 15.17 percent share. When South, West and East are combined, they account for 247,578 calls—more than half of all demand in the analysis. Adding North brings the four highest-volume areas to more than two-thirds of the citywide total. This concentration means that citywide averages can hide the places where service pressure is most intense. A city may report one overall response rate while residents in high-demand geographies experience a very different operational reality. ## Prue Road remains a major service geography Prue Road Substation recorded 59,496 calls, or 13.20 percent of all demand. Although classified as a moderate-pressure zone, its total remained substantial—more than twice the volume assigned to Downtown. That distinction is important. “Moderate” in this analysis does not mean low demand. It means Prue Road falls below the four highest-volume geographies while still carrying a meaningful share of the city’s 311 workload. ## Lower volume does not automatically mean lower need Central recorded 44,381 calls and Downtown recorded 28,092\. Those totals placed them in the lower-pressure group relative to the rest of the city, but they should not be interpreted as proof that residents or businesses in those areas have fewer service concerns. Call volume can be shaped by population, land area, housing density, commercial activity, resident awareness, digital access, trust in government, repeat reporting and the types of problems present in each geography. A smaller share of calls may reflect fewer problems, but it may also reflect different reporting behavior or a smaller resident base. ## What city leaders should examine next The spatial ranking creates a starting point for more detailed public-service accountability. The next level of analysis should connect geography to the type, frequency and resolution of service requests. - Which service categories drive the high call totals in South and West? - How many calls represent repeat reports for the same unresolved location or problem? - Do high-demand areas receive staffing and operating resources proportional to their workload? - How do acknowledgment, inspection, work-order and closure times vary by substation geography? - Which ZIP codes and neighborhoods account for the greatest pressure inside each substation area? - Are calls resolved equitably after differences in category and priority are considered? Residents do not experience city government as a citywide average. They experience the street that remains unrepaired, the service request that stays open, the recurring neighborhood problem, or the city crew that arrives and closes the case. Geography matters because service demand is local—and accountability should be local as well. ## Methodology **Source universe:** 450,702 City of San Antonio 311 calls included in the supplied spatial analysis. **Geographic method:** Call locations were spatially joined to SAPD substation boundary polygons. **Ranking measure:** Total calls assigned to each substation geography and each area’s share of the citywide total. **Pressure classes:** Analytical groupings used to distinguish extreme, high, moderate and lower call-volume zones. These labels are not official SAPD designations. **Unmatched records:** The “Outside / Unmatched Area” category contains 2,785 calls that did not fall inside the substation polygons used for the join. **Important limitation:** Call counts do not measure response time, service quality, completion, resident satisfaction or the severity of the underlying request. Population and call rates were not provided, so the ranking measures total demand rather than calls per resident. **Source:** City of San Antonio 311 calls, spatially joined to San Antonio Police Department substation boundaries. Analysis prepared from the supplied substation call totals and pressure classifications. ### Kirby Council Approves $14.89 Million Bond Package, Opening a New Era of City Investment URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/kirby-council-approves-14-89-million-bond-package-opening-a-new-era-of-city-investment/ Last updated: 2026-07-18T05:32:42.000Z Kirby Civic & Financial Report The July 9 vote clears the way for approximately $15 million in project funding for municipal facilities, streets, drainage, parks, utilities and public-safety needs—but it also begins a three-decade public accountability period. Texas Capital Report · Kirby, Texas · July 2026 **The central finding** Kirby did not merely approve a construction list. The council authorized a long-term financing structure that converts strong investor demand into city improvements while committing future city revenues through 2056. **$14.89M**Principal amount of the Series 2026 certificates of obligation **$15M**Projected deposit into the fund used to pay for authorized projects **4.49%**True interest cost presented for the final financing structure **$27.71M**Projected combined principal and interest paid through final maturity The Kirby City Council voted July 9 to authorize the City of Kirby’s Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2026, moving the two-square-mile Bexar County community from financial planning into long-term project execution. The council’s approval of Ordinance 2026-7777 authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the debt, along with the official statement, purchase contract, paying-agent agreement and related financing documents. The action came after Hilltop Securities presented a financing that had improved substantially from earlier projections. The city was positioned to borrow slightly less principal, place more money into its project fund, pay a lower effective interest rate and reduce projected aggregate debt service. 01 · What passed ## Council authorization—not a voter-approved bond election The phrase “the bond passed” is accurate as a description of the council action, but it requires an important qualification: **Kirby voters did not approve this debt in a citywide bond election.** The city used certificates of obligation, a form of municipal debt that Texas cities may generally authorize through their governing bodies after publishing notice. Kirby’s ordinance states that the council initiated the process May 7, published notice in the *San Antonio Express-News* on May 13 and May 20, and scheduled the final consideration for July 9. The ordinance further states that the city did not receive a protest petition signed by at least 5% of Kirby’s qualified voters. Without a sufficient petition triggering an election requirement, the council proceeded to decide the financing. **What residents did not vote on** There was no citywide ballot proposition approving the Series 2026 certificates. **What the council approved** The elected council authorized the debt, transaction documents and long-term repayment structure. 02 · What Kirby can fund ## A broad authorization covering the city’s essential systems The ordinance provides broad legal authority for Kirby to use the proceeds across several categories: - Renovation and equipping of City Hall, municipal court and utility-administration facilities. - Municipal-court, administrative and emergency-command-center facilities. - Streets, sidewalks, trails, bridges, parking, drainage, traffic signals, landscaping and lighting. - Parks and recreational facilities available to the public. - Waterworks and sewer-system improvements. - Vehicles and equipment for police, fire, public works and other departments. - Land, buildings, rights-of-way, machinery, supplies and other authorized capital needs. - Engineering, architecture, legal, financial and issuance expenses connected to the projects. These categories establish what the city is legally permitted to finance. They do not, by themselves, identify the final amount assigned to each project. That allocation becomes the next major public-accountability question. 03 · The cost ## More than $12.8 million in projected interest over 30 years Bond principal**$14,890,000** Net premium generated at sale**$384,848** Projected project-fund deposit**$15,000,000** Cost of issuance**$122,577** Underwriter’s discount**$102,391** Bond-insurance premium**$49,881** Projected interest through 2056**$12,821,608** Projected aggregate debt service**$27,711,608** The city’s financing schedule projects annual payments of approximately $921,000 to $926,000 from 2027 through 2056\. The certificates carry a call date of March 1, 2036, potentially allowing Kirby to refinance or retire eligible debt after that point if future market conditions and city finances make doing so beneficial. The presentation projected an approximately **11-cent increase in the interest-and-sinking tax rate** associated with the tax-supported project financing. That forecast is not the same as a guarantee of every future tax bill. Actual effects will also depend on assessed property values, tax collections, utility-supported portions of the financing and future council budget decisions. 04 · Market response ## Investor demand materially improved the transaction Kirby’s offering reportedly attracted approximately **$161.59 million in investor orders** for $14.89 million in certificates—about **10.8 times** the amount available. That oversubscription allowed interest rates on individual maturities to be reduced by 2 to 12 basis points during pricing. Hilltop reported that the reductions lowered the proposed true interest cost by approximately 11.6 basis points. Investors did not become owners of Kirby. They became creditors entitled to repayment under the bond documents. The strong order book is nevertheless meaningful. It indicates that institutional investors found Kirby’s insured securities attractive at the offered yields. S&P assigned the city an underlying A+ rating with a stable outlook, while Assured Guaranty bond insurance reportedly enhanced the securities marketed to investors to AA. The insurance guarantee and rating enhancement helped widen the potential buyer pool and were projected to reduce the true interest cost by approximately seven basis points, producing an estimated financing benefit greater than the insurance premium. 05 · The council decision ## A consequential vote in a divided meeting The bond authorization passed during a meeting marked by sharp disagreement over several city matters. Texas Capital Report's staff attended the July 9th session and observed the high levels of frustration Councilmembers Susan Street and Christopher Garza exhibited as they voted against the bond authorization. The tensions appeared very personal against the City Manager Dr. Brian Rowland. The Mayor acted very swiftly to keep good order throughout the meeting as accusations were punted towards the City Manager. Despite the exchanges, the meeting continued to learn of the S&P A+ rating earned by the city staff and Hilltop Securities presentation revealed great market success which the company credited to the hard work and relationship of 30 years managing the Kirby account. The disagreement within the Kirby City Council does not change the legal result: a council majority approved the financing, allowing the transaction to proceed. But the divided vote makes transparent project reporting even more important. Residents should be able to distinguish legitimate questions about priorities and execution from opposition to borrowing itself. 06 · What comes next ## Approval begins the accountability period The vote does not itself repair a road, renovate a building or purchase a public-safety vehicle. It gives Kirby access to capital and authorizes the repayment obligation. ### Residents should now be able to follow: - The final list of projects and the dollar allocation assigned to each. - Procurement methods, winning contractors and contract values. - Construction schedules, change orders and cost overruns. - How much of the debt is supported by property taxes versus utility revenues. - Annual debt-service coverage and the city’s reserve position. - The actual interest-and-sinking tax rate adopted each fiscal year. - Whether completed projects produce the promised service and infrastructure improvements. For a city of approximately 8,765 residents occupying about two square miles, a $15 million capital program is substantial. It gives Kirby an opportunity to address accumulated infrastructure and facility needs at a scale that ordinary annual revenues may not permit. It also creates a responsibility extending across multiple councils and city-management administrations. The final maturity is scheduled for 2056\. Some officials who approved the financing will have left office long before its last payment is made. **The bottom line** Kirby has secured the financing authority. The next measure of success will not be the bond sale itself, but whether the city converts $15 million in available capital into visible, durable and publicly documented improvements. ### Sources and reporting notes - [City of Kirby July 9, 2026 City Council agenda packet and proposed Ordinance 2026-7777](https://www.kirbytx.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Regular-City-Council-Meeting-Thursday-July-9-2026-Final-Full-Agenda-Packet.pdf?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - [City of Kirby council, agendas and meeting records](https://www.kirbytx.org/government/city-council/?ref=texascapitalreport.com). - Hilltop Securities presentation displayed during the July 9 meeting and photographed by Publisher Christopher C. Herring, documenting the Series 2026 principal, premium, project-fund deposit, investor orders, pricing, insurance and projected debt service. - [Texas Bond Review Board municipal-debt information](https://www.brb.texas.gov/?ref=texascapitalreport.com). Financial projections are estimates presented during the transaction and may differ from future tax collections, assessed values, refinancing decisions or project expenditures. Bond ratings are credit opinions, not guarantees or investment recommendations. ### New Legislative Effectiveness Index Reveals the Lawmakers Shaping Texas During the 89th Legislature URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/new-legislative-effectiveness-index-reveals-the-lawmakers-shaping-texas-during-the-89th-legislature/ Last updated: 2026-07-17T08:15:57.000Z **AUSTIN, Texas** — The lawmakers who exerted the greatest influence on Texas public policy during the 89th Legislature came from districts that span nearly every corner of the state, from the rapidly growing suburbs of North Texas to the border communities of South Texas, demonstrating that legislative effectiveness is not confined to a single region, ideology, or demographic profile. A new analysis by the Texas Capital Report examined 8,716 House and Senate bills, more than 133,000 legislative actions, and 2,359 enacted laws to determine which legislators most successfully transformed legislative proposals into Texas law. The project resulted in the creation of the Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index (TLEI), a data-driven framework designed to evaluate legislative outcomes rather than legislative activity alone. The findings reveal a Legislature where a relatively small group of lawmakers generated a disproportionate share of enacted legislation. At the top of the statewide rankings was **Senator Judith Zaffirini** of Senate District 21, whose district encompasses portions of South Texas and includes communities stretching across a vast geographic region. Zaffirini finished as the highest-ranked legislator in Texas after producing 64 enacted laws during the session. She was followed by **Senator Bryan Hughes** of Senate District 1 in East Texas, **Senator Tan Parker** of Senate District 12 in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, and **Senator Charles Perry** of Senate District 28 in West Texas. Together, these lawmakers represent dramatically different constituencies, economies, and geographic realities, yet each demonstrated an exceptional ability to move legislation through the process and secure enactment. Among House members, **Representative Giovanni Capriglione** of **House District 98** emerged as the highest-ranked member of the Texas House. District 98 serves a portion of the Fort Worth metropolitan area, one of the fastest-growing regions in the United States. Capriglione produced 49 enacted laws during the session and earned a perfect TLEI score. Other top-ranked House members included **Representative Terri Leo Wilson** of **House District 23** on the Gulf Coast, **Representative Will Metcalf** of **House District 16** in Montgomery County, **Representative Ryan Guillen** of House District 31 in South Texas, **Representative David Cook** of House District 96 in North Texas, **Representative Lacey Hull** of House District 138 in the Houston area, and **Representative Greg Bonnen** of House District 24 along the Gulf Coast. What makes the findings particularly noteworthy is the diversity of the districts represented by the state's highest-performing lawmakers. The top-ranked legislators collectively represent major urban centers, suburban growth corridors, rural communities, energy-producing regions, agricultural areas, coastal communities, and border populations. The results suggest that legislative effectiveness is not solely a function of geography or population size, but rather a combination of institutional influence, coalition building, policy expertise, and the ability to guide legislation through a complex legislative process. The analysis also revealed a significant gap between legislative activity and legislative accomplishment. Thousands of bills were filed during the 89th Legislature, but only a fraction ultimately became law. The average legislator was associated with approximately 13 enacted laws, while the median legislator produced 10 enacted laws. By comparison, only ten lawmakers exceeded 40 enacted laws during the session, placing them in a category of legislative influence far above the legislative norm. To address this reality, the Texas Capital Report developed the TLEI around a simple principle: **Do not confuse activity with impact.** The index rewards measurable outcomes rather than filing volume, evaluating legislators on legislative movement, law conversion, statewide legislative share, and legislative efficiency. The methodology also recognizes lawmakers who successfully enact legislation that directly changes Texas law through a State Impact classification system. The findings underscore the fact that legislative power in Texas is not distributed evenly. Some lawmakers consistently advanced legislation through committees, secured support in both chambers, and obtained the Governor's signature. Others filed significant numbers of bills but achieved far fewer enacted outcomes. Under the TLEI framework, 23 legislators earned Platinum Legislative Performer recognition, while 93 legislators fell below the recognition threshold and were classified as Legislatively Vulnerable. Beyond identifying the state's most effective lawmakers, the project offers Texans a new way to evaluate representation. Rather than focusing on headlines, campaign messaging, or bill filing counts, the index measures legislative outcomes and provides citizens with a clearer understanding of who is successfully shaping public policy in Austin. The Texas Capital Report will release additional analyses in the coming weeks, including rankings of the Top 25 House Members, Top 10 Senators, district-level legislative performance profiles, legislative impact leaders, and regional comparisons examining how different parts of Texas performed during the 89th Legislature. For the first time, Texans can compare legislative performance not only by lawmaker, but also by geography, district characteristics, and legislative impact—providing a new level of transparency into how public policy is made and who is ultimately responsible for shaping the future of the State of Texas. ### Missing Data Isn't Always Bad Data: What October 2025 Reveals About America's Employment Statistics URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/missing-data-isnt-always-bad-data-what-october-2025-reveals-about-americas-employment-statistics/ Last updated: 2026-07-17T02:49:27.000Z # **By Christopher C. Herring** *Texas Capital Report* --- Most people assume that when government data is missing, someone forgot to collect it, a computer failed, or the dataset is incomplete. Our latest work building the **Employment Labor Market Intelligence Backbone** for the National Data System uncovered a very different story. Sometimes, **missing data is itself one of the most important pieces of information.** While integrating the **U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics**' Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) into a national intelligence backbone, our engineering team discovered something unusual. Every monthly record from March 2025 through April 2026 imported successfully—except one month. October 2025 stood out immediately. Across the country, 3,143 county records contained dashes instead of employment statistics. Labor force, employment, unemployment, and unemployment rate fields were all blank, even though the records themselves existed. Rather than deleting these records or treating them as data errors, we investigated further. The answer was not a software problem. It was a government operations story. ## A national interruption in employment reporting The Bureau of Labor Statistics has documented that October 2025 county employment estimates were affected by the federal lapse in appropriations. During that period, the household survey data normally used to produce many local unemployment estimates could not be collected. As a result, thousands of county observations were published without standard employment values. The National Data System identified: - **45,096** total source records - **38,730** complete monthly county observations - **3,221** preliminary April 2026 observations - **3,143** October 2025 county records where employment values were intentionally unavailable - **2** workbook footer rows containing publication metadata Rather than viewing those 3,143 records as defective, they represent a documented interruption in the nation's statistical infrastructure. ## Why preserving missing data matters Many analytical systems simply remove incomplete observations. That approach may make charts look cleaner, but it also erases the historical record. For policymakers, researchers, journalists, and economic developers, the absence of data can be just as meaningful as the data itself. If October 2025 disappeared from the database, future analysts might incorrectly conclude that employment conditions improved, worsened, or remained unchanged simply because the missing month was silently discarded. Instead, the **National Data System** preserves those county records with explicit availability indicators showing that the information was **not collected**, rather than incorrectly suggesting zero employment or an unknown value. That distinction protects the integrity of longitudinal analysis. ## Building intelligence instead of storing spreadsheets This project illustrates an important difference between traditional databases and intelligence backbones. A conventional database imports numbers. An intelligence backbone evaluates the quality, completeness, provenance, and meaning of every record before it becomes part of the analytical framework. During development, the Employment Labor Market Intelligence Backbone automatically identified: - duplicate county-period checks - missing geographic identifiers - preliminary monthly estimates - unavailable employment observations - data reconciliation issues - source metadata - governance validation These automated checks transform a government spreadsheet into an evidence-based intelligence asset that can support public reporting, economic development, workforce planning, housing analysis, and consumer financial research. ## Why this matters for Texas Texas is one of the nation's fastest-growing economies. Local employment conditions influence everything from mortgage approvals and consumer spending to childcare demand, workforce development, and business recruitment. By integrating labor market intelligence with other National Data System backbones—including mortgage lending, consumer complaints, migration, childcare licensing, nonprofit capacity, and business intelligence—we can begin answering questions that individual datasets cannot. Communities can identify where employment growth aligns with new housing construction. Economic development organizations can compare labor market momentum across counties. Researchers can evaluate how employment trends relate to consumer financial stress. Business leaders can better understand where workforce opportunities are expanding. ## A better way to build public intelligence Government agencies produce enormous amounts of valuable public data. The challenge is rarely access. The challenge is interpretation. ***The Employment Labor Market Intelligence Backbone demonstrates that the future of public intelligence is not simply collecting more information. It is understanding the context surrounding every record—including when the absence of data tells an important story.*** Sometimes the most valuable insight is not what the numbers say. It is understanding **why the numbers are missing**. --- ### About the National Data System The National Data System is an evidence-based public intelligence platform that transforms government datasets into searchable intelligence backbones supporting journalism, economic development, consumer protection, workforce analysis, housing research, and public policy. By preserving data lineage, documenting source limitations, and applying transparent governance standards, the platform seeks to turn public records into actionable knowledge rather than isolated spreadsheets. ### Kirby Earns A+ Credit Rating as S&P Recognizes Fiscal Stability—and Identifies the City’s Next Financial Test URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/kirby-earns-a-credit-rating-as-s-p-recognizes-fiscal-stability-and-identifies-the-citys-next-financial-test/ Last updated: 2026-07-14T04:06:44.000Z **S&P Global Ratings assigned an A+ rating to Kirby’s $15 million 2026 certificates of obligation and affirmed the same rating on the city’s existing general-obligation debt. The stable outlook recognizes credible financial management while identifying reserves, debt costs and formal fiscal policies as the measures that will determine Kirby’s next chapter.** **By Christopher Herring** *Texas Capital Report | Municipal Finance & Data Intelligence* **KIRBY, Texas —** The City of Kirby has received an important vote of confidence from the municipal bond market, with S&P Global Ratings assigning an **A+ credit rating** to the city’s $15 million series 2026 combination tax and revenue certificates of obligation. S&P simultaneously affirmed its A+ long-term rating on Kirby’s existing general-obligation debt and issued a stable outlook. For a relatively small municipality, the rating represents more than a technical assessment attached to a bond transaction. It signals that an independent credit-rating agency believes Kirby currently possesses the capacity to meet its financial commitments while maintaining balanced operations. The rating also provides a candid description of the city’s next financial test: protecting its reserves, managing the costs associated with additional debt and adopting more formal financial policies. ## What the A+ rating means Municipal credit ratings help investors evaluate the likelihood that a city will repay principal and interest as promised. They can also affect the interest rates a municipality pays when it borrows money. A stronger rating can improve market confidence and help reduce financing costs. Conversely, a downgrade can increase borrowing costs and limit a city’s financial flexibility. S&P uses defined rating categories and criteria when evaluating governmental debt. An A-category rating generally reflects a strong capacity to meet financial commitments, although the issuer may be more vulnerable to changing economic conditions than governments rated in the AA or AAA categories. Readers can review S&P’s official [](https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/504352?ref=texascapitalreport.com)[rating definitions](https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/504352?ref=texascapitalreport.com) and [public-finance criteria](https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/ratings-criteria?ref=texascapitalreport.com). Kirby’s A+ rating is therefore a meaningful institutional achievement, but it is not the end of the city’s financial-development story. ## A stable outlook—with conditions In its June 24 announcement, S&P said the stable outlook reflects its expectation that Kirby will maintain balanced operations. The agency also noted that city management expects no additional withdrawals from reserves. That distinction is important. Reserves serve as a city’s financial cushion during emergencies, economic downturns and unexpected operating pressures. Continued reserve reductions could weaken Kirby’s flexibility and place downward pressure on its rating. S&P specifically identified two circumstances that could result in negative rating action: - Continued deterioration in the city’s reserves - Debt-related costs rising beyond current projections and placing pressure on operations The $15 million issuance expands Kirby’s debt profile. The city must therefore demonstrate that it can absorb the associated costs without destabilizing its operating budget or requiring further reserve withdrawals. ## What could produce an upgrade S&P also provided a roadmap for potential improvement. A positive rating action could become possible if Kirby: - Improves its economic indicators to levels comparable with higher-rated peer cities - Materially improves its debt metrics - Adopts more formal financial policies and management practices Those conditions turn the rating announcement into a public-policy agenda. Economic growth, stronger household and property values, business development and a broader tax base could improve the city’s underlying credit profile. At the same time, written policies governing reserves, debt, budgeting, forecasting and long-term capital planning could demonstrate greater institutional discipline. The question is no longer simply whether Kirby can maintain A+. It is whether the city can build the economic and administrative infrastructure required to advance into a higher rating category. ## Credit belongs to the institution Municipal ratings should not automatically be attributed to a single elected official or administrator. An A+ rating typically reflects several years of budgets, audits, reserve decisions, tax-base performance, debt management and administrative continuity. The result may incorporate work performed across multiple city councils, mayoral administrations, city managers, finance personnel and professional advisers. The appropriate public recognition therefore belongs first to the City of Kirby as an institution—and then, based on the documentary record, to the leaders and employees whose financial decisions contributed to the outcome. That same principle applies to accountability. If reserves decline or debt costs exceed projections, the consequences will belong to the institution and ultimately affect Kirby residents and taxpayers. ## ESG factors assessed as neutral S&P reported that Kirby’s environmental, social and governance factors were neutral in its credit analysis. That does not mean those conditions are irrelevant to the city’s future. It means S&P did not identify them as unusually positive or negative compared with the factors incorporated into its current credit assessment. Kirby’s future economic performance, infrastructure requirements, demographic conditions and governance practices can still influence its long-term fiscal capacity. ## Kirby’s next financial test The A+ rating should be recognized as good news. It demonstrates that Kirby can enter the municipal credit market with a strong investment-grade rating and a stable outlook. But the announcement also establishes measurable expectations. Kirby must now show that it can: 1. Complete the planned capital investments responsibly. 2. Absorb the new debt without placing excessive pressure on operations. 3. Stabilize and protect its reserves. 4. Strengthen formal financial policies. 5. Improve the economic indicators that separate A+ cities from higher-rated peers. The achievement is real. So is the next test. For Kirby, the question is no longer whether the city can obtain a strong credit rating. It is whether the city can convert that market confidence into sustained financial strength, institutional stability and measurable economic progress for its residents. ### New Texas Childcare Business Formation Has Slowed Despite Population Growth URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/new-texas-childcare-business-formation-has-slowed-despite-population-growth/ Last updated: 2026-07-12T17:47:37.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/children-legislative-issues.png) Texas Childcare Intelligence # Texas Childcare Is Serving More Children Through Fewer Providers A decade of state licensing data reveals fewer childcare operations, greater reported capacity and a slowing pipeline of new providers as Texas’ child population continues to grow. National Data System analysis • Fiscal years 2015–2024 **The central finding:** Texas had 4,981 fewer licensed childcare operations in 2024 than in 2015, but those remaining operations collectively reported 125,063 more childcare slots. The pattern points to a system that is increasingly dependent on fewer, potentially larger providers. Licensed operations −23.9% 20,882 operations in 2015 compared with 15,901 in 2024\. Reported capacity +11.4% Capacity increased from 1,098,552 to 1,223,615 slots. Children ages 0–13 +9.6% The estimated child population grew by approximately 1.07 million. Over the last decade, the Texas childcare system experienced a significant structural transformation. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2024, the number of licensed childcare operations declined from **20,882** to **15,901**, representing a **23.9 percent reduction** in the number of providers operating across the state. During that same period, however, reported licensed childcare capacity increased from **1,098,552** to **1,223,615**. That represents an increase of **125,063 childcare slots**, or **11.4 percent**. Texas is reporting fewer childcare operations, but more licensed capacity. ## A More Concentrated Childcare System The simultaneous decline in providers and increase in reported capacity suggests that the Texas childcare market has become increasingly concentrated, with larger licensed operations serving a greater share of children than they did a decade ago. This does not necessarily mean that every remaining provider became larger. Nor does the backbone establish that formal business consolidation caused the change. The data instead document a statewide pattern: fewer operations are collectively responsible for more reported capacity. Possible explanations include the expansion of existing childcare centers, market consolidation, changes in licensing practices, closures among smaller providers or shifts between childcare operation types. County-level and provider-type analysis will be necessary to determine which forces contributed most to the statewide trend. ### Ten-Year Statewide Evidence **Measure** **2015** **2024** **Change** Licensed operations on August 31 20,882 15,901 −23.9% Reported licensed capacity 1,098,552 1,223,615 +11.4% Applications accepted 3,209 2,420 −24.6% Permits issued 4,505 3,144 −30.2% Child population ages 0–13 11,159,794 12,231,482 +9.6% ## More Children, but Fewer New Providers Entering the System At the same time that the number of licensed childcare operations declined, Texas experienced substantial population growth among children. The estimated population of children ages 0 through 13 increased from **11.16 million** in 2015 to **12.23 million** in 2024\. That represents an increase of approximately **1.07 million children**, or **9.6 percent**, during the study period. Yet the provider-entry pipeline moved in the opposite direction. Applications accepted by the licensing system declined from **3,209** in 2015 to **2,420** in 2024, a reduction of **24.6 percent**. Permits issued declined from **4,505** to **3,144**, a **30.2 percent decrease**. Taken together, these indicators suggest that the potential demand base for childcare continued to grow while fewer new providers moved through the state licensing pipeline. The data do not establish whether demand was fully met, because licensed capacity is not the same as actual enrollment, available seats, affordability or geographic accessibility. They do, however, identify a widening contrast between population growth and new provider formation. ## Regulatory Activity Also Declined Regulatory activity changed significantly over the decade. Annual inspections declined from **35,412** in 2015 to **28,708** in 2024, a decrease of **18.9 percent**. Non-abuse and neglect investigations declined from **21,572** to **11,087**, a reduction of nearly **49 percent**. Those changes should be interpreted carefully. The backbone does not establish whether lower regulatory activity resulted from fewer licensed operations, changes in inspection policy, improved provider compliance, agency staffing levels, changes in reporting practices or some combination of factors. The findings therefore document a change in regulatory volume, not proof that childcare conditions improved or worsened. Additional analysis should compare inspections and investigations with the number and type of active operations, agency staffing, enforcement outcomes and policy changes over the same period. ## What Providers Struggled With Most in 2024 The 2024 deficiency data provide a clearer view of the operational areas where licensed childcare centers most frequently encountered compliance problems. 1. Child supervision requirements, with 1,142 documented non-compliances. 2. Background-check notification requirements, with 630 non-compliances. 3. Annual fire inspection requirements, with 567 non-compliances. 4. Maintenance of buildings, grounds and equipment, with 529 non-compliances. 5. Employee and caregiver competency, judgment and self-control requirements, with 455 non-compliances. Other leading deficiencies involved child-to-caregiver ratios, immunization records, employee reporting, hazard-free environments and annual sanitation inspections. These recurring deficiencies form a statewide childcare compliance risk profile. They also identify areas where targeted training, technical assistance, clearer guidance or policy review may improve provider performance and child safety. ## What the Decade of Data Establishes Overall, the certified Texas Childcare Licensing Intelligence Backbone documents a decade of measurable structural change. The number of licensed operations declined substantially, but statewide reported capacity expanded. The child population continued to grow, while applications and permits declined. Regulatory activity also shifted, and basic operational requirements—particularly supervision, background checks, fire safety and facility maintenance—remained significant compliance challenges. The evidence does not by itself explain why each change occurred. It does, however, establish the questions that policymakers, regulators, providers and communities should now examine: Which provider types disappeared? Which counties gained or lost capacity? Did smaller or home-based operations experience the greatest decline? Is increased reported capacity located where children and families need it most? And are oversight resources keeping pace with the structure of the modern childcare market? These questions move the conversation beyond the statewide totals. They provide a foundation for county-level analysis, workforce studies, legislative review, provider-support strategies and a more complete assessment of childcare availability across Texas. ### About the Analysis This analysis is based on the certified Texas Childcare Licensing Intelligence Backbone, which contains 19 tables and 135,629 records covering fiscal years 2015 through 2024\. Statewide values were calculated from Texas Health and Human Services Commission child day care licensing data. Percent change was calculated as the difference between the 2024 and 2015 values divided by the 2015 value. Reported capacity should not be interpreted as actual enrollment, current vacancies, affordability or equitable geographic access. **Source:** Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Child Day Care Licensing Accessible Data Book; National Data System, Texas Childcare Licensing Intelligence Backbone V1\. Executive Findings ## The Evidence at a Glance The decade-long data reveal a childcare system that is growing in reported capacity while shrinking in the number of licensed operations and new providers entering the system. −23.9% Licensed childcare operations Operations declined from 20,882 in 2015 to 15,901 in 2024\. +11.4% Reported licensed capacity Statewide capacity increased by 125,063 reported childcare slots. +9.6% Children ages 0–13 Texas added approximately 1.07 million children during the period. −24.6% Applications accepted Fewer prospective providers entered the licensing pipeline. −30.2% Permits issued New permit activity declined substantially over the decade. −18.9% Annual inspections Regulatory inspection volume also declined between 2015 and 2024\. Why This Matters ## A Childcare Slot Is Not the Same as Childcare Access Statewide capacity may be increasing, but families experience childcare locally. A reported slot may not be affordable, available, appropriately located or suited to a child’s age and needs. The decline in licensed operations could therefore create greater dependence on fewer providers even as total statewide capacity rises. The next phase of analysis must determine where capacity exists, which provider types have disappeared and whether the remaining system is accessible to the families who need it most. Legislative Context ## Texas Lawmakers Increased Their Attention to Childcare The Legislative Backbone identified a growing number of bills directly related to childcare across the three most recent regular sessions. 87th Legislature 51 Direct childcare bills identified 88th Legislature 70 Direct childcare bills identified 89th Legislature 91 Direct childcare bills identified Legislative attention increased as the number of childcare operations continued to decline. The next analytical step is to determine which proposals became law, which agencies were responsible for implementation and whether measurable outcomes changed afterward. Questions Raised by the Evidence ## What Texas Still Needs to Understand 1. Which counties experienced the largest decline in licensed childcare operations? 2. Did smaller centers and home-based providers account for most of the decline? 3. Is increased licensed capacity concentrated in the communities with the greatest population growth? 4. Why did applications and permits decline while the child population continued to increase? 5. Which childcare bills became law during the 87th, 88th and 89th Legislatures? 6. What actions did the Texas Health and Human Services Commission take to implement those laws? 7. Did inspection, enforcement or background-check procedures change during the study period? 8. Are families experiencing greater travel distances, waiting lists or affordability barriers despite higher statewide capacity? Coming Next ## The Texas Children Intelligence Series This report establishes the statewide baseline. Future reports will connect legislation, agency implementation, geography and measurable outcomes. 01 ### Which Childcare Bills Became Law? A review of enacted, vetoed and unresolved childcare legislation from the 87th, 88th and 89th Texas Legislatures. 02 ### What HHSC Did Next An administrative-action review of rules, standards, provider guidance, inspections and implementation decisions. 03 ### County Childcare Capacity and Provider Loss A geographic analysis identifying where operations declined and where reported capacity grew. 04 ### The Broader State of Texas Children A cross-domain analysis connecting childcare, education, health, autism, Medicaid, mental health and early intervention. **National Data System evidence standard:**Legislative activity, administrative action and outcome data should be connected carefully. A change occurring after a law or agency action does not by itself prove causation. Future reports will distinguish documented evidence, temporal association, interpretation and questions requiring further investigation. [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/_www.consumer.info.jpeg)](https://www.consumer.info/texas-childcare-is-serving-more-children-through-fewer-providers/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) Special Contribution from Consumer Magazine -Consumer.info ### Texas Is Still Talking to the World. But Is the World Still Coming Here? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-is-still-talking-to-the-world-but-is-the-world-still-coming-here/ Last updated: 2026-07-10T14:10:19.000Z Digital international engagement remains strong across Texas, even as inbound travel to the United States has shown signs of weakness. San Antonio’s 5.65% year-to-date sales-tax decline raises a timely question: Are traditional tourism cities absorbing more of the economic impact? By **Christopher C. Herring** Global Chamber Texas Leader | Texas Capital Report --- Texas remains deeply connected to the world. Its companies trade across borders, its metropolitan regions attract foreign investment, and its executives increasingly build international relationships through digital networks that operate every day rather than only during occasional trade missions. Yet another form of international engagement may be moving in the opposite direction: physical travel to the United States. Federal tourism data showed that international arrivals fell 6.2% in June 2025 compared with June 2024\. Later in the year, purchases of U.S. travel and tourism goods and services by international visitors were down 4% in October and 2% in December from the corresponding months a year earlier. The federal outlook was also revised sharply. An earlier forecast expected 77.1 million international visitors in 2025\. The newer forecast begins from an estimated 68.3 million visitors in 2025 before projecting renewed growth through 2030. That national slowdown matters to Texas because tourism does not affect every city equally. **−6.2%**U.S. international arrivals, June 2025 year over year **−5.65%**San Antonio sales-tax allocations through July 2026 **$21.5B**Reported annual San Antonio tourism impact ## A Tale of Two Forms of Global Engagement Internal Global Chamber engagement data shows strong international business interest across Texas. San Antonio, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Houston and the statewide Texas network have generated substantial digital traffic and deeper clickthrough activity. Those figures point to continued demand for international relationships, market intelligence, virtual events and cross-border commercial conversations. But digital engagement and physical mobility are not the same economic activity. A company executive can join an international forum without purchasing an airline ticket, reserving a hotel room, dining downtown or attending a convention. A foreign investor can maintain relationships virtually while postponing a site visit. A prospective visitor can remain curious about Texas while delaying a trip to the United States. Digital global engagement can remain strong while the visitor economy grows weaker. ## Why Tourism Cities May Feel the Decline First International visitors do more than buy airline tickets. They spend money on hotels, restaurants, attractions, entertainment, retail purchases, local transportation and professional services. That spending moves through a local economy quickly. It supports workers, generates business revenue and contributes to local sales-tax collections. When international travel weakens, the effect may be concentrated in cities whose economies rely heavily on tourism, conventions, hospitality and destination spending. ### The potential economic chain Fewer international leisure and business visitors can mean fewer hotel nights, restaurant meals, attraction admissions, retail purchases and transportation transactions. That can contribute to weaker taxable sales and, eventually, lower local sales-tax allocations. This does not mean international tourism is the only explanation for weaker local revenue. Domestic travel, resident spending, construction cycles, business purchases, inflation, tax refunds and reporting timing all affect city allocations. It does mean that tourism exposure should be included in the analysis rather than treating every Texas city as though it has the same economic structure. ## San Antonio Becomes the Test Case San Antonio is one of Texas’ most recognizable visitor destinations. Its tourism and hospitality industry has been reported as producing an annual economic impact of approximately **$21.5 billion**, attracting roughly **35.6 million visitors** and supporting close to **150,000 workers**. That scale makes tourism one of the city’s major economic pillars. It also makes San Antonio potentially more sensitive to changes in travel behavior than cities whose recent growth is driven more heavily by technology, logistics, corporate services, manufacturing or suburban population expansion. Through July 2026, San Antonio received approximately **$274.5 million** in city sales-tax allocations. During the comparable period in 2025, it had received approximately **$290.9 million**. The difference was about **$16.4 million**, or **5.65%**. ## Most Other Large Texas Markets Were Still Growing | City | 2026 allocation through July | Comparable-period change | | ----------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------ | | Houston | $546.9 million | +2.31% | | San Antonio | $274.5 million | −5.65% | | Dallas | $270.1 million | +2.24% | | Austin | $219.1 million | +6.87% | | Fort Worth | $151.3 million | +5.63% | | Arlington | $117.5 million | +5.33% | | Frisco | $90.7 million | +10.39% | | El Paso | $88.6 million | +9.66% | | Round Rock | $84.9 million | +10.16% | | Plano | $77.1 million | +3.50% | San Antonio remained the state’s second-largest city allocation market, but it was the clear outlier among the largest cities in this comparison. Austin, Fort Worth, Arlington, Frisco, El Paso and Round Rock reported comparatively strong growth. Houston and Dallas remained positive, although at more moderate rates. That divergence does not prove a tourism effect. It does justify asking whether San Antonio’s economic mix left it more exposed to weaker visitor activity. ## Texas Is Not One Economy The state’s largest metropolitan regions depend on different combinations of industries. - **Houston** combines energy, health care, maritime trade, engineering and international capital. - **Dallas-Fort Worth** draws strength from corporate headquarters, aviation, logistics, finance and population growth. - **Austin and Round Rock** benefit from technology, advanced manufacturing, higher education and rapid regional expansion. - **San Antonio** combines military activity, health care, cybersecurity and manufacturing with an especially visible tourism, convention and hospitality economy. Every major Texas city attracts visitors. The question is one of relative dependence and resilience. A city with strong population-driven retail growth may offset weaker tourism more easily. A city with a large technology or logistics base may absorb a visitor decline without immediately moving into negative sales-tax territory. A traditional destination city may feel the effects across several sectors at once. ## Why International Travel May Matter Beyond Leisure Tourism International engagement includes more than vacation travel. Business travelers attend conventions, inspect facilities, negotiate contracts, meet suppliers, evaluate investments and build partnerships. Universities host international researchers and students. Cultural and diplomatic exchanges create repeat travel. Trade missions and professional conferences generate hotel nights and commercial activity even when no immediate transaction is completed. A decline in physical travel can therefore affect both tourism and business development. That distinction is especially important for Texas. The state is seeking foreign investment, export growth, nearshoring opportunities and expanded commercial relationships with Mexico, Canada, Europe and Asia. Virtual forums help preserve those relationships, but they do not fully replace the local economic value of a visitor arriving in Texas. ## Correlation Is Not Causation The timing creates a plausible correlation, not a proven causal result. The San Antonio sales-tax decline cannot be attributed to international travel without examining more localized evidence. International visitors may also represent a smaller share of San Antonio’s total visitor market than domestic and in-state travelers. A proper analysis would test several competing explanations: - Domestic and international airport passenger volumes. - Hotel occupancy, average daily rates and room revenue. - Convention attendance and booked room nights. - Mixed-beverage receipts. - Downtown restaurant and retail performance. - Attraction attendance. - Hospitality employment, hours and wages. - Visitor origin by state and country. - Construction and major business-purchase timing. - Tax refunds, audit adjustments and reporting anomalies. ### What the current evidence supports International travel to the United States weakened during parts of 2025\. San Antonio is highly exposed to tourism and hospitality. Its city sales-tax allocations were down 5.65% through July 2026 while most other large Texas cities remained positive. Those facts warrant a closer, sector-level investigation. ## The Dashboard Texas Does Not Have—But Should Texas does not lack economic data. It lacks a unified system that allows policymakers and business leaders to see how international engagement, physical travel and local commerce move together. A useful monthly dashboard would combine: - International and domestic airport arrivals. - Hotel occupancy, room rates and revenue per available room. - Convention bookings, attendance and cancellations. - City sales-tax allocations. - Mixed-beverage receipts. - Restaurant and hospitality employment. - Downtown pedestrian activity. - Attraction attendance. - International route utilization. - Export activity and foreign-investment projects. - Digital international engagement and qualified business leads. Individually, each measure tells only part of the story. Together, they could reveal whether a city is losing visitors, residents are spending less, business travel is slowing, or broader commercial activity is weakening. Texas needs to measure not only whether the world is engaging with us online, but whether people, capital and commercial activity are still arriving in person. ## The Larger Texas Question Texas has spent decades building a global economy. Its success rests on trade, tourism, foreign investment, energy, manufacturing, culture and the movement of people. Digital relationship networks now make it possible to stay connected across borders even when travel slows. That is an important form of resilience. But cities cannot fully digitize the visitor economy. Hotels need guests. Restaurants need diners. Attractions need admissions. Conventions need attendees. Airlines need passengers. Downtown retail needs foot traffic. San Antonio may be the first major Texas city offering a visible warning that strong virtual engagement does not automatically protect a tourism-dependent economy from weaker physical mobility. The next several months of sales-tax, airport, hotel and hospitality data will show whether the decline was temporary or whether it marks a broader shift. The question is no longer whether Texas can talk to the world. The question is whether the world is still coming—and what happens to traditional destination cities when it does not. **Data note:** The 2026 San Antonio figure covers allocations through July and is compared with the same reporting period in 2025\. Texas sales-tax allocations generally lag the underlying taxable transactions and may reflect sales made two or more months before distribution. The analysis identifies a possible relationship between travel conditions and local taxable activity; it does not establish causation. **About the author** Christopher C. Herring is the Global Chamber Texas leader and publisher of Texas Capital Report. His work focuses on international business, economic development, public policy and the systems connecting Texas companies and communities with global markets. ## Sources and Methodology 1. **Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Sales Tax Allocation, City.** Texas Capital Report analyzed monthly city allocation records from 2013 through July 2026 using standardized monthly, annual and comparable-period tables. 2. [Texas Comptroller: July 2026 Local Sales-Tax Allocations](https://comptroller.texas.gov/about/media-center/news/20260708-acting-comptroller-kelly-hancock-distributes-12-billion-in-monthly-sales-tax-revenue-to-local-governments-1783529054575?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 3. [Texas Comptroller: Statewide Local Allocation Payment Detail](https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/local/allocations/sales-tax/statewide-local-allocation.php?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 4. [National Travel and Tourism Office: June 2025 International Arrivals](https://www.trade.gov/feature-article/june-2025-total-international-travel-volume?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 5. [National Travel and Tourism Office: October 2025 Visitor Spending](https://www.trade.gov/feature-article/october-2025-international-inbound-visitor-spending?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 6. [National Travel and Tourism Office: December 2025 Visitor Spending](https://www.trade.gov/feature-article/december-2025-international-visitor-spending?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 7. [National Travel and Tourism Office: International Visitation Forecast](https://www.trade.gov/travel-and-tourism-forecasts?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 8. [Visit San Antonio: Tourism and Hospitality Economic Impact](https://www.visitsanantonio.com/media-news-releases/post/visit-san-antonio-celebrates-the-worlds-first-destination-professionals-day/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 9. **Global Chamber internal engagement data.** Reported digital page-view and clickthrough activity for Texas and major Texas metro markets. These figures are engagement indicators rather than audited export, investment or tourism totals. **Editorial standard:** This article presents international travel weakness as one possible contributor to San Antonio’s sales-tax decline. It does not conclude that travel trends caused the decline. Additional airport, hotel, convention, hospitality and visitor-origin data would be required to estimate the relationship. ### San Antonio’s Economy Shows Long-Term Strength Despite a Softer Start to 2026 URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/san-antonios-economy-shows-long-term-strength-despite-a-softer-start-to-2026/ Last updated: 2026-07-10T12:36:10.000Z by National Data System Economy & Growth City sales-tax allocations nearly doubled between 2013 and 2025\. A 5.65% year-to-date decline in 2026 now raises a central question: Is San Antonio experiencing a temporary pause or the beginning of a broader slowdown? By **River Walk Magazine** | Data analysis through July 2026 --- For more than a decade, San Antonio’s sales-tax allocations have traced the story of a city expanding through population growth, business investment, tourism, a resilient service economy and a dramatic post-pandemic recovery. The latest figures, however, introduce a more cautious chapter. Through July 2026, the city received approximately **$274.5 million**in sales-tax allocations. That was about **$16.4 million less**than the comparable period in 2025—a year-to-date decline of **5.65%**. The pullback is significant, particularly because most of Texas’ other largest city markets remained stable or grew during the same period. Still, one partial year does not erase San Antonio’s longer record of expansion. $499.3M Full-year allocation in 2025 +84.95% Increase from 2013 through 2025 −5.65% Comparable year-to-date change in 2026 ## A Twelve-Year Climb San Antonio received approximately **$269.9 million** in city sales-tax allocations in 2013\. By 2025, the annual figure had climbed to approximately **$499.3 million**. That represents an increase of almost 85% over twelve years. Some of that rise reflects real expansion in taxable economic activity, while some may also reflect inflation, population growth, changing tax bases and the timing of reported payments. | Year | Allocation | Annual change | | -------- | -------------- | --------------------------------- | | 2013 | $269.9 million | — | | 2014 | $304.0 million | +12.61% | | 2015 | $315.3 million | +3.73% | | 2016 | $324.6 million | +2.92% | | 2017 | $334.2 million | +2.98% | | 2018 | $355.9 million | +6.48% | | 2019 | $370.3 million | +4.04% | | 2020 | $362.8 million | −2.02% | | 2021 | $415.1 million | +14.43% | | 2022 | $466.4 million | +12.34% | | 2023 | $479.1 million | +2.73% | | 2024 | $491.5 million | +2.58% | | 2025 | $499.3 million | +1.59% | | 2026 YTD | $274.5 million | −5.65% vs. comparable 2025 period | San Antonio’s current slowdown follows twelve years in which annual allocations rose from about $270 million to nearly $500 million. ## The Pandemic Shock—and the Recovery The only full-year decline in the 2013–2025 series occurred in 2020\. Allocations fell by 2.02% as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted tourism, restaurants, entertainment, retail activity and everyday consumer behavior. San Antonio then rebounded strongly. Allocations increased by **14.43% in 2021** and another **12.34% in 2022**. By 2022, the annual total had reached $466.4 million—more than $100 million above the pandemic-year result. Growth moderated after that surge. The city recorded increases of 2.73% in 2023, 2.58% in 2024 and 1.59% in 2025\. The pattern suggests that San Antonio moved from rapid recovery into a slower-growth phase even before the negative year-to-date result appeared in 2026\. ## Why 2026 Deserves Attention Through July 2026, San Antonio’s allocations totaled approximately **$274.5 million**, compared with approximately **$290.9 million** through the same reporting period in 2025\. ### San Antonio: 2026 Comparable-Period Snapshot **2026 allocation through July:** $274,465,157.37 **Comparable 2025 amount:** $290,899,584.66 **Dollar difference:** −$16,434,427.29 **Percentage change:** −5.65% The decline does not automatically mean that San Antonio is in a recession. Sales-tax allocations can move because of changes in consumer spending, tourism, business purchases, inflation, refund activity, reporting corrections and the timing of taxpayer returns. The Texas Comptroller also explains that local allocations generally lag the underlying sales activity. For example, the July 2026 distribution was largely based on sales reported for May by businesses that file monthly. The allocation month should therefore not be interpreted as the exact month in which all associated purchases occurred. ## How San Antonio Compares With Other Texas Cities San Antonio remained Texas’ second-largest city sales-tax allocation market through July 2026, trailing Houston but remaining ahead of Dallas, Austin and Fort Worth. | City | 2026 allocation through July | Comparable-period change | | ----------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------ | | Houston | $546.9 million | +2.31% | | San Antonio | $274.5 million | −5.65% | | Dallas | $270.1 million | +2.24% | | Austin | $219.1 million | +6.87% | | Fort Worth | $151.3 million | +5.63% | | Arlington | $117.5 million | +5.33% | This comparison makes San Antonio’s decline more notable. It suggests that the city was not merely moving with a universal downturn among Texas’ largest markets during the first seven reporting months of 2026\. It does not, however, explain the cause. A complete assessment would also examine employment, hotel occupancy, airport traffic, mixed-beverage receipts, construction activity, business openings and closures, consumer confidence and sector-level taxable sales. ## Four Mayors, One Long Economic Arc The data period spans four mayoral administrations. The timeline provides useful historical context, but sales-tax performance should not be attributed to a mayor alone. City leaders influence development, infrastructure and economic strategy, while broader conditions—including national growth, interest rates, inflation, military spending and tourism—also shape the local economy. - **Julián Castro** Serving during the dataset period through July 22, 2014 - **Ivy Taylor** July 22, 2014–June 21, 2017 - **Ron Nirenberg** June 21, 2017–June 18, 2025 - **Gina Ortiz Jones** June 18, 2025–present Gina Ortiz Jones was sworn in as San Antonio’s 69th mayor on June 18, 2025\. The 2026 year-to-date decline is occurring early in her administration, but the data does not support treating it as the product of one administration. Much of the underlying economic activity and many investment decisions reflected in current allocations began months or years earlier. ## What the Rest of 2026 Could Reveal San Antonio begins the second half of the reporting year with a large, diversified economic base and a long record of expansion. The city has remained one of Texas’ largest consumer markets and nearly doubled its annual sales-tax allocations between 2013 and 2025\. The key question is whether the first seven months of 2026 represent a temporary adjustment or a sustained loss of momentum. Several additional months of data will help distinguish between those possibilities. A late-year recovery could narrow the current gap. A continued decline would strengthen the case for examining which parts of the local economy—retail, tourism, hospitality, construction or business purchasing—are under the greatest pressure. For now, San Antonio’s economy can best be described as **historically strong but presently softer**: a city with substantial long-term growth confronting its clearest near-term warning signal since the pandemic. **How to read the data:** Sales-tax allocations are payments distributed by the Texas Comptroller to local jurisdictions. They are a valuable indicator of taxable economic activity, but they are not a complete measure of gross domestic product, household spending or the financial condition of every resident. Allocation timing can also differ from the month in which the underlying sales occurred. ## Sources and Methodology 1. **Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Sales Tax Allocation, City.”** Monthly local sales and use tax allocation comparison data, updated July 8, 2026\. The source dataset contains city labels, current-period payments, comparable prior-year payments, year-to-date totals, percentage changes, report months and report years. 2. [Texas Comptroller: City Sales and Use Tax Comparison Summary ](https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/local/allocations/sales-tax/cities.php?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 3. [Texas Comptroller: July 2026 Local Sales-Tax Allocation Announcement ](https://comptroller.texas.gov/about/media-center/news/20260708-acting-comptroller-kelly-hancock-distributes-12-billion-in-monthly-sales-tax-revenue-to-local-governments-1783529054575?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 4. [Texas Comptroller: Statewide Local Allocation Payment Detail ](https://comptroller.texas.gov/transparency/local/allocations/sales-tax/statewide-local-allocation.php?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 5. [City of San Antonio: Mayors and Alcaldes ](https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/OCC/Archives-Records/History/Mayors?ref=texascapitalreport.com) 6. [City of San Antonio: Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones Biography ](https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/Mayor-Council/Mayor/Biography?ref=texascapitalreport.com) **Texas Capital Report & River Walk Magazine analysis:** The official city allocation CSV was imported into DuckDB and standardized into monthly and annual city-level analytical tables. Repeated city-month labels were preserved in the source fact table and aggregated in a separate city-name monthly rollup. Full-year growth was calculated only for complete 12-month years. The 2026 result uses the Comptroller’s comparable year-to-date values through July rather than comparing seven months of 2026 with all twelve months of 2025\. ### When Representation Changes URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/when-representation-changes/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T06:01:44.000Z District demographics often change slowly. Legislative representation can change overnight. A Texas Capital Report analysis compares legislative activity before and after officeholder transitions, measuring how legislative priorities, participation levels, and district alignment changed when new lawmakers entered office. The findings suggest that districts are not represented the same way by every legislator, even when district conditions remain relatively stable. In some districts, legislative activity increased dramatically after a change in officeholders. In others, policy priorities shifted toward different issue areas despite similar demographic conditions. The results raise a fundamental question: How much of representation is driven by the district, and how much is driven by the person elected to represent it? ### What Should a Legislator Represent? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/what-should-a-legislator-represent/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T05:47:07.000Z Should lawmakers focus on the measurable needs of their districts? Should they focus on the areas where they possess professional expertise? Should they focus on the committees where they have influence? A new **Texas Capital Report** analysis suggests the answer may be all three. By combining district demographic profiles, legislative participation records, and policy classifications, the analysis reveals that representation is more complex than simply counting bills or laws. Some legislators appear closely aligned with the strongest demographic needs of their districts. Others appear to focus on areas connected to professional expertise or long-standing policy interests. The findings raise a larger question about representation itself. When district needs, professional expertise, and legislative opportunity point in different directions, which responsibility should come first? The answer may define how legislative effectiveness is understood in the future. ### Visit News Partners: URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/visit-news-partners/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T05:44:28.000Z [BlackTexasNews.com](https://www.blacktexasnews.com/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) #POLITICS ### San Antonio's Workforce Bet: Is the City's Economic Strategy Leaving Too Many Residents Behind? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/san-antonios-workforce-bet-is-the-citys-economic-strategy-leaving-too-many-residents-behind/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T00:15:44.000Z # Texas Capital Report ## *By Christopher Herring* For more than a decade, San Antonio has pursued an ambitious economic development strategy centered on five strategic industry clusters: - Mobility - IT Security & Infrastructure - Sustainable Energy - Corporate Services - Bioscience Anchors & Catalysts Together, these sectors account for nearly half of the city's employment and contribute approximately $70 billion to the regional economy. They remain the foundation of San Antonio's economic development strategy. ([San Antonio](https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/EDD/About/San-Antonio?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com)) Few would argue that these are the wrong industries. The more important question may be whether they are the right workforce strategy for the people who live here today. ## Growth Strategy vs. Workforce Strategy Economic development and workforce development are often treated as the same conversation. They are not. Economic development asks: > *Which industries should San Antonio recruit?* Workforce development asks: > *Which occupations can today's residents realistically enter?* Those questions can produce very different answers. San Antonio's targeted industries emphasize occupations such as software developers, cybersecurity professionals, engineers, financial specialists, bioscience researchers, and corporate professionals. These careers generally require years of education, technical training, certifications, or specialized experience. ([San Antonio](https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/EDD/Reports/EDD-StrategicFramework.pdf?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com)) At the same time, San Antonio continues to face persistent poverty and educational attainment challenges compared with many large metropolitan areas. ([San Antonio Express-News](https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/san-antonio-greater-satx-recruiting-hqs-jobs-21945991.php?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com)) The issue is not whether these careers are valuable. The issue is whether they are broadly accessible. ## A Different Question Instead of asking, > "Are these high-paying jobs?" perhaps policymakers should ask, > "How many current San Antonio residents can realistically qualify for these jobs within the next two to three years?" That is a measurable question. It considers educational attainment, childcare access, transportation, broadband availability, time required for retraining, and financial barriers. Without those factors, a workforce strategy may increase regional GDP while leaving many neighborhoods disconnected from opportunity. ## The AI Variable Another factor has changed dramatically since many workforce strategies were first developed. Artificial intelligence. Several occupations once viewed as the economy's future—including routine programming, customer service, claims processing, administrative support, and basic analytical work—are being reshaped by AI-assisted workflows. That does not mean these careers disappear. It means their skill requirements are changing rapidly. At the same time, many occupations requiring physical presence remain comparatively resistant to automation: - Electricians - HVAC technicians - Plumbers - Construction trades - Healthcare support - Childcare - Equipment maintenance - Skilled manufacturing These occupations may not always receive the same attention in economic development marketing, yet they continue to offer stable employment and, in many cases, pathways to business ownership. ## Employment Versus Ownership Perhaps the most overlooked distinction is not salary. It is ownership. Many of San Antonio's targeted occupations primarily prepare people to become employees. Other occupations—including licensed trades, childcare, contracting, and service businesses—often create opportunities to become employers. That distinction matters. Business ownership creates equity, local investment, and generational wealth. If poverty reduction is the objective, ownership pathways deserve consideration alongside traditional employment pathways. ## An Investigation Worth Having This is not an argument against bioscience, cybersecurity, or advanced manufacturing. Those industries are important to San Antonio's future. Instead, it raises a broader public policy question: **Does the City's workforce strategy reflect the industries it wants—or the people it has?** Those are not mutually exclusive goals. But they require different measurements of success. If San Antonio hopes to reduce poverty while competing for next-generation industries, the next phase of workforce planning may need to ask not only where the economy is headed, but how today's residents can realistically participate in that future. That conversation is no longer simply about economic development. It is about economic inclusion. ### Are Texas Lawmakers Responding to the Needs of Their Districts? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/are-texas-lawmakers-responding-to-the-needs-of-their-districts/ Last updated: 2026-07-08T23:52:26.000Z A Texas Capital Report pilot project compared measurable district conditions with legislative activity in two Texas districts: Senate District 21 and House District 119. The analysis did not ask whether lawmakers were effective. It asked whether lawmakers directed legislative attention toward the measurable needs of the people they represent. The findings suggest meaningful alignment in several areas. In **Senate District 21**, language access and economic mobility emerged as high-need categories. **Senator Judith Zaffirini** participated in ***19 language-access-related*** legislative efforts and ***seven economic-mobility-related*** efforts, several of which became law. In **House District 119**, military and veteran issues emerged as one of the district's strongest need signals. **Representative Elizabeth Campos** participated in ***15 veteran-related*** legislative efforts, four of which became law. The pilot also identified potential gaps. **House District 119** displayed a ***high infrastructure*** need score but showed little corresponding legislative activity in infrastructure-related domains. **The framework represents a new approach to evaluating representation.** Rather than measuring only bills filed or laws passed, it compares district conditions, legislative response, and legislative outcomes. The question is not simply whether lawmakers are active. The question is whether they are active on the issues their districts need most. ### Inside Josey Garcia’s 408-Measure Freshman Legislative Portfolio URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/more-than-passage-the-full-reach-of-josey-garcia-first-session/ Last updated: 2026-07-30T23:31:41.000Z ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Josey_Garcia_HD124-1.jpeg) Texas Capitol Leadership Series # More Than Passage: The Full Reach of Josey Garcia’s First Session Josey Garcia entered the Texas House as a freshman representing one of San Antonio’s most diverse districts. During the 88th regular session, she held a recorded role on 408 legislative measures—leading bills, sharing authorship, carrying legislation between chambers and joining coalitions across a wide range of public priorities. By Christopher C. Herring · Texas Capital Report **Related coverage:** [Read how 91 measures in Garcia’s freshman portfolio became law or received gubernatorial approval. ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/from-foster-care-to-military-service-a-female-veteran-elected-to-lead-hd124/) Josey Garcia’s first session in the Texas House extended far beyond the measures that ultimately became law. Across the 88th regular session, the San Antonio representative held a recorded legislative role on 408 measures spanning healthcare, veterans’ affairs, public safety, education, workforce policy, family stability, child welfare, childcare, transportation and the administration of state government. The number captures the full scope of her legislative participation: measures she led, bills she helped author with other lawmakers, proposals she supported as a coauthor and legislation she helped move across chambers. Ninety-one of those measures became part of Garcia’s successful freshman-session record—89 bills signed into law and two concurrent resolutions approved by the governor. The larger 408-measure portfolio reveals the scale of the legislative activity surrounding those outcomes. For a first-term member representing West San Antonio, it was a record built through both direct leadership and sustained coalition work. 408 Recorded measures Garcia’s complete participation portfolio during the 88th regular session. 55 Lead-authored measures Measures where Garcia held the lead authorship position in the originating chamber. 175 Joint-authorship roles Measures where Garcia shared formal authorship responsibility with other lawmakers. 149 Coauthorship roles Measures where Garcia joined the supporting authorship coalition. 91 Successful measures Eighty-nine bills signed into law and two governor-approved resolutions. ## A freshman record built through several kinds of leadership Legislative influence is often measured by the bills carrying a lawmaker’s name first. That is an important measure of leadership, but it does not capture the full work of governing. Bills move through the Texas Legislature through teams. One member may lead a proposal in the chamber where it begins. Other lawmakers may share authorship, add their support, negotiate language, help assemble votes or carry the measure after it crosses the Capitol rotunda. Garcia’s 408-measure portfolio reflects all of those roles. Her freshman record included direct authorship, shared responsibility and broad coalition participation across both House and Senate measures. The scale of participation Garcia was attached to more than four hundred measures during her first regular session. That record shows a legislator operating not only as the lead voice on selected bills, but also as a recurring partner in the formal coalitions that shape legislation across the House. ## How Garcia participated in the 408-measure portfolio Authored 55 Garcia held the lead authorship position on these measures in the chamber where they originated. Joint Authored 175 She shared formal authorship responsibility with other legislators on these measures. Coauthored 149 Garcia joined the authorship coalition supporting measures led by other members. Joint Sponsored 14 She shared responsibility for helping legislation move after it crossed into the opposite chamber. Cosponsored 15 Garcia joined additional sponsorship coalitions supporting legislation from the opposite chamber. Total participation 408 Each measure is counted once according to Garcia’s recorded legislative role during the regular session. | Legislative role | Measures | Share of portfolio | | ---------------- | -------- | ------------------ | | Authored | 55 | 13.5% | | Joint Authored | 175 | 42.9% | | Coauthored | 149 | 36.5% | | Joint Sponsored | 14 | 3.4% | | Cosponsored | 15 | 3.7% | | Total | 408 | 100% | ## Shared authorship defined the largest part of the record The largest portion of Garcia’s portfolio came through joint authorship. She held that role on 175 measures—more than four in every ten measures connected to her freshman-session record. Joint authorship represents more than a symbolic endorsement. It places a legislator inside the formal authorship team associated with a measure. It can reflect policy collaboration, shared constituency interests, delegation priorities or the coalition needed to move a proposal through committee and toward a vote. Garcia’s 149 coauthorship roles added another substantial layer of participation. Together, joint authorship and coauthorship accounted for 324 measures, demonstrating that much of her first-session work occurred through collective legislative action. **Combined coalition footprint:**Garcia held a joint-authorship or coauthorship role on 324 measures—nearly four-fifths of her complete freshman portfolio. ## Fifty-five measures placed Garcia in the lead position Garcia’s 55 authored measures show the other side of the record: proposals where she occupied the lead position rather than joining an existing coalition. Lead authorship carries responsibility for the measure’s legislative identity in the originating chamber. The author must explain the proposal, build support, respond to questions, navigate committee review and help guide the bill or resolution through the procedural steps required for passage. Not every authored measure becomes law. Some proposals advance only partway through the process. Others shape later legislation, establish a public policy position or create a foundation for work in a future session. The 55-measure authorship record therefore provides a broader view of Garcia’s policy agenda than an enacted-bill count alone. ## From participation to passage ### 408 recorded measures This is the complete scope of Garcia’s formal participation during the 88th regular session. It includes measures that became law, measures that stopped earlier in the process and proposals that contributed to wider legislative debates. ### 91 successful measures This is the portion of Garcia’s portfolio that completed the legislative process. It includes 89 House and Senate bills signed into law and two House concurrent resolutions approved by the governor. The two numbers answer different questions. The 408-measure total shows how broadly Garcia participated. The 91 successful measures show where that participation became part of the final legislative record. The distance between those totals also reflects the reality of the Texas Legislature. Many bills receive authors, coauthors and sponsors but never reach the governor. Measures can stall in committee, fail to receive a calendar placement, be replaced by other legislation or become part of negotiations that continue outside the original bill. ## A portfolio shaped by the needs of House District 124 House District 124 stretches across a broad section of West San Antonio. It includes military families connected to Joint Base San Antonio–Lackland, veterans, historic Hispanic communities, working-class neighborhoods, growing residential areas and major healthcare, education, logistics and tourism employment corridors. That range of communities creates a legislative agenda that cannot be confined to one committee or one policy domain. Garcia’s freshman-session record crossed healthcare and Medicaid, veterans and military families, criminal justice, public safety, family violence, public education, workforce development, foster care, childcare, housing, transportation and state administration. Her participation also reflected the interdependence of those issues. A military family may simultaneously face childcare shortages, housing costs and access-to-care concerns. A tourism worker may depend on transportation, early-morning childcare and workforce protections. A foster youth may need education support, financial stability and safe housing. ## Why this matters A legislative portfolio is not simply a list of bill numbers. It is a map of where a lawmaker chose to lead, where colleagues invited that lawmaker into formal authorship teams and where coalition support was added to measures affecting communities across Texas. Garcia’s 408-measure freshman record shows breadth. Her 91 successful measures show consequence. Together, they provide a fuller picture of how a first-term legislator moved from representation to participation and from participation to results. ## What the first-session record says about Garcia’s governing style The numbers point to a legislator whose first-term approach relied heavily on collaboration. Garcia did not limit her record to measures where she stood alone as the lead author. She repeatedly joined formal authorship teams and broader coalitions, while also taking responsibility for measures of her own. That combination is especially significant for a freshman legislator. New members enter a chamber with limited seniority and must quickly learn how to build relationships, navigate committee structures and determine where their district’s priorities intersect with the agendas of other lawmakers. Garcia’s portfolio indicates that she established those relationships early. Her name appeared across hundreds of measures, while a meaningful portion of that work reached the governor and became part of Texas law. ## A first term that created room for broader responsibility Garcia’s freshman-session participation came before her committee and caucus responsibilities expanded in the 89th Legislature. Her second-term assignments moved her into statewide debates involving energy, natural resources, water and redistricting. She also assumed additional caucus responsibilities, building on the relationships and legislative experience developed during her first term. The 408-measure portfolio helps explain that progression. It shows a freshman legislator working across policy areas, sharing responsibility with colleagues and developing a legislative presence that extended beyond a small group of personally authored bills. ## The full measure of a freshman session Josey Garcia’s first regular session can be understood through several measures of performance. Fifty-five measures placed her in the lead authorship position. Hundreds more reflected shared authorship and coalition support. Ninety-one measures completed the process as enacted bills or governor-approved resolutions. Together, the 408 measures show the full reach of her participation during the 88th Texas Legislature. For House District 124, that record represents more than activity inside the Capitol. It reflects an effort to connect the needs of military families, veterans, workers, parents, children and long-established West San Antonio communities to the broader legislative work of the state. ### About this analysis Texas Capital Report examined bill-level legislative records for the 88th Texas Legislature’s regular session and counted each measure once for Garcia’s recorded role. Role categories were harmonized across House and Senate records using the chamber where a measure originated, the member’s chamber relationship and the recorded sponsorship sequence. Successful measures were identified separately based on final legislative outcomes. The 408-measure total represents Garcia’s complete recorded participation portfolio for the regular session; the 91-measure total represents the successful portion of that portfolio. - Regular-session measures only - One Garcia relationship counted per measure - House and Senate bills and resolutions included - Successful measures analyzed separately from the complete portfolio ### Continue reading the Texas Capitol Leadership Series [From Foster Care to Military Service, A Female Veteran Elected to Lead HD124 ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/from-foster-care-to-military-service-a-female-veteran-elected-to-lead-hd124/)examines the 89 bills and two governor-approved resolutions in Garcia’s successful freshman-session record, along with the life experiences, district priorities and leadership responsibilities that shaped her work. ### Sources - Texas Legislature Online bill histories and member-role records - Texas House of Representatives member and committee records - LegiScan Texas legislative datasets for the 88th Legislature - Texas Capital Report analysis of Garcia’s successful first-session measures ### "Ready to Win!" Luck, Location, or Volume? Why One San Antonio ZIP Code Sold Nearly $31 Million in Big Texas Lottery Winners URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas_lottery_winners_in_san_antonio_78228_78237_78264/ Last updated: 2026-07-02T15:54:50.000Z # ### *New analysis of Texas Lottery data shows a handful of San Antonio ZIP codes account for tens of millions of dollars in winning tickets—but the reasons may have more to do with geography and consumer behavior than luck.* **By Christopher C. Herring** San Antonio, TX - "Ready to Win" is ultimately a story about optimism. Every winning ticket represents someone who believed tomorrow could be different. Whether purchased on the way to work, during a grocery stop, or while filling up at a neighborhood convenience store, each ticket reflects a small act of hope. Across San Antonio, the communities surrounding the city's highest-performing lottery retailers have faced different economic and educational realities, yet they continue to demonstrate resilience, hard work, and optimism. While the data cannot explain why individuals buy lottery tickets, it does reveal something equally interesting: where millions of dollars in winning tickets have been sold—and what those locations tell us about the way San Antonio works. Walk into almost any convenience store in San Antonio and you'll find a display of brightly colored Texas Lottery tickets promising instant fortunes and life-changing jackpots. But while every ticket carries the same mathematical odds, where those winning tickets are ultimately sold tells a fascinating story about how people move, shop, and spend money across one of Texas' largest cities. A new analysis of Texas Open Data lottery claim records reveals that San Antonio West Side retailers located in ZIP code **78228** have sold more than **$30.9 million** in lottery prizes of **$10,000 or more**, making it the city's highest-producing ZIP code for major lottery winnings. The rankings, based on winning claim records in which the ticket was sold by a retailer located within the ZIP code, place **78264 (Von Ormy area)**, **78237 (Las Palmas / West Side)**, **78251**, (**Far West Side or Alamo Ranch area**) and **North Central's** **78247** among the city's strongest performers, with each generating tens of millions of dollars in large prize claims. **The retailer rankings reveal another layer of the story.** While ZIP codes highlight the geography of lottery activity, individual retailers illustrate where that activity is concentrated. Among the most active locations were **Potranco Food Mart** in ZIP code **78251**, **HEB Food Store #623** in **78251**, **HEB Food Store #463** in **78247**, **Step N Go** in **78228**, **Little Sam #3** in **78237**, and **HEB Food Store #235** in **78264**. These businesses consistently appeared among the city's leading sellers of winning tickets, suggesting that customer traffic, retail volume, and convenient neighborhood access may play a larger role in producing winning claims than chance alone. Their locations span San Antonio's West Side, Far West Side, North Central, and southern gateway communities, reinforcing the conclusion that lottery ticket sales tend to cluster along major commercial corridors where thousands of residents, commuters, and visitors shop each day. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/vlJWl-san-antonio-lottery-retailer-zips-by-total-winnings---4-.png) At first glance, the results appear to suggest extraordinary luck. But lottery researchers and economists have long cautioned against interpreting winning-ticket locations as evidence that one neighborhood is "luckier" than another. Retail ZIP codes reflect where winning tickets were purchased—not where winners live—and high-performing areas often coincide with major transportation corridors, large commercial districts, grocery stores, truck stops, and retail centers that simply sell far more lottery tickets than smaller neighborhood stores. That distinction matters because the Texas Lottery records measure **retailer activity**, not community wealth or individual success. A commuter who buys a ticket while stopping for fuel on Interstate 10 or Loop 410 may live miles away from the store where the ticket was purchased. Popular shopping destinations can therefore accumulate disproportionately large prize totals simply because they attract customers from across the metropolitan area. | Retailer | ZIP Code | General Area | | ------------------- | --------- | --------------------------------- | | Potranco Food Mart | **78251** | Far West Side / Potranco Corridor | | HEB Food Store #623 | **78251** | Far West Side | | HEB Food Store #463 | **78247** | North Central / NE San Antonio | | Step N Go | **78228** | West Side | | Little Sam #3 | **78237** | West Side / Las Palmas | | HEB Food Store #235 | **78264** | Von Ormy / South Bexar County | **Taken together, these retailers function as regional commercial destinations rather than simply neighborhood convenience stores.** Their recurring appearance among San Antonio's top lottery retailers suggests that winning-ticket distribution is influenced by sustained customer volume and purchasing activity across the metropolitan area. In that sense, the data measure commercial geography as much as lottery outcomes, providing a unique lens into how people move, shop, and participate in one of Texas' most visible consumer markets. The concentration of high-value lottery sales also offers a unique glimpse into consumer geography. Unlike many economic indicators that measure where people live, lottery retail data reflects where people spend discretionary dollars. It highlights commercial hubs, traffic patterns, and purchasing behavior that often extend beyond neighborhood boundaries. In many respects, the map functions as both a map of retail activity and a map of opportunity—showing where thousands of people stop each day to work, shop, travel, and, occasionally, take a chance on changing their lives. Unlike most demographic datasets that describe where people live, lottery retailer data reflects **where people choose to spend money**. That makes it an unusually powerful indicator of commercial geography, customer traffic, and regional shopping behavior. Several of the highest-performing lottery ZIP codes sit in communities with **long traditions of military service**. **Southside** and **Westside San Antonio** have been home to generations of active-duty personnel, veterans, and military families connected to installations such as Kelly Field and other nearby defense facilities. That heritage has helped shape neighborhoods known for resilience, discipline, and public service—qualities that define these communities far more than any single economic statistic. For policymakers like two Veterans - **Texas State Rep Ray Lopez (HD125)**, and **Representative Josey Garcia (HD124)** \- and **State Sen. José Menéndez (SD 26**) the story from the dataset presents intriguing opportunities for further analysis. Comparing lottery retailer activity with population density, income, business concentration, commuter flows, or commercial development could reveal whether major lottery sales follow broader patterns of economic activity. Researchers could also examine whether large prize concentrations correlate with the number of licensed lottery retailers, proximity to highways, tourism corridors, or regional shopping destinations. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Dfgdk-san-antonio-lottery-retailer-zips-ranked-by-total-winnings---2-.png) | ZIP Code | Primary Community / Area | | --------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | | **78228** | West Side / Jefferson / University Park | | **78264** | South Bexar County / Von Ormy area | | **78237** | West Side / Las Palmas / Memorial Heights | | **78251** | Far West Side / Alamo Ranch vicinity | | **78247** | North Central / Northern Hills area | | **78201** | Beacon Hill / Los Angeles Heights | | **78214** | South Side / Mission San José area | | **78223** | Southeast Side / Highland Hills / Pecan Valley | | **78227** | Lackland Terrace / Westwood Village / West Side | | **78218** | East Side / Windcrest vicinity | | **78216** | Airport Area / North Star / Uptown | | **78222** | East Central San Antonio | | **78212** | Monte Vista / Tobin Hill / Trinity University | | **78240** | Medical Center / Northwest Side | | **78207** | Historic West Side | | **78249** | University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) / Northwest | | **78221** | South Side / Mission Reach | | **78210** | Denver Heights / Highland Park / Southtown East | | **78205** | Downtown San Antonio | | **78224** | South Side / Quintana Road area | The neighborhoods surrounding these top-performing lottery retailers are also diverse in their economic and educational profiles. A National Data System analysis of U.S. Census education data found that ZIP codes 78228, 78237, and 78264 all rank below the San Antonio average in college attainment, although they differ significantly in homeownership, household income, and housing markets. Rather than pointing to a single demographic explanation, the findings reinforce that these are distinct working communities with unique histories, strengths, and opportunities. These ZIP codes are not defined by lottery tickets—they are defined by the people who live, work, serve, and build businesses there every day. The lottery data simply provides an unexpected lens through which to view their economic activity. The findings also illustrate the growing value of Texas' expanding open-data ecosystem. By making lottery claim records publicly available, the state allows researchers, journalists, and citizens to move beyond anecdotal stories of lucky winners and instead explore broader patterns hidden within millions of dollars in transactions. While the lottery remains fundamentally a game of chance, the geography surrounding where winning tickets are sold offers a compelling reminder that even games of luck leave measurable footprints across a city. This study illustrates how public data can reveal patterns that were never collected for research purposes. Although the Texas Lottery records were created to administer prize claims, they also provide an unexpected window into consumer geography, retail activity, and commercial movement across San Antonio. The analysis also demonstrates the continuity of Texas' open-data program following the transfer of Texas Lottery operations to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), ensuring researchers continue to have access to transparent public records IMPORTANT DISTINCTION ## Retailer ZIP Code ≠ Winner's Neighborhood The Texas Lottery records identify the ZIP code of the licensed retailer that sold the winning ticket. They do **not** identify where the winner lives. A customer may purchase a ticket while commuting, shopping, traveling, or working miles from home. Consequently, this analysis measures the geography of winning ticket sales rather than the geography of lottery winners. Ultimately, the map does not tell us which San Antonio neighborhood is the luckiest. It tells us something far more interesting. It highlights the commercial corridors where people gather, where communities work, where veterans and military families have built lives, and where businesses serve thousands of customers every day. Behind every winning ticket is not simply a fortunate player, but an entire community whose resilience, commerce, and optimism continue to shape San Antonio. Sometimes hope is purchased one ticket at a time. --- METHODOLOGY ## How This Analysis Was Conducted This analysis examined publicly available **Texas Lottery Winners List of Texas Lottery® Prizes** records published through the Texas Open Data Portal. Winning claims of **$10,000 or more** were aggregated by the ZIP code of the licensed lottery retailer where each ticket was sold—not by the residence of the winner. Prize amounts were summed for each retailer ZIP code to identify the locations that generated the largest total value of winning tickets sold in San Antonio. Additional community context—including housing, education, and demographic information—was derived from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data through the **National Data System**. These demographic measures are presented solely to describe the communities in which the retailers provide community context and should not be interpreted as evidence that demographic characteristics influence lottery participation or winning. EDITOR'S NOTE Editor's Note: This article is part of Texas Capital Report's continuing series demonstrating how publicly available government data can reveal new perspectives on Texas communities through evidence-based journalism. Without publicly available Texas Lottery records, this analysis would not have been possible. Subscribe Today! ### The Quiet Disappearance of America's Economic Memory URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-quiet-disappearance-of-americas-economic-memory/ Last updated: 2026-07-02T05:22:46.000Z ### *Federal budget cuts have quietly erased pieces of the nation's economic record, leaving researchers, businesses and communities with fewer tools to understand local economies.* **By Christopher C. Herring** There are no flashing warning banners on the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis website. No press conference. No public debate. Instead, visitors searching for regional economic statistics encounter a brief notice announcing that **selected state data tables were discontinued in September 2024**, followed by **selected county tables in November** because of budget constraints. In just a few understated sentences, one of the federal government's most important economic data repositories acknowledges that information relied upon by economists, local governments, researchers and businesses is no longer being maintained in the same way. It is the kind of announcement that many users will scroll past without a second thought. Yet for those who depend on these statistics to measure economic growth, compare communities or track regional change over time, it signals something far larger than a website update. **It marks another step in the gradual erosion of the nation's public statistical infrastructure.** Only after that realization does a broader question emerge: What happens when America begins losing pieces of its own economic memory? --- For decades, economists, journalists, city planners, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens have returned to the same government websites with quiet confidence. They were places of institutional permanence, digital libraries where America's economic story unfolded year after year through carefully maintained tables, maps, and statistics. Every update added another chapter to the nation's evolving narrative, allowing anyone—from a graduate student to a mayor—to measure growth, decline, prosperity, or hardship with the same trusted numbers. Then, almost unnoticed, parts of that story began to disappear. Visitors to the **U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis**' Regional Data portal are now greeted not only by familiar tables measuring **Gross Domestic Product,** personal income, and regional economic performance, but also by an understated announcement that signals something far more consequential than a routine website update. **Selected state data tables were discontinued in September 2024.** **Selected county tables followed in November, casualties of budget constraints.** The notice occupies only a few lines on the page, yet its implications extend far beyond the website itself. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Metropolitan_Statistical_Area_Discontinued_apps.bea.gov.jpeg) ****Federal Agency's like BEA cut budgets by eliminating critical dataset in FY2024.** There are no flashing warnings. No dramatic headlines. Just a simple acknowledgment that some information Americans once considered permanently available has **quietly moved into an archive—or vanished from routine access altogether.** That silence is precisely what makes it significant. --- ## **The Slow Erosion of Public Knowledge** Most people never think about economic statistics until they need them. ***A business owner considering a new location may study regional income growth before signing a lease. A county commissioner may rely on historical GDP trends to justify infrastructure investments. Researchers compare decades of local economic performance to understand why one community flourished while another struggled. Journalists use the data to hold governments accountable. Investors measure opportunity. Families evaluate where to build their futures.*** All of these decisions depend on one assumption: that the information will continue to exist. When datasets disappear, the loss is rarely immediate. It arrives gradually, almost invisibly. Historical comparisons become more difficult. Automated systems break. Research projects require additional workarounds. Local governments lose benchmarks that once helped justify grant applications and development strategies. Small communities—already operating with limited analytical resources—often suffer the greatest consequences because they lack the capacity to recreate what federal agencies once freely provided. Data, unlike roads or bridges, does not leave potholes when it deteriorates. It leaves blind spots. --- ## **A Different Kind of Infrastructure** America traditionally defines infrastructure through concrete and steel: highways, airports, rail systems, electrical grids. Yet there is another infrastructure quietly supporting modern society. Statistical agencies. Government databases. Public records. Economic measurements. These systems rarely receive public attention because, when functioning properly, they simply work. They provide continuity. They establish trust. They allow countless organizations to make decisions using a shared understanding of reality. **Without them, every institution begins building its own version of the truth.** That fragmentation carries costs measured not only in dollars but in confidence. --- ## **The Hidden Cost of Budget Cuts** Budget reductions often produce visible consequences: fewer employees, delayed projects, postponed construction. Data reductions work differently. The consequences emerge years later. Researchers attempting to compare counties across time suddenly discover missing variables. Economic development agencies lose historical context. Universities redesign studies because datasets are no longer maintained. Local newspapers, already operating with shrinking resources, lose reliable public information needed for investigative reporting. The disappearance of a spreadsheet may seem insignificant. The disappearance of decades of comparable public knowledge is something else entirely. --- ## **An Era That Demands More Data, Not Less** The timing could hardly be more paradoxical. Artificial intelligence now promises unprecedented analytical power. Businesses increasingly depend on predictive models. Cities pursue "smart" infrastructure. Investors seek neighborhood-level insights before deploying capital. Public officials are expected to justify decisions with measurable evidence. Never has society demanded more data. > **The irony is that while portions of the public statistical record are shrinking, the value of regional economic data has never been greater. A 2020 Bureau of Economic Analysis working paper illustrates exactly why these datasets matter.** ## Finding Published in 2020... ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Metropolitan_Statistical_Area_Location_Choice_For_FDI.jpeg) Yet some of the foundational public sources that made those analyses possible are becoming harder to maintain. Private companies have stepped into this growing information gap, packaging proprietary datasets into subscription products that can cost thousands of dollars annually. While these services provide valuable analysis, they also shift access to knowledge away from the public domain and toward those able to pay. The result is an emerging divide between information that remains public and information that becomes increasingly commercialized. # Why This Matters to Texas Texas has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the United States, adding new residents, businesses, and infrastructure at a pace few states can match. Every legislative session, members of the Texas House and Senate debate billions of dollars for highways, water systems, workforce development, housing, rural broadband, childcare, higher education, and economic development incentives. Those discussions increasingly rely on objective measurements to determine where growth is occurring, where infrastructure is falling behind, and where taxpayer dollars can have the greatest impact. When portions of those measurements disappear, legislative debates do not stop—but the evidence supporting them becomes less complete. The quiet discontinuation of selected regional datasets raises an important question for Texas policymakers: **What happens when the public data needed to evaluate growth begins to shrink?** 💡 **"When federal benchmark data becomes less available, local governments often have to spend more money purchasing private data or developing their own analysis,"* said William Michael Cunningham, national economist. Economic development organizations use regional GDP and income statistics to recruit employers. Rural counties rely on comparable federal data to compete for grants and infrastructure funding. Universities study long-term economic changes to understand why some communities prosper while others struggle. Local governments use these same measurements to justify roads, utilities, and public investments. When fewer federal benchmarks are maintained, lawmakers are left with fewer independent tools to measure whether public policies are producing the intended results. Texas is particularly vulnerable because of its size and diversity. The economic conditions of the Permian Basin, the Rio Grande Valley, North Texas, the Gulf Coast, and the Hill Country differ dramatically. Reliable regional statistics allow legislators to move beyond statewide averages and understand where growth is occurring, where infrastructure is under pressure, and where public investment may have the greatest impact. The irony is difficult to ignore. Texas continues to lead the nation in business recruitment and population growth while the public information used to measure that success becomes more limited. As private companies increasingly monetize economic data, the Legislature may eventually face a choice: rely more heavily on commercial analytics or invest in strengthening Texas' own public data infrastructure through partnerships with universities, state agencies, and regional organizations. The disappearance of federal datasets is not simply a technical issue. It is a governance issue. Data informs appropriations, oversight, economic development, and accountability. Without trusted benchmarks, policymakers risk making billion-dollar decisions with less complete information than previous generations possessed. For a state that prides itself on planning for growth, protecting access to reliable economic intelligence may prove just as important as building the highways, schools, and water systems that growth requires. --- ## **What Is Really Being Archived?** At first glance, the discontinued tables appear to represent little more than administrative housekeeping. In reality, they reflect something much larger. Public datasets preserve institutional memory. They document how regions transformed after recessions. They reveal where industries emerged and where they disappeared. They capture the long-term economic evolution of communities across generations. Every archived table is part of America's collective memory. Every **discontinued dataset** narrows the lens through which future generations will study the nation's economic past. --- ## **A Quiet Reminder** The notice on the **Bureau of Economic Analysis** website is not an argument against fiscal discipline, nor does it suggest that every historical table can or should be preserved indefinitely. It does, however, remind us that information itself is infrastructure. Economic statistics do more than describe the country. They help the country understand itself. And in an age increasingly driven by data, the greatest risk may not be that America lacks information—but that some of its most trusted public sources quietly fade away before anyone notices they are gone. The disappearance of a government dataset rarely makes front-page news. There are no ribbon cuttings when statistics are published and no public mourning when they quietly disappear. Yet every missing table narrows the nation's collective memory. Future researchers will know less about today's America than today's researchers know about the America of yesterday. In an era increasingly driven by artificial intelligence and data-informed decision-making, preserving public statistics is no longer simply a matter of record keeping. It is an investment in the country's ability to understand itself. ### Did Texas Owe Black Businesses More Than a Blank Map? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/did-texas-owe-black-businesses-more-than-a-blank-map/ Last updated: 2026-07-09T06:07:37.000Z Austin, TX - For decades, Texas acknowledged disparities in state contracting and created the Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Program to expand opportunity. Today, many of the program's goals have been removed or revised. The question is no longer whether the program changed—it is whether the state's legal and moral obligations changed with it. This investigation follows the historical evolution of Texas' Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Program, examining official records, procurement reports, legislative changes, and historical participation data to understand what changed after the 2026 policy revisions. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ## What Texas’ Own HUB Reports Showed Before the 2026 Changes 2016 ### Major agencies still spent very little with HUBs Some agencies spending more than $5 million reported HUB participation below 1%. 2019–2021 ### Texas tracked category-specific HUB goals The state measured HUB participation across construction, services, and commodities. 2021 ### Women-owned HUBs received approx. 44.5% of HUB awards Women-owned and Hispanic-owned HUBs received the largest shares of HUB expenditures. **The before-and-after maps of Black-owned business visibility in the Texas HUB program raise a legal question,** but also a moral and economic one: if Texas created a procurement program to address documented disparities, set statewide utilization goals, watched Black businesses remain far below parity, and then allowed the program’s race- and gender-conscious framework to be removed or replaced without the Legislature first declaring the disparity solved, what exactly does the state owe? Does it owe money? Does it owe restored certification? Does it owe a new disparity study? Does it owe stronger enforcement? Or did the old HUB law contain so little force that unmet goals became politically meaningful but legally toothless? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/historic-black-owned-business-participation-in-the-former-texas-hub-program-strong-2.png) ## BEFORE: More Than ****6,000** Black-Owned Businesses Historical Texas HUB participation records, approximately 2018–2024 ### The Program's Original Purpose The answer begins with the nature of the Texas HUB program itself. **The program was not a hard quota system.** The state’s own materials described statewide HUB goals as annual utilization goals based on expenditures by procurement categories for state agencies and universities, including 11.2% for heavy construction other than building contracts, 21.1% for building construction, 32.9% for special trade construction, 23.7% for professional services, 26.0% for other services, and 21.1% for commodities. Those were goals, not automatic awards. The same materials explain that **Texas instituted the HUB program in 1991 to increase opportunities for businesses owned by minorities and women in state procurement and contracting, and that state agencies were to make a good-faith effort to utilize HUBs in construction, services, and commodities purchases.** The program also allowed HUB subcontracting plans for contracts above $100,000\. That structure matters because it shows the law was designed to create visibility, outreach, good-faith effort, and opportunity, not guaranteed contracts. ## What the Historical Records Show **The 2009 State of Texas Disparity Study gave the program its legal and policy foundation.** The Comptroller’s materials said the office retained MGT of America to determine whether there was a compelling interest to continue a narrowly tailored HUB program, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court. The study was intended to review the state’s HUB utilization and evaluate program-development options. The same materials stated that the 2009 study confirmed the need for continuing the statewide HUB program, citing statistical disparities by race, ethnicity, and gender in current HUB utilization, especially in prime contracting; disparities in the private marketplace; disparities in firm earnings even after controlling for capacity-related factors; and anecdotal testimony of disparate treatment from business owners. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Special_Investigative_Series.png) That finding is important because ***it means the HUB program was not created out of nostalgia or symbolism. It was created and defended through the language of disparity, evidence, legal tailoring, utilization, and opportunity.*** The state’s FAQ materials described minority-owned business enterprises as businesses at least 51% owned and controlled by African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, or Native American owners, and woman-owned businesses as at least 51% owned and controlled by non-minority women. The same FAQ said the State of Texas sought to maximize utilization of Texas-based women- and minority-owned businesses through the HUB program. It also described the program’s mission as encouraging and effectively promoting HUB utilization by all state agencies and promoting full and equal business opportunities in accordance with goals based on the State of Texas Disparity Study. ## State Agencies Were Expected to Participate ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/Screenshot_1-7-2026_8582_.jpeg) ****EXHIBIT A** **: The state's own 2016 HUB Report identified major agencies spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars while directing only a small percentage to HUB-certified businesses. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation reported more than $7.5 billion in expenditures but only 7.26% with HUB vendors, while the Soil and Water Conservation Board reported just 0.11%.** But there the accountability problem emerges. A goal without a remedy can become a public promise without legal teeth. **A good-faith requirement without consequences can become a reporting exercise.** A disparity study without sustained enforcement can become a historical document. If an agency failed to meet HUB goals, did Black businesses have a direct claim for damages? Generally, the answer is not obvious and likely not automatic. HUB goals were aspirational and tied to good-faith efforts, reporting, solicitation, certification, and subcontracting-plan procedures. They were not written as a simple damages formula saying that if Black businesses received 1.22% of spending when parity required more, the state must pay the difference. That does not mean there was no harm. It means the legal mechanism for remedy may have been weak, indirect, or dependent on administrative enforcement, legislative oversight, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or procurement challenges rather than automatic compensation. ## Outreach Beyond Certification ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/GLO_v1_Official_AA_608A1199-X2.jpg) ***Beyond certification, some state agencies entered formal cooperation agreements with business organizations to encourage participation by African American HUB vendors. This 2017 memorandum between the Texas General Land Office and the Texas Association of African American Chambers of Commerce illustrates one example of those outreach efforts. (then TAAACC Chairman Christopher C. Herring, TX Commissioner George P. Bush, TAAACC President Charles O'Neal)** Historically, the President of the Texas Association of African American Chambers of Commerce, Charles O’Neal’s 2016 remarks at Black Business Day at the Texas Capitol sharpen the point. Speaking before Governor Greg Abbott addressed the group, O’Neal said plainly, “We’re here because the State of Texas has been unresponsive to your needs.” He continued by saying that despite efforts to increase utilization of ethnic minority-owned businesses, “black businesses have earned less than all other groups.” Then he added, “It’s painful. And we think it needs redress.” Those are not abstract words. They are a contemporaneous statement from Black business leadership that the state’s procurement system had not delivered equitable results even after decades of policy effort. O’Neal also gave the economic context that makes the failure more serious. He said Texas was approaching 15% Black population and that the most recent business-owner survey reflected a dramatic increase in Black-owned businesses in the state, from about 175,000 to about 247,000\. But he then said, “What we’ve not experienced is a corresponding growth in revenue. Our businesses are flatlining.” He added that of 247,000 Black-owned businesses, fewer than 10,000 had employees. That distinction is essential. Business formation had grown, but business scale had not. Visibility may have existed, but revenue did not follow at the level expected. A state can point to a growing number of registered or certified firms, but if those firms are not receiving contracts, building revenue, adding employees, or scaling into larger procurement roles, the policy outcome remains incomplete. The hardest number in O’Neal’s remarks was the utilization figure. **He said that in the most recent budget, out of $17 billion, only 1.22% was spent with Black-owned businesses. He then said, “We believe that growing the state’s utilization rate at this point… gives us significant advantage in the marketplace.” And he asked, “Shouldn’t we be able to maximize utilization, even at rates of other groups.” That question is the center of this article.** If Black businesses were at 1.22% of a $17 billion spending environment after decades of a program designed to increase utilization, what conclusion should the public draw? That Black businesses lacked capacity? That agencies failed to seek them? That prime contractors failed to include them? That the goals were too weak? That reporting did not translate into enforcement? Or that the program needed strengthening, not removal? ## The 2025-2026 Policy Changes ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/07/texas-hub-program-after-2026-texas-comptroller-decision-black-business-representation-removed---1--1.png) ## ****Race-Based HUB Categories** Removed from the Reporting Framework 2025-2026 Comptroller Policy Changes The state’s later actions make that question urgent. **In 2025 and 2026, the Comptroller’s office moved to suspend new HUB certifications, conduct legal review, remove information from the website, and restructure the program.** Reporting provided by KXAN described the HUB program as one that provided exposure to minority- and female-owned businesses in state procurement. KXAN reported that **Acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock** said new HUB certifications were suspended and quoted him as saying, **“Businesses deserve a level playing field where government contracts are earned by performance and best value — not race or sex quotas.”** The same report quoted **State Sen. Royce West**, one of the architects of the program, explaining that the HUB program was created to ensure minorities and women were included in the mix to become government contractors. --- **1993** Texas HUB Program Established By Legislation ↓ **2009** State Disparity Study ↓ **2016** Agency Utilization Goals ↓ **2017** Agency Outreach Agreements ↓ **2019–2024** Historical Business Participation ↓ **2025-2026** Major Policy Changes by Acting Comptroller --- That framing creates two competing theories of fairness. One theory says fairness means eliminating race- and sex-based classification from public procurement systems. The other theory says fairness cannot be measured only by removing categories; fairness must also ask whether the market has actually become equal. If Black businesses were still receiving far less than parity before the program was changed, then the removal of the category may make the system appear neutral while making disparity harder to track. A race-neutral form does not automatically create a race-neutral market. A blank map does not prove equality. It may simply show that the public category has disappeared. **The legal issue is also complicated by the difference between statutory authority and program outcomes.** If the Comptroller had statutory authority only to administer the HUB program, certify eligible businesses, maintain the directory, provide consulting services, assist agencies with good-faith efforts, and report initiatives to the Legislature, then a unilateral restructuring of the program raises a serious separation-of-powers question. The state’s FAQ materials described the Comptroller as the administrator and maintainer of the HUB program, responsible for reporting HUB initiatives to the Legislature, certifying eligible businesses, maintaining a current list, consulting with state agencies and HUB coordinators, and assisting with good-faith effort requirements and analysis. **That is why the question “does the state owe Black businesses?” has more than one answer.** In a strict damages sense, the old HUB program may not have created an automatic check owed to Black businesses every time goals were missed. The law appears to have relied heavily on aspirational goals, reporting, good-faith efforts, certification, solicitation requirements, and subcontracting-plan review. Those tools create pressure, but not necessarily a private damages remedy. In that sense, critics may say the law lacked teeth. **But in a broader legal and civic sense, the state may still owe something significant: it may owe enforcement of the statutory framework until the Legislature changes it; it may owe transparency about whether goals were met; it may owe a new or updated disparity study before dismantling the remedial structure; it may owe an explanation of how parity was achieved, if the state claims the remedy is no longer needed; and it may owe restoration or judicial review if an executive official exceeded statutory authority.** This distinction matters because the old program’s weakness may have been precisely that it required good-faith effort without sufficient consequence. If a state agency failed to meet HUB goals, did the agency lose funding? Were contracts invalidated? Were procurement officers sanctioned? Were prime contractors penalized for failing to include HUB firms? Were agencies required to produce corrective plans with measurable future targets? If the answer to those questions was usually no, then the problem was not that the HUB program had too much power. The problem may have been that it had too little enforcement power to achieve the parity its own disparity findings justified. O’Neal’s remarks support that interpretation. He did not argue that the HUB framework should be discarded. ***He argued that the state had been unresponsive, that Black businesses were underperforming in revenue, that utilization was too low, and that state agency engagement was necessary. He described TAAACC’s work with agencies across Texas, including professional-service roundtables and Memorandums of Cooperation with 16 or 17 state agencies that traveled across the state to meet businesses where they were. That is evidence of implementation infrastructure.*** It suggests that Black business leaders were not waiting passively for contracts. They were building outreach systems, working with agencies, and asking the state to perform better. That is why the maps matter. The first map shows that thousands of Black-owned businesses had been visible in the reviewed Texas HUB records. The second map shows what happens when the Black-owned category is no longer displayed. But the blankness should not be confused with resolution. If the historical problem was underutilization, then the policy question is not whether the label remains. ***The policy question is whether Black businesses are now receiving fair access to contracts, revenue, and scaling opportunities. If they are not, then removing the category may reduce accountability rather than improve fairness.*** The state can argue that constitutional law has changed and that race- and sex-conscious programs must be reviewed carefully. That is a real argument. The state can argue that public contracts should be awarded based on performance and best value. That is also a real principle. But neither argument answers the utilization question. Performance and best value do not explain why Black businesses were at 1.22% of $17 billion in the period O’Neal described. Constitutional caution does not explain why a disparity study that once confirmed continuing need should be treated as irrelevant without a public showing that disparity no longer exists. Legal risk does not erase economic history. So does the state owe Black businesses? It may not owe automatic damages under the old HUB goals. But it owes the public a reckoning***. It owes an answer to whether the disparity identified by the 2009 study was ever cured***. It owes an explanation of whether Black-owned businesses reached meaningful participation before their category was removed from the displayed framework. It owes transparency about which agencies met goals, which failed, and what happened when they failed. **It owes clarity about whether the Comptroller had authority to alter the structure of a legislatively created program without the Legislature first rewriting the statute.** And if the old law had no teeth, then the Legislature owes an honest debate about whether Texas ever intended the HUB program to produce parity or merely to report aspiration. That is the uncomfortable truth. A goal without enforcement can become a shield for inaction. **A disparity study without follow-through can become evidence of knowledge but not remedy. A certification program without sufficient contracting outcomes can create visibility without economic transformation. And a policy change that removes the category before parity is reached can turn underperformance into invisibility.** ## What the Blank Map Represents Before and After: Black Business Visibility in the Texas HUB Program ![Historical map showing Black-owned business participation in the former Texas HUB Program by Texas ZIP code.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/size/w1000/2026/06/Historic-Black-Owned-Business-Participation-in-the-former-Texas-HUB-Program.png) **Before 2026:** Historical Black-owned business participation in the former Texas HUB program, based on reviewed State of Texas Comptroller HUB records from approximately 2018–2024\. ![Blank Texas map representing the removal of Black-owned business representation as a displayed HUB category after the 2026 Texas HUB program changes.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/size/w1000/2026/07/Me3EG-texas-hub-program-after-2026-texas-comptroller-decision-black-business-representation-removed---1-.png) **After 2026:** The blank map represents the absence of Black-owned business representation as a displayed HUB category after the Texas Comptroller’s 2026 HUB program changes. The next question for Texas is not whether the state can change a program. Programs can be changed. **The question is whether the state can change a disparity-remedy framework without showing that the disparity has been remedied.** The maps suggest the answer should not come quietly. The historical map shows a statewide Black business participation base. The blank map shows what the public sees when that category is removed. Between those two maps lies the question Charles O’Neal asked in different words in 2016: **should Black businesses not be able to maximize utilization at least at the rates of other groups?** Until Texas can answer that question with evidence, the blank map should not be treated as reform. It should be treated as an accountability gap. ## Continue the Investigation This investigation documents the historical evolution of Black-owned business participation in the former Texas HUB Program and the changes to the reporting framework after the 2026 policy revisions. These companion investigations examine the legal authority behind those changes and the legislative debate that preceded them. Related Investigation ### The Legislature Makes the Law. The Comptroller Administers It. Who has the legal authority to change the HUB program? This investigation examines the difference between legislative power and administrative implementation, and why that distinction became central to the HUB debate. [Read Investigation → ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-legislature-makes-the-law-the-comptroller-administers-it-the-hub-debate-shows-why-that-difference-matters/) Related Investigation ### Before the Lawsuit. Before the Review. Before the Controversy. Long before the 2026 policy changes, Texas lawmakers were already debating the future of the HUB program. This investigation traces the legislative discussions that laid the groundwork for today's controversy. [Read Investigation → ](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/before-the-lawsuit-before-the-review-before-the-controversy-texas-lawmakers-were-already-debating-the-future-of-hub/) This investigation documents how the historical representation of Black-owned HUB businesses changed following the 2026 policy revisions. Whether those changes altered legal obligations, procurement opportunities, or the intent of the HUB program is explored further through legislative history, administrative actions, and related reporting. ### Texas consumers file 1.8 million complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-consumers-file-1-8-million-complaints-to-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/ Last updated: 2026-06-23T13:10:00.000Z ## *Texas Consumer Financial Pressure Report* Texas consumers have submitted more than 1.8 million complaints to the **Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)** since the agency began collecting complaint data in December 2011. The dominant Texas story is not mortgages, student loans, or bank accounts. It is credit reporting. More than ***1.4 million Texas complaints*** involve the three national credit reporting agencies—**Equifax**, **TransUnion**, and **Experian**. Together, these firms account for the majority of complaint activity observed within the Texas CFPB registry. The data suggests that consumer financial pressure in Texas is fundamentally a credit reporting and consumer identity management story, with additional pressure emerging from debt collection, banking, mortgage, and lending products. Geographically, consumer pressure is distributed across multiple Texas metropolitan regions. The **Houston** ZIP3 region (770) is the largest complaint region in Texas and one of the largest complaint regions in the national CFPB dataset. **Dallas**, **Fort Worth**, **San Antonio**, **Austin**, the **Rio Grande Valley**, and **El Paso** also generate substantial complaint activity, indicating that consumer financial pressure is not concentrated in a single market but is broadly distributed across the state's major economic centers. Texas consumers have also provided nearly **474,000 complaint narratives**. These narratives represent one of the largest collections of consumer financial experiences available for [Consumer.info](https://www.consumer.info/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) analysis and provide direct insight into identity theft, credit reporting disputes, debt collection practices, banking issues, mortgage servicing concerns, and other consumer financial challenges. The CFPB complaint system has become more than a complaint database. It functions as a centralized mechanism through which consumers can report concerns involving credit reporting agencies, banks, mortgage servicers, debt collectors, student loan servicers, credit card issuers, and other financial institutions. The system creates a structured pathway for consumers to be heard while simultaneously generating a public record of reported problems and company responses. This function is particularly important in a financial system that relies heavily on credit reports and credit scores to determine access to mortgages, vehicle loans, credit cards, insurance products, rental housing, and other financial opportunities. Errors in credit reporting can have significant consequences for consumers, making dispute resolution and complaint tracking an important part of the broader consumer finance ecosystem. If CFPB complaint collection, publication, or maintenance activities were reduced or discontinued, consumers would continue to retain rights under existing federal and state laws, including the ability to dispute information directly with credit reporting agencies and furnishers. Other regulators and enforcement agencies would also continue to operate. However, the loss of a centralized national complaint platform could reduce visibility into emerging consumer risks, make it more difficult to identify broad patterns of consumer harm, and limit the availability of a consistent public record of consumer experiences over time. The significance of the CFPB system is not simply that it records complaints. Its significance is that it provides a structured mechanism through which consumers can report financial problems, creates transparency regarding those reports, and enables policymakers, researchers, journalists, businesses, and consumers to better understand patterns of financial stress, credit reporting disputes, debt collection activity, and other consumer financial experiences across Texas and the nation. Among the more than 1.8 million Texas complaints contained within the CFPB authority dataset are approximately **62,300 complaints** submitted by consumers identified through CFPB servicemember-related complaint tags. While US servicemember complaints represent only a portion of overall Texas complaint activity, they highlight a category of consumer financial issues that can carry consequences extending beyond ordinary credit disputes. For military personnel, inaccuracies in credit reporting, unresolved debt collection issues, identity theft incidents, and other financial reporting problems may create challenges that affect national security readiness not only personal finances. Career progression, duty assignments, housing access, and security clearance reviews are all impacted as the dispute process is afforded currently through the CFPB. Who will help servicemembers if the agency closes, is left undetermined. The **Texas Attorney General** serves as the state's chief legal officer and is responsible for enforcing a wide range of consumer protection laws, investigating deceptive business practices, pursuing fraud-related actions, and representing the interests of Texas and its citizens in legal matters. While the Attorney General's Office can investigate and prosecute consumer protection violations, it serves a different function than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB operates a national consumer complaint intake and transparency system that allows consumers to report financial disputes and creates a public record of complaint activity and company responses. The Texas Attorney General focuses primarily on enforcement and legal action, while the CFPB complaint system functions as a consumer reporting and monitoring platform that helps identify patterns of financial harm, credit reporting disputes, debt collection issues, and other consumer financial concerns across Texas and the nation. As of the current registry, the CFPB authority dataset contains more than 13.9 million complaint records nationally, including more than 1.8 million complaints associated with Texas consumers, representing one of the largest publicly accessible repositories of consumer financial experiences in the United States. ### Which Texas Legislators Are Most Aligned With the Highest-Priority Needs of Their Districts? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/which-texas-legislators-are-most-aligned-with-the-highest-priority-needs-of-their-districts/ Last updated: 2026-06-22T21:34:42.000Z For decades, legislative performance has often been measured by familiar metrics: bills filed, bills passed, committee assignments, leadership positions, fundraising totals, or media visibility. While each of these measures captures part of the legislative process, none directly answers a question that citizens ask every election cycle: ## **Is my representative working on the issues that matter most in my community?** The Texas Representation Framework was designed to answer that question from the district outward. Instead of beginning with legislators, it begins with the measurable conditions of the communities they represent. Using district-level demographic, economic, educational, healthcare, housing, workforce, language, veteran, and poverty indicators, the framework identifies the highest-priority needs within each legislative district. Legislative activity is then compared against those needs through policy-domain analysis, participation records, authorship data, and alignment scoring. The result is the first statewide Top-Need Alignment ranking, measuring how closely a legislator's work corresponds to the three most important needs identified within their district. The Top-Need Alignment ranking offers a different way to evaluate representation. Instead of beginning with the number of bills a legislator filed or the number of bills that became law, the ranking begins with the district itself. It asks which three needs stand out most strongly in each district, then measures whether legislative activity aligns with those priorities. That makes the table less a traditional productivity ranking and more a district-response ranking. It is designed to answer a direct question: when the measurable conditions of a district point toward urgent needs, does the legislative portfolio reflect those needs? The highest score in this run belongs to **SD26**, represented by **Senator José Menéndez**, with a Top-Need Alignment score of 99.22\. The district’s leading needs were **Economic Mobility**, **Generational Poverty Risk**, and **Military Veterans**, all three of which scored above 98 in alignment. That combination matters because it suggests a district where economic advancement, poverty reduction, and veteran-related concerns are not separate stories but overlapping pressures. In the model, SD26 is not merely active; its activity is closely aligned with the district’s highest-priority needs. **HD34**, represented by **Representative Denise Villalobos**, ranked second with a score of 98.53\. Its top three needs were **Generational Poverty Risk**, **Economic Mobility**, and **Educational Attainment**. This is one of the clearest examples of a district where long-term economic hardship, education, and mobility appear together. The alignment scores are unusually high across all three categories, especially Economic Mobility at 99.83 and Generational Poverty Risk at 99.03\. That kind of profile suggests legislative attention concentrated around the same conditions the district model identifies as most significant. **HD105**, represented by **Representative Thresa “Terry” Meza**, ranked third with a score of 97.54\. Its top needs were **Language Access**, **Economic Mobility**, and **Commercial Services Economy**. This points to a district where language, work, and local commercial activity appear together as central features of the representation profile. **HD80**, represented by **Representative Don McLaughlin**, followed closely with **Agriculture and Rural**, **Educational Attainment**, and **Economic Mobility** as its top aligned needs, showing that the top of the ranking is not limited to urban districts or poverty-centered districts alone. Rural and agricultural districts are also appearing when legislative activity is closely tied to their top needs. **HD124**, represented by **Representative Josey Garcia**, ranked fifth statewide with a Top-Need Alignment score of 97.34\. This is one of the strongest district stories in the table because the three highest-priority needs are **Military Veterans**, **Economic Mobility**, and **Generational Poverty Risk**. Those categories together describe a district where veteran-related needs, workforce transition, economic advancement, and family poverty risk appear in the same high-priority cluster. HD124’s alignment scores were exceptional: 99.67 for Military Veterans, 99.22 for Economic Mobility, and 93.13 for Generational Poverty Risk. That makes HD124 one of the clearest examples of the model’s central idea: representation should be understood through the relationship between what the district needs most and what the legislator works on most directly. The Top 25 list also reveals several recurring need clusters. Generational Poverty Risk appears among the top three needs for SD26, HD34, HD124, HD123, SD13, HD55, and HD137\. Economic Mobility appears even more frequently, showing up in many of the highest-ranking districts. Military Veterans is also prominent, especially in HD124, HD75, SD28, HD123, HD117, HD77, HD55, HD72, and HD69\. Language Access appears as a major alignment category in HD105, HD75, HD39, SD13, HD77, SD16, HD137, and SD06\. Agriculture and Rural needs appear in HD80, HD26, SD28, HD30, SD18, SD31, HD72, HD69, and HD81\. The result is a statewide ranking that reflects the diversity of Texas rather than a single political or regional pattern. ***The most important lesson from the ranking is that strong alignment is not the same thing as high bill volume. A legislator can file many bills and still not align closely with the district’s highest needs. Another legislator may have a more focused portfolio that better matches the district’s top priorities. This is why the Top-Need Alignment table is useful: it rewards responsiveness to the highest-priority conditions in the district rather than legislative activity in the abstract.*** The ranking also changes how certain districts should be interpreted. HD124, for example, was not as visible in a district-wide average score because that broader measure averages across all 14 needs. But when the analysis focuses only on the district’s top three needs, HD124 becomes one of the strongest performers in the state. That is not a contradiction. It shows that different metrics answer different questions. District-wide alignment measures balance across the full profile. Top-Need Alignment measures focus on what matters most. Viewed as a statewide product, the Top-Need Alignment ranking is the first representation leaderboard produced from the completed framework of need modeling, poverty modeling, identity correction, crosswalk validation, and alignment scoring. It identifies the legislators whose work most closely matches the highest-priority needs measured in their districts. The result is a more grounded view of representation: not who was loudest, not who filed the most bills, and not who appeared most often in leadership conversations, but whose legislative work most closely followed the measurable needs of the people they represent. **District-wide average alignment** measures average alignment across all 14 need categories. **Top-Need Alignment** measures alignment only across the district’s three highest-priority needs. ## Top 25 Districts by Top-Need Alignment | Rank | District | Chamber | Legislator | Top-Need Score | Top Need 1 | Score | Top Need 2 | Score | Top Need 3 | Score | | ---- | -------- | ------- | ---------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------- | ----- | ----------------------------- | ----- | ----------------------------- | ----- | | 1 | SD26 | Senate | Menéndez, José | 99.22 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 98.69 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 99.81 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 99.16 | | 2 | HD034 | House | Villalobos, Denise | 98.53 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 99.03 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 99.83 | EDUCATIONAL\_ATTAINMENT | 96.73 | | 3 | HD105 | House | Meza, Thresa "Terry" | 97.54 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 99.84 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 97.51 | COMMERCIAL\_SERVICES\_ECONOMY | 95.28 | | 4 | HD080 | House | McLaughlin, Don | 97.35 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 94.94 | EDUCATIONAL\_ATTAINMENT | 98.27 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 98.84 | | 5 | HD124 | House | Garcia, Josey | 97.34 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 99.67 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 99.22 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 93.13 | | 6 | HD075 | House | González, Mary | 97.21 | CHILDREN\_YOUTH | 98.36 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 97.20 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 96.08 | | 7 | HD026 | House | Morgan, Matt | 97.21 | INFRASTRUCTURE\_NEED | 98.29 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 97.06 | HOUSING\_STABILITY | 96.29 | | 8 | HD139 | House | Ward Johnson, Charlene | 97.14 | INFRASTRUCTURE\_NEED | 99.04 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 99.51 | GOVERNMENT\_ACCESS | 92.86 | | 9 | HD039 | House | Martinez, Armando | 96.95 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 97.16 | EDUCATIONAL\_ATTAINMENT | 99.73 | CHILDREN\_YOUTH | 93.95 | | 10 | SD28 | Senate | Perry, Charles | 96.87 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 95.50 | SENIOR\_SERVICES | 99.16 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 95.94 | | 11 | HD123 | House | Bernal, Diego | 96.87 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 96.49 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 99.29 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 94.84 | | 12 | HD030 | House | Louderback, AJ | 96.83 | SENIOR\_SERVICES | 95.83 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 98.94 | EDUCATIONAL\_ATTAINMENT | 95.73 | | 13 | SD13 | Senate | Miles, Borris L. | 96.66 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 95.46 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 96.97 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 97.55 | | 14 | HD117 | House | Cortez, Philip | 96.50 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 97.16 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 98.84 | CHILDREN\_YOUTH | 93.51 | | 15 | HD077 | House | Perez, Vincent M. | 96.49 | HEALTHCARE\_ACCESS | 95.16 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 95.83 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 98.49 | | 16 | SD18 | Senate | Kolkhorst, Lois W. | 96.46 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 98.05 | INFRASTRUCTURE\_NEED | 95.39 | SENIOR\_SERVICES | 95.94 | | 17 | SD31 | Senate | Sparks, Kevin | 96.34 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 92.27 | CHILDREN\_YOUTH | 98.69 | EDUCATIONAL\_ATTAINMENT | 98.05 | | 18 | HD017 | House | Gerdes, Stan | 96.24 | INFRASTRUCTURE\_NEED | 99.71 | SENIOR\_SERVICES | 96.84 | HEALTHCARE\_ACCESS | 92.17 | | 19 | HD055 | House | Hickland, Hillary | 96.15 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 95.16 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 96.72 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 96.57 | | 20 | SD16 | Senate | Johnson, Nathan | 96.12 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 97.55 | COMMERCIAL\_SERVICES\_ECONOMY | 95.94 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 94.86 | | 21 | HD137 | House | Wu, Gene | 96.05 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 94.50 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 96.49 | GENERATIONAL\_POVERTY\_RISK | 97.16 | | 22 | SD06 | Senate | Alvarado, Carol | 96.01 | EDUCATIONAL\_ATTAINMENT | 95.50 | LANGUAGE\_ACCESS | 96.00 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 96.54 | | 23 | HD072 | House | Darby, Drew | 95.87 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 95.60 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 99.83 | SENIOR\_SERVICES | 92.17 | | 24 | HD069 | House | Frank, James B. | 95.69 | MILITARY\_VETERANS | 94.49 | SENIOR\_SERVICES | 97.51 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 95.06 | | 25 | HD081 | House | Landgraf, Brooks | 95.68 | AGRICULTURE\_RURAL | 93.60 | ECONOMIC\_MOBILITY | 93.61 | CHILDREN\_YOUTH | 99.82 | ## Methodology This analysis was produced using the National Data System Geospatial Intelligence Framework and the Texas Representation Framework. The framework evaluates legislative responsiveness by comparing measurable district needs against legislative activity during the 89th Texas Legislature. District needs were derived from district-level demographic, economic, educational, healthcare, housing, workforce, language, veteran, and poverty indicators. Legislative activity was derived from bill participation records, authorship records, legislative registries, and policy-domain classification systems. For each legislative district, the framework identified the three highest-priority needs based on district-level need intensity and percentile rankings. Legislative participation was then evaluated against policy domains associated with those needs. Need-response alignment scores were calculated using a percentile-based methodology that compares district need intensity against the relative level of legislative activity observed within each policy area. The resulting Top-Need Alignment Score measures how closely legislative activity corresponds to a district's most significant measurable needs. Higher scores indicate stronger alignment between district conditions and legislative activity. ## Important Notes and Limitations This analysis does not measure legislative effectiveness, constituent service, political ideology, leadership influence, committee influence, campaign activity, or the ultimate outcomes of legislation. It measures alignment between district conditions and legislative activity. Legislative activity may influence district conditions, but the framework does not assert that legislative action alone causes measurable social or economic outcomes. Likewise, districts may experience significant changes due to factors outside the legislative process, including economic conditions, federal programs, private-sector investment, demographic shifts, and local government actions. The framework is intended as a representation analysis tool rather than a performance rating system. High alignment scores indicate that legislative activity closely corresponds to identified district needs. Lower alignment scores indicate weaker correspondence between identified needs and observed legislative activity. Neither result should be interpreted as a complete measure of legislative performance. All findings are dependent upon the quality and completeness of the underlying demographic, legislative, geographic, and policy classification data available at the time of analysis. ## About the National Data System Geospatial Intelligence Framework The **National Data System** Geospatial Intelligence Framework is a registry-driven analytical framework designed to connect geography, demographics, institutions, public policy, and legislative activity into a unified system of analysis. The framework integrates geographic boundaries, demographic indicators, legislative records, policy classifications, and contextual intelligence layers to identify patterns of need, response, representation, and public policy alignment. The objective is to help explain how communities differ, how public institutions respond to those differences, and how measurable conditions vary across places, regions, and populations. This analysis represents one application of that framework focused on legislative representation and district-level need alignment in Texas. 89th Legislative Session provided courtesy of **Texas Legislature Online.** [District\_profiles\_spreadsheetProvided courtesy of the Texas Legislative CouncilDistrict\_profiles\_spreadsheet.xlsx607 KBdownload-circle](https://www.texascapitalreport.com/content/files/2026/06/District%5Fprofiles%5Fspreadsheet.xlsx "Download") ### The Three Measures Every Texas Legislator Receives: Need, Response, and Alignment URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-three-measures-every-texas-legislator-receives-need-response-and-alignment/ Last updated: 2026-06-22T21:38:57.000Z For decades, legislative performance has been measured primarily through activity. How many bills did a legislator file? How many became law? How many committees did they serve on? While useful, those measures provide only part of the picture. A new Texas Representation Profile System introduces three separate measurements for every House and Senate district. Together, they attempt to answer a deeper question: Are legislators responding to the measurable conditions of the people they represent? The framework is built around three distinct layers: 1. District Need 2. Legislative Response 3. Representation Alignment Each layer answers a different question. ## Layer One: District Need District Need measures what the district statistically appears to require based on demographic, economic, social, and geographic indicators. The system analyzes hundreds of variables drawn from district-level demographic profiles and groups them into categories such as: - Children and Youth - Healthcare Access - Housing Stability - Economic Mobility - Military and Veterans - Infrastructure - Language Access - Senior Services - Educational Attainment - Agriculture and Rural Economy Each district receives a percentile ranking for every category. For example: A district with a Military and Veterans score in the 99th percentile has one of the strongest veteran-related demographic profiles in Texas. A district with a Housing Stability score in the 90th percentile faces significantly greater housing pressures than most districts statewide. District Need does not measure what legislators do. It measures the conditions that exist within the district. ## Layer Two: Legislative Response Legislative Response measures where lawmakers devote their legislative attention. Bills are classified into policy domains such as: - Education - Healthcare - Workforce and Employment - Housing - Transportation - Veterans and Military - Business and Economic Development - Local Government - Elections and Governance The system then measures legislative participation using several forms of involvement: | Participation Type | Weight | | ------------------ | ------ | | Primary Author | 1.00 | | Joint Author | 0.75 | | Coauthor | 0.50 | | Sponsor | 0.50 | | Cosponsor | 0.25 | This distinction is important. A legislator who writes and leads legislation bears a different level of responsibility than a legislator who simply joins an existing coalition. Legislative Response therefore measures where lawmakers spend their political capital and legislative effort. ## Layer Three: Representation Alignment Representation Alignment compares District Need to Legislative Response. This is the most important layer. The question is straightforward: Did the legislator devote meaningful legislative attention to the district's strongest measurable needs? For example: If a district's top needs are: - Military and Veterans - Economic Mobility - Public Safety and the legislator's strongest legislative activity occurs in those same areas, the district receives a strong alignment profile. If the district's highest needs receive little legislative attention while lower-priority areas dominate the legislative portfolio, the district may exhibit weaker alignment. Importantly, alignment is not a measure of ideology. It is a measure of correspondence between district conditions and legislative behavior. ## What The Categories Mean The framework also recognizes that some categories measure direct conditions while others measure long-term risk. One of the most important examples emerged during development. A category initially labeled Public Safety Need was built from: - Family poverty - Child poverty - Single-parent poverty The underlying variables did not directly measure crime or policing. Instead, they measured economic conditions associated with long-term poverty. As a result, the category was reinterpreted as: Generational Poverty Risk This category now represents the concentration of conditions associated with intergenerational economic hardship rather than traditional public safety concerns. That distinction significantly changes how legislative response is interpreted. ## A New Way To Understand Representation Traditional legislative scorecards focus on productivity. The Representation Profile System focuses on relationship. It asks: - What does a district need? - What issues does its legislator prioritize? - Do those priorities align? The results suggest that legislators do not all represent their districts in the same way. Some appear strongly aligned with district conditions. Others appear guided by professional expertise. Others appear influenced by committee assignments or specialized policy interests. Understanding those differences may be one of the most important steps toward understanding representation itself. The future of legislative analysis may not be found in counting bills alone. It may be found in understanding the relationship between district conditions, legislative behavior, and public need. ### Not All Legislative Participation Is Equal: Why Texas Needs a Leadership Score URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/not-all-legislative-participation-is-equal-why-texas-needs-a-leadership-score/ Last updated: 2026-06-22T21:39:59.000Z For generations, legislative performance has been measured using simple metrics. How many bills did a lawmaker file? How many bills became law? How many times did a lawmaker appear on legislation? While useful, those measures assume that every form of participation carries the same level of responsibility. The legislative record suggests otherwise. A lawmaker who authors a bill bears a different level of responsibility than a lawmaker who simply signs on in support. A senator who carries legislation through the opposite chamber plays a different role than a coauthor who joins an existing coalition. Treating all participation equally may obscure the true structure of legislative leadership. A more sophisticated approach recognizes that different forms of participation represent different levels of ownership. ## A Legislative Leadership Framework Under a leadership-based model, legislative participation can be weighted according to responsibility and influence. | Participation Type | Weight | | ------------------ | ------ | | Primary Author | 1.00 | | Joint Author | 0.75 | | Coauthor | 0.50 | | Sponsor | 0.50 | | Cosponsor | 0.25 | The framework recognizes that leading legislation is different from supporting legislation. Primary authors create legislative proposals, build coalitions, navigate committees, negotiate amendments, and often become the public face of a policy effort. Joint authors share substantial ownership of legislation and often help drive a bill's development and passage. Coauthors provide support and coalition strength but generally do not bear the same level of responsibility for the legislation. Sponsors and cosponsors serve important roles in advancing legislation through the legislative process, particularly when bills move between chambers, but their participation represents a different form of influence than original authorship. ## Why Traditional Rankings Fall Short Consider two lawmakers. The first appears on 100 bills exclusively as a coauthor. The second appears on 60 bills but serves as the primary author on 40 of them. Traditional participation rankings may favor the first lawmaker because of the larger bill count. A leadership-weighted model may reach the opposite conclusion. The second lawmaker assumed substantially more responsibility for the legislation. The distinction matters. Legislative activity and legislative leadership are not necessarily the same thing. ## Measuring Leadership Rather Than Presence A leadership score would allow analysts to distinguish between: - Legislative leaders - Coalition builders - Supportive participants - Cross-chamber facilitators Each role contributes to the legislative process, but each role reflects a different level of initiative and ownership. The result is a more nuanced understanding of influence inside the Texas Capitol. ## The Emerging Data Opportunity The construction of a statewide legislative participation layer now makes this type of analysis possible. For the first time, participation can be separated into primary authors, joint authors, coauthors, sponsors, and cosponsors across multiple legislative sessions. That creates the opportunity to measure not merely who participated, but how they participated. Some lawmakers may emerge as prolific coalition builders. Others may emerge as policy entrepreneurs who consistently originate legislation. Still others may prove especially effective at carrying legislation through the opposite chamber. Each represents a different form of leadership. ## Beyond Bill Counts The broader lesson is simple. Counting legislation tells us who was present. Measuring leadership tells us who assumed responsibility. As legislative data systems become more sophisticated, Texas may need to move beyond simple bill counts and begin evaluating the quality and nature of legislative participation itself. The future of legislative analysis may not be found in measuring how many bills a lawmaker touched. It may be found in measuring how much leadership they provided. ### What Problems Is Texas Spending Its Time Trying to Solve? URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/what-problems-is-texas-spending-its-time-trying-to-solve/ Last updated: 2026-06-22T21:36:37.000Z A Texas Capital Report analysis of nearly 30,000 legislative measures filed during the 87th, 88th, and 89th Texas Legislatures reveals something surprising. Texas' priorities are changing less than many people think. Education remains the dominant policy domain across all three legislatures. Criminal justice consistently ranks second. Healthcare remains among the largest legislative priorities. Government finance continues to grow. Housing has emerged as one of the fastest-growing policy areas in the state. ## Texas’ Core Legislative Priorities Stayed Remarkably Stable Across the 87th, 88th, and 89th Texas Legislatures, the same major policy domains remained near the top: education, criminal justice, healthcare, state finance, and local government. | Policy Domain | 87R | 88R | 89R | | ---------------- | ----- | ----- | ----- | | Education | 1,421 | 2,131 | 1,447 | | Criminal Justice | 812 | 1,049 | 1,150 | | Healthcare | 624 | 799 | 806 | | State Finance | 423 | 613 | 720 | | Local Government | 499 | 558 | 414 | Texas’ legislative attention remained concentrated on the same governing systems: schools, courts, healthcare, public finance, and local government. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence—despite dominating national headlines—remains a relatively small legislative category. The findings suggest that Texas lawmakers continue to devote the majority of their attention to the same core challenges that have shaped state government for years: educating students, administering healthcare systems, managing criminal justice institutions, funding government, and responding to housing pressures. The fastest-growing policy domains are not necessarily the ones receiving the most media attention. Housing legislation increased substantially across three legislatures. Government finance and budgeting grew even faster. Criminal justice continued to expand. Healthcare remained consistently large. Artificial intelligence and technology policy grew as well, but from a comparatively small base. ### Artificial Intelligence Remains a Small Legislative Category Artificial intelligence and technology policy grew during the 89th Legislature, but it remained a relatively small share of overall legislative activity. | Session | Technology / AI Bills | Total Bills | Share of Legislature | | ------- | --------------------- | ----------- | -------------------- | | 87R | 18 | 9,028 | 0.20% | | 88R | 17 | 11,797 | 0.14% | | 89R | 36 | 8,716 | 0.41% | Technology and AI legislation doubled between the 87th and 89th Legislatures, increasing from 18 bills to 36 bills. However, even after doubling, AI-related legislation represented less than one-half of one percent of all bills filed during the 89th Legislature. The result is a legislative record that tells a different story than political headlines. The Legislature's attention remains concentrated on the practical systems that affect daily life: schools, healthcare, public safety, taxation, housing, and local government. In other words, while public debate often focuses on the newest issues, the legislative record suggests Texas continues to spend most of its time trying to solve its oldest problems. ### The Legislature Makes the Law. The Comptroller Administers It. The HUB Debate Shows Why That Difference Matters. URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-legislature-makes-the-law-the-comptroller-administers-it-the-hub-debate-shows-why-that-difference-matters/ Last updated: 2026-06-21T14:31:25.000Z **AUSTIN, Texas** — One of the most important questions emerging from the Texas HUB controversy has little to do with procurement, certification, or contracting goals. Instead, it concerns the roles of government itself. Who decides the future of a state program? The Legislature? Or the agency responsible for administering it? The debate surrounding the Texas Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Program has brought that question into sharp focus. As lawmakers filed competing proposals regarding the future of HUB during the 89th Legislature, the Texas Comptroller's Office later suspended new HUB certifications and initiated a legal review of the program following litigation and constitutional concerns. Those events have created a broader discussion about where policymaking ends and administration begins. ## What the Legislature Does The Texas Legislature creates public policy. Legislators introduce bills, debate proposals, hold hearings, amend legislation, negotiate differences between the House and Senate, and ultimately decide whether laws should be enacted. The legislative record from the 89th Session demonstrates that lawmakers were actively considering the future of HUB. Representative David Spiller of House District 68 and Senator Mayes Middleton of Senate District 11 proposed expanding HUB eligibility to certain veteran-owned businesses through House Bill 4790 and Senate Bill 390. Representative Jessica González of House District 104 and Senator Sarah Eckhardt of Senate District 14 proposed changes to HUB ownership qualification standards through House Bill 1204 and Senate Bill 366. Senator Royce West of Senate District 23 proposed creating a revolving loan program to help HUB-certified businesses obtain bonds required for public works contracts through Senate Bill 222. Senator Borris Miles of Senate District 13 proposed legislation addressing HUB program enforcement through Senate Bill 2912. Representative Don McLaughlin of House District 80 proposed eliminating the HUB program entirely through House Bill 3573. These proposals represented dramatically different visions for the future of HUB. Yet despite those differences, the process itself reflected the Legislature's constitutional role. Lawmakers were debating policy. Some wanted expansion. Some wanted reform. Some wanted stronger enforcement. Some wanted elimination. The Legislature was performing the function it was designed to perform: deciding what Texas law should be. ## What the Comptroller Does The Comptroller occupies a different role. The agency does not create the HUB program. The Legislature created the HUB program through statute. The Comptroller administers it. That includes certification, compliance, procurement guidance, reporting, utilization goals, outreach, and program operations. The Comptroller is specifically authorized under Texas law to administer and maintain the HUB program and promulgate rules governing its operation. The Comptroller also maintains certification systems, conducts reviews, provides agency guidance, supports HUB coordinators, and oversees implementation of the program established by statute. Those administrative responsibilities are substantial. But they are distinct from the Legislature's policymaking authority. ## The Collision of Two Processes The significance of the HUB controversy is that legislative and administrative processes began moving simultaneously. During the 89th Session, lawmakers were debating competing HUB proposals. At roughly the same time, litigation emerged challenging the constitutionality of the program. According to reporting by Nexstar, the lawsuit alleged that the HUB program placed non-HUB firms at a competitive disadvantage and raised equal-protection concerns. The Comptroller's Office subsequently suspended new HUB certifications and initiated a legal review of the program's administration and rules. Those actions did not occur in a vacuum. They occurred while the Legislature itself had already been debating the future of HUB. That is what makes the timeline so important. ## The Question Facing Texas The central question is not whether lawmakers should debate HUB. They clearly did. The central question is not whether the Comptroller should review legal risks. That is part of the agency's responsibility. The larger question is how Texas navigates situations where: - Policy debates are occurring in the Legislature; - Legal challenges are occurring in the courts; - Administrative reviews are occurring within agencies. Those processes can move at different speeds and produce different outcomes. The HUB controversy illustrates how those three systems can intersect at the same moment. ## The Bigger Constitutional Story Viewed through that lens, the HUB debate becomes more than a procurement story. It becomes a story about governance. The Legislature represents the policymaking branch. State agencies represent the administrative branch. Courts evaluate legal challenges. The HUB program now sits at the intersection of all three. Lawmakers were proposing expansion, reform, enforcement, and elimination. The courts were evaluating legal challenges. The Comptroller was conducting administrative review. All at the same time. That combination transformed what might otherwise have been a routine contracting discussion into one of the most significant public policy debates surrounding economic opportunity in Texas. ## What Happens Next The legislative record shows that lawmakers were already engaged in a serious debate over HUB's future before the controversy intensified. The administrative record shows that state officials were examining legal and operational questions surrounding the program. The legal record shows that the program itself is now being challenged in court. The next chapter will likely determine not only the future of HUB, but also how Texas balances legislative intent, administrative authority, and constitutional scrutiny when one of the state's most important business opportunity programs comes under pressure. And that question reaches far beyond procurement policy. It goes to the heart of how government itself functions. ### Before the Lawsuit, Before the Review, Before the Controversy: Texas Lawmakers Were Already Debating the Future of HUB URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/before-the-lawsuit-before-the-review-before-the-controversy-texas-lawmakers-were-already-debating-the-future-of-hub/ Last updated: 2026-06-22T21:35:57.000Z **AUSTIN, Texas** — The recent controversy surrounding the Texas Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Program has largely focused on lawsuits, administrative reviews, suspended certifications, and questions about the program's future. But the legislative record tells a different story. Long before the Texas Comptroller suspended new certifications and launched a legal review of the program, lawmakers in the 89th Texas Legislature were already engaged in one of the most significant debates over the future of HUB in years. A review of legislation filed during the session reveals that lawmakers proposed expanding the program, tightening eligibility requirements, creating financing mechanisms for HUB-certified firms, strengthening enforcement provisions, and even eliminating the program entirely. In short, the future of HUB was already being contested inside the Legislature. The debate was not whether HUB mattered. The debate was what HUB should become. ## A Program Three Decades in the Making The Texas HUB Program traces its roots to efforts launched in the early 1990s to increase participation by minority-owned and women-owned businesses in state contracting and procurement. The program is administered under Chapter 2161 of the Texas Government Code and supported by statewide utilization goals, certification standards, agency reporting requirements, and subcontracting plans. The program has also been supported by disparity studies examining participation gaps in state contracting. For decades, the program has served as one of Texas' primary economic opportunity tools, helping connect qualified businesses with state procurement opportunities. By the time lawmakers convened for the 89th Legislature, HUB had become one of the state's most established business development programs. Yet lawmakers offered dramatically different visions for its future. ## The Expansion Vision One of the most consequential proposals came from Representative David Spiller of House District 68 and Senator Mayes Middleton of Senate District 11. House Bill 4790 and Senate Bill 390 proposed including certain veteran-owned businesses within the definition of a Historically Underutilized Business for purposes of state contracting. The proposal represented a significant expansion of HUB eligibility and anticipated many of the conversations that would later emerge surrounding veteran-owned businesses, supplier diversity, and contracting opportunity. Supporters viewed the proposal as an effort to recognize the challenges many veterans face when transitioning from military service into entrepreneurship. Had either bill become law, the HUB program would likely look very different today. ## The Reform Vision Representative Jessica González of House District 104 and Senator Sarah Eckhardt of Senate District 14 introduced companion legislation focused on HUB ownership requirements. House Bill 1204 and Senate Bill 366 addressed how ownership interests are evaluated when determining whether a business qualifies as a HUB. While technical on the surface, ownership definitions sit at the heart of every certification program. These bills sought to address how Texas evaluates control, ownership, and eligibility within the HUB framework. The proposals reflected a belief that the program should continue, but that the underlying rules governing participation deserved additional scrutiny. ## The Capital Access Vision Senator Royce West of Senate District 23 introduced what may be one of the most overlooked HUB bills of the entire session. Senate Bill 222 proposed creating a revolving loan program to help HUB-certified firms obtain bonds required for public works contracts. For many small businesses, obtaining bonding is one of the greatest barriers to competing for public infrastructure projects. A company may possess the expertise, workforce, and capacity to perform the work, but still lack the financial tools necessary to compete. West's proposal focused not on certification, but on access. The bill recognized that opportunity is often limited not by eligibility, but by capital. It represented a different vision of HUB policy: helping businesses compete after certification rather than simply helping them obtain certification. ## The Enforcement Vision Senator Borris Miles of Senate District 13 proposed Senate Bill 2912. The legislation addressed the HUB program itself and included criminal penalties related to certain conduct. The proposal reflected concerns regarding program integrity, accountability, and enforcement. Texas law already contains significant penalties related to fraudulent HUB certification and misuse of HUB status. Senate Bill 2912 suggested that at least some lawmakers believed stronger oversight mechanisms deserved consideration. ## The Elimination Vision The most dramatic proposal came from Representative Don McLaughlin of House District 80. House Bill 3573 proposed eliminating the state's Historically Underutilized Business program. Unlike reform proposals that sought to modify the program, HB 3573 challenged the program's continued existence. The bill reflected growing national debates surrounding diversity, contracting programs, and equal-protection challenges. While the proposal did not become law, it demonstrated that opposition to HUB had evolved beyond technical policy disagreements and into a direct challenge to the program itself. ## What the Legislature Was Really Debating Viewed together, the bills reveal something remarkable. Lawmakers were not arguing over a single policy change. They were debating five fundamentally different futures for the HUB program. One group wanted to expand it. One group wanted to reform it. One group wanted to strengthen it through capital access. One group wanted tighter oversight. One group wanted to eliminate it entirely. Those competing visions reveal a Legislature actively wrestling with questions that remain unresolved today: - Who should qualify for economic opportunity programs? - Should veteran-owned businesses be included? - How should eligibility be measured? - What role should state government play in creating access to contracting opportunities? - Can the program withstand legal scrutiny? - Should the program continue in its current form? ## The Significance of What Did Not Pass Perhaps the most important finding is that none of these major proposals became law. The Legislature considered expansion. The Legislature considered reform. The Legislature considered elimination. Yet no sweeping overhaul emerged from the session. That fact matters because it establishes a critical point in the timeline. Before lawsuits challenged the program. Before administrative reviews began. Before certifications were suspended. Texas lawmakers were already debating the future of HUB through the legislative process. The legislative record shows that HUB was not a settled issue. It was a contested one. And understanding that debate is essential to understanding everything that happened afterward. In many ways, the story of the HUB controversy did not begin with a lawsuit. It began with competing visions inside the Texas Legislature over what one of the state's most important business opportunity programs should become. ### Business Policy Powerhouses: The Lawmakers Driving Texas Economic Policy During the 89th Legislature URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/business-policy-powerhouses-the-lawmakers-driving-texas-economic-policy-during-the-89th-legislature/ Last updated: 2026-06-21T08:06:13.000Z **AUSTIN, Texas** — While education, healthcare, and criminal justice dominated legislative activity during the 89th Texas Legislature, a separate Texas Capital Report analysis found that a relatively small group of lawmakers emerged as the Legislature's most influential voices on business and economic policy. The findings come from the Texas Capital Report's Business Legislative Cluster analysis, which examined legislation across business and economic development, workforce and employment, occupational licensing and regulation, insurance, state finance and budgeting, procurement and contracting, banking and financial services, and technology policy. Together, those policy areas accounted for more than 1,100 bills during the 89th Legislature and represented one of the largest economic policy portfolios considered by lawmakers. Among the most influential legislators in the business policy arena were **Representative Stan Lambert** of House District 71, **Senator Charles Schwertner** of Senate District 5, **Senator Tan Parke**r of Senate District 12, **Representative Giovanni Capriglione** of House District 98, **Senator Judith Zaffirini** of Senate District 21, **Representative Will Metcalf** of House District 16, **Representative Greg Bonnen** of House District 24, and **Senator Paul Bettencourt** of Senate District 7. Lambert emerged as one of the Legislature's strongest performers in the core Business and Economic Development category, successfully converting three authored business-related bills into law. Schwertner followed closely behind, converting two business-related measures into enacted legislation. Capriglione, Parker, Bonnen, Metcalf, and several others also secured enacted legislation within the business policy domain while maintaining strong legislative performance across multiple areas of public policy. The analysis found that Texas business policy is rarely confined to a single committee or legislative category. Economic development legislation frequently intersects with occupational licensing, workforce development, state finance, insurance regulation, procurement policy, and emerging technology issues. As a result, lawmakers who consistently appear across multiple business-related policy domains often exert greater influence on the state's economic environment than legislators working exclusively on traditional economic development legislation. One of the clearest examples is **Senator Judith Zaffirini** of Senate District 21, who ranked among the Legislature's strongest performers in licensing and regulatory policy. Licensing legislation affects thousands of Texas businesses and professionals, influencing everything from workforce participation to market access. Similarly, **Senator Paul Bettencourt's** work in state finance and fiscal policy placed him among the lawmakers shaping the financial framework under which Texas businesses operate. The findings also underscore the importance of regulatory policy in the Texas economy. Occupational licensing, insurance regulation, procurement procedures, and agency administration often receive less public attention than major economic development announcements, yet they can have a profound impact on employers, entrepreneurs, investors, and workers across the state. According to the Texas Capital Report's analysis, business policy represented a far broader legislative footprint than the Business and Economic Development category alone. When workforce legislation, licensing reforms, fiscal policy, insurance regulation, technology policy, procurement, and financial services legislation are considered together, the business policy cluster becomes one of the largest areas of legislative activity during the 89th Legislature. --- ## Parallel Observation: Legislative Influence and Economic Influence Are Not Always the Same Thing The Texas Capital Report's Business Legislative Cluster analysis reveals an important distinction in how influence is exercised in state government. Legislative influence can be measured through authored bills, enacted laws, and policy outcomes. Economic influence, however, is often exercised through a different set of activities that rarely appear in legislative rankings. Business development forums, procurement fairs, workforce initiatives, capital access programs, vendor outreach events, and public-private partnerships can shape economic opportunity without ever appearing as a bill number in the Texas Legislature. This distinction is particularly important when evaluating events such as **Senator Royce West's** *Doing Business Texas Style* Spot Bid Fair. While such an event may not directly increase a legislator's standing in a business policy ranking, it can create meaningful economic opportunities by connecting businesses with state agencies, procurement contracts, and government purchasing opportunities. In practical terms, a single successful contract awarded to a Texas business may generate more immediate economic impact than a piece of legislation that takes years to implement. The Business Legislative Cluster measures who is changing the legal and regulatory framework under which Texas businesses operate. Events such as procurement fairs measure who is creating pathways for businesses to participate in that economy. Both forms of leadership matter, but they are different forms of influence. The Texas Capital Report therefore views legislative leadership and economic ecosystem leadership as parallel forms of public service. One changes policy. The other creates opportunity. Together they provide a more complete picture of how elected officials contribute to the economic future of Texas. > Legislation changes policy. Economic outreach creates opportunity. Texas needs both. --- The results suggest that influence over Texas economic policy is distributed across both chambers and multiple regions of the state. Lawmakers from North Texas, the Houston metropolitan area, Central Texas, South Texas, and East Texas all appeared prominently in business-related legislative activity, reflecting the statewide nature of Texas' economic priorities. As the Texas economy continues to expand and diversify, the lawmakers who shape regulatory policy, workforce development, business formation, technology adoption, insurance markets, and fiscal policy are likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the state's competitive position. The Texas Capital Report's Business Legislative Cluster analysis offers a new way to identify those policymakers and evaluate their impact on the economic future of Texas. Future Texas Capital Report analyses will examine healthcare, education, housing, criminal justice, and local government policy clusters, providing a detailed view of which lawmakers are driving outcomes in the policy areas that most affect Texans and the state's economy. ### New Legislative Effectiveness Index Reveals Texas Lawmakers Who Turned Ideas Into Law During the 89th Legislature URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/new-legislative-effectiveness-index-reveals-texas-lawmakers-who-turned-ideas-into-law-during-the-89th-legislature/ Last updated: 2026-06-20T22:27:29.000Z AUSTIN, Texas — A new analysis of the 89th Texas Legislature found that legislative success was concentrated among a relatively small group of lawmakers, with just 23 legislators earning the highest recognition level under the newly developed **Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index (TLEI)**, a data-driven system created by the Texas Capital Report to measure legislative performance based on enacted laws rather than bill filings. The analysis examined 8,716 House and Senate bills, more than 133,000 legislative actions, and 2,359 enacted laws from the 89th Legislature. The project was designed to answer a question frequently asked by voters but rarely measured in a systematic way: Did this legislator actually turn ideas into law? --- **Top Performers Snapshot** The inaugural Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index identified a small group of lawmakers responsible for a disproportionate share of enacted legislation during the 89th Legislature. Among House members, **Representative Giovanni Capriglione** (HD-98), Representative Will Metcalf (HD-16), **Representative Terri Leo Wilson** (HD-23), **Representative David Cook** (HD-96), and **Representative Lacey Hull** (HD-138) ranked among the highest-performing legislators under the TLEI methodology. In the Senate, **Senator Judith Zaffirini** (SD-21), **Senator Bryan Hughes** (SD-1), **Senator Tan Parker** (SD-12), **Senator Charles Perry** (SD-28), and **Senator Angela Paxton** (SD-8) emerged as top-performing lawmakers based on enacted legislation, legislative efficiency, and statewide legislative impact. Only ten legislators exceeded 40 enacted laws during the session, while just twenty-three lawmakers achieved Platinum Legislative Performer status under the Texas Capital Report recognition framework. Separate Texas Capital Report analyses will publish the full Top 25 House Members, Top 10 Senators, State Impact Leaders, and Legislatively Vulnerable Member rankings. *Only 10 legislators exceeded 40 enacted laws during the 89th Legislature, and only 23 achieved Platinum Legislative Performer status under the Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index.* --- For decades, legislative performance has often been judged by press releases, public appearances, campaign messaging, and the number of bills filed during a legislative session. The Texas Capital Report's analysis found that those measures alone provide an incomplete picture of legislative effectiveness. While many lawmakers introduced dozens or even hundreds of bills during the session, only a fraction ultimately became law. 💡 Editor's Note: The Texas Legislative Effectiveness Index (TLEI) is an independent analytical framework developed by the Texas Capitol Report to evaluate legislative outcomes during the 89th Texas Legislature. The index examines legislative activity, legislative movement, law conversion, statewide legislative impact, and legislative efficiency using official Texas Legislature Online records. The guiding principle of the project is simple: Do not confuse activity with impact. Under the TLEI methodology, legislators were evaluated on legislative activity, movement through the legislative process, law conversion, statewide legislative impact, and legislative efficiency. The system also introduced a Statewide Legislative Share metric, measuring the percentage of all enacted legislation attributable to a particular legislator. The findings revealed that the average Texas legislator was associated with approximately 13 enacted laws during the session, while the median legislator saw 10 measures become law. At the top of the rankings were lawmakers who consistently advanced legislation through both chambers and secured the Governor's signature. Only 10 legislators exceeded 40 enacted laws, placing them in the highest tier of legislative achievement. Legislators scoring 95 or above were classified as Platinum Legislative Performers, while legislators scoring below 60 were classified as Legislatively Vulnerable under the TLEI recognition framework. The study also found significant differences between legislative activity and legislative accomplishment. Some lawmakers filed large numbers of bills but converted relatively few into law. Others introduced fewer measures but achieved substantially higher law-conversion rates. As a result, the TLEI framework places greater weight on enacted legislation than on filing volume alone. The Texas Capital Report developed the index around a guiding principle: "Do not confuse activity with impact." The methodology intentionally rewards measurable policy outcomes and recognizes legislators who successfully translate legislative proposals into enacted public policy. The publication's recognition framework classifies legislators into Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Legislatively Vulnerable categories based on overall performance scores. A separate State Impact classification recognizes lawmakers based on the number of enacted laws they produced during the session, ranging from Exceptional State Impact to No Enacted Laws. The analysis is expected to serve as the foundation for a series of Texas Capital Report rankings, including the **Top 25 House Members**, **Top 10 Senators**, **State Impact Leaders**, and district-level legislative performance reviews. ****Top Performers Snapshot** 23 legislators earned Platinum Legislative Performer status. Only 10 legislators exceeded 40 enacted laws during the 89th Legislature. A separate Texas Capitol Report analysis identifies the Top 25 House Members and Top 10 Senators under the TLEI methodology. [Learn more ](https://texas-capital-report.ghost.io/?ref=texascapitalreport.com) As lawmakers prepare for future legislative sessions, the results provide Texans with a new way to evaluate legislative performance—not by how many bills are filed, but by how many ideas become law and ultimately shape the future of the State of Texas. ### One Speech, One Number, One Challenge: William Michael Cunningham's Vision for Black Business Growth in Corpus Christi URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/one-speech-one-number-one-challenge-william-michael-cunninghams-vision-for-black-business-growth-in-corpus-christi/ Last updated: 2026-06-23T13:31:02.000Z CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — On June 17, 2026, business leaders, elected officials, educators, students, and community advocates gathered for the **Corpus Christi Black Chamber of Commerce's State of the Black Business Lunch Summit**, an event that brought together a powerful combination of leadership, vision, and opportunity. The luncheon was facilitated by **Dr. Tammy Francis**, PhD, chamber board member and parliamentarian, and featured nationally recognized economist **William Michael Cunningham** as the keynote presenter. The event also included scholarship presentations to local students by **Coretta Graham, Esq.**, past president of the Corpus Christi Black Chamber of Commerce and Chairwoman of the Black Chamber **HOPE Foundation**, demonstrating the Chamber's commitment to both economic development and educational advancement. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/06/William_Michael_Cunnigham.jpg) William Michael Cunningham guest speaker Corpus Christi, Texas Among those recognizing the importance of the event was Corpus Christi **Mayor Paulette Guajardo**, the city's 60th mayor, who acknowledged Cunningham and his work during the summit. The gathering concluded with remarks from **Curtis Clark**, Vice President of **IBC Bank** and President and CEO of the Corpus Christi Black Chamber of Commerce, who challenged attendees to consider what could be achieved if the community aligned around a common economic vision. Cunningham, founder of **Creative Investment Research**, is widely known for his work in social investment analysis and minority business development. A graduate of Howard University and the University of Chicago, he has spent more than three decades researching economic disparities, capital markets, and entrepreneurship in underserved communities. Throughout his career, he has advocated for data-driven approaches to economic development and has become one of the nation's leading voices on minority business growth. His work focuses on transforming overlooked populations into measurable economic opportunities rather than viewing them solely through the lens of social challenges. What made Cunningham's presentation particularly compelling was its simplicity. He did not begin with poverty statistics, public assistance programs, or complex economic theories. Instead, he focused on a single measurement that he believes reveals the economic health of a community: the number of Black-owned businesses operating within it. His argument was direct. If a city wants more jobs, higher payrolls, greater tax revenues, and stronger community wealth, it must first increase the number of successful Black-owned businesses participating in the local economy. Using demographic parity analysis, Cunningham demonstrated that Corpus Christi's Black business community is significantly underrepresented relative to the area's Black population. The metro currently supports approximately 135 Black-owned businesses. Based on demographic parity, that number should be closer to 352\. The difference represents a gap of 217 businesses that do not currently exist in the local economy. According to Cunningham's analysis, that missing business base translates into approximately 1,540 unrealized jobs, more than $43 million in payroll, and roughly $426 million in annual business revenue opportunity. These figures formed the centerpiece of his presentation and reframed the discussion from one of limitations to one of measurable economic opportunity. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/06/William-Michael-Cunningham-and-Mayor-of-Corpus-Christi.jpg) ****Mayor Paulette Guajardo**, Economist ****William Michael Cunningham** and ****Dr. Tammy Francis** Unlike many economic development strategies that focus primarily on incentives or government programs, Cunningham emphasized business growth itself. One of his central recommendations was that Corpus Christi should actively recruit successful Black-owned businesses from neighboring states, particularly Louisiana and Mississippi. He argued that these states possess Black business ecosystems with cultural, economic, and demographic similarities to South Texas. Rather than attempting to attract firms from distant markets with little connection to the Gulf Coast, Corpus Christi could build relationships with entrepreneurs and business owners who already understand the region and may be seeking expansion opportunities. His vision extended beyond recruitment. Cunningham described a comprehensive strategy built around four pillars: recruiting Black-owned businesses, creating new local Black-owned businesses, expanding existing Black-owned businesses, and retaining the businesses already operating in the community. Together, these actions create a pathway toward business parity. Every additional Black-owned business contributes to employment, payroll, purchasing power, commercial activity, and wealth creation. Over time, the cumulative impact becomes transformational. Perhaps the most powerful aspect of Cunningham's message was the way he reframed the conversation about economic development. Too often, discussions about disparities begin with deficits and challenges. Cunningham began with assets and opportunity. He challenged leaders to focus on entrepreneurship, ownership, and business formation as engines of growth. In his view, every Black-owned business represents more than a company. It represents jobs, leadership, investment, tax revenue, and the potential for generational wealth creation. # Black Business Opportunity Compact Simulator Based on Corpus Christi's current Black Business population, — Creative Investment Research's William Michael Cunningham demonstrated by recruitment of Black Businesses close to Corpus Christi, the city could gain millions of new revenues for overall city growth. Move the slider to simulate closing the Black business ownership gap. Gap Closure: **50%** Projected Firms **244** Jobs Created **770** Payroll Added **$21.5M** Revenue Added **$213M** Baseline: 135 firms, 960 jobs, $27M payroll, $266M revenue. Parity target: 352 firms, 2,500 jobs, $70M payroll, $692M revenue. The question he left with the audience was both simple and profound. If Corpus Christi has the potential to create 217 additional Black-owned businesses and unlock approximately $426 million in annual business revenue, what is the community prepared to do to make that vision a reality? For city leaders, business executives, educators, chambers of commerce, and community organizations, the answer to that question may shape the region's economic future for decades to come. ### Why America's Strongest Veteran Support Networks May Not Be Where You Think URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/why-americas-strongest-veteran-support-networks-may-not-be-where-you-think/ Last updated: 2026-07-13T08:07:37.000Z By Christopher C. Herring When most Americans think about veteran communities, they think about military installations. Places like **San Antonio, Texas**. **Norfolk, Virginia**. **Jacksonville, Florida**. and **Colorado Springs, Colorado** stand out. These cities have earned their reputations through decades of military service, active-duty personnel, veterans, retirees, and defense-related institutions. But a new analysis of Internal Revenue Service nonprofit records reveals something unexpected. The strongest concentrations of veteran-service organizations in America are not found exclusively around major military installations. Instead, some of the nation's most concentrated veteran-support ecosystems appear across the Upper Midwest. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/06/5gCn7-where-veteran-service-organizations-are-concentrated-in-america-.png) Using the Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organization Business Master File, NationalDataSystem identified nearly 25,000 veteran-serving organizations operating across the United States. The organizations include veterans groups, military support organizations, community-based veteran nonprofits, and other exempt organizations classified under veteran-serving categories. The resulting map highlights several expected regions. South Texas stands out, reflecting the long-standing influence of Joint Base San Antonio and the city's identity as **Military City USA**. Portions of Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic corridor also show elevated concentrations of veteran-serving organizations, consistent with the military footprint surrounding Norfolk and related installations. The surprise emerges farther north. Counties across Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and neighboring states display some of the highest concentrations of veteran-service organizations in the nation. Unlike many military hubs, these communities are not primarily defined by active-duty military populations. Instead, they appear to represent mature veteran-support ecosystems built around local institutions, civic organizations, service clubs, American Legion posts, Veterans of Foreign Wars chapters, and community-based support networks. The finding suggests that veteran support in America is not solely a function of military presence. It is also a function of community organization. Military installations create veteran populations. Communities create veteran support systems. That distinction matters. As policymakers debate veteran services, workforce development, housing assistance, healthcare access, and community resilience, the density of veteran-serving organizations may provide an overlooked indicator of local support capacity. Areas with strong nonprofit infrastructure may be better positioned to connect veterans with assistance, coordinate services, and sustain long-term community engagement. The map also highlights a broader lesson about data. Many assumptions about geography are shaped by visibility. Large military installations are easy to see. Community support ecosystems are harder to measure. By examining nearly two million nonprofit records, patterns emerge that challenge conventional wisdom and reveal how civic institutions operate beneath the surface. The result is a more complete picture of veteran support in America—one that extends beyond bases, uniforms, and military budgets to include the thousands of local organizations that help veterans navigate civilian life long after their service has ended. In many cases, the strongest veteran-support systems may not be found where the military is largest. They may be found where communities have spent generations building institutions that endure. ### Texas' Parole System Is Driven More By Persistent Mid-Level Offenses Than By Murder Cases URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-parole-system-is-driven-more-by-persistent-mid-level-offenses-than-by-murder-cases/ Last updated: 2026-06-10T15:09:03.000Z A new Texas correctional intelligence analysis finds that robbery, burglary, drug, firearm, and repeat DWI offenses generate substantially more parole-review pressure than homicide cases, despite murder carrying the longest average sentences. --- Public attention often focuses on murder and other high-profile violent crimes when discussing incarceration and parole. But a new analysis of more than 141,000 Texas Department of Criminal Justice records suggests a different operational reality. The largest sources of parole-review pressure in Texas are not murder cases. Instead, the system is heavily occupied by thousands of individuals incarcerated for robbery, burglary, controlled-substance offenses, firearm-possession offenses, and repeat DWI violations. --- ## The Scale Of The Review Pipeline The parole-review system currently contains thousands of active reviews concentrated in a handful of Texas counties. The largest review volumes occur in: | County | Active Reviews | | ------- | -------------- | | Harris | 3,628 | | Dallas | 2,265 | | Tarrant | 2,209 | | Bexar | 1,994 | These counties represent the largest correctional-system review workloads in Texas. --- ## Murder Generates Long Sentences, Not Large Review Volume Murder remains one of the most persistent incarceration categories. Average sentence structure: ```text Murder 42.2 years ``` However: ```text Parole Review Share 7.25% ``` Only 354 murder records were actively in parole review. That means murder contributes heavily to long-term institutional occupancy but not to overall review-system volume. --- ## The Real Drivers Of Parole Pressure Several offense categories dominate review activity: | Offense | Review Share | | ------------------- | ------------ | | DWI 3rd or More | 42.9% | | Possession PG1/1-B | 41.7% | | Firearm By Felon | 35–46% | | Burglary Habitation | 33.9% | | Robbery | 25.2% | These categories create large recurring review populations because they combine: - substantial record counts - moderate sentence lengths - high parole-review activity Together they generate much of the operational pressure inside the review system. --- ## Different Counties Carry Different Burdens Not all counties experience the same review structure. Some counties show unusually high review participation rates. Examples: 💡 ****Parole-Review Hotspots** Some of Texas' most significant parole-review concentrations are not found in the state's largest counties. ****El Paso County (30.9%)**, ****Potter County (28.5%)**, ****Lubbock County (26.2%)**, and ****Hidalgo County (25.1%)** each maintain a larger share of incarcerated individuals actively engaged in the parole-review process than many higher-volume correctional jurisdictions. The measure reflects parole-review concentration, not outcomes, approvals, denials, or release decisions. By contrast: ****Harris County (18.4%)** Although Harris carries the largest total review volume, several smaller counties carry higher review concentration. --- ## Sentence Persistence Remains Uneven The analysis also found differences in average sentence persistence across demographic cohorts. ## Largest Incarcerated Cohorts in the Texas Correctional System The Texas correctional population is heavily concentrated among three demographic cohorts, which together account for the overwhelming majority of records analyzed in this study. | Demographic Cohort | Incarcerated Records | Share of Top 3 Cohorts | | ------------------ | -------------------- | ---------------------- | | **Hispanic Male** | **45,337** | **34.9%** | | **Black Male** | **43,337** | **33.4%** | | **White Male** | **41,176** | **31.7%** | > **Institutional Composition Snapshot** > > Hispanic males represent the largest incarcerated cohort in the dataset, followed closely by Black males and White males. Together, these three cohorts account for approximately **129,850 incarcerated records** within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice population analyzed. > > This table describes institutional population composition only. It does not establish causation, risk, fairness, bias, or underlying drivers of incarceration patterns. Average sentence structures: | Cohort | Avg Sentence | | ------------- | ------------ | | Black Male | 18.7 years | | White Male | 17.7 years | | Hispanic Male | 16.1 years | These findings describe institutional sentence structures and do not establish causation or explain underlying drivers. --- ## A Correctional Persistence Story The strongest signal in the data may not be crime at all. It may be persistence. Some offense categories generate: - long institutional occupancy - repeated parole reviews - ongoing correctional-system burden - multi-decade sentence structures This creates a correctional persistence challenge that extends far beyond annual incarceration totals. Understanding which offense categories create the largest long-term occupancy burden may be more important than simply counting how many individuals enter the system each year. --- # Governance Boundary This analysis measures: - parole-review pressure - sentence persistence - correctional-system structure - institutional burden It does not independently establish: - guilt - innocence - fairness - discrimination - bias - causation The findings are descriptive institutional intelligence only by the NationalDataSystem - architect: Christopher C. Herring. **Learn More Texas Insights newly built:** - Legal Pressure Intelligence - Correctional Composition Intelligence - Judicial Divergence Intelligence - Normalization Trajectories - Parole & Persistence Intelligence ### The Child Boom and the Aging State URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-child-boom-and-the-aging-state/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T05:21:52.000Z ## Texas is simultaneously becoming one of the youngest and oldest large states in America — depending on where you look. By Texas Capital Report Texas likes to imagine itself as permanently young. The mythology fits the state’s self-image: booming suburbs, crowded school districts, expanding highways, young families arriving from across the country and a workforce powering one of the fastest-growing economies in America. And in many parts of Texas, that image is real. The state now has more than 1.9 million children under age five and roughly 5.5 million residents between ages 5 and 17. But another Texas is emerging at the same time. In district after district, particularly outside major metropolitan growth corridors, populations over 65 are growing rapidly. Some legislative districts now contain substantially more senior residents than young children. The result is a demographic contradiction increasingly shaping the future of the state: Texas is experiencing both a child boom and an aging crisis simultaneously. And the two realities are colliding inside the same political system. ## The Young Texas The fastest-growing districts in Texas tend to share several characteristics: - younger families - larger households - higher birth rates - rapid housing construction - strong migration inflows - growing Hispanic populations In suburban and exurban corridors around Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio, school enrollment pressure has become one of the defining issues of local government. Entire neighborhoods are built around young families. Elementary schools overflow almost immediately after opening. Road systems strain under population expansion. Childcare demand outpaces supply. Healthcare systems race to accommodate pediatric growth. The demographic engine behind much of this expansion is Hispanic and diverse suburban Texas, where family sizes remain larger and younger populations dominate many districts. This younger Texas increasingly drives: - workforce growth - consumer spending - housing demand - public school expansion - future labor supply In many ways, it represents the economic future of the state. ## The Aging Texas Yet elsewhere, another demographic reality is unfolding. Several districts now contain very large senior populations relative to younger residents. In these areas: - schools shrink - hospital demand increases - retirement communities expand - property tax politics intensify - labor shortages worsen - population growth slows Some of these districts remain heavily Anglo and rural. Others are suburban communities aging in place as longtime homeowners remain while younger families move farther outward in search of affordability. The political implications are profound. Older voters participate at significantly higher rates than younger Texans. That means the aging Texas often exercises disproportionate political influence even as younger and more diverse populations drive long-term growth. ## The Fiscal Collision Ahead The child boom and aging surge demand very different forms of government spending. A younger Texas requires: - schools - teachers - childcare infrastructure - maternal healthcare - parks - housing - workforce development An aging Texas demands: - healthcare systems - property tax protection - long-term care - transportation access - emergency medical infrastructure - retirement stability Increasingly, these priorities compete against each other. The Texas Legislature already faces recurring battles over school finance, healthcare funding and local infrastructure demands. The demographic divide suggests those tensions may intensify over the next decade. Because Texas is not simply growing. It is growing unevenly by age. ## The Suburbs Where Both Futures Meet The most revealing districts may be the ones experiencing both trends simultaneously. In many suburbs, young diverse families are moving into communities where older Anglo homeowners already dominate local politics and property ownership. That creates a subtle but powerful generational friction: - rising school needs versus property tax resistance - housing expansion versus neighborhood preservation - public investment versus fixed-income anxiety These tensions increasingly define suburban Texas politics. The conflicts are rarely framed openly as generational. But demographics sit beneath nearly every debate. ## Texas May Become More Divided by Age Than Party Much of modern political coverage focuses on Republican versus Democrat divisions. But the legislative district data suggests another divide may become equally important: young Texas versus old Texas. One Texas is building playgrounds and elementary schools. The other is expanding healthcare systems and retirement infrastructure. One is defined by children and migration. The other by stability and aging in place. Both are growing. Both vote. Both expect government to prioritize radically different futures. ## The State America Is Becoming The child boom and aging surge make Texas a preview of broader national change. America itself is becoming simultaneously older and more diverse. But in Texas, the process is unfolding faster and at larger scale than almost anywhere else. That means the state is increasingly forced to confront questions many other states will soon face: - Who pays for growth? - Who benefits from development? - Which generation gets prioritized? - Can fast-growing regions sustain infrastructure demands? - Can aging regions maintain economic vitality? The answers may determine not only the future of Texas politics, but the future of the Texas economy itself. Because beneath the state’s headline growth numbers lies a more complicated reality: Texas is becoming two age-defined societies at once. One is racing toward the future. The other is trying to preserve stability against rapid change. And increasingly, both are competing for the same resources, institutions and political power. --- # Ghost PRO Meta **SEO Title:** Texas’ Child Boom and Aging Crisis Are Colliding **Meta Description:** New legislative district data reveals Texas is simultaneously becoming younger and older, creating major political and economic tensions across the state. **URL Slug:** texas-child-boom-aging-crisis **OG Title:** The Child Boom and the Aging State **OG Description:** Texas faces a demographic collision between fast-growing young families and rapidly aging districts. **Twitter Title:** The Child Boom and the Aging State **Twitter Description:** Texas is becoming one of America’s youngest and oldest states at the same time. **Focus Keywords:** - Texas population - Texas aging population - Texas children - Texas demographics - Texas suburbs - Texas schools - Texas seniors - Texas growth - Texas legislative districts - future of Texas ### The Great Internal Migration URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-great-internal-migration/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T00:40:32.000Z ## Millions of Texans are moving — not out of the state, but across it. The result is a dramatic remapping of political power, economic growth and cultural identity. By Texas Capital Report Texas is in the middle of one of the largest internal migrations in modern America. The movement is not primarily happening across state lines. It is happening inside Texas itself. Families are leaving expensive urban cores for outer suburbs. Retirees are relocating toward lower-cost regions. Workers are chasing logistics hubs, energy corridors, data centers and housing developments spreading across the state’s metropolitan edges. Immigrant communities are reshaping suburban counties once considered politically and culturally static. The demographic data now shows the scale of the transformation. More than 4.1 million Texans reported moving within the past year alone. That figure represents not merely population churn, but a massive redistribution of political and economic gravity. Texas is not just growing. Texas is reorganizing itself. ## The New Geography of Growth For decades, Texas growth centered around major urban cores: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin. Today, much of the explosive expansion is occurring beyond traditional city boundaries. Legislative districts surrounding metropolitan regions are absorbing enormous numbers of new residents. Outer suburban districts now contain some of the highest concentrations of recently moved residents in the state. These communities are attracting: - younger families - first-time homebuyers - immigrant households - remote workers - logistics and energy workers - retirees fleeing higher-cost regions The migration patterns are producing entirely new demographic landscapes almost overnight. Subdivisions replace ranchland. Warehouse corridors emerge beside former farmland. School districts double in size within a decade. Political maps that once appeared stable become suddenly volatile. ## The Suburban Explosion The modern Texas economy increasingly runs through suburbs and exurbs rather than historic downtowns. The state’s fastest-growing districts tend to share several characteristics: - younger populations - higher household formation - larger family sizes - more racial diversity - rising multilingual populations - high inbound migration rates These are not simply commuter suburbs anymore. They are becoming economic ecosystems of their own. Massive fulfillment centers, manufacturing plants, healthcare campuses and data infrastructure projects now anchor growth corridors around Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and Central Texas. As jobs spread outward, people follow. And as people follow, political influence follows with them. ## The Housing Pressure Reshaping Texas The migration wave is transforming housing markets across the state. Texas still markets itself nationally as affordable compared with California or the Northeast. But internally, many Texans are being priced out of the very cities driving the state economy. That pressure is pushing growth outward at extraordinary speed. Younger families increasingly settle farther from urban centers in search of: - lower housing costs - larger homes - better school access - lower taxes - newer infrastructure The consequence is a state stretching geographically as much as demographically. Longer commutes, sprawling development and infrastructure strain increasingly define modern Texas growth. At the same time, migration continues feeding construction booms that themselves attract additional workers and families. Growth compounds growth. ## Political Maps Can Barely Keep Up The movement of millions of residents inside Texas is also destabilizing old political assumptions. Districts that once leaned comfortably Republican or Democratic are becoming harder to predict as migration reshapes local electorates. Some suburban districts now contain combinations rarely seen together a generation ago: - conservative Hispanic families - liberal urban transplants - Asian professional communities - working-class logistics workers - older Anglo homeowners - multilingual immigrant households The result is a more fragmented and fluid political environment. Texas still appears politically stable from the outside because statewide outcomes remain relatively consistent. But underneath the surface, demographic volatility is accelerating. ## A State Constantly Reinventing Itself The scale of movement inside Texas reflects something larger than economics. Texas has become a national migration machine. People move for opportunity, affordability, jobs, family networks, energy growth, military installations, technology expansion and housing access. But internal migration also changes identity. A county that looked culturally uniform twenty years ago may now contain residents from dozens of states and countries. School systems adapt. Religious institutions diversify. Business corridors change languages. Political loyalties weaken and reform. The state’s rapid movement creates a population that is increasingly less rooted in older regional identities. ## The Texas of Permanence Is Disappearing Historically, many Texans lived near where they were born. That model is fading. Modern Texas is becoming a state defined by mobility: - mobile labor - mobile capital - mobile industries - mobile families - rapidly shifting suburbs - constantly evolving districts The legislative district data suggests that internal movement itself may now be one of the defining forces shaping Texas politics and culture. Not ideology alone. Not party affiliation alone. Movement. And as millions continue relocating across the state, the Texas that emerges over the next decade may look dramatically different from the one that exists today. The Great Internal Migration is not simply changing where Texans live. It is changing what Texas is becoming. --- # Ghost PRO Meta **SEO Title:** The Great Internal Migration Reshaping Texas **Meta Description:** More than 4 million Texans moved within the state in a single year, fueling suburban growth, political shifts and demographic transformation. **URL Slug:** texas-great-internal-migration **OG Title:** The Great Internal Migration **OG Description:** Texas is being remapped by millions of residents moving across the state, transforming suburbs, politics and economic power. **Twitter Title:** The Great Internal Migration **Twitter Description:** Texas isn’t just growing. Millions of people are reorganizing the state from within. **Focus Keywords:** - Texas migration - Texas population growth - Texas suburbs - Texas housing - Texas demographics - internal migration Texas - Texas political change - Texas economy - suburban Texas - moving to Texas ### The Two Texases URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-two-texases/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T00:40:13.000Z ## One Texas is aging, Anglo and slower-growing. The other is younger, diverse and reshaping the state’s future. Increasingly, they coexist uneasily inside the same political system. By Texas Capital Report There is no single Texas anymore. There are at least two. One is older, whiter, more rural or exurban, deeply rooted in the political traditions that dominated the state for decades. Its voters still hold enormous institutional power. Its identity continues to shape statewide rhetoric, legislative priorities and the mythology of Texas itself. The other Texas is younger, heavily Hispanic, increasingly multilingual, racially mixed and overwhelmingly metropolitan. It is growing rapidly through births, migration and economic expansion. It supplies much of the state’s labor force, population growth and future electorate. The tension between those two Texases now defines nearly every major debate in the state: - schools - housing - immigration - healthcare - transportation - policing - economic development - political representation And the divide is widening. ## The Demographic Split The numbers reveal how dramatically the state has fractured into distinct demographic worlds. Texas now has roughly 29.6 million residents. Anglo Texans account for about 11.8 million people. Non-Anglo Texans total more than 17.8 million. Hispanics alone comprise approximately 11.7 million residents statewide. But the averages conceal something more important: the geographic concentration of those populations. In many suburban and urban legislative districts, Anglo residents are no longer the dominant population group. In some South Texas districts, Hispanics outnumber Anglos by ratios approaching six or seven to one. Meanwhile, parts of rural and outer-ring Texas remain overwhelmingly Anglo and substantially older than the statewide median. The result is a state where neighboring districts can increasingly resemble different countries politically, economically and culturally. ## The Age Divide Is Becoming a Political Divide The split is especially visible by generation. Texas has more than 5.5 million residents between ages 5 and 17\. Many of those children live in heavily diverse districts with large Hispanic, Black, Asian and multilingual populations. At the same time, several Anglo-majority districts contain rapidly aging populations where residents over 65 substantially outnumber young children. That divergence is beginning to reshape state priorities. One Texas demands: - school construction - affordable housing - public transit - workforce expansion - multilingual services - childcare infrastructure The other prioritizes: - property tax protection - retirement stability - low-density development - cultural continuity - crime enforcement - resistance to rapid change Both visions compete simultaneously inside the same Legislature. ## The Urban-Suburban Revolution The most important transformation may be happening in suburbs. For decades, Texas suburbs functioned as engines of Anglo conservative political dominance. But many suburban districts are now among the fastest-changing parts of the state. Asian populations have surged around Dallas and Houston. Hispanic families have expanded deep into exurban counties. Black middle-class migration has reshaped parts of North Texas and Central Texas. The suburbs are no longer culturally uniform extensions of older Texas conservatism. They are becoming hybrid political environments where economic conservatism, demographic diversity and generational change collide. This helps explain why Texas politics increasingly feels unstable even when statewide electoral outcomes remain relatively consistent. The electorate beneath the system is changing faster than the system itself. ## The Language Divide The cultural separation between the two Texases is perhaps most visible through language. More than 9.6 million Texans now speak a language other than English at home. In many districts, multilingual households are now standard rather than exceptional. Schools, hospitals and local governments increasingly operate in bilingual or multilingual environments. Yet much of Texas political culture still communicates through an older English-dominant identity framework. That disconnect creates a strange paradox: the economy adapts rapidly to demographic reality while political messaging often lags years behind it. ## The Fight Over What Texas Is At its core, the divide between the two Texases is not only demographic. It is philosophical. One Texas views growth and diversity as the natural evolution of a booming global state. The other views rapid demographic and cultural change with suspicion, anxiety or resistance. Both versions of Texas are real. Both hold political power. And both increasingly struggle to recognize themselves in the other. The friction can now be seen everywhere: - fights over curriculum - immigration enforcement - voting laws - urban governance - property taxes - public health - policing - public universities These conflicts are often described as partisan battles. But underneath them lies something deeper: a struggle over which Texas identity will define the future of the state. ## The Future May Belong to Neither Side Completely Demographic change does not automatically guarantee political dominance for any group or party. Texas has repeatedly defied national assumptions. Many Hispanic voters remain culturally conservative. Diverse suburbs often resist ideological extremes. Younger voters are less institutionally loyal than previous generations. The emerging Texas coalition may ultimately look very different from either traditional Republican or Democratic models. But one reality appears increasingly unavoidable: The era when Texas could be politically understood as a culturally uniform Anglo conservative state is ending. A more fragmented, multilingual, metropolitan and demographically layered Texas is already taking shape. The question is no longer whether the state is changing. The question is whether its institutions can adapt to the two Texases now living side by side. --- # Ghost PRO Meta **SEO Title:** The Two Texases: A State Divided by Demographics and Growth **Meta Description:** New legislative district data reveals a widening divide between an older Anglo Texas and a younger, diverse Texas reshaping the future of the state. **URL Slug:** the-two-texases-demographic-divide **OG Title:** The Two Texases **OG Description:** Texas is increasingly split between an aging Anglo political culture and a younger, diverse demographic future. **Twitter Title:** The Two Texases **Twitter Description:** One Texas is aging and Anglo. The other is younger, multilingual and rapidly growing. Both now compete for the future of the state. **Focus Keywords:** - Texas demographics - Texas political divide - Texas population growth - Anglo Texas - Hispanic Texas - Texas suburbs - Texas legislative districts - future of Texas - Texas diversity - Texas politics ### The Hidden Pressure Layer Beneath San Antonio Neighborhoods URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-hidden-pressure-layer-beneath-san-antonio-neighborhoods/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T00:39:53.000Z For decades, neighborhood distress in America has largely been measured through a familiar set of indicators: poverty rates, unemployment, income levels and federal census estimates. But those measurements often miss something residents experience every day. They miss operational strain. They miss the feeling of a neighborhood where streetlights remain broken for weeks, drainage systems repeatedly fail after storms, illegal dumping becomes routine, abandoned vehicles accumulate on residential streets, traffic hazards go unresolved and civic complaints begin to pile up faster than a city can respond. In San Antonio, a new neighborhood intelligence framework attempts to measure those conditions directly. The system is called the Human Pressure Index, or HPI, and one of its most revealing components is not policing, poverty or housing. It is the city’s 311 system. Unlike emergency calls handled through 911, 311 systems capture the ongoing operational condition of a city. Residents use 311 to report problems that reflect the stability — or instability — of everyday neighborhood life. Those requests include: - infrastructure failures, - code enforcement complaints, - illegal dumping, - abandoned vehicles, - drainage issues, - traffic hazards, - noise complaints, - animal-related issues, - maintenance breakdowns, - and recurring environmental nuisances. Each request becomes a geographic signal. Individually, a single complaint may appear minor. But when thousands of requests begin clustering in the same neighborhoods over time, they form something more significant: a measurable layer of cumulative civic pressure. That distinction matters because neighborhood distress is not always captured through traditional socioeconomic metrics alone. A neighborhood may not rank among the poorest areas in a city, yet still experience chronic infrastructure breakdown, recurring maintenance failures and persistent environmental stress. Conversely, some neighborhoods with elevated crime rates may not experience the same degree of civic deterioration. The Human Pressure Index was designed to separate those overlapping realities into distinct measurable systems. The framework combines: - safety pressure, - childcare strain, - financial stress, - fraud exposure, - health disparity, - environmental burden, - and civic operational pressure into a single neighborhood-level intelligence model. The goal is not simply to map poverty. The goal is to identify cumulative human pressure environments. The 311 layer plays a unique role because it reflects direct resident interaction with the city itself. It measures where people repeatedly encounter operational friction in their daily environment. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/10/22/1022b773-1c6d-46f3-a6cb-630f55cc4ac1/content/images/2026/05/San-Antonio311.jpeg) In many ways, the 311 system functions as a public stress sensor. The environmental layer extends that concept further. Environmental pressure indicators within the model were derived from Environmental Protection Agency particulate exposure and air-quality burden datasets normalized against statewide Texas environmental conditions. The framework incorporates PM2.5 particulate exposure and broader air-quality burden measures to identify neighborhoods experiencing elevated environmental stress. The result is intentionally restrained and explainable. Rather than overwhelming the model with dozens of pollutants, regulatory inventories or technical environmental indicators, the system focuses on a small set of variables tied directly to lived conditions. That simplicity is deliberate. The Human Pressure Index was designed not as an academic archive, but as a public-facing operational framework capable of translating overlapping neighborhood burdens into understandable geographic patterns. And once mapped spatially across San Antonio neighborhoods, those overlapping patterns become difficult to ignore. Some areas exhibit elevated childcare pressure but lower environmental burden. Others experience relatively stable financial conditions but persistent infrastructure stress. Some neighborhoods show compounding overlap across multiple systems simultaneously: safety strain, environmental burden, childcare scarcity and elevated civic complaints all concentrated within the same geographic footprint. That cumulative overlap is the central idea behind the model. The Human Pressure Index does not attempt to define a neighborhood by a single variable. Instead, it measures the interaction of multiple public systems operating on top of one another. In practice, the framework treats neighborhood stress less as a demographic label and more as an operational condition. And in cities across America, operational conditions are increasingly becoming the story residents already know long before traditional statistics catch up. ### The New Texas Majority Is Already Here URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-new-texas-majority-is-already-here/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T00:39:40.000Z ## In district after district, demographic change is quietly rewriting the future of Texas politics. By Texas Capital Report Texas politics still speaks in the language of the past. Campaign ads invoke “traditional Texas values.” Legislative battles are framed through the old rural-versus-urban divide. National pundits continue to describe the state as a conservative stronghold powered by Anglo suburban voters and oil-country Republicans. But beneath the surface, a different Texas has already emerged. The evidence is not ideological. It is demographic. Across legislative districts from Houston to the Rio Grande Valley, from Dallas suburbs to San Antonio exurbs, the Anglo population that once dominated Texas politically is no longer the defining majority in large parts of the state. In many districts, Hispanic populations now substantially outnumber Anglo residents. In others, explosive growth among Black, Asian and multilingual communities is transforming the electorate faster than political institutions appear prepared to acknowledge. Texas is not becoming diverse. Texas has already become diverse. The political system is still catching up. ## The End of the Old Texas Map The statewide numbers alone are staggering. Texas now has roughly 29.6 million residents. Of those, approximately 17.8 million are classified as non-Anglo, compared with 11.8 million Anglo residents. Hispanics alone account for nearly 11.7 million Texans. Those figures represent more than population growth. They represent a structural realignment of political geography. In Senate District 20, which stretches through South Texas, Hispanic residents now exceed 765,000 while Anglo residents total roughly 122,000. In Senate District 29, Hispanics outnumber Anglos by nearly seven to one. Even in suburban districts once viewed as anchors of Republican Anglo political power, the numbers are shifting rapidly. Asian populations have surged in North Texas suburbs. Black population growth has expanded beyond historic urban cores. Multilingual households now shape school systems, local economies and workforce patterns across the state. Texas is no longer politically divisible into simple categories of “urban blue” and “rural red.” The demographic terrain itself has become more complicated. ## A Younger Texas Is Replacing an Older One The transformation is especially visible among younger Texans. The state has more than 5.5 million residents between ages 5 and 17. Many of the fastest-growing child populations are concentrated in heavily Hispanic and diverse suburban districts, particularly around Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and Central Texas. Meanwhile, some older Anglo-majority districts are aging rapidly. In several districts, residents over 65 now substantially outnumber children under five. The implication is not merely cultural. It is fiscal and political. The future workforce, future school enrollment, future housing demand and future voting population of Texas will look dramatically different from the coalition that dominated the state a generation ago. And unlike earlier demographic shifts, this one is occurring at extraordinary scale. ## The Language Shift Remaking Texas Perhaps nowhere is the transformation more visible than language. More than 9.6 million Texans now speak a language other than English at home. In many legislative districts, hundreds of thousands of residents live in multilingual households. Some districts contain large populations that speak English “less than very well,” creating growing demand for bilingual education, healthcare translation services and multilingual public communication. This is not confined to border communities. The linguistic transformation now stretches through suburban school districts, healthcare systems, labor markets and small-business corridors throughout the state. Texas’ future electorate is increasingly multilingual, multiracial and metropolitan. But the state’s political messaging often remains rooted in an older Texas identity. ## The Political Lag Demographic transformation does not automatically produce political transformation. That is one of the defining lessons of modern Texas. Despite enormous population change, Republicans continue to dominate statewide offices, aided by geography, turnout patterns, redistricting structures and ideological alignment among many Hispanic voters, particularly in South Texas and working-class communities. Yet the data suggests something deeper may be unfolding beneath the current political equilibrium. The old assumption that demographic diversity would automatically create a Democratic majority has repeatedly failed in Texas. But the opposite assumption — that demographic change does not matter — may prove equally flawed. What appears to be emerging instead is a more volatile political future: - younger voters - more multilingual communities - less ideological consistency - weaker historical party loyalty - faster suburban change - increasingly fragmented regional identities Texas is becoming harder to predict because Texas itself is becoming harder to categorize. ## The State America Is Becoming For decades, political scientists described Texas as the future of the United States. That future may have arrived. The state now contains: - booming metropolitan corridors - rapidly diversifying suburbs - aging rural populations - enormous migration flows - multilingual labor markets - rising mixed-race communities - widening economic inequality - growing generational divides In many ways, Texas is no longer merely a Southern state. It is becoming its own national demographic model. And the legislative district data suggests the transformation is accelerating, not slowing. The political implications may take years to fully emerge. But the demographic reality is already here. The New Texas Majority is no longer a projection. It is the present. --- # Ghost PRO Meta **SEO Title:** The New Texas Majority Is Already Here **Meta Description:** New demographic data reveals how Hispanic, Black and Asian population growth is rapidly reshaping Texas legislative districts and the future of state politics. **URL Slug:** new-texas-majority-demographic-shift **OG Title:** The New Texas Majority Is Already Here **OG Description:** Texas legislative district data reveals a rapidly diversifying state reshaping the future of politics, language and power. **Twitter Title:** The New Texas Majority Is Already Here **Twitter Description:** Texas is no longer demographically what its politics still pretend it is. **Focus Keywords:** - Texas demographics - Texas Hispanic population - Texas legislative districts - Texas political change - Texas diversity - Texas population growth - Texas suburban politics - multilingual Texas - Texas electorate - future of Texas politics ### BREAKING NEWS: The Childcare Divide Across Texas URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/breaking-news-the-childcare-divide-across-texas/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T01:05:28.000Z ### A new ZIP-level analysis reveals that hundreds of Texas communities face severe childcare shortages — not because demand is unknown, but because licensed childcare infrastructure simply does not exist. By Christopher C. Herring By 6:15 each morning, the parking lot outside a South San Antonio childcare center is already full. Parents line up before sunrise hoping to secure one of the few available seats. Some drive across multiple ZIP codes before work. Others rely on relatives, neighbors, or improvised schedules stitched together week by week. In parts of Texas, finding reliable childcare has become less a matter of convenience than one of basic infrastructure — as essential to daily life as roads, electricity, or internet access. A new ZIP-level analysis of childcare supply across Texas reveals a statewide shortage of nearly 590,000 childcare seats for children under age 6 with working parents. The findings point to significant infrastructure gaps across fast-growing suburbs, rural communities, border regions, and lower-income urban neighborhoods. But the most striking discovery was not simply where childcare was scarce. It was where childcare infrastructure was effectively absent. Across hundreds of Texas ZIP codes, children are present, families are working, and demand clearly exists — yet there is little or no measurable licensed childcare capacity at all. In many traditional datasets, those ZIP codes would appear as blanks, null values, or unreported areas. In this framework, they were treated differently: not as missing data, but as measurable infrastructure scarcity. That distinction changes the map entirely. ## A State Growing Faster Than Its Infrastructure Texas continues to add residents at one of the fastest rates in the country. New subdivisions spread outward from Dallas–Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio. Rural areas and border communities face different pressures but often share the same underlying challenge: childcare capacity has not kept pace with population needs. The statewide map reveals clear geographic patterns. Large portions of West Texas and the border region show severe shortages, with some ZIP codes exhibiting extremely limited childcare availability relative to the number of young children living there. In suburban corridors north of Dallas and around Austin, rapid growth appears to be outpacing childcare expansion. In Houston and San Antonio, sharp neighborhood-level differences emerge within the same metropolitan area. The result is a patchwork childcare economy in which access can vary dramatically from one ZIP code to the next. Some communities show relatively balanced supply conditions. Others display what researchers increasingly describe as “childcare deserts” — places where licensed capacity is insufficient to support local working families. And in some areas, the problem is more severe still: there may be no meaningful licensed childcare infrastructure at all. ## When Blank Data Hides Real Problems Traditionally, maps that calculate children-per-slot ratios encounter a mathematical problem when childcare capacity equals zero. Dividing by zero produces undefined results, often leaving the geography blank or excluded from the visualization. But a blank map does not necessarily mean the problem is unknown. Sometimes it means the infrastructure simply does not exist. That realization led to a different methodology for the Texas analysis. ZIP codes with children present but zero estimated childcare capacity were classified as severe infrastructure shortages rather than left unreported. The shift may sound technical, but its implications are substantial. A blank map suggests incomplete information. A severe-desert classification signals an operational condition: families are present, children are present, but the licensed childcare market has failed to provide meaningful capacity. In practical terms, the difference affects everything from policymaking and economic development to employer recruitment and local planning. ## Childcare as Economic Infrastructure The childcare conversation is often framed as a family issue. Increasingly, economists and workforce analysts view it as labor-market infrastructure. Without stable childcare access: - parents reduce working hours, - labor-force participation declines, - employers face staffing instability, - and economic mobility weakens. In fast-growing Texas regions, the issue intersects directly with housing growth, migration patterns, and suburban expansion. New housing developments may add thousands of families before sufficient childcare providers can enter the market. In rural communities, provider economics can become unsustainable altogether. Low population density, staffing shortages, and thin operating margins leave some areas with few licensed options despite clear local need. The statewide patterns visible in the map suggest that childcare access is increasingly tied to broader geographic inequality. ## The Geography of Scarcity Some of the strongest shortages appear in: - portions of the border region, - parts of West Texas, - rapidly expanding suburban counties, - and lower-income urban ZIP codes. San Antonio illustrates the unevenness particularly well. North Side neighborhoods generally show stronger childcare availability, while several West and South Side ZIP codes exhibit much higher scarcity levels. Dallas–Fort Worth reveals another pattern: suburban growth corridors where family expansion appears to be outpacing childcare infrastructure. These regional contrasts matter because childcare access influences far more than convenience. It affects commuting patterns, workforce participation, school readiness, and local economic resilience. For businesses evaluating expansion opportunities, childcare scarcity increasingly functions as a workforce-risk indicator. For policymakers, it raises questions about infrastructure planning, licensing support, workforce incentives, and targeted investment. And for families, it shapes daily life in immediate and personal ways. ## Beyond the Spreadsheet Maps alone do not solve infrastructure shortages. But they can make invisible systems visible. What emerges from the Texas childcare analysis is not simply a ranking of ZIP codes, but a broader portrait of uneven infrastructure development across one of America’s fastest-growing states. The challenge is not limited to affordability. In some places, the issue is availability itself. There are Texas ZIP codes where parents are competing for limited seats, Texas ZIP codes where providers are stretched beyond sustainable capacity, and Texas ZIP codes where licensed childcare infrastructure barely exists at all. For years, some of those communities appeared in data systems as blanks. Now they appear as what they truly are: measurable childcare deserts. --- *Childcare deserts are ZIP codes where licensed childcare capacity is insufficient relative to the estimated number of young children, particularly children under age 6 with working parents. This framework incorporates licensed childcare capacity estimates, working-family population estimates, and ZIP-level scarcity scoring based on Texas childcare availability methodologies. ZIP-level estimates may vary due to ACS sampling variability, provider reporting differences, and geographic boundary inconsistencies.* ### Texas Quietly Added Billions to State Contracts. Few Texans Ever Notice. URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/texas-quietly-added-billions-to-state-contracts-few-texans-ever-notice/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T01:05:58.000Z By Texas Capital Report The numbers are buried in appendices, scattered across agency filings and procurement databases, hidden beneath technical language that rarely reaches the public. But together they tell a story about how Texas government actually grows. In just the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, Texas agencies and public universities reported 209 contract amendments that increased existing contracts by at least 10 percent — adding roughly $2.4 billion in new spending in a single quarter. Over the life of those contracts, the increases total more than $4.6 billion. Three months earlier, during the final quarter of fiscal year 2025, agencies reported another $303.6 million in quarterly increases and $1.2 billion in lifetime contract growth. The reports come from the Texas Legislative Budget Board, which is required to monitor large amendments to contracts originally valued above $1 million. The filings themselves are public. But they rarely draw attention unless tied to scandal or political controversy. What emerges instead is something quieter and more systemic: a portrait of a state government increasingly governed through expanding contracts, renewals, technology agreements, emergency procurements, and long-tail spending extensions that can dwarf the original deal. In Texas, contracts do not merely continue. They evolve. And they grow. ## The Hidden Expansion of Government The largest increases came from health and human services agencies, which accounted for more than $1.45 billion in quarterly increases during the first quarter of fiscal year 2026 alone. Some amendments reflected understandable expansions of public programs. Medicaid enrollment systems expanded. Mental health contracts were renewed. Hospital agreements were extended. But the cumulative effect reveals how state spending can accelerate outside the spotlight of legislative debate. One contract involving the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Department of Information Resources grew from roughly $101 million to more than $1.2 billion. A separate eligibility and data-sharing contract with Maximus Inc. increased by more than $281 million in a single quarter. At the Department of Criminal Justice, a software services agreement originally valued at $2.5 million expanded to $19.5 million. And at the Governor’s Office, a tourism advertising contract with Proof Advertising LLC climbed from $8.4 million to $203 million. None of these amendments were hidden illegally. Agencies reported them exactly as state law requires. But the filings also demonstrate how modern government spending often occurs incrementally — amendment by amendment, renewal by renewal — rather than through one dramatic appropriation. ## The Language of Expansion The reasons agencies provide for these increases are revealing in their own right. The most common explanation was simple: “Extension or renewal of contract.” Other justifications included: - “Request by agency with scope increase” - “Other” - “Request by agency without scope increase” - “Error or omission in original design” - “Accommodate changes in third-party standards” Those phrases may sound procedural. But together they illustrate the mechanics of institutional growth. A contract originally designed for one purpose can gradually absorb additional functions, responsibilities, technologies, or operational needs. By the time lawmakers or taxpayers revisit the spending, the expanded contract may already be embedded deeply into state operations. In many cases, agencies appear to rely on amendments not merely for maintenance, but for adaptation. Texas government today runs on interconnected vendor ecosystems: cloud services, telecommunications infrastructure, emergency management systems, public health software, mental health providers, construction firms, and consulting agreements. The result is a procurement state that is constantly evolving in real time. ## Universities, Technology and the Endless Upgrade Cycle Public universities accounted for hundreds of millions in amended contracts as well. At institutions across Texas, contracts expanded for: - digital libraries - cybersecurity systems - medical technology - construction projects - enterprise software - infrastructure modernization The University of Texas System increased a digital library services contract with Wiley by more than $20 million over the contract’s lifetime. The University of Houston doubled a Microsoft software licensing agreement from $4.4 million to $8.4 million. At Dallas College, multiple facilities and construction contracts ballooned to just under $10 million each, many citing “Error/Omission in Original Design caused by Neither.” The language is bureaucratic. But the implications are deeply practical. Texas is growing rapidly. Its institutions are modernizing rapidly. And modernization is expensive. ## A Government Built Through Amendments The broader question raised by the reports is not necessarily whether the spending was justified. It is whether Texans understand how state government now operates. Public debate typically focuses on headline appropriations passed during legislative sessions. But much of government expansion appears to occur later — through amendments, renewals, scope increases, and administrative extensions that receive comparatively little public scrutiny. The reports suggest a state increasingly governed not through static budgets, but through dynamic procurement systems. Contracts that begin as technology upgrades become operational backbones. Temporary services become long-term dependencies. Pilot programs become institutional infrastructure. And quarter by quarter, the numbers compound. ### America may increasingly need Area Code maps of digital harassment URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/america-may-increasingly-need-area-code-maps-of-digital-harassment/ Last updated: 2026-05-24T01:13:40.000Z In an era when Americans are increasingly skeptical of the phone ringing on the other end of the line, a new layer of digital geography is emerging — one that maps fear, fraud, annoyance, and distrust not by ZIP code, but by area code. The latest data from the Federal Trade Commission’s unwanted-call complaint system reveals that the nation’s telemarketing and robocall epidemic is no longer simply a consumer inconvenience. It has become a measurable form of civic pressure — one that varies dramatically from region to region, exposing how aggressively certain communities are being targeted. On a single reporting date, April 9, 2026, the FTC dashboard recorded 10,856 complaints nationwide across American area codes. The average area code generated 33.92 complaints. But in San Antonio’s iconic 210 area code, complaints surged to 53 — roughly 1.56 times the national average. If sustained over a full year, that pace would project to 636 complaints annually. The data offers more than raw totals. It provides a portrait of psychological intrusion in modern American life. Nearly half of all complaints within the 210 area code fell into a category simply labeled “Other,” a broad and undefined bucket that often captures the chaotic edge of scam behavior — spoofed calls, manipulative pitches, suspicious silence, and tactics too fragmented to classify neatly. Behind that category, however, the patterns become strikingly familiar. The second-largest complaint group involved callers “pretending to be government, businesses, or family and friends” — a form of impersonation fraud that has become one of the defining criminal techniques of the AI and digital age. These calls exploit trust itself. The voice on the other end may sound official, local, frightened, or urgent. Increasingly, it may not even be human. Third on the list were dropped calls and silent voicemails — the digital equivalent of a stranger rattling a doorknob before walking away. The dashboard also reveals what Americans fear most financially. Nationally, the single largest complaint category involved debt reduction offers tied to credit cards, mortgages, and student loans. More than 2,700 complaints — roughly one-quarter of all reports — fell into that category alone. That statistic tells a deeper economic story. Americans are not merely annoyed by robocalls; they are being hunted through their financial vulnerabilities. Debt, medical costs, warranties, home repairs, utilities, and financial distress dominate the complaint landscape. The robocall economy follows pressure points in American life the way weather systems follow heat. Medical and prescription-related calls ranked prominently both locally and nationally, suggesting how healthcare anxiety has become fertile ground for aggressive marketing and fraud. Even the quieter categories carry cultural significance. Vacation scams. Solar pitches. Sweepstakes promises. Work-from-home opportunities. Each reflects an economy where insecurity and aspiration coexist — and where technology allows bad actors to industrialize manipulation at scale. What makes the FTC dashboard particularly important is that it transforms anecdotal frustration into measurable infrastructure intelligence. Area codes begin to function like public-health indicators. High complaint density may signal elevated targeting activity, aging populations, economic vulnerability, or simply markets where scammers believe response rates are strongest. In the past, economists mapped unemployment rates. Urban planners mapped traffic congestion. Public safety analysts mapped crime. Now, America may increasingly need maps of digital harassment. The 210 area code’s elevated complaint rate does not necessarily mean residents are more vulnerable than the national average. It may instead suggest that consumers there are more likely to report abuse — a sign of awareness rather than weakness. But the imbalance still matters because complaint concentration often reveals where aggressive calling ecosystems are focusing their energy. The FTC data also exposes an uncomfortable reality about the future of communication. Americans once answered the telephone with confidence. Today, millions approach unknown calls with suspicion. The ringing phone — once associated with opportunity, family, and business — has become psychologically polluted. And in that transformation lies one of the most overlooked consequences of the digital economy: the erosion of trust in everyday human contact. The robocall crisis is not simply about spam. It is about cognitive exhaustion. Every suspicious call forces a tiny calculation: Is this my doctor? My bank? A scammer? An emergency? A machine pretending to care? The FTC dashboard, at first glance, appears to be a technical reporting tool. But beneath the charts and rankings is a broader portrait of modern America — financially stressed, digitally overwhelmed, and increasingly forced to defend itself from invisible voices crossing state lines at the speed of software. The future of consumer protection may depend not only on stopping fraudulent calls, but on restoring something far more fragile: the public’s trust in the act of answering the phone. ### Global Chamber’s Geography Map Reveals a New Kind of Globalization URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/global-chambers-geography-map-reveals-a-new-kind-of-globalization/ Last updated: 2026-05-13T13:52:19.000Z # ## From San Antonio to Nairobi, a decade of digital traffic suggests the rise of a borderless business network. By Christopher C. Herring For Texas Capital Report For years, chambers of commerce were largely defined by geography. A city. A region. A downtown office. A luncheon calendar. But over the last decade, something quieter — and potentially more significant — has been unfolding across the digital landscape of [Global Chamber](https://www.globalchamber.org/?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com). Newly analyzed website geography data spanning 2014 through 2026 reveals a sprawling map of global business curiosity stretching across dozens of metros worldwide, from San Francisco to Accra, from Tokyo to Dhaka. The numbers themselves are striking. The Global Chamber page for San Francisco generated more than 252,000 views. San Antonio followed with more than 203,000. Los Angeles exceeded 190,000. Even broader regional pages, including Texas itself, recorded significant global traffic. But the deeper story lies beyond the top rankings. The data — organized into what may become known as the Geo Interest Index™ — suggests that international business attention is no longer flowing solely through traditional economic capitals. Instead, digital engagement patterns reveal a globally distributed ecosystem of entrepreneurs, exporters, investors and professionals searching for international connection from virtually everywhere. The geography list reads less like a membership directory and more like a map of emerging commercial diplomacy. Nairobi generated more than 85,000 engagement signals. Ahmedabad surpassed 127,000. Dhaka approached 98,000. Addis Ababa showed unusually strong engagement relative to population and market size. Many of these cities are rarely discussed in mainstream American business media. Yet the analytics suggest that globally minded business communities in these regions are actively seeking international partnerships, market visibility and cross-border relationships. The implications are significant. For decades, globalization was often viewed as a top-down phenomenon dominated by multinational corporations, trade agreements and government institutions. But the Geo Interest Index™ points toward something more decentralized: a digitally connected network economy where business relationships increasingly form through platforms, virtual events and online ecosystems rather than physical proximity alone. That evolution accelerated during the pandemic years, when virtual business engagement became less optional and more essential. Global Chamber, founded by Doug Bruhnke, had already spent years building a globally interconnected metro framework before COVID-19 forced much of the business world online. While many organizations scrambled to digitize their operations, Global Chamber’s infrastructure — virtual “Globinars,” international metro pages and global relationship-building — was already functioning across borders. The data now suggests that infrastructure created lasting behavioral change. Cities once peripheral to global business conversations are increasingly visible within digital international commerce ecosystems. In many cases, engagement percentages in smaller metros dramatically outperformed traditional business hubs. Copenhagen recorded engagement growth approaching 1,000 percent. Hyderabad exceeded 1,100 percent. San Juan surpassed 1,300 percent. In the language of modern digital analytics, these are not random anomalies. They are signals. Signals of attention. Signals of aspiration. Signals of economic curiosity. And increasingly, attention itself has become a measurable economic asset. What makes the Geo Interest Index™ particularly noteworthy is that it does not necessarily measure membership or direct participation. Instead, it captures something more foundational: interest. Who is searching? Who is reading? Who is returning? Which metros consistently consume international business information? Those questions may ultimately prove just as important as attendance counts or sponsorships. Because in a digital economy, curiosity often precedes commerce. The data also reveals another subtle shift: the growing importance of metro identity over national identity in international business relationships. Executives rarely say they are expanding generically into “America” or “Asia.” They talk about Austin, Singapore, London or Mumbai. The modern global economy increasingly operates through connected metro ecosystems rather than purely national frameworks. In that sense, the Geo Interest Index™ may represent more than web analytics. It may be an early map of where the next generation of international business relationships is already beginning to form. And for Texas — particularly globally ambitious metros such as San Antonio, Houston, Dallas and Austin — the message is clear: The world is already watching. ### The Quiet Rise of a Global Business Network URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-quiet-rise-of-a-global-business-network/ Last updated: 2026-05-13T13:52:57.000Z # ## From San Antonio to India, entrepreneurs across 50 countries are tuning into Global Chamber’s vision of borderless business. By Christopher C. Herring For Texas Capital Report In an era dominated by geopolitical uncertainty, fractured supply chains and shifting alliances, a quiet signal has emerged from an unlikely place: a business network headquartered in the United States but increasingly watched around the world. Over the last decade, executives, entrepreneurs and globally minded professionals in more than 50 countries have consumed thousands of hours of content produced by [Global Chamber](https://www.globalchamber.org/?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com), a business organization built around international relationships, trade connections and virtual engagement across metros worldwide. According to newly compiled analytics from Global Chamber TV and YouTube geography exports spanning 2014 through 2026, the organization’s media footprint now stretches from India to Ghana, from London to Singapore, reflecting a growing appetite for international business dialogue outside traditional diplomatic institutions. The data, organized internally as a “Country Consumption Index™,” offers a revealing look at where global business attention is forming — and where emerging opportunities may already be taking shape. The United States remains the organization’s dominant audience, generating 16,626 views and more than 969 hours of watch time. But beyond America, the pattern becomes more interesting. India ranked second globally in total views, ahead of many traditional Western business hubs. The United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea and Japan also appeared prominently in the rankings, alongside countries not always associated with mainstream international business media ecosystems, including Cameroon, Ghana, Bangladesh and Kenya. The significance is not merely in the clicks. Some of the most revealing signals emerged from audience retention — how long viewers actually stayed engaged. Cameroon, for example, posted one of the highest average view durations in the dataset at more than four minutes per view, suggesting unusually deep attention despite a comparatively smaller audience size. Canada also demonstrated high-quality engagement, with nearly four minutes of average viewing time. The numbers hint at something larger than media consumption alone. They suggest that international business communities — many operating far outside major financial capitals — are actively seeking connection, insight and access to global conversations. For Global Chamber, founded by Doug Bruhnke, the findings validate a strategy that long preceded the pandemic: virtual global business engagement at scale. While many organizations struggled to maintain continuity during the COVID era, Global Chamber expanded its digital programming footprint, hosting hundreds of virtual “Globinar” sessions connecting metros, industries and countries in real time. That infrastructure now appears to have created a secondary effect: a globally distributed audience consuming international business content asynchronously across borders and time zones. The rise of these digital business ecosystems may represent an emerging form of commercial diplomacy — one driven less by governments and more by relationships, knowledge exchange and private-sector collaboration. That shift is especially relevant as the United States increasingly explores “commercial diplomacy” as a framework for international engagement. The concept, gaining traction in policy circles tied to trade and global competitiveness, emphasizes measurable economic relationships and business outcomes rather than traditional cultural exchange alone. What Global Chamber’s data may reveal is that the architecture for such diplomacy is already quietly forming online. The organization’s audience map resembles not merely a media footprint, but a living network of globally curious professionals searching for opportunity, partnerships and market intelligence. And unlike traditional chambers of commerce tied to a single city or region, Global Chamber’s model has been built around interconnected metros — linking San Antonio to Singapore, Phoenix to Nairobi, Houston to Mumbai. The result is less a local business association and more a distributed international business ecosystem. For Texas, the implications are especially notable. Texas metros consistently rank among the most globally connected economic regions in North America. Houston’s energy trade, Dallas-Fort Worth’s logistics infrastructure, Austin’s technology ecosystem and San Antonio’s growing cybersecurity and international business footprint position the state as a natural hub for globally networked commerce. The data also reinforces a broader reality about modern influence. Attention itself has become an economic signal. Countries consuming international business content today may become tomorrow’s trade partners, conference participants, investors or expansion markets. In that sense, the Country Consumption Index™ may represent more than analytics; it may offer an early indicator of where future global business relationships are likely to emerge. For years, global engagement organizations measured success primarily through memberships, sponsorships and in-person events. Now, increasingly, the first sign of global interest may simply be who is watching. ### The Quiet Revolution in Global Business: How Global Chamber Texas Spent a Decade Connecting Companies Before Remote Commerce Became Mainstream URL: https://www.texascapitalreport.com/the-quiet-revolution-in-global-business-how-global-chamber-texas-spent-a-decade-connecting-companies-before-remote-commerce-became-mainstream/ Last updated: 2026-07-31T13:50:29.000Z By Teresa Chavarria For Global Chamber Texas / Texas Capital Report Long before virtual meetings became a daily ritual of modern business life, a growing network of entrepreneurs, exporters, executives and diplomats were already gathering online across continents to forge partnerships, exchange ideas and pursue international opportunity. For nearly a decade, businesses connected through **Global Chamber Texas** and its broader global network have participated in a steady rhythm of virtual trade discussions, cross-border introductions and international business forums — often quietly, and largely outside the public spotlight. Today, as hybrid commerce and digital globalization reshape economic development, the organization’s early embrace of virtual global engagement appears increasingly prescient. An analysis of internal event and engagement records reviewed by Texas Capital Report shows thousands of business participants interacting through recurring online “Globinar” events, metro meetups, trade briefings and international business roundtables spanning cities across North America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. The data reveals an ecosystem that was not built overnight. It evolved gradually through persistent relationship-building among business leaders seeking something increasingly difficult to find in a fragmented global economy: trusted international connections. ## A Global Network Before the World Went Remote When the COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations worldwide to shift online in 2020, many chambers of commerce and business associations scrambled to adapt. But within the Global Chamber ecosystem, virtual international engagement was already embedded into the organization’s operating culture. Historical participation records indicate that virtual and cross-metro events had already become recurring components of the network’s programming years earlier. The result was a significant expansion in activity during the pandemic era, when businesses sought new ways to maintain visibility, supply-chain continuity and international relationships despite travel restrictions and economic uncertainty. The event network eventually grew to include: - AI and technology forums - export and trade discussions - manufacturing roundtables - diplomatic conversations - leadership development programs - women-in-business initiatives - foreign direct investment discussions - regional “cross-metro” collaborations The organization’s recurring “Globinar” model — virtual Zoom-based business forums connecting multiple regions simultaneously — became a particularly influential mechanism for sustaining engagement across borders. In many ways, the network anticipated the globalization of digital relationship-building before it became commonplace. ## Texas as a Global Connector Within the broader ecosystem, Texas emerged as one of the organization’s most active regions. Cities including San Antonio, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and Houston consistently generated strong participation and digital engagement across the network’s platforms and events. The Texas operation, led in part through the efforts of longtime global business advocate Christopher Herring, focused heavily on positioning Texas not merely as a domestic economic powerhouse, but as an international connector between industries, cultures and markets. The state’s unique combination of: - logistics infrastructure - manufacturing capacity - technology growth - military presence - energy leadership - and rapidly diversifying population has increasingly made Texas central to conversations about global commerce. At the same time, virtual engagement lowered barriers for smaller businesses that previously lacked access to international business development networks. Entrepreneurs who once would have needed costly international travel could now participate directly in global conversations from their offices, homes or coworking spaces. That shift democratized access to international relationship-building in ways that are still unfolding today. ## The Rise of Relationship Infrastructure While many organizations measure success through membership totals or event attendance alone, the deeper significance of the Global Chamber model may lie elsewhere. Its true asset is relationship infrastructure. The network’s virtual ecosystem created repeated opportunities for executives, diplomats, trade professionals and founders to encounter one another consistently over time — often across industries and continents. Those repeated interactions helped establish familiarity and trust, two factors that remain essential in international commerce despite advances in technology and automation. Increasingly, economic development experts argue that the future of global business competitiveness may depend not simply on physical infrastructure, but on the strength of collaborative ecosystems capable of accelerating trusted relationships across markets. In that sense, the Global Chamber network represents more than a chamber of commerce. It functions as a distributed global business connectivity platform. ## A New Era of Economic Intelligence The organization’s growing archive of event participation, engagement metrics and cross-metro activity may also point toward a larger evolution underway in the business world: the emergence of relationship intelligence. By analyzing patterns in virtual participation, recurring collaboration and metro-level engagement, organizations can begin identifying: - emerging business corridors - rising international markets - topic demand trends - innovation hotspots - and evolving global business priorities The implications extend beyond chambers of commerce. Economic development agencies, universities, investors and multinational firms are increasingly searching for ways to better understand how business ecosystems actually interact in real time. The Global Chamber model, developed gradually over the past decade, offers one early example of how those patterns may be observed. ## The Human Element Remains Central Despite advances in AI, automation and digital networking tools, one lesson from the network’s history remains remarkably consistent: Business still moves at the speed of trust. The technology enabled the meetings. But the relationships sustained them. For thousands of business leaders participating across the network over the last decade, virtual engagement was never simply about logging into another online event. It was about remaining connected to opportunity in an increasingly interconnected world. And in many respects, that quiet experiment in global connectivity may now be evolving into something much larger than anyone initially imagined.