Committee hears amendment to clarify Office of Child Advocate access to contractor records and confidentiality

The Senate Children and Family Law Committee opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 76 and amendment 0173s, measures the Office of Child Advocate (OCA) says will clarify statutory language about its oversight of executive-branch child-serving agencies and the private contractors that provide services under agreements with those agencies.

The bill aims to fix inconsistent wording that remained after the OCA’s 2020 statutory expansion beyond the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). Lisonbee Maschio, associate child advocate and legislative and policy director for the New Hampshire Office of the Child Advocate, told the committee the amendment limits OCA access to records to information “specifically relating to the services that they're providing for children under those contractor agreements.”

Maschio said the office was created by statute in 2017 and its statutory language was expanded in 2020 to cover all executive-branch child-serving agencies and contracted service providers; she described remaining references to “division” and inconsistent uses of “agency” as a source of confusion. "The clarification is just there to tie RSA back to that definition of agency," Maschio said, adding that the change is not intended to expand the OCA's scope but to make the current scope clearer.

The bill also seeks to clarify the OCA’s exemption from the Right-to-Know law, RSA 91-A. Maschio said the amendment would make explicit that confidentiality covers not only the initial caller but also collateral contacts the OCA must interview during oversight or ombudsman investigations, such as therapists or Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs). "We wanted to make sure that the confidentiality we maintain to protect the integrity of those investigations," she said, explaining the change is intended to protect investigation integrity and encourage people to provide information.

John Williams, director of legislative affairs for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), said DHHS was "not taking a position" but came to the hearing with questions about statutory construction and possible unintended consequences. Williams asked whether the draft could be read to expand access to records beyond those tied to contracted child services, for example to records held by federally qualified health centers with whom DHHS contracts. "When it starts off under current law that the office shall have access to the following information ... all third party records including the health care records of any child receiving services from an executive agency," Williams said, noting that careful attention to language is needed to avoid unintended expansion.

Private providers who testified said the amendment improves clarity. Emily Lawrence, advocacy director for Waypoint, a statewide nonprofit that contracts with the state to provide family preservation and in‑home services, said the current draft's phrasing on page 3, lines 4–6, is "extremely broad and in its broadness is also vague" and could be read to allow access to donor or accounting records. "We believe the amendment that Senator Long proposed does that" (narrow the scope), Lawrence said, and indicated Waypoint would support the bill if the amendment is adopted.

Committee members questioned how determinations will be made when someone alleges a child "should have received services" but did not. Maschio described the OCA’s ombudsman work: the office receives calls from anyone statewide, investigates using agency records and collateral contacts, and can act as a neutral intermediary in complex situations such as children boarding in emergency departments while waiting placement. She noted the statute permits the OCA to look back three years to determine prior service involvement.

The hearing closed with the committee taking no final action on SB 76. Committee members indicated they would follow up with the Attorney General’s Office counsel, Matt Broadhead, for statutory-construction input and may reconvene. Maschio noted, briefly and without asking for action, that the OCA marks its sixth anniversary.

The committee did not vote on SB 76 during the public hearing; staff indicated they would return to the bill in a future executive session after further review and consultation with the attorney general’s office.

The record for SB 76 includes public testimony from the OCA, DHHS, and private providers and reflects two primary points of debate: the statutory reach of OCA access to contractor records and how confidentiality protections are written to protect investigation integrity.