Senator urges annual income verification for Education Freedom Accounts, citing audit gaps

Senator Deborah Altschuler (R-Stratham) told the Senate Education Committee the state’s Education Freedom Account program needs annual income verification to prevent ineligible families from continuing to receive taxpayer-funded education subsidies.

Altschuler opened her testimony by describing the current eligibility rules and how the program, under RSA 194-F, allows initial eligibility to be set at up to 350 percent of the federal poverty guidelines but does not require recertification in later years. "What was once a proposed pathway for low-income families ... has now become an unlimited money grab facilitated by an out‑of‑state clearinghouse," she said, urging the committee to require yearly verification and randomized audits of participating families.

Why it matters: Altschuler and several witnesses framed the proposal as a fiscal‑oversight measure. She told the committee the EFA program had 5,321 students enrolled for the 2024–25 school year and estimated the fiscal cost at roughly $27.7 million for that year; she said the Department of Education’s compliance review in 2024 found inconsistencies in about one in four applications and that the private scholarship manager had funded some vouchers without required proof of residency or income.

Supporters of oversight described existing state and federal precedents for annual eligibility checks. "As legislators, we have a fiduciary duty to our taxpaying constituents," Altschuler said, asking that the Legislative Budget Assistant be authorized to audit a sample of EFA accounts annually. Multiple witnesses who spoke in favor of oversight — including Deborah House of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, Aubrey Friedman (resident), and others — cited the compliance review and urged greater transparency and program controls.

Opponents and parents pushed back on the proposed change as disruptive to students and families. Senator Sullivan and parents who testified said some families entered the program expecting continuity for their children and asked whether an annual recheck would force students to change schools midstream. "The contract that I entered into was that I would have the Education Freedom Accounts and qualify that first year, and then I would not have to requalify," one parent said, arguing the change would break an existing expectation.

Other commentators raised equity and policy questions. David Trumbull and others argued the EFA income rule should be consistent with other means‑tested programs (food, health care, child care) that verify eligibility annually and that families’ incomes commonly increase after children enter school. Trumbull also noted that the majority of voucher recipients nationwide already attended private schools before vouchers and that only a small number of students switch from public to private each year.

Discussion vs. action: The hearing recorded testimony and questioning but no formal committee vote on SB 203 during the session. Committee members asked for clarification about the Department of Education’s ability to audit and for data about how many families remain eligible if annual checks were required. The bill’s sponsor and several witnesses said the existing application process already captures income at entry, and that infrastructure exists to recheck income in subsequent years.

What’s next: The bill remained under committee consideration at the end of the hearing. Committee members and witnesses suggested possible companion policies to reduce disruption — for example, transition or ‘‘soft‑landing’’ provisions for students who lose eligibility — but no policy change was adopted at the hearing.

Ending note: Testimony at the hearing centered on two competing objectives: protecting taxpayer funds through annual verification and preserving educational continuity for participating students. Witnesses on both sides urged the committee to weigh those tradeoffs before taking formal action.