Committee refers bill on Social Security payments for children in foster care to interim study after lengthy review

State Representative Maureen Mooney, chair of House Finance Division III, opened discussion of House Bill 661 on Sept. 29 by summarizing the committee's charge and the fiscal questions surrounding the bill: whether programmatic changes would be cost-effective and whether the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) could implement new account-management processes without an outsized cost per dollar conserved.

The bill would change how DHHS manages Social Security Title II (work-history) and Title XVI SSI benefits, and would create or require conservation of funds (including use of ABLE accounts in some cases) so that benefits follow the child rather than being used to offset state costs of care.

Consultant report and department testimony

Marie Noonan, director for the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), presented the final report from Public Consulting Group (PCG), an assessment of child-centered benefits management paid for by prior legislative action. The PCG report outlined four implementation models with varying scopes, estimated implementation costs and projected conserved federal benefits. Nathan White, DHHS chief financial officer, said PCG's full-in-house implementation estimate included up-front costs and several ongoing costs that together could reach into multiple millions across biennia; one way PCG framed it was an initial implementation cost near $300,000 with annual ongoing estimates in the mid-hundreds of thousands depending on the model chosen.

Caitlin Smith, DCYF finance manager, provided operational numbers from fiscal year data: approximately 65 children for whom DCYF was collecting SSI (about $407,725) and 199 children for whom the department collected Social Security Title II dollars (about $1,111,000). She said those figures vary year-to-year and are recorded in accounting unit 2958, but that extracting some detailed historic counts from the department's legacy case-management systems requires manual work because reporting tools are limited.

ABLE accounts, payees and administrative questions

Anissa Drake, Title IV Administrator at DHHS, explained that ABLE accounts (Achieving a Better Life Experience) could be used to conserve SSI proceeds but that the bank currently used by DCYF does not support ABLE accounts; establishing an ABLE arrangement would require working with a bank that does, and creating a communications and electronic interface so deposits and child-specific ledgers could be tracked.

Policy and advocacy groups weighed in. Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center, said the bill could protect youth with disabilities who are at high risk of homelessness after aging out of care and proposed narrower language and implementation timing to reduce fiscal strain. Megan Dillon, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, noted federal regulations set a preferred payee list and said the state is not automatically the representative payee when a child enters care; she urged the committee to better document outreach to potential family or community payees and to provide clearer notices when appeals should be filed.

Youth testimony and case examples

A young adult who identified herself as Maddie described receiving federal benefits that were conserved while she was in care and then being given those funds upon aging out; she said earlier notice and access could have helped her secure housing and avoid homelessness. Tim Lenehan recounted two case examples from his years as a DCYF worker showing how benefit processing and rep-payee decisions can affect reunification and post-care outcomes.

Committee decision and rationale

Members debated alternatives including passing the bill with a delayed effective date, approving a narrower statutory change that requires DHHS to conserve funds with an implementation deadline, or referring the matter to an interim study for further detail. Representative Seaworth moved that the committee recommend an interim study. After discussion the division voted 6-4 to refer HB 661 to interim study; the roll call pattern mirrored prior votes, with the aye votes from Representatives Daniels, Seaworth, (Clerk), Weiler, Farrington and Chair Mooney.

Why the committee chose study

Supporters of interim study said the topic is administratively complex (legacy IT systems, bank relationships for ABLE accounts, staff vacancies in DCYF) and that additional work was needed to identify a cost-effective implementation path and to avoid shifting costs into general funds without clear benefit. Opponents said substantial prior work (the 42-page PCG report and earlier policy hearings) meant the committee had enough information to act now, and preferred a statutory change with a delayed start date so implementation planning could proceed.

What comes next

The interim study referral sends the bill's language and record to full finance with a recommendation for study; committee members said they intend to continue technical follow-up (including inviting Social Security experts and ABLE program administrators) and to provide additional answers to the 27 questions DCYF received from the committee.

Ending

Division III concluded that HB 661 raises significant operational and fiscal questions that warrant further, focused study before the committee recommends final statutory language to full finance.