Committee approves substitute requiring DCF and OIG to exchange records for fraud probes

Committee on Welfare Reform · February 13, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A substitute for HB 27-31 passed the Committee on Welfare Reform directing the Department for Children and Families and the Office of Inspector General to exchange documents and EBT data related to cash, childcare and food-assistance fraud investigations, with a 30-day exchange target and privacy limits tied to federal law.

The Committee on Welfare Reform approved a substitute for House Bill 27-31 that requires the secretary for children and families and the Office of Inspector General to exchange documents and information related to cash, childcare and food-assistance programs to facilitate detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud.

Jenna from the reviser's office summarized the substitute, saying it would allow either agency to request and receive documents "including information and documents related to those three programs, applicants or recipients, documents and information related to eligibility determinations, EBT transaction documents or data, and any other materials compiled or created by the agency related to an audit, inquiry or investigation of those programs." She said exchanges should be completed in a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days where feasible and that the materials exchanged must be used only for fraud-related purposes.

Members asked whether federal privacy rules or custodial responsibilities would constrain sharing. Representative Carr asked whether federal guidelines prevent agencies from sharing certain records; Jenna replied agencies cannot be required to violate federal law and noted custodial issues may mean DCF remains the document custodian in many cases. Representative Housley asked whether the OIG could turn information over to a third party or the federal government; Jenna said it would depend on the particular records exchanged and that federal and state privacy protections would still apply.

Supporters said the substitute was a narrower, less formal approach than the original contract language and could reduce friction between DCF and the OIG while improving fraud detection. Representative Pickert and others described the substitute as a practical way to facilitate investigations if the OIG staffing requested in last year's legislation becomes funded.

Representative Helwig moved the substitute and Representative Pickert seconded. The committee passed the substitute by voice vote; several members asked to have their no votes recorded. The substitute will move forward from committee for further consideration.