Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Padilla
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/25/2025
SHORT TITLE Child Protection Authority Act
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 363
ANALYST Garcia/Greenham
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
CPA
(RLD)
No fiscal impact At least $650.0 At least $650.0
At least
$1,300.0
Recurring General Fund
CPA
(RLD)
No fiscal impact
$750.0 to
$2,000.0
No fiscal impact
No fiscal
impact
Nonrecurring General Fund
CYFD No fiscal impact Up to $300 Up to $3 00 Up to $600 Recurring General Fund
AOC No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
OFRA No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
OSA No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Total No fiscal impact
$1,700.0 to
$2,950.0
At least $950
$2,650.0 to
$2,900.0
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Conflicts with House Bill 5, House Bill 391, and Senate Bill 307
Relates to Senate Bill 307, House Bill 391, and House Bill 5
Sources of Information
LFC Files
National Conference of State Legislatures
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Agency Analysis Received From
Office of Family Representation and Advocacy (OFRA) Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
Office of the State Auditor (OSA)
Health Care Authority (HCA)
Senate Bill 363 – Page 2
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 363
Senate Bill 363 (SB363) creates an independent Child Protection Authority (CPA)
administratively attached to the Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD).
The bill proposes CPA oversee and investigate child welfare complaints, monitor compliance
with child welfare laws, and provide policy recommendations. CPA would be governed by a
nine-member board, including five members appointed by the governor, subject to Senate
confirmation, and four members appointed by leadership within the Legislature, who shall serve
four-year terms. CPA would be led by a director appointed by the members who could be
removed for cause by a member vote of two-thirds. The director shall serve a six-year term.
Key responsibilities of CPA would include:
Receiving and investigating complaints regarding child abuse, neglect, and foster care
cases involving the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) and other child
welfare agencies;
Monitoring and evaluating CYFD’s policies and practices for compliance with state and
federal laws;
Making recommendations to the governor, Legislature, and CYFD to improve child
welfare services;
Issuing public reports on complaints, systemic issues, and recommendations for policy
reforms;
Providing education and outreach on child welfare rights and responsibilities;
Operating a toll-free hotline and electronic communication portal for complaints;
Accessing records and data, including case files, court records, and law enforcement
reports, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
CPA would establish a complaint resolution process for individuals, who may remain
anonymous, to report concerns about CYFD and related agencies. CPA would be required to
maintain communication with complainants and report findings to CYFD and the complainant
within 10 days of resolution. SB363 also amends Section 32A-2-32 NMSA 1978 to permit CPA
access to confidential child welfare records and requires CYFD to notify children and families
under its supervision about the existence and purpose of CPA.
Senate Bill 363 would allow the director to hire staff, which include investigators, attorneys, and
policy analysts, and would require CPA to submit an annual report to CYFD, the governor, and
the Legislature and to hold quarterly public meetings.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Neither the Regulation and Licensing Department nor CYFD provided fiscal analysis for this
bill. However, the functions of the proposed CPA are similar to those proposed in other bills,
which would establish ombudsman functions related to child welfare, and the LFC analysis
below proposes similar cost estimates.
Senate Bill 363 – Page 3
LFC estimates the cost to establish an entity similar to the Child Protection Authority to be at
least $650 thousand annually, allowing an office to hire roughly 5 FTE. In addition, case
management IT systems built at other agencies in recent years, such as the Taxation and Revenue
Department and the Workforce Solutions Department, have project budgets ranging between
$750 thousand and $2 million. Finally, in analysis for bills requiring similar functions, LFC
estimates CYFD might need to hire up to 3 FTE to provide statutorily required information to an
office, roughly $300 thousand annually.
AOC notes potential administrative costs associated with updating, distributing, and
documenting any statutory changes in the state, as well as potential impacts to caseloads. In
addition, AOC notes Senate Bill 363 could result in additional court costs arising from the
complaints and investigations authorized under this law. AOC did not provide a specific cost
estimate.
The Office of the State Auditor did not provide fiscal analysis for this bill may also incur fiscal
implications if the governor or LFC requests an audit as provided in the bill. LFC estimates the
fiscal impact to be indeterminate but minimal.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
A variety of federally mandated and state-created external mechanisms exist in New Mexico to
provide oversight of the child welfare system and CYFD. For example, the federal government
establishes several requirements for child welfare agencies overseen by the federal
Administration of Children and Families (ACF). These include citizen review panels, required by
the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), child fatality review panels,
and comprehensive reviews conducted by ACF. Within New Mexico, LFC reports and a variety
of other entities, including the Senate Memorial 5 Taskforce report, have noted gaps and
limitations with existing oversight mechanisms in New Mexico, as noted in the graphic below.
Oversight of State Child Welfare Systems
Source: LFC Files Senate Bill 363 – Page 4
Additionally, while New Mexico has a variety of internal oversight mechanisms within CYFD,
these entities are inherently limited and have conflicts of interests with public accountability,
system oversight, and improvement. For example, as noted in LFC publications, the CYFD
Inspector General does not publish a work plan or public report, and its location within the
agency it is intended to provide oversight for demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. Similarly,
although CYFD’s Office of Children’s Rights (OCR), now called the Office of Child Advocacy,
is focused on complaints about violations of foster children and youth’s rights, it was unstaffed
for several years and its results are unclear. CYFD’s Constituent Services position performs its
duties ad hoc with no public reporting, and its Office of Constituent Affairs is limited to
addressing complaints of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation committed by a CYFD
employee and grievances filed by biological and resource parents with no public reports
produced.
According to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), New Mexico is
one of only nine states that do not have an additional external oversight function beyond the
federally required citizen review panels and child fatality reviews. Most states have now
established an additional oversight mechanism, often in the form of an oversight or governance
child welfare commission or an ombudsman. NCSL reports 40 states have created offices or
ombudsmen related to child welfare with a range of duties and powers, including investigation of
complaints, access to confidential records, issuing subpoenas, releasing periodic reports, and
recommending systemic improvements to legislatures and other stakeholders (e.g., Colorado’s
Child Protection Ombudsman). The agency proposed in SB363 proposes a function that provides
oversight without a change in governance, analogous to some examples of child welfare
commissions in other states, and proposes grievance functions similar to an ombudsman
function. Senate Bill 363 would place the grievance function within the executive branch, while
other bills introduced would place the grievance function in a different branch of government.
According to LFC analysis of the oversight functions in other states, child welfare commissions
are typically long-term bodies with appointed members who work to address broad child welfare
issues while providing stability and leadership across changing executive administrations.
Alternatively, some states have created child welfare commissions for short-term oversight and
governance functions with identified sunset dates. Child welfare commissions may be tasked
with permanent and direct oversight of the state child welfare agency’s leadership, such as
Oklahoma’s model, or they may have limited functions, such as a focused investigation into a
specific issue of concern. Additionally, commissions can include representation from the child
protective agency while maintaining an external oversight status (e.g., New York’s 2021 Blue
Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations) while other commission models provide
direct governance of the state child welfare agency.
The United States Ombudsman Association defines public sector ombudsman as “independent,
impartial public officials with authority and responsibility to receive, investigate, or informally
address complaints about government actions and, when appropriate, make recommendations
and publish reports.” Ombudsman offices are generally focused on independently investigating
and responding to individual grievances within child welfare systems; they may also serve a
system improvement function by making publicly available recommendations for system
improvement. While these offices aim to improve child welfare system outcomes, rigorous
national research about the extent to which these functions translate to improved system
outcomes is limited.
Senate Bill 363 – Page 5
Regarding the agency proposed in SB363, The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and
the Office of Family Representation and Advocacy (OFRA) raise several concerns regarding SB
363.
Both agencies noted a lack of enforcement mechanisms provided to CPA. While CPA is tasked
with investigating complaints about child abuse, neglect, and foster care cases, SB363 does not
provide clear directives on how it would ensure CYFD’s or other child welfare agencies’
compliance in the investigation process, and no penalties are specified for noncompliance.
Additionally, CPA is denied subpoena power, which limits its ability to compel the compliance
needed to conduct thorough investigations, and AOC notes:
There is no reference in the CPA to enforcement or even agreement or cooperation
between the CPA and the department and agencies, and their employees … there are no
provisions providing for agencies and individuals to comply with any directives that
emanate from the CPA.
In addition, SB363 does not define what constitutes a resolution of a complaint, creating
uncertainty about CPA investigation outcomes. Moreover, there are no time limits for
completing investigations and it is unclear if CYFD is obligated to act on CPA
recommendations.
OFRA also reports concerns about permitting anonymous complaints because those might be
used for harassment or false allegations and could hinder CPA’s ability to maintain the required
ongoing communication with complainants.
Additionally, SB363 broadly allows CPA to access records and data from CYFD and other
agencies, which could create an administrative burden for those entities, and the judiciary may
also be affected by processing additional case records requests while ensuring compliance with
confidentiality laws. AOC and OFRA also indicate that SB363’s establishment of an
independent agency requires significant resources, but there is no appropriation to support CPA
operations in either the bill or the HAFC-introduced version of the General Appropriation Act.
Another significant concern raised by AOC and OFRA is the potential overlap between CPA and
other proposed child welfare oversight agencies, like the Office of Child Ombud (SB307,
HB391) and the Office of Child Advocate (HB5). OFRA indicates the multiple pending child
welfare reform bills could lead to a fragmented and uncoordinated oversight system, potentially
complicating the process for families working with CYFD. OFRA notes, without coordination,
these overlapping initiatives may increase bureaucracy without necessarily improving child
welfare outcomes.
CYFD reports:
The state of New Mexico is responsible for ensuring the safety, permanency, and well-
being of children involved in the child welfare system. CYFD is tasked with the
protection of children from abuse and neglect. Independent oversight as outlined in this
legislation would be a beneficial addition to the existing system to improve
accountability, transparency, and public trust as it will provide an additional avenue for
those who may not be comfortable bringing their complaints to the department.
Senate Bill 363 – Page 6
While CYFD has raised concerns the creation of ombudsman functions proposed in other bills
would create redundancy with internal CYFD grievances processes, CYFD did not note this
assertion in analysis submitted for Senate Bill 363. Instead CYFD notes:
If this legislation is passed, CYFD’s Office of Advocacy and CPA will work together by
regularly staffing and sharing information about complaints received, the outcomes of
each respective office’s investigations, and data and patterns to avoid duplication of the
efforts and potential confusion for youth and constituents … [T]he Office of Advocacy
and CPA will collaborate to identify trends and gaps and design systemic solutions.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
AOC notes potential performance implications related to cases filed and disposed.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
SB363 conflicts with and relates to HB5, HB391, HJR5, SB307. These bills all propose new
oversight mechanisms for child welfare services but take different approaches.
SB363 conflicts with HB5, which establishes an Office of the Child Advocate within the
Attorney General’s Office to investigate, monitor, and resolve complaints about CYFD. The two
bills also differ in their approach to handling complaints—HB5 grants the Child Advocate
subpoena power to compel cooperation from agencies, while SB363 does not. This creates a
conflict where two agencies could be investigating the same child welfare complaints under
different levels of authority.
SB363 conflicts with HB391 and SB307, which both establish an Office of Child Ombud within
the Administrative Office of the Courts that would have similar responsibilities to SB363’s CPA
for reviewing CYFD’s handling of child abuse, neglect, and foster care cases, receiving
complaints, and issuing public reports. However, OCO would be attached to the Administrative
Office of the Courts, rather than the Regulation and Licensing Department. OCO would also be
granted subpoena power, which CPA lacks, giving OCO broader investigative authority.
SB363 conflicts with House Joint Resolution 5, which also creates an oversight commission to
oversee the Children, Youth and Families Department and would change governance of the
agency, removing CYFD from the governor’s cabinet.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
OFRA notes the bill mentions “other child welfare agencies” but does not clarify which agencies
would be subject to investigations of these “other child welfare agencies.”
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
OFRA notes the bill does not provide for minimum qualifications for the authority director and
notes the bill implies that all staff, including presumably administrative staff, must have
expertise in child welfare, juvenile law, or social services.
Senate Bill 363 – Page 7
OFRA also notes state agencies already undergo an annual audit and are subject to additional
auditing. The provision of the bill that would allow the governor or Legislative Finance
Committee to direct an additional audit by the State Auditor “may create significant
administrative burdens.”
AOC recommends considering amendments to detail how the proposed complaint, investigation,
referral, and resolution processes would proceed.
RMG/MG/hj/hg