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 Trujillo, L./ Berghmans
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2
/26/2025
SHORT TITLE CYFD Nominating Committee
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 458
ANALYST Garcia/Hernandez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
FY28
FY29
5 Year
Total Cost
(Savings)
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Prevention
Services Costs
(CYFD)
** ** **
Up to
$8,800.0
Up to
$8,800.0
Up to
$17,600.0
Recurring
General
Fund and
Title IV-E
Foster Care
Program Savings
from Prevention
(CYFD)
Up to
($2,000.0)
Up to
($2,000.0)
Up to
($4,000.0)
Recurring
General
Fund and
Title IV-E
Plans of Safe
Care Costs
(CYFD and HCA)
** $12,494.0 $12,494.0
$12,494.0
$12,494.0 $19,600.0 Recurring
General
Fund and
Medicaid
ECECD
(Home Visiting
Referrals)
No fiscal
impact
$3,500.0 $3,500.0
$3,500.0
$3,500.0 $14,000.0 Recurring
General
Fund,
Medicaid
and Title
IV-E
Multilevel
Response Costs
(CYFD)
** ** **
$800
$800 $1,600 Recurring
General
Fund
Multilevel
Response
Savings (CYFD)
Up to
($10,800.0)
Up to
($10,800.0)
Up
($21,600.0)
Recurring
General
Fund and
Title IV-E
SCAC Costs
(AOC)
** $550.0 $550.0
$550.0
$550.0 $2,200.0 Recurring
General
Fund and
Title IV-E
CYFD
Nominating
Committee
(CYFD)
Less than
$10.0
Less than
$10.0
Less than
$10.0
Less than
$10.0
Less than
$10.0
Up to $50.0 Recurring
General
Fund
Net Total
Less than
$10.0
$16,554.0 $16,554.0 $13,354.0 $13,354.0 $59,816.0 Recurring
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
**GRO funding appropriated in 2024 session should cover the cost
Relates to an appropriation in the General Appropriation Act
Duplicates House Bill 205
Conflicts with House Bill 173 and 343
Conflicts with House Joint Resolution 5
Conflicts with Senate Bill 42
Conflicts with House Bill 500
Senate Bill 458 – Page 2
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Congressional Budget Office
Pew Results First Model
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, University of
Colorado Medical Center
National Conference of State Legislatures
U.S. Administration for Children and Families
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) Health Care Authority (HCA) Department of Health (DOH) Agency Analysis Requested but not Received
Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD)- provided analysis for House Bill 205
Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)- provided analysis for House Bill 205
Early Childhood Care and Education Department (ECECD)- provided analysis for House Bill
205
SUMMARY
The Senate Bill 458 (SB458) would codify the federal Family First Prevention Services Act
(FFPSA), directing the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) to implement
evidence-based prevention services eligible for federal reimbursement. The bill outlines the
following timelines related to implementing the state’s FFPSA plan:
By August 1, 2025, CYFD must finalize and post online the state’s strategic federal
FFPSA plan.
By September 1, 2025, CYFD must submit the state’s plan to the federal
Administration for Children and Families.
By July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter, CYFD must post the annual report.
By June 30, 2027, CYFD must provide Families First prevention services through a
pilot program.
By August 1, 2027, CYFD must adopt rules to carry out the act.
By June 30, 2032, CYFD must plan for statewide implementation of services,
informed by pilot results.
The bill would update the state’s multi-level response statute to remove language regarding
piloting the statute and requiring statewide implementation.
The bill would update sections of the state statute related to plans of safe care for substance-
exposed newborns, including:
Making the Health Care Authority (HCA) the lead agency with more specific
expectations about the roles and responsibilities of care coordination, including in-
person and active support and follow-up with families to engage them in referred Senate Bill 458 – Page 3
services. The bill would also make HCA responsible for ensuring the completion of
federally-required reporting related to plans of safe care and delivering training
related to implementing plans of safe care;
Allowing for the creation of plans of safe care prenatally or perinatally and directing
all hospitals to use an evidence-based screening tool (SBIRT—for screening, brief
intervention, and referral to treatment) at prenatal and perinatal appointments;
Requiring plans of safe care include a referral to home visiting and substance use
treatment;
Requiring CYFD be notified in the event of noncompliance with a plan of care and
requiring CYFD to conduct a family assessment in all cases. CYFD shall then refer
families to the services recommended by the family assessment;
Requiring CYFD to proceed with an investigation in the event the family refuses
referred services recommended in the family assessment which the department
deems would result in imminent risk to the child.
The bill would move the Substitute Care Advisory Council from the Regulation and Licensing
Department to the Administrative Office of the Courts, increase the minimum number of cases
the council must review annually, and require CYFD provide agency responses to council reports
within specified timelines. The bill would also update the composition of the Council, allow
SCAC to hire professional staff to conduct case reviews, and allow SCAC access to confidential
information to enable case reviews, while clarifying their responsibilities related to this
confidential information.
Finally, the bill would establish a nominating committee for the CYFD secretary position.
The effective date of this bill is July 1, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The bill does not make an appropriation, though the bill relates to appropriations in the 2024
General Appropriation Act and the LFC recommendation for the 2025 General Appropriation
Act.
Families First Prevention Services
Because CS/HB205 mirrors the requirements of the federal Family First Prevention Services Act
(FFPSA) and directs CYFD to implement evidence-based services identified by the federal
government, it is likely to result in similar savings. In 2016, the Congressional Budget Office
fiscal note for the estimated FFPSA would, on net, reduce direct federal spending by $66 million
within the first decade of implementation. New Mexico may also reasonably predict net savings
because of implementing these services if the state implements program models with fidelity.
The federal government allows states to be reimbursed for eligible prevention services at the
state’s Medicaid match (FMAP) rate, which is roughly 77 percent in New Mexico, if that state
has an approved FFPSA plan in place. While CYFD will need to determine the actual services
included in the FFPSA plan, the analysis below includes cost estimates for two programs eligible
for federal Title IV-E (foster care) reimbursement that CYFD could choose to implement:
Homebuilders, an intensive in-home family preservation program, and SafeCare, a home visiting Senate Bill 458 – Page 4
program proven to improve parenting skills and reduce child abuse and neglect. These two
sample programs have different average per-client costs used to assume potential costs. The per-
client cost to implement evidence-based programs in New Mexico could be higher than the
average estimates, given the rurality of the state.
The federal FFPSA requires states to deliver services to children and families at risk of foster
care involvement but allows states to define eligibility broadly. The number of children who
ultimately receive services in New Mexico will depend on how CYFD defines the eligible
population in the state’s plan. States that appear to be taking greater advantage of federal Title
IV-E prevention services funding and serving larger numbers of children, including Oklahoma,
Kentucky, Indiana, and the District of Columbia, which each serve between 0.1 percent and 0.4
percent of the state’s total child population. However, the demographics of these states vary
considerably, as do rates of child maltreatment. Given the state’s high rate of child maltreatment,
New Mexico could potentially serve a larger share of its child population. If New Mexico were
to serve 0.5 percent of the state’s total child population, the state could assume costs of at least
$8.8 million annually to serve roughly 2,200 children, assuming the average cost to implement
Homebuilders, with a potential general fund of impact upwards of $2.5 million annually.
Average Cost
per Client
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Cost to Implement
to 0.5% of NM's
Child Population
Assumed Federal
Title IV-E
Reimbursement
Assumed
General Fund
Impact
SafeCare $226 $24.05 $510,022 $367,216 $142,806
Intensive Family Preservation Services
(Homebuilders) $3,913 $5.14 $8,830,604 $6,358,035 $2,472,569
Source: LFC Analysis
New Mexico is currently implementing a very limited number of programs eligible for Title IV-
E prevention funding reimbursement, meaning CYFD would likely need to invest in capacity
building, start-up costs, and implementation support for programs included in its FFPSA plan.
The bill would allow CYFD to pilot programs included in its FFPSA plan through FY27, and the
General Appropriation Act of 2024 included $3 million in general fund appropriations annually
in fiscal years 2025 through 2027 for CYFD to pilot and evaluate evidence-based prevention
programs that could be used for start-up costs.
If the state implements programs eligible for federal FFPSA funding, New Mexico should
experience significant cost savings. For example, the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy estimates a state can experience a savings of $24 for every $1 invested in SafeCare or a
savings of $5 for every $1 invested in Homebuilders. According to LFC analysis, evidence-based
home visiting programs may result in a reduction in child maltreatment rates ranging between 1
and 3 percent, depending on the model selected.
FFPSA programs may reduce the utilization of New Mexico’s foster care system. The federal
Administration for Children and Families attributed an 18 percent reduction in foster care
utilization between 2018 and 2023 nationally in part to state implementation of the federal
Family First Prevention Services Act. Assuming an estimated cost of $21 thousand per year for a
foster care placement, if New Mexico were to reduce entries into foster care by between 1 and 10
percent by implementing evidence-based prevention programs, CYFD could experience savings
between $205 thousand and $2 million annually. However, total potential savings and benefits Senate Bill 458 – Page 5
are likely much greater, since this estimate only includes foster care cost savings. This estimate
does not account for cost savings and benefits to the individual and society included in the ROI
estimates in the table above beyond direct foster care involvement, such as increased individual
earnings, reductions in health care utilization, and involvement with the criminal justice system.
Plans of Safe Care
The bill would require HCA to ensure all birthing hospitals in the state have dedicated care
coordinators available and in-person. The state has 25 birthing hospitals, and the 2023 LFC
program evaluation of the CARA program noted that some hospitals experience higher volumes
of plans of safe care and may require multiple care coordinators. At an average cost of roughly
$100 thousand, the state could assume a minimum cost of at least $2.5 million for in-person care
coordinators placed at birthing hospitals. HCA estimates a higher cost, assuming multiple care
coordinators at 35 hospitals, for a total cost of $15.8 million, with 78 percent covered by federal
Medicaid funds. The analysis below assumes $10 million, with 78 percent covered by Medicaid.
HCA provisions of care coordination for families with plans of safe care following discharge will
also impact HCA’s budget. Within the state’s Medicaid program, high fidelity wraparound is an
evidence-based, Medicaid eligible program for intensive case management. HCA could employ
high fidelity wraparound to deliver care coordination for families with plans of safe care and
then seek federal reimbursement at the state’s FMAP rate (roughly 78 percent). According to a
letter of direction HCA issued in 2024, the Medicaid billing rate for high fidelity wraparound is
$1,995 per case. Delivering this form of case management to roughly 1,200 New Mexicans
would cost roughly $2.4 million annually in total.
Providing follow-up care coordination is already a component of the state’s Medicaid managed
care plan, and HCA may be able to absorb some of the costs associated with in-person care
coordination with existing funding. In total, LFC estimates the cost to HCA to deliver in-person
care coordinators in the state’s birthing hospitals and intensive care coordination to families upon
discharge to be at least $4.9 million, with an assumed general potential general fund cost of
roughly $1.8 million. The state may experience cost savings resulting from improved health
outcomes and reductions in subsequent child welfare involvement that are not accounted for in
the analysis below.
The HAFC substitute for the General Appropriation Act includes $1.8 million for HCA to
implement plans of safe care, and HCA can use this allocation to fund care coordination services
for families who are not enrolled in Medicaid.
The bill would also increase referrals to the state’s home visiting programs. ECECD notes the
Plans of Safe Care referrals to home visiting providers could result in cost increases to home
visiting programs, estimating an increase of up to 2,279 families annually at a projected cost of
$8.1 million. If the enrolled in programs eligible for Medicaid and Title IV-E, the state would be
able to receive roughly 75 percent in federal reimbursement, resulting in a cost of roughly $2
million. ECECD currently prioritizes higher-risk families and could likely absorb some influx of
home visiting referrals. However, the state would need to build capacity for specific home
visiting models designed to serve higher-risk families. LFC assumes an estimated increase of
1,000 children, resulting in a potential cost increase of $3.6 million, with a general fund impact
of $898 thousand.
Senate Bill 458 – Page 6
Finally, the bill would require CYFD implement a family assessment in instances of
noncompliance with plans of safe care. The 2023 LFC Program Evaluation found 40 percent of
families with a safe care plan were referred to CYFD, 27 percent of referrals were ultimately
screened in as an accepted report, and 18 percent of accepted reports ultimately resulted in cases
of substantiated abuse or neglect. If HCA were to implement intensive case management,
subsequent referrals to CYFD should decrease. Nevertheless, the bill could allow for an increase
in cases which result in a family assessment (multilevel or differential response) and
investigation. For example, if half of all plans of care were ultimately referred to CYFD, the cost
to implement differential response in all those cases could range between $50 thousand and $100
thousand annually, using the costs estimates described in the differential response fiscal impact
section. However, if implemented with fidelity to evidence-based models, the state could
experience the ultimate cost-benefits.
HCA reports the agency would require an additional 4 coordinator FTE and 2 supervisor FTE to
implement provisions of the bill and could potentially reimburse 50 percent of the costs under
the Medicaid program, resulting in a potential total cost of $606 thousand, with a general fund
impact of $303 thousand.
Plans of Safe Care
Assumed Cost
(in thousands)
Assumed
Federal
Medicaid
Reimbursement
(in thousands)
Assumed Potential
General Fund
Impact
(in thousands)
Care Coordinators in Birthing Hospitals $10,000 $7,800 $2,200
Care Coordination after Discharge (HFW) $2,394.0 $1,659.0 $734.9
Total HCA Cost Estimates $12,394 $9,459 $2,934
Increased differential response costs $50 to 100 $50-$100
Total CYFD Cost Estimates $50 to 100 $50-$100
HCA notes no appropriation is included in the bill, though the LFC recommendation for the
General Appropriation Act includes $1.8 million to HCA to implement plans of safe care. HCA
received a similar appropriation in FY25.
DOH notes the bill does not contain an appropriation to DOH, and DOH continues to play a role
in data collection and reporting.
Multilevel or Differential Response
The bill amends the enactment of Laws 2019, Chapter 137, which created within the Children’s
Code a multilevel, or differential, response system for child abuse and neglect cases in three key
areas.
The bill also strikes language that allowed CYFD to implement a pilot program of multilevel
response and instead directs CYFD to implement a full multilevel response system as currently
articulated in statute statewide by July 1, 2027.
The existing multilevel response statute (Section 32A-4-4.1 NMSA 1978) requires CYFD report
on the implementation and outcomes of a multilevel response system to LFC and Department of Senate Bill 458 – Page 7
Finance and Administration (DFA) annually with the agency’s budget submission. HB205
updates the recipients of the annual report to the interim Legislative Health and Human Services
Committee and the interim Courts, Corrections, and Justice Committee.
LFC fiscal impact report analysis from Laws 2019, Chapter 137 indicated “an alternative
response pathway to improve outcomes for at-risk families may result in a return on investment
of up to $15.64 for every $1 spent per participant.” Further analysis found that “alternative
response [is estimated] to cost $98 per family; [while] current family support service program
costs approximately $2,000 per family” and that “long term costs are reduced because fewer
children are brought into the child welfare system.” Moreover, a study completed in Minnesota
estimating the costs of implementing differential response found that “a decreased cost incurred
over three to five years for differential response families of $1,279 compared to the control
group.”
LFC analysis suggests the state may experience cost-savings ranging from $4.9 million to $10.8
million because of implementing a multilevel response system, if implemented with fidelity to
evidence-based models. National data demonstrates that 14 percent of cases screened by child
protective service agencies use differential response. In 2022, CYFD accepted 20 thousand
reported cases of abuse or neglect in 2022. If New Mexico were to refer 14 percent of 20
thousand to an alternative response, instead of an investigation, roughly 2,800 cases would
receive an alternative response. Projected costs from an alternative response range between $98
and $286 per family, according to previous LFC reports and the Washington State Institute for
Public Policy. Meanwhile, LFC estimates a child welfare investigation costs New Mexico
roughly $1,000. If New Mexico were to divert roughly 2,800 cases to an alternative response, the
state could bear $274 thousand and $800 thousand in referral costs annually, while reducing
investigation costs by roughly $2.8 million, resulting in a potential net savings of up to $2
million annually.
In addition to the $2 million in savings from shifting cases from investigation to alternative
response, a 2023 study published in Child Maltreatment suggested states that have implemented
an alternative response model experience roughly a 17 percent reduction in foster care
placement. According to previous LFC reports, the annual cost of a child in foster care is
estimated at $21 thousand. If New Mexico were to experience a reduction in foster care
placement between 5 and 15 percent, the state could experience a savings of roughly $2.9 million
to $8.8 million.
If New Mexico were to implement multilevel response, the state could see a total costs savings
of upwards of $10.8 million annually. However, these estimates would require the state to
implement multilevel response with fidelity to evidence-based models and at a cost roughly close
to nationally reported averages. CYFD would likely assume start-up costs associated with
differential response over the next three years but should begin to experience savings in outyears.
Potential Alternative Response Savings
Assumed Cost
(in thousands)
Assumed Federal
Reimbursement
Assumed
Potential General
Fund Impact
Savings on investigations and implementing differential
response ($2,000.00) ($2,000.00)
Savings from reduced foster care placements ($2,900 - $8,800) ($2,200- $6,676) ($667 -$2,024)
Senate Bill 458 – Page 8
The General Appropriation Act of 2024 provided $1.4 million in general fund appropriations
annually in FY25 through FY27 to pilot and evaluate the implementation of differential through
the government results and opportunity (GRO) fund.
Substitute Care Advisory Council
Data from the federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System indicates, in
2022, the median length of stay in foster care was 18 months, and the bill will require the
Substitute Care Advisory Council (SCAC) to review each case that has been in care longer than
six months. In 2022, roughly 1,800 children were in foster care; 20 percent of these children
were in care less than six months, and roughly 30 percent of the cases included a child who was
less than 6 years old. Following a persistent declining trend, the number of children in foster care
increased in FY24 to roughly 2,100 children in any given month. On the high end, SCAC might
need to review upwards of 1,800 cases per year, though the number is likely much smaller as
individual cases often involve multiple children. Currently, SCAC is staffed by three full-time
employees and may need additional staff to complete more case reviews.
While SCAC has been administratively attached to the Regulation and Licensing Department
(RLD), for the last three years the General Appropriations Act has included an appropriation for
SCAC within the Administrative Office of the Courts, contingent on enactment of legislation to
move SCAC to the courts. As no legislation has passed, these appropriations have been vetoed.
RLD has funded the salaries of three existing SCAC employees with fee revenue collected by the
department.
RLD reports the agency received $31 thousand for the operations of SCAC in FY25, while
current total operating costs, including 4 FTE, total roughly $350 thousand, and the agency has
been funding the SCAC function with other agency revenue in recent years. RLD provides
administrative support functions to SCAC, and RLD notes these functions would transfer to the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). In addition, the bill would transfer all equipment,
furniture, and office supplies to AOC. RLD reports no performance implications with shifting
items to AOC.
The LFC recommendation for the General Appropriation Act includes a $550 thousand special
appropriation to AOC, with $450 thousand from the general fund and $100 thousand in federal
Title IV-E revenue transferred from CYFD. The appropriation would allow for the staffing of up
to five full-time employees. The appropriation should allow SCAC to significantly increase the
number of cases reviewed annually; however, it may not provide sufficient resources to fully
meet the number of case reviews outlined in the bill if the number of cases trends at the high end
of the estimates presented above. Contingent on the enactment of this bill, the Legislature would
need to consider recurring funding in future years. The House Judiciary Committee substitute for
House Bill 205 would move the SCAC function to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In analysis of the original bill, the Office of the Attorney General (NMAG) notes the bill requires
it to provide advice and render legal services on the council’s request, which may require
additional resources.
Total ($4,900-$10,800) ($2,200- $6,676) ($2,667-$4,024) Senate Bill 458 – Page 9
CYFD Secretary Nominating Committee
The bill makes nominating committee members eligible for mileage and per diem
reimbursement, which may result in operating costs to CYFD estimated to be less than $10
thousand annually.
Overall Costs
Overall, CYFD reports:
Implementation of HB205 would require 84 additional FTE to support Statewide Central
Intake, administrative support, CARA and Family Preservation services, Multilevel
Response FTE, Epidemiologists, and data analysts. Total salary, benefits for additional
FTE and curriculum and training is estimated to be $8,926,583.
However, CYFD did not provide details about these estimates or information about whether any
of these potential costs are already covered by nonrecurring GRO appropriations received by the
agency, nor did the department outline assumptions about federal revenue sources to cover these
estimated costs. CYFD also did not assume any cost savings resulting from prevention and early
intervention programs.
OFRA reports some elements of the bill could result in increased need for OFRA legal services,
while others could result in a decrease in case filings and the need for legal representation among
children and respondents.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Families First Prevention Services
The federal Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-123) included the Family First
Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), which amended the federal Title IV-E foster care program to
allow states to seek federal reimbursement if delivering specific support services for children and
families to prevent entrances into foster care. The law specifies eligible populations include
those “who are candidates for child welfare but can safely remain at home” and allows states to
define who is “a candidate for foster care” within certain parameters. To be eligible for federal
funding, states must submit a detailed plan to the federal Administration for Children and
Families for approval. In addition, the FFPSA requires states implement evidence-based
programs proven through rigorous research to have positive child welfare programs; the federal
government maintains a list of these services within the federal Title IV-E prevention services
clearinghouse. To be eligible for federal funding, these services must be rated as “well-
supported,” “supported,” or “promising” in the federal Title IV-E prevention services
clearinghouse.
This section of HB205 is similar to legislation implemented in other states following the federal
FFPSA, including Texas, Colorado, and Maine.
The bill requires CYFD to develop and implement a strategic plan, subject to the approval of the
federal Administration for Children and Families, to provide evidence-based prevention services
for children and families at imminent-risk of foster care involvement. Services articulated in the
plan must meet the requirements of the federal FFPSA.
Senate Bill 458 – Page 10
The bill requires CYFD’s plan to articulate service eligibility according to federal definitions,
and CYFD must outline policies and procedures to monitor the safety of children receiving
services, as required by the federal FFPSA.
In addition, the bill requires CYFD to establish performance outcome measures associated with
implementing evidence-based prevention services, including subsequent substantiated reports of
maltreatment and entrances into foster care.
The bill directs CYFD to monitor and evaluate program implementation and to publish an annual
report, to be provided to LFC, the Legislative Health and Human Services Committee (LHHS),
and the governor that includes an inventory of all services available, data about service uptake
and completion, and program outcomes, including data about subsequent entrances into foster
care among service recipients, and program expenditure information.
Finally, the bill amends an existing section of the children’s code to add the provision of
evidence-based services articulated in the federal FFPSA to the responsibilities of CYFD, and
the bill adds language to section of the existing children’s code which requires CYFD to provide
a description of the services offered to a child, child’s family and the child’s foster care family in
abuse and neglect predisposition studies. The added language notes the services offered may
include families first prevention services or referrals to income support or other services as
appropriate and available.
CYFD has submitted multiple draft plans to the federal Administration for Children and Families
but is one of only four states to have a plan unapproved. To date, 47 states and tribal
governments have approved plans. Without an approved plan, New Mexico is missing out on
federal revenue that could be used to implement evidence-based prevention and early
intervention programs. For FY25, the General Appropriation Act of 2024 provided a special
appropriation of $200 thousand to CYFD to pay for technical assistance in revising and
resubmitting the state's prevention program plan and to ensure the maximum draw down of
federal funds within Protective Services. CYFD received technical assistance through Casey
Family Programs, supported philanthropically, and has not used the special appropriation to date.
CYFD notes in their bill analysis:
CYFD has submitted their Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) Title
IV-E Prevention Plan for federal approval. The plan identifies a continuum of
prevention services to support families. Each program utilizes evidence-based or
evidence-informed programming. These programs are not in the Title IV-E
clearinghouse at this time, however that does not mean they will not be in the
future.
CYFD also reports the bill would require CYFD to exclusively deliver prevention programs
listed in the Family First Prevention Services Act Clearinghouse, and CYFD currently
implements a variety of culturally appropriate programs and potentially use curriculums not
aligned with nations, pueblos, and tribes. However, the bill does not prohibit CYFD from
implementing other programs, and CYFD is currently implementing a variety of programs that
are not evidence-based.
ECECD notes related to the federal Family First Prevention Services Act:
Relating to the proposed Families First Act, home visiting programs may qualify as a Senate Bill 458 – Page 11
family first service, but it is important to emphasize that participation in these services
should not be mandated or required. Home visiting’s foundational values focus on a
philosophy of support and respecting family autonomy, ensuring they have the right to
decline services.
Multilevel/Alternative Response
An alternative or multilevel response model provides child welfare systems with an alternative to
traditional investigations. In an alternative response to a lower-risk case, protective services
workers conduct an assessment of a family’s needs, connect the family to resources or in-home
services if appropriate, and continue to monitor the family directly and consistently. According
to the Kempe Center at the University of Colorado, states that use alternative responses do so for
low-to moderate-risk accepted reports, with an approach that focuses on partnering with families
to provide services that meet their needs, while removing the need for determination or
substantiation of abuse and neglect.
In 2019, New Mexico enacted legislation to create a multilevel or alternative response model. In
a traditional alternative response model, reports of maltreatment are split into two tracks:
investigation and family assessment. Existing statute (Section 32A-4-4.1 NMSA 1978) requires
a family assessment to include an assessment of:
1. Imminent danger to a child’s well-being;
2. the child becoming an abused or neglected child;
3. the strengths and needs of the child’s family members, relatives, and caregivers, with
respect to providing for the health and safety of a child.
Existing statute articulates the state shall not conduct a family assessment in the event of
immediate concern for a child’s safety, and an investigation shall be conducted for specific types
of suspected abuse or neglect. Existing statute also notes the department may remove a case from
the multilevel response system and conduct an investigation if imminent danger of serious harm
to a child become evident.
CYFD has not implemented the program in an evidence-based way as required by statute.
Instead, CYFD has been implementing a pilot model of alternative response that refers some
families for external services and only serves families who are screened out for investigation.
In 2024, the Legislature appropriated $4.2 million through the government results and
opportunity fund to pilot and evaluate implementation of differential response over three years,
in accordance with statute. CYFD is now receiving technical assistance from Casey Family
Programs to prepare to expand alternative response statewide and to deliver the approach to low-
to medium-risk cases, as research recommends. CYFD’s analysis does not include a timeline for
implementation.
The existing multilevel response statute requires CYFD to submit an annual report about the
implementation of the multilevel response system, including outcomes, to LFC and the DFA
annually as part of the agency’s budget submission. CYFD has not submitted the statutorily
required report in at least the last two years. The bill would expand the required annual recipients
to include additional interim legislative committees, which may increase oversight and
accountability associated with this requirement.
Senate Bill 458 – Page 12
Plans of Safe Care
According to LFC analysis, New Mexico has a higher rate of newborns who have been exposed
to substances than the national average. The federal Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
(CARA) amended the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to require
states to develop plans and monitor the implementation of plans of safe care. Under CAPTA, a
plan of safe care is a collaborative plan designed to ensure the safety and well-being of infants
affected by prenatal substance exposure, by addressing the health and substance use treatment
needs of the infant and their caregivers and aiming to prevent child safety risks.
States which receive CAPTA grants must report the following to the federal government:
The number of infants born and identified as being substance-exposed,
The number of such infants for whom a Plan of Safe Care was developed,
The number of infants for whom referrals were made for services.
States can place CARA responsibilities within child welfare or public health agencies. According
to the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, state child welfare agencies
oversee plans of safe care for families with open child welfare cases in most states. However, 18
states employ strategies for monitoring plans of safe care that do not have an open child welfare
case.
In 2019, New Mexico passed legislation requiring staff in hospitals and birthing centers develop
plans of care for substance-exposed newborns, which refer families to voluntary support and
treatment services. New Mexico’s CARA law changed reporting requirements to CYFD such
that a finding that a woman is using or abusing drugs would not alone be a sufficient basis to
report child abuse or neglect. New Mexico’s CARA law takes a public health approach by
treating drug and alcohol use during pregnancy as a disorder requiring services rather than as a
reason for reporting suspected child maltreatment to CYFD. After New Mexico enacted its
CARA law in 2019, CYFD’s removal of infants from families fell below the national rate.
However, the CARA law spread the responsibility for developing and monitoring voluntary
plans of care across multiple state agencies and healthcare organizations, including the Health
Care Authority (HCA), the Department of Health (DOH), birthing hospitals, Medicaid managed
care organizations, and CYFD. A 2023 LFC evaluation found that the state’s implementation of
its CARA policy has substantive gaps and recommended many of the statutory and program
changes reflected in this bill.
In 2023, the Legislature made appropriations from opioid settlement revenue, including $1
million to implement plans of safe care for substance-exposed newborns and $1 million to
establish SafeCare Home Visiting, which is eligible for federal reimbursement. Both
appropriations went unused and reverted. For FY25, the Legislature appropriated nearly $2
million for plans of safe care to HCA based on a recommendation from the 2023 LFC program
evaluation. However, during 2024, CYFD posted 17 CARA-related positions and moved forward
with hiring. As of December 1, 2024, the agency had filled 16 CARA positions; CYFD reported
the agency was using Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding for the
positions.
As written, Senate Bill 458 would clarify HCA holds responsibility to support families in Senate Bill 458 – Page 13
accessing services to which they are referred through plans of safe care. However, CYFD would
be responsible for addressing cases of noncompliance or refusal, initiating a response similar to
the multilevel response already articulated in statute when appropriate.
CYFD reports the agency is in the process of transferring the CARA program to DOH. CYFD
notes the bill requires HCA or care coordinators to notify CYFD in instances of noncompliance,
but noncompliance is not defined in the bill. CYFD also notes the bill does not outline what
happens if a family declines a service and also notes there may be instances where an immediate
report and investigation are necessary, and suggested the bill clarify mandated reporters are still
responsible for fulfilling their duty to report suspected abuse of neglect. However, this
clarification already exists in Section 32A-4-3 (G).
HCA notes questions about the transition of responsibility for plans of safe care from CYFD,
including lack of clarity about what responsibility remains at CYFD and if any FTE will be
transferred from CYFD.
DOH and OFRA highlighted concerns about a referral to substance use treatment as a required
component of plans of safe care.
DOH also reported standardized screening tools, as proposed in HB205, are “recommended to
reduce bias in identification and referral” and “addressing substance use among mothers who
have recently given birth is also critical.
OFRA notes, while the intention of the bill is to expand plans of care to allow for prenatal
support, this expansion could unintentionally result in bringing families to the attention of CYFD
before a child is born, resulting in family intrusion and legal intervention. OFRA also noted the
state may have insufficient numbers of care coordinators to implement the program.
OFRA reports the requirement for care coordinators to “actively work” with families with plans
of safe care and to use an intensive care coordination model listed in a federal clearinghouse for
child welfare may lead to positive results re-engaging families, preventing the need for CYFD
involvement and unnecessary legal action. However, OFRA notes concerns that families may
fear failure to comply will result in mandatory action against them, decreasing their willing
engagement in post-partum care.
Substitute Care Advisory Council
In New Mexico, the federally mandated CAPTA citizen review panel function was codified in
the 2016 Citizen Substitute Care Review Act, and its duties are performed by the Substitute Care
Advisory Council (SCAC). SCAC is administratively attached to the New Mexico Regulation
and Licensing Department in accordance with Section 9-1-7 NMSA 1978 and conducts its
evaluations through oversight of the regional substitute care review boards’ monitoring of
children placed in CYFD’s custody and identification of systemic policy issues related to
substitute care. LFC reports have highlighted gaps in the existing function. SCAC is mandated
through state statute to produce an annual report; however, due to issues maintaining sufficient
Council membership, reports have not always been filed. In addition, the number of cases
reviewed annually by SCAC does not provide a representative sample. For example, SCAC
reviewed 242 cases reviewed from July 2020 through December 2022, and SCAC reviewed 54
cases which involved 101 children in FY24, less than 5 percent of children in foster care in a Senate Bill 458 – Page 14
single month in New Mexico in 2024. Previous iterations of the SCAC reviewed all cases
annually.
SCAC is required by existing statute to establish priority case criteria for case review each year.
Within the most recent report, their priority case review criteria focused on: (1) placements in
institutional or congregate care settings, (2) number of children in placement, (3) youth aged 13-
18, (4) sibling groups, (5) three or more 48-hour holds, (6) requested by an interested party, (7)
follow-up on previous case reviews. These criteria led to most of the reviewed cases focusing on
teenagers in care; while these may be high-risk cases, the reviewed cases and annual report do
not reflect the overall distribution of children in care. For example, CYFD reported to the Senate
Memorial 5 taskforce during the 2024 interim that around 50 percent of children in care are five
years old or younger. Outcomes for children in foster care, such as time to permanency, could
improve if more cases are reviewed on an annual basis, the Council is able to make
recommendations for system improvement, and CYFD reviews and considers implementation
for these recommendations.
Prior to 2016, SCAC was situated within the DFA as a contractual service and every child abuse
and neglect case was reviewed by SCAC through a contractual function. Following its move to
the Regulation and Licensing Department, SCAC has not always published annual reports or had
sufficient membership, despite requirements within statute. SCAC’s most recent report,
published in October 2024, reviewed 54 cases impacting 101 children. In the same year, roughly
2000 children were in care.
According to analysis compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, states
generally house the federally required function in a health and human services agency, in a
stand-alone agency, or within the courts. New Mexico is the only state that houses the function in
a regulatory agency.
This bill moves SCAC from RLD to the New Mexico Attorney General. The bill strengthens
oversight and reporting functions by requiring SCAC to review a representative sample of cases,
review any case involving a stay in foster care longer than six months, and prioritize cases
among young children.
Additionally, the bill requires SCAC to enter into a data sharing agreement with CYFD to enable
case reviews. This data sharing agreement would include access to the Comprehensive Child
Welfare Information System (CCWIS). Currently, there is no statutory mandate that requires
CYFD to share case data with SCAC.
Federal requirements mandate that the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD)
provides an administrative response to SCAC’s annual report within six months. However,
House Bill 205 would require a formal response within 30 days.
CYFD notes a potential conflict of interest resulting from placing SCAC within AOC. AOC
similarly expressed concerns with moving SCAC to AOC, including:
The amendments clearly provide for “objective monitoring of the department [CYFD]
Thus, SCAC reviews and monitors an executive branch agency. The judiciary risks
infringing on the separation of powers, codified in the Constitution.
AOC also reports the Executive Reorganization Act (Section 9-1-7 NMSA 1978): Senate Bill 458 – Page 15
Governs how an agency is administratively attached to another executive agency. The
judiciary does not have an equivalent….As an arm of the Supreme Court, AOC directly
represents and assists the Supreme Court and other New Mexico courts. Therefore, it is
contrary to the separation of powers that an entity overseen by either the AOC or the
Supreme Court monitor an agency in the executive branch.
OFRA notes several concerns with provisions of the sections of the bill related to confidentiality
of information SCAC may access when engaging in their work.
CYFD Secretary Nominating Committee
The bill establishes a nominating committee as part of the selection process for the secretary of
the Children, Youth and Families Department. The bill would require the governor to select a
secretary from a list of qualified nominees submitted to the governor by the nominating
committee. The nominating committee shall be comprised of six members appointed by leaders
within the Legislature, two members appointed by the governor, and one member appointed by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The bill directs CYFD staff to provide administrative
support to the nominating committee.
Members of the nominating committee must also be residents of New Mexico, serve a four-year
term, and serve without compensation. The bill allows members of the nominating committee to
receive per diem and mileage.
Existing statute grants the governor appointment power for the secretary of CYFD, subject to
Senate confirmation. Over the last decade CYFD has experienced significant leadership
turnover, and three different secretaries have led the agency since 2019. This lack of consistent
leadership may have negatively impacted CYFD operations. For example, employee exit survey
data collected in 2023 highlighted perceptions of a lack of agency leadership. The creation of the
nominating committee may improve the quality of potential candidates considered by the
governor for secretary of CYFD, strengthening department leadership, potentially enhancing the
list of candidates with child welfare expertise, and reducing the negative effects associated with
leadership turnover. The bill would not change the governance of the department, maintaining
CYFD as a cabinet agency.
In 2020, legislation created the New Mexico Public Regulating Commission Nominating
Commission, which services a similar function for the Public Regulatory Commission (PRC),
intended to enhance the expertise and experience of appointed commissioners within a technical
field.
CYFD analysis reports the Executive Reorganization Act aims to allow for efficient management
of government through the creation of an executive cabinet, and the proposed CYFD nominating
function would undermine this intent and dimmish the authority of the governor by limiting the
candidate pool. CYFD reports the Senate confirmation process already ensures the selection of a
qualified candidate. RLD analysis notes the proposed nominating structure could extend the
amount of time needed to select a secretary candidate and raises additional logistical
considerations.
OFRA analysis the bill does not define “knowledgeable about child welfare” as criteria for
appointment to the nominating committee and a variety of other concerns. Senate Bill 458 – Page 16
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
CYFD noted the need for additional FTE should the bill be implemented.
HCA reports there will need to be extensive coordination between HCA, CYFD, DOH, and
stakeholders on all responsibilities outlined in this bill. Further:
The bill will impact the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) by
enhancing the support services, such as care coordination for families affected by
substance use disorders. The bill supports a non-punitive approach to substance use in
pregnancy, which is a key aspect of CARA.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
HCA reports the need for rule-making processes and the development of training materials to
implement the bill. In addition, the agency will need to evaluate existing IT systems to determine
impacts for implementation.
Both CYFD and DOH reported the agencies are currently working together to “move the CARA
program from CYFD to DOH,” though such a structure conflicts with existing statute.
OFRA notes the provisions of the bill would likely result in significant training needs across
departments.
NMAG notes the bill may increase demands on the agency’s Government Counsel and
Accountability Division, as language in the SCAC section requires the attorney general to
consult with the council and render legal services upon request. The Council may also need to
enter into contracts, memoranda of understanding, and joint powers agreements to carry out the
provisions of the act.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP\
Senate Bill 458 duplicates much of House Bill 2025, as introduced
The sections of the bill related to the establishment and implementation of Plans of Safe Care
conflict with House Bill 173, House Bill 343, and Senate Bill 42 which make different changes.
Committee substitutes for House Bill 343 and Senate Bill 42 make very similar changes to Plans
of Safe Care but would place responsibility at the Department of Health.
The sections of the bill related to the creation of the nominating commission for the secretary of
CYFD conflict with House Joint Resolution 5, a constitutional amendment that would remove
CYFD from the governor’s cabinet and establish a governing commission. Should both bills pass
and voters approve the governing commission, the nominating committee would likely be in
place until the commission is in place.
The sections of the bill which move SCAC conflict with House Bill 500, which makes some of
the changes proposed for SCAC but maintains the function within the Regulation and Licensing Senate Bill 458 – Page 17
Department. Senate Bill 458 may also conflict with Senate Bill 363, which would create an
oversight body for CYFD within the Regulation and Licensing Department.
The LFC recommendation for the General Appropriation Act contains the following
appropriations that may fund components of the policies proposed in this bill:
$550 thousand for the Substitute Care Advisory Council, contingent upon legislation
which moves the Council to the AOC, in a non-recurring special appropriation. The
General Appropriations Act could be amended to direct funding to the New Mexico
Attorney General instead.
$1.8 million to the HCA to implement and oversee Plans of Safe Care from Opioid
Settlement Revenue
$7.7 million to the CYFD to match federal Title-IV E prevention revenue in the agency’s
recurring operating budget.
The 2024 General Appropriation Act included the following government results and opportunity
Fund appropriations that may fund the implementation of portions of this bill:
$15 million to the Health Care Authority over three years that can be used to train
providers using the evidence-based screening tool SBIRT;
$4.2 million to CYFD to pilot and evaluate the implementation of multilevel response, in
alignment with statute;
$9 million to pilot and evaluate evidence-based prevention and intervention programs,
eligible for federal Title IV-E funding.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
NMAG notes Section 23 may contain duplicative language in subsections B and C and section B
may be struck.
NMAG also notes the bill references required federal reporting in several places but does not
articulate specific federal requirements.
NMAG notes some of the language within the section creating the CYFD Secretary nominating
committee, in regards to reimbursement for mileage and per diem, the extent to which the
committee subject to IPRA, and the information the committee may consider may be more
expansive than intended and suggests clarification.
HCA proposes amendments to existing statute not included in this bill to use the term “substance
use disorder” rather than “substance abuse.” However, some of the language related to
“substance abuse” references and mirrors specific language in federal law, including the
programs eligible for federal Family First Prevention Services.
RMG/AH/hj