Connecticut relies on nonprofit organizations to provide addiction treatment, disability services, housing, job training and other public services. Most spend public money responsibly. But once taxpayer dollars leave a state agency or town hall, the public often loses the ability to see how they are spent.
The Expenditure Records and Information Notification Act, ERIN’s Act, would require disclosure of purchasing-card spending by government agencies and by grant-funded nonprofits alike. The proposal would apply to nonprofits receiving more than $50,000 in state or municipal grants, contracts, subsidies or other public support during a fiscal year.
Connecticut has already shown why that provision is needed.
Years of Abuse Before Anyone Knew
The Southeastern Regional Action Council on Substance Abuse (SERAC) is a Norwich nonprofit funded primarily through state and federal grants, including money from the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS).
Beginning around 2008, Executive Director Michele Devine used organizational funds for home appliances, travel, timeshare fees, stays at Canyon Ranch and private-school donations. Federal prosecutors said she altered receipts and other records to disguise personal purchases as business expenses.
Devine stole nearly $400,000 before leaving SERAC in 2022. She pleaded guilty to wire fraud in 2024 and was sentenced to two years in federal prison. The scheme lasted roughly fourteen years.
At Chapel Haven Schleifer Center, a New Haven nonprofit serving people with developmental and social disabilities, a supervisor used an organizational credit card to buy sporting-event and entertainment tickets for himself, friends and family. He submitted false purchase orders claiming the expenses were for Chapel Haven students and community members and also bought gift cards for himself.
Federal prosecutors said the credit-card scheme ran from 2012 through 2018 and cost approximately $175,872. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and was sentenced to 33 months in prison.
The prosecution did not establish that every stolen dollar came from a specific state payment. But Chapel Haven participates in Connecticut’s publicly funded disability-services system, and the abuse remained hidden for six years.
The Blue Hills Warning
The strongest case for ERIN’s Act’s nonprofit provision is the Blue Hills Civic Association in Hartford.
Blue Hills received approximately $15.7 million in state funding between fiscal years 2022 and 2025, including legislative grants, federal pandemic relief and economic-development funds.
The Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) ordered a forensic audit after Blue Hills reported that a $300,000 payment intended for another nonprofit had been intercepted in a wire-fraud scheme. Blue Hills waited months before notifying state officials and its own board.
The audit found broader problems involving contracts, recordkeeping, subrecipient monitoring and unsupported spending. Auditors identified at least $208,000 in unsupported disbursements involving conflicts of interest or work that could not be shown to have been performed. They also reviewed spending by organizations that received public money through Blue Hills.
Records submitted for SHEBA Resource Center included five Netflix charges categorized as marketing, publicity or advertising, along with transactions at Amazon, Best Buy, BJ’s, Target, Walgreens, Walmart and other retailers. Those purchases were not necessarily improper. The problem was that the records often did not show what was purchased, who received it or how it related to the taxpayer-funded program.
Auditors also found approximately $120,439 in checks to unidentified recipients and what appeared to be a $7,748 Discover credit-card payment. SHEBA reported distributing $50,000 through 50 scholarships worth $1,000 each; auditors instead found irregular transactions and over-the-counter checks without records identifying the recipients.
The audit said the evidence suggested potential misuse of public grant funds but did not conclude that every questioned transaction was fraudulent. Had the transactions and receipts been public while the grants were active, journalists, board members or state officials could have asked about the Netflix charges, the retail purchases and unexplained credit-card payment before a forensic audit became necessary.
Audits Are Not Real-Time Oversight
Connecticut already requires certain organizations receiving substantial state assistance to undergo audits. That oversight is important, but it occurs after the money has been spent and does not give taxpayers an ongoing record of card transactions and receipts.
SERAC’s theft lasted roughly fourteen years. The Chapel Haven scheme lasted six. The Blue Hills problems became public only after $300,000 had already disappeared. Audits document failures after the fact. Disclosure can expose warning signs while there is still time to act on them.
Keep the Rule Focused
ERIN’s Act would not make every nonprofit expense public. The proposal applies only to organizations receiving more than $50,000 in state or municipal support during a fiscal year, a threshold lower than Connecticut’s $500,000 state single-audit trigger, but the obligations are not comparable. Posting receipts and basic transaction information to a state portal is far less burdensome than commissioning a full audit.
Reporting would cover transactions charged to, reimbursed by or allocated to a public grant, contract or program. Private donations and unrelated private revenue should remain private, and medical, donor and other protected information would be redacted. For covered transactions, the public would be able to see the vendor, date, amount, funding source, business purpose and receipt. The state would operate a centralized portal, and disclosure would follow public money as it passes from one nonprofit to another.
Most nonprofits already retain receipts and allocate expenses among public and private funding sources. ERIN’s Act would make the records tied to taxpayer funding available before an audit or prosecution reveals a problem.
Connecticut should not demand transparency from agencies and municipalities while allowing the same tax dollars to disappear from view once they reach a private organization. Nonprofits may be private. The money taxpayers give them is not.
