During the last legislative session in Minnesota, the legislature passed a bill that included provisions related to child protection screening. This bill was signed into law by Governor Mark Dayton on May 21, 2014. The screening provisions within this bill were a response to the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) 2012 report on child protection screening in Minnesota, which found that:
“child protection agencies in Minnesota vary in their screening decisions and practices, but their approaches are generally reasonable. Many factors appear to contribute to variation in child protection screening decisions, including vague statutory language, agency guidelines, and resources. The Minnesota Department of Human Services has provided screening-related assistance that child protection agencies value, but the department could do more. We make recommendations to the Legislature, department, and child protection agencies to clarify state policy, guide agency practice, and improve data on child protection screening.”
More specifically, the report found that there were inconsistencies in data recording practices on the numbers of total and screened-out maltreatment referrals: agencies might have different practices regarding what constitutes a maltreatment referral and when agencies should record screened-out referrals. Thus, the OLA could not evaluate screening rates over time and across agencies. Their recommendations concerning this were: “DHS and child protection agencies work to improve the consistency and practices for recording referrals,” and that “DHS and child protection agencies should identify which referrals should be recorded as child maltreatment referrals and emphasize the importance of recording them.
2014 Revisions to Child Protection Screening Practices
The screening-related provisions found in Chapter 291 of the 2014 Minnesota Session Laws help take the first step in addressing the issue of data-recording inconsistencies.
Retention of Data for Screened Out Reports
The new law adds a provision within Minnesota’s mandated reporting statute (626.556) that requires agencies to enter a minimum amount of identifying data into the state social services information system (SSIS) for all screened out reports in order to identify repeat reports of the same child or children. This information must be kept in SSIS for 365 days from the date the report was screened out. (Screened out reports are those reports of alleged child maltreatment that did not meet statutory requirements for being accepted for assessment or investigation.) This provision can be found under Article 1, Section 10 of Chapter 291.
Use of Screened Out Reports
Under the mandated reporting statute, a provision was added that specifies the time frame for when agencies are to inform reporters whether their report was accepted or not. The provision specifically states that when a report is not accepted, the agency is to tell the reporter that the report was screened out. Also within this provision, the following text is included:
A screened-out report must not be used for any purpose other than making an offer of social services to the subjects of the screened-out report.
Current DHS Policy
According to the Minnesota Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines from DHS (published in September 2012), counties may not use any past reports of alleged child maltreatment (whether screened in or screened out) to determine whether a new report of alleged child maltreatment should be screened in. Rather, each report should be considered individually. However, if a report is screened in and a case is opened, counties are able to use past report history (both screened in and screened out, if that data is on file) as one factor to consider when determining if protective services are needed and to which track it will be assigned (family investigation or family assessment).
Research on Screened Out Reports
Although I am not sure what effect, if any, the new policy would have on the current DHS policy allowing use of past report history in determining whether a child is need of protective services, the fact that screened out reports would be required to be entered in SSIS indicates that researchers could conduct studies to determine where counties may be variable in their screening practices and whether a history of repeat reports (screened in, screened out, or both) indicates a child is more at risk than others (among other study topics).
Here we go again. More task forces and finger pointing. I find it hard to believe legislators did not know what they were voting for–at the very least DHS was guiding them. Some counties do not track rule outs on a same report(different reporters), thus maybe altering numbers. Most of the state guidelines are concrete and came from the legislature and DHS. Most of those making the policies have never done the work or if they have, for short periods of time. The laws are written from a legal perspective, rarely one of social work. To get to investigations, you need to get past screening. Investigators will see prior screening rule outs as just that–rule outs that legally won’t go far in court. The other issue rarely raised is the info reporters provide to screeners. Some of the mandated reporters know the guidelines. Some reporters when asked to seek out more info that meets the guidelines do not do so. State law only allows screeners to talk to the reporters, no other parties regarding the report. This is a complex issue which goes beyond blogs.