Tuesday, January 6th marked the beginning of the 2015 legislative session. Priorities for the upcoming session include the $1 billion dollar surplus, transportation, education, long-term care and child protection. Among the many proposed House and Senate files, three bills stand out in particular as they directly impact Minnesota’s child protection system. These bills were developed using the initial recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children. You can track these bills by visiting our Bill Tracking webpage.

HF 8—Modifications to Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act and screening procedures

Key Points

  • Emphasizes child safety in the public policy statement by adding statements including “the health and safety of the children shall be of paramount concern.”
  • Removes Family Assessment (FA) as the preferred response.
  • Requires an investigation for reports alleging physical/sexual abuse or neglect, and FA for when children are at low risk of maltreatment and are not at imminent risk of harm.
  • Removes “that are done in anger or without regard to the safety of the child” in the definition of physical abuse.
  • Clarifies cross-reporting requirements between counties and law enforcement.
  • Removes the statement barring the use of screened out reports for anything but service referrals.
  • Requires updates to the DHS screening guidelines to require agencies to consider screened out reports when determining the status of a new report.
  • Increases the number of years that screened out reports, FA cases, and cases with no substantiation must be retained, to 5 years.

“Child safety” is not specifically defined in the bill but could be interpreted as only referencing the physical safety of the child. Research shows that children can experience trauma when they are removed from their homes and families. It is important to consider the psychological ramifications of removal while not jeopardizing the health and safety of the child.

Last year the law changed to require the maintenance of screened out reports for 365 days; previously there had been no requirement to maintain records of screened out reports. Currently FA and non-substantiated cases must be maintained for 4 years. The Task Force has recommended that screened out reports be maintained for 5 years; this bill includes FA and non-substantiated cases as well.

The bill proposes that investigation would be required when the report alleges physical or sexual abuse or neglect of the child, rather than substantial child endangerment. The task force, on the other hand, had recommended broadening the definition of substantial child endangerment.

HF 16—Modifications to screening procedures

Key Points

  • Allows agencies to consider screened-out reports in screening decisions, track assignment, and during the assessment or investigation phase.

The language in this bill may be confusing: It is unclear whether it would allow screeners to use prior reports to determine whether a case will be screened in for Family Assessment or Family Investigation, or whether it would allow workers to use screened out reports only once the report has been screened in to determine track assignment.

SF 4—Modifications to screening procedures and DHS oversight

Key Points

  • Allows screeners to use collateral data as well as prior screened-out reports to make screening decisions.
  • Requires agencies to use the DHS screening guidelines.
  • Allows counties to make modifications to the state screening guidelines, but such modifications must not be “less protective of children than is mandated by statute.”
  • Requires archiving of screened out reports for 5 years, and screeners to document their reasoning for screening a case out.
  • Requires DHS to provide oversight and quality assurance on screening and data recording and to produce an annual report of these reviews.

Judith Brumfield expressed a concern regarding collateral data during a past task force meeting. Her concern was about the line between making a screening decision and case assessment. Giving screeners the ability to seek out collateral data could inadvertently lead to screening in a report.

Tell us what you think of these bills—leave a comment below!