This post is in response to the Star Tribune opinion article written by Joanna Woolman and the comments that followed Ms. Woolman’s article. A version of this blog post has been submitted to the Star Tribune as a commentary.
This post was edited at 3:29 PM, 9/12/14, to clarify current DHS policy.
I appreciate Joanna Woolman’s article, “Good child-protection policy doesn’t come from reaction to one crime.” I too am deeply troubled by the tragedy of the death of Eric Dean. I appreciate the call for additional resources for a sorely under-resourced area. Minnesota has historically had one of the lowest investments of state dollars for child protection services. This, coupled with staggering financial cuts in the last few legislative sessions, has weakened the safety net for these vulnerable children and their families. It is easy to scrutinize the decisions of one worker or one county, but it is far more complex to take a serious look at the lack of systemic resources available to adequately address and service these critically vulnerable children.
Child protection is filled with complexities, and I have been troubled by recent reporting and commenting that appears to drill solutions down to easy answers, “common sense,” and judgment of morality and immorality. Perhaps if we were talking about a single case with a well-defined set of information, the answers would be easy, but that is not the case. Calls for action impact all cases, all children, and all families in Minnesota.
Contrary to the comments posted in the comment thread of Ms. Woolman’s article, I believe that additional conversations are needed. They do not need to be protracted conversations, but the right people need to be present. There should be an immediate response but the response should be thoughtfully considered. Nationally, the field of child welfare has been plagued by well-intended policies developed in the wake of terrible tragedies—some work, but many do not; these policies then have to be retooled or repealed. In a response to one of the comments on Ms. Woolman’s article, which expressed concern over the emphasis on reunification in child welfare practice, we have to be balanced in the advocacy between family preservation and the permanent separation of children from their families. Both actions are valid and needed responses, depending upon each individual case.
Additionally, there has been quite a bit written about the statistic of 71% of reports not being investigated. I believe that for the general public this is quite misleading. Those statistics consider 100% of all calls that come to a county related to alleged child maltreatment (meaning, it is a call for concern and it hasn’t been investigated or proven that maltreatment has occurred). Reports and the information that a caller can provide must meet a statutory threshold in order for county staff to respond. In Minnesota, mandated reporters are strongly encouraged to call the county with any concern that they have. This does not mean it is maltreatment and they are trained to understand that it is not their job to determine if it meets the statutory requirement for the county. Rather, they should call for all reasons and then the county will determine if it meets the legal threshold for the call to be formally accepted as a case. There are many calls that do not meet that threshold. In fact, sometimes callers do not have adequate information at the time of the call in order for the call to be accepted as a case for investigation or assessment by the county. For example, if someone calls to report their concern of maltreatment by someone they saw at a store or on a playground, the county may not have enough information to accept or respond to that call (often called ‘screened out’). Calls, Reports, Cases, Alleged Maltreatment, Substantiated Maltreatment … these words all have very distinct meanings with associated actions. In the past week many of these things have been used interchangeably, making it difficult for people to understand why one concern is followed up on and another is not.
Further, reports of the recently passed legislation in question have also been confusing. The legislation in question (from which numerous politicians are now distancing themselves) did not change practice in terms of using past maltreatment reports in screening decisions; rather it codified existing State and county practices. To be clear, past history of maltreatment reports is used once a report is accepted (screened in) to determine if a child is in need of protective services (see 2012 version of MN DHS Guidelines).
What appears to be under reconsideration is if there is merit in considering patterns of calls about concerns/allegations (whether accepted or not) in making a determination about whether a case will be opened for assessment or investigation. There are differing schools of thought on this and how it may or may not contribute to the high rates of racial and economic disparities within child protection in Minnesota. Clearly, this is where the careful consideration and dialogue need to occur.
In regard to the case of Eric Dean, it is important to note that according to media reports, 6 of the 15 reports of alleged child maltreatment were accepted and responded to by child protection, so the issue goes deeper than the current debate about this legislation and how cases that are not accepted are or are not used by counties. In cases of tragedy we all deeply want solutions, but it is critical that we take the time to make sure that we are addressing the factors that would have made a difference.
I join Ms. Woolman in her call for a thoughtful, well-informed response to the current challenges in the field of child protection, and I also join her in rejecting a rush to legislative action without appropriate planning and information. Further, I strongly encourage the Editor and reporters of the Star Tribune, as well as child advocates, to present accurate information that not only represents the facts and the challenges but also the complexities of the solutions so that sound discussions can occur and effective policies can be developed.
