While SF 4 and HF 191 are companion bills that implement several recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children, the bill text in SF 4 (modified after the introduction of a delete-all amendment at the Senate committee hearing on Jan. 26) differs slightly from the bill text in HF 191. You can find a summary review of SF 4 here and HF 191 here. Read the 1st engrossment of SF 4 here and the 1st engrossment of HF 191 here.
While this is a relatively long post, there is a lot going on in these bills, and a few of the provisions prompted some very important discussions in Monday’s Senate Committee on Health, Human Services and Housing (read more here). If you have any questions or comments as you read this post, please feel free to leave a comment at the end. I’d like to hear what others’ thoughts are on these proposals.
Public Policy Statement Modifications
Both bills emphasize the importance of child safety in the public policy statement of the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act (M.S. 626.556), with HF 191 stressing the requirement of an investigation response for reports alleging sexual abuse. Both take out the preference for a Family Assessment (FA) response. However, SF 4 retains language stating that the policy of the state is “to require a family assessment, when appropriate,” whereas HF 191 revises this statement to read “to provide a family assessment when there is no alleged substantial child endangerment.” Neither bill removes the option of FA as a child protection response.
Anger as a Limitation in Physical Abuse Definition
The Task Force was concerned that the statement in the physical abuse definition regarding actions being “done in anger or without regard to the safety of the child” could be a limitation that may result in less reports alleging physical abuse being screened in. Both bills take out this statement, with both authors stating that actions need not be done in anger to be maltreatment.
Cross-Reporting Between Law Enforcement and Child Protection
In a previous Senate HHS committee hearing, a few of the committee members expressed concern about the requirement on cross-reporting between law enforcement and child protection. (Read about this hearing here.) This requirement, however, is currently in statute. The Task Force recommendation had been to clarify and strengthen language surrounding this requirement. Both bills clarify cross-reporting responsibilities, but only SF 4 includes clarifying reciprocal language (i.e., child welfare must report to law enforcement, and law enforcement must report to child welfare). SF 4 also requires both child welfare and law enforcement agencies to designate a point person who will ensure that cross-reporting occurs.
Both bills also clarify that cross-reporting must occur for reports that are screened out.
SF 4 moves references to cross-reporting to one section related to cross-reporting, whereas HF 191 keeps cross-reporting references where they currently are in statute and simply clarifies the language.
Sharing Data With Mandated Reporters
This section in SF 4 prompted a larger conversation surrounding data privacy. Senator Michelle Benson asked about boundaries surrounding data sharing with mandated reporters, and how counties would determine who else should receive a copy of the report. Senator Sheran explained that the language had been inserted to allow agencies to share data with another person who has an ongoing responsibility for the child who might benefit from knowing that “we are concerned about the child and they should be alert and attending to the best interests of the child.” Stacy Hennen, who was testifying on behalf of the Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators (MACSSA), added that limitations do need to exist and that the best interests and safety of the child need to be considered. Senator Sheran acknowledged that there is a need to define this more, but that the language in the bill relies on professional expertise. Senator Benson asked that DHS provide guidelines for this, saying that there is a need to both promote consistency and ensure privacy as we look out for child safety.
What makes this even more interesting is that upon analysis of current statute (not proposed), it seems that agencies can already share relevant private data with mandated reporters who have an ongoing responsibility for the child (including teachers, child care providers, therapists, social workers, and probation officers). Additionally, the proposed bill text to which Senator Benson was referring is already in statute, just in a different subdivision: Mandated reporters who make a report are supposed to receive information on the outcome of the report, and voluntary reporters who make a report can receive information on the outcome of the report if they request it. In both situations, the best interests of the child are considered prior to sharing this information.
The bill text proposed in SF 4 would keep all of these practices in place, but would change the text slightly regarding relevant private data sharing by requiring agencies to share relevant private data with the mandated reporter who made the report and who has an ongoing responsibility for the health, education or welfare of the child, unless it is not in the best interests of the child. Agencies would still be able to use their discretion in deciding whether to share this information with other mandated reporters who also have an ongoing responsibility for the child.
Hennen said that counties support information sharing with mandated reporters, and that the counties appreciate the language in the bill allowing counties to use discretion in sharing this information (based on the best interests of the child).
Collateral Information Used in Screening Decisions
SF 4 would allow agencies to utilize collateral information during their screening decision-making process, i.e., “communication consisting of specific questions with an individual or individuals,” namely the child’s caretakers (foster parents, parents, teachers, family members, etc.). HF 191 does not include this. Hennen said that counties support this concept, provided that parameters are set (for example, limiting collateral information to mandated reporters).
Senator Tony Lourey and Senator Julie Rosen acknowledged that there were some data privacy concerns with this particular provision as well. Senator Sheran said that in order to increase the capacity of the initial assessment, we need to be able to use collateral information and (responding to data privacy issues raised earlier with sharing data with mandated reporters) give feedback to those who have reported alleged maltreatment. Senator Sheran continued by explaining that the goal is not to have a narrow focus on a specific complaint, but rather to allow a worker to analyze “the broader sense of it” to determine what else might be going on. She said that in order to put the child first, we may have to take a risk on data privacy.
Jim Koppel, Assistant Commissioner of Children and Family Services, said that it is DHS’s responsibility to clarify protocols and best practices on data sharing. Senator John Hoffman pointed out that under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), educators will say that they cannot share data related to the educational needs of the child. He said that DHS will need to partner with the Minnesota Department of Education in order to determine what’s allowed by law regarding data sharing. Koppel said that being a mandated reporter automatically brings teachers into the system under DHS, and that he wasn’t sure if the duties of a mandated reporter supersede the FERPA requirements. Senator Benson brought up individuals who are not bound by the Government Data Practices Act, such as religious education teachers, and wondered if it was appropriate to share this information with these individuals.
Mandatory Guidance for Screening Reports
Both bills would require counties to use DHS’s child maltreatment screening guidelines, which would be required to be updated no later than August 1, 2015, be published and distributed no later than September 30, 2015, and be implemented at the county level by October 1, 2015. Both bills also remove the provision allowing counties to make individual modifications to the screening guidelines; SF 4 adds a statement that would only allow counties to make modifications if they are pre-approved by DHS and “not less protective of children than what is mandated by statute.”
Both bills would allow agencies to consider screened out reports in making screening decisions, though HF 191 may be slightly confusing because it is not absolutely clear whether the proposed bill text allowing use of screened out reports is aimed at the screening decision point or the track assignment point (see p. 10, lines 10.34-10.35, and p. 11, lines 11.1-11.2). HF 191 does make an explicit statement that agencies may ask about screened out reports during the assessment and investigation processes (see p. 15, lines 15.30-15.31).
During the hearing, Senator Sheran said that since the consideration of past reports would not require additional funding, this particular piece might be part of a separate bill in order to allow the practice to begin sooner or later. Hennen said that counties support both the requirement to use screening guidelines as well as the use of screened out reports in their decision-making process, but that they would like to retain the right to exercise caution regarding the use of screened out reports in order to not exacerbate racial and economic disparities.
Consultation with the County Attorney
SF 4 would require child welfare agencies to consult with the county attorney to determine whether a CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) petition should be filed when families do not comply with a plan for child protective services or voluntary services might not be enough to provide sufficient protection for the child. HF 191 does not include this provision. Hennen said that counties support the clarification in statute regarding when they can consult with the county attorney in child protection cases.
Data Maintenance
Both bills would require screened out reports to be kept on file for 5 years (rather than the current 365 days); this 5-year maintenance requirement would also be applied to FA cases and non-substantiated investigation cases. Both bills would require the data to be kept on file to include: information that would identify the subject(s) of the report, the maltreatment allegation, and the reason(s) why the report was not accepted. HF 191 takes out a provision requiring counties to keep screened out reports on hand for the purpose of identifying repeat reports, whereas SF 4 keeps it in but modifies the time limit (again, from 365 days to 5 years).
Quality Assurance Reviews, Oversight
Both bills would require the commissioner of DHS to develop a plan to provide quality assurance reviews of county screening practices and decisions, as well as to provide oversight and guidance to counties to ensure that each county is consistent in its application of the screening guidelines and is documenting and maintaining reports correctly. DHS would also be required to produce an annual public report providing a summary overview of the results of these reviews. HF 191 would require quality assurance reviews to begin no later than September 30, 2015.
Hennen said that counties support the strengthened role with DHS, and that they want to see more consistency statewide.
Training for Child Protection Supervisors
SF 4 would require competency-based initial training, support, and continuing education for child protection supervisors. Senator Sheran said during the hearing that currently supervisors are not necessarily informed or engaged in best practices for child protection, and that this would help change that. She also indicated that more training requirements may come from the Training and Supervision of Practice workgroup. Hennen said that counties support this provision.
