As promised from yesterday, I am continuing my “brief bill descriptions” post regarding child welfare-related bills introduced during the interim of Minnesota’s 88th legislative session.

Early Learning

H.F. 1880: Introduced by Rep. Ryan Winkler and others, this bill would ensure that each eligible child receives an early learning scholarship. Beginning in FY2015, funding for this program would increase from $23 million to $43 million per year; in FY2016, funding would either be double the previous FY’s funding or the amount necessary to fund all eligible scholarship requests, whichever is less.

H.F. 1882: Introduced by Rep. Erin Murphy, this bill would provide funding for universal preschool (not necessarily all-day) for four-year-old students in Minnesota. These students would not be eligible for early learning scholarships. School districts would not be required to provide preschool services; they would also be allowed to contract with a qualifying program to provide such services, or create a new one.

Higher Education

H.F. 2133: Introduced by Rep. Rena Moran, this bill would establish task force whose purpose would be to research how to establish an endowment that would pay the tuition of “any public school student who gains admission to a public higher educational institute in Minnesota.”

LGBT

H.F. 1906: Introduced by Reps. Susan Allen and Karen Clark, this bill would prohibit licensed providers, including social workers, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts among children and youth under 18 years of age. This does not include counseling that:

  • provides assistance in gender transitions,
  • provides acceptance, support, and understanding of clients, or
  • facilitates a client’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development.

Mental Health

H.F. 1917: Introduced by Rep. Jerry Newton, this bill would increase funding for the safe schools levy. I am listing this bill because proceeds of the levy can be used to pay for a variety of services that impact the lives of children involved in the child welfare system, including costs for collaborating with mental health professionals, improving the school climate, and employing licensed professionals whose goal is to help provide early responses to problems.

H.F. 2095: Introduced by Rep. Joe Mullery, this bill modifies parental consent procedures for mental health screenings of delinquent children: Rather than requiring written informed consent prior to such a screening, this bill would require notification of both the screening and the parent’s option to prevent it by notifying the court/agency in writing. Additionally, if the screen indicates a need for an assessment, this bill would require the social services agency to conduct the assessment if the family is underinsured and cannot afford to cover the costs.

Minimum Wage

H.F. 1980: Introduced by Rep. Tom Anzelc and others, this bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would not only raise the minimum wage to $10/hour as of January 1, 2015, but would also establish an inflation adjusted minimum wage for subsequent years.

Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and Related Programs

H.F. 1987: Introduced by Rep. Rena Moran and others, this bill modifies MFIP and general assistance requirements related to random drug testing. It removes the random drug testing requirement for persons convicted of drug offenses (replacing “shall be subject” to “may be subject”), and it removes the loss of eligibility for benefits consequence if there is a positive drug test result or a discharge of sentence after conviction for another drug felony. Additionally, the bill would no longer require benefit payments in vendor forms or random drug testing for persons convicted of felony level drug offenses in the previous ten years (again, “may” instead of “must” or “shall”).

H.F. 2114: Introduced by Reps. Karen Clark and Phyllis Kahn, this bill modifies the child care assistance program. Besides modifying the maximum rate paid (in this case, the 75th percentile rate according to the most recent biennial child care market rate survey), it would modify policies concerning absent days. Rather than prescribing a maximum number of absent days for which the county will provide reimbursement, this bill would leave absent-day policies up to each county to determine.

H.F. 2135: Introduced by Rep. Rena Moran, this bill would add to the eligibility requirements for child care assistance under MFIP, “MFIP child-only cases…authorized to receive up to 20 hours of MFIP child care assistance per week…if the child is not enrolled in any other early childhood programming.”

H.F. 2136: Introduced by Rep. Rena Moran, this bill would create the MFIP Child Well-Being Pilot Project whose purpose is to increase the well-being of children whose families are receiving MFIP and to improve school readiness of those children.

As always, I would love to hear from you about your thoughts concerning these bills. What do you hope to see come out of the upcoming legislative session in Minnesota? Do you agree or disagree with any of these bills? Leave a comment!