One of the most talked about policies to be voted on in the Minnesota Legislature this year is HF92/SF3, the bill to raise the state minimum wage. Minnesota’s current minimum wage is one of the lowest in the country, set at $6.15/hour. Under the bill’s proposed mandates HF92 would raise the minimum wage to $9.50/hour by August of 2015 for large employers whose annual revenue amounts to $500,000 or more. For small employers with a revenue of less than $500,000 the wage requirement would be set at $8.50/hour.
Other key provisions of the bill include the yearly automatic inflation adjustment. Each year proceeding 2015 the minimum wage will gain an increase to help ensure that when cost of living expenses rise wages will keep up. HF92 will also require employers to grant parents of newborns or newly adopted children 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave, in place of the six-weeks that are granted under Minnesota’s current law. Furthermore, for the first 90 days of employment of an individual under age 20, employers would only be required to pay the employee $8.00/hour. Upon completion of the 90 days the standard of $9.50 set for large employers would go into effect. The final major change will be a shift in the current requirement of a 48 hour work week before employers are obligated to pay over-time compensation, to a 40 hour work week. Under HF92 if an employee exceeds 40 hours/week employers must compensate their workers at 1 ½ times their rate of pay.
As the provisions of HF92 are debated throughout the committee process it is important for the child welfare community to examine the bill’s potential impact on families and children. Proponents of the bill say that a $9.50 increase would improve the income of 357,000 working Minnesotans across the demographics spectrum. Research conducted by the JOBS NOW Coalition shows that raising the minimum wage would boost the aggregate income of working women and working people of color by $256,987,000 and $124,416,000 respectively. This is an important consideration for child welfare practice given the fact that many families involved in the child welfare system include women raising children and families of color.
In addition, research from the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) and the JOBS NOW Coalition finds that a families’ economic security is vital to a child’s well-being, as children from econmically advantaged families are less likely to experience hunger, homelessness, a lack of access to proper health care, and are more likely to be successful in school. Recent studies have been conducted to signify how a minimum wage increase could have a direct impact on the lives of low-income and impoverished children. According to CDF for example, while it costs a family of three approximately $46,000/year to ensure their basic needs, a parent working full time at Minnesota’s current minimum wage of $6.15 earns less than $13,000/year, leaving a family of three at 65% below the poverty level. If the wage was increased to $9.50 data from the CDF and the JOBS NOW Coalition say that the economic security of 137,000 children whose parents are low wage earners would be improved, thereby leading to healthier outcomes for their children.
Understanding how HF92 can improve the lives of low-income children and families can help to shed light on how the bill could further impact the well-being of children involved in various facets of the child welfare system. One way that this potential impact may become more visible is in regards to child protection. Research from the organization First Focus finds that although poverty alone does not cause child abuse or neglect, because it is so highly correlated with other significant stressors such as substance abuse, depression and social isolation, poverty remains the best predictor of child maltreatment and neglect. First Focus also notes several older studies conducted in the 90s showing significant relationships between increases in economic hardship and child maltreatment. If a raise in the minimum wage could boost a families’ livable earnings and increase access to proper nutrition, housing, health care, other basic necessities as well as mental/emotional well-being, further involvement in child protection may likely be diminished.
In addition to outcomes related to child maltreatment, the parental leave provisions outlined in HF92 may have a supplemental impact on child welfare practice by altering the amount of time families are able to engage in a newborn’s or newly adopted child’s care. A six week increase in permitted parental leave may provide caregivers and youth involved in foster care or adoption services with an opportunity to become better adjusted to life with one another. This extended time frame may further allow more flexibility for child welfare workers to engage in psycho-education with families to empower them with the right tools to take care of their child’s needs, and to help the youth with the transition to life with a new family. For parents who have recently given birth, a 12 week leave may be beneficial in similar ways by allowing child welfare workers more time to get families connected with resources they may need, and would also allow more time for critical infant and parent bonding.
Minnesota has not had a change in the state minimum wage since August of 2005, and for this reason, an examination of the potential effects of a wage increase are all the more crucial. How HF92 could impact the economic security and well-being of families are additional considerations for the child welfare community. Throughout the committee process and as a vote becomes more likely, a further analysis of the direct impact of a raise in the minimum wage on children in the child welfare system will remain critical.
