Bill Text: MN SF704 | 2013-2014 | 88th Legislature | Engrossed
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft
Bill Title: Child maltreatment reports screening guidelines compliance requirements; county record retention of repeated reports of maltreatment requirement
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2014-05-15 - General Orders: Stricken and returned to author [SF704 Detail]
Download: Minnesota-2013-SF704-Engrossed.html
Bill Title: Child maltreatment reports screening guidelines compliance requirements; county record retention of repeated reports of maltreatment requirement
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2014-05-15 - General Orders: Stricken and returned to author [SF704 Detail]
Download: Minnesota-2013-SF704-Engrossed.html
1.2relating to human services; establishing a child protection screening work
1.3group for the purpose of establishing consistency in child protection screening;
1.4requiring a report;amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 626.556, by
1.5adding a subdivision.
1.6BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 626.556, is amended by adding a
1.8subdivision to read:
1.9 Subd. 7a. Mandatory guidance for screening reports. Child protection intake
1.10workers, supervisors, and others involved with child protection screening shall follow the
1.11guidance provided in the Department of Human Services Minnesota Child Maltreatment
1.12Screening Guidelines when screening maltreatment referrals, and, when notified by the
1.13commissioner of human services, shall immediately implement updated procedures and
1.14protocols.
1.15 Sec. 2. CHILD PROTECTION SCREENING WORK GROUP.
1.16 Subdivision 1. Purpose and goal. (a) It is the policy of the state of Minnesota to
1.17protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through physical abuse,
1.18neglect, or sexual abuse. This includes ensuring that children are protected equally
1.19regardless of where they live in the state. It also includes ensuring that children are
1.20protected according to the same set of standards and definitions for what is considered
1.21child maltreatment in Minnesota.
1.22(b) The child protection screening report completed by the Office of the Legislative
1.23Auditor in February 2012 found that practices for screening allegations of child
1.24maltreatment vary greatly throughout the state for a variety of reasons. The goal of
2.1the work group established in this section is to determine the optimal organizational
2.2structure for ensuring the consistent and thorough protection of children, and provide
2.3findings, recommendations, and draft legislation to the legislature that if passed into
2.4law, will achieve that goal. The work group must complete its work in time for the
2.5recommendations to be considered by the 2014 legislature.
2.6 Subd. 2. Composition of the work group. The work group shall be comprised
2.7of no fewer than 20 and no more than 25 members. The work group may split into
2.8subgroups to accomplish the tasks under subdivision 3. The work group must strive to
2.9include balanced representation from rural, suburban, and metro counties. The work
2.10group shall include the following:
2.11(1) two members of the Minnesota state legislature, including one member of the
2.12minority and one member of the majority, a member of the house of representatives, and
2.13a member of the senate;
2.14(2) two representatives of the Department of Human Services, including the director
2.15of the Child Safety and Permanency Division, who will convene the work group, and the
2.16director of the Children's Mental Health Division, or their designees;
2.17(3) representatives of local child welfare agencies from rural, suburban, and metro
2.18counties. These representatives may be a county commissioner, the director of human
2.19services or the director of social services, children's services, or the child protection
2.20program or unit. These county members may also represent the interests of the Minnesota
2.21Association of County Social Services Administrators (MACSSA);
2.22(4) a representative of a state or county organization that advocates for communities
2.23of color;
2.24(5) a nonpublic sector representative that advocates for communities of color,
2.25particularly in the child welfare arena;
2.26(6) one representative of a county attorney's office with expertise in child protection,
2.27domestic violence, or child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) cases;
2.28(7) one or two representatives of nonprofit advocacy organizations that advocate for
2.29child protection, out-of-home care, and child welfare services or reform;
2.30(8) one representative of a county guardian ad litem program;
2.31(9) two representatives from nonprofit organizations that provide social services to
2.32counties or the state in the areas of child protection, out-of-home care, and child welfare
2.33services;
2.34(10) two representatives from noncounty organizations that regularly report alleged
2.35child maltreatment to counties such as school social workers, school nurses, crisis
2.36nurseries, youth shelters, or similar programs;
3.1(11) one representative from a county children's review panel who has done research
3.2on or reviews of county child protection cases;
3.3(12) if available, a member of a national organization with expertise in child
3.4protection and child welfare standards and screening practices who is willing to participate
3.5virtually or provide ongoing feedback to the work group;
3.6(13) a representative of a Minnesota college or university who is an expert on
3.7the impact of childhood trauma on cognitive, behavioral, mental health, and physical
3.8development; and
3.9(14) a member of the Department of Health with expertise in primary prevention
3.10services to at-risk families and children.
3.11 Subd. 3. Responsibilities of the work group. (a) The work group shall analyze
3.12the development and implementation of a state centralized unit to screen reports of
3.13alleged abuse and neglect in a detailed feasibility study. The work group shall consult
3.14with practitioners in other states and national experts to identify best practices, potential
3.15barriers, and initial and ongoing costs related to a centralized system. The work group
3.16shall also determine curriculum, training, and uniform policy and procedures for child
3.17protection staff.
3.18(b) If the work group, after thorough analysis, determines an alternative structure
3.19to the centralized system is a more effective way to achieve the goal of this legislation,
3.20the work group shall analyze and make recommendations for an alternative structure or a
3.21hybrid of the existing child protection screening process.
3.22(c) In addition, the work group shall review each of the recommendations in the
3.23February 2012 Office of the Legislative Auditor child protection screening report and
3.24include a final version of the recommendations the legislature should consider in the report
3.25to the legislature under subdivision 4, and also, more specifically, shall:
3.26(1) establish policies and procedures to ensure the uniform application of child
3.27protection screening protocol by staff, which includes exploring a standardized screening
3.28or validated assessment tool that is appropriate for a variety of circumstances, cultures,
3.29and communities; guidance as to what elements to consider in determining if cases will be
3.30screened in or screened out; timeliness of screening decisions; and necessary clarifications
3.31in statute related to screening;
3.32(2) establish consistent reporting requirements regarding the number of screened-out
3.33cases, and data collection recorded in the social service information system (SSIS) that is
3.34adequate to identify a possible pattern of abuse or neglect, and sufficient record retention
3.35timelines to determine if there is a pattern of abuse or neglect;
4.1(3) clarify when it is appropriate for agencies to use a family's history of child
4.2protection referrals;
4.3(4) clarify vague statutory terms, including "risk of harm" and provide guidance
4.4on what constitutes "necessary care," and make recommendations to amend statutory
4.5definitions to clarify vague terms in Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, including, but
4.6not limited to, the following terms:
4.7(i) child abuse;
4.8(ii) physical abuse;
4.9(iii) sexual abuse;
4.10(iv) neglect; and
4.11(v) report;
4.12(5) modify and update, as necessary, the Department of Human Services Minnesota
4.13Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines, and determine if the guidelines should be
4.14updated on a regular basis and if so, what stakeholders must be involved with and approve
4.15the modifications, and how the revised guidelines will be disseminated to child protection
4.16staff under Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 7a; advocates; and other
4.17interested parties;
4.18(6) establish initial and ongoing training for child protection workers regarding
4.19all aspects of the child protection screening process; explore regional, online, and
4.20other training venues to ensure accessible and affordable training; and determine if the
4.21commissioner should be allowed to impose sanctions for training violations; and
4.22(7) establish initial and ongoing training for mandated reporters related to the role
4.23they play in the child protection process, including curriculum, multiple delivery methods
4.24to ensure training is accessible and affordable, and possible reporting requirements from
4.25the Department of Human Services as to the number of mandated reporters participating
4.26in the training and the effectiveness of the training.
4.27 Subd. 4. Report. The work group shall provide a report to the chairs and ranking
4.28minority members of the legislative committees having jurisdiction over child protection
4.29issues by November 15, 2013, containing the feasibility study and any other relevant
4.30information, recommendations, and draft legislation resulting from the work group's
4.31efforts under subdivision 3.
4.32 Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
4.33This act is effective the day following final enactment.
1.3group for the purpose of establishing consistency in child protection screening;
1.4requiring a report;amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 626.556, by
1.5adding a subdivision.
1.6BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 626.556, is amended by adding a
1.8subdivision to read:
1.9 Subd. 7a. Mandatory guidance for screening reports. Child protection intake
1.10workers, supervisors, and others involved with child protection screening shall follow the
1.11guidance provided in the Department of Human Services Minnesota Child Maltreatment
1.12Screening Guidelines when screening maltreatment referrals, and, when notified by the
1.13commissioner of human services, shall immediately implement updated procedures and
1.14protocols.
1.15 Sec. 2. CHILD PROTECTION SCREENING WORK GROUP.
1.16 Subdivision 1. Purpose and goal. (a) It is the policy of the state of Minnesota to
1.17protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through physical abuse,
1.18neglect, or sexual abuse. This includes ensuring that children are protected equally
1.19regardless of where they live in the state. It also includes ensuring that children are
1.20protected according to the same set of standards and definitions for what is considered
1.21child maltreatment in Minnesota.
1.22(b) The child protection screening report completed by the Office of the Legislative
1.23Auditor in February 2012 found that practices for screening allegations of child
1.24maltreatment vary greatly throughout the state for a variety of reasons. The goal of
2.1the work group established in this section is to determine the optimal organizational
2.2structure for ensuring the consistent and thorough protection of children, and provide
2.3findings, recommendations, and draft legislation to the legislature that if passed into
2.4law, will achieve that goal. The work group must complete its work in time for the
2.5recommendations to be considered by the 2014 legislature.
2.6 Subd. 2. Composition of the work group. The work group shall be comprised
2.7of no fewer than 20 and no more than 25 members. The work group may split into
2.8subgroups to accomplish the tasks under subdivision 3. The work group must strive to
2.9include balanced representation from rural, suburban, and metro counties. The work
2.10group shall include the following:
2.11(1) two members of the Minnesota state legislature, including one member of the
2.12minority and one member of the majority, a member of the house of representatives, and
2.13a member of the senate;
2.14(2) two representatives of the Department of Human Services, including the director
2.15of the Child Safety and Permanency Division, who will convene the work group, and the
2.16director of the Children's Mental Health Division, or their designees;
2.17(3) representatives of local child welfare agencies from rural, suburban, and metro
2.18counties. These representatives may be a county commissioner, the director of human
2.19services or the director of social services, children's services, or the child protection
2.20program or unit. These county members may also represent the interests of the Minnesota
2.21Association of County Social Services Administrators (MACSSA);
2.22(4) a representative of a state or county organization that advocates for communities
2.23of color;
2.24(5) a nonpublic sector representative that advocates for communities of color,
2.25particularly in the child welfare arena;
2.26(6) one representative of a county attorney's office with expertise in child protection,
2.27domestic violence, or child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) cases;
2.28(7) one or two representatives of nonprofit advocacy organizations that advocate for
2.29child protection, out-of-home care, and child welfare services or reform;
2.30(8) one representative of a county guardian ad litem program;
2.31(9) two representatives from nonprofit organizations that provide social services to
2.32counties or the state in the areas of child protection, out-of-home care, and child welfare
2.33services;
2.34(10) two representatives from noncounty organizations that regularly report alleged
2.35child maltreatment to counties such as school social workers, school nurses, crisis
2.36nurseries, youth shelters, or similar programs;
3.1(11) one representative from a county children's review panel who has done research
3.2on or reviews of county child protection cases;
3.3(12) if available, a member of a national organization with expertise in child
3.4protection and child welfare standards and screening practices who is willing to participate
3.5virtually or provide ongoing feedback to the work group;
3.6(13) a representative of a Minnesota college or university who is an expert on
3.7the impact of childhood trauma on cognitive, behavioral, mental health, and physical
3.8development; and
3.9(14) a member of the Department of Health with expertise in primary prevention
3.10services to at-risk families and children.
3.11 Subd. 3. Responsibilities of the work group. (a) The work group shall analyze
3.12the development and implementation of a state centralized unit to screen reports of
3.13alleged abuse and neglect in a detailed feasibility study. The work group shall consult
3.14with practitioners in other states and national experts to identify best practices, potential
3.15barriers, and initial and ongoing costs related to a centralized system. The work group
3.16shall also determine curriculum, training, and uniform policy and procedures for child
3.17protection staff.
3.18(b) If the work group, after thorough analysis, determines an alternative structure
3.19to the centralized system is a more effective way to achieve the goal of this legislation,
3.20the work group shall analyze and make recommendations for an alternative structure or a
3.21hybrid of the existing child protection screening process.
3.22(c) In addition, the work group shall review each of the recommendations in the
3.23February 2012 Office of the Legislative Auditor child protection screening report and
3.24include a final version of the recommendations the legislature should consider in the report
3.25to the legislature under subdivision 4, and also, more specifically, shall:
3.26(1) establish policies and procedures to ensure the uniform application of child
3.27protection screening protocol by staff, which includes exploring a standardized screening
3.28or validated assessment tool that is appropriate for a variety of circumstances, cultures,
3.29and communities; guidance as to what elements to consider in determining if cases will be
3.30screened in or screened out; timeliness of screening decisions; and necessary clarifications
3.31in statute related to screening;
3.32(2) establish consistent reporting requirements regarding the number of screened-out
3.33cases, and data collection recorded in the social service information system (SSIS) that is
3.34adequate to identify a possible pattern of abuse or neglect, and sufficient record retention
3.35timelines to determine if there is a pattern of abuse or neglect;
4.1(3) clarify when it is appropriate for agencies to use a family's history of child
4.2protection referrals;
4.3(4) clarify vague statutory terms, including "risk of harm" and provide guidance
4.4on what constitutes "necessary care," and make recommendations to amend statutory
4.5definitions to clarify vague terms in Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, including, but
4.6not limited to, the following terms:
4.7(i) child abuse;
4.8(ii) physical abuse;
4.9(iii) sexual abuse;
4.10(iv) neglect; and
4.11(v) report;
4.12(5) modify and update, as necessary, the Department of Human Services Minnesota
4.13Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines, and determine if the guidelines should be
4.14updated on a regular basis and if so, what stakeholders must be involved with and approve
4.15the modifications, and how the revised guidelines will be disseminated to child protection
4.16staff under Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 7a; advocates; and other
4.17interested parties;
4.18(6) establish initial and ongoing training for child protection workers regarding
4.19all aspects of the child protection screening process; explore regional, online, and
4.20other training venues to ensure accessible and affordable training; and determine if the
4.21commissioner should be allowed to impose sanctions for training violations; and
4.22(7) establish initial and ongoing training for mandated reporters related to the role
4.23they play in the child protection process, including curriculum, multiple delivery methods
4.24to ensure training is accessible and affordable, and possible reporting requirements from
4.25the Department of Human Services as to the number of mandated reporters participating
4.26in the training and the effectiveness of the training.
4.27 Subd. 4. Report. The work group shall provide a report to the chairs and ranking
4.28minority members of the legislative committees having jurisdiction over child protection
4.29issues by November 15, 2013, containing the feasibility study and any other relevant
4.30information, recommendations, and draft legislation resulting from the work group's
4.31efforts under subdivision 3.
4.32 Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
4.33This act is effective the day following final enactment.
