Last week Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage by making marriage laws gender-neutral. By legalizing same-sex marriage, Minnesota law will now include married same-sex couples in its adoption and foster care laws that afford such rights to married couples. However, adoption and foster care by unmarried couples, same-sex or otherwise, is still unclear.
For statutory references, see Minn. Stat. 259.21, Minn. Stat. 259.22, 260C.623, and 260C.007.
Every Child Deserves a Family Act
The Every Child Deserves a Family Act, introduced as H.R. 2028 on May 16, 2013 by Rep. John Lewis, would
prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.
This means that should this bill be signed into law, no foster or adoption agency, private or public, that receives federal child welfare funds would be able to deny adoption or foster care placements solely on the prospective adoptive or foster parent's sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. It would allow unmarried couples, same-sex or not, to adopt or foster provided they meet all other requirements (for example, passing background checks).
Opposing views
Proponents of the bill point to the large number of foster children waiting for a permanent family. Rep. Lewis stated in his speech introducing the bill that of the more than 400,000 children in foster care, over 104,000 are waiting for permanency. Prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, would increase the number of qualified adoptive and foster parents for children involved in the child welfare system, thereby improving permanency outcomes for children.
Opponents of the bill are concerned that it will have a detrimental effect on religious adoption and foster care agencies who receive federal funds to provide these services. For example, in 2011 Illinois passed a law that prohibited state-funded agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples in adoption and foster care service provision. Because Catholic Charities would not change their policy of placing children only with married couples, Catholic Charities lost their state foster care and adoptive services contracts with the state.
What do you think of this bill? How do you see it impacting child welfare practice in Minnesota (were it to pass)?
]]>One big change from earlier versions of the bill is the inclusion of Northstar Care for Children as Article 17 of the bill, or Minn. Stat. 256N; this is Minnesota Department of Human Services' program that would equalize payments for foster care, relative guardian assistance, and adoption assistance. The inclusion of Northstar Care for Children occurred on Friday, May 17, as part of the conference committee's report. Read my earlier post to learn more about Northstar Care for Children.
What follows below is an overview of Article 3, which focuses on children, youth, and families.
Article 3: Safe and healthy development of children, youth, and families
A large chunk of this article focuses on child care and modifications to child care assistance and the Basic Sliding Fee programs.
Child Care Providers & Centers
Child Care Assistance & Basic Sliding Fee
Additionally, modifications have been made to other income support programs that may impact children and families involved in the child welfare system.
Medical assistance
Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has been renamed the Homeless Youth Act and makes available grants to providers who serve homeless youth and youth at risk of homelessness. Additionally, there is a particular focus on reducing youth homelessness, and Section 45 requires the Minnesota Interagency Council on Homelessness to make recommendations to do just that by December 1, 2014.
There are also modifications to statutes pertaining to children and youth who have been sexually exploited: the terms "delinquent child" and "juvenile petty offender" are no longer applicable to youth ages 16 to 18 who have been sexually exploited. Rather, these youth are considered sexually exploited youth and fall under "child in need of protection or services." As such, the statute governing "juvenile prostitution" has been repealed.
]]>On the surface, these may seem like two very different topics. However, they are more related than many would like to think. In recent years, several studies have shown that children in out-of-home placement are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health issue and are more likely to be prescribed psychotropic drugs to manage such diagnoses than non-foster youths. The most recent edition of CW360 has several articles that discuss the issue of psychotropic medication usage for foster youth. This has become such an important issue that the National Resource Center on Youth Development has created a guide written specifically for foster youths about their mental health and psychotropic medication usage.
Mental health disparities and prescription drug usage among foster youth have received considerable attention and have significant implications for both the child welfare and health care systems. However, it is important to note that while foster youths experience higher rates of psychopathology, not all of those in foster care have mental health issues. Further, more research is needed to discover the complex and multi-faceted reasons behind the high rates of mental illness within the foster population.
It is both interesting and important that the month of May brings together these two issues. In order to adequately serve the needs of the children and youths within the foster care system, we must be able to assess and treat their mental health needs. It is also crucially important that these youths are not stigmatized, by either the foster care system or the mental health care system, as "defective" or "difficult." Instead, we can join with and show our support for both Foster Care Awareness Month and National Mental Health Awareness Month, being particularly mindful of the individuals for whom these issues overlap.
]]>According to Politics in Minnesota, the agreed-upon budget target for Health and Human Services results in a $50 million reduction in funding over the next biennium. Although this budget target is certainly more appealing than the House and Senate target was, it is $260 million less than what the governor had proposed and it is the only area to receive a reduction in funding levels.
Sources for revenue
The budget agreement also lays out the next biennium's revenue sources. In order to accommodate the increased funding for education as well as eliminate the budget deficit of $627 million, the budget agreement includes $2 billion in tax increases. These tax increases include:
What do you think of the budget deal? How do you think this will impact your work in child welfare? Leave a comment below!
]]>Aside from early childhood provisions, both the Senate and House file include language that would allow schools to utilize the safe schools levy to pay for the costs of co-location and collaboration with mental health providers. Doing this would allow more mental health practitioners to provide services within the schools and collaborate with school staff, ultimately increasing children's accessibility to mental health services.
Health and Human Services Omnibus Bill Expands Mental Health Service Coverage
Accessibility of mental health services is also included as a priority within the Health and Human Services Omnibus Bill (HF1233). In the current version, both the Senate and House would expand Medical Assistance (MA) coverage for children's mental health services. Under the bill, MA would cover family psychoeducation services and clinical care consultation when a child has been diagnosed with a mental illness. These provisions will allow mental health providers to bill MA as they attempt to increase a family's knowledge of their child's mental health needs and collaborate with other service providers such as teachers, medical doctors, or psychiatrists. The Senate file would also expand MA coverage for a mental health peer specialist while the House file would cover services received as a part of a school-linked mental health program. All expansions aim to increase the accessibility of mental health services for children with mental illness.
Another notable addition within the omnibus bill includes the definition of "family" for those children receiving intensive treatment foster care services. For these children, the definition of family has been extended to include all individuals that are important to the child's treatment including foster parents, biological parents, and those included in the child's permanency plan. These individuals would then be eligible to receive psychoeducation as a part of the child's mental health treatment plan.
]]>Under the new law, the county attorney (and only the county attorney) would be able to file for reestablishment of parental rights if both the county attorney and the county agree that doing so would be in the best interests of the child.
The parent whose rights were terminated must have correct the condition that led to the termination, and he/she must be willing and able to care for the child and maintain the child's health, safety, and welfare.
However, there are certain conditions in which parents will not be able to reestablish their rights: 1) those whose rights were terminated due to sexual abuse or conduct resulting in the death of a minor, and 2) those who have been convicted of any crime that falls under the definition of "egregious harm" (e.g. felony malicious punishment or sex trafficking of a minor).
The child must be at least 15 years of age and have been in foster care at least 36 months post-TPR. The child must not be currently adopted, nor be the subject of a written adoption placement agreement between the county and the prospective adoptive parent. In other words, these children will not be "returned" to biological parents whose rights were terminated. Finally, the child must want to live with the parent.
Other notable bill status changes
Thus far the bill has received a lot of attention due to its cut of $150 million over the next biennium while other areas have all received budget increases. According to Christina Wessel's Minnesota Budget Bites blog post, the HHS omnibus bill has been able to avoid making substantial and harmful cuts by "tap[ping] hospitals and HMOs for additional resources, and...us[ing] hundreds of millions of dollars from the Health Care Access Fund."
There is concern over utilizing funds from the Health Care Access Fund (HCAF) for Medical Assistance expenses currently paid from the general fund, as the HCAF is currently funded by the provider tax, which is currently set to expire in 2019 and will therefore not be able to fund the HCAF.
Comparing House and Senate bill language
Source: MN Legislature
Some child welfare-relevant aspects of the House and Senate HHS omnibus bill texts are highlighted below.
Relative custody assistance and adoption assistance would become forecasted programs in both House and Senate language. Currently relative custody assistance is dependent on availability of funds and can be reduced.
Northstar Care for Children is sort of included in the Senate language. Although the Senate text does not actually implement it, they would have DHS and other stakeholders come together to analyze foster care payments, relative custody assistance, and adoption assistance. The goal would be "to establish a uniform set of benefits available to children in foster care, permanent relative care, and adoption so that the benefits can follow the child rather than being tied to the child's legal status." Additionally the Senate would ask the analysis to include the possibility of accessing federal Title IV-E funds through guardianship assistance.
Sexual exploitation of youth is mentioned in both House and Senate. Currently the law provides exemptions for children under age 16 who participate in sexual acts that violate federal, state, and local hiring laws in its delinquent child and juvenile petty offender definitions. The House and Senate would remove the age restriction to include all children. Additionally, the House and Senate would remove "prostitution" from the definition of "child in need of protection or services" and replace it with "sexually exploited youth." Both the House and Senate would repeal the statute "Juvenile Prostitutes; Diversion or Child Protection Proceedings."
The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) also has some big changes. Some that are relevant to child welfare include the following:
More specifically, MFIP Child Care Assistance receives several changes in the Senate:
Both the House and Senate would increase the number of absent days allowed in a year to 25 full absent days or ten consecutive full days. This is what it was prior to the 2011-2012 legislative session. The House would provide exemptions for children with documented medical conditions or children whose parents or siblings in their same residence who have documented medical conditions.
Changes are also made regarding licensing for child care providers. The changes are pretty similar between the House and Senate. "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" is renamed "Sudden Unexpected Infant Death Syndrome" and "shaken baby syndrome" is renamed "abusive head trauma." There are more specifics related to training on abusive head trauma as well as safe sleep methods.
The House would also address reducing disparities by establishing the Cultural and Ethnic Communities Leadership Council, whose purpose is "to advise the commissioner of human services on reducing disparities that affect racial and ethnic groups." Learn more about racial disparities in child welfare.
Finally, the Homeless Youth Act: Both the House and Senate would establish the Homeless Youth Act. Both would provide funding for programs, technical assistance, and capacity building in order "to meet the greatest need on a statewide basis." Additionally, the House would ask the Minnesota Interagency Council on Homelessness to make recommendations to reduce and prevent youth homelessness. They must take into consideration certain issues, including youth aging out of and exiting foster care.
Interested in other omnibus bills?
There are other omnibus bills that will directly or indirectly impact children and families involved in the child welfare system. The omnibus tax bill is important to track as it raises funds for investments in our children and families, while other omnibus bills will directly or indirectly impact children and families involved in child welfare.
For example, the higher education budget bill focuses on making college more affordable and therefore invests in our workers. Since the line between poverty and neglect is often blurred, one could argue that providing more affordable higher education opportunities, which ideally would lead to higher paying jobs, could also reduce a family's risk of child maltreatment by neglect.
The Minnesota Budget Project's blog, Minnesota Budget Bites, has some pretty informative articles on these other omnibus bills:
]]>Credit must be given to Addie Smith of NICWA for her helpful overview of this case at the 2013 NICWA conference.
The Baby Veronica case has received major media attention over the past couple of years. Because the media can play quite a powerful role in influencing public perception and knowledge, responsible and accurate reporting should be a top priority for the media. Unfortunately this practice is all too often ignored or information is presented with limited in-depth knowledge of the situation or full context. In this particular case, the human element of this complicated and contested situation overshadowed a lack of facts about the case.
It took me a while to fully understand the events that led up to Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, due to the "he-said/she-said" and one-sided reporting by the media. I'd like to share what I've discovered in this blog post.
Clearing up a common misconception
One of the main misconceptions found in the media surrounds the legal relationship between the pre-adoptive parents and Veronica. The adoption of Veronica by the Capobiancos was never finalized, meaning they never actually adopted her. Mr. Brown filed a stay of the adoption immediately upon learning of the adoption action via notice of intent to adopt papers four months after Veronica's birth.
Because Mr. Brown was set to deploy shortly after receiving notice of the adoption, the adoption hearing had to wait until after he returned home. He attempted to have Veronica placed with his father (Veronica's paternal grandfather) during his deployment by invoking power of attorney to him, but the courts ruled in favor of placement with the Capobiancos.
Both the family court and the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled
*Contrary to recent media coverage saying otherwise, Mr. Brown could not have voluntarily terminated his parental rights via text message as this is not considered a legal method of doing so.
And so Veronica was returned to her father.
From the beginning
Several advocates have expressed concern over the conduct of the adoption attorneys in the beginning:
Likewise, the mainstream media has failed to explore the misconduct that led to Veronica being removed from Oklahoma and taken away to South Carolina when she was barely a week old...Had the Oklahoma Interstate Compact Commission been provided accurate information about this child's Native American heritage, the South Carolina adoption attorneys would never received permission to take her out of Oklahoma and all of this heartache for Dusten Brown and for the South Carolina family could have been avoided...
[I]n many ways, the story of the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is about two increasingly common trends in the adoption services industry: First, attempts to purposefully circumvent ICWA through legal evasion, and second, attempts by adoption lawyers to take advantage of active duty service members in the process of being deployed to combat, or in active deployments.
(Source: Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI))
Overall, it would appear that had Veronica's Indian heritage been represented accurately, and ICWA and state law been followed, perhaps none of this would be occurring today.
]]>Credit must be given to Addie Smith of NICWA for her helpful overview of this case at the 2013 NICWA conference.
On Tuesday, April 16, at 10 AM the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, more commonly known as the Baby Veronica case. The oral arguments surrounded these two questions:
Petitioners' Argument
Pre-adoptive parents (the Capobiancos) and the guardian ad litem for Baby Girl
Question 1: In order to have rights under ICWA, unwed fathers must establish paternity according to state laws. Because this is an adoption case, paternity must be established under the state's adoption law rather than general paternity establishment laws, which differ from one another in South Carolina. Under South Carolina adoption consent laws, Mr. Brown's consent was not required and therefore he was not protected under ICWA.
Question 2: ICWA was meant to prevent the break-up of Indian families. In order to terminate parental rights under ICWA, there must have been "continued custody." Since Mr. Brown never lived with Veronica, there is no Indian family to break up. The Existing Indian Family Exception is at the heart of this argument, which is an exemption to ICWA that was created by a judge in Kansas in the 1980s to accommodate voluntary adoptions initiated by a non-Indian mother with sole custody. The exception "limit[s] ICWA's application to Indian children whose family units lack ties to reservations or tribal culture" (source).
Additional arguments: The petitioners and their supporters have also questioned the constitutionality of ICWA, saying that because this law is based on race, it runs counter to the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Respondents' Arguments
Father (Dusten Brown) and the Cherokee Nation
Question 1: ICWA does not have any stated requirements that fathers must follow individual state laws regarding paternity establishment. However, if ICWA referenced state law, the state law(s) applicable in this case would be paternity laws, not adoption consent laws. If we follow this line of thought, Mr. Brown did establish and acknowledge paternity in accordance with South Carolina state laws; therefore, Mr. Brown is in fact protected under ICWA.
Question 2: ICWA is applicable to all "Indian children" as defined under ICWA. Additionally, ICWA was meant to prevent break-up of all Indian families, including those not yet formed. The EIF Exception is not applicable as it is not actually found in ICWA and it has been rejected by courts in 19 out of the 26 states that had considered it. Moreover, the EIF Exception essentially requires the courts to determine whether the parent and child are "Indian enough," and only tribes have the right to define "Indian."
Additional arguments: The respondents and their supporters state that ICWA is not actually applied based on race; rather, it is based on citizenship in a federally recognized tribe. ICWA may only be applied in cases involving Indian children, and ICWA clearly defines Indian children as those who are members of or eligible for membership in a tribe.
Supreme Court responses
Source: Amy Howe, Argument recap: No easy answers in Indian adoption case, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 16, 2013, 1:21 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/argument-recap-no-easy-answers-in-indian-adoption-case/
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Alito expressed doubts regarding Veronica's actual ties to the Cherokee Nation and therefore the applicability of ICWA. In particular, Chief Justice Roberts wondered how "one drop of blood" could "trigger all these rights" (source). Chief Justice Roberts was also concerned about Mr. Brown's lack of financial support to Veronica and her mother prior to his knowledge about the adoption action.
The petitioners' arguments surrounding question 2 appeared to have been unsuccessful with Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan may have also been unswayed by their argument, as she asked what the point was of labeling Mr. Brown as a "parent" as defined by ICWA if he doesn't have any rights as a parent? She also expressed concerns that the petitioners' line of argument would "create two classes parents under the statute—those with the protections...and those without" (source).
According to the SCOTUS blog, Justice Kennedy may have the decisive vote. At one point he commented that custody based on "not result[ing] in serious emotional or physical damage" is not the same as child's best interests. He also expressed concern that adhering to the South Carolina Supreme Court's interpretation of ICWA "would...create constitutional problems by treating Baby Girl (among others) differently on account of her race" (source).
Justice Thomas did not ask questions at the oral arguments.
Further resources
The National Indian Child Welfare Association has some great resources for understanding the events that led up to this case. Due to the high media coverage of this case, it is somewhat difficult to locate articles and websites that are completely neutral and balanced in their viewpoint of the case. Here are some that I came across that I thought were pretty helpful:
]]>The transition to adulthood has become longer, more expensive, and increasingly complex; yet vulnerable populations including homeless, foster care, and juvenile justice youth are expected to transition to adulthood abruptly on their own. Trends in legislation and funding regarding disconnected youth illustrate both federal and state commitment to helping vulnerable youth make the transition to successful adulthood, including the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.
Despite increasing awareness of the importance of supporting disconnected youth aging out of the child welfare system, older adolescents continue to face significant barriers to successful adulthood. Thirty-five percent of children under state guardianship awaiting adoption in Minnesota are 12-18 years old (DHS, 2012). These older youth are at risk of aging out of the system without the requisite knowledge and skills to transition to adulthood successfully, as are the state's unaccompanied youth age 21 and under who are most likely to experience homelessness when compared with their representation in the state's total population (Wilder, 2013.
Emerging Adulthood Task Force
Introduced in the 2013 Legislature, House File 1020 and Senate File 991 propose a taskforce convened by the commissioner of human services to review existing data and resources to define the challenges facing disconnected youth and to make recommendations to the legislature by January 15, 2014. This Emerging Adulthood Task Force Legislation acknowledges that vulnerable populations including homeless, foster care, and juvenile justice youth require additional support to build a foundation for adult independence. The proposed task force will be comprised of 15 members representing a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from the Department of Human Services, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Departments of Education and Higher Education, Department of Corrections, and a number of youth-serving and advocacy organizations, among others. The Emerging Adulthood Task Force will be expected to make recommendations to the 2014 Legislature and administration to
Bill Status and Next Steps
House: Passed through Early Childhood Youth Development and Government Operations committees; currently referred to Health and Human Services Finance Committee and awaiting a hearing
Senate: Passed through Health, Human Service, and Housing Policy and State and Local Government committees, referred to Finance committee following a second reading on the Senate floor on April 2, 2013
While the bill does not propose changes or additional services expected to have a significant fiscal impact, the convening and administration of the task force and its final report will require some level of funding. Considering the significantly-reduced budget targets for the House and Senate Health and Human Service Finance committees, even proposals with a limited fiscal impact will require additional scrutiny by the committee in the final weeks of the legislative session.
]]>On Wednesday in the House Health and Human Services (HHS) Finance committee, Assistant Commissioner of Child and Family Services Erin Sullivan Sutton provided a walk-through of Governor Dayton's updated HHS budget recommendations from his supplemental budget as they pertain to children and families. The HHS omnibus bill that incorporates these changes is H.F. 1233.
The proposals in the children and families section of the HHS omnibus bill are focused on three main areas:
The areas of the omnibus bill for which there were no changes were the expansion of the Parent Support Outreach Program, the elimination of the electronic benefit transaction fee, the adoption assistance forecast, and match supportive services.
The following are the portions of Sullivan Sutton's testimony that had particular relevance to child welfare.
Access to high quality child care
Governor Dayton is recommending that the state have a greater focus on helping parents with low incomes access high quality child care for their children by:
Should all-day kindergarten be funded, which was a recommendation in the Education budget, then the child care assistance program through MFIP could see some savings. It is projected that the number of children served in all-day kindergarten would jump from 49 percent to 85 percent. Sullivan Sutton did state that the "funding increase in MDE is greater than the savings."
Child welfare note: Stability in early care and education environments is crucial for children involved in child welfare. Research has shown that the first few years of a child's life is a period of rapid growth in brain development, and disruptive and/or low-quality placements (including child care) can negatively impact such development. Access to affordable, high-quality child care may also mitigate stressors in the home and thus reduce the risk for maltreatment.
Northstar Care for Children
Sullivan Sutton also reviewed Northstar Care for Children (see my blog post on this topic), which, if implemented, would be effective January 1, 2015. Some areas not previously discussed include how this program could help with addressing the issue of disproportionate representation of African American and American Indian children in out-of-home placement, as well as keeping sibling groups together.
As for program operations, Sullivan Sutton emphasized that parents would view the changes as seamless. Basically, the restructuring of the Relative Care Assistance program to Guardianship Assistance would allow the state to utilize Title IV-E dollars via the Fostering Connections Act, rather than TANF funds (which are currently used). Additionally, the cost of maintaining these programs would be shared among counties, the state, and the federal government.
Child welfare note: The idea behind making benefit rates more equitable across the three programs (Relative Caregiver Assistance, Adoption Asistance, and Foster Care) is that it could have a positive impact on moving children in foster care to permanency more quickly and frequently. There is some concern among a local child welfare advocacy group regarding the rate differential between children ages 6 and up, and children younger than age 6. However, this gorup has also raised the possibility that this bill may not be reintroduced after this legislative session, as this is the third time it has been introduced.
Addressing youth homelessness
The governor has a specific emphasis on addressing youth homelessness in Minnesota; Sullivan Sutton provided statistics from Wilder that there are 2,500 unaccompanied youth in Minnesota on any given day, recommending a budget of $5 million over the biennium (as opposed to the current $119,000/year).
Child welfare note: You can read more about youth homelessness in Minnesota and current legislation here.
Omnibus bill's next steps
Rep. Huntley mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that in about one to two weeks, the committee would begin redrafting the House HHS omnibus bill to reflect the new House target for HHS. This could mean that a lot of what is being proposed, particularly anything requiring additional funding or spending increases, may be taken out. Again, it is unclear which areas of health and human services will see cuts.
If you have any insight regarding the omnibus bill, please feel free to leave a comment below. I'd love to hear from our readers!
]]>The proposal to cut the HHS budget was unexpected by both Republican and DFL legislators as well as advocates in the field. Advocates issued a letter to the House and Senate leaders decrying the proposed budget cuts "after a decade of compounding cuts" to the HHS budget. Representative Abeler (R-35A), who was the previous chair of the House HHS Finance committee, said
"They're raising billions of dollars and putting it everywhere like to the courts and environment, and those are wonderful," Abeler said, "but there's only one part of government where people could die and that's in our area where the people with disabilities and health care and rural hospitals. I was just really surprised. Nobody saw that coming."
Impact on child welfare
Although the House and Senate DFL leaders have not given any direction to the HHS committee chairs as to where the budget cuts should occur (i.e. health or human services, or both), it is clear that the budget cuts will have a major impact on children and families involved in the child welfare system. One thing to keep in mind is that although the HHS budget is second only to education in budget size, the majority of funds are spent on services for our most vulnerable populations, including nursing homes for our elderly citizens, supports for children and adults with disabilities, and care of and protection for our children and youth.
According to a local child welfare advocacy group, many of the proposed HHS bills that call for additional funding will likely die in committee as a result of the impending HHS budget cut. Such bills may include several related to mental health services for children in the schools, bills working to address youth homelessness, and bills that would establish task forces and pilot programs to address prevention of negative outcomes for children and youth.
As the session nears its end, it is important for child welfare advocates and professionals to stay on top of the HHS omnibus bill, because it will dictate service provision for child welfare and overall human services for the biennium beginning in 2014.
]]>Education Omnibus Bill Inclusions
Mental Health Education - The bill includes the language originally proposed within HF355/SF261 which would mandate that all 6th-12th graders in Minnesota receive age-appropriate mental health education. This learning would be integrated into the existing curriculum as a part of the National Health Education Standards. It remains somewhat unclear exactly what students would learn within this curriculum, but understanding the warning signs of mental illness in parents, friends, and themselves could lead to more students and their families to receive early intervention. Early and adequate treatment of mental illness within a family can decrease familial stress and potentially lessen the risk for abuse/neglect in the future.
Teaching Licensing - Originally proposed in HF354/SF260, the omnibus bill includes a provision that seeks to increase teacher awareness and knowledge of mental illness. It is currently a law that teachers must receive training on recognizing early warning signs of mental illness to become licensed. However, this bill would allow teachers to obtain education on a wide variety of mental health topics (e.g. de-escalation techniques, trauma, Autism Spectrum Disorders) and count these hours toward continuing education requirements for ongoing licensure. When school staff are better informed and knowledgeable about working with such children and families, educational outcomes may be improved. Further, school staff may have a stronger connection to a family and be better able to identify potential abuse or neglect while maintaining school as a resource for child safety and parental support.
Encouraging Collaboration - Under this proposed legislation, the proceeds from a district's safe school's levy can be used to pay the costs of mental health service collaboration. For example, this could cover the cost of having private mental health providers practice within a school or pay the costs of collaborating with these professionals. Ultimately, the aim of such a provision is to make mental health treatment easier for children and families to access while also encouraging collaboration with school staff members. This was previously included in HF356/SF252.
Health and Human Services Inclusions
Expanded Service Coverage - The Health and Human Service omnibus bill includes a provision contained in HF358/SF264 that would expand the services covered by Minnesota's medical assistance. Expanded services include family psychoeducation and clinical care consultation when a child has a diagnosed mental illness and such services are recommended by a mental health professional as part of the child's case plan. This would allow mental health professionals more time with the family to discuss the implications a child's mental illness may have on the family and ways in which the family can best help the child. Such legislation also aims to encourage better communication among mental health professionals and other service providers (e.g. child protection workers, foster parents, teachers).
Expanded Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Treatment - A new addition to the omnibus bill that was not contained in any of the bills previously discussed is the proposal to create a new benefit that would provide early assessment and treatment to children identified as having ASD. This new inclusion is lengthy, but would essentially allow medical assistance payment for a wide range of interdisciplinary services to qualified children with an ASD diagnosis as part of a comprehensive and ongoing case plan to improve functioning. Research has shown that children with a disability are at a greater risk for abuse or neglect. Early intervention may give such families the treatment and resources needed to prevent maltreatment. In addition, young children may become involved with outside services sooner, which can lead to earlier identification and resolution when maltreatment does occur.
]]>Earlier this week I talked to Rich Gehrman, Executive Director of Safe Passage for Children, who brought forth the legislation and worked with the bill authors to craft the bill language. Mr. Gehrman provided me with the most recent updates on this bill; these updates are not available online, so I thought I'd first discuss the original bill text and then highlight the modifications and the bill's status.
Bill text, as introduced
The original bill text, found here, specified who would compose the 20- to 25-person work group, which ranged from DHS to non-public sector employees to mandated reporters to University experts. The work group would have been responsible for a feasibility study on the development and implementation of a statewide, centralized unit that would screen reports of alleged child maltreatment. It also would have addressed each of the OLA recommendations in a final legislative report, due by November 15, 2013, including how agencies should record screened-out cases and family history of CPS referrals.
This version also would have mandated counties to follow the DHS Minnesota Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines during their intake processes.
Current version
One of the new aspects of the revised bill would require DHS to include child welfare stakeholders in its application for a federal planning grant, "Initiative to Improve Access to Needs-Driven, Evidence-Based/Evidence-Informed Mental and Behavioral Health Services in Child Welfare." According to Mr. Gehrman, this new subdivision is more than likely going to pass.
The other modifications in the revised version are still being discussed with DHS and the legislature:
Screening guidelines
The revised version retains the language related to requiring counties to follow the DHS screening guidelines. Mr. Gehrman believes that this is a crucial part of the bill, saying that the "wide variation in [screening] standards and [child maltreatment] definitions across the state" is a result of non-uniform CPS screening practices among the counties.Feasibility study
REMOVED.CPS screening work group
The removal of the feasibility study resulted in modifications in the work group. Members now include individuals with deep expertise in CPS screening practices and other areas such as the impact of childhood trauma on brain development and early childhood development. The work group's new task would be to address the OLA's recommendations related to clarification of the vagueness in the law and the DHS screening guidelines, and "reduce the degree of variance" in CPS practices in Minnesota.Data on screened-out cases
Mr. Gehrman also stated that one of the goals was to address data collection on screened-out cases so that patterns of neglect could be identified. While Mr. Gehrman and other advocates have stated the need to consider patterns of neglect during a screening decision, DHS says that by law, they do not need to be considered (see their bulletin issued on Nov. 5, 2012). The OLA recommendations regarding this issue were that DHS should
- "develop a common understanding of what constitutes a child protection referral that should be recorded in the Social Service Information System (SSIS)" (p. 35)
- "reinforce with child protection agencies the need to appropriately record all child protection referrals, including screened-out referrals, in SSIS" (p. 35)
- "promulgate a rule indicating whether it is appropriate for agencies to use a family's history of screened-in or screened-out child protection referrals when making screening decisions" (p. 52).
What do you think of this bill? How do you see this bill impacting child welfare practice in Minnesota? Leave a comment below!
]]>My name is Caitlin Magistad, and I'm excited to be a new guest blogger for the CASCW Child Welfare Policy blog! I'm a third year MSW student here at the University of Minnesota. I currently work as a case manager at a local family homeless shelter, and am doing my second field placement at the Minnesota Council of Child Caring Agencies, a statewide association of providers of treatment services for children and adolescents that engages in policy and legislative advocacy on behalf of its members. I'm primarily interested in the intersections between family and youth homelessness and child welfare, and how policy can be used to promote systems change and best practices for the well-being of children and families.
Addressing homelessness among youth in Minnesota
In Minnesota, children and youth age 21 and under comprise 46% of the state's homeless population (Wilder, 2013). Significant overlap exists between homeless youth and youth involved in the child welfare system. Homeless youth and youth aging out of the foster care system often lack family support and permanent homes needed to successfully transition to adulthood. Sixty four percent of youth surveyed by Wilder Research in 2009 had experienced at least one out-of-home placement in a foster home, group home, detention/correctional facility, or treatment center; 45% had been physically or sexually mistreated; and 30% of youth had stayed in an abusive situation because they had no other housing options. Twelve percent of homeless young adults aged 18-21 reported having to leave a foster home or other placement because they were too old to stay there. Beyond the risks that homelessness poses to unaccompanied youth themselves, the Wilder Survey found that 34% of youth interviewed had children of their own.
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, first passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2006, defines homeless youth as unaccompanied young persons ages 21 and under. The act also defines youth at risk of homelessness; this definition includes youth exiting out-of-home placements, youth exposed to abuse or neglect in their homes, and youth who experience conflicts with parents due to substance abuse, mental health disabilities, or other disabilities.
Current legislation: Runaway and Homeless Youth Act
While Minnesota has statutory language defining these youth and the interventions to be provided, minimal funding has resulted in an insufficient crisis response to youth homelessness; for example, the number of youth emergency shelter beds remained flat between 2003 and 2009 (Wilder, 2010).
In the 2013 Legislature, Minnesota House File 698 and Senate File 565 propose an $8 million appropriation to fund the Homeless Youth Act over the 2013 biennium, a significant increase from the $218,000 and $238,000 the act received in the 2009 and 2011 biennium funding cycles. The bills also amend the title of the act, striking "Runaway and" in an effort to eliminate negative and/or judgmental terminology towards unaccompanied youth, recognizing that in many instances, youth become homeless after running from abuse or neglect in their family homes.
Thus far in the legislative session, HF 698 was held for possible inclusion in the House Health and Human Services Finance committee omnibus bill. SF 565 passed through the Health, Human Services, and Housing committee and was referred to the Senate Finance committee. Additionally, in his budget supplemental, Governor Mark Dayton included $5 million in funding for youth homelessness prevention programs. Currently it is unknown if the bill will be signed into law or included in the HHS omnibus bill.
]]>