Senate panel approves Kunish bill allowing diversionary welfare response for some educational neglect reports

Senator Liz (Kunish), chairing the bill’s presentation, told the Senate Education Policy Committee that current Minnesota law requires a traditional child protection response to screened‑in reports of educational neglect — defined in statute as seven unexcused absences for children under 12 — but that attendance problems are often rooted in housing, transportation, childcare, medical and other systemic barriers.

"School attendance is less often an issue of parental neglect, but rather an issue of societal neglect where our systems are failing to support children and their families," Kunish said, describing the bill’s purpose to allow local welfare agencies to provide diversionary child welfare responses in educational‑neglect cases where no safety concerns exist.

The bill would permit local welfare agencies to implement a child welfare response — focused on supports and services — with culturally and linguistically appropriate services. If a family does not engage with the diversionary response, a traditional child protection response could still be initiated, Kunish said. The bill also requests funding for pilot programs and requires program evaluation to measure effectiveness before statewide expansion.

Michelle Miller, child and family services manager for Wright County Human Services, testified the county has used a child welfare response for attendance issues since 2011. "Educational neglect is not an issue of child safety, which requires a child protection response," Miller said, adding that child protection involvement can carry a heavy stigma and that mental health and financial stress top families’ challenges. Wright County and referenced research suggest early, non‑punitive intervention improves attendance outcomes, she said.

Matt Shaver, senior policy director for ED Allies, urged the committee to modernize how Minnesota defines and responds to attendance problems. "Minnesota students who are chronically absent missed at least 3,000,000 days of learning combined," Shaver said, characterizing the state’s current system as "siloed, patchwork, confusing" and praising the bill’s efforts to create clearer checkpoints and responses.

Jessica Webster, staff attorney at Legal Aid, expressed support and thanked the committee for amendments that acknowledge the attendance challenges faced by children with disabilities and those experiencing poverty.

Committee action: the committee adopted the author’s A3 amendment (voice vote) then the A5 cleanup amendment (voice vote). The committee then voted to send Senate File 942 to the Health and Human Services Committee; the clerk recorded the motion as carried (voice vote).

What the bill would change and what remains: the bill does not remove the possibility of child protection involvement. Instead it provides an initial diversionary welfare pathway for attendance deficiencies that lack safety issues; use of the diversion is permissive at the local level, and a traditional child protection response remains available if diversionary efforts fail. Pilot funding and program evaluation language are included in the bill as introduced.

Next steps: the committee transmitted the bill to the Health and Human Services Committee for further consideration. No dollar amounts for pilot funding or precise state implementation timelines were specified during the hearing.

Members and advocates asked for ongoing attention to cross‑system coordination and the need for culturally and linguistically appropriate services if the diversionary approach is implemented.

Votes at this hearing: the A3 and A5 amendments were adopted by voice vote; the motion to send the bill to HHS passed by voice vote. No roll‑call tallies were recorded in the transcript.