Panel adopts surveillance, electronic‑attendance measures for large childcare subsidy recipients; bill sent to Judiciary

The Children and Families Committee on Monday adopted an amendment to House File 1916 that would require child care providers who receive $1,000,000 or more in Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) or early learning scholarship funding to install video monitoring at public entrances and to implement electronic attendance reporting. The bill, as amended, was re‑referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Representative West, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the bill aims to add “essential safeguards” to Minnesota’s childcare subsidy system and to address vulnerabilities identified by the Office of the Legislative Auditor. “This legislation offers a very straightforward solution to address those concerns,” West said, describing requirements for cameras covering facility entrances and locations where guardians sign children in and out.

The committee adopted an A7 amendment that combined the chair’s draft language with the sponsor’s earlier text. The A7 amendment clarified the monitoring scope to entrances and sign‑in/out locations, raised the threshold for the surveillance requirement to $1,000,000 in subsidy receipts (up from $500,000 in the underlying bill) and shortened a proposed data retention period from 90 days to 30 days.

Representative Kolter offered an A6 amendment to remove the dollar threshold so the requirements would apply to any provider receiving CCAP or early learning scholarship funds. The amendment was defeated on a roll call: the clerk recorded seven nays and six ayes, so the A6 amendment failed.

In debate, lawmakers discussed balancing program integrity and provider burden. Representative West said targeting the largest recipients was intended to focus enforcement where most public funds are concentrated; he said about 73 providers received large shares of CCAP and that the top recipients together accounted for “over $100,000,000 in CCAP funds.” Representative Wilson and others warned against imposing compliance costs that could outweigh the subsidy amounts for smaller providers.

Privacy and misuse concerns were raised by Representative Hansen, who noted a recent arrest in Minnesota involving misuse of surveillance footage and asked about safeguards against hacking, AI image misuse and unauthorized access. West said the amendment is structured so the Department of Human Services can request footage (rather than mandating live streaming) and noted systems may be configured as closed‑circuit CCTV rather than always Wi‑Fi connected.

Action taken: The A7 amendment was adopted by voice vote; the A6 amendment to expand coverage to all subsidy recipients was defeated in a roll call (7 nays, 6 ayes). House File 1916, as amended, was re‑referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

What’s next: The bill will go to the Judiciary Committee where members said they expect to review technical concerns, including data security, retention, camera specifications and any potential criminal penalties for misuse of footage.