Senate committee approves bill letting counties use child‑welfare diversion for school absences; sends measure to judiciary

ST. PAUL — The Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Feb. 20 voted to recommend passage of Senate File 942, a bill that would allow local child welfare agencies to use a diversionary child‑welfare response — rather than a traditional child‑protection investigation — for reports of education neglect when no immediate safety concerns are identified. The committee recommended the bill pass and referred it to the Judiciary Committee.

The bill, introduced by Senator Kunish and amended in committee, changes how Minnesota responds to reports that a child has missed school under the state’s current education‑neglect definition. “Minnesota law currently requires local child welfare agencies to implement a traditional child protection response for screened‑in child protection reports of education neglect,” Kunish said in committee. The bill narrows that by allowing a child‑welfare diversion response where there are no safety concerns.

The bill would permit counties to use community‑based providers, family resource centers or county attorney diversion practices to address attendance barriers. Kunish and witnesses told the committee that many attendance problems are linked to unmet needs — housing instability, transportation gaps, lack of childcare, mental‑health or medical needs, language and cultural barriers, and financial stress — rather than willful parental neglect. “School attendance is often less an issue of parental neglect, but rather an issue of societal neglect,” Kunish said.

Two county testifiers described local diversion programs. Dr. Vira Doumbay described Olmsted County’s partnership with Family Service Rochester, which diverts families into case management and community‑led services; she referenced a 2021 evaluation that found a program reduced short‑term reentry by 16% and long‑term reentry by 7% and, according to the testimony, avoided about $2 million in costs compared with higher per‑child child‑protection costs. Michelle Miller, a child and family services manager in Wright County, said Wright County has used a child‑welfare approach for attendance since 2011 and that families are more likely to accept services from local agencies than from child‑protection workers.

Committee members discussed scope and implementation. Senator Abler asked about an appropriation; Kunish said the bill does not set a dollar amount now and that funding conversations would occur later in session. Several members urged attention to both a clear statutory definition (the bill focuses on children under 12) and to wraparound services such as transportation and mental‑health supports. “We can change words here and there, but unless we really are going to get serious about this, it is going to take an investment,” Kunish said.

The committee vote was taken after amendment adoption. Senator Mann moved the committee recommendation; members responded “aye,” and the clerk recorded the measure as passed and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The bill as passed out of committee requires counties to offer a diversionary child‑welfare response where appropriate and allows a traditional child protection response to be initiated if families do not engage with diversion services or if safety concerns arise. The measure also includes a pilot and requires program evaluation and that services be culturally and linguistically appropriate, according to the author’s remarks.

Next steps: SF 942 will be considered by the Judiciary Committee for further hearings and possible amendment before any floor action.

Votes at a glance

- Senate File 942 (attendance/child‑welfare diversion): committee recommendation to pass as amended; referred to Judiciary (voice vote; outcome recorded as passed and referred).