If you read the headline in the April 13 Star Tribune on how child-abuse reports in Minnesota rose by 25 percent in 2016, straining the state's child-protection system — and asked, "Didn't we already deal with this problem?" you wouldn't have been far off the mark.
The article reported that 39,500 Minnesota children were suspected of being abused or neglected, according to the state Department of Human Services (DHS); 2016 was the second straight year of sharp increases in such reports.
What has shocked many Minnesotans, however, is that these increases follow the 2015 Legislature's enactment of major reforms to the state's child-protection system, including increased state funding. The legislation reflected recommendations of a child-protection task force appointed by Gov. Mark Dayton following a series of Star Tribune investigative reports.
Does the spike in abuse reports indicate that the legislation was ineffective, or that the task force didn't make the right recommendations? Not at all. The state certainly has taken important steps, but much more is still needed.
Reforms to the system should be considered in light of two factors: funding, and the standards set by the state for child-protection services. Lawmakers addressed both of those areas in 2015, but not completely.
The 2015 legislation increased state funding by $26 million annually. That was welcome, but it only helped restore child protection staffing to levels seen in 2002, before cuts to child protection funding by previous administrations. Nor did it restore the services that case workers need to manage abuse and neglect cases, including therapy, child care or transportation. Those also had been cut since 2002.
In addition, the 2015 funding did not take into account caseload increases among county social-service workers. Such increases were predictable in light of the reforms mandated in 2015, the second factor in the equation.
A DHS representative suggested that "heightened awareness" was a reason for the increase in reports. That may be a contributor, but a more likely explanation is that counties are now required, rather than encouraged, to follow state guidelines on screening such reported cases for further investigation.