Since this is my first guest post, I thought I would introduce myself. My name is Kelly and I am in my second year as a graduate assistant with the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare and a current MSW student. My field placement with a private agency providing children’s mental health services has reinforced my interest in education and mental health policy for children. I am particularly interested in the ways in which such policies impact child welfare.
In a December blog post, Heidi Ombisa discussed mental health reform as one potential policy implication stemming from recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. With the beginning of the 88th Legislative Session, the Minnesota Legislature saw the introduction of multiple bills aimed at addressing the funding of, access to, and provision of mental health services for the state’s children. In an effort to be clear and concise, I want to summarize some of what these bills propose, but I am also mindful that I will not be able to capture the full range of implications for such legislation.
Schools as partners
Many of these bills highlight schools as being an important partner when it comes to identifying and treating mental illness in children. Some proposed bills call for increased funding for school-linked mental health services (HF353/SF259) or would allow existing levies to fund non-school staff in delivering mental health services (HF356/SF262). These bills aim to increase a child’s access and ability to receive treatment for mental health issues by providing services within the school building. Mental health professionals would not be employed by the district but would be located at and collaborate with the schools. Bill proponents state that such legislation would help to eliminate many barriers for families that prevent them from accessing high-quality children’s mental health services.
Other pieces of legislation would mandate schools to provide mental health education to all children in 6th–12th grades (HF355/SF261) or would allow further training on mental illness to count toward licensure requirements for educational staff members (HF354/SF260). Finally, HF166 (no current Senate Bill) would allow children being treated at residential facilities to continue participation in all extra-curricular activities at their school of residence.
Non-school based mental health legislation
While the schools are a key setting for the mental health policy agenda, other proposed legislation involves non-education entities. HF296/SF270 would mandate that children and families who qualify for children’s mental health case management could receive those services for as long as requested up through the child’s 18th birthday. Further, this bill would mandate the case manager create a transition plan to help the youth plan for maintenance of mental health in adulthood.
Another piece of legislation (HF358/SF264) would expand the mental health services covered by Medical Assistance to include school-based mental health services, family psychoeducation, and clinical care and consultation among other services.
Other considerations
This is only a brief introduction into the legislation being introduced and debated in this arena. There are still others I have not had the space to mention. With the opening of this 88th Legislative Session it seems clear that children’s mental health is a hot policy agenda item. With these introductions come some critical questions:

  • Who is responsible for providing children with mental health assessment and treatment? Does the responsibility lie within governmental services? The educational system? Parents?
  • Will increasing access to mental health services and information for children help prevent future tragedies such as what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary?
  • If increasing access to high-quality mental health services is a priority, how should such services be funded?
  • If we increase access to services but do not work to decrease the stigma of mental illness, will our policies have the desired outcomes?