MAAFPCWDA FAQ

The statute allows the parent (or guardian) to identify a child's race, ethnicity, disability status and low-income socioeconomic status. Agreement by the parents and children on the identification is not needed. If there is disagreement, use active efforts to explore, identify and connect the family to appropriate services based on reported identity.

Per statute, a child's race is based on self-identification or identification by the parent or guardian. If a parent initially declines but then later shares information that confirms eligibility, the agency must then apply all MAAFPCWDA requirements going forward. Document inquiries in SSIS.

Inquiry should begin at the first contact with the reporter and continue during contact with the family.                                      

Intake
Intake staff should gather racial identification information and complete racial identification screens in SSIS when entering every new intake. When there is a family that is known to SSIS and racial information is available in SSIS, intake staff will attempt to verify that information with the reporter. Intake workers may collect demographic information but do not establish eligibility for MAAFPCWDA. 

Assessment, investigation and child welfare response
At first and subsequent contacts, the assessment/investigation worker must inquire about and document the race and ethnicity of the children, the disability status of the children and the household’s socioeconomic status. MAAFPCWDA eligibility confirmation should occur during initial contacts with the parent and/or child. Additional information is available in Bulletin 26-68-08C. 

Case management and transfer
Once a family is eligible for MAAFPCWDA, they will remain eligible for the rest of that case/workgroup.

For race and ethnicity, once a family is determined eligible, they remain eligible for the life of that workgroup. At each new intake, assessment or case opening, reassess the family’s eligibility for low income and disability to determine whether they continue to qualify under MAAFPCWDA protections.

Families have several options for raising concerns about the services they are receiving. The appropriate avenue may depend on the type of concern, case status and whether there is an active court case.

Start with the county agency.
Families can share their concerns with their caseworker and, when appropriate, the worker’s supervisor or agency leadership, which may include the county board. This gives the agency an opportunity to understand the concern, review the circumstances, clarify expectations and consider whether changes to services or practice are appropriate.

Talk with your attorney, if you have one.
If a family has an attorney, they may want to discuss their concerns with their attorney. An attorney can help a parent understand their options and consider how raising a particular concern may affect their case, case plan or court proceedings. They can also help determine whether a concern may be better addressed through the county agency, the court or another process.

Contact the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).
Families may have options to bring concerns to DCYF, particularly when concerns remain unresolved or involve state requirements or processes within DCYF’s authority. DCYF may review information, provide clarification or technical assistance, or take other appropriate action based on the circumstances. Contacting DCYF does not necessarily result in a particular outcome or require a county agency to take specific action.

For concerns related to the Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act (MAAFPCWDA), families can contact Feedback and Compliance Portal staff by emailing dcyf.maafpacwda.constituency@state.mn.us.

Consider an ombudsperson or other independent resource.
Families and youth may have access to independent offices that can provide information, review certain concerns or help individuals understand their rights. The appropriate office will depend on the type of concern and the office’s authority.

Address concerns through the court.
When concerns involve a court-ordered case plan, services, visitation, placement or another matter before the court, families may discuss their options with their attorney. Depending on the circumstances, a parent may ask the court to review or modify aspects of a case plan or address concerns about the reasonableness of services or requirements.

Consider a professional or licensing complaint when appropriate.
If a concern involves the conduct of a licensed professional, a family may be able to file a complaint with the appropriate licensing board. Licensing boards have specific authority and jurisdiction, so this option may not apply to every concern involving a child welfare worker or county agency.

The definitions are as follows: 

Community-Based Services: Services that integrate cultural identity into comprehensive care. They emphasize continuity, culturally competent engagement and trauma-informed support

Culturally Appropriate Services: Services designed to meet unique cultural, linguistic and social needs. They use tailored offerings, culturally informed assessments and family-led treatment planning.

Strength-Based Services: Services that recognize and build upon family strengths. They foster collaboration and empower individuals through existing family and community networks.

Trauma-Informed Services: Services that address unique experiences through cultural understanding. They recognize historical and intergenerational trauma while fostering safety, resilience and healing.

Culturally Informed Services: Providers or organizations recognized by communities for deep cultural understanding. They have proven cultural knowledge and community enforcement.

“In-home preventive case management services” means:

Following a child protection assessment or investigation, a family with ongoing safety issues and/or with a significant risk of future maltreatment may receive in-home preventative case management services. In-home preventative case management may also be provided after reunification.

In-home child protection case management services are provided after a child protection assessment or investigation and may happen whether or not a maltreatment determination was made. Case management and service planning should address child safety concerns, focus on the family’s strengths and needs and include specific support, safety planning and/or services that will reduce the risk of future maltreatment. Services should focus on family preservation and placement prevention when children can safely remain with their parents or caregivers.

The family may agree to in-home child protection case management services, or the court may order the services. A local child welfare agency may provide or arrange services and supports to keep children safe.

“Services offered” means that the local agency has offered services to prevent placement and help reunification (e.g., Family Group Decision Making, visitation, referrals, transportation, etc.), and the family has either accepted or declined.

There is not one universal definition of “family” in child protection. When working with children from communities that are overrepresented in the child-welfare system, Minnesota law focuses on preserving and protecting a child’s connections to their extended family, kin and cultural community. Current law (Minnesota Statutes 260C.007, subd. 27) recognizes that there are many kinds of families and that children may have important relationships outside of their immediate family.

For the purpose of county case reviews under MAAFPCWDA, “awaiting a permanency disposition” refers to the point in court proceedings where a county agency has ruled out reunification as a permanency option for a child in foster care and filed a permanency petition instead, but the court has not yet issued an order specifying a permanency disposition. 

“Permanency disposition” could mean: 

• The court has issued an order terminating parental rights of a child’s parent/s and ordered the child under guardianship of the commissioner of DCYF
• The court has accepted a parent’s consent to the adoption of their child and ordered the child under guardianship of the commissioner of DCYF
• A child’s parent has died, and the court ordered the child under guardianship of the commissioner of DCYF 
• The court has ordered a transfer of permanent legal and physical custody of a child to a relative
• The court has ordered permanent custody to the county agency. 

See also Minnesota Statutes 260C.515 for a list of permanency dispositions.

The Practice Guide for Maintaining Family Connections for Children in Foster Care contains guidance related to visitation. See Page 10 of the guide for first visits and visitation frequency based on age group and for siblings. 

For children in foster care, visitation maintains connections and relationships while supporting a child’s well-being and sense of self-identity. Visitation helps families reunify and keep cultural connections that matter to children in foster care. Parent/s, Indian custodians, siblings and extended family are important to children even when reunification is not possible. Visitation helps parents and children stay attached, reduces a child’s sense of abandonment and helps them feel like they belong in their family of origin, culture and community. As they grow, children need to see and have regular contact with their parent/s and family. When a child loses family connections, they lose family history, medical history and cultural identity. Visitation plans should be created based on the child’s age, development, trauma history and unique needs.

“Family conditions” are circumstances or risk factors in a child’s home that make it unsafe for them to stay there, leading to foster care placement. Caseworkers enter primary and secondary removal reasons in SSIS.

“Child welfare outcomes” are the goals that child welfare systems aim to achieve to ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of children and families involved with child protective or foster care services. For MAAFPCWDA, child welfare outcomes include, but are not limited to, information on abuse, out-of-home placement and permanency for African American and disproportionately represented children. The child welfare system uses this information to develop strategies to address disparities. DCYF will provide guidance on the definition of "child welfare outcomes" by Nov. 1, 2028.

For MAAFPCWDA eligibility, "child welfare system" means the child protection system. A child under 18 is considered involved in child protection if:

• They have a screened-in child maltreatment report under Minnesota Statutes 260E
• They receive child protection case management because an assessment or investigation found a need for services
• They are in foster care, including children:
  • Removed by law enforcement on a 72-hour hold
  • Placed by court order
  • Placed under a Voluntary Placement Agreement under Minnesota Statutes 260C.227 (Juvenile Safety and Placement) for 180 days without returning home, and a CHIPS petition has been filed. 

See Bulletin 26-68-08C for more information.

Under MAAFPCWDA, “parent” means the biological parent of an African American or a disproportionately represented child or any person who has legally adopted an African American or a disproportionately represented child. Parents include an unmarried father whose paternity has been acknowledged or established and a putative father. Paternity has been acknowledged when an unmarried father takes any action to identify himself out as the biological father of a child. (Minnesota Statutes 260.63, subd. 15.)

"Relative" means: 

• A person related to the child by blood, marriage or adoption
• The legal parent, guardian or custodian of the child's siblings
• An important friend of the child or of the child's parent or custodian, including an individual the child has lived with, had significant contact with or who has a significant relationship with the child or the child's parent or custodian. 

To provide active efforts to preserve an African American or a disproportionately represented child's family, the responsible social services agency must continuously involve an African American or a disproportionately represented child's family in all services for the family while always considering the family’s social and cultural values.

"Disproportionality" means the overrepresentation of African American children and other disproportionately represented children in Minnesota's child welfare system population as compared to the representation of those children in Minnesota's total child population.

Every other year, the commissioner issues a determination of disproportionate overrepresentation that outlines communities that are overrepresented in Minnesota’s child welfare system based on race, ethnicity, disability status and low-income socioeconomic status. By law, the commissioner must use state child population data that can be compared with existing state child welfare data to determine disproportionate overrepresentation. See Bulletin #26-68-21 for the most recent determination.

The period under review for the first report will be Jan. 1, 2027, to Dec. 31, 2028.

The federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process continues under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-2a and 45 C.F.R. Part 1355. The A Home for Every Child (AH4EC) Program Improvement Plan pilot changes how participating states demonstrate improvement following a CFSR; it does not eliminate the CFSR. The department can continue conducting CFSR case reviews, but they are no longer required. Pilot states are no longer expected to meet specific goals associated with traditional CFSR case-review measures or Statewide Data Indicators (SWDIs). The department has no financial penalties related to A Home for Every Child Program Improvement Plan pilot as of June 20, 2026.

Further, MAAFPCWDA will not change federal funding rules, which require the standard federal review process, but Minnesota will actively use federal data to spot issues early and help counties improve family outcomes.

Currently, the department is not planning to change or adopt separate standards for licensing relatives for foster care. In July 2022, Minnesota changed background study requirements for child foster care licensure. The changes reduced barriers to becoming licensed for foster care by reducing disqualifying crimes and timelines, and making exceptions for some requirements when they do not affect the health or safety of children placed in the home.

Minnesota law allows children to be placed with unlicensed relatives when there is an emergency need for foster care placement. Relatives who have disqualifications for foster care licensure may be chosen for emergency relative foster care placement when the disqualification may be eligible for a variance. Situations where variances are prohibited, and placement cannot be made include:

• Federal barrier crimes (felony conviction of child abuse or neglect; spousal abuse; crime against a child, including child pornography; crimes of violence, including rape, sexual assault or homicide; felony convictions within five years of physical assault, battery and drug-related offenses).
• Convictions for crimes in Minnesota that are a "permanent bar" to foster care licensure (Minnesota Statutes 245C.15, subd. 4a). 

The Minnesota Child Welfare Training Academy launched the virtual cultural competency training, “Addressing Disparities and Disproportionality: MAAFPCWDA,” for child welfare workers in June 2026. Minnesota law requires this training. The training academy will update all existing training courses with MAAFPCWDA content. 

The training academy offers other cultural competency training courses, including:

• ICWA/MIFPA Foundations through the Tribal Training and Certification Partnership
• Responsive Child Welfare Practice with LGBTQIA2S+ Youth
• New Supervisor Training and Coaching.

Under the Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act (MAAFPCWDA), DCYF is not authorized to investigate individual employees or take disciplinary actions. Minnesota operates a county-administered, state-supervised human services system, so local county human resources oversee all disciplinary matters under union agreements.

Under the Minnesota African American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act (MAAFPCWDA), DCYF cannot investigate or discipline county employees. Minnesota has a county-administered, state-supervised human services system, so local county human resources oversee all disciplinary matters under union agreements.

Minnesota utilizes the Structured Decision Making Safety Assessment in all child protection Family Assessments and Family Investigations. Workers can use this tool and professional judgment to assess safety threats that may require creating a safety plan or removing a child from their home. Each safety threat includes specific items and definitions, along with considerations for caregiver protective capacities.  

The department has also developed Minnesota’s Safety Planning in Child Protection Best Practice Guide. The guide includes definitions of safety threats, protective capacities, complicating factors, risk factors, and what to do when a safety plan is not possible.

Yes. The MAAFPCWDA one-pager for families (DHS-8794B) is available on eDocs.

If a child is eligible for MAAFPCWDA and at risk of placement, Minnesota Statutes 260.65 requires agency staff to make active efforts to contact relatives as part of relative search and engagement under Minnesota Statutes 260C.221. Whenever possible, agency staff work collaboratively with children and families to understand their concerns and engage supports. If a family is unable or unwilling to identify relatives/kin, these two sections of Minnesota Statutes give the agency authority to complete relative search, notice, engagement and placement consideration. For questions on specific situations, county agencies should consult with their county attorney's office.

To promote the involvement of relatives in supporting the child and family, child welfare agencies may share private information, when necessary, to help place a child with a relative, communicate the child's needs to the relative, and encourage the relative's participation in case planning and supporting services for the child and parent. If parents do not provide an agency with enough information to identify maternal or paternal relatives of a child, agency staff must use other resources to identify them. Minnesota law does not allow a court to waive or relieve the responsible social service agency of reasonable or active efforts to conduct a relative search, notify relatives, contact and engage relatives in case planning and consider relatives for placement of the child, even when parent/s object. If a parent requests that a specific relative, including past family or domestic violence, not be contacted or considered for placement due to safety reasons, an agency must bring the parent’s request to the court to decide if the parent’s request is in the child’s best interests.

Note: “Non-adjudicated” means a court has not legally determined paternity, nor has a recognition of parentage been signed by both parents. It does not mean someone has been ruled out as the child’s father.

Recommended practice is to identify, locate, engage and assess all alleged fathers. This process may differ based on case status (service referral, assessment, investigation, case management without court involvement, cases with a CHIPS petition, foster care placement, etc.). Consult local agency leadership and the county attorney's office for specific circumstances if there are concerns about engaging fathers.

Resources: 

• Minnesota's Best Practice Guide for In-Home Child Protection Case Management
• Engaging and Assessing Noncustodial or Unadjudicated Parents: A Child Welfare Practice Guide
• Minnesota's Best Practice Guide for Family Assessment and Family Investigation. 

"Out-of-home placement" under Minnesota Statutes 260.64, subd. 3, is foster care. “Foster care” is defined as 24-hour substitute care for a child when a responsible social services agency has legal responsibility for the child's placement and care. It includes children placed outside their parent's or guardian's home in foster homes, relative foster homes, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities that are not excluded by statute, childcare institutions and pre-adoptive homes, as well as children living with a parent in a licensed residential family-based substance use disorder treatment program or those returned home under a court-approved trial home visit. A child is in foster care regardless of whether the placement is licensed or whether foster care payments are made, although the law does not authorize placement in facilities that are required to be licensed but are not. 

“Foster care” does not include placements in hospitals, inpatient chemical dependency treatment facilities where the child is the patient, facilities that are primarily for delinquent children, any corrections facility or program within a particular correction facility not meeting requirements for Title IV-E facilities as determined by the commissioner, facilities to which a child is committed under the provision of chapter 253B, forestry camps or jails. 

For a child to be in foster care, a responsible social services agency must have legal placement authority. Legal placement authority includes voluntary placement agreements or a court order.

No, MAAFPCWDA does not violate federal laws and regulations governing permanency timelines.

Minnesota Statutes 260.67 aligns with existing state and federal laws concerning when a permanency petition must be filed; there is no separate timeline between this section and permanency proceedings under Minnesota Statutes 260C. In Minnesota, a child’s case must be legally reviewed for permanency at the 12-month mark, consistent with federal law requiring permanency hearings no later than 12 months after a child enters foster care.

While federal law does require states to file termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions for a parent whose child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, there are also allowable exceptions under federal law and regulation to this mandate: if the child is being cared for by a relative, if there is a compelling reason to not file a TPR petition (such as adoption not being an appropriate permanency goal), or if the agency failed to give the family services necessary for the child to safely return home.

Under MAAFPCWDA, the court must still consider the requirements outlined under both Minnesota Statutes 260.012(a) (which governs reasonable efforts and circumstances under which reasonable efforts are not required) and Minnesota Statutes 260C.515, subd. 4 (which outlines requirements for the court to order a transfer of permanent legal and physical custody, or TPLPC), before ordering a TPLPC to a relative. One of these considerations includes ruling out both reunification and adoption as appropriate permanency goals for the child.

Minnesota Statutes 260.67 aligns with existing state law regarding a preference for permanency placement with a relative if reunification efforts fail. This is not in violation of federal law, which requires state Title IV-E plans to include considering giving preference to adult relatives over non-related caregivers and allows states to opt into the Guardianship Assistance Program, a benefit program for children in foster care who are placed permanently with a relative through kinship guardianship (TPLPC in Minnesota).

County agencies must make intensive, culturally tailored active efforts to keep families together. If a county agency fails to provide the services necessary for reunification, the court cannot terminate a parent’s rights under both state and federal law.

Lack of compliance with a case plan is not a basis for terminating parental rights under state or federal law. Rather, federal law requires a case review system in which a court reviews the extent of compliance with a case plan, among other items. State law allows for termination of parental rights related to compliance with a case plan only when multiple conditions apply, one of which is that a parent has “not substantially complied” with a “reasonable” case plan. MAAFPCWDA further clarifies that a parent’s rights cannot be terminated solely for failing to complete their case plan. This ensures terminations of parental rights occur only in egregious circumstances or when the agency’s active efforts to help and support families to correct conditions that led to the child’s placement have failed.

According to Minnesota Statutes 260.62(b) (MAAFPCWDA Purposes), MAAFPCWDA should not interfere with the protections of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. 1901-1963; or the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), Minnesota Statutes 260.751 to 260.835. The federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) apply before and after placement and include prevention services, voluntary foster care and third-party custody as defined in Minnesota Statutes 260.755, subd. 3, involving an Indian child, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 260.755, subd. 8. ICWA/MIFPA apply to cases involving Native American/Alaska Native children and are based on political status; MAAFPCWDA applies to African American and disproportionately represented children. A child cannot be eligible for both ICWA/MIFPA and MAAFPCWDA. See Bulletin 26-68-18 for more detail.

MAAFPCWDA is a requirement for Minnesota counties only. Tribes do not have requirements under MAAFPCWDA.

For eligibility in 2027 and 2028, due to a lack of consistent measures in the Social Service Information System (SSIS) for all children in child protection regarding disability and low-income status, the only possible disproportionate populations will be race and ethnicity. 2027 and 2028 will be data collection periods to evaluate whether disability and low-income socioeconomic status are also disproportionately represented in Minnesota’s child welfare system. See Bulletin 26-68-21 for further information.

The Sibling Bill of Rights applies to all children in foster care. MAAFPCWDA helps make sure the Sibling Bill of Rights is followed fairly for all children. It reinforces those rights so every child gets the same chance to stay connected with their siblings.

Minnesota Statutes 260C.178, subd. 1(e)(1) requires the court to determine at an emergency removal hearing whether the agency provided services or made efforts to prevent removal, but that such services or efforts have not proven sufficient for the child to safely remain in the home. A relative providing care in the child’s home can be part of a placement prevention plan that addresses risks and safety factors and can be incorporated as conditions of release to a suitable person or conditions prescribed by the court when the child is placed under protective supervision (Minnesota Statutes 260C.178, subd. 1(b); 260C.201, subd. 1(a)(1)). 

When a child stays in their home, it is not foster care and would not be an unlicensed emergency relative placement. BRASS Code 163 can be used to record payments to relatives to provide in-home parenting support.

Additionally, if a judge issues a protective order that excludes a parent from the home based on allegations of domestic child abuse, the agency must provide social services and housing support to the displaced parent. 

Further, if a child is removed from the custodial parent and the noncustodial parent can safely care for the child but is unhoused, case workers must actively help the family overcome housing barriers.

The department is not aware of the state legislature considering an extension of permanency timelines.