What Minnesota DHS dashboards or data requests could produce participant-level race and age breakdowns beyond the published reports?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Minnesota Department of Human Services does not publish participant‑level race and age line‑level files openly on its main dashboards, but several formal channels could produce those breakdowns: the federal OCR data request that DHS and counties have been required to answer (which collected county‑level submissions and may include more granular data held by counties) [1] [2], DHS/DCYF data‑request and Government Data Practices Act (GDPA) pathways that allow formal requests for public data and summary or records where permitted [3] [4], and program reporting systems and dashboards (for long‑term services and supports and clinical reporting systems) that already expose demographic dashboards at aggregated levels and could be the source systems for more detailed requests [5] [6].
1. The federal OCR data request: the most direct route to county‑level submissions
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) request compelled DHS and DCYF to collect specific data from each Minnesota county as recipients of federal funds, and DHS required submission from all 87 county human services agencies as of August 30, 2024, making that OCR collection the most consequential dataset assembled across local agencies [1] [2]. The OCR request’s scope is federal civil‑rights monitoring under Title VI/Section 504, and OCR “has been very clear that it wants DHS and DCYF to collect the requested data from counties,” which implies the existence of detailed county submissions that could contain race and age breakdowns beyond DHS’s public summaries [1]. Whether line‑level, participant‑identifiable records were transferred upward is not described in the public DHS notices; the materials emphasize county submissions rather than a statewide public dashboard [2].
2. Public dashboards and program reports — useful but mostly aggregated
DHS already publishes program‑level demographic tools such as the Long‑Term Services and Supports (LTSS) demographic dashboard that lets users “select a specific county to see how demographics are changing,” which provides publicly accessible demographic summaries by county but appears designed for aggregated planning use rather than releasing participant‑level files [5]. Other DHS program reports and performance pages exist, but the public framing in DHS pages centers on summaries and planning reporting rather than raw participant records [3] [7]. Those dashboards are logical first places to identify the variables and aggregations DHS stores before seeking more granular records.
3. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requests: formal legal mechanism for more granular data
The GDPA gives members of the public a formal channel to request state government data in writing; DCYF and DHS provide instructions and request forms and treat requests for data under Chapter 13 as the appropriate legal route for obtaining public data or permitted copies [4] [8]. DHS and other agencies’ guidance on responding to data requests make clear agencies can charge for copies and that some program data are public while other data are private or protected; any request for participant‑level race and age must navigate those statutory privacy limits [9] [10] [7]. The GDPA pathway is the practical mechanism to ask DHS for row‑level data or for copies of the OCR‑collected county submissions, with DHS’s public pages and DCYF forms explaining how to make that request [4] [8].
4. Program reporting systems as the source of line‑level data
Operational reporting systems—mental health information systems, HCBS provider reporting, and other program feeds—are cited by DHS as the channels programs use to report data (for example MHIS reporting and the HCBS labor market survey), and those systems are where age and race fields are typically captured for billing and case management; they therefore represent the source records that could answer a line‑level GDPA request if disclosure rules permit [11] [6]. Public documentation and DHS guidance identify these systems as internal reporting mechanisms but do not assert that raw participant files are routinely published; access would therefore require a formal data request and an agency review under Minnesota statutes [11] [6].
5. Limits, agendas, and a pragmatic path forward
DHS materials signal two competing imperatives: compliance with federal OCR civil‑rights data demands (which incentivized broad county reporting) and statutory obligations to protect private client data under Minnesota law (which limit routine public release) [1] [2] [9]. For a researcher seeking participant‑level race and age breakdowns beyond published summaries, the pragmatic path is to: identify the exact program/system (e.g., LTSS, MHIS, county child protection) via DHS dashboards [5] [6], then submit a formal GDPA request to DHS or DCYF asking for either de‑identified line‑level data or the OCR county submissions and be prepared for statutory privacy redactions or negotiation over de‑identification and fees [4] [8] [7]. The public sources do not list any DHS dashboard that openly distributes participant‑identifiable race and age line files, so obtaining them depends on formal data‑request routes or special disclosures tied to OCR compliance—each subject to privacy law reviews [3] [1] [2].