An Act to create 20.435 (5) (bx) and 46.537 of the statutes; Relating to: sharing minorsâ safety plans. (FE)
SB108 creates a new state framework for sharing “safety plans” for minors in crisis. It directs the Department of Health Services to develop and maintain a statewide portal, or contract with a nonprofit that supports Wisconsin’s electronic health information exchange, to let authorized “safety plan partners” create, store, access, and update a minor’s safety plan. The bill also requires DHS to develop a standard safety plan template and authorizes one full-time DHS position to support the portal.
The bill defines a safety plan as a written document created in advance of a crisis to guide how to help a minor experiencing a behavioral or developmental health challenge. A plan may include contact information, warning signs, de-escalation strategies, and instructions for law enforcement or emergency responders. Plans expire after one year unless renewed, and sharing is allowed only when the minor signs a release of information acknowledging how the plan will be used, who may access it, and that it may be revoked outside of a crisis.
The bill adds new statutory section 46.537 and a related appropriation line in 20.435(5)(bx), creating a statewide infrastructure for minors’ crisis-planning information. It affects DHS, schools, law enforcement, emergency medical services, county human services and social services agencies, tribal agencies, 911 dispatchers, and 988 crisis centers by allowing them to form formal networks and access shared safety plans under specified confidentiality and use restrictions. It also imposes portal-design requirements, data security and audit logging standards, and a one-year expiration rule for plans, while limiting disclosure to specified parties and purposes.
Overall, the bill appears to have had generally favorable support, as it passed both chambers despite some opposition. The Senate passed the bill 18-14 after rejecting a substitute amendment and another amendment, and the Assembly tabled substitute and floor amendments by 52-44, suggesting the measure moved forward with partisan division but enough support to advance. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed public testimony, but the voting pattern indicates the bill was supported by a majority while drawing meaningful resistance.
The main points of contention appear to have centered on the bill’s structure for sharing sensitive minors’ mental and developmental health information, including who may access the portal, how broadly safety plans can be shared across networks, and whether the state should create and fund this system. The rejected amendments in both chambers suggest disagreements over the bill’s final form, likely involving privacy, confidentiality, implementation details, and the scope of participation by law enforcement, schools, and crisis-response entities. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a coordinated crisis-response tool, while opponents were likely concerned about data sharing, consent, and the role of government and public-safety agencies in minors’ behavioral health planning.