Research & Evaluation
Protective Supervision: An Exploratory Study - Strengthening the Capacity to Respond to Children in High-Risk Families
Title IV-E Curriculum Module
Project Results Summary
The key overarching finding is that there is no common understanding of the concept, definition, or uses of Protective Supervision among the respondents throughout the state, either in the child protection or in the judicial systems. Although the continuum of responses to maltreatment was a widely accepted framework, the position of Protective Supervision as a centrist option between Family Assessment and removal of children from home was not clearly grasped. Three factors appear to explain the wide-ranging responses to Protective Supervision:
- The relationship between child protection and the court system
- A local culture of resistance to any intervention or involvement from child protection or the court unless the child is in imminent danger
- The perception of the availability or unavailability of resources to provide oversight and close supervision
The following highlights come from the observations of those counties who were familiar with Protective Supervision and used it in practice (estimated at 30-50 percent).
- Circumstances for Protective Supervision: The following are the most commonly reported circumstances.
Reunification: Respondents from both the child welfare and judicial systems reported that reunification after an out-of-home placement is the most common circumstance for Protective Supervision. Several respondents noted that high re-entry rates are often related to child behavior problems rather than parental issues. In order to stabilize the reunification process in these instances, Protective Supervision is regarded as the least restrictive means for these children to be maintained at home. Since the reunification period is, generally, one of stress and uncertainty as relationships are re-established, the necessity of supportive services is recognized. Illustratively, among the supportive services for the children and family, respite care and brief stays in therapeutic environments are often required to relieve stress. Protective Supervision is a pathway to such services.
Substance Abuse: Time needed for substance abuse detoxification, treatment and rehabilitation with mental health services is often inconsistent with the brevity required in a permanency framework. Protective Supervision, which is not time limited in statute, is often used in these cases to “buy time” and “keep parents in line with treatment.” Reports to the court on the capacity of parents to improve, to stabilize the household and to contribute to the safety and well-being of the children usually extend the time allowed before Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) is considered.
Compliance with Case Plans: Counties reported differing perspectives on the use of Protective Supervision when parental compliance with a case plan is incomplete or marginal. Some counties report using Protective Supervision extensively when parents were “uncooperative,” whereas others reported that Protective Supervision is a tool only when parents demonstrate stability and cooperation. The use of compliance to measure the ability of a parent to safely maintain their children at home attracted mixed reviews. As some respondents pointed out, compliance with case plans (attendance at parenting classes, sobriety, using basic services responsibly) may not be related to improvements in parenting. Non-compliance may have several interpretations. In rural counties, transportation and long waiting lists for chemical dependency treatment were often cited as genuine factors in non-compliance.
Educational Neglect: Respondents reported differing observations regarding the use of Protective Supervision in cases of educational neglect. Some reported frequent use, especially in the case of younger children, whereas others reported that in a county that is overburdened and understaffed, educational neglect is given a very low priority in a maltreatment caseload of serious neglect and abuse.
Single Incident: Respondents reported using Protective Supervision with single incidents, such as when the maltreatment of a child is due to the mother’s partner, and the perpetrator is no longer in the picture. This often occurs in situations of sexual abuse or domestic violence when the perpetrator has left the family after the abuse was reported.
- Role of Protective Supervision in Reducing Out-of-Home Care and Re-entry: Some respondents suggested that Protective Supervision can be considered when the parents demonstrate a tangible interest in caring for the safety and well-being of their children, even when compliance with the case plan is partial. In these situations, representatives in the child welfare and judicial systems who are familiar with Protective Supervision (because it brings support services and a monitoring presence) note that it is an important family preservation strategy that can prevent out-of-home placement and re-entry into foster care.
- Issues in Closing a Case: The length of time Protective Supervision is ordered varies. While Protective Supervision, in statute, does not have a timeline, court rules require a court hearing every 6 months (Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure 41.06, Subd. 2 (b)). More commonly, many respondents said the court holds review hearings after 90 days. Responses were mixed on keeping a case open for extended periods. While there was agreement that a case by case decision should be made, many respondents from both child protection and the judicial systems emphasized the civil rights argument that families should not be under surveillance without clearly understood limits.
- The Rural Factor: Rural county child welfare supervisors and front line workers reported several themes that can affect their capacity to respond to Protective Supervision requirements. Most persistently observed was a lack of available services. For rural counties the following gaps in services were noted: an absence of a therapeutic base, which affects their ability to provide bilingual therapy, children’s mental health and psychiatric care, grief counseling, nontraditional therapies, and treatment for chemical dependency relapse; a lack of transportation and child care; difficulty recruiting foster care providers and personal care attendants; and a lack of choice in providers.
Recommendations
Protective Supervision provides important opportunities for strengthening the child welfare system in these ways:
- responds to the “least restrictive” mandate
- encourages active relationships with schools, community agencies, and the judicial system
- creates an option for delinquent children committing first offenses
- provides a foundation for training across disciplines
To that end, the following recommendations are offered:
- Create visibility for Protective Supervision as an option in a
continuum of responses to determined maltreatment reports:
- Appoint a task force representing child protection and the judicial system to develop guidance for best practices in Protective Supervision.
- Develop standards that are suggested but not mandated.
- Support documentation of Protective Supervision in SSIS through core training and SSIS mentor meetings.
- Review cases in Protective Supervision in county reviews (CFSR).
- Strengthen relationships between child protection and the judicial
system.
- Suggest items for CJI agendas.
- Conduct joint training for the child protection system and the judicial system about what is possible and appropriate in seeking and ordering Protective Supervision.
- Strengthen the uses of case conferences that include child protection, county attorneys, GALs, and Public Defenders
- Improve practice by developing content for workshops and training on assessment.
A copy of the full report is posted here on the CASCW web site.