Minnesota counties vary widely in how they approach the removal of endangered children from their homes, with stark disparities in the involvement of local law enforcement agencies and access to services designed to keep families together, according to a legislative auditor report released Friday.
The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA), an independent, nonpartisan arm of the Legislature, found that some county child protection agencies provided extensive services before seeking to remove a child — a traumatizing experience for both the child and parents. In other agencies, preventive services were limited; or the child was removed before services were offered to the family.
Federal law has long required states to make "reasonable efforts" to assist families to avoid placement of a child in foster care. However, neither the Minnesota Department of Human Services or the state court system systematically tracks what prevention services have been provided to families before a removal, the legislative auditor found.
"The report clearly identifies key considerations and recommendations that could lead to greater efficiency and equity in the process of child removals and support efforts to reunite more children with their families, all of which aligns with DHS' goal of improving the child protection system in Minnesota," said Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead in a written statement.
The 62-page report arose from longstanding concerns about equity in Minnesota's child welfare system, and the legislative auditor's office repeatedly stressed the high-stakes nature of removal decisions, referring to them as "among the most intrusive ways in which the government can intervene in family life."
The auditor found that most child protection removals in Minnesota begin through 72-hour emergency holds by local law enforcement agencies when a child is determined to be in danger. But the use of these holds varies widely across jurisdictions. In some counties, more than 80% of out-of-home placements began with a law enforcement hold. In others, fewer than 40% did. Often, these removals occur rapidly and before social workers begin providing services in the home.
There were also wide variations in what happens to children after they are removed by local law enforcement. In some counties, such as Beltrami in northern Minnesota, more than 90% of emergency holds lead to court orders keeping the child in foster care or other out-of-home placement. But in other counties, over one-third of law enforcement holds end without such court orders and the county no longer has custody of the child, the report found.
At the same time, the legislative auditor found that vital information, such as which law enforcement agencies are using emergency holds, is not tracked at the state level. There is also no statewide requirement for continuous training of police and other law enforcement officials on child protection issues, even though these officers account for most child removals.