RESPONDING TO REMEDIATION AND GATEKEEPING CHALLENGES IN SUPERVISION Candyce S. Russell and W. Jared DuPree Kansas State University Mary A. Beggs Denver, Colorado Colleen M. Peterson University of Nevada, Las Vegas Michael P. Anderson Kansas State University Thirty faculty in randomly selected Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Fam- ily Therapy Education (COAMFTE) programs representing four geographical regions of the United States were asked to respond to a survey that included seven brief vignettes depicting gatekeeping and remediation challenges supervisors may face when working with therapists-in-training. Research participants were asked to select from among a range of 17 response options and were also asked to provide a rationale for the selection of their responses. The response rate for the mailed survey was 34%. Telephone interviews were conducted with three respondents who had provided especially detailed responses to the open-ended portions of the mailed survey and who also volunteered to be questioned regarding how supervision decisions are made. Results support the conclusion that COAMFTE faculty take their gatekeeping function seriously as they balance commit- ments to multiple stakeholders. When presented with hypothetical ‘‘bare-bones’’ vignettes, the supervisors in our study consistently recommended talking with the student in order to more fully understand the context of the student’s performance problem before deciding how to proceed. Supervisors recommended a variety of remediation efforts, but reserved the most severe consequences, such as probation, dismissal, and filing an ethics complaint, for the vignette involving dishonesty and lack of personal integrity. Supervisors in marriage and family therapy programs are faced with balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders, including clients, student therapists, the training program, the profession, and the public at large. In addition to assessing academic performance, supervisors must assess students’ personal characteristics as they relate to professional practice, allegiance to ethical standards, and clinical skills (Brady, Guy, & Norcross, 1995; Lumadue & Duffey, 1999). Super- visors must assess how much oversight each student therapist needs, must recognize failure to meet program standards, and once identified, must decide how to address deficits. The options for responding can be placed on a continuum running from mild, such as having a conversation with the supervisee, to severe, such as filing an ethics report or dismissal from the training pro- gram. The research reported here provides insight into the process underlying the decisions Candyce S. Russell, PhD, and W. Jared DuPree L, MS, School of Family Studies and Human Services, Kansas State University; Mary A. Beggs PhD, Private Practice, Denver, Colorado; Colleen M. Peterson, PhD, Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Michael P. Anderson MS, Kansas State University. This research was supported by the Vera Mowery McAninch Professorship. Address correspondence to Candyce S. Russell, PhD, School of Family Studies and Human Services, 214 Campus Creek Complex, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66505; E-mail: Russell@humec.ksu.edu Journal of Marital and Family Therapy April 2007, Vol. 33, No. 2, 227–244 April 2007 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 227