Bibliokc

May 2003
Kinship Care
R2P compiles, on an ongoing basis, annotated bibliographies on various child welfare topics and related fields. The bibliographies are as inclusive and detailed as possible. Most entries include the following sections: The Study: describes the project or program, location, number served, and purpose of the program. The Methods: details how the study was conducted, who was involved, what instruments were used, and the rates of and reasons for attrition. The Findings: lists outcomes of the study and possible implications for the field. R2P Evaluation: helps the reader to evaluate the usefulness of the full publication. This section highlights, for instance, readability, the significance for practice, and the applicability of the results. Not every article, book, or other publication in the annotated bibliography fits the above format. Some publications are not research driven but are nonetheless useful to the field. These entries may have only two sections: The Study and R2P Evaluation.
Altshuler, S. J. (1999). The well-being of children in kinship foster care. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 117145). Washington, DC: CWLA Press. Little research exists on the well-being of children in kinship care. This article explored the topic through qualitative and quantitative research.
The Study For two reasons, researchers have paid little attention to kinship care childrens wellbeing: o They assume that children are less traumatized when placed with relatives. o They pay more attention to the growing caseloads of kin placements. Some are concerned that the advantages of living with kin may be offset by issues of caregiver poverty, caregiver age, and lack of services. Some research, according to the literature review, indicates that children in kinship care function at higher levels than children in foster care, but function at lower levels than the general population. The Methods The study explored similarities, if any, in the well-being of children in foster care versus kinship care. The authors used qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative study used a secondary analysis of caseworker interviews about a randomly selected group of children in kinship care (final sample of children = 62). The qualitative study used open-ended questions with 6 of the 62 children. Caseworkers picked these children for their ability to talk about their experiences. The Findings Quantitative findings included: o A positive significant relationship between child well-being and a mothers being unmarried and not having housing problems, and o An inverse significant relationship between child well-being and a caregivers having identified problems and poor ability to provide care. Qualitative findings included: o Children being sad at leaving parents but knowing it was the right thing to happen, and o Children enjoying the stability and discipline of their kin and being excited about the future. The research had some flaws in it, including insensitive measurements, (in relation to childs health status and behavioral/emotional functioning) lack of statistical power, sampling, and design. R2P Evaluation This article offered original research on child well-being in kinship care situations. The results seemed to indicate that children did adjust well and began to excel in their new surroundings in kinship care, however, the sample was small.
Kinship Care Page 2 Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America
Baker, D. R. (1995, Fall). Kinship care and permanency planning. Childrens Legal Rights Journal, 32-34. This study explained the legal status of children in kinship care and proposed new legal options for children in kinship care, including parental care with kin supports, temporary kinship care, kinship guardianship, and kinship adoption.
The Study The goal of relative placement is to reduce trauma at being removed from home by placing the child with someone with whom he or she already has positive connections. Children in kinship placements tend to stay in out-of-home placement for years, with few efforts to achieve permanence. Caseworkers had a lower level of expectation in kinship foster care, causing them to ignore long-term planning responsibilities. The authors identified seven legal routes for placing a child with a relative: o The agency could enter into an agreement with the birthparents to drop an abuse or neglect petition if they placed the child with a relative. o A child could be released to or placed in the custody of relatives after a finding of abuse or neglect. o The court could grant the child welfare agency legal custody of the child and order the agency to place the child with relatives. o Relatives may be certified as foster parents and receive foster care payments, medical benefits, and services. o Relatives may file their own action for the child. o Relatives may be granted guardianship of the child through the agreement of the birthparents or through court action. o Relatives may adopt the child. Proposed legal solutions include: o Parental Care with Kin Supports. The child would remain with the birthparents and the public agency would work toward preventing placement by facilitating kinship support. o Temporary Kinship Care. The agency or court could determine that it is in the best interests of a child who has been abused, neglected, or voluntarily placed to be in the care of a relative. o Kinship Guardianship. The court that has jurisdiction over the child abuse or neglect action or approved voluntary placement would have authority to transfer guardianship to a relative who is caring for the child. o Kinship Adoption. The court would have the right to terminate parental rights and approve the childs adoption by a relative. R2P Evaluation This article provided an outline of the possible legal routes for placing a child with a relative and the confusion that these routes can cause. It also proposed four legal options for kinship placements.
Beeman, S., & Boisen, L. (1999). Child welfare professionals attitudes towards kinship foster care. Child Welfare, 78, 315-337. This article reported on child welfare workers perceptions of kinship caregivers. The authors conducted a survey of workers in different settings.
The Study In a Minnesota study, the authors found a gap in kinship research on attitudes of child welfare professionals toward kinship placement as an accepted placement option. The Methods The study explored the basic perceptions of child welfare professionals, as well as the perceptions of workers by ethnicity. In summer 1995, the authors mailed surveys to child welfare professionals in three counties in Minnesota: one rural, one urban, and one metropolitan. The authors distributed 381 surveys, and the respondents returned 261. A review of the sample found few demographic differences among the respondents that would potentially skew the results. This survey defined kinship care as a formal placement by the agency. The Findings Most child welfare professionals believe that kin are motivated to care for related children because of familial obligations, not because of money. Most workers feel that kin caregivers do not want to adopt the child out of concern for family tensions. Workers were mixed on their perceptions of working with kin families. More workers of color thought kin families were easy to work with than white workers. Workers felt that child welfare agencies should have special programming for kin caregivers. R2P Evaluation This article introduced the reader to a newer area of kinship research. The results seemed to indicate that child welfare workers believe kinship caregivers are genuinely concerned for the children for which they care, however, the findings were somewhat limited because the study was conducted in one state. This research calls for replication in other areas of the country.
Kinship Care
Page 4
Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America
Benedict, M. I., Zuravin, S., & Stallings, R. Y. (1996). Adult functioning of children who lived in kin versus non-relative family foster homes. Child Welfare, 75, 529-549. This study explored the associations between the type of placement and selected outcomes in adulthood.
The Study The authors conducted interviews with 214 children formerly in care (40% in kinship care) who reported on levels of their current functioning, including education, employment, physical and mental health, stresses and supports, and risk-taking behaviors. The Methods This article covered the second phase of a two-phase study of children who lived in family foster homes in Baltimore between 1984 and 1988. The authors interviewed participants who were 18 years old or older, out of care, and able to be interviewed. From the first phase of this project, 214 subjects were relocated (69%) and interviewed. To be considered a kinship placement, more than 50% of the childs stay in formal out-of-home care had to be with relatives. The Findings Agencies placed 38% of the sample before the age of 5, and 78% had lived with more than one caregiver before the first out-of-home placement. The average length of stay was 12 years, with no difference between kin and nonkin. Children placed with kin were more likely to enter out-of-home care because of maltreatment, more children in kinship care remained in their first placement, and they were less likely to have developmental and behavioral problems when compared with children placed in nonkin settings. The authors found no significant difference between kin and nonkin in terms of education, employment, income, housing, physical health, mental and emotional health, life stresses, and social supports. Although records indicate significant differences while in care, very few significant differences existed between groups in the adult outcomes studied. R2P Evaluation This study focused on the adult functioning of children who were raised in kin and nonkin care. The research found that there were few differences in adult functioning based on placement type during childhood.
Kinship Care
Page 5
Berrick, J. D. (1996) Assessing quality of care in kinship and foster family care. Available from http://hav54.socwel.berkeley.edu/cssr/pub/BASSCexec/ qtykncar.htm. As more children need out-of-home care and fewer foster families become available, child welfare agencies are starting to appreciate kin providers. Agencies, courts, and, especially, kin, however, are not prepared for this new direction in child welfare.
The Study This study examined the quality of kinship care providers and foster family providers. The Methods The author interviewed 29 kinship care providers and 33 foster family providers in California. The Findings Kinship providers believed that children in their care were less traumatized than those in nonkin foster homes. Overall, the age of kin and foster providers was relatively young, despite the fact that many kin providers were grandmothers. Generally, kinship care homes were in poorer neighborhoods. Children in kinship homes were usually surrounded by a group of caring adults on whom they could rely. Despite prerequisite training for foster providers, kin felt equally prepared to be a foster parent for a relative child. Disciplinary practices were similar for kin providers and foster providers. The author outlined guidelines that agencies should adopt in working with kinship homes: o Listen to childs and birthmothers feelings about the potential kinship provider, and vice versa. o Assess maturity of the potential kinship provider and adequacy of home environment. o Encourage foster parent training for kin providers. R2P Evaluation This short research article provided good recommendations for agencies. It offered no statistical reporting to back its conclusions, however, so readers must interpret findings cautiously.
Kinship Care
Page 6
Berrick, J. D. (1998). When children cannot remain home: Foster family care and kinship care. Future of Children: Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect, 8(1), 72-87. This article discussed factors that contributed to the rapid growth in kinship foster care and the differences between kin and traditional foster care.
The Study This article reviewed research on how effective kin placements addressed three major goals of the child welfare system: providing protection for children, support for families, and permanent homes. The Findings Contributing factors to the growth of kinship foster care include the shrinking supply of foster homes and increases in single-parent households, women employed outside the home, divorce rates, and costs of child rearing. There was an increase in the number of children needing placement outside the home. The author found a trend toward more family-centered, community-based services to families and more added value if a child is placed within his or her family. The study considered long-term foster care with kin a permanent home. Kinship foster parents received less support, fewer services, and less contact from social workers, even though kin were generally older, were less financially stable, were more likely to be single parents, and had less education than traditional foster parents. Nonkin foster parents were twice as likely as licensed kinship foster parents to have confirmed reports of maltreatment. Kinship foster parents were less likely to have materials or skills that would assist them in an emergency. Foster parents showed greater knowledge of both child development and appropriate expectations for young children. Children in kinship care were more likely to report that they were happy and always felt loved than children in foster care. Kinship care can provide continuity, lessen the trauma of separation, preserve family ties, and offer growth and development within the context of a childs culture and community. Children in kinship foster care had more stable placement histories, and when they did move, they usually went to another caregiver. Reunification occurred more slowly for children in kinship foster care within the first two years, but after six years, rates were similar to those of children in foster care. Rates of adoption for children in kinship foster care were lower than children in traditional foster care. R2P Evaluation This article provided a good comparison between kinship foster care and traditional foster care.
Berrick, J. D., & Barth, R. P. (1994). Research on kinship foster care: What do we know? Where do we go from here? Children and Youth Services Review, 16(12), 1-5. This article was an introduction to a special issue on kinship care. The authors reviewed literature on kinship care and suggested that further research is needed on the permanency outcomes of children in kinship care, the appropriateness of guardianship and adoption for kin, and the services and supports needed to promote permanency for children.
The Study The Supreme Court case Miller v. Youakim determined that kin could not be excluded from the definition of foster parents and that under certain conditions, kin parents might be eligible for foster care benefits. Research in kinship care has not kept pace with its development as a placement alternative. The article reviewed research in the following areas: o the policies and procedures regarding kinship care; o the demographic characteristics of kinship caregivers, the services they receive, the type of children in kinship care, and questions regarding visitation; o the differences between kinship foster parents and traditional foster parents; o the physical and mental health, behavioral, and educational status of children placed in kinship care; o adolescent kinship care; and o kinship adoption. Directions for future research: o better understanding of the long-term outcomes of children in kinship foster care and how services influence them, o information about how emancipation for children from foster care differs for kin and nonkin, and o information about the appropriateness of guardianship and adoption for kin and the services and supports necessary to promote these permanent homes. R2P Evaluation This article provided a comprehensive, but dated, review of the existing kinship research.
Kinship Care
Page 8
Berrick, J. D., Barth, R. P., & Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation. Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1-2), 33-63. The authors conducted this study to assist the policy discussion with much needed information about kinship care as it compares with foster care.
The Study This study examined similarities and differences between kin caregivers and nonrelative caregivers in California in the following areas: demographic characteristics, services received by both children in care and caregivers, and visitation with birthparents. The sample was drawn from University of California, Berkley, foster care database. The Methods The researchers drew a random sample of 8,748 children from the database and selected a 50% random sample (4,234), and a 50% nonrandom sample, with half of these children chosen from foster homes and half from kinship foster homes. The authors mailed a survey with demographic questions, and participants returned 1,178 (28%) of them. The authors conducted a second survey, and the final sample size of respondents completing both surveys included 246 kin providers and 354 foster care providers. The surveys contained questions about demographic information, social worker quality scales, the physical and mental health of children in their care, the special needs of children in their care, and behavior problems of children in their care. The Findings Of kinship caregivers, 52% were single parents, compared with 24% of foster parents. Many kinship caregivers did not graduate from high school, were not in good health, and had a lower annual gross income. African Americans were the largest group of kinship foster parents, whereas the majority of foster parents were white. Children in kinship care were more often African American, lived in kinship homes longer than those in foster homes, and had fewer behavior problems. Fifty-seven percent of children in kinship care and 31% of foster children had been living with their birthparents immediately prior to placement. Eighty-one percent of kinship foster parents, compared with 58% of foster parents, had some contact with the birthparents. Services were more likely to be offered to foster parents than kinship caregivers. Kinship parents were more likely than foster parents to think that their child would remain in foster care until emancipation. R2P Evaluation Further research is needed to explain the slower reunification rates in kinship care compared with foster care.
Berrick, J. D., Needell, B., & Barth, R. (1995, December). Kinship care in California: An empirically-based curriculum, Executive summary. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Child Welfare Research Center. This article described the origins of a teaching curriculum on kinship care. It offered information on policy, practice, and outcomes.
The Study The authors based the curriculum on research conducted in California with the aid of ten California counties. The Methods There were four steps to the research: o The authors analyzed administrative data on all foster care children in California. o They collected data from focus groups with child welfare workers. o They administered a survey to a sample of child welfare workers in ten California counties. o They conducted a literature review on kinship care. The Findings Foster care caseloads were gradually increasing in California. More African American children entered out-of-home care than other children. Slightly less than half of all children in care lived with a relative. More African American children were in kinship care than any other ethnic group, followed closely by Hispanic children, who had high rates of kinship care as well. Infants and children older than six were more likely to be placed with kin. They were placed with kin about 40% of the time. After four years, 38% of kinship care children and 25% of foster care children were still in care. Guardianship was a more likely outcome for kinship care children between one and five years of age. After one year, reunification rates for kinship care and foster care were about the same. Kinship placement stability hinged on attitudes of the kin provider toward the child. The authors used all of the findings to shape the curriculum. R2P Evaluation The article contained helpful appendices on hard-to-place youth and psychologically disrupted placements, kinship literature, and subsidized guardianship.
Kinship Care
Page 10
Billing, A., Ehrle, J., & Kortenkamp, K. (2002). Children cared for by relatives: What do we know about their well-being? New Federalism: National Survey of Americas Families, B-46. The findings in this article were based on data obtained from the 1997 and 1999 rounds of the National Survey of Americas Families (NSAF). NSAF is a national survey of households with people younger than 65.
The Study This article used two types of comparisons: children living with kin compared with children living with their parents, and children in low-income (below 200% of the federal poverty level) relative- and parent-care households. The Findings Behavioral and emotional well-being: o Children ages 617 in relative care showed higher levels of behavioral and emotional problems than children living with their parents (13% vs. 7%, p<.01). o Of children ages 12 through 17 in relative care, 26% were suspended from school, compared with 13% of children living with parents (p<.01). School and activity experiences: o Of children ages 617 living in relative care, 29% exhibited low school engagement, compared with 20% of children living with parents (p<.01). o Twenty-six percent of children living with relatives were not involved in any activities as compared to 17% of children living with parents (p<.01). Interactions with adults: o Twenty-six percent of children in relative care and 16% of children in parent care lived with a caregiver reporting poor mental health (p<.01). o When comparing children in low-income relative and parent care, 33% of children in relative care and 25% of children in parent care lived with a caregiver reporting symptoms of poor mental health (p<.01). o Of children living in relative care, 21% had caregivers who reported high levels of aggravation, compared with 9% of children living in parent care (p>.01). o Of children living in relative care, 14% had a limiting condition, compared with only 8% of children in parent care (p<.01). o Of children in relative care, 7% were in fair or poor physical health, compared with 4% of children in parent care (p<.01). R2P Evaluation Children living with relatives tended to fare worse than children living with their parents on most NSAF measures. Children living with relatives, however, had experienced a separation from their parents and were more likely to be living in poverty.
Kinship Care
Page 11
Bonecutter, F. J. (1999). Defining best practice in kinship care through research and demonstration. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 3761). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. The U.S. Childrens Bureau funded three projects to examine and improve permanency outcomes for children in kinship care. This article reviewed the Illinois project, Achieving Permanency for Children in Kinship Foster Care, one study site.
The Study This study developed and tested a practice model designed to improve the permanency outcomes for children in kinship care. The authors used a research approach to understand current practices in kinship care, develop a definition of principles and methods for best practices in kinship care, provide training for caseworkers on the use of best practices, test and monitor the implementation of principles and methods, and refine the practice model. The Methods Phase One: Define current practices, identify barriers to achieving permanency, and identify practice principles and methods. Phase Two: Practice principles and methods in a training manual. Phase Three: Analyze data from Phase Two. The author used the analysis to determine if the demonstration and control groups differed. The Findings Phase One: Characteristics of caregivers: 70% widowed, divorced, or never married female; 96% African American; 80% related to childs birthmother; 61% childs grandparent. Phase One: Characteristics of children: the children had a median age of 7 years; 82% were neglected by birthmother or birthfather; 47% female, 53% male. Short-term permanency goals included return home, 26%; adoption, 12%; long-term kinship foster care, 58%; and independent living, 4%. Future permanency goals included return home, 10%; adoption, 35%; long-term kinship foster care, 47%; independent living, 7%; and nonrelative substitute care, 1%. Phase Two: Four major areas of practice principles and methods: taking a broader view of family, striving for cultural competence, collaborating in decisionmaking, and building case management capacities of kinship networks to support permanence. Phase Three: Field test of 267 children found no difference between demonstration and control groups regarding the percentage of cases in which permanency goals were achieved through adoption, transfer of legal guardianship, or reunification. R2P Evaluation Staff turnover caused implementation problems. Principals and methods proposed by this project were essential to kinship care, and reinforcement by caseworkers was necessary.
Brooks, D. (1999). Kinship care and substance-exposed children. Source, 9(1), 1+. This article explored long-term outcomes for substance-exposed children. The author concluded that the childrens caregiving environment largely influenced their development and well-being.
The Study The rise in kinship care is due to several factors, including fewer available foster homes and a growing emphasis on family continuity. Over the years, child welfare workers encouraged extended families to take in relative children to quickly resolve child protection cases with the least amount of trauma to the child. Kinship care was mostly unregulated, and it continues to grow in use. Some people have been pushing to make kinship care more formalized. Children remain in kinship care longer but when they do experience reunification, they are less likely to reenter out-of-home care. More African American and Hispanic children are in kinship care in California than their white counterparts. Does kinship care or foster care placement positively affect outcomes for substanceexposed children? The Methods The author studied 600 caregivers in a variety of settings and relationships to child. The Findings Kinship caregivers are more optimistic about the childs future. Substance-exposed children tend to have more problem behavior. Children not placed at birth exhibit more problem behavior regardless of placement type or substance-exposure status. Substance-exposed children living with kin are less likely to receive needed services. Kin placements are more effective for non-substance-exposed children. R2P Evaluation This article introduced research on substance-exposed children and placement. The research seemed to indicate that children with substance exposure may do better in foster care than kinship care. Reasons for this include access to services and better funding for foster caregivers. The research identified the need for expanded services for kin caregivers.
Kinship Care
Page 13
Burnette, D. (1998). Grandparents rearing grandchildren: A school-based small group intervention. Research on Social Work Practice, 8(1), 10-27. The goal of this study was to design a group intervention in a normative community setting to provide information and socialization that would, in turn, increase group members well-being, problem-solving skills, social supports, and knowledge of resources and services.
The Study This study was a structured, time-limited, small group intervention based on principles of psychoeducation and mutual aid. The Methods Participants included ten African American grandmothers and one Latino grandfather. The average age was 56.5, more than 25% were married, 36% were widowed, 75% reported doing ok financially, and 66% reported excellent or good health. Members averaged three grandchildren in their care, and 33% of the children had special needs. Reasons for placement included substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, incarceration, or death of birthparents. Group intervention included a brief discussion of the previous weeks topics and introduction of the current topic. The remainder of time was devoted to support processes. Topics included social supports, stress and coping, interpersonal family issues, parenting a new generation of children, legal and social services, and communitybased initiatives. Outcome measures included the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), Ways of CopingRevised (WCR), the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Short), and the Social Support Behaviors Scale. The Findings According to GHQ scores, group members were doing quite well. The only significant change was improvement in scores on severe depression. According to WCR scores, group members showed a reduction in the use of distancing as a coping strategy, and an increase in the use of planned problem solving. Group members reported fairly reliable social supports. Group members were knowledgeable about how to access child-related services and showed an increase in their knowledge about services for grandparents needs. R2P Evaluation The lack of control group threatened internal validity of findings, and because of the small sample size (n =11), the author could not generalize results. The study, however, provided a good start for further research in the area and provided a framework for developing long-term support networks for grandparents caring for grandchildren.
Burnette, D. (1999). Custodial grandparents in Latino families: Patterns of service use and predictors of unmet needs. Social Work, 44(1), 22-34. This article reported results from a study of Latino grandparent caregivers. The study examined service use and predictors of unmet needs.
The Study Most studies concentrate on African American or white kinship caregivers. The authors theorized that within Hispanic populations in larger cities, kinship care rates would be very comparable to African American kinship care rates. Preliminary research showed that in parts of New York City, Latino and African American kinship care rates were nearly identical. Studies have shown that children in kinship care have the same needs as children in foster care, but they are much less likely to receive services because many kinship care arrangements are informal or are not a high priority for caseworkers. The Methods The sample consisted of 74 middle-aged or older New York City Latinos who were the primary caregivers of grandchildren or great-grandchildren. The researcher conducted interviews in Spanish and subjected the questions to a battery of cultural tests before use. The dependant variable was unmet needs, and the independent variables were economic status, poverty status, health status, life stressors, informal supports, and language acculturation. The Findings Most kinship caregivers were poor and spoke little English, despite the fact that the average length of time in the United States was 35 years. On average, each kinship caregiver was raising two young children. Caregivers used financial support for basic needs more often than other services. The average kinship caregiver used six services, yet 85% reported having an unmet need. Grandparents who reported greater life stressors were 77% more likely to identify unmet needs. R2P Evaluation This article was one of very few on Latino kinship caregiving. The discussion section offered valuable information and recommendations based on the study results.
Kinship Care
Page 15
Burnette, D. (1999). Social relationships of Latino grandparent caregivers: A role theory perspective. Gerontologist, 39, 49-58. This article examined the social relationships of older Latino kinship caregivers in New York City. Many had social connections, but others lacked reliable help with childrearing.
The Study More grandparents are raising grandchildren, partly due to a rise in substance abuse, AIDS, teen pregnancy, child abuse and neglect, and incarceration of women of childbearing age. The authors examined the social networks, social supports, and social integration of 74 Latinos raising grandchildren in New York City in the mid-1990s. Literature on kinship care identifies five types of problematic situations for grandparent kinship caregivers: o Difficulty defining their current role, o Difficulty choosing their role, o Lack of consensus on roles, o Role conflict and incompatibility, and o Role overload, due to lack of resources and time. The Methods The sample consisted of 74 Latino grandparents older than age 50 who were caring for at least one grandchild younger than 18. Specially trained bilingual staff conducted interviews. The study assessed 12 measures on various aspects of grandparents life and their perceptions on raising their grandchildren. The Findings The sample was predominately older women with low education levels and low family income. Grandparents struggled to provide for their grandchildren and sacrificed their goals of returning to their native lands to live out their lives. Although these were typically large families, grandparents were often left with few familial resources. Many parents were either unwilling or unable to contribute to childrearing. The research indicated the many grandparents had a confidant to share concerns with but overall had unmet needs in dealing with their role as kinship caregiver. R2P Evaluation This article provided information on social supports for grandparent caregivers. The authors concluded the study with a call for more research on the subject of social relationships for grandparent caregivers.
Kinship Care
Page 16
Burton, L. M. ( 1996). Age norms, the timing of family role transitions, and intergenerational caregiving among aging African American women. Gerontologist, 36,199-208. This article examined caregiver roles in families with normal and non-normative age distributions among generations. Findings indicated that caregiver roles changed depending on when life-changing events occurred in a family.
The Study The authors discussed societal norms for expected life changes depending on age. For example, parents expect to become grandparents at a certain time in their life. A societal trend for such events to feel on time exists. This article highlighted two studies on intergenerational caregiving in African American families. Some scholars have indicated that if life-changing events occur in a natural time process (i.e., becoming a grandparent at 53 as opposed to becoming a grandparent at 33), the family is less stressed. Life changes for one family member often affect other family members. Early life changes can leave a younger grandmother to perform functions as mother to her own children and as mother to her grandchild. The Methods This article reported on the findings of two studies: the southwestern study included 120 upwardly mobile African American women, and the northeastern study included 53 poorer African American women. The Findings Of women in the southwestern study who felt that their families were on time, 87% welcomed the role change to grandparent or great-grandparent. Early childbearing puts more pressure on the grandmother. Many teen mothers in the Southwestern study assumed that the grandmother would care for their child as well as older generations. In the northeastern study, respondents expected young childbearing, because grandmothers were the caregivers for their grandchildren. This was a sociological adaptation that did not overburden one family member as the sole caregiver for several generations. New mothers cared for great-grandmothers as their mothers cared for the new babies. R2P Evaluation The study had some limitations, including the sample sizes and locations. People selfselected into the study. The study had some indications that different enclaves of African American families have adapted to early childbearing and kinship care as the norm. This was not true for both studies. More research is needed to bolster the findings in this study.
Kinship Care
Page 17
Caputo, R. K. (1999). Grandmothers and coresident grandchildren. Families in Society, 80, 120-126. This article reported on findings from research on coresidential grandmothers and grandchildren. The research was from a study that spanned 1967 through 1992 and included 1,099 participants.
The Study Two factors influenced the rise in coresidential grandmothers and grandchildren households: Older people were living longer and in generally better health, and public health and welfare issues affected parents, such as substance abuse and AIDS. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act required poor teen parents to live with their custodial parents if they wished to receive federal assistance. This created a new wave of kinship caregiving issues for grandparents. The Methods The author culled two samples from the overall data set: o Women who were ever grandparent caregivers between 1967 and 1992 (n = 753), and o Women who were coresident caregivers in 1992 (n = 285). The Findings For the first sample of 753, kinship caregiving peaked in the 1980s and flattened thereafter. Each additional year of age decreased the likelihood of kinship caregiving, and having a low income decreased the odds of being a kinship caregiver by 34% for the first group. Grandmothers in the 1992 sample were more likely to be kinship caregivers. This was positively related to how many children the grandmother had given birth to. Fewer grandchildren lived in skipped-generation households when compared with three-generation households. Skipped generation was defined as no parent, just child and grandparent. The findings indicated that grandchildrens needs were being met. This is a positive finding in relation to grandparents relative poverty levels. R2P Evaluation The authors highlighted study limitations, including generalizability issues. The study was somewhat difficult to read and the findings were not clear. Some findings seem to contradict other studies in the area of grandparent caregiving.
Kinship Care
Page 18
Casper, L. M., & Bryson, K. R. (1998). Co-resident grandparents and their grandchildren: Grandparent maintained families (Population Division Working Paper No. 26). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Census. This article used data from the 1997 March Current Population Survey and from other sources to estimate how many children were being raised by grandparents, how this number had changed since 1990, and how these families were configured.
The Study The number of children residing with grandparents where neither parent is present rose in the 1990s. Some research has indicated that there are more grandparents raising grandchildren due to drug abuse, teen pregnancy, divorce, single-parent status, mental or physical illness, AIDS, child abuse and neglect, and incarceration. The Methods This research focused on five types of grandparent households: o Both grandparents, some parents; o Both grandparents, no parent; o Grandmother only, some parents; o Grandmother only; or o Grandfather only. The Findings Previous research had found that grandchildren raised by grandparents have poorer health outcomes. The same is true for the grandparents. They have disproportionately higher poverty rates, and the children are more likely to receive public assistance. Many of these studies, however, did not examine other influencing factors, such as presence of a parent. Fewer children lived with a single grandmother and no parent present than the researchers believed to be the case, although this is the living situation that is most often described. This research study found that children living with a grandmother only and no parent present fared the worst. The study found, however, that children in any other grandparent living situation did not fare much better. R2P Evaluation Despite the initial theory of introducing new findings to the field, this study bolstered the findings of several other studies. The difference was in separating the living situations for each child. The end results mirror previous work in the field, especially for indicators for children living with a single grandmother with no parent present.
Kinship Care
Page 19
Christian, S., & Davis, J. (2000). Helping kin care for kids. State Legislatures, 26(10), 20-23. This article highlighted state legislators recognition of kinship care as a viable and positive option for children in out-of-home care.
The Study Many kinship care families receive child-only welfare payments. Studies have shown that kinship caregivers are often older and poorer, and they need a welfare supplement for the child. Most kinship caregivers receive smaller payments than licensed foster caregivers. A program in San Francisco called Edgewood Center for Children & Families aids kinship caregivers with funds for everyday needs, a support system for the caregiver, and a healthy environment for the children to meet, play, and learn. Denver has a newer program called the Grandparents and Kinship Program. This is a Department of Human Services program that gives grandparent caregivers extra financial support and counseling for caregivers and children. State legislatures are starting to realize the benefits of kinship care for some children. States are giving more funding for kinship care programs to help grandparents and also stem the flow of children coming into foster care needlessly. Other state programs featured in this article include Grandparents as Foster Parents in Louisiana and Help Me Grow in Ohio. R2P Evaluation This article highlighted policy changes in some states as a response to the growing number of children in kinship care settings. Programs throughout the country are featured as potential promising practices.
Kinship Care
Page 20
Cimmarusti, R., Derezotes, D. M., Skolec, J., & Dannenbring-Carlson, D. (2000). Kinship caregiver burden. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work, Children and Family Research Center. This article reported results of a kinship study conducted by the Children and Family Research Center, School of Social Work, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
The Study The author conducted research on caregiver burdens and social support perceived by kin caregivers and measured them against caregiver emotional distress levels. The Methods The sample consisted of 63 caregivers who self-selected into the study. The Findings The study found that most caregiver burden had a direct effect on the degree of emotional distress. The author issued recommendations for caseworkers: o Pay close attention to the emotional state of kinship caregivers. o Approach kinship providers in a nonthreatening way. o Provide services that will enhance the kinship caregivers parental abilities. o Respect the social supports many kinship providers already have in place. o Respect kinship caregivers ties to their faith and spirituality. o Present child protective services not as an additional burden, but as additional support. R2P Evaluation This research study found that caregiver burden had a direct effect on emotional distress. It also provided good models of interventions to help relieve caregiver burden.
Kinship Care
Page 21
Courtney, M. E. (1994, March). Factors associated with the reunification of foster children with their families. Social Service Review, 81-105. This article reported the results of a study of the family reunification process for 8,748 children placed in foster care in California. Children who were initially placed in kinship care were less likely to return home in the first few months than other children.
The Study This study retrospectively examined the outcomes of foster care placement of a random sample of 8,748 children who entered foster care in California for the first time between January 1988 and May 1991. The Methods This study used an event-history analysis regression model. Variables included: o Childs initial placement (kin vs. nonkin) and age of entry; o Familys receipt of placement prevention services; o Gender and ethnicity; o Home situation prior to removal (mother, father, both parents); o Medical, emotional, or behavioral conditions of child; o Childs family was Aid to Families with Dependent Children eligible; and o Reason for childs removal. The Findings Of children placed in kinship care, 45% were younger than age four, and 55% were African American or Latino. Two-thirds of children were placed as a result of neglect or caregiver absence, and four-fifths of the children came from families that had received some type of preventive placement. Less than half of children who entered care during the study period left care in the same period (44.5%). Of those who left care, 79% reunified, 4% were placed with relatives, 4% were placed with guardians, 3% were adopted, and 1% emancipated. The other 9% left for a variety of reasons, including incarceration or running away. Data indicate that two of five children who enter foster care in California will spend at least three years in the system. Children placed with kin initially go home more slowly. When a placement is made in a foster home, shelter, or group home, the social worker may work harder for reunification. Family characteristics, such as poverty and family structure, appear to be more powerfully associated with the reunification process for children placed with kin. R2P Evaluation This article gave detailed findings about children in foster care (kin and nonkin) in California. The researcher applied an interesting methodology and provided a very detailed description of the findings.
Crumbley, J., & Little, R. L. (Eds.). (1997). Relatives raising children: An overview of kinship care. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. The goal of this book was to provide agencies, communities, organizations, and others with the information they need to provide services for kinship caregivers, children in kinship care, and birthparents.
The Study Each chapter of this book examined specific elements of kinship care: o Benefits and Challenges of Kinship Care examined and defined kinship care and compared it with traditional foster care. o Clinical Concepts discussed some of the more difficult aspects of kinship care, including loss, confusion, anger, embarrassment, and loyalty. o Assessment and Intervention/Case Management called for comprehensive approaches to working with kinship care families and the management of clinical services. o Race, Culture, and Other Special Considerations explored the effects of culturally based child care, gender roles, and such issues as AIDS and parental incarceration. o Legal Relationships examined the legal rights and responsibilities of kinship caregivers. o Federal and State Policy and Program Issues discussed program and policy development, including the philosophy behind financial supports for kinship caregivers. R2P Evaluation This book is ideal for agencies that are interested in developing or improving their kinship care services.
Kinship Care
Page 23
Dubowitz, H., Feigelman, S., & Zuravin, S. (1993). A profile of kinship care. Child Welfare, 72, 153-169. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of the children in kinship care.
The Study The study described the children, caregivers, caseworkers, and services provided for and needed by children in kinship care in a particular jurisdiction. The authors made comparisons with other data on children in kinship and family foster care. The Methods The sample included 524 children who, at the end of April 1989, were living in the care of their relatives. The authors collected data from clinical assessments of the children by a nurse, child psychologists, and pediatricians; medical and school records; and questionnaires completed by birthparents, primary caregivers, caseworkers, physicians, and teachers. The Findings In general, the findings were similar to what researchers have found in the foster care system. Neglect was the most common reason for a childs removal; 25% had been removed for physical or sexual abuse. Almost half of the children were placed with a grandmother. Median age of the caregivers was 48 years. Caregivers and caseworkers differed in their understanding of the long-term plan concerning the childs placement, which suggests the need for better communication between workers and relatives and more involvement of caregivers in planning stages. Most caseworkers had worked with the child and family for less than a year. In the year preceding the evaluation, 29% of the caregivers had not contacted the caseworker at all. Stability is more often achieved in kinship care because of the agencies acceptance of these arrangements as long term. R2P Evaluation This study provided a general profile of children in kinship care and helpful guidance for future study, with preliminary implications for practice and social policy. Findings may not be generalizable because the study was based on one geographical area and lacked a comparison group.
Kinship Care
Page 24
Ehrle, J., Geen, R., & Clark, R. (2001, February). Children cared for by relatives: Who are they and how are they faring? Urban Institute Series B, B-28. This article examined children in kinship care and their overall well-being.
The Study At the time this article was written, 1.8 million children lived with relatives other than their parents. Most lived in this arrangement without coming to the attention of child protective services (CPS). Many of these children are eligible for public services but do not receive them. Some researchers believe kinship care is a more stable environment for children than foster care or a residential center. This article identifies three types of kin placement: o Privateno involvement from CPS. o Kinship foster careplaced by an agency. o Voluntary kinship carethe child came to the attention of CPS and a caseworker placed him or her with kin, but the child is not in state custody. Many kinship care children live in poverty. Many kinship providers do not have a high school degree and are single parents. Compared with foster parents, kinship providers are less likely to ask for public assistance and services. Some research indicates that children in private kinship care have more difficulty obtaining needed services. R2P Evaluation This article offered insight into children in kinship care. Ultimately, the authors found a lack of rigorous research in this area and it was difficult to give a definitive answer as to the benefits or detriments of kinship care.
Kinship Care
Page 25
Ehrle, J., & Kortenkamp, K. (2002). The well-being of children involved with the child welfare system: A national overview. New Federalism: National Survey of Americas Families, B-43. The findings in this article were based on data obtained from the 1997 and 1999 rounds of the National Survey of Americas Families (NSAF). The survey includes measures on the economic, health, and social characteristics of more than 44,000 households each year.
The Study The authors used three groups to make comparisons: children involved with child welfare (n = 819), children in parent care (n = 67,865), and children in high-risk parent care (n = 12,744). The high-risk parent care group was defined as children living with a single parent at a low income level (below 200% of the federal poverty level). The Findings Behavioral and emotional problems: o Children ages 6 through 17 who were involved with the child welfare system had higher levels of behavioral and emotional problems than those in parent care. o Children ages 12 through17 who were involved with the child welfare system had a significantly higher percentage of suspensions or expulsions from school in the past year, compared with children in parent care. School and activity experiences: o Children ages 6 through 17 involved with the child welfare system were more likely to have lower levels of school engagement compared with children in parent care. o Of children in the child welfare system, 3% were reported to be in special education. Health and health care: o Children in the child welfare system were more likely to have a physical, learning, or mental health condition than children in parent care. o Children in the child welfare system were less likely to have had health insurance at some time in the past year than the children in the high-risk parent care. Caregiver well-being and interactions: o Children in the child welfare system had significantly higher levels of aggravation than both children in the parent care group and children in the high-risk parent care group. R2P Evaluation The findings showed that many of the children in the child welfare system were not faring well emotionally, behaviorally, educationally, or physically compared with children in parent care. Also, children living in high-risk parent care were functioning significantly better than those children in the child welfare system.
Fuller-Thomsom, E. (2000). African American grandparents raising grandchildren: A national profile of demographic and health characteristics. Health & Social Work, 25, 109-118. This study compared demographic, physical, and mental health characteristics of African American grandparent caregivers with their noncaregiving counterparts.
The Study In the late 1980s, social workers reported seeing a rise in the number of older, female patients with stress-related conditions and an exacerbation of previously controlled health problems. Further investigation revealed that these women had recently become primary caregivers to grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Research attributes the rise in formal and informal kinship care in part to drug abuse, teen pregnancy, AIDS, unemployment, single-parent homes, and female incarceration. Kinship care is historically rooted for a number of African American families, beginning with African traditions through the migration of African Americans north in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The Methods Results were based on a 1992 through 1994 data collection series. The final sample of African American caregiving grandparents was 78, and the final African American noncaregiving sample was 485. The Findings A majority of African American grandparents began caregiving when their grandchildren were very young. Caregiving African American grandparents were markedly different than their noncaregiving counterparts. Three-fourths of kinship grandparents were widowed, divorced, separated, or never married, compared with half of noncaregiving African Americans. Grandparent caregivers had significantly more limitations than noncaregivers in areas such as mobility and depression. The author attributed study limitations to survey design, including: o The inability to determine if health and well-being status of the samples was statistically related to caregiver status, o Inability to determine how many children were in each grandparents care, and o Whether the relationship was formal or informal. R2P Evaluation This research had several limitations, including those mentioned above, plus it provided no indication of statistical significance for the findings reported. Results should be interpreted with caution.
Kinship Care
Page 27
Gebeke, D. (1996, October). When grandparents become parents to their grandchildren. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University NDSU Extension Service. This article explored the reasons behind the number of grandparents raising grandchildren.
The Study Grandparents have to make adjustments in their lives to become the primary caregivers for grandchildren. They shift from enjoying grandchildren to having everyday responsibility for them. Many grandparents feel a sense of purpose in assuming full-time responsibility for their grandchildren. Grandparents are likely to fall into one of three categories: o Day care grandparent, o Living with grandparent, and o Custodial grandparent. Grandparents are more likely to care for a daughters child than a sons child. About two-thirds of grandparents offered to provide care. Living with grandparents experienced the most stress. This could be attributed to not technically having legal authority to make decisions for the grandchild. Kinship adoption gives the grandparents legal decisionmaking ability for the grandchild but allows a connection to remain between the child and birthparents. R2P Evaluation This short article gave good information on the changing nature of grandparent and grandchild relationships in some communities. The author designed the article to guide the grandparent to helpful resources when faced with the challenge of raising grandchildren full-time.
Kinship Care
Page 28
Geen, R. (2000). In the interest of children: Rethinking federal and state policies affecting kinship care. Policy & Practice of Public Human Services, 58(1), 1927. This article discussed the effect of flexibility in federal guidelines that allows states to treat kinship caregivers differently than foster caregivers.
The Study Limited information is available on kinship care, therefore, it is difficult to determine how policy can positively or adversely affect kinship caregivers, despite the fact that kinship is now the preferred placement for children removed from home. States are not required to pay unlicensed kinship caregivers as much as they would pay licensed kinship caregivers or foster parents. Each state has different rules, based on their interpretation of the federal statutes. Unlike foster caregivers, kinship caregivers often have little advance warning before they take charge of a relative child. Many times, they do not have the needed amount of space or furniture. Studies show that kinship caregivers are often older, poorer, and in worse health, compared with foster parents. Kinship care is often less traumatic for the child than foster care, and sibling groups are more likely to stay together. Kinship care seems to be more stable for a child, but studies show that the child tends to remain in care longer and is less likely to be adopted, because this is perceived as unnecessary by the kin provider. Licensing requirements for kinship caregivers need to adequately reflect the reality of many kinship caregivers situations (i.e., smaller homes, less income, less education). Fees are tied to licensing. Often, kinship caregivers have fewer resources to meet this criteria. Caseworkers should spend equal amounts of time and resources on kinship families and foster families. R2P Evaluation This article offered some policy recommendations to improve kinship services.
Kinship Care
Page 29
Geen, R., & Berrick, J.D. (2002). Kinship care: An evolving service delivery option. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 1-14. This article explored the still-evolving definition and usage of kinship care by states as a first alternative to foster care for children removed from the home.
The Study Data suggest that there was a steep rise in the use of kinship care in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Data now indicate that state use of kinship care may be leveling off. Kinship care is used predominantly in states with high caseloads, large urban areas, and communities of color. Some states do not count children living in kinship care with relatives who are not licensed by the state. This suggests that kinship figures are actually higher than reported. The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act was the first to acknowledge kinship care as a legitimate placement and to give it differential treatment by waiving time frame limits for children in kinship care. Experts in the field have ongoing debate as to how much payment, if any, kinship providers should receive. Because kin have little advance notice before they begin caring for a related child, they often do not have all requisite licensing needed to receive optimum payment and assistance. Some studies indicate that most children placed with kin were neglected, not abused. Some people are concerned that federal policies confuse states as to licensing and payment issues for kinship caregivers. Some studies suggest that children in kinship care fare similarly in health and overall well-being compared with children in foster care, the only difference being that kinship care is more likely to occur in poorer neighborhoods. R2P Evaluation This article was an excellent review of kinship care literature. The article was divided into sections on payment, permanence, safety, and well-being as related to kinship.
Kinship Care
Page 30
Gibson, P. A. (1999). African American grandmothers: New mothers again. Affilia, 14, 329-343. This study examined the role shift experienced by African American grandmothers when they became primary caregivers to their grandchildren.
The Study The Child Welfare Act of 1980 encouraged kinship care. Little research has been done on kinship care, with the exception of comparison studies with foster care examining length of stay. Many grandmothers are assuming the role of primary caregiver to grandchildren because the childrens parents suffer from drug abuse, are incarcerated, or have financial difficulties. The Methods This was a qualitative study with 12 participants. Interviews took place in Denver, Colorado, between March 1995 and February 1996. The Findings The sample was 46 to 76 years of age, most were single, graduated from high school, and were receiving government assistance to care for their grandchildren. Grandmothers felt an intense responsibility for their grandchildren. This was a difficult adjustment for grandmothers, who had not raised young children in many years. The reaction to the new responsibilities ranged from resentment to enjoyment. Grandmothers were concerned about finances, health insurance for the child, and avoiding negative comments about the childs parents. All were concerned about their own age. All received informal supports, and most needed formal support. Family dynamics shifted. Grandmothers did not want to discourage the childs parents from getting help. Other children of the grandmother resented her new caregiving role. Of the respondents, ten had contacted child welfare services, and some had a bad experience. Child welfare services need to be sensitive to the unique situation of African American grandmother kinship caregivers, improve service delivery approaches, and find assistance with daily tasks for grandmothers. R2P Evaluation This research offered recommendations for child welfare services based on the experiences of African American grandmothers. The sample size was very small and limited geographically. Generalizability of the results is not possible.
Kinship Care
Page 31
Gibson, P. A. (2002). African American grandmothers as caregivers: Answering the call to help their grandchildren. Families in Society, 83(1), 35-43. This study examined the growing number of African American grandmothers providing kinship care to grandchildren. The study used a qualitative design to describe the womens experiences.
The Study Study themes included: tradition of kinkeeping, relationship with grandchildren, distrust of foster care, grandmother as sole resource, strong religious beliefs, and a refusal by the other grandmother to assist in caregiving. Studies have shown that African American grandmothers who care for kin seldom voice their need for services or report barriers to services. They more often try to deal with needs on their own. Some research has shown that it is not an easy decision for grandmothers to assume the primary caregiver role for grandchildren. They have conflicting emotions about their new role as primary caregiver to a grandchild. The Methods The final sample consisted of 12 African American grandmothers with primary caregiving responsibility for a grandchild. The author conducted interviews between March 1995 and February 1996 in Denver, Colorado. The Findings The grandmothers ranged in age from 46 to 76 years, most were currently single and had graduated from high school. All were self-sufficient before assuming a kinship caregiver role. Grandmothers had a history of kinkeeping. They were raised with extended family living together. Grandmothers did not want to see their grandchildren cared for by strangers. All felt a deep distrust of the foster care system. Grandmothers felt an obligation to care for their grandchildren. To them, foster care was not a viable option. All felt a deep religious conviction to aid their grandchildren. Many expressed surprise and disappointment in the other grandmothers refusal to help. Three of the themes have been documented in kinship care literature: kinkeeping, relationship with grandchild, and distrust of foster care. The study identified support and resources as severely needed for kinship caregiving grandmothers. R2P Evaluation This study used a small sample and cannot be generalized to the population as a whole. The kinship care literature , however, validates some findings in the study. Research needs to explore findings further.
Gibson, P. A. (2002). Caregiving role affects family relationships of African American grandmothers as new mothers again: A phenomenological perspective. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 341-353. Many African American grandparents have become the primary caregiver to grandchildren, besides continuing to care for their own children. This leads to potentially difficult situations. This article discussed these situations in the context of practice and research.
The Study Kinship care is of cultural significance for African American families. It is deeply rooted in African American tradition and reflects a deep commitment to strong family ties and a duty to children. Skipped-generation kinship care is growing. These caregivers are different than foster caregivers. They are more likely to be African American, poorer, less educated, more likely to be single, and older. Child welfare works both praise and give caution for kinship care. It keeps children within their family network, yet potentially exposes them to being abused again. The Methods The sample consisted of 12 African American women in Denver County, CO interviewed between March 1995 and February 1996. The purpose of the study was to document and analyze experiences of African American grandmothers as kinship care providers. The Findings Grandmothers were between 46 and 76 years of age, most were unmarried, many had completed high school, all were self-supporting before becoming kinship caregivers, and many needed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families after becoming the primary caregiver for a grandchild. After becoming a kinship caregiver, grandmothers became aware of previously unknown problems and behavioral issues. Grandmothers were concerned about the grandchilds emotional and physical wellbeing, recurring abuse, and the grandchilds financial future. Many grandmothers were frustrated with their own children but had hope that the situation could improve. Children of the grandmother either felt opposition to or supportive of the grandmothers new role. R2P Evaluation This study had a small, isolated sample that was not similar to the national kinship sample because the women tended to have more education. The study was interesting because the researchers examined the grandmothers relationships with the grandchildren, parents, and other children of the grandmother. Findings indicated that other family members are affected by kinship care.
Gleeson, J. P. (1999). Who decides? Predicting caseworkers adoption and guardianship discussions with kinship caregivers. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 61 85). Washington, DC: CWLA Press. This article discussed adoption and transfer of legal guardianship to kinship caregivers of children in state custody.
The Study This study was a secondary analysis of data collected from the Illinois study, Achieving Permanency for Children in Kinship Foster Care. The analysis examined the following research questions: o Caseworker discussions with kinship caregivers on considering adoption and guardianship, o Which variables explained caseworker discussion of adoption with the kinship caregivers, o Which variables explained caseworker discussion of transfer of guardianship, and o Whether variables explained caseworker discussion of adoption and transfer of guardianship. The Methods The researchers conducted interviews with caseworkers for 76 children living in kinship foster care for at least one year. The author selected two random cases each from 41 caseworkers caseloads, for a total of 91 cases; 76 out of 91 completed the interview. Dependent variables included discussion of adoption and guardianship of the child with kinship caregiver and explanation of their reasons if neither had been discussed. Independent variables included caregivers age, caregivers marital status, number of siblings living in the same relatives home, childs age, number of years child has been living in placement, caseworkers rating of caregivers need for assistance, and adoption planning already under way. The Findings Caseworkers rated 42% of the caregivers as providing good care, 47% as needing help, and 11% as requiring monitoring. Workers had discussed adoption with 82% of the caregivers; only 51% had discussed guardianship. Reasons for not discussing adoption or guardianship included: child was to return to birthparents, child was considered too old, or caregiver was considered unable to care for child without support of welfare system. R2P Evaluation The study has limited generalizability of results due to small, selective sample. Kinship caregivers do not always have the opportunity to discuss all the permanency options that are available.
Gleeson, J. P., & Hairston, C. F. (1999). Future directions for research on kinship care. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 281315). Washington, DC: CWLA Press. This chapter outlined implications for the field of kinship care based on caseworker practice, experiences and involvement of families, and the effect of kinship care on caregivers.
The Study This chapter organized categories of research into eight themes. Worldviews of caregivers, parents, extended families, and children can contribute to the knowledge of kinship care by helping: o Understand these experiences across cultures and in various kinship networks, o Formulate better research questions, and o Select appropriate measures. Consequences of caregiving research needs include: o Exploring the source of caregiver burden, and o Providing demonstration projects to test methods of reducing caregiver burden. Parents role and functioning research needs include: o Parents role in childrearing before and after placement in kinship care, o Testing the effectiveness of policies and programs to help parents, and o Determining the effect of parent involvement. Child safety and well-being research needs include: o Safety in kinship care; o The childs perspective of safety, permanency, and well-being; and o Factors of well-being for kinship care children. Casework services research needs include: o Testing new models of kinship care services, and o Testing new models of service coordination. Research on effects of policy initiatives and alternative service models needs: o Recent policy initiatives, and o Levels of financial support for kinship families. Methodological concerns and challenges include: o Balancing generalizability and depth, o Establishing causal relationships, and o Examining trends over time. R2P Evaluation This article gave a thorough summary of research needs in the field of kinship care. This article is helpful for those wanting to initiate research to address gaps in the field.
Kinship Care
Page 35
Goodman, C. C., & Silverstein, M. (2001). Grandmothers who parent their grandchildren: An exploratory study of close relations across three generations. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 557-578. This article examined two components of grandmother kinship care: grandmother well-being and intergenerational triads of grandmother, parent, and grandchild.
The Study The number of children raised by grandparents has grown. A large number of these children are African American. Grandparents are often awarded custody of grandchildren, yet little research exists on grandparents well-being after they have taken custody of the children. Some studies have indicated that grandparent kinship caregivers overall health declines dramatically after they have taken in their grandchildren. Many studies indicated that grandparents experienced additional financial stress as well. The authors identified four triads: o ConnectedAll relations are close despite new caregiving situation. o LinkedOne generation mediates between the other two. o IsolatedOne generation is isolated. o DisconnectedNo close relationships exist. The authors expected grandmother well-being to be positive when the family has connected or linked triads and when the grandmother and grandchild were close despite parental absence. The Methods The authors mailed a survey to 1,931 grandparent caregivers, which yielded a final sample of 149 grandmother kinship caregivers in Los Angeles County. Most were between 38 and 81 years of age, many were unmarried, most were African American, two-thirds had graduated from high school, one-third were employed, and two-thirds cared for more than one grandchild. The Findings Many grandparents assumed care of their grandchild due to parental drug abuse. Grandmothers in disconnected triads were less satisfied with their role as kinship caregiver when compared with grandmothers in other triads. The most satisfying models for grandmothers were connected and grandmotherlinked triads. Triads in which the grandmothers and grandchildren were close but the parent was absent were very hard on the grandparent. Findings could be skewed because the researchers only surveyed kinship caregiving grandmothers who were known to the child welfare system. Some research indicates that for every one child in state kinship care, there are six in informal kinship care. R2P Evaluation The article discusses limitations and the literature review shared work on triads.
Harden, B. J., Clyman, R. B., Kriebel, D. K., & Lyons, M. E. (2001). Kith and kin care: Parental attitudes and resources of foster and relative caregivers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families. This study attempted to examine the parenting attitudes of kinship and traditional foster parents, as well as their social and economic resources.
The Study The sample was composed of 101 caregivers of children involved in the child welfare system in Washington, DC, and Baltimore. Of the sample, 51 caregivers were traditional foster parents, and 50 were kinship care providers. Of the participants, 88% were African American (96% in kinship and 80% in traditional care). The average age was 50.6 years (56.2 in kinship and 44.9 in traditional), and the average number of children cared for was 2.7. The Methods The authors interviewed each caregiver in his or her home using a background questionnaire and a parenting questionnaire. The background questionnaire focused on social resources, economic resources, and health. It also included demographic questions. The authors used the Parental Attitudes Toward Childrearing questionnaire to measure three dimensions of parenting attitudes: warmth/respect, parent-child conflict and anger, and strictness/overprotectiveness. The Findings Kinship caregivers had more compromised parental attitudes than traditional foster parents. They reported less warmth and respect, more strictness and overprotectiveness, and higher parent-child conflict and anger. Kinship caregivers had fewer social resources than foster parents. A minority of kinship caregivers were married, and almost one-third were widows. Kinship providers reported having fewer financial resources. Many (62%) had annual incomes of $20,000 or less, and only 50% owned their own homes. Kinship caregivers were less likely to be employed or to have graduated from high school. Traditional foster parents reported better health. Maternal age and marital status were the only characteristics that correlated with any attitude subscales. R2P Evaluation This was an interesting study that attempted to examine the relationship between parent characteristics and parenting in kinship and traditional foster families. The findings indicate a profile of social and economic risk for kinship caregivers. The researchers used only self-reports for data collection, and the study had a small sample.
Kinship Care
Page 37
Hornby, H., & Zeller, D. (1995). Kinship care in America: A national policy study. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine, Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs. This grant-funded project summary reported on a study of children in relative care. The authors explored policy outcomes and implications of kinship care.
The Study The authors collected data from California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Texas. Study objectives included: o An examination of kinship policies influences on removal and placement, o A comparison between kinship outcomes and other placements, o A description of the effect of kinship placements on child welfare services, and o The development of policy options and recommendations. The Methods The authors collected field data from key informants, such as caseworkers and advocates. The authors created field reports based on site visits in each of the five states. The Findings Over the past decade, agencies removed more children from their homes due to drugs than for any other reason. Generally, kinship care is the placement of choice for caseworkers. Some felt that relatives should then become licensed foster parents. In some states or locations, kin caregivers received fewer services. Children in kinship care tend to remain in care longer and are less likely to be adopted. Case planning for children in kinship care is often less formal than for children placed in nonfamilial foster care. The rise in kinship care use has influenced all aspects of child welfare administration. In many areas, kin caregivers were reimbursed at a lower rate than traditional foster caregivers. Recommended principles included: o A low level of intervention is preferred. o The connection between support and supervision should be weakened. o Support should be inversely related to obligation. R2P Evaluation This report offered the reader a snapshot of kinship care issues through the eyes of field workers in five states. The findings and recommendations mirror research in the field of kinship care.
Kinship Care
Page 38
Hornby, H., Zeller, D., & Karraker, D. (1996). Kinship care in America: What outcomes should policy seek? Child Welfare, 75, 397-418. This article reviewed kinship care policies in five states and proposed a framework for analyzing kinship care that used five new permanency options.
The Study Authors examined kinship care policies in New York, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois. Recommendations in this article came from a two-year national study of these five states. Kinship care is a newer placement resource for child welfare but it also provides a newer set of challenges. Traditional permanency plans may not exactly fit. The authors developed five options of kinship use: o Diversion from the out-of-home care system, o Short-term support with family reunification as a goal, o Short-term support with long-term discharge to relatives as a goal, o Long-term support outside child welfare system, and o Long-term support in the child welfare system. The article examined these five options from several viewpoints: social welfare system, legal, social, ethnic, and fiscal. The Findings Findings from the study led to three principles: o A low level of intervention by the state was preferable to high level for kinship families. o The connection between support and supervision should be broken or weakened. o The level of support provided to the caregiver should have an inverse relationship with that caregivers legal and social obligation for the child. Policy recommendations: o Federal government should create a separate support system for kinship caregivers. o States should limit supervision. o Kinship caregivers who care for children who are not wards of the state need more support. R2P Evaluation This article is helpful for those who want more kinship care policy guidance. More on the findings from the research study could have been helpful to the reader. The authors did not cite the study findings.
Kinship Care
Page 39
Iglehart, A. P. (1995). Readiness for independence: Comparison of foster care, kinship care, and non-foster care adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 417-432. This article reported on a comparison study of adolescents transitioning to independent living from kinship care, foster care, or nonfoster care settings. Data were from Los Angeles County.
The Study Some supports are in place to help foster care children transition to independent living, but researchers have done little work on how adolescents in kinship care transition to independent living. The Methods The study used data from Los Angeles County to determine who were foster care and kinship care adolescents. The author drew a comparison group from a local high school. The author asked youth about independent living concepts, employment histories, views of life, and independent living plans. The final samples were 63 nonfoster care adolescents, 42 kinship care adolescents, and 69 foster care adolescents. The Findings The three groups did not appear significantly different in independent living knowledge. Significantly more foster care adolescents worked full-time than kinship care or non foster care youth. Most youth, in all settings, were generally happy with their lives. The author found no significant difference among groups in perceptions of independent living readiness. Overall, nonfoster care youth did not report feeling better prepared for the future than kinship and foster care youth. R2P Evaluation This article shared preliminary research on differences between youth in three caregiver settings. Outcomes showed no significant differences between the youth. The study methodology merits replication in different areas of the country.
Kinship Care
Page 40
Ingram, C. (1996). Kinship care: From last resort to first choice. Child Welfare, 75, 550-566. This article highlighted key issues in kinship care and discussed linkages with agency structure as it is related to kinship family support.
The Study Kinship care became a formalized process in child welfare due to: o Increasing numbers of children in out-of-home-care, o Decreasing numbers of foster care homes, and o Growing recognition of the importance of family care. Homelessness, poverty, and HIV/AIDS also influenced the rise in kinship care. Concerns about the use of kinship care included: o The potential of generational abuse (i.e., the assumption that grandparents abused parents who abused children, therefore grandparents would abuse grandchildren), and o Paying families to care for family members. The use of kinship care by agencies is rising, but some are concerned because little research exists on the effect of kinship care on families. Children in kinship care should receive all child welfare agency services that they are entitled to, but research indicated that they do not. Studies examining kinship families found that they were more likely to be composed of a single woman in her 50s with a high school education. The studies also indicated that many kinship care children have educational and health needs. Kinship care children tend to remain in care longer. Many kinship providers hesitated to adopt the child because of familial issues. Guardianship may be a more viable option. Overall, three issues need to be considered for kinship care: o The ability of kinship homes to meet licensing requirements, o Reluctance of kinship care providers to accept monitoring by the agency, and o Permanency for kinship care children. R2P Evaluation The author based the information and recommendations on the child welfare agency in Philadelphia, PA. Most of this information can be used in other parts of the country because the research studies cited were geographically representative and the findings represent many areas.
Kinship Care
Page 41
Jackson, S. M. (1996). The kinship triad: A service delivery model. Child Welfare, 75, 583-599. This article featured a model of service delivery for kinship families based on a family preservation model.
The Study There was a need for a service model that addresses the unique kinship triad of parent, relative caregiver, and child. Kinship care became a more commonly used placement option starting in the 1980s not because it was deemed to be in childrens best interest, but because there were not enough foster homes. Family foster care is not a good model fit for kinship care. Family preservation is a better service model because kinship care keeps families together. Effective kinship care practice should include: o A philosophical shift away from family foster care; o Tools for assessment; o Culturally sensitive, comprehensive, family-centered services; and o Adequate training. A successful kinship care model can be completed in six months: o Phase IPlace children with kin. o Phase II (30 days)Assess the triad of kinship provider, birthparent, and child. o Phase III (3060 days)Convene a meeting of the extended family and develop a case plan. o Phase IV (90 days)Select service intervention strategies. o Phase V (180 days)Terminate service. The last phase is the most difficult for kinship homes. For example, some kinship families need constant services and financial assistance. Limitations of the model include: o Six months may not be long enough for kinship homes to be ready for service termination. o Caseworkers may have large caseloads and not be able to spend time with kinship families. o Agencies may have a lack of flexible funding to use for kinship services. R2P Evaluation This article offered a concrete model for kinship care services through child welfare agencies. The author cited difficulties in gaining agency acceptance of a family preservation model over family foster care but provided strong arguments for using the preservation model. This article is good for agencies looking to adapt their kinship services or add kinship services to their options.
Kinship Care
Page 42
Jendrek, M. P. (1994). Grandparents who parent their grandchildren: Circumstances and decisions. Gerontologist, 34, 206-216. This article analyzed what circumstances led grandparents to provide care to their grandchildren and how they decided to provide that care.
The Study The author conducted in-depth interviews with 114 grandparents who provided regular care to their grandchildren. The Methods The author selected a nonprobability sample of 114 grandparents from Butler County, Ohio, from four potential sources: domestic relations and juvenile courts, local physicians and dentists, the local school system, and local radio stations. The author conducted in-depth interviews, gathering information on the type of care provided, reasons why grandparents decided to provide care, and the decision process to provide that care. The Findings The sample consisted of 36 custodial grandparents (4 adoptive, 30 custodial, and 2 guardianship), 26 grandparents living with grandchildren, and 52 grandparents providing day care for children. Demographics included 96% white participants, of which 97% were female and 55% were not employed. The average education was one year in college. Custodial care: 73% of mothers had emotional problems, 53% of grandparents did not want the grandchild in a foster home, 53% of mothers had a drug problem, 48% of mothers had a mental problem, and 44% of mothers had an alcohol problem. Living with grandparents: 65% of grandparents helped parents financially, 35% of mothers worked full-time, 31% of mothers did not want child in day care or at a babysitters house, 31% of mothers were having emotional problems, and 30% of the parents were not married. Day care grandparents: 71% of mothers worked full-time, 69% of mothers did not want child in day care or at a babysitters house, 67% of grandparents helped parents financially, 51% of fathers worked full-time, and 35% of grandparents stated that providing care to the grandchild gave the grandparent something to do. Kin decision to provide care: 62% of custodial kinship caregivers offered to provide care, 52% of grandparents who had children living with them offered to provide care, and 86% of day care grandparents offered to provide care. R2P Evaluation This research study focused primarily on white grandmothers but offered a good description of circumstances that lead grandparents to provide care for their grandchildren.
Kinship Care
Page 43
Johnson, E. I., & Walfogel, J. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trends and implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76, 460-479. This study examined foster care and kinship care rates of children with parents in prison. Trends indicated that more children were entering care due to parental incarceration and many of those children were living with grandparents.
The Study No reliable national estimates of the number of parents in prison with children younger than 18 exist. Studies have shown that maternal incarceration can affect a childs emotional, behavioral, and psychological development. Children of incarcerated mothers were more likely to be displaced from their homes than children of incarcerated fathers. Child welfare has not adequately addressed the issue of children with parents in prison. The Methods The authors examined parental incarceration rates using 1986 and 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities data and 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities data. The Findings A number of parents in prison reported that their own mother had served time in a correctional facility. The most common living arrangement for children with a mother in prison was with the grandparents. The common living arrangement for children of incarcerated fathers was with the mother or stepmother. According to 1997 data, two-thirds of children with a mother in state prison lived with their grandparents. From 1986 to 1997, the number of children of incarcerated parents living in foster care declined. At the same time, the number of children of incarcerated parents living in kinship care rose. The study could not determine if these were formal or informal kinship care arrangements. R2P Evaluation This article described less of the kinship care living situation and focused more on how many children are served in kinship care. The study indicated that more incarcerated mothers rely on kinship care now than in years past. The study also indicated that more mothers are incarcerated on drug charges than any other charge.
Kinship Care
Page 44
Kelly, S. J ., Crofts Yorker, B., Whitely, D. M., & Sipe, T. A. (2001). A multimodal intervention for grandparents raising grandchildren: Results of an exploratory study. Child Welfare, 80, 27-50. This article highlighted a pilot study on a stress reduction and physical and mental well-being model for grandparents raising grandchildren.
The Study Grandparents who raise grandchildren often exhibit psychological stress, poor physical health, less economic resources, and few social supports. Many of the children in grandparent care have emotional and behavioral problems stemming from parental abuse and neglect. The intervention presented in this study aided grandparent caregivers in improving their well-being and strengthening their social supports. The Methods The final sample included 24 grandparents raising 63 children. Grandparents were eligible to participate in the study if they lived in the Atlanta, GA, area and had full-time responsibility for at least one grandchild. Grandparents were given a six-month intervention, including home visits by registered nurses, social workers, and legal assistants. They also received legal assistance from an attorney and had monthly support group meetings. The authors conducted pretests and posttests. The Findings Grandparents feelings of hostility and interpersonal sensitivity significantly decreased from pretest to posttest. Grandparents mental health significantly improved, but the study found no change in physical health. Grandparents felt they had more social supports and some family support. More grandparents established a legal relationship with their grandchild during the six-month intervention. R2P Evaluation This preliminary study offered some promising findings on interventions for grandparents caring for grandchildren, with an indication that the authors would conduct the study on a larger scale, but the article made no mention of follow-up with the samples. Results for this study and for the large-scale model cannot be confirmed as sustainable changes because follow-up did not may not occur.
Kinship Care
Page 45
Leslie, L. K., Landsverk, J., Horton, M. B., Ganger, W., & Newton, R. R. (2000). The heterogeneity of children and their experiences in kinship care. Child Welfare, 79, 315-334. This study examined children in kinship care longitudinally to determine if these children are a homogeneous group or heterogeneous subgroups.
The Study The number of children in kinship care has risen in recent years. No reliable numbers are available, but conservative estimates place approximately 125,000 children in kinship care. Some findings indicate kinship care is a good placement option: It is less traumatic for the child, sibling groups stay together, and the family has more stability. Problems with kinship care include less chance of family reunification and children being less likely to obtain needed medical or mental health services. Children in this study had formalized kinship care. The Methods The authors culled the sample from a larger study of children in out-of-home-care in San Diego County between May 1990 and October 1991. The final sample consisted of 484 children who had spent some time in kinship care. Ethnicity was mixed and reasons for placement varied. The Findings There were three distinct subgroups of kinship care: o Group 119% of the total sample, made up of children who had only experienced kinship care. o Group 272% of the sample; children had been in kinship care and family foster care. o Group 39% of the sample; children had some kinship care and another more restrictive placement. In the first group, the average age was 5.5 years. The group was mostly female. In the second group, the average age was 4.1. In the third group, the average age was 9.1. The group was mostly male. Each placement setting varied by ethnicity, with the most African American youth comprising Group 1, mostly Latinos comprising Group 2, and most white children comprising Group 3. Group 1 experienced the most placement stability. R2P Evaluation This study revealed patterns over time for children in kinship care. An interesting finding was the clustering of ethnicities around particular out-of-home placement types.
Kinship Care
Page 46
Link, M. K. (1996). Permanency outcomes in kinship care: A study of children placed in kinship care in Erie County, New York. Child Welfare, 75, 509-528. This article reported on a study of children in kinship care in Erie County, NY. The author examined length of time in kinship care, discharge destination, and destination goal.
The Study Permanence is a potential problem for children in kinship care. Dilemmas include difficulty for kinship caregivers to adopt because of potential family issues, yet allowing children to remain in formalized kinship care is cost prohibitive. Research has indicated that children in kinship care tend to remain in care longer than children in foster care. The Methods The study followed the entire population of kinship care children in Erie County, NY (N = 525 in 1991). The key reason for placement was substance abuse in 41% of cases, alcohol in 26%, and mental health issues in 18%. Of the kinship caregivers, 78% were maternal relatives, 16% were paternal relatives, and 6% were brothers, sisters, or unknown. Most caregivers were grandmothers or aunts. The Findings Agencies discharged 63% of the youth between July 1991 and October 1995. Most returned home or were adopted by kin. For the 197 who remained in care, adoption, independent living, or return home were the destination goals. Younger children were more likely to be adopted or placed for adoption. Those discharged to independent living entered kinship care at age 11 or older. Overall, in this study, children placed in kinship care did remain in care longer. R2P Evaluation This study highlights kinship care in one county in New York. The results indicate that the county has many similar experiences to other places in the country, such as length of stay and adoption issues.
Kinship Care
Page 47
Lorkovich, T.W., Groza, V., Brindo, M.E., Marks, J., & Rush, A. Guiding principles and best practice recommendations for kinship adoption. Cleveland, OH: Mandel School of Social Work. This report summarized the major findings from the Kinship Adoption Project. The goal of this project was to cause system reform so children in kinship care can achieve permanence as soon as possible.
The Study Caseworkers need to improve sensitivity to the needs of kinship families and change social workers beliefs that relatives may be the underlying cause of children being abused or neglected by their birthparents. Cultural values and ethical principles collide over the issues of whether kin should be licensed as foster families and if they truly are the best permanent placement option. Kin may be unwilling or unable to adopt, so the worker needs to weigh the benefits of nonkin adoption against the benefits of permanent kin placement and decide which is the better plan for the child. Focus should be on parity and support for children and ignore whether it is a relative or stranger who is adopting the child. Agencies need to offer a range of free preplacement and postplacement services to kinship families to increase their skills in identifying and coping with childrens behavioral and emotional problems, helping them become more flexible, and helping them develop realistic expectations and resources to use when crises arise. It is important to provide necessary financial and social services to kinship families to decrease the likelihood of a child returning to the child welfare system. Providing information early about legal custody, adoption, and licensed foster homes help kin caregivers make better choices. Workers should give birthparents the opportunity to choose the out-of-home placement resource for their children whenever possible. R2P Evaluation This article was a good summary of possible best practices for kinship adoptions.
Kinship Care
Page 48
Mason, S.J., & Gleeson, J.P. (1999). Adoption and subsidized guardianship as permanency options in kinship foster care: Barriers and facilitating conditions. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 85115). Washington, DC: CWLA Press. This chapter detailed a study of permanency planning for children in kinship care, specifically adoption and subsidized guardianship.
The Study This study took place in Illinois, and according to the authors, Illinois has the highest percentage of out-of-home placements in kinship care. The state faced problems in paying for kinship care because federal reimbursements were only for recognized, licensed foster homes. Many kinship families did not qualify for federal funding, which caused the state to assume a higher payment to kinship homes. Overall, while the number of children in kinship care was increasing, Illinois implemented various programs and policies to reduce the number of children in state care, the cost of services, and length of stays, especially for children in kinship care. The authors conducted this study in 1997 to: o Understand clinical decisionmaking, o Identify barriers to permanency, and o Identify positives that facilitate permanence. The Methods This was a qualitative study with caseworkers, supervisors, and administrators in private and public agencies. The Findings Positives that facilitate permanency: o Leadership from the state agency, and o High levels of staff commitment to permanency. Some of the barriers to permanency included: o Family dynamics, o Caseworker bias, o Insufficient services, and o Culture of child welfare. Implications for the field: o Strong leadership, o Training and caseworker supervision, o Support for supervisors, and o Community-based supports. R2P Evaluation This chapter detailed both positive and negative issues surrounding permanence for children in kinship care. Implications for the Field was a strong section.
McDaniel, N., Merkel-Holguin, L., & Brittain, C. (1997). Options for permanency: An overview. Protecting Children, 13(3), 4-9. This article discussed permanency options for children; definitions, options, and outcomes are featured.
The Study The best options for achieving permanence for a child are reunification, family preservation, or adoption. Legal guardianship and long-term foster care lack some of the necessary support systems. An exception seems to be long-term kinship care. Studies have shown that these children fare as well as those in other permanent situations. Workers should only use long-term foster care as a last resort. It is never ideal for young children to experience long-term foster care. o Advantages: Court does not terminate parental rights. Agency continues to provide services. County has financial responsibility for the child. o Disadvantages: Child has a more unstable legal situation. Child lingers with no real connections. Courts are heavily involved. Guardianship is more permanent than long-term foster care. o Advantages: Established legal status, and Allows for easier return to parents. o Disadvantages: Vulnerable to future custody problems, and Loss of some benefits and services. Kinship care preserves family connections and helps the child achieve permanence. o Advantages: Kinship tends to last longer. Kinship care involves less trauma for the child. The child is less likely to have behavioral problems. o Disadvantages: It is harder to establish boundaries with parents. The kin provider may need more services because they tend to be older and poorer than foster care providers. R2P Evaluation This overview of permanency options was a good introduction for readers just learning about the topic. The authors cover several options and include reasons why each option may be a good fit for some children and where it may have weaknesses.
Kinship Care
Page 50
McLean, B., & Thomas, R. (1996). Informal and formal kinship care populations: A study in contrasts. Child Welfare, 75, 489-505. This study examined similarities and differences between a group of informal kinship care providers and two formal kinship care groups.
The Study This study was an evaluation of the KIDSnKIN Program in Philadelphia from 1992 through 1995. This program was voluntary and sought to stabilize the childs place in the family by helping the caregiver access community resources and avoid the childs entering or reentering the public child welfare system. The Methods The authors drew information from case file reviews (including entry and exit demographics), caseworkers summaries, and family service description plans. The sample included 165 children with an average age of 7.4 years. Of them, 56% were male and 93% were African American. Parental drug or alcohol use was the most common reason for placement. The sample also included 60 different relative caregivers; 97% were African American, and they had an average age of 50 years. An overwhelming majority of the caregivers were female, and only 22% were married. The Findings Families greatest need was legal assistance, followed by concrete services. Childrens greatest need was medical care and mental health counseling. Respondents viewed kinship care as a form of family preservation. Caregivers viewed legal custody as a necessary step toward obtaining medical care, enrolling children in school, and receiving public benefits. Of the 165 children in the study, 159 had a clear legal status. Of these 159, 96 were in the legal custody of their relative caregiver. Some caregivers expressed hesitation to adopt because they did not want to disturb the birthfamily and they wished to return to their former lives and former roles. R2P Evaluation The studys results were not generalizable. Informal kinship families were very similar to formal kinship families, yet they had dramatically less access to public resources.
Kinship Care
Page 51
Mills, C. S., & Usher, D. (1996). A kinship care case management approach. Child Welfare, 75, 600-618. This article highlighted a case management approach for working with kinship families.
The Study Family foster care workers may not be adequately prepared to work with kinship families. Kinship care is a complex issue tied to culture and uniquely individual definitions of family. This article featured a kinship care case management approach used in Michigan. The practice featured awareness and understanding training for practitioners. The Methods The authors developed the management model as part of a three-year demonstration project. The authors incorporated a wraparound model into a case management approach and tested it with a random sample of kinship families in four Michigan counties. Kinship families were empowered by participating in self-definition, decisionmaking, and development and implementation of service plans. The total sample included 160 children with a mean age of 7 years. The treatment group had 84 children. The Findings Services most often needed by the kinship families were transportation, referrals, financial support, respite and day care, and advocacy. At the end of the project, 77% of children remained in kinship care (n = 74). R2P Evaluation The case management practice featured in this study showed some preliminary success. The study did not have sufficient evaluation results available to make a clear determination.
Kinship Care
Page 52
Minkler, M. (1999). Intergenerational households headed by grandparents: Contexts, realities, and implications for policy. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 199-219. This article reported on intergenerational households and their societal context.
The Study The 1990 census revealed that there was almost a 44% increase in the number of children living with a grandparent. Federal and state governments revised and created policies in the 1980s and 1990s to better accommodate kinship caregivers, however, little research explained why more children were living with their grandparents. Many grandparents raising grandchildren are single women, African American, and poor. Researchers have used national demographic data to study kinship numbers, but these studies fail to ask why these kinship placements are occurring in the first place. One problem with kinship policies is worthiness of receiving funds and time limits on welfare. Kinship plays a large role in African American families as a historical tradition. There has been a rise of Hispanic kinship families, although these are more likely to be a sibling, aunt, or other relative caregiver. States with more liberal kinship policies and requirements have some of the largest numbers of children in kinship care. Many societal factors have led to more kinship care, such as crack cocaine use, AIDS, imprisonment of mothers, divorce, and teen pregnancy. Many of these problems are directly linked to poverty. Older kinship caregivers exhibit poorer health than their noncaregiving counterparts. There are mixed results on childrens health outcomes. Providing care for a relative child further economically disadvantages many older kinship caregivers. The author lists several implications and recommendations: o The issue being a womens problem, o Encourage media advocacy, o Address the health needs of kinship providers, o Disproportionality, o Start support groups for providers, o Effect of welfare policies, o Treat family holistically, o Engage in national commitment, and o Address broader social problems. R2P Evaluation The policy recommendations at the end of the article are helpful in guiding future work on the issue of kinship care. The implications for the health and well-being of kinship providers is also invaluable information for the field.
OBrien, P., Massat, C. R., & Gleeson, J. P. (2001). Upping the ante: Relative caregivers perceptions of changes in child welfare policies. Child Welfare, 80, 719-748. This article presented findings from focus groups and interviews with kinship caregivers on their recommendations for the child welfare system in light of new federal and state policies that encourage kinship caregivers to adopt.
The Study Kinship care has become a part of the formal child welfare system. Federal mandates dictate that agencies should place children in permanent homes as soon as possible. Many states focus on kinship placements as the best opportunity for permanence. Most kinship caregivers are urban people of color, more likely to be single, live in subsidized housing, work outside the home, have low incomes, have health problems, and care for large sibling groups compared with foster caregivers. Studies indicate that raising a related child raises stress levels and reduces contact with other family and friends. Many caregivers expressed frustration with the child welfare system, citing obscure policies and regulations that do not make sense to them or their situation. The authors used Illinois as an example of creative funding for kinship caregivers. The Methods The authors conducted the study between June 1998 and June 1999. The final sample included 35 kinship caregivers. All participating caregivers had taken in their related children through the formal child welfare system. Most were African American, and one participant was a male. The Findings The findings revealed six major themes: o The majority became kinship caregivers without advance notice. o Caregivers felt both love toward the children and burdened by them. o Kinship caregivers encountered obstacles, such as lack of information and lack of concrete supports. o All caregivers experienced changes in family dynamics. o Caregivers needed help identifying sources of support. o Many felt pressured into obtaining official guardianship or adoption. Recommendations by the kinship caregivers included respect for the caregivers and concrete assistance and services. R2P Evaluation This article is useful as a policy tool in developing better services for kinship care providers. The results clearly showed a need for better information and concrete services. The sample size was small and limited to one city in one state with unique policies, and results may differ in another state. Further study is needed.
Kinship Care
Page 54
ODonnoll, J. M. (1999). Involvement of African American fathers in kinship foster care services. Social Work, 44, 428-441. This article examined involvement of African American fathers with their children who had been placed in kinship care. The authors cite this as a topic that needs to be researched.
The Study No one had researched the role of African American fathers of children in child welfare. Although the literature on African American fathers is expanding, little exists on African American fathers involvement in and contributions to child wellbeing. The Methods This was a secondary analysis of 1993 through 1994 data from a federally funded research project on permanence. The final sample consisted of 74 families who had a child or children in kinship care. Most children were placed due to neglect. The Findings Caseworkers had little information on or contact with African American fathers with children in kinship care. Caseworkers were more likely to identify the fathers weaknesses and lacked information on fathers strengths. Fathers whose children were in paternal kinship care saw their children more (p = .02) and were involved more in case planning (p = .001) compared with children placed in maternal kinship care. The race of the caseworker was not significantly related to involvement with fathers, nor was caseload volume related to involvement of fathers. Caseworkers rarely felt that noncontact with the father would impede case progress. Also, many African American fathers may have wished to avoid becoming involved with child welfare because of prior bad experiences. R2P Evaluation This article had an indirect relationship to kinship care, however, readers should note the findings on father involvement based on paternal versus maternal kinship placement.
Kinship Care
Page 55
ODonnell, J. M. (2001). Paternal involvement in kinship foster care services in one father and multiple father families. Child Welfare, 80, 453-479. This study examined father involvement with birthchildren in kinship care and father involvement in permanency planning.
The Study Child welfare literature rarely discusses father involvement, and any discussion is usually limited to specialized studies of certain populations or ethnicities. Newer research shows that fathers can have a profound effect on their childrens development. Caseworkers have shown little interest in obtaining information on fathers or pursuing them for involvement in case planning. The Methods Researchers tracked 241 children in kinship care and their families in Illinois. The study examined frequency of contact between fathers and caseworkers, context of contacts, and participation of fathers in permanency planning. The author also examined families with multiple fathers. The author collected data from August 1993 to January 1994 and March 1994 to August 1994. Children were between 11 months and 14.8 years of age, most were African American, and most lived with maternal relatives. Larger families tended to have more than one father. The Findings In the year of data collection, the caseworkers never contacted 68% of fathers (fathers = 132). The findings suggest that the most involved fathers had one child in a one-father family. Of fathers, 70% had never been involved in permanency planning discussions. Paternal participation in case planning was significantly related to family composition (p < .01). R2P Evaluation This article highlighted a seldom researched aspect of kinship carefather involvement. Findings indicated that caseworkers do not attempt to involve fathers in case planning or permanency discussions. Strong policy and practice implications are based on the findings of this study.
Kinship Care
Page 56
Sands, R. G. (2000). Factors associated with stress among grandparents raising their grandchildren. Family Relations, 49(1), 97-105. This study examined the relationship between social supports and grandparent stress in kinship care homes.
The Study Children living with grandparents became more common in the 1990s. Some reasons for this included parental substance abuse, abuse and neglect, mental or physical illness, and incarceration. Proportionally more African American grandparents are kinship caregivers than any other race. Of those, 41% live at or below the poverty line, and 58% did not complete high school. Studies have shown that both older and younger grandparent kinship caregivers experience stress related to their new responsibilities. The Methods The sample included kinship care grandparents ages 50 and older who cared for grandchildren ages 2 months to 18 years. The sample was from Philadelphia and surrounding areas. The author divided the final sample of 129 grandparents into two groups: 32 African American and 32 white grandparents ages 50 through 59 years and 34 African American and 31 white grandparents ages 60 through 90. The sample mostly consisted of women who had a high school diploma or less education. Of the sample, 39% were in the labor force, and many had low incomes. The Findings Younger grandparents were more likely to have more education and to be working. African American grandparents had significantly more grandchildren in their care. More of the younger grandparents experienced high levels of stress. Influential factors included caring for a child with psychological or physical problems and low family cohesion. Younger grandparents had demands from both older and younger generations. Older grandparents had more stress due to loss of a spouse or poor health than younger grandparents. R2P Evaluation This report presented a well-executed study and included data methods, statistical procedures, and a good summary discussion. The results were limited to the Philadelphia area, but the sample was representative across ethnicities. Results may be generalizable to other areas.
Kinship Care
Page 57
Scannapieco, M., & Hegar, R.L. (1996). A nontraditional assessment framework for formal kinship homes. Child Welfare, 75, 567-582. This article explored the development of an assessment tool for evaluating kinship homes.
The Study Kinship care is a strategy of family preservation. Common reasons for a child to be placed in kinship care include neglect, parental substance abuse, and AIDS. Workers evaluate traditional foster homes in two ways: o Before placement, to assess the home and family; and o After placement, if the permanency plan calls for adoption. The worker assesses the foster family to determine if they can provide long-term care. Kinship care children tend to remain in care longer than foster children but experience fewer placement changes. Kinship care homes often receive less thorough assessments than foster care homes, and they also receive less supervision. Assessment of kinship care homes should include two types of assessment: o First time use of kinship home assessment for safety, and o Permanent placement assessment. Kinship care homes are often in poorer neighborhoods, and the kinship caregiver is more likely to be a single, older woman. Some are concerned that birthparents have easier access to their children if the children live with kin. This can be a good idea because family meetings will be in a more comfortable settings but it can also be a bad idea because of the potential for reabuse. When considering kinship placement as a permanent option for a child, the agency must consider: o AttachmentPotentially strong between the kinship caregiver and the child. o PermanenceConcern that kinship caregivers are older. o KinshipSibling groups are more likely to stay together in kinship placements, and placement with relatives keeps the extended family together. R2P Evaluation This article highlighted suggestions for the development of alternative assessment tools to use in the evaluation of kinship homes. The literature review was helpful and informed the authors decisions on what aspects of assessment should be stressed for kinship placements.
Kinship Care
Page 58
Scannapieco, M., & Jackson, S. (1996). Kinship care: The African American response to family preservation. Social Work, 41, 190-195. This article explored the increased use of kinship care among African American families. The authors cited reasons African American families use kinship care and how social workers could support these families better.
The Study African American families are resilient in coping with the disintegration of the family due to multiple stressors. The authors gave a detailed history of kinship care as an African American tradition. Historical information included: o Ties to West African traditions. o Slavery and the break up of the nuclear family. o The postCivil War search for relatives. o World War II saw many African Americans move north. o The Civil Rights movement saw more successful families send their children south for a summer education with their extended families, whereas other children were sent north to extended family for a better education. o The 1970s and 1980s saw successful African American families move to the suburbs, leaving less-well-off single mothers and older African Americans to survive in the cities. Currently, African American families face incredible challenges: o Poverty, o AIDS, o Child abuse and neglect, and o Reduction of services. African American families have created their own family support, including a dramatic rise in kinship care. Recommendations for the social work field include: o A culturally-based perspective; o Work with kinship triad of child, birthparents, and caregiver; and o Inclusion of all family members in permanency planning. R2P Evaluation This article did not contain research but it did help explain the rise of kinship care among African American families. This historical piece placed kinship care in perspective.
Kinship Care
Page 59
Schwartz, A.E. (2002). Societal value and the funding of kinship care. The Social Service Review, 76(3): 430-459. This article examined funding for kinship care. The author found that federal and state policies did not recognize that there are funding issues and that kinship caregivers were often underpaid.
The Study Children who cannot stay with their biological parents due to abuse and neglect, or other safety reasons are often placed with kin. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services makes a distinction between formal and informal kinship care. Formal kinship care means child welfare service involvement and informal kinship care is without agency involvement. Newer federal policies may make it more difficult for kinship caregivers to receive financial assistance. State policies are varied but most provide little assistance. A rising number of children have been placed in kinship care over the past 20 years. More children are entering the child welfare system due to abuse and neglect, parental substance abuse, or HIV infection. Also, the number of traditional, non-kin foster homes is decreasing. The definition of kin and licensing requirements vary from state to state. Payments vary across states and by funding program. Overall, kinship caregivers receive less financial assistance than foster parents. Kinship caregivers are more likely to be female, African-American, single, poorer, less educated, and experience economic, health, and emotional troubles. Most children in kinship care are African American. Federal documents show a concern that rising numbers of kinship care placements could undermine the child welfare system by becoming a family financial support system. Others believe that it is the duty of kin to support their relatives children when needed. Children in kinship care are more likely to maintain familial ties than children in foster care. Recommendations: o Amend federal rules so that kinship caregivers do not have to meet strict licensing standards for the higher foster care reimbursement rates. o Research must be conducted on costs and benefits of kinship care. o Child welfare workers should engage kinship caregivers in case planning and treat them with respect. R2P Evaluation This article reviewed kinship care from a policy perspective and offered recommendations based on evidence that kinship care providers did not receive the same benefits and assistance that licensed foster caregivers received through federal and states policies and child welfare practices.
Kinship Care
Page 60
Shlonsky, A. E., & Berrick, J. D. (2001). Assessing and promoting quality in kin and nonkin foster care. Social Service Review, 75(1), 60-83. The goal of this article was to develop an assessment tool on quality care in kinship care and foster care homes.
The Study Families under investigation by child protective services must undergo a series of tests and evaluations to determine if the family is safe for the children. Foster parents and kinship caregivers should undergo the same investigation. Foster parents need to be licensed by the state, but statutes vary from state to state. Many kinship caregivers do not undergo any scrutiny before a child is placed in their care. The questions the authors asked are: What defines quality care? How does one define general neglect? It is more legally complicated to enforce licensing standards on kinship caregivers. Kinship care provides children with uninterrupted familial care, and some research indicated that children can thrive in this arrangement. Kinship care has detractors. They fear that the entire family may share in the dysfunction that caused the agency to remove the child from the home. Domains of care: o SafetySafety from further maltreatment, not allowing unauthorized access by the birthparents, physical safety of home, safety of neighborhood, medical and dental care. o Educational supportChildren need to attend school and perform well. Children in kinship care may be more likely to attend more disadvantaged schools than children in foster care. o Mental health and behavioral supportFew researchers have studied the difference between kinship care and foster care children, but research has shown that many children in out-of-home care have mental and behavioral issues. o Developmental factorsStudies show a strong negative relationship between poverty and development outcomes. o Positive reciprocal attachmentA child needs just one positive parental model in their life to achieve success. o Caregiver characteristics are important. o A childs perception of quality of life affects their overall well-being. R2P Evaluation This article explored several studies on kinship and foster care placements. The authors base their domains of quality on past studies and gaps in the research. This study is useful for program change at the agency level and policy change at the state and federal levels.
Kinship Care
Page 61
Shore, N., Sim, K. E., Le Prohn, N. S., & Keller, T. E. (1994). Foster parent and teacher assessments of youth in kinship and non-kinship foster care placements: Are behaviors perceived differently across settings? Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 109-134. This article attempted to examine teacher ratings of problem behaviors exhibited in school by youths in kinship and non-kinship foster care as well as examine whether parent and teacher rating of problem behaviors across home and school settings differ by kinship status.
The Study There were two primary goals of the study: o Compare youth in kinship foster care to youth in nonkinship foster care on behavioral assessments completed by teachers, and o Examine differences between children in kinship and nonkinship placements on demographic variables. The researchers examined correspondences between behavioral assessments completed by teachers and foster parents. The Methods Instruments used for this study included the Teachers Report Form (TRF) and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). These instruments are part of Casey Family Programs standard practice, and workers routinely complete them at intake, 12 months, and age 18 or case closure. The authors drew the sample from youth served by Casey Family Programs. They included a youth in the study if a worker completed a 12-month assessment between January 1, 1994, and June 30, 1997. The TRF and CBCL combined sample included 122 children. The Findings On TRF, kinship care youth differed from the normative sample in terms of the delinquent behavior and the externalizing behavior composite scales. Nonkinship youth differed from the normative sample on three syndrome scales: anxious/depressed, attention problems, and aggressive behavior. Nonkinship youth scored high on the externalizing behavior scale and total problems. The authors found no difference in comparing kinship with nonkinship youths scores on TRF. Nonkin foster parents rated the problem behaviors more severely than the teachers, whereas kinship foster parents rated them almost exactly the same as the teachers. R2P Evaluation The study had a limited sample size of children involved with a private agency. The researchers used reliable instruments to perform cross-sectional design but did not control for other variables, such as abuse history and reason for placement.
Kinship Care
Page 62
Smith, A. B., & Dannsion, L. L. (2001). Educating educators: Programming to support grandparent-headed families. Contemporary Education, 72(2), 47-56 This article explored support systems for grandparent kinship caregivers through schools.
The Study The number of grandparents caring for grandchildren has risen in the last decade. These kinship caregivers represent all socioeconomic levels, geographic areas, and ethnicities. Many grandparent kinship caregivers do not have the support services they need. The authors believed that schools could offer the best opportunity to provide services to custodial grandparents. Grandparents often become kinship caregivers due to teen pregnancy, parental incarceration, parental substance abuse, death, HIV/AIDS, and abuse and neglect. Kinship caregiving grandparents average age is 53. Many are single women caring for two young children. Kinship caregiver grandparents are often unprepared for their new role and feel guilt at their own childs inability to parent. Children living with grandparents often come to them with emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems. The study launched a pilot program for kinship caregiving grandparents and their grandchildren. Educators worked with project staff to help kinship care families obtain services. They held separate sessions for the children to work on social and emotional development. They gave sessions for grandparents on parenting, communication strategies, kinship care and building linkages. R2P Evaluation This article highlighted a pilot program but provided little information on study design, sample, and results.
Kinship Care
Page 63
Solomon, J. C., & Marx, J. (1995). To grandmothers house we go: Health and school adjustment of children raised solely by grandparents. Gerontologist, 35, 386-394. This study examined the health and well-being indicators of children raised by grandparents. Research questions included general characteristics of families, comparisons of children living with grandparents to other living situations, and the relationship between characteristics of grandparents and childs health and school outcomes.
The Study African American grandmothers are much more involved with their grandchildren regardless of living situation than grandmothers of other ethnicities. Overall, grandparents are a positive influence on grandchildren. This study examined grandparents and grandchildren living situations nationwide and within different races. The study also attempted to examine the influence of grandfathers. The Methods Data were from the National Health Interview Survey, which researchers have conducted continually since 1957. The authors divided family structure into three possibilities: o Grandparents only, no birthparents; o Both parents present and raising child; and o Single parent present and raising child. Study findings were significant to the .05 and .10 levels. The Findings Children in grandparent-only homes and single-parent homes were more likely to be African American and poor. Grandmothers were more likely to have less education and be unemployed than mothers who were raising their own children. Children in grandparent-only homes and single-parent homes had poorer outcomes in school, but children in grandparent-only homes were less likely to be a disciplinary problem than children in single-parent homes. Children in grandparent-only homes had significant school adjustment problems but fewer health problems compared with children in single-parent homes. R2P Evaluation This study showed that children in grandparent homes have mixed outcomes, however, the findings gave some indication that children raised by both grandparents had better outcomes than children in single-parent homes. The data set for studying the effects of grandfathers on grandchildren was small. Overall, the study does contribute to the field of kinship care, especially in positive health and school behavior outcomes.
Kinship Care
Page 64
Testa, M. F., Shook, K., Cohen, L., & Woods, M. (1999). Permanency planning options for children in formal kinship care. Child Welfare, 75, 451-470. This article reported research conducted on the feasibility of a delegated relative authority (DRA) option Illinois developed for children in kinship care.
The Study The goal of DRA was to improve the permanency options for children in long-term kinship care. The results highlighted in this article were from an Illinois Department of Child and Family Servicessponsored Relative Caregiver Social Assessment study in 1993. In many states, including Illinois, some kinship families could not qualify as a professional foster care home. They could not be reimbursed at the higher foster care rate due to things like small living spaces, lack of private phone, and so forth. The development of DRA emerged out of the difficulties Illinois was experiencing with kinship care: o Blurring the lines between formal and informal kinship care, o Divergent payments between kinship families, o Slow return rates to birthparents, and o Resistance of kinship families to adopt. DRA status meant that the child was still a ward of the state, but relative caregivers would be in charge of making all crucial decisions with minimal contact with agency. The Methods The final sample included 641 homes with 1,116 children, 32% of whom were 12 and older, 78% of whom had mothers with substance abuse problems, and 60% of whom lived with a grandparent. Of the kinship caregivers, 94% were African American. The Findings To achieve DRA status, the placement must be stable and the children unlikely to be reunited with their parents or adopted. Of kinship caregivers, 83% thought it best if the child remained with them. According to the caseworkers, certain statuses applied in certain situations. Some kinship families were better suited to a particular status, such as adoption, DRA, or long-term kinship care. Caseworkers felt that kinship caregivers between the ages of 36 and 65 were best suited to adopt. Workers viewed DRA as one option among many, not a new final goal. R2P Evaluation This article featured a good literature review on the evolving history of kinship care, including the most salient legal cases and how those decisions affected kinship services.
Kinship Care
Page 65
Testa, M. F., & Shook-Slack, K. (2002). The gift of kinship foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 79-108. This study attempted to apply the theory of gift relationships to kinship foster care and analyzed reunification and replacement rates. The purpose was to create a new empirical foundation for families and agencies by analyzing gift-giving variables.
The Study The researchers asked three primary research questions: o To what extent does perception of reciprocity (mutual benefit) affect a childs reunification with parents or re-placement from kinship care into nonrelative foster care? o Controlling for reciprocity, to what degree do foster allowances, feelings of empathy, and a sense of duty affect reunification or re-placement? o How sensitive are these findings to alternative specifications of the competing risk of kinship transfers of children among relatives? The Methods The authors collected data on 983 children in Chicago and the Cook County area. To be included in the survey, the home had to be under the direct supervision of public child welfare workers and the children had to be living with their relative caregiver for at least one year as of June 30, 1993. The study linked completed surveys to administrative data to track placements until case resolution, placement disruption, or June 30, 1999. The Findings Of kinship placements, 14% were re-placed in foster care or emergency shelter, 16% transferred to another relatives home, and 45.9% stayed where they were. A caregivers perception of the birthparents cooperating with visitation and service plans at the time of the survey was associated with a 407% higher rate of reunification and 64% lower rate of foster care re-placement. Foster care re-placements were 150% higher among kin who had reduced payments than kin placements whose payments stayed the same. Reunification rates were 142% higher among kin who had reduced payments than among kin placements whose payments stayed the same. Placements in which the caregiver reported a poor relationship with the child were 283% more likely to terminate into foster care than relationships judged to be good. Children living with infrequent churchgoers were 141% more likely to be re-placed, and children in the South were 49% less likely to be re-placed. R2P Evaluation Workers cannot use kinship care as an unconditional safety net for children who are abused and neglected because this study shows that decreasing payment amounts increases re-placement rates. Overall, the study had a restricted sample (size, location, selection criteria) and included sibling groups from the same home.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Report to the Congress on kinship foster care. Washington, DC: Author. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) created a panel of advisors and conducted a literature review to comply with a congressional request to focus on kinship care.
The Study Many states are encouraging kinship caregivers to become licensed foster parents. Almost all states give a preference to kinship care if a relative is willing and able, and meets certain requirements. Some concerns about kinship care include: o Potential exists for the same problems of the nuclear family to expand and affect extended family. o A growing number of children are in kinship care. o Children tend to stay in kinship care longer. o Costs of kinship care are rising. o Kinship care threatens the validity of the child welfare system by changing its mission from protection to family support. Kinship caregivers have less preparation time than foster caregivers, and they receive less supervision and interaction from caseworkers. Children in kinship care may stay in care longer but they often have fewer moves. States vary in child protective service assessments and checks on child relatives before placement with kin. The advisory panel recommended minimal federal oversight, allowing states to determine their own needs. Some states have dual requirements: one for foster parents and one for kinship parents. Many believe this in not a good practice because a childs safety is at stake. Kinship caregivers often receive less financial and nonfinancial assistance compared with foster parents, although research indicates kinship caregivers are often poorer, older, and less educated than foster parents. No matter where the child is placed, permanence must be the ultimate goal. Kinship caregivers need to be made fully aware of programs and services for which they are eligible. The federal government needs to provide basic kinship care research to states without burdening them with for extra data. R2P Evaluation The recommendations and accompanying appendices contained helpful knowledge for agencies that provide kinship care. The advisory panel discussion and DHHS position on each topic was educational.
Kinship Care
Page 67
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999, May). Foster care: Kinship care quality and permanency issues (Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee of Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives). Washington, DC: Author. A former chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources requested this U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report on kinship care.
The Study This report had three sections: o A description of the quality of kinship care compared with foster care in terms of caseworker assessment of caregivers parenting skills, maintenance of child contact with familiar people and surroundings, and caregivers willingness to enforce court-ordered restrictions on parental visits. o A time-in-care comparison of children in kinship care and foster care. o An evaluation of quality of care and placement in a permanent home in a timely manner. The Methods The authors reviewed research, federal statutes, and regulations on kinship care. They also reviewed California and Illinois legislation and initiatives in kinship care. The authors collected data from samples of foster care cases in California and Illinois that were in the system between March 1997 and September 1997. They used California and Illinois because these states had large kinship care populations and different systems. The Results Childrens experiences in kinship care and foster care were comparable. More continuity existed in the lives of children in kinship care. Illinois actively pursued adoption or guardianship with kinship care providers, therefore, kinship care children in that state spent less time in state custody. In California, the authors found no significant relationship between length of stay and kinship care or foster care. Overall, in both states, children were in kinship care longer than the maximum time allotted by the Adoption and Safe Families Act. R2P Evaluation This GAO report offered a comprehensive document on kinship care. Results indicated that each state had a different way of dealing with kinship care populations.
Kinship Care
Page 68
Waters Boots, S., & Geen, R. (1996). Family care or foster care? How state policies affect kinship caregivers. New Federalism: Issues and Options for States, N34. The growth of kinship care over the past 10 years has led to discussion and legislation on kinship care as a viable alternative to foster care. Although these first steps were good, the bigger issue became what types of supports and services kinship caregivers needed to help the children in their care.
The Study 1996 legislation encouraged states to recognize kin placement as a first alternative when a child is removed from the home. Some concern existed that kin placement could be used by parents to avoid newer welfare regulations on work requirements. The Methods The authors surveyed all 50 states for this article and asked specific questions on laws and politics on kinship care. The Findings The authors identified three types of kinship careprivate (not involved with the state agency), kinship care known to child protective services, and children who an agency has placed with a relative. Families met eligibility requirements, however, these requirements varied widely from state to state. Some required a family to be fully licensed to qualify for a full complement of services. States varied on types of payments to kinship families. Most states held kinship families to less stringent standards than foster families, and did not provide these kinship families with as much assistance as foster families. R2P Evaluation This article included charts and diagrams describing the variation among states in licensing and payment options for kinship families. This article gave the reader an idea of the wide variance throughout the United States on kinship regulations.
Kinship Care
Page 69
Whitley, D. M., Kelly, S. J., & Sipe, T. A. (2001). Grandmothers raising grandchildren: Are they at increased risk of health problems? Health & Social Work, 26(2), 105-114. This article explored the health risks of kinship care for grandmothers. Grandparents of color were most at risk for health problems.
The Study Kinship care affects all racial and economic groups. In families of color, it is far more common. Many studies point to maternal substance abuse as the leading cause of kinship care. The average age of kinship caregiving grandmothers is between 55 and 57. Life expectancy for African Americans is 69.4 years. African American people have higher incidences of heart disease and hypertension than white people, and African American women are at increased risk of diabetes. Research has suggested that kinship caregiving grandparents are more likely to experience psychological stress, have lower social and economic well-being, and have poorer health. Grandparents stated that they would never let their own health problems interfere with caring for their grandchildren. The Methods The sample consisted of 100 African American kinship caregivers, most of whom were grandmothers. A few were great grandmothers and great aunts. Most were single and relied on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds to support their grandchildren. The mean number of grandchildren in their care was 2.5. The children ranged in age from 1 month to 18 years, with the average age of 8.7 years. The Findings Most grandmothers suffered from at least one aliment, including diabetes, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, and obesity. Of the sample, 45% rated their health as fair to poor, and 65% stated they were mostly satisfied with their lives. Findings indicated that the grandmothers probably were in need of education and intervention strategies on healthy behaviors. R2P Evaluation This study focused more on the health of the grandparent caregivers than on the children in their care, but it raised important issues concerning the poor health many of the caregivers experienced. More research and policy initiatives need to be introduced that focus on grandparent caregiver health. This study was a good introduction to the issue.
Kinship Care
Page 70
Zimmerman, E., Daykin, D., Moore, V., Wuu, C., & Li, J. (1998). Kinship and nonkinship foster care in New York City: Pathways and outcomes. New York: United Way of New York City. This study tracked children in kinship care in New York City and compared their characteristics, needs, service experiences, and outcomes with children in foster care.
The Study This study examined: o What are the pathways children follow in the foster care system? o Do children in foster care and kinship care have different needs? o Do children in kinship care stay in the foster care system longer than children in traditional foster care? The Methods The authors studied a random sample of 516 children between birth and age five who had entered care in 1990 in New York City. The authors reviewed case files on the children in care through 1995. They also conducted focus groups with key informants. The Findings Kinship care by itself was not a direct cause of longer stays in care. Children in kinship care reached permanence more slowly than children in foster care. Children in kinship care changed placements less often than foster care children. The slowest return home rates were for children whose cases were transferred between public and private agencies. Most kinship care families had less education and lower income than foster care families. Reimbursement rates were not equal between kinship care and foster care families. R2P Evaluation This report gave detailed findings of a kinship care study in New York City. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to other large cities with similar populations. The research is thorough and included many helpful charts.
Kinship Care
Page 71

Bibliokc

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Bibliokc

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

May 2003

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Research to Practice Initiative Child Welfare League of America

Você também pode gostar