Outcomes of kinship care placement
Download
1 / 72

Outcomes of Kinship Care Placement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 496 Views
  • Updated On :

Outcomes of Kinship Care Placement. Donna Harrington, Ph.D. University of Maryland School of Social Work 23rd Annual UC Davis Western Regional Child Abuse and Neglect Conference Sacramento, CA, September 13-15, 2004. Workshop Goals. Define kinship care placements

Related searches for Outcomes of Kinship Care Placement

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Outcomes of Kinship Care Placement' - jaden


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Outcomes of kinship care placement

Outcomes of Kinship Care Placement

Donna Harrington, Ph.D.

University of Maryland School of Social Work

23rd Annual UC Davis Western Regional

Child Abuse and Neglect Conference

Sacramento, CA, September 13-15, 2004


Workshop goals
Workshop Goals

  • Define kinship care placements

  • Discuss rates of kinship care placements

  • Review research on outcomes

    • Discuss limitations of research

    • Describe a few recent studies in detail

  • Discuss subsidized guardianship initiatives

    • Availability

    • Outcomes

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Participants
Participants

  • What types of settings do participants work in?

    • Child welfare

    • Medical

    • Other

  • What type of work do participants do?

    • Clinical

    • Research

    • Administration

  • Experience with kinship care?

Outcomes of Kinship Care


What is kinship care
What is Kinship Care?

  • Living with a relative because parents are unable to take care of the child

    • Formal – placement arranged by a child welfare agency

    • Informal – arranged within the family without involvement of a child welfare agency

  • “Relative” may include fictive kin, who are close to the child, but not related by blood

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Informal kinship care
Informal Kinship Care

  • Much more common than formal

  • Only a few studies have examined, therefore little is known (Cuddeback, 2004)

  • Ehrle and Geen (2002) – children in formal and informal kinship care were similar

    • Both experiencing greater hardships than children in non-kinship foster care

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Why kinship care is needed
Why Kinship Care is Needed

  • Children may be unable to live with their parents because of

    • Death

    • Incarceration

    • Maltreatment

    • Mental illness

    • Substance abuse

    • Illness, including HIV/AIDS

    • Other

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Numbers
Numbers

  • 2000 US Census – 5.6 million children reside with grandparents or other relatives

  • 26% of children in out-of-home care lived with relatives (Harden, et al., 2004, based on Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System [AFCARS] data)

  • Kinship care is fastest growing type of out-of-home placement

  • In a number of states more children are entering kinship care than foster care

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Numbers from national survey of america s families
Numbers from National Survey of America’s Families

  • 1999 – 2.3 million children did not live with their parents (Billing, et al., 2002)

    • 90% of those children lived with a relative

    • Most arrangements are made privately within the family

  • March 2002 – almost 2.2 million children living with a relative (Fields & Casper, 2001, in Carpenter & Clyman, 2004)

    • 10 times the number in traditional foster care

    • 3% of children live in kinship care

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Changes in nsaf numbers
Changes in NSAF Numbers

  • 1997 – 1.8 million children living with relatives

  • Increase primarily due to informal (i.e. outside the child welfare system) placements

    • 1.3 million in 1997

    • 1.8 million in 1999

    • Formal placements stable around 400,000 (Billing, et al., 2002)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Increased use of kinship care in the public child welfare system
Increased Use of Kinship Care in the Public Child Welfare System

  • Changing reimbursement policies that permit relatives to receive foster care payments

  • Increasing foster care caseloads

  • Decreasing numbers of foster parents

  • Increasing emphasis on maintaining family ties (Iglehart, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Placement rates
Placement Rates System

  • In Baltimore, up to 75% of children in out-of-home care are placed with relatives

  • In New York City, approximately 50% of children in out-of-home care are placed with relatives

    (Kolomer, 2000)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Placement with relatives
Placement with Relatives System

  • Separation from parents can be traumatic

  • Trauma may be minimized by placement with relatives

  • Often experience significant economic hardship or poverty

  • Unknown whether risk of living in poverty on development moderated by benefits of living with relative

    (Billing, et al., 2002)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Theoretical advantages of kinship care
Theoretical Advantages of SystemKinship Care

  • Continuity of family identify and knowledge

  • Access to relatives other than kinship caregiver

  • Continuity of ethnic, religious, and racial

  • Caregiver’s familiarity of child based on pre-existing relationships

    (Cuddeback, 2004, based on Hegar, 1999)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Pros and cons
Pros and Cons System

  • “Some of these findings raise concern… it is important to examine whether the theoretical advantages of placing a child in kinship family foster care outweigh some of the disadvantages characteristic of kinship placement (i.e. lower socioeconomic status, fewer resources, less training and support)” (Cuddeback, 2004, p. 625)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Perceptions of kinship care
Perceptions of Kinship Care System

  • Child welfare professionals have reported

    • Generally children are better off being fostered by kin

    • Kinship care children have a stronger sense of belonging

    • Have more continuity in their lives

    • Level of care and parenting in kinship homes is generally good (Cuddeback, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Perceptions of kinship care continued
Perceptions of Kinship Care continued System

  • Child welfare professionals also report

    • Kinship foster care families are more difficult to supervise

    • Require more time to assess

    • Make case plans harder to enforce

    • Are more likely to delay reunification

    • Less likely to be able to meet health and educational needs (Cuddeback, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Disproportionate placement of african american children in kc
Disproportionate Placement of African American Children in KC

  • “Kinship care is consistent with values and family patterns that are firmly etched in African-American history … and … child welfare workers use kinship placements to fill the need for culturally relevant placements” (Iglehart, 2004, p. 613)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion
From Exclusion to Overinclusion KC

  • 1995 – African American children approximately 15% of US child population

    • Almost 30% founded allegations of abuse and neglect

    • 41% of child welfare population

    • 49% of out-of-home placements

      (Smith & Devore, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion continued
From Exclusion to Overinclusion continued KC

  • Historically African American children excluded from child welfare system

    • Orphaned children “absorbed into the … community by other adult[s] … who took over the parenting role in keeping with kinship care patterns familiar in their African cultures” (Smith & Devore, 2004, p. 429)

    • Mid 1800s and early 1900s white run charity organizations, mutual aid societies, and settlement houses ignored, segregated, or served African Americans during special hours

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion continued1
From Exclusion to Overinclusion continued KC

  • Exclusion continued through the Progressive Era reform movement

  • Slight change occurred post World War II as the “Black presence became more evident in the urban centers of the North. Greater strides toward inclusion were accomplished as a response to the racial unrest in many cities” (Smith & Devore, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion continued2
From Exclusion to Overinclusion continued KC

  • By 1950s, civil rights activity expanding, number of children of color in child welfare system increased

  • Increase due to three factors: (Billingsley & Giovannoni, 1972, cited in Smith & Devore, 2004)

    • Large numbers black families migrate to north

    • Civil rights movement; integration focus

    • Decreasing poverty among white children; formal system increasingly caring for poor minority children

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion continued3
From Exclusion to Overinclusion continued KC

  • African American children greater risk for mandated abuse and neglect reporting

  • Currently two tiered system

    • Formally licensed and trained relatives receiving foster care payment rates

    • Unlicensed relatives receiving TANF payments

      • Often also receive fewer agency support services

      • Some may not receive any financial support

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion continued4
From Exclusion to Overinclusion continued KC

  • Financial concerns in child welfare system

  • Kinship care is usually less costly

    • On average TANF payments are 50% lower than foster care rates (Smith & Devore, 2004)

  • Throughout welfare reform of late 1990s preference for kinship care placements continued

    • ASFA (1997) affirmed place of relatives in providing child welfare services

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion continued5
From Exclusion to Overinclusion continued KC

  • ASFA required shortened time frame to achieve permanence

    • Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) for all children in foster care for 15 out of last 22 months

    • TPR petition not required if child placed with a relative

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion policy implications smith devore 2004
From Exclusion to Overinclusion Policy Implications KC(Smith & Devore, 2004)

  • Policy “to address ‘minimum standards of care’ which are grounded in cultural values about parenting and child rearing” (p. 442)

    • Realistic standards

    • Not based on Euro-American middle class values

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion policy implications smith devore 2004 continued
From Exclusion to Overinclusion Policy Implications KC(Smith & Devore, 2004) continued

  • Policies “valuing … the cultural tradition of a reliance on extended family (blood and fictive kin) need to be developed to reduce the unnecessary placement of African American and other children of color” (p. 442)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


From exclusion to overinclusion policy implications smith devore 2004 continued1
From Exclusion to Overinclusion Policy Implications KC(Smith & Devore, 2004) continued

  • Acknowledge “that poor children tend to have poor relatives” (p. 442)

    • Provide more equitable financial and service support

  • “Require evaluation of culturally competent practice” (p. 442)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Federal licensing guidelines
Federal Licensing Guidelines KC

  • January 2000 – USDHHS issued guidelines instructing states to use the same requirements for relative foster homes as they do for non-relative foster homes to obtain Title IV-E reimbursement for care of children placed with kin (Barbell & Freundlich, 2001)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Kinship caregivers
Kinship Caregivers KC

  • “Some research suggests that kinship caregivers might foster less effectively…, and that kinship caregivers receive less support, services, and training and have fewer resources than non-kinship caregivers” (Cuddeback, 2004, pp. 623-624)

  • May contribute to differences in outcomes

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Caregiver demographics
Caregiver Demographics KC

  • Compared with non kinship caregivers, kinship caregivers are more likely to be:

    • African American

    • Older

    • Single

    • Less educated

    • Unemployed

    • Lower socioeconomic status

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Grandparents raising grandchildren
Grandparents raising Grandchildren KC

  • Compared with grandparents not caring for their grandchildren:

    • Report more limitations of daily activities

    • Increased depression

    • Lower levels of marital satisfaction

    • Poorer health

  • Some evidence that benefit from support groups (Cuddeback, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Harden et al 2004
Harden, et al. (2004) KC

  • Comparison of kinship (n = 50) and foster (n = 51) care parents

    • African American – 96% kinship, 80% foster

    • Mean age of caregivers – 56.2 (+ 10.2) years kinship, 44.9 (+ 9.4) years foster

    • Caring for 2.7 (+ 1.7) children

    • Recruited in Washington and Baltimore from child welfare agencies

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Harden et al 2004 results
Harden, et al. (2004) Results KC

  • Kinship caregivers reported

    • Less warmth/respect

    • More strictness/overprotectiveness

    • More parent-child conflict/anger

    • Fewer social resources

      • Fewer married and more widowed

      • Fewer with other adult present (32% v. 63%)

      • More with income < 20,000 (62% v. 18%)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Harden et al 2004 results continued
Harden, et al. (2004) Results continued KC

  • Kinship caregivers reported

    • Fewer own home (50% v. 82%)

    • Fewer employed (32% v. 66%)

    • Fewer high school graduate (64% v. 87%)

    • More with chronic illness (50% v. 20%)

    • More medical treatment (50% v. 14%)

    • More hospitalized > 1 time (80% v. 51%)

    • More prescribed medication (60% v. 27%)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Harden et al 2004 discussion
Harden, et al. (2004) Discussion KC

  • “Kinship care providers reported parenting attitudes that have been associated with deleterious child outcomes in other studies of parenting… However, the parenting findings were clearly related to the background characteristics of this sample, in particular the older age and single parent status of the kinship care providers” (p. 666).

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Harden et al 2004 discussion continued
Harden, et al. (2004) Discussion continued KC

  • “In general, results of this study corroborated other evidence that kinship parents have fewer social and economic resources, and poorer health, than traditional foster parents” (p. 666)

  • “Children… reared in… high-risk contexts have a higher probability of poor outcomes, such as academic underachievment, deficits in social competence, and mental health difficulties” (p. 667)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Kinship homes
Kinship Homes KC

  • Compared with non kinship homes

    • More crowded

    • Worse general structural condition

    • Not as clean, safe, or pleasant

    • More likely to have acknowledged past violence in the home

    • Expressed concerns about other adults in home using drugs or alcohol

    • Neighborhoods rated less well (Cuddeback, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Placement stability
Placement Stability KC

  • Compared with non kinship care, children in kinship care

    • Have more stable placements

    • Have fewer prior placements

    • Limited evidence remain in care longer

    • Limited evidence less likely to reenter care

    • Better contact with birth parents

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Permanency outcomes
Permanency Outcomes KC

  • Some evidence that kinship families less likely to adopt or accept legal custody

  • Unclear if less likely to adopt because child welfare professionals less likely to discuss this option or other reasons

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Reluctance to adopt
Reluctance to Adopt KC

  • Relatives may decline adoption because of blood ties and cultural reasons (Burnette, 1997)

  • Relatives may not be reluctant to adopt if

    • Provided with accurate information

    • Assured of receiving ongoing subsidy payments and continued role of birth parents

    • Option to keep children’s birth names after adoption (Geen & Berrick, 2002; Testa & Shook, 2002)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Comparison with children in general population
Comparison with Children in General Population KC

  • Children in kinship care function less well:

    • More behavior problems

    • More problems with homework

    • Below average scores in reading, math, cognitive functioning, problem solving, reasoning, and listening comprehension, but above average in oral expression

    • Similar to children in non-kinship care and maltreated children not in care (Cuddeback, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Behavioral and emotional well being
Behavioral and Emotional KCWell-Being

  • 13% of 6-17 year olds living with relatives exhibit high levels of problems

  • Higher than the 7% of those living with parents

  • Within poverty groups (<200% Federal Poverty Level), no difference in rates

    • 14% children in relative care

    • 11% in parent care (Billing, et al., 2002)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Carpenter and clyman 2004
Carpenter and Clyman (2004) KC

  • Adult physical and emotional wellbeing

  • Nationally representative sample of women with a history of living in kinship care

  • 1995 National Survey of Family Growth

  • Subsample of 18 to 44 year olds

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Carpenter and clyman 2004 continued
Carpenter and Clyman (2004) continued KC

  • Sample

    • Kinship care group – women who lived with any relative, without either biological parent, for at least one month (n = 471)

    • Comparison group – lived with at least one biological parent throughout childhood (n = 8289)

    • Excluded women who had been in foster care or group homes at any time in childhood

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Carpenter and clyman 2004 results
Carpenter and Clyman (2004) Results KC

  • Kinship group

    • More likely African American (29.2% v. 13.2%)

    • Less likely complete high school (79.2% v. 88.8%)

    • More likely obese (25.1% v. 18.4%)

    • More likely current smokers (40.5% v. 28.1%)

    • More likely poor (124% FPL v. 191% FPL)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Carpenter and clyman 2004 results1
Carpenter and Clyman (2004) Results KC

  • Kinship group

    • More likely unwanted first sexual experience (13.1% v. 8.4%)

  • “Women in the kinship group exhibited higher rates of worse physical and emotional wellbeing than in the comparison group, across all of the outcomes of interest” (p. 680)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Carpenter and clyman 2004 results multivariate analyses
Carpenter and Clyman (2004) Results – Multivariate Analyses

  • After controlling for other predictor variables (e.g. age, smoking, obesity, etc.) kinship care was not a significant predictor of poor health status or limited life activities

  • Kinship group remained more likely to have experienced extended period of anxiety even after control variables

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Carpenter and clyman 2004 results multivariate analyses1
Carpenter and Clyman (2004) Results – Multivariate Analyses

  • Kinship care group women more than twice as likely to report general unhappiness with life, even after adjusting for periods of anxiety and poor health

Outcomes of Kinship Care


School performance
School Performance Analyses

  • Compared with the general population, children in kinship care

    • Fewer attendance problems

    • Fewer suspensions and expulsions

    • Less likely to be working at or above grade level (Cuddeback, 2004, based on Dubowitz study)

  • Other studies find no differences in educational performance for kinship and non-kinship care children

Outcomes of Kinship Care


School suspensions or expulsions
School Suspensions or Expulsions Analyses

  • 26% of 12-17 year olds living with relative suspended or expelled during survey year

  • Twice as high as the 13% of those living with parents

  • Within poverty group, 31% of those living with relatives v. 21% of those living with parents (Billing, et al., 2002, based on National Study of America’s Families [NSAF])

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Skipping school
Skipping School Analyses

  • 22% of those living with relatives skipped school

  • Compared with 16% of those living with parents

  • Within poverty group, equally likely (21%) to skip school whether living with parents or relatives (Billing, et al., 2002, based on NSAF)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Why the inconsistency in school findings
Why the Inconsistency Analysesin School Findings?

  • Dubowitz study cross-sectional study of Baltimore children in kinship care

    • No comparison group

    • Early 1990s

  • Billing reporting findings from National Study of America’s Families

    • Probability sample, not kinship care focused

    • Data collected 1997 and 1999

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Physical health
Physical Health Analyses

  • 14% of children living with relatives with a limiting condition compared with 7% of those living with a parent

  • 7% in poor/fair health compared with 4% of those living with a parent

  • Within poverty group, higher limiting condition (17% v. 11%), but similar in poor/fair health (9% v. 8%) (Billing, et al., 2002)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Physical health continued
Physical Health continued Analyses

  • Other studies have not found differences in health status of children in kinship and non kinship care and children in the general population (Cuddeback, 2004, p. 631)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Sexual risks carpenter et al 2001
Sexual Risks Analyses(Carpenter, et al., 2001)

  • First intercourse 6 months younger for kinship care group than comparison group

    • Foster care did not differ from comparison

  • Earlier first pregnancy

    • Kinship care 8.6 mos earlier than comparison

    • Foster care 11.3 mos earlier than comparison

  • Increased odds of more than 3 sexual partners (1.4-1.7) than comparison group

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Summary of national survey of america s families findings billing et al 2002
Summary of National Survey of America’s Families Findings Analyses(Billing, et al., 2002)

  • “Children living with relatives fare worse than children living with parents on most measures of behavioral, emotional, and physical well-being” (p. 4)

  • Not necessarily surprising

    • Separation from parents

    • Many experienced abuse and/or neglect

    • Poverty

Outcomes of Kinship Care


General findings from nsaf
General Findings from NSAF Analyses

  • Significant barriers to well-being faced by children living with relatives rather than parents

  • “Children living with low-income relatives fare worse on some measures of well-being compared with children living with low-income parents, but on others they are doing just as well” (Billing, et al., 2002, p. 1)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Impact of poverty
Impact of Poverty Analyses

  • “On several measures, … children in low-income relative care and parent care fare similarly well. They have comparable levels of behavioral and emotional problems and activity involvement, and are equally likely to skip school. They also fare similarly in terms of physical health status” (Billing, et al., 2002, p. 5)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Outcomes general findings
Outcomes General Findings Analyses

  • “The research regarding outcomes of kinship vs. non-kinship foster care is limited and inconclusive and should be interpreted with caution as these studies are based upon self-reports of small non-probability samples of unknown generalizability” (Cuddeback, 2004, p. 628)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Title iv e waiver demonstration projects
Title IV-E Waiver AnalysesDemonstration Projects

  • Revisions of the Social Security Act in 1994 paved the way for child welfare demonstration projects that waive certain federal legislative and regulatory requirements under Titles IV-E and IV-B (Geen & Berrick, 2002)

  • Several states that received waivers implemented programs to support kinship care (i.e. the subsidized guardianship projects)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Subsidized guardianship objectives
Subsidized Guardianship Objectives Analyses

  • Acknowledge value and role of kinship caregivers

  • Recognition that relatives need financial assistance to be successful (Needell, et al., 2001)

  • Provide caregivers with parental authority

    • Legal decisions concerning their relative children

    • Release child from agency’s custody without terminating parental rights (Jackson, 1996; Barbell & Freundlich, 2001)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Subsidized guardianship projects
Subsidized Guardianship Projects Analyses

  • 35 states have some form of subsidized guardianship option for relative caregivers

    • 3 (NJ, MO, & MT) have 2 separate subsidized guardianship programs serving different groups of children

      • Total of 38 subsidized guardianship programs nationally

    • 7 states (DL, IL, MD, MT, NM, NC, & OR) have Title IV-E waivers to test the effectiveness of the subsidized guardianship projects

    • 19 states use state funds for the programs; 12 use TANF funds; and 3 use other federal funds

      (Allen, Bissell, & Miller, 2003)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Maryland s subsidized guardianship demonstration findings
Maryland’s Subsidized Guardianship Demonstration Findings Analyses

  • Eligibility for guardianship subsidy significantly increases the rate at which kinship care children exit the foster care system

    • Effect was stronger in Cohort 2 than in Cohort 1, probably due to implementation changes

  • Eligibility for guardianship subsidy did not significantly affect rate at which restricted foster care children exit the foster care system

  • $300/month subsidy higher than kinship care rate of approximately $200/month, but lower than restricted foster care rate of $550/month

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Maryland s subsidized guardianship demonstration findings continued
Maryland’s Subsidized Guardianship Demonstration Findings continued

  • When differences in outcomes were found (e.g. case exit rates), the differences favored the experimental group and the subsidy appears to be cost effective, suggesting that it is a good permanency option to make available to relative caregivers, especially those in the kinship care group

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Maryland s subsidized guardianship demonstration cost effectiveness
Maryland’s Subsidized Guardianship Demonstration Cost Effectiveness

  • For all groups cost savings to families

  • For all groups except the cohort 1 restricted foster care group, cost savings to society (i.e. government and families combined)

    • For the cohort 1 restricted foster care group, the net costs of the GAP Program to society were essentially zero

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Methodological issues in kinship care research
Methodological Issues in EffectivenessKinship Care Research

  • Lack of differentiation between paid kinship care and foster care in child welfare studies

  • Most studies focus on children while in care

  • Of the few long-term outcome studies, sample sizes are small and comparison groups lacking (Carpenter & Clyman, 2004)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Conclusion
Conclusion Effectiveness

  • “Few studies address formal kinship care, and virtually none address informal kinship care” (Carpenter & Clyman, 2004, p. 674)

  • “Because of these methodological issues and the paucity of information available to date on kinship care populations, the long-term physical and emotional outcomes of adults who have lived in kinship care has not been adequately studied” (Carpenter & Clyman, 2004, p. 674)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Conclusion continued
Conclusion continued Effectiveness

  • “Kinship foster care has become part of the public child welfare system and the knowledge base for this practice has not been able to keep pace with its utilization” (Iglehart, 2004, p. 619)

Outcomes of Kinship Care


Do we know anything
Do We “Know” Anything? Effectiveness

  • Yes… children in kinship care experience a number of situations that we know are associated with poor outcomes, therefore, it is likely that they are at risk for these same poor outcomes

  • Not clear that outcomes are “worse” than foster care, but all children in out-of-home placements should receive screenings

Outcomes of Kinship Care


References
References Effectiveness

Allen, M., Bissell, M, & Miller, J. L. (2003). Expanding permanency options for children: A guide to subsidized guardianship programs. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund and Cornerstone Consulting Group.

Barbell, K., & Freundlich, M. (2001). Foster care today. Washington D.C: Casey Family Programs.

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 America’s Families. The Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-46, May 2002, pp. 1-7.

Carpenter, S. C., & Clyman, R. B. (2004). The long-term emotional and physical wellbeing of women who have lived in kinship care. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 673-686.

Carpenter, S. C., Clyman, R. B., Davidson, A. J., & Steiner, J. F. (2001). The association of foster care or kinship care with adolescent sexual behavior and first pregnancy. Pediatrics, 108 (3), retrieved online at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/108/3/e46

Outcomes of Kinship Care


References continued
References continued Effectiveness

Cuddeback, G. S. (2004). Kinship family foster care: A methodological and substantive synthesis of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 623-639.

Garland, A. F., Landsverk, J. A., & Lau, A. S. (2003). Racial/ethnic disparities in mental health service use among children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 491-507.

Geen, R. & Berrick, J.D. (2001) Kinship care: An evolving service delivery option. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 1-14.

Harden, B. J., Clyman, R. B., Kriebel, D. K., & Lyons, M. E. (2004). Kith and kin care: Parental attitudes and resources of foster and relative caregivers. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 657-671.

Iglehart, A. P. (2004). Kinship foster care: Filling the gaps in theory, research, and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 613-621.

Jackson, S.M. (1996) The kinship triad: A service delivery model. Child Welfare, 75, 583-599.

Kerman, B., Wildfire, J., & Barth, R. P. (2002). Outcomes for young adults who experienced foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 319-344.

Outcomes of Kinship Care


References continued1
References continued Effectiveness

Kolomer, S.R. (2000). Kinship foster care and its impact on grandmother care givers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 33, 85-102.

Needell, B., Shlonsky, A., & Dawson, W. C. (2001). KSS and Kin Gap: University, state county, and advocate partnership for kinship care policy in California. University of California, Berkley.

Smith, C. J., & Devore, W. (2004). African American children in the child welfare and kinship system: From exclusion to over inclusion. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 427-446.

Testa, M. F. (2002). Subsidized guardianship: Testing an idea whose time has finally come. Social Work Research, 26, 145-158.

Testa, M. F., & Shook, K. S. (2002). The gift of kinship foster care. Children & Youth Services Review, 24(1/2), 79-108.

For more information on Maryland’s Subsidized Guardianship Demonstration, please visit www.rhycenter.umaryland.edu

Outcomes of Kinship Care


ad