Family Care Or Foster Care? How State Policies Affect Kinship Caregivers

THE URBAN INSTITUTE Family Care or Foster Care? How State Policies Affect Kinship Caregivers

Shelley Waters Boots TES TES A A Rob Geen

xtended family members have long kinship care arrangements or more kinship played a role in caring for children care arrangements are being formally recog- when their parents were unavailable to nized by the state—the upward trend contin- do so, a practice commonly referred to as ues, with the majority of states reporting that E“kinship care.” While the state, through the the proportion of the foster care caseload child welfare system, has only recently begun accounted for by kinship care has increased to rely on relatives as foster parents for chil- since 1994.3 dren at risk in their own homes, the practice This growth and the high cost of foster grew substantially in the past decade. This care, which averaged $6,000 per child in 1996, growth, and federal legislation encouraging pushed policymakers to take note of kinship states to place foster children with family care.4 However, it was the 1996 welfare members, has thrust kinship care into the reform act that officially encouraged policy spotlight, igniting debates states to give relatives first priority within the child welfare and in providing care for foster welfare systems about how to More than two children, solidified the role publicly support kinship million children in of kinship care as a federal care families. the United States now policy issue, and provoked When the Adoption discussion among policy- and Child Welfare Act of live in kinship care makers as to how welfare 1980 was passed, form- arrangements; policy would affect kin- ing the basis of the feder- 10 percent of these, or ship care.5 al foster care law, it was During the 1996 wel- almost unheard of for a approximately fare reform debate, child

NEW FEDERALISM child’s relative to act as a 200,000, are foster advocates pointed out poten- NEW FEDERALISM foster parent. More than two children. tial unintended consequences million children in the United of the welfare reform legislation States now live in kinship care that could influence the receipt of arrangements; 10 percent of these, or approxi- kinship care. Specifically, they noted that one 1 ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR ST ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR ST mately 200,000, are foster children. Much of particular type of welfare payment for which the growth in the use of kin as foster parents kinship care families were eligible, child-only occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s; for grants, would not necessarily fall under the A product of example, between 1986 and 1990 the propor- proposed new work requirements and time “Assessing the New tion of children in state-supported kinship care limits. Advocates raised the concern that par- Federalism,” increased from 18 to 31 percent.2 Though ents might leave their children with relatives an Urban Institute experts cannot pinpoint the cause of the to avoid the new welfare requirements but still Program to Assess increase—whether more children are entering preserve assistance in the form of child-only Changing Social Policies Series A, No. A-34, July 1999 members to care for children in the fos- Figure 1 ter care system.8 Public Kinship Care: Requirements to Become a Foster Parent Licensing Caregivers In order to care for a child in state custody, foster caregivers must first be licensed, or approved, by the state Less More child welfare agency. The standards Stringent Stringent upon which kinship caregivers are assessed for licensure vary (figure 1). In states with the most stringent requirements, kinship families are subject to the same standards that govern non-kin foster families—they Few or no Separate Waive some Full standards must be “fully licensed.” Almost all requirements; approval of full for licensing— states (44 out of 50 responding) often called process for standard’s same as reported that these families receive unlicensed kin requirements non-kin visits by caseworkers who provide supervision and intervention, just like non-kin foster parents. Fully licensed families are often eligible for all the Child Welfare Agency benefits and supports available to a non-kin foster parent, including foster care maintenance payments, respite child care, and other support services. grants.6 They also worried that kin- whether or not the child was taken Other states maintain less strin- ship care providers, who used to care into custody by those authorities. gent requirements. For example, for children informally, would seek some kinship families meet all except assistance from the child welfare sys- a few of the licensing standards. tem if forced to meet welfare require- Policies Affecting Public States often waive specific licensure ments.7 Kinship Care Families requirements (such as physical space In 1997, the Urban Institute sur- Our survey reveals the variations or training) for kinship families, as veyed state foster care administrators state child welfare agencies have long as they do not jeopardize the to gather information on state poli- developed in their policies for public safety of the child. Other states cies for identifying, licensing, and kinship care. States can differ in three license kinship families under a set of financially supporting kinship care primary ways: (1) who they consider criteria established especially for families. Previous to this study, little eligible caregivers, (2) how they them. Usually these standards are less information existed on state kinship license or approve family members stringent, focusing more on child care policies. for caregiving, and (3) how they sup- safety and family support than on reg- port kinship families within the child ulations that are difficult for some kin Defining the Term welfare system. to meet and could prohibit a family NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES No. A-34 from staying together. Some states “Kinship Care” Eligible Caregivers allow relatives to care for children Because kinship care has many The types of relatives who can pro- with minimal standards and minimal forms, it is helpful to think of it as a vide care for foster children vary by supervision—sometimes called unli- continuum of interventions and sup- state. Of the 50 states whose adminis- censed kinship care. port. At one end are private kinship trators responded to the Urban Institute To clarify the different ways in care families, with no contact at all kinship care survey on this question, 26 which they evaluate kinship families, with the child welfare system. In the stated that their policies mandate that we asked states to specify the avail- middle are kinship care families family members must be related to a able options for licensing relative known to the system but not formally child by blood or through marriage to a caregivers within their state. Most a part of it, some of whom may be blood relative. Twenty include a variety states (including the District of receiving support services. At the of additional categories such as neigh- Columbia) offer more licensing other end are families caring for chil- bors, godparents, and other adults who options to kin than to non-kin foster dren in state custody and receiving have a close relationship with the child, parents. In 41 of the 51 states, for ongoing attention from the child wel- and the other four have no formal defi- example, relatives have at least one fare system. For the purposes of this nition. Regardless of how states define licensing option besides the licensing brief, a “public” kinship care child kin, almost all give preference to rela- standard applied to nonrelative foster refers to a child whose placement was tives over non-kin foster parents, and care providers. In the remaining 10 arranged by child welfare authorities, many actively work to recruit family states, family members can only care 2 o -4NWFDRLS:ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES NEW FEDERALISM: A-34 No. for children in state custody if they Figure 2 comply with all state policies for Licensing Standards and Payments for foster caregivers. Kinship Foster Parents Many of the 41 states with more flexible requirements for kinship foster care have more than one licensing WA VT option for kinship homes. For MT ND ME instance, Maryland has two other OR MN ID NH options available for relatives besides SD WI NY MA WY MI a fully licensed standard: They can RI IA PA CT NE either get licensed by the foster care NV OH NJ IL IN agency under less stringent criteria UT DE CA CO WV VA DC KS MO KY (and receive a foster care payment), MD or they can be considered an unli- TN NC AZ OK censed home, meet even less strin- NM AR SC gent requirements (usually only MS AL GA safety requirements), and apply for TX LA welfare benefits. The licensing FL option a kinship caregiver chooses can be a function of family prefer- AK ences as well as state policy. HI Supporting Caregivers Payment of kinship foster caregivers varies according to the licensing a caregiver receives (table 1). Less stringent licensing Less stringent licensing Kin must meet all foster When relatives have the same option for kinship care. option for kinship care. Pay- care requirements to care licensing as non-kin caregivers, the Receive foster care payment is generally lower than for a child in the foster care ment. foster care rate. system. Receive foster care vast majority of states allow them a payment. full foster care payment.9 As seen in figure 2, of the 41 states that offer a less stringent standard, 22 still pro- In both these states, all other kinship in Maryland, a child being cared for vide a foster care payment to kinship care families must rely on welfare for by a relative licensed as a foster care- caregivers. In the 19 states that do not financial assistance. giver would have received $535 to provide foster care payments to these $550 a month for care in 1996. A sim- families, usually the only compensa- ilar child in the same state being cared tion available is some type of cash Future Policy Challenges for by a welfare-assisted relative welfare grant, which in almost all Many factors determine how a would have received only $165 a states is less generous than a foster kinship care family is treated. Policies month for a basic child-only grant. care payment. vary from state to state, and even with- These differences become even Some states require kinship care- in a state different families may receive greater when there are multiple sib- givers to meet additional criteria. For a wide range of care. The survey of lings in care; the welfare payment is example, in California, no matter state child welfare administrators prorated on a declining scale when what licensing standard a family underscores that kinship families in there are multiple children, whereas meets, if the children in the relative most states (41) are held to a less strin- foster care payments per child remain home are not from a poor family (as gent standard for foster family eligibil- constant regardless of the number of defined by the welfare eligibility of ity than nonrelative foster families. children in the household. Two chil- the home they left), the relative fami- However, about half these states do not dren living in Maryland with relatives ly cannot get a foster care payment, provide foster care payments to the licensed by the foster care system regardless of the relative family’s own kinship families meeting a lower stan- would have received $1,070 to $1,100 income. Missouri has even more com- dard, leaving them to apply for welfare a month, but two children financed by plicated criteria for foster care pay- or other government assistance, which that state’s Aid to Families with ment eligibility. It specifies that all is typically less generous. Dependent Children (AFDC) pro- grandparent caregivers can receive a Because foster care payments are gram in 1996 would have received foster care payment, but any other usually higher than welfare grants, $292 a month.10 type of relative can receive foster care these payment differences result in Further, a public kinship care payments only if they are caring for stark differences in the resources pro- family might be paid a foster care children who come from a poor fami- vided to public kinship care families payment in one state while the same ly (also defined as welfare eligible). within and across states. For example, family licensed by the same standards 3 4 NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES No. A-34 Notes: Research ServiceandfromUrbanInstitutetabulations of AFDC stateplaninformation. basedondatafromanannualbenefit survey bytheCon January–February1998. AFDC ratesare foronechild, Association’s W-Memo, Sources: regular fostercarepaymenttokinshipcaregivers forchildrennot from poorhomes. Thosewhomeetregular fostercarerequirements receive fostercarepayment if childrencomefromapoorhome. Countieshave d. Lessstringentlicensing pays AFDC standard-of-needrate. c. kinshipcaregivers canchoosetobeunlicensedandreceive AFDC. Inaddition, b. Kinshipcaregivers canreceive fostercare paymentifchildrencomefromapoorhome. All othersareunlicensed andcanrecei a. *** Amount for1995;1996 unavailable. number ofchildren. AFDCpaymentsareproratedba except whereotherwisenoted.Unlike fostercarepayments, ** Maximum1996 AFDC rateforonechild, * Perchildpermonth. ymn 0 400 319 400 328 319 173 Wyoming Wisconsin 327 West Virginia 328 Washington Virginia 377 Vermont 439 Utah 294*** Texas 339 Tennessee South Dakota 324 South Carolina 394 Rhode Island 952 Pennsylvania 439 136 Oregon 60 Oklahoma 339 Ohio 324 North Dakota North Carolina 394 375 New York 441 257 New Mexico 72 New Jersey 330 260 New Hampshire Nevada Nebraska Montana 279 441 Missouri 529 Mississippi 348 Minnesota 330 Michigan Massachusetts Maryland 279 Maine Louisiana 529 597 262 Kentucky 293 Kansas 433 Iowa 422 Indiana Illinois Idaho Hawaii 597 467 Georgia 410 Florida 433 422 Dist. ofColumbia Delaware Connecticut Colorado California Arkansas Arizona Alaska Alabama tt amn $*Payment ($)** Payment ($)* State vrg otrcr amn aerpeet h vrg amn n19 cosae ,9 and16ascitedinthe American Public 9, Average fostercare paymentraterepresentstheaverage paymentin1996acrossages2, receive foster care payment. less stringentlicensingstandard Kinship caregivers subjectto otrCr Alternative Foster Care b b b a b b b 1996 StateKinshipCare Payments requirements receive foster care payment. ment. Those whomeetregular foster care licensing standardreceive AFDC pay- Kinship caregivers subjecttolessstringent amn $*Payment ($)** Payment ($)* otrCr Alternative Foster Care 8 269 155 201 380 325 452 383 577 1 215 149 349 357 318 400 118 373 445 209 112 303 110 181 252 162 349 414 360 544 371 365 329 276 353 165 118 388 540 349 Table 1 g d c e f care payment. receive foster care requirements, ormeetregular foster licensed,” Kinship caregivers whoare “fully amn $*Payment ($)** Payment ($)* otrCr Alternative Foster Care 1 319 482 393 319 482 393 456 456 332 411 462 332 321 411 462 384 321 225 384 225 ve AFDC. the optiontopay gressional sed onthe Welfare continued No. A-34 NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES 5 for the shelter or many families in families or many 7. the enacted federal welfare Under 8. In placing children in foster care, 9. Only a few states (California, 10. Data from an annual benefit sur- 11. For example, under a 1996/1997 statute and regulations, it appears possible it appears and regulations, statute from protect themselves could that states risk and associated penalty the requirement into regular welfare cases by converting child-only cases.” flexibili- states have the reform legislation, continue to provide ty to decide whether to care families child-only grants to kinship kinship providers to and whether to require and be subject to meet work requirements time limits. give preference to 49 states report that they parents and 31 kin over non-kin foster for more than five states report doing so Urban Institute years. Results from 1997 survey. Oregon, New Jersey) make an exception to this rule—prohibiting families who do not care for children coming from a poor home from receiving the full foster care payment. Instead, these families usually receive assistance in applying for AFDC. In Michi- gan, counties decide whether or not to allow kin caring for noneligible children to be fully licensed. vey by the Congressional Research Service and from Urban Institute tabulations of AFDC state plan information. component of their welfare waiver, Wis- consin developed a kinship care payment system separate from its foster care system, which provides an ongoing subsidy to kinship families. Wisconsin’s Kinship Care Program is funded through the state income maintenance program and allows the state to support public and private kinship caregivers. Under the program, families are still subject to a review every 12 months to ensure that safety issues are properly addressed. In Florida, TANF dol- lars are being used to fund the Relative Care Giver Program, which allows kin caring for children who may otherwise go into the foster care system to receive payments of up to 80 percent of the foster care rate. Using recom- The Cost of Office of Inspec- 1.Bureau, March U.S. Census 2. 1992. Kusserov, Richard. 3. Urban Institute survey, 1997. 4. Waters Boots, Geen, Rob, Shelley 5. Responsibili- Under the Personal 6. In the Notice of Proposed Rule- Notes analysis of data 1998, and Urban Institute Survey of Ameri- from the 1998 National ca’s Families. in the care of a relative, care of in the and federal policy necessary any mend foster addition to altering changes. In care regulations, Congress is also federal block granting all considering funds,child welfare states giving these in spending more discretion changing policy funds. In this rapidly environment, contin- states will likely array of options complex a ue to face both pub- for financing and incentives care. kinship lic and private Relatives for Foster Care. tor General. Based on results from 25 states that reported data. and Karen C. Tumlin. 1999. Protecting Vulnerable Children: Under- standing the Complexities of Federal, State, and Local Child Welfare Spending. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. ty and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states shall “consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non- related caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant state child protection standards.” making for implementation of the Tempo- rary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notes that it was “concerned that states might be able to avoid the work participation rates and time limits by excluding adults (particularly parents) from the eligible cases. Given the flexibility available to states under the At the same Since our survey, 11 Congress instructed Assistance for Needy Since the federal government Since the federal Federal and state kinship care costs portion of the AFDC grant. Instead,costs portion of the Therefore, grant. of $171 per child for a child-only level a benefit receive families f Hampshire,New AFDC. foster care rather than to receive incentive been a financial there might have f. foster care payment if children come from a poor home. receive foster care requirements Those who meet regular g.AFDC plus $100 for a maximum of six months. Less stringent licensing pays e. amount can be up to $414 per child,AFDC Hampshire said that although the full Respondents from New most kin are not eligible Notes from table 1,Notes from continued time, the fed- states are urging many to reform federal eral government states greater to allow regulations in serving kinship care flexibility arrangements while maintaining eligibility for foster care reimbursement. In 1997,Adoption and as part of the Act, Safe Families the U.S. Department of Health and an adviso- Human Services to convene ry panel on kinship care, produce a to report that documents the extent which children in foster care are placed began providing states with foster providing began care funds, it has carefully regulated states’ foster care practices, detailing federal what states must do to receive certain state for reimbursement federal government The expenditures. regulations specific has not developed states can treat on whether or how who are eligible kinship care families from those for foster care differently As this brief has illus- who are not. trated, used the flex- states have many federal foster ibility within existing to design different care regulations kinship care licensing standards. policies are in flux. created or are additional states have kinship considering creating alternative care licensing standards and payment created new options. Some states have through schemes kinship care financing their Temporary programs. Families might only be eligible for welfare in welfare eligible for only be might Cal- (like Jersey New state. In another ifornia), for example, caring relatives from a who did not come for children foster care cannot receive poor home only obtain welfare can they payments; child in 1996), $162 for one (averaging licensing standards of what regardless York, to meet. In New are qualified they can apply for licensing the same family and, meet the standards, if they receive $439 (averaging a foster care payment 1996) for the chil- to $474 per child in dren in their care. No. A-34 NEW FEDERALISM: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR STATES Address ServiceRequested the New Federalism conducted aspart ofthe other childwelfare–related research Welfare Survey andisalsoleading family issues.HedirectedtheChild and youth, welfare andrelatedchild, specializinginchild Studies Center, the UrbanInstitute’s Population Rob Geen and ReferralNetwork. the CaliforniaChildCareResource rently thedirectorofresearchfor this policy brief.Ms.Bootsiscur- lyzed thekinshipcaredatausedin led ateamthatcollectedandana- ing theNew Federalism and welfare reform.For the childsupport, childcare, welfare, ter. Herresearchfocusedonchild Institute’s PopulationStudiesCen- research associateintheUrban Shelley WatersBoots eehn:(202)833-7200 Telephone: About the Authors ahntn ..20037 Washington, D.C. 2100 MStreet,N.W. INSTITUTE URBAN THE is aresearchassociatein project. rjc,she project, Assessing Assess- was a ■ a:(202)429-0687 Fax: (http://www.urban.org) andclickon“Assessingthe NewFederalism.” For extracopies call202-261-5687,orvisit theUrbanInstitute’sWeb site Permission isgranted forreproductionofthisdocument, withattributiontotheUrbanInstitute. Urban Institute,itsboard,sponsors, orotherauthorsintheseries. The viewsexpressedarethoseof theauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseof Copyright ©1999 Publisher: tor of whowascodirec- This seriesisdedicatedtothememoryofSteven D.Gold, and The Rockefeller Foundation.Foundation, theJoyce TheLynde andHarryBradley Foundation, Fund forNew Jersey, theThe Weingart Foundation, theStuart Foundation, Commonwealth Fund, The The DavidandLucilePackard TheMcKnightFoundation, Foundation, theCharlesStewart MottFoundation,Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation, The Ford TheJohnHenry J. D.and KaiserFamily Foundation, Foundation, W.K. TheRobert The Wood Kellogg Foundation, Johnson Foundation, The project the hasreceived fundingfrom The Annie E.Casey Foundation, family well-being. theproject studieschild and grams. Incollaboration withChild Trends, andhealthpro- socialservices, project analyzeschanges inincomesupport, federal to project tomonitorandassessthedevolution ofsocialprograms from the This seriesisaproduct of Assessing theNew Federalism The UrbanInstitute,2100MStreet, N.W.,Washington,D.C.20037 ■ the stateandlocallevels. Alan Weil istheproject director. The -al [email protected] E-Mail: Assessing theNew Federalism until hisdeathin August 1996. ■ e ie http://www.urban.org Web Site: Washington, D.C emtN.8098 Permit No. amultiyear , Nonprofit Org. ..Postage U.S. PAID .