PRACTICE& POLICY FOCUS Published by the Alliance for Children and Issue 3, 2008 Care vs. Foster Care: CONTENTS Comparing Outcomes of Placements Feature Topic: uring the past 15 years, child welfare good or better outcomes than did children Kinship Care in professionals have witnessed a rapid in foster care. Specifically, children in foster D increase in the number of children care were four times more likely to still be in Child Welfare placed with relatives. According to the most placement, 10 times more likely to have a recent estimate from the and Foster new allegation of institutional or neg- Research advances Care Analysis and Reporting System (AF- lect, and six times more likely to be involved CARS), there were 513,000 children in out- with the juvenile justice system. Children in & practice guidelines of-home placements as of September 2005 kinship care had significantly fewer place- 1 Comparison of Children in with 124,153 living with kin. The primary ments and were seven times more likely to influences on the growth of this placement be in guardianship, whereas children in Kinship Care and Foster Care option include a persistent shortage of foster foster care were two times more likely to care homes and a shift in federal policy be reunified with their biological . Articles in Focus toward treating kin We believe these 2 as appropriate care- results yield impor- givers with all of the tant implications. legal rights and State and county 3 Kinship Ties as a Resource responsibilities of departments of so- of Social Capital foster parents. cial services should The perceived initiate a dialogue benefits are that with caseworkers, 4 Views on Quality Care kinship care reduces social workers, and the trauma children caregivers regarding in Kinship Homes may experience the possible inter- when they are pretations and 4 Supporting : placed with persons applications of the who are initially unknown to them, and findings. As for policy implications, lawmak- Education of Special Needs reinforces children’s sense of identity and ers should enact legislation that solidifies kin- Children in Kinship Care self-esteem which flows from their ship care as a viable out-of-home placement history and culture. option. Legislators could identify what level For the participating counties in our of funding support is necessary for optimal 5 Assessing the Best study (12 of 64 counties in Colorado), kin- kin placements. Foster care should continue Permanency Option ship care is strongly valued as an out-of- to be an essential option, as children in these home placement option because they believe placements also experience positive outcomes children are best served in the least restric- and appropriate kin placements are not Next Focus tive environment and with family whenever always available. possible. Each county takes the approach Child welfare professionals also should Ethics and Best Practices that kinship care helps to maintain family develop strategies that increase kinship relationships and cultural ties while provid- caregiver access to resources for themselves in Social Work ing children with the opportunity for per- and the children in their care. One possible manency, safety, wellbeing, and stability. explanation for the higher use of services by Guidelines for practice, However, these child welfare agencies sought children in foster care may be a greater will- research, and policy to test these assumptions using data-driven ingness and/or knowledge of social services evidence on the outcomes for children by foster parents. However, child welfare placed with kin. professionals must pursue a balance between After controlling for demographic and the independence that some kin caregivers placement characteristics, children in seek and the potential benefits of receiving kinship care in Colorado experienced as therapeutic services.

Excerpted from “Matched Comparison of Children in Kinship Care and Foster Care on Child Welfare Outcomes” by Marc A. Winokur, Graig A. Crawford, Ralph C. Longobardi, & Deborah P. Valentine. Families in Society © 2008. To read the complete article, log in to www.FamiliesInSociety.org.

PRACTICE & POLICY FOCUS | FamiliesInSociety.org/Newsletters.htm | ISSUE 3, 2008 2 Feature Topic: KINSHIP CARE Related Articles for Further Reading Policy Focus Practice Focus (Available at www.FamiliesInSociety.org) Using Mediation to Achieve Permanency Building Secure Relationships: Attachment Survival Analyses of the Dynamics of for Children and Families in Kin and Unrelated Foster Caregiver-Infant (2003; CE course 100739) Relationships (2006) Experiences in Foster Care  Achieving permanency in the living situa- A secure attachment is a universal need of (2008; CE course 101476) tions of children has received increasing children that can be very difficult for them emphasis in the past few years, and the au- to obtain when being moved in and out of and Out-of-Home Placement: Best Practices thors of this article describe the workings homes. This study of attachment shows the (2003; CE course 100659) and outcomes of a child welfare mediation positive finding that the majority of infants program. The program they describe sought were able to develop secure attachments Shaping Our Inquiries Into Foster and to involve families in the decision-making with their primary caretaker, whether non- Kinship Care (1997) so that prolonged foster care could be relative foster or kinship carer. Given avoided. The results of the program are that high numbers of infants enter child Implementing Reunification Services (1991) identified and case studies illustrate the placement and that both sets of caregivers program’s workings. Such information can face challenges of resources and/or child be useful to other agencies and profession- needs, the need for supports and training Family-Centered Practice with Foster-Parent als attempting to bring some stability into for both groups is evident. Families (1996) the lives of children.

Children on the Move: Placement Patterns Kinship Care and Foster Care: A Comparison in ChildrenÊs Protective Services (1995) When Family Reunification Works: Data-Mining of Characteristics and Outcomes (1997) Foster Care Records (2004; CE course 100767) The increase in children entering foster care Placement Stability: Enhancing Quality of Life for Concurrent permanency planning policy includes a substantial proportion in formal mandates heighten the need to evaluate ef- Children With Developmental Disabilities (2006) kinship care. The authors present a review fective family reunification practices. This of previous research and report on a study study examines family reunification out- that examined differences and similarities Foster ParentsÊ Attitudes Toward Birth Parents and comes for those mandated into care for between kinship and traditional foster care. Caseworkers: Implications for Visitations (1997) neglect, , or substance This study supports many earlier conclu- abuse. Identified are family characteristics sions concerning kinship care, such as chil- Maintaining Attachment Relationships Among and strength-based casework practices from dren remain in care longer, caregivers are Children in Foster Care (1994) examination of the foster care reunification primarily African American, and services process. Three casework practices emerge: provided by kin are less extensive than 1) the worker’s active support of resiliency Family Functioning in Foster Care (1997) those provided by traditional foster parents. in family attachment; 2) the worker’s atten- tion to the resolution of placement separa- Outcome-Oriented Case Planning in Family Facing Time Limits and Kinship tion anxiety and family reunification Foster Care (1997) (2004) ambivalence, and 3) the worker’s attention Placements The need for TANF and child welfare to intergenerational family patterns. The Prediction of Successful Foster Placement (1983) systems to collaborate to meet the service needs of relative foster care families comes Using African-Centered Principles in Family- Service Needs of Relative Care-givers: into focus and reveals that children from welfare families with more months counted Preservation Services (1997) A Qualitative Analysis (1997) Most child welfare agencies do not provide toward their state’s time limits are not more likely to be placed with relatives than their Keeping Them Home: Aboriginal Out-of-Home Care adequate services to relative caregivers. Results of a needs analysis indicated that counterparts. The findings also show that in Australia (2006) relatives needed tangible items like beds, children from African American families, food, and clothing in the initial stages of from large families, or from families receiv- placement. Ongoing needs included infor- ing cash during removal are more likely to mation regarding case progress and system be placed with relatives. Caseworker train- procedures, respite, day care, and counsel- ing as well as practice and policy procedures ing for the child. The relatives recommended are needed for those in the TANF and child developing a kinship advisory council to welfare systems to better serve relative foster assist the agency in policymaking and a care families. respite program for relative caregivers.

 Learn more about online continuing education courses! Visit CE4Alliance.com

PRACTICE & POLICY FOCUS | FamiliesInSociety.org/Newsletters.htm | ISSUE 3, 2008 Feature Topic: KINSHIP CARE 3 Related Articles for Kinship Ties as a Resource of Social Capital Further Reading (Available at www.FamiliesInSociety.org) he dramatic growth of kinship care of the social relationships in kin networks placements since the late 1980s has and their implications for children’s lives. T drawn attention from academics and The prevalence of African American children Incarcerated Parents & Their Children practitioners, sparking heated debate on the in kinship care (13.5% taken care of by Exploring the Experiences of Addicted Incarcerated superiority of kinship foster care to non- grandparents or other relatives) is closely Parents Whose Children Are Cared for by Relatives kinship foster care. As a result, a significant related to an African American tradition of (2004;  CE course 100735) body of research on kinship care has accu- extended family structure and dense kin mulated over two decades. networks. The phrase “kinship care” was When Moms Are Incarcerated: The Needs of The primary practice assumptions made actually influenced by the anthropological Children, , and Caregivers (2000) by advocates for kinship care is that it helps work by Carol Stack in 1974, who reported children ease the pain of losing birth parents extensive supporting networks within „Just Like Baking a Cake‰: Women Describe the because it offers social relationships of African American extended families. Such Necessary Ingredients for Successful Reentry After extended kin networks and familial and cul- kinship networks can be described as com- Incarceration (2001) tural continuity. In addition, biological ties plex exchange systems displaying a collective and established bonds between kin caregivers adaptation to urban poverty. Participants in and children are expected to this kind of exchange rela- Grandparents Raising Grandchildren increase caregivers’ commit- tionship are relatives and -Headed Families: Needs and ment. These assumed advan- close friends who are Implications for Social Work Interventions and tages of kinship care could defined as kin, who share a Advocacy (2007) be conceptualized as a sense of obligation to and resource of social capital. reliance on one another. Designing Interventions for Grandparent Caregivers: Social capital can be Crucially, a domestic net- An Ecological Perspective for Practice (2003) defined as social relation- work that provides food, ships, psychological bonds, shelter, clothing, and, most African American Grandmothers as Caregivers: solidarity, or feeling of close- importantly, childcare Answering the Call to Help Their Grandchildren ness. Like human capital (e.g., demonstrates localized (2002) knowledge and skills) and physical capital coalition, collective power, and stability of (e.g., tools or equipment), social capital is a family life. Anthropological studies have also Grandparents Raising Grandchildren in the resource that individuals can use to gain observed that the mutual aid systems operat- Inner City (1997) advantages and to obtain profits. Social capital ing within extended family networks respond is reliant on the structure of relationships to dependent family members who become between and among actors. Human capital is homeless, sick, or unemployed, often by pro- Mexican American Grandparents Raising Grandchil- generated by changing what is in people’s viding them residency. This family support, dren: Findings from the Census 2000 American heads, such as capability and skills, but social called an “absorption mechanism,” also bene- (2007) capital is generated by changing relations fits children by preventing family disruption. among people. Accordingly, to possess social African American extended family net- Challenges of Grandparent Custody of Children at capital, a person must be related to others, and works also provide children with protection Risk in New Zealand (2006) it is those others, not himself or herself, who from abuse and neglect from their birth are the actual source of his or her advantage. parents. Due to strong kin bonds and high Multigenerational Patterns and Internal Structures in This idea of social capital is often compared values placed upon children, relatives are Families: Grandparents Raise Grandchildren (1998) to developmental psychologist Bronfenbrenner’s often willing or feel obligated to step in when idea of a social network. Identifying obliga- children are found to be victims of maltreat- Grandmothers and Coresident Grandchildren (1999) tions, expectations, and trustworthiness as ment. There are often relatives who are potent types of social capital, it is argued that willing to take the trouble of dealing with the individuals connected with dense social net- child welfare system in order to seek custody works are more likely to hoard social capital. of the maltreated relative children. What, then, does empirical evidence tell us However, there are concerns that the bonds about these theoretical conjectures? and mutual reliance among African American We must turn to anthropological studies kin are increasingly weakening because of of African American families, rather than urbanization, AIDS and drug epidemics, and studies in child welfare, for documentation cutbacks in social services.

Excerpted from “Theoretical Perspectives for Child Welfare Practice on Kinship Foster Care Families” by Hyunah Kang. Families in Society © 200 7.

PRACTICE & POLICY FOCUS | FamiliesInSociety.org/Newsletters.htm | ISSUE 3, 2008 4 Feature Topic: KINSHIP CARE

Supporting Grandparents: mestic violence, and substance abuse. Existing Views on Quality Care standards address the presence of substance Education of Special Needs Children abuse but appear to limit the assessment to the Caregivers have indicated that there is hope kinship home. Here, caseworkers extended to in Kinship Homes the caregiver’s ability to handle the substance and faith in the education of their children. he perspectives of kinship stakehold- abusing biological parent. Will the caregiver be Despite the difficulties associated with raising ers—kinship caregivers, children living able to set boundaries? Can the caregiver pro- children in kinship care, the value of educa- T with relatives, and caseworkers of vide adequate protection when the parent is tion in these arrangements continues to be a children in kinship placements—reflect some using substances? Case-workers and caregivers high priority. Educational services should take areas of agreement with existing standards for also expressed concern about the caregivers’ advantage of family strengths and values assessing and evaluating the quality of representation of the biological parent to the kinship homes, such as the importance of the child. Does the caregiver have the skills to and utilize them to maximize educational relationship between the child and relative, preserve a relationship between a substance opportunities to meet the needs of children. and the caregiver’s ability to meet the child’s abusing parent and child? If not, how can they If kinship caregivers and their children cannot developmental needs. be assisted? develop a comfortable fit between them and In keeping with the overarching goals of Another dimension of the caregiver’s ability the school system, there will be a struggle on child welfare intervention, caseworkers tend to protect the child involves the safety of the both ends. to focus on child safety and permanency issues in placement decisions. Caregivers, Greater sharing of information is war- however, focus on the ability to provide ranted regarding school processes like children with and moral and spiritual psycho-educational evaluations, IEP meetings, guidance. Along these lines, caregivers viewed and parent–teacher conferences to ensure school performance, appropriate behavior, that certain educational expectations and and happiness as important outcomes of behaviors are being reinforced on a consistent kinship care while the main outcome of consideration for caseworkers was the child’s basis in the home and school. [Grand]parents permanency status. These differences in could also use the assistance of educational perspective are important reminders of the caregiver’s neighborhood. Children in kinship advocates for ensuring that school systems responsibilities that families see for them- care in related studies were more frequently meet the needs of students requiring a selves, even when workers may not focus on exposed to violence in their neighborhoods multitude of services. accountability in these areas. Current assess- when compared to children in nonkinship care. A good educational program would incor- ment standards can be enhanced by including Several caseworkers believed that kinship the caregiver’s expectations for the placement, homes should protect children from hazards in porate outreach services to parents and thereby enhancing the caseworker’s ability to the physical environment in and around the students on a variety of topics like mentoring, assist the family in meeting the caregiver’s home. This construct is absent from current tutoring, and parenting classes about working goals as well as the goals of the case plan. standards and should be given consideration in with school systems to meet the needs of The caregiver’s ability to meet the child’s the context of other criteria. children in regular and special education needs certainly relates to the caregiver’s age and Another safety concern relates to the care- programs. Special consideration should be health status, considerations present in existing giver’s approach to discipline. Previous research standards for kinship foster family assessment. has suggested that kin caregivers are more likely given to help these caregivers understand the Participants generally agreed that age should to hold favorable views of physical punishment. Americans with Disabilities Act as it pertains to not be a factor in caregiver selection, but that Assessment of their attitudes toward physical the educational needs of children with learn- their physical and mental health should be con- discipline and knowledge of alternative tech- ing disabilities. Since children take their home sidered relative to the child’s needs and capacity niques can indicate early on whether they will problems to school, services should also for self-care. In relation to the caregiver’s ability need assistance in employing appropriate disci- attempt to address some of the problematic to provide physical care, some participants, in- pline before problems surface that may require the child’s removal. Interpretations of abusive family situations, like finances and medical cluding children, also expressed preferences for employed and financially stable caregivers. and nonabusive behaviors may further relate to assistance, by seeking to connect families Though not explicit in existing standards, the the caregiver’s beliefs about the validity of alle- with these resources in the community. The caregiver’s financial ability to meet the child’s gations made against the child’s parent and/or home environment does have an impact on needs, and whether that ability could be en- the caregiver’s beliefs about the child’s exposure childrenÊs ability to function academically in hanced through available funding, should be to danger prior to placement. An existing stan- the classroom, and what happens in the made part of any assessment prior to placement. dard related to this construct concerns the pos- classroom·especially their academics and Perspectives also reflect consensus on the sibility that family members will pressure a child need for caregivers to be able to protect the to recant allegations of abuse. This construct social relationships at school·affects child from the parent and from negative dy- may be supported by the caregiver’s beliefs childrenÊs interactions at home. namics in and around the family home such about abusive behaviors and/or the allegations Excerpted from „Education and Kinship Caregivers: as criminal activity, child maltreatment, do- made, though other factors may also play a role. Creating a New Vision” by Claudia Lawrence-

Webb, Joshua N. Okundaye, & Gayle Hafner. Excerpted from “The Meaning of Quality in Kinship Foster Care: Caregiver, Child, and Worker Perspec- Families in Society © 2003. tives” by Robert Chipman, Susan J. Wells, & Michelle A. Johnson. Families in Society © 2002. PRACTICE & POLICY FOCUS | FamiliesInSociety.org/newsletters.htm | ISSUE 3, 2008 Feature Topic: KINSHIP CARE 5 Assessing Permanence: Kinship Care Principles ractice strategies that support kinship care, including adoption, should flow logically from philosophy and policy, but they can still be chal- lenging to develop and implement. There are two important points to consider. First, practitioners need to assess the best permanency option P for children. Not all children in kinship care can or should be adopted, and other permanency options are available. Second, providing serv- ices to kinship caregivers and children should be determined by the specific needs of the family. Kin providers come from a variety of backgrounds and possess different strengths and weaknesses, as do the children in their home, and resources and services should be designed to address this. We discuss lessons learned from the Kinship Adoption Project (KAP) in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, including barriers and permanence of kinship care, needed shifts in philosophy and policies, and practice strategies to promote permanence in kinship homes. Achieving successful outcomes for children in kinship care requires child welfare policy makers, administrators, and practitioners to make philosophical shifts, policy changes, and practice efforts that support kin caregivers and children.

Assessing the best permanency option for children in kinship care care stipends or potential adoption subsidies. In many cases, kinship requires workers to be knowledgeable about the options, the criteria providers are only able to apply for much lower financial assistance for required to be met under each option, and the resources available children in their care. In addition, they may lose access to case manage- within the system to provide for each option. There are three primary ment services that could help them access financial and other concrete options to consider when formalizing permanence for children in kin- resources as needed. ship care. They include legal custody, legal guardianship, and adoption. Knowing about the advantages and disadvantages of legal custody, Although licensing kinship providers as foster parents may provide guardianship, and adoption as soon as possible helped kin caregivers caregivers with much needed financial assistance and social service sup- make better informed choices earlier so that children could move to port, foster care is not a permanent option for children. permanency sooner. Practitioners did express concern that if families In some cases in which kin caregivers come forward to be a placement were given the decision-making power, the majority would opt to foster resource for a child, they assume legal guardianship or legal custody of children (a temporary care plan) and overwhelm an already overbur- the child. Each state has laws that dictate how these legal statuses are dened system. The licensing process for foster and adoptive families achieved and maintained. In Ohio, where KAP took place, legal requires time and resources, and, as noted, there are criteria that fami- guardianship is granted by a probate court. It is a voluntary process. lies must meet in order to be licensed. Some kin families are excluded Guardianship is maintained until otherwise ordered by the court. because they fail to meet the criteria. This is unknown sometimes until Caregivers who opt for legal custody are expected to maintain children families begin the licensing process, and agency time and resources are in their care until they reach independence or until there is a change in already invested in the process. As staff began telling families about all the court’s order. With legal custody, parental consent is acceptable but of the options, some chose to take legal custody. In fact, one family that not required. Finally, adoption also requires court intervention, first for was already in the process of completing an adoptive home study a termination of parental rights (either with or without parental decided instead to request legal custody to avoid the intrusiveness and agreement) and then for the adoption. Under this option, the kinship complexity of the adoption process. Other kin caregivers opted for legal caregiver legally becomes the parent. custody because they had other legal barriers to adoption. Guiding kin toward legal custody or guardianship has advantages and All of these permanency options require an early comprehensive disadvantages. First, compared with completing a foster care or adoptive assessment of the kinship family to first determine whether the family is home study assessment, the length of time involved in gaining legal a viable permanency option and then to determine which permanency custody or guardianship is minimal. Also, some kin families may not alternative is best suited to meet the child’s and family’s needs. The meet the additional criteria required by agencies to become an adoptive assessment should comprise the caregivers’ ability to provide a safe, parent. For example, as noted earlier, some kin families have a history of stable, and nurturing environment; their ability to meet the child’s basic difficulties, including past involvement with child protective services. and special needs short term and long term; and their willingness to Although they may have changed their lifestyle, past issues may preclude access community services to assist them in managing the child’s care. them from becoming approved for adoption. Also, as one study con- Beyond the family assessment and prior to making a permanency firmed, some kinship caregivers are concerned about the impact of adop- decision, practitioners should assess the financial and social service tion on the birthparents and the role confusion this creates for children. resources available, as they could vary widely. Thus, they choose an alternative better suited to their specific situation.

On the other hand, taking legal custody or guardianship of a child Excerpted from “Kinship Care and Permanence: Guiding Principles for Policy causes many kinship families to lose financial support, including foster and Practice” by Tami W. Lorkovich, Trista Piccola, Victor Groza, Merri E. Brindo, & Jonnie Marks. Families in Society © 2004 (CE course 100739). RELATED TOPIC: Sibling Placement in Out-of-Home Care Survival Analyses of the Dynamics of Sibling Experiences in Foster Care Get these articles online! Families in Society © 2008 (CE course 101476). Siblings and Out-of-Home Placement: Best Practices Visit our Web site: Families in Society © 2003 (CE course 100659). www.FamiliesInSociety.org/Newsletters.htm

PRACTICE & POLICY FOCUS | FamiliesInSociety.org/Newsletters.htm | ISSUE 3, 2008 HOT TOPIC WEBINAR SERIES

INTERACTIVE PRESENTATIONS ON PRACTICE, EDUCATION, AND POLICY WITHIN SOCIAL SERVICES Learn more about the significant trends and techniques found in the pages of Families in Society.

Take advantage of one-on-one discussions with nationally-recognized presenters who share guidelines for clinical services, implications for practice, and recommendations on the delivery and management of those services. Learn more: www.FamiliesInSociety.org/New/Teleconf/Register.htm. Recent Webinar topics include: No Gain, No Pain: Ethics and the Working Poor and Social Justice Initiatives Genomic Revolution The condition and status of the working poor, includ- A discussion of social work ethics and advances in ing how the working poor are defined and current genetic knowledge, including practice implications demographics; factors contributing to the increase and mechanisms for continuing professional develop- in the number of the working poor; clinical interven- mentand involvementin thisimportantarea. tions; and promising practices for this population.

Kinship Care and Foster Care: Women and Incarceration Comparing Child Welfare Outcomes The impact incarceration plays on women and their How kinship care impacts the safety, permanency, families, and a discussion of steps for reentry by and stability of children placed with relatives. Study building on women's strengths and capacities. findings show that children have significantly fewer Included are details of the systems and people placements, and they are less likely to have a new involved in reentry, points of intervention, and allegation of institutional abuse and be involved in policy recommendations. the juvenile justice system.

Alliance for Children and Families 11700 W. Lake Park Drive | Milwaukee, WI 53224

Want to be ahead of the curve? Get details on new articles, abstracts, tables of content, editorials, and other content at no cost. Sign up today! Send your name and e-mail address to: [email protected].