An Urban Institute New Federalism Program to Assess National Survey of America’s Families Changing Social Policies

THE URBAN INSTITUTE Series B, No. B-63, December 2004

Estimating Financial Support for Kinship Caregivers Julie Murray, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber, and Rob Geen

Responsibility for the care of children rests Our findings are based on data from largely with biological or adoptive parents. the 2002 round of the National Survey of However, 2.3 million children live with America’s Families (NSAF), a nationally relatives without either parent present, an representative household survey. The arrangement commonly called kinship NSAF provides a random sample of focal care. Children are placed in kinship care for children under age 18 and corresponding many reasons, such as when living with responses from the caregivers in the house- their parents is infeasible, when child abuse hold who are most knowledgeable about or neglect is suspected or confirmed, or the children’s care. Findings are weighted Only one-third to one- when a parent is deceased, incapacitated, to represent children in the nation. incarcerated, or temporarily absent.1 When half of children in state kin caregivers assume responsibility for custody who were children, the government may offer finan- Types of Kinship Care cial support through different payments on Children in kinship care may be eligible placed by a court with behalf of the children. Eligibility for these for one or more government payments payments varies by the circumstances depending on their living arrangements kin receive a foster care under which a child enters kinship care; (figure 1). The vast majority of kinship care likewise, the amount of financial support payment. arrangements occur without the assistance varies by the type of kinship care.2 In this brief, we examine how many of social service agencies. These arrange- children in kinship care receive the benefits ments, known as private kinship care, ac- they are eligible to receive. These benefits count for approximately 77 percent of all could help many kinship care families, con- kinship care arrangements. When social sidering over half of all children in kinship services or foster care agencies help place care live in families with income below children with their kin, the arrangements 200 percent of the federal poverty level. are known as public kinship care. We define But according to previous research, finan- kinship foster care arrangements, which ac- cial assistance receipt for children in kin- count for the majority of all public kinship ship care has been low, even among those care cases, as those that occur when a court in poverty (Ehrle and Geen 2002). We find makes a kin caregiver responsible for the that children’s receipt of financial assistance child.4 In contrast, when social service is still low, given their levels of eligibility.3 agencies place a child with kin without Many, if not most, families that could be court involvement, the arrangement is eligible for a foster care payment (the most called voluntary kinship care. We include generous payment available) do not receive receipt levels for voluntary kinship care it. Children ineligible for foster care pay- arrangements in our analysis of public kin- ments have surprisingly low levels of ship care families as a whole; however, we receipt for Temporary Assistance for do not examine payment-specific receipt Needy Families (TANF) child-only bene- for this subset of public kinship care fam- fits, often their only source of financial ilies owing to low sample sizes in the assistance. survey.

1 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM

FIGURE 1. Types of Kinship Care

Private Kinship Care

Child 1,760,000 Eligible for TANF child-only payment $68–$514 a month Public Kinship Care

Voluntary Social kinship care Services 100,000

No custody

Court No foster care license Kinship foster care 440,000

Eligible for Custody foster care payment $250–$657 a month Foster care license

Source: Author calculations. Notes: In some cases, states grant foster care payments to children in kinship foster care who are not in state custody or who live in homes that are not licensed (see endnote 8).

Financial Supports and The most generous payment for Security. Children with diagnosed Eligibility Restrictions children living in kinship care is a fos- disabilities are eligible for SSI, which ter care payment. Foster care pay- would pay, on average, $563 to a kin- Nearly all children in kinship care are ments vary by state and child’s age, ship caregiver to care for a child.9 If a eligible for TANF child-only grants.5 ranging from $250 to $657 with an child’s parent or parents have died These payments are available regard- average of $403.7 In addition to the and were insured through the Social less of household income level, as- basic monthly foster payment, care- Security system at the time of death, suming kin meet the statutory givers can receive assistance with the kin caregiver is eligible to receive definition of a relative caregiver (Geen other expenses for a foster child, such a Social Security payment on the 2003). In 2000, the year for which the as clothing or special needs. Generally, child’s behalf. In 2002, the average most recent data are available, child- only children in state custody living monthly Social Security payment for only payments ranged from $68 to with a relative who is a licensed foster children whose parent(s) had died $514,6 depending on the state of resi- parent are eligible for foster care pay- was $585, somewhat less generous dence and the number of children in ments.8 Thus, although public kinship than a foster care payment and its the household. Because nearly all chil- care families are involved with social additional benefits, on par with an dren are eligible, one might expect service agencies, the low incidence of SSI payment, and larger than a TANF that a very high percentage of chil- state custody and stringency of licen- child-only grant. It is important to dren in kinship care receive TANF sure requirements limit the number of note, however, that agencies may child-only grants, particularly chil- children receiving foster care pay- reduce SSI and Social Security bene- dren in private kinship care, who are ments. Many caregivers may also fits received with a TANF or foster ineligible for foster care payments. choose to avoid involvement with care payment. States must reduce SSI However, kin caregivers may avoid child welfare services because they payments by the amount a child these payments because they incor- perceive the agency as invasive. receives in IV-E foster care payments. rectly believe TANF child-only grants Some children in kinship care They can also consider both SSI and have work requirements and time arrangements may also be eligible Social Security payments as income limits similar to TANF “family for benefits such as Supplemental when determining TANF child- grants.” Security Income (SSI) or Social only grant payments.10 It is possible,

2 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM

though rare, for children in kinship Security and 4 percent receive SSI AFCARS estimates of the kinship fos- care to receive both Social Security benefits. ter care population, only one-third to and SSI payments.11 one-half of children in state custody Foster Payment Receipt Is Low and placed by the courts receive a fos- Receipt of Financial Support among Kinship Care Families ter payment. We hypothesize this is because their caregivers either cannot We analyzed 2002 NSAF data to dis- Foster payments and their supplemen- meet or have not tried to meet foster cern which kinship care families tal benefits reach very few kinship care licensure requirements. receive which types of financial sup- caregivers, although they are on aver- Aside from foster payments, chil- ports from the government. We also age more generous than other pay- dren in public kinship care receive divided kinship care families by type ments to the families that receive other payments (figure 3). Approx- (public or private), because eligibility them. Approximately 440,000 children imately 6 percent receive SSI, and for certain payments depends on the are in placements involved with the another 4 percent receive Social Se- type of kinship care, as discussed courts, 19 percent of all children in curity. These levels of receipt are not above. kinship care. Many children placed statistically different from those rates by courts are not actually in state for children in private kinship care. TANF Child-Only Payments custody and are thus ineligible for Slightly more than 45 percent of chil- Are Underused foster payments. Therefore, other dren in public kinship care receive a researchers have traditionally defined TANF child-only payment or another Children in private kinship care kinship foster care arrangements more type of payment.14 While this payment receive financial support least often: narrowly, by including only children reaches the largest share of children in almost four of every five children in in state custody and placed with a public kinship care, the percentage of private kinship care receive no pay- relative by a court (the bottom two kinship caregivers caring for children ment at all (figure 2). Only 6 percent groups in the middle of figure 1). without any assistance is still striking. of children in private kinship care Using this definition, Adoption and Of children in public kinship care, all receive a TANF child-only payment, Foster Care Analysis and Reporting of whom have been involved with a though nearly all are eligible. Almost System (AFCARS) data from 2001 social service or child welfare agency 10 percent report receipt of another indicated that approximately 131,000 and most of whom have been placed type of payment. Even assuming all children were in kinship foster care in by a court, almost 32 percent receive these “other types” of payments were the United States. Estimates from the no payment at all for their care. TANF child-only support by other 1997 NSAF indicated that a slightly names, fewer than 16 percent of chil- larger number of children, approxi- Discussion dren in private kinship care receive a mately 195,000, were in state custody.13 TANF child-only payment.12 An ad- Dividing our current estimate of foster Financial support for children in kin- ditional 2 percent receive Social payment receipt by the NSAF and ship care of all types remains low,

FIGURE 2. Payment Receipt for Children in Private Kinship Care

Other type of payment 10%

No payment 78% TANF child-only payment 6% Social Security 2% Supplemental Security Income 4%

Source: Author calculations from the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families.

3 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM

given that almost all children are eli- must use state dollars to cover the care. States should explore various gible for at least one payment. The full cost of foster payments to kin strategies of outreach and support to most striking finding is that only one- caregivers who would otherwise be accomplish these goals. Recent guid- third to one-half of children in state ineligible for title IV-E foster care. ance from the federal government custody who were placed by a court Alternatively, states may use TANF that would allow states to use IV-E with kin receive a foster care pay- funding to assist these caregivers. administrative funds for such items ment. Foster care licensure require- Children in private kinship care as beds or smoke detectors for ments cover several areas, including are highly unlikely to receive a pay- prospective foster parents is a good health and criminal records of adults ment from the government, although start.15 States should also educate kin- in the household, fire safety, training, nearly all are eligible. While only ship caregivers about the additional and others. Kinship caregivers may 16 percent of children in private kin- subsidies and services, such as assis- find these requirements complex, ship care receive a TANF child-only tance with school supplies or cloth- financially burdensome, or intrusive, payment or another unidentified pay- ing, that may be linked to foster care which may create a barrier to receiv- ment, 45 percent of children in public payments and available to licensed ing foster care payments. kinship care do. Clearly, children in caregivers. To address low levels of The level of foster payment private kinship care are less likely to payment receipt among private kin- receipt also may have declined in the access the payments available to ship caregivers, agencies should wake of the Adoption and Safe them, perhaps because they are less develop innovative techniques to Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). Under likely than children in public kinship educate kinship caregivers not ASFA, kinship foster parents must care to have contact with the child involved with social service agencies meet state licensure guidelines set for welfare system. Their caregivers may about the financial assistance avail- non-kin caregivers in order for the also be less likely to understand the able to them. However, to better serve state to receive federal foster care eligibility requirements for various the needs of the kinship care popula- reimbursements. As a result, between types of assistance, particularly tion, actual increases in the material 1997 and 2001, 18 states made their TANF child-only payments. well-being of children and their kin- kinship care licensing requirements Low levels of payment receipt for ship caregivers should follow height- more strict (Jantz et al. 2002). In addi- all children in kinship care may indi- ened awareness and policy changes. tion, ASFA disallowed federal reim- cate a need to change policy and bursement of foster care payments to enhance outreach efforts. States need Notes provisionally licensed kin. In 2001, 19 to ensure that children are cared for 1. This number differs from the approxi- states that allowed pre-approval in safe settings, which is the goal of mately 6 million children living in any denied foster care payments to these licensing requirements, and that the relative-headed household. The larger estimate includes multigenerational house- kin (Jantz et al. 2002). If states choose caregivers, whether kin or traditional holds in which grandparents or other rela- to set more flexible licensure require- foster parents, have the resources tives may head a home but at least one ments for kinship caregivers, they they need to provide high-quality parent lives with the child.

FIGURE 3. Payment Receipt for Children in Public Kinship Care

TANF child-only payment or other type of payment 45%

Social Security 4% Foster payment 12% Supplemental Security Income 6% No payment 32%

Source: Author calculations from the 2002 National Survey of America’s Families. Note: Numbers do not sum to 100 because of rounding.

4 An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM

2. The payment amount and eligibility re- when a child comes from a home that is responses difficult. As a result, we ask a quirements for some payments also vary not income-eligible, all states (except broad payment question. by state of residence. Oregon and California) use state funds to 15. The U.S. Administration for Children and 3. The number of children in kinship care provide foster care payments. With licens- Families issued these changes through its receiving any type of payment did not ing, states generally do not use state funds Child Welfare Policy Manual online in change significantly between 1999 and to provide foster care payments for kin summer 2004. 2002. In 1999, only 33.4 percent of all chil- that do not meet licensing standards. Six dren in kinship care received any type of states, however, do offer state-funded fos- financial payment (including SSI and Social ter care payments to kin caregivers who References Security). Three years later, data indicate meet a less stringent licensing option. Ehrle, Jennifer, and Rob Geen. 2002. “Children that approximately the same percentage 9. SSI payments may vary significantly by Cared for by Relatives: What Services Do (32.7 percent) received any payment. state. Unlike Social Security payments, states often supplement SSI federal pay- They Need?” Washington, DC: The Urban 4. This sample may include some children ments. The figure cited here is a combina- Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Policy who have been adopted by a relative. In tion of average federal and state payments Brief B-47. this circumstance, a court would have ($496 and $67, respectively, in 2004). Geen, Rob. 2003. Kinship Care: Making the Most made the kin caregiver responsible for the of a Valuable Resource. Washington, DC: child. However, we assume the number of 10. It is relatively uncommon for children to Urban Institute Press. these cases is small. Generally, a caregiver receive TANF and SSI or Social Security, in these circumstances, when asked about but because of how we asked the survey Jantz, Amy, Rob Geen, Roseana Bess, Cynthia her relationship to the child, would iden- questions, we cannot determine how often Andrews, and Victoria Russell. 2002. The tify herself as an adoptive parent rather this combination occurs. We have included Continuing Evolution of State Kinship Care than a relative, and this relationship would any child receiving SSI or Social Security in Policies. Washington, DC: The Urban exclude the child from this sample. The categories specific to these payments, Institute. Assessing the New Federalism sample also includes a few children with a though we recognize a small number of Discussion Paper 02-11. caregiver identifying him or herself as a children may receive financial support legal guardian. If the caregiver is also a through the TANF program in addition to relative, these may be legal guardianship SSI or Social Security. About the Authors cases, in which a court has granted legal 11. Children receiving both SSI and Social guardianship of the child. These chil- Security accounted for less than one-tenth Julie Murray is a dren would be ineligible for foster care of a percent of our sample. Therefore, these research assistant with payments. children are included in the Social Security the Urban Institute’s 5. Caregivers that opt to receive foster pay- category, since this payment is the larger of Center on Labor, ments relinquish their eligibility for TANF the two. Human Services, and child-only payments. Children with sig- 12. Because of how survey questions were nificant assets or income of their own asked, it is possible that the caregivers of 4 Population, where she and immigrant children born outside the percent of all children in kinship care and 5 specializes in family United States are also ineligible for TANF percent of those in private kinship care research, specifically child welfare child-only payments. who receive an “other” type of payment 6. These data are based on a Congressional are referring to a child support payment and issues of family structure. Research Service state telephone survey rather than a public benefit. We cannot and on Urban Institute calculations. determine if these children receive both a Jennifer Ehrle 7. These estimates are based on 1999 data child support payment and some other Macomber is a from the Child Welfare League of America type of unidentified public benefit or a research associate with child support payment only. and Urban Institute calculations. the Urban Institute’s 13. AFCARS data likely undercount the num- 8. States receive federal reimbursement for Center on Labor, foster care payments made to kinship care ber of children in state custody owing to cases that are determined IV-E eligible. To differences in state definitions and states’ Human Services, and be IV-E–eligible, six criteria must be met: ability to identify kinship caregivers in Population, where she (1) the child must come from an income- their data. specializes in research on abuse, eligible home, (2) the caregiver must be 14. The NSAF gave caregivers the option of neglect, and the child welfare system, licensed, (3) the child must be in state cus- indicating receipt of “another type” of tody, (4) the judge must determine that payment. In some cases, this other type of and other policy issues related to the keeping the child out of foster care would payment was Social Security or SSI; where well-being of children and families. be contrary to the child’s welfare, (5) the we could determine this from other pay- judge must determine that reasonable ment questions, we have incorporated Rob Geen is the direc- efforts have been made to keep the child at these cases into our official counts for SSI home, and (6) the judge must determine and Social Security cases. In cases where tor of the child welfare that reasonable efforts are in place to the payment is unidentifiable, it is likely research program in reunify the child with his or her parents. that the assistance is some form of a TANF the Urban Institute’s The first two criteria, income eligibility child-only payment. States often use differ- Center on Labor, and licensing, are sometimes not met, and ent names for the payments or may sup- states vary in how they handle payments plement them with their own funds, which Human Services, and for these families. With income eligibility, can make attaining valid yet specific Population.

5 THE URBAN INSTITUTE Nonprofit Org. 2100 M Street, NW U.S. Postage Washington, DC 20037 PAID Permit No. 8098 Ridgely, MD

Address Service Requested

For more information, call Public Affairs: This series presents findings from the 1997, 1999, and 2002 rounds of the National 202-261-5709 Survey of America’s Families (NSAF). Information on more than 100,000 people was gath- or visit our web site, ered in each round from more than 42,000 households with and without telephones that http://www.urban.org. are representative of the nation as a whole and of 13 selected states (Alabama, California, To order additional copies Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New of this publication, call York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin). As in all surveys, the data are subject to sam- 202-261-5687 pling variability and other sources of error. Additional information on the NSAF can be or visit our online bookstore, obtained at http://newfederalism.urban.org. http://www.uipress.org. The NSAF is part of Assessing the New Federalism, a multiyear project to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Olivia A. Golden is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, the project stud- ies child and family well-being.

The Assessing the New Federalism project is currently supported by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and The Ford Foundation.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of THE URBAN INSTITUTE the Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series. 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to the Urban Copyright © 2004 Institute. Phone: 202-833-7200 Fax: 202-293-1918 The authors thank Olivia Golden, Rutledge Hutson, Regan Main, Carrie Smith, and E-mail: [email protected] Matthew Stagner for their helpful assistance with this brief.