An Overview of Current Kinship Care Research and Literature

1
An Overview of Current Kinship Care Research and
Literature

• James P. Gleeson, Ph.D., ACSW
• Jane Addams College of Social Work
• University of Illinois at Chicago
• Presented to Generations United
• Pre-Conference Intensive
• Grandfamilies Whats Worked, Whats New,
  Whats Next in Building Supports for Grandparents
  and Other Relatives Raising Children
• Washington, D.C.
• July 24, 2007

2
Agenda

• 15 years of research on kinship carewhat have
  we learned?
• Defining kinship care
• Formal and informal kinship care
• Public, private, voluntary kinship care
• Outcomes for children
• Stability, Permanency, Safety, Well-being
• Impact on caregivers, parents and extended
  families
• Limitations of the research
• Future directions for research on kinship care

3
Defining Kinship Care
4
Kinship Care in the U.S A Broad View

• The 2000 US census revealed that 6,042,435
  children under the age of 18 years, or 1 in 12,
  live in a household that is headed by the childs
  grandparent or other relative other than the
  childs parent.
• For approximately 2.4 million of these children,
  the relative is the childs primary caregiver.
• For approximately 2.3 million of these children,
  their biological parents do not live in the home.
• Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census
  National Survey of Americas Children--Ehrle
  Geen (2002a, 2002b).

5
Kinship Care Growth

• The National Survey of Americas Families (Urban
  Institute) and the U.S. Census indicates
  substantial growth in the number of children
  living with relatives other than their parents.
• Growth is most dramatic among families with the
  least financial resources and the highest social
  service needs
• (Ehrle Geen, 2002a Harden, Clark, McGuire,
  1997).

6
Racial/Ethnic Demographics

• African American children are four to five times
  more likely to live with kin than Caucasian
  children, have the highest rates of kinship care
  of any ethnic group, and continue to increase in
  numbers (44 of children living with kin without
  their parents).
• The number of Latino children raised by kin other
  than their parents has also increased in recent
  years. Approximately 15 of the children raised
  by relatives are Latino.
• 38 of children in kinship care are Caucasian 3
  other ethnicities.
• Source Ehrle Geen, 2002a Harden, Clark,
  McGuire, 1997.

7
Defining Formal and Informal Kinship Care

• Approximately 5 (2003 AFCARS Estimate) to 9 of
  the children reared by kin are in the legal
  custody of the child welfare system and have been
  placed in kinship foster care aka public
  kinship care Formal Kinship Care
• Approximately 77-78 have no involvement with
  the child welfare system-private kinship care.
  Informal
• Another 13 have encountered the child welfare
  system and have been diverted from further child
  welfare system voluntary kinship care
  Informal
• ___________________
• NSAF Murray, Macomber Geen, 2004 Estimate

8
Formal and Informal Kinship Care (continued)

• Kinship care and socioeconomic risks
• 40 live in a household that is below the federal
  poverty level
• 36 live with a caregiver without a high school
  degree
• 55 live with a caregiver without a spouse
• 19 live in a house with 4 or more children
• 22 face 3 or more of these risks
  simultaneously, compared to 8 of all children in
  the United States (Ehrle, Geen, Clark, 2001)
• Compared to foster care, kinship caregiving
  families are more likely to experience economic
  hardship and food insecurity.
• Most concerned about children in private kinship
  care since they are not involved with the child
  welfare system and the families do not have
  access to services provided by that system (Ehrle
  Geen, 2002a Johnson Waldfogel, 2002b )

9
Formal and Informal Kinship Care (continued)

• Swann Sylvester (2006). Does the child welfare
  system serve the neediest families?
• Children with behavior problems and infants are
  more likely to be in public vs. private
  kinship care.
• Private (informal) kinship caregiving families
  are more likely to live below the federal poverty
  level and suffer food insecurity than public
  (formal) kinship care families.
• Public kinship caregiving families more likely to
  be between 150 and 200 of the federal poverty
  level.
• Private kinship caregiving families
• less likely than public kinship care families to
  receive food stamps, TANF child-only grants (or
  foster care maintenance payments), or to be
  covered by Medicaid (Ehrle Geen, 2002a
  Goodman, Potts, Pasztor Scorzo, 2004).

10
Formal and Informal Kinship Care (continued)

• With TANF caseloads dropping, relatives receiving
  the child-only grant are a larger of TANF
  caseloads (Edelhoch, et al, 2002 Gibbs, et al,
  2006).
• Great financial need as well as social
  service/emotional needs.
• TANF system not equipped to respond to these
  needs.
• Complexity of kinship care arrangementsmix of
  formal and informal, as well as care of adult
  family members (Gleeson, ODonnell, Bonecutter,
  1997 Shlonsky, Webster, Needell, 2001).
• Also, many public kinship caregivers receive a
  subsidy that is lower than the foster care rate.

11
StabilityPermanency

• (Reunification, Adoption, Guardianship

12
Placement Stability Problem or Strength of
Kinship Care?

• Research has consistently shown that, on average,
  children in the custody of the child welfare
  system who are placed with relatives experience
  greater stability and fewer placement disruptions
  that children placed with non-related foster
  parents
• (James, 2004 Terling-Watt, 2001 Testa, 2001
  2002 Wulczyn, Hislop, Goerge, 2000 Zinn,
  DeCoursey, Goerge, Courtney, 2006).

13
Kinship Care and Reunification

• Children are reunified with biological parents at
  slower rates from kinship care than non-related
  foster care, but are less likely to reenter the
  custody of the child welfare system (Berrick et
  al., 1998 Courtney Needell, 1997)
• For children in kinship care, AFDC eligibility
  affects the rate of reunification (Courtney,
  Piliavan Entner Wright, 1997 Grogan-Kaylor,
  2001)
• However, it is not clear who decides whether
  reunification, adoption, or any other options are
  appropriate goals to pursue the caregiver, the
  child welfare practitioner, or others (Courtney,
  Piliavan Entner Wright, 1997 Gleeson, 1999b)

14
Kinship Care and Adoption

• Early research suggested that kinship caregivers
  were less willing than non-related foster parents
  to adopt the children in their care, and some
  research continues to support this today (Smith,
  2003).
• Subsequent research attributes much of the lower
  rates of adoption by kin to lack of contact with
  child welfare practitioners and reluctance/lack
  of knowledge and skill in discussing permanency
  options with kin (Bonecutter, 1999 Gleeson,
  ODonnell, Bonecutter, 1997 Testa, 2005b)
• Testas research indicates that, at least in
  Illinois, that policy and practice initiatives
  turned the kinship disadvantage (-42.7) for
  the 1991 entry cohort into the kinship care
  advantage (57.3) for the FY 1997 cohort in
  Illinois (Testa, 2005b)

15
Kinship Care Subsidized Guardianship

• Alternative to adoption, thought to be more
  consistent with cultural practices of informal
  adoption, particularly among African American
  families
• Statistically significant increased rate of
  permanency for children living with relatives who
  had the option of guardianship or adoption
  (Testa, 2002)
• Statistically significant 6.7 difference between
  demonstration and cost neutrality (control) group
  (p
• Somewhat higher rate of permanency in parts of
  the state not involved in the demonstration or
  control group, mostly due to higher rates of
  subsidized guardianship.

16
Are there really differences in permanency for
children in kin and non-kin homes?

• Koh Testa (2006) in a very recent analysis of
  Illinois AFCARS data, used propensity matching
  scores to balance mean differences in
  characteristics of children in kinship and
  non-kinship homes (age, race, disability, reason
  for removal, substitute caregivers race, and
  locality of services (Cook County vs. other).
• Created a matched sample of 1,500 children in
  kinship care and 1,500 in non-related foster
  care.
• While differences were observed in a non-matched
  sample, No statistically significant differences
  were observe in the matched sample in
  reunification, adoption and guardianship, or
  reentry to the child welfare systems custody.

17
The Quality of Permanence Lasting or Binding?

• caregivers intent, childrens sense of
  belonging, and family continuity are independent
  of the permanency options chosen by families. The
  odds difference estimates suggest that the form
  of legal permanenceadoption or guardianshipmay
  be less consequential for family stability than
  extralegal factors, such as the degree of
  genealogical relatedness, sense of family duty,
  feelings of affection and length of
  acquaintance. (Testa, 2005a, p. 530)

18
What Contributes to Permanency in Kinship Foster
Care?

• Policy reforms in Illinois (Gleeson, 1999c Mason
  Gleeson, 1999 Testa, 2005b)
• Illinois Home of Relative Reform Plan
• Adoption Redesign
• Subsidized Guardianship Waiver Demonstration
• Performance Based Contracting
• Development of Non-adversarial Approaches to
  Working with Kinship Families family group
  conferences, mediation, family meetings
• Changes in Practice and Training?
• Varying levels of support
• Shared vision across systems?

19
Barriers to Permanency Planning (Bonecutter,
1999 Gleeson, 1999b Mason Gleeson, 1999
Testa, 2002)

• Family dynamics
• Child welfare caseworker bias
• Lack of involvement/engagement of families in
  decision-making
• Difficulties focusing caseworker efforts
• Caseworker knowledge and skills

20
Barriers to Permanency Planning (continued)
(Bonecutter, 1999 Gleeson, 1999b Mason
Gleeson, 1999 Testa, 2002)

• Underutilization of non-adversarial approaches to
  permanency planning
• Insufficient or inadequate services and resources
• Culture of the child welfare system
• The legal system
• Procedures system barriers?e.g. who rules out
  adoption

21
Limitation/Unintended Negative Effects of
Permanency Planning in Kinship Care

• Feelings of coercion (OBrien, Massat, Gleeson,
  2001)
• Statistical significance based upon comparison of
  means, but considerable variance across kinship
  caregivers and children
• Replacement of adoption with subsidized
  guardianship worker choice or family?
• Lack of understanding and preparation for meeting
  future needs (Westat, 2003)

22
Safety Fears Concerns
23
Are Kinship Homes Safe?

• Case-control study by Zuravin, Benedict,
  Somerfield (1993) found that non-related foster
  parents were twice as likely as kin to have a
  confirmed case of child abuse filed against them.
  However
• All kinship caregivers in this study were
  licensed as foster parents.
• Possible reporting bias?
• Lower levels of caseworker contact and services
  provided to kin ? lower surveillance

24
Other Safety Concerns?

• Protecting child from parents and subsequent
  abuse
• Harsh discipline? Problematic parental
  attitudes?
• Family and neighborhood risks?
• Physical safety of home and community?
• Exposure to criminal activity, domestic violence?
• Does licensing status level of safety?
• __________
• Beeman Boisen, 1999 Berrick, Needell,
  Barth, 1999 Chipman, Wells, Johnson, 2002
  Gebel, 1996 Harden, Clyman, Kriebel, Lyons,
  2004 Peters, 2005 Richardson, 2002 Shlonsky
  Berrick, 2001 Terling-Watt, 2001 NSCAW, 2003)

25
How Do We Assess (and ensure) Safety In Kinship
Care?

• Who is involved?
• Broad or narrow view?
• Lessons from research on Family Group
  Conferencing/Decision-Making (Merkel-Holguin
  Nixon, 2003 Sieppert, Hudson, Unrau, 2000
  Sundell Vinnerljung, 2004).

26
Beyond SafetyDefining Quality of Kinship Care
27
Other Quality Indicators (Chipman, Wells,
Johnson 2002 Shlonsky Berrick, 2001)

• Educational support (Berrick et al., 1994
  Dubowitz et al., 1994 Benedict et al, 1996
  Sawyer Dubowitz, 1994 Iglehart, 1994)
• Mental health and behavioral support (Berrick et
  al, 1994, Benedict et al., 1996 Brooks Barth,
  1998)
• Developmental factors (Gaudin Sutphen, 1993
  USDHHS, 2003)
• Furtherance of Positive Reciprocal Attachment
  (LeProhn, 1994 USDHHS, 2003)
• Childrens perceptions of quality of life

28
Other Quality Indicators continued

• Caregiver ability to meet needs of children and
  handle stress (Cimmarusti, 1999 Minkler, Roe,
  Price, 1992 Shlonsky Berrick, 2001 USDHHS,
  2003)
• Experience caring for children (USDHHS, 2003
  Petras, 1999)
• Financial and material resources (Chipman, Wells,
  Johnson 2002 Shlonsky Berrick, 2001)
• Caseworker support and access to needed services
  (Geen, 2003b)

29
Assessing and Strengthening Quality of Kinship
Homes

• Why Assess Quality? Toward what end?
• To rule out?
• To strengthen and support?
• How to Assess and Strengthen Quality?
• Who is involved?
• Broad or narrow view?
• What is the process?
• Building systems of support?

30
The Well-Being of Children in Kinship Care
31
How Do Children Fare in Kinship Care?

• The weight of the evidence of a number of
  studies suggest that children in formal kinship
  care tend to have lower rates of mental health
  and behavioral problems than their peers in
  non-related foster care, but higher than children
  in informal kinship care and even higher than
  children in the general population.
• _____________
• Benedict, Zuravin, Stallings (1996) Berrick,
  Barth, Needell, 1994 Carpenter Clyman, 2004
  Dubowitz, et al., 1994 Goodman et al, 2004
  Keller et al., 2001 Landsverk et al., 1996
  NSCAW, 2003 Shore et al., 2002)

32
How Do Children Fare in Kinship Care?(Continued)

• We are beginning to move a bit past the question
  of whether children are better off in kinship
  care or foster care to more refined questions
  about
• What factors are associated with the functioning
  of children that we might be able to influence?
• E.g. caregiver stress and factors associated with
  that stress
• Are the ages of the child and the caregiver
  factors, and how can we best support families
  with older caregivers? With younger caregivers?
• _____________
• e.g. Smithgall, et al., 2006 Solomon, 2006.

33
Innovative ProjectsIn Print

• School based projects for children in kinship
  care and their families (Strozier, McGrew,
  Krisman, Smith, 2005 Edwards Daire, 2006).
• Research with parents in prison or jail, their
  children, and the kin who care for the children
  (Smith, Krisman, Strozier, Marley, 2004).
• Culturally specific kinship caregiver support
  groups

34
Cultural Values and Strengths

• Hill, R. B. (1997). The strengths of African
  American families Twenty-five years later.
  Washington, D.C. R B Publishers Hill, R. B.
  (1972). The strengths of Black families. New
  York Emerson Hall Hill, R. B. (1977). Informal
  adoption among Black families. Washington, D.C.
  National Urban League Research Department.
• Fuller-Thomson, E Minkler, M. (2007). Central
  American grandparents raising grandchildren.
  Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(1),
  5-18. (Using U.S. 2000 Census data).
• Goodman, C. C. Silverstein, M. (2006).
  Grandmothers raising grandchildren Ethnic and
  racial differences in well-being among custodial
  and coparenting families (1,051 African American,
  Latina, and Caucasian grandmother caregivers
  recruited through schools and media for 1 hour
  interviews).
• Smith, C. J Devore, W. (2004) African American
  children in the child welfare system from
  exclusion to over inclusion. Children and Youth
  Services Review, 26, 427-446.

35
The Views of Children in Kinship Care (Brown,
Cohon, Wheeler, 2002 Chapman, Wall, Barth,
2004 Gleeson et al, 2007 Messing, 2005 2006
Wilson Conroy, 1999

• Satisfaction with living arrangement
• Relationship with caregivers
• Conception of Family
• Sense of Belonging
• Living with kin is normal not stigmatizing

36
The Views of Children in Kinship Care (Altshuler,
1996 1999a 1999b 1999c)

• Experiencing being loved, being cared about
• Experiencing the many acts of kindness
• Creating a future of possibilities
• Experiencing dialogue, practicing input
• Advise to caseworkers Help parents, nurture
  kids, think best interest of the child

37
Conception of Family

• Defined broadly to include nuclear and extended
  family, godparents, in-laws, friends and
  teachers.
• The number of members on the family tree ranged
  from 8 to 33.
• Involvement in a large extended family system is
  a potential protective factor worth further
  exploration.

38
Sense of Belonging

• Making children feel welcome
• Take them places
• Efforts to meet their physical and material needs
  (toys, clothing, food and medical care)
• They would take me anywhere, and they would help
  you out, and they would be very, very happy to
  have you living with them.

• Places children feel most at home
• Most children felt at home with their caregiver
• Food, family friends present are reasons
  children feel most at home
• That my grandma cooks me spaghetti.

39
Sense of Stability and Permanence

• Where would like to be living in the future
• Most would like to stay with their current
  caregiver.
• Several would like to live with their current
  caregiver but in better housing accommodations.
• Several would like to live with their mother and
  or father, but fear the parent will not be able
  to care adequately for themso they want to live
  with their parent and their current caregiverand
  some say their entire extended family.
• I would like to live with my grandma with my
  mother so that my mother would have a better
  life.

40
The Impact of Kinship Care on Kinship Caregivers
and Extended Families

• Burden
• Psychological Distress
• Physical Health Challenges
• Satisfaction with Caregiving

41
How Caregivers Became Involved in Raising
Relatives Child (Gleeson et al., 2007)

• Parent(s) unable to care for the child or did
  not want child.
• Parental substance abuse a very common factor,
  but not in all families
• Mom does not have problems with drugs, she just
  doesnt want kids.
• Death of a parent, incarceration, mental or
  physical illness, incapacity
• Preventing foster care/child protective service
  intervention
• Keep child safe
• Parents living arrangements are unstable

42
Figure 1 Overlapping Reasons, Motivations, and
Pathways to Kinship Care
43
(No Transcript)
44
Various Pathways to Kinship Care (Gleeson et al.,
2007)

• Hes my sisters grandson. My niece said she
  didnt want the baby. She was on drugs. Another
  niece asked if he could stay with me.
• When the mom died, my son was in jail so I took
  care of them. Even when the mom was alive I
  helped a lot ...
• Caregivers sister (mother of children) passed
  awaybut before she passed she asked the
  caregiver and one other sister to raise her
  children. Caregiver took 3 children and sister
  took one. Caregivers other sister then passes
  away and caregiver took the other child
• DCFS asked caregiver to take the children.
• Caregiver proactively intervened because did not
  think child was well cared for.

45
Impact on Kinship Caregivers

• Health (Berrick et al, 1994 Burton, 1992 Cox,
  2002 Dubowitz et al, 1994 Fuller-Thomson
  Minkler, 2000 Grinstead et al., 2002 Harper
  Hardesty, 2001 Johannes, 2003 Kelly, et al.,
  2000 Roe Minkler, 1999)
• Psychological distress (Cimmarusti, 1999 Kelley,
  Whiteley, Sipe, Yorker, 2000 Minkler, Roe
  Robertson-Beckley, 1994 Minkler Roe, 1993)
• Parenting Stress, Depression and Burden
  (Cimmarusti, 1999 Climo, Patterson Lay, 2002
  Emick Hayslip, 1999 Grant, 2000 Harrison,
  Richman, Vittimberga, 2000 Musil, 1998
  Petras, 1999 Sands Goldberg-Glen, 2000 )

46
Impact on Kinship Caregivers and the Extended
Family

• Complex legal situations (Grant, 2000)
• Financial strain
• Family strain and conflict (Crumbley Little,
  1997 Gibson, 1999 Jendrek, 1994 OBrien,
  Massat, Gleeson, 2001)
• Caregivers loss of intimate relationships and
  friendships.

47
Impact of CaregivingCaregiver Stress

• Some caregiver are managing quite well and have
  very low levels of stress.
• While only 15 of the United States adult
  population would be expected to score in the
  clinical range on the Parenting Stress Index,
  more than one-third of the caregivers in the
  informal kinship care study scored in this range,
  indicating that they are experiencing very high
  levels of stress

48
Predictors of Parenting Stress in Informal
Kinship Caregivers (Gleeson et al., 2007)

• The overall level of caregiver stress was
  significantly associated with childrens
  externalizing behavior, family resources, and
  marital status.
• There was no direct effect of family functioning
  or social support on caregiver stress.
• Family resources moderated the relationship
  between family functioning and caregiver stress.

49
Moderating Effect of Family Resources on the
Relationship Between Family Functioning and
Caregiver Stress at First Wave (Gleeson et al.,
2007)
High Stress

Adequate Family Resources?
?Inadequate Family Resources
Low Stress
Healthy Family Functioning
Unhealthy Family Functioning
50
Caregiver Satisfaction

• Even with the burden and stress, many kinship
  caregivers express high levels of satisfaction
  with the caregiving relationship (Cimmarusti,
  1999 Petras, 1999 OBrien, Massat, Gleeson,
  2001 Osby, 1999 Rodgers Jones, 1999)

51
Parents Feelings

• When with Child
• Love, warm feeling
• Happy, joyful, laughter
• Enlightening
• Inspired
• Sometimes stressful because of childs behavior
  and parents temper/impatience

• When not with child
• Miss the child, feelings of sadness, depression
• Wondering what they are doing
• a ball of feelingsI miss her, her new steps,
  calling me mommy, and everything like
  thatbecause my kids are my world and I want them
  to know that.

52
Parent Views of Kinship Care

• Positives
• Know the child is safe and well cared for
• Educational success for child
• Learning experience for child and parent
• Child gets opportunity to know and have contact
  with relatives
• Church/spiritual influence, learn right and wrong
• Thankful for the help

• Negatives
• Loss of parent role
• Being his mother, I feel that I cant exert my
  mother role. Because I feel like Ill be
  oversteppin my bounds

53
Limitations to the Research

• Perspective Child welfare system vs. views and
  experiences of the family.
• The limits of statistical significance and the
  comparison of means.
• The importance of multiple methods, voices,
  measures, perspectives.

54
Directions for Future Research

• Significant involvement of children, caregivers,
  parents, professionals, etc in shaping programs,
  policies, interventions and in all phases of the
  research process (Bowman, 1983).
• Designing creative solutions ? programs and
  interventions to support children and families
• Ensuring the fidelity and integrity of programs
  and interventions (formative and process
  evaluations designed to enhance the interventions
  and services)

55
Directions for Future Research

• Effective ways of training, supervising, and
  supporting child welfare practitioners.
• Make use of multiple methods and voices
• Examine the unintended negative consequences of
  any policy, program or intervention.

56
Thank you!

• To request a complete reference list for this
  presentation
• jimglee_at_uic.edu
• If you are interested in a course on kinship care
  for graduate credit or continuing education go
  to
• http//exedweb.cc.uic.edu/exed/exedpublic/kinship/
  
• The course begins August 27, 2007. Limited
  capacity. Registration closes when capacity is
  reached or by
• August 20, 2007.