This Issue:
Kinship Care - Unapproved Draft - April 2, 2001

THE DCFS PERSPECTIVE
Article Title

LITERATURE SUMMARIES
State Policies
1. State Policies on Kinship Care Vary
2. How Policies Developed in Illinois

Review of Past Research on Kinship Care

Current Research on Children
3. Factors That Affect Children's Well-Being
4. Kinship Care May Not Help Drug Exposed Kids
5. Children May Have Fewer Behavior Problems
6.Less Homelessness in Adults From Kin Care

Current Research on Kinship Caregivers
7. Caregivers Share Their Experiences
8.Caregivers Have Important Strengths
9.HIV-Affected Families Need More Support

Anxiety, Currrent Research on Grandparent Caregivers
10. A Survey of Illinois Grandparent Caregivers
11. Latino Grandparent Caregiver Challenges
12. Support Groups Help Grandparents

Current Research on Parents
13. Extra Burdens When Mothers are Incarcerated
14. African American Fathers Involved With Children

Illinois Studies on Kinship Care Practice
15.The Achieving Permanency Project
16. Kinship Care Evaluation Instruments
17. Kinship and Professional Care Compared
18. Caregivers Need Worker Attention

Other Practice Studies
19. Worker Perceptions of Kinship Care
20. Project Healthy Grandparents, Atlanta

WEB RESOURCES


DCFS Article     top


1. State Policies on Kinship Care Vary     top

Leos-Urbel, Jacob, Roseana Bess and Rob Geen (1999). State Policies for Assessing and Supporting Kinship Foster Parents. Washington DC: The Urban Institute. 64P. Available at http://www.urban.org/authors/leos-urbel.html

In 1980, very few children in state custody were placed in kinship homes. But during the late 1980s and 1990s, kinship placement increased dramatically because:

  • The number of children needing placement increased.
  • The number of available foster homes declined.
  • Child welfare agencies have accepted research that suggests children fare better in kinship homes.
  • State and federal court rulings have supported the rights of relatives to become foster parents and receive foster care payments.

There is considerable debate about the appropriate use of kinship care and how to support kinship foster homes.

Are Kinship Homes Better?
Some research indicates that kinship placements may offer benefits that regular foster homes cannot, such as less trauma for the child and greater continuity with the child's family and community. However, some experts believe that kinship placements may not be safe because the same family that raised a parent who has maltreated the child will now care for the child, and also may not keep the child safe from the parent. Kinship caregivers also tend to have greater need for support and services than non-relative caregivers.

Should Kinship Caregivers be Paid for Services Provided?
Supporters of paying kinship caregivers believe:

  • Payments reflect the cost of purchasing a service that should be publicly supported.
  • A kinship home that meets non-relative foster care standards provides a higher-quality service than a non-relative and should therefore receive a higher payment.
  • If a kinship home is safe but cannot meet all the non-relative foster home requirements, refusing to support the home may make it more difficult for the caregivers to provide a safe environment.
  • Some of the foster care licensing requirements, such as square footage of the home or number of bedrooms, are more a reflection of middle-class values than the ability of a foster parent to provide adequate care.

Are Support Payments Inappropriate Incentives?
Those opposing paying kinship caregivers make these arguments:

  • A foster care payment may be an incentive for caregivers to take a child. Kinship caregivers should receive lower payments than non-relative caregivers because kin need less incentive to care for a child related to them, and it is their duty to provide this care.
  • Payments may give caregivers already caring for children an incentive to become part of the public child welfare system. And payment may give parents an incentive to abandon their children so their relatives can get foster care payments.
  • Paying relatives to care for children is an uneccesary intrusion into family life.
  • Most kinship foster families are African American. Child welfare policies do not reflect the cultural norms of this or other minority groups.
  • Taking kinship caregivers into the child welfare system shifts the mission of child welfare from child protection to income assistance.

Federal Laws Promote Kinship Care
Federal laws now promote kinship placements. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act requires states to consider giving preference to relative caregivers, and the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) established for the first time that placement with relatives can be a permanency option for children in care.

State Policies Vary
Federal laws have been clear about how states must deal with foster parents when states expect to use federal funds from Title IV-E to support them. But federal laws have not been clear on other issues, so states have created policies about kinship care that vary widely.

1997-1999 Survey of State Policies
In 1997, the Urban Institute conducted a national survey of state policies and updated the survey again in 1999. During that period, 18 states altered their policies regarding kinship foster care, indicating that policies are still new and being developed. The survey results summarized below include all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, for a total of 51.

Definition of Kin Varies
States vary in their definitions of kin. About half (24) of the states allow only people related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The remaining 21 states allow neighbors, godparents, or family friends, while 6 states have no definition.

Most states give preference to placing children with kin over non-relative foster parents and actively seek kin caregivers. Most states also help arrange informal kinship placements for some cases.

Usually Kin Homes Have Different Licensing/Approval and Payments at a Lower Rate
States may support kinship foster care homes with the standard foster care payment received by fully licensed non-relative foster care homes. But more often states support kinship foster homes with smaller payments, usually from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The rate of payment received by kinship foster homes depends on if kinship homes meet the same licensing standards as non-relative foster homes, or less stringent standards.

  • In 27 states, kinship homes must meet all the non-relative foster home standards in order to receive the full foster care payment.
  • In 16 states, kinship homes may meet the foster home standards, with some items waived or modified, and still receive the full foster care payment.
  • In 8 states, kinship homes may meet a separate, less stringent standard and still receive the full foster care payment.
  • In 28 states, kinship homes may meet a separate, less stringent standard and receive a lower payment, usually a TANF child-only grant.
  • In 41 states, kinship caregivers can choose to meet a less stringent standard and receive a lower payment.

Same Caseworker Supervision Usually Allowed
Most states require caseworkers to provide the same amount of supervision to kinship caregivers as to non-relative foster parents. Some states allow caseworkers to provide less supervision to kinship homes that are assessed by a lower standard.

Usually when states help arrange informal kinship placements (without taking the child into state custody), caseworkers are required to provide no supervision, or less supervision than f or formal kinship placements.

Experience and research suggest that kinship families receive less supervision, but more research is needed to understand how caseworkers actually serve kinship placements, how well informed kinship caregivers are of their options, and how state policies affect the number of kinship caregivers.

Permanency Options
All states but one offer subsidized adoption to kinship caregivers for children with special needs. Most (39) states will allow children to stay in kinship care on a long-term basis, although it is rarely used. Most (43) states offer an unsubsidized guardianship option, and 25 states offer subsidized guardianship options. Subsidies for guardianship are not eligible for Title IV-E federal reimbursement. However, Illinois is one of seven states issued Title IV-E waivers to test the effectiveness of federally subsidized guardianship with kinship families.

ASFA Final Rule
In January of 2000, a final rule was issued regarding state implementation of the ASFA. It required that in order to be eligible for federal reimbursement under Title IV-E, all foster homes must be fully licensed by the state. This means that kinship homes must meet the same standards as non-relative foster homes, with the exception of waivers on a case-by-case basis. Also, states may not use federal funds for provisionally licensed or emergency placements. States may continue to make their own policies when they are not using federal funds.

Thus, states now have three options for supporting kinship foster care:

  • require all kinship homes to meet the non-relative foster care standards so they can be paid the regular foster care rate using Title IV-E funds
  • waive licensing requirements for kinship homes on a case-by-case basis only
  • allow kinship homes to meet less stringent standards and support them with state-only or TANF funds.


2. How Policies Developed in Illinois Kinship Care     top

Gleeson, James P. (1999). "Kinship Care as a Child Welfare Service: Emerging Policy Issues and Trends." Pages 28-53 in Kinship Foster Care: Policy, Practice and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gleeson, James P. (1999). "Kinship Care as a Child Welfare Service: What Do We Really Know?" Pages 3-34 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Mason, Sally J. and James P. Gleeson (1999). "Adoption and Subsidized Guardianship as Permanency Options in Kinship Foster Care: Barriers and Facilitating Conditions" Pages 85-114 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Testa, Mark F., Kristen L. Shook, Leslie S. Cohen and Melinda G. Woods (1996). "Permanency Planning Options for Children in Formal Kinship Care." Child Welfare v75 n5 p451-470.

The authors summarize the dramatic development of Illinois kinship care over the past 20 years, showing how kinship care has and continues to be a central policy issue in child welfare.

Foster Care or Preservation Services?
State policies about kinship care are shaped by how the service is viewed.

  • If it is a home-based family preservation service intended to divert children from child welfare custody, then caregivers are discouraged from becoming licensed, in order to reduce costs to the state.
  • If it is a type of foster care placement, then efforts are made to help caregivers meet licensing standards and thus qualify for federal Title IV-E matching funds, in order to reduce costs to the state.

Supreme Court Ruling, 1979
Prior to 1976, Illinois and other states placed children with their relatives but did not allow caregivers to receive the full foster care payment - only the lower Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. A class action suit originating in Illinois in 1976 resulted in the 1979 Supreme Court ruling Miller v. Youakim. The ruling made it invalid to discriminate on the basis of kinship status and required states to give kinship caregivers the same support as other foster parents if they meet the licensing requirements.

After this ruling, most states supported relative caregivers at the lower AFDC rate. However, Illinois, concerned about another lawsuit, interpreted the ruling to mean that relatives should receive the full foster care support payment, regardless of their licensing status. Thus the state bore the cost to support unlicensed kinship homes, and most were unlicensed.

Growth Takes Off in 1980s
In the next few years, Illinois and other states experienced large increases in the number of children in care. In 1986, Illinois was one of the first to establish a separate approval process for relative caregivers which helped increase the number of relative caregivers who could qualify for licensing and federal reimbursement. In 1988, the Illinois Children and Family Services Act was amended to require that preference be given to relative caregivers, making Illinois one of the first states to legislate this preference.

For the decade of 1976-1986, the growth in the number of children in custody was only 1% per year. But between 1986-1995, the rate increased to 14% per year.

1989 Purchase of Service Contracts
Beginning in 1989, home of relative cases were increasingly transferred to private agencies under Purchase of Service contracts, in order to reduce DCFS caseloads, and in the hope that the agencies would be more successful at providing services, at permanency planning, and getting homes licensed. Unfortunately, these results were not achieved. The licensing approval rate was only 40%-60% even though standards were relaxed. This reduced the amount of federal funds that could be obtained to offset state costs.

1990, Court Ruling Encourages Nonremovals
In 1990 an Illinois Appellate Court ruled in People v. Thornton that a parent who left children with a grandmother and failed to collect them after a reasonable length of time was guilty of neglect. Illinois interpreted this decision as requiring DCFS to take children left with relatives into state custody, because the ruling defined them as neglected children. In 1990-1992, 40% of all new custody cases were these 'nonremoval' cases in which children were not removed from their homes when they came to the attention of DCFS, but continued to stay with relatives. Thus, many private kinship care arrangements were brought under state supervision, and as nonremoval cases, they did not meet requirements for receiving federal matching funds. This increased state caseloads and costs.

1990 Court Injunction Discourages Private Guardianship
In 1990, a class action suit in a Cook County court, Reid v. Suter, was brought by relatives who felt unfairly coerced by DCFS to become private guardians (an option that did not receive support payments) instead of foster parents. The injunction required DCFS to identify potential relative caregivers and inform them without coercion about options for waiver of licensing requirements, guardianship and foster parenting.

After this ruling, private guardianship was rarely used as a permanency option, thus blocking one avenue for cases to exit from state care. At the same time, the number of new cases continued to increase.

1990-1995, Dramatic Growth
During 1990-1995, the number of home of relative cases more than doubled, due to an increase in new cases and a decline in discharges. The routes for cases to exit the system seemed to be increasingly blocked. Private guardianship was little used and adoptions and reunifications were achieved at a lower rate for kinship placements than for regular foster care placements. Home of relative placements rose 232% and by 1995 represented 57% of all Illinois placements.

State costs also increased dramatically, because many home of relative placements did not qualify for federal funds and Illinois continued to support them at the full foster care rate without federal assistance. Efforts were largely spent on dealing with new cases and maximizing the number of cases eligible for federal funds, rather than on permanency planning. Although family preservation programs were being offered, they failed to divert children away from placement.

1995, Delegated Relative Authority
The Delegated Relative Authority (DRA) option was established beginning in 1995 as another permanency option. It allows relatives to continue to receive foster care payments in return for taking over some DCFS responsibilities. This reduces DCFS monitoring to the minimum required to obtain federal funds. The option is available for cases in which adoption, reunification and guardianship are not possible and the placement is safe and stable.

However, the private agencies that served most home of relative placements did not use the DRA frequently so it failed to reduce caseloads as much as hoped. Agencies were reluctant to use the DRA because they received less funding for the cases, which required no less work, and were concerned that providing less case monitoring would still make them responsible if children were maltreated.

The 1996 Home of Relative Reform Plan
Determined to reduce the cost of child welfare services and believing that past policy choices had helped to increase caseloads and costs, the Illinois legislature passed the Home of Relative Reform Plan in 1995, to take effect in 1996.

The Reform Plan intended to reduce the number of kinship care cases and reduce costs overall by:

  • Preference - repealing the earlier law giving preference to relatives in selecting foster parents
  • Neglect - changing the definition of neglect to exclude children left with relatives
  • Standards - eliminating separate licensing standards for relative homes
  • Payment - reducing the payment rate for unlicensed relative homes to the 'state standard of need,' lower than the foster care rate, but higher than the TANF rate
  • Adoption - reducing the subsidy payment for adoption of special needs children, as well as allowing DCFS to reduce or cease payments in the future.

Other programs were announced in the Reform Plan, including initiatives to help divert or exit cases from DCFS custody:

  • An Extended Family Support Program, for which private kinship care arrangements are eligible, to help divert them from state custody. Previously, services were only available to families involved with state custody.
  • A Family Group Decision Making program for extended family members to help them find ways to prevent children from being taken into state custody.
  • The Kinship Permanency Project to provide mediation services to relatives considering adoption, guardianship or delegated relative authority.

Initial Effects of the Reform Plan
The Reform Plan required extensive staff time to prepare for and implement, inlcuding efforts to get homes licensed. Once again, staff time was diverted from permanency planning.

The change in adoption subsidy for special needs children sharply reduced the number of adoptions. Both caregivers and caseworkers were uneasy about considering adoption, wondering if subsidies would be stable in the future.

A 1995 lawsuit in response to the Reform Plan's reduction of the foster care payment for unlicensed relative homes (Youakim v. Mcdonald) forced DCFS to continue payments at the foster care rate for 9,000 children.

1996, Purchase of Service Redesign
As another method of reducing DCFS caseloads, the Purchase of Service contracts with private agencies were redesigned. Previously, when cases were served by a private agency they were also assigned a DCFS case manager. In the redesign, the DCFS case managers are eliminated, those responsibilities are transferred to the agency, and the case managers are replaced by a DCFS liaisons.

In 1997, the second part of this initiative, Performance Based Contracting, instituted a managed care approach for agencies. In order to receive funding, agencies have to close 24% of their cases through reunification, adoption or guardianship, as well as accept a specified number of new cases, within a timeframe.

Similar staff performance objectives were established as a way to monitor the performance of DCFS caseworkers and hold them accountable for the outcomes required by the Permanency Initiative and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

1997, Adoption Redesign
Concerned about the lower rates of reunification, adoption and guardianship in home of relative placements, DCFS assessed a sample of over 1,100 cases. Most of the relatives (83%) believed the children should stay with them permanently. Of these relatives, 70% said they were willing to consider adoption, a much higher rate than was perceived by the caseworkers who believed that relatives did not want to adopt.

As part of the State of Illinois Permanency Initiative passed by the legislature in 1997, adoption policies and procedures were redesigned, although they could not be fully implemented until 1999. The adoption subsidy cuts of a year earlier were reversed. New permanency goals and timelines for termination of parental rights and adoption were established, in accordance with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Procedures for adoption screening and termination of parental rights were streamlined, including an expedited termination of parental rights for cases of egregious harm. DCFS staff were trained in conducting family meetings and discussing adoption with caregivers. The juvenile court also pursued a federally funded Court Improvement Project in support of the permanency efforts.

1997-2002 Subsidized Guardianship Waiver Demonstration Project
In 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services granted Title IV-E waivers to seven states, including Illinois, to test the effectiveness of subsidized guardianship. The 5-year project implemented in 1997 allows DCFS to use federal matching funds to make monthly payments at the foster care rate to relatives who take guardianship of children. Families are being assigned randomly to control and experimental groups. Early results of the program suggest that it helps achieve a permanent outcome.

The advantages of subsidized guardianship are that parental rights do not have to be terminated, and the family receives approximately the same payment as the foster care subsidy, but without any DCFS involvement. However, it is not yet known what will happen to the guardianship families when the 5-year demonstration is over. Will families and workers feel safe to choose this option in the meantime?

Progress in Reducing Caseloads
Illinois is making progress in reducing the child welfare caseload, although it not known how child well-being is affected:

    1997 1998
    Total foster cases 51,105 41,800
    Formal kin placements 57% 51%
    Adoptions 2,229 4,293 (most by relatives)

Welfare Reform Will Reduce Subsidies
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which reformed welfare is likely to increase the demand for child welfare services. According to the U rban Institute, it will put 1 million children into poverty. It will affect people who are older, immigrants, non-white, and single heads of households. Housing subsidies and drug abuse treatment programs have been reduced and mandatory sentencing for drug crimes, which affects women with children, have been imposed. Eligiblility for SSI disablity funds have been limited and food stamp benefits have been reduced.

How Will TANF Affect Child Welfare?
Under welfare reform, three programs, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training, and Emergency Assistance have been replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The TANF program, which is used to support kinship families that are not licensed, has a work requirement and a 5-year lifetime limit. How will this time limit affect child welfare decisions, and the future of a child exiting custody?

Current Climate Supports Cost Containment
It is possible that social conditions that increase the risks faced by vulnerable families, such as increased poverty, less public assistance, more single head families, as well as the shortage of foster homes, may have contributed to the growth in kinship care. However, the public as well as policy makers tend to see the legislative, policy and program choices outlined above as helping to explode the number of kinship care cases in Illinois. When policies are seen as the reason for increased costs, the response is usually to restrict access to services, divert families from service, and exit families from services, rather than to focus on child safety and well-being.


Review of Research on Kinship Care     top

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Report to the Congress on Kinship Foster Care. 138P. Written in Oct 1998. Available on the Web at: http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/HSP/kinr2c00
This report was written by researchers at the Urban Institute. It attempts to survey all available research on kinship care and includes publications through 1998.

Scannapieco, Maria (1999). "Kinship Care in the Public Child Welfare System: A Systematic Review of the Research." Pages 141-153 in Kinship Foster Care: Policy, Practice and Research. New York: Oxford University Press. The author reviewed the research dated 1980-1997 for studies about kinship foster care and found only 12 limited studies.

Research on Kinship Foster Care is Limited
The research on kinship care is very incomplete and the existing studies are limited by these factors:

  • The states have different policies about who is included in kinship care and also offer various kinship care options, so the populations studied by a researcher may be unique. No existing studies have used data from all states.
  • Most studies have used small populations that are not randomly selected, so they are not representative samples.
  • Existing studies compare kinship care participants to various different comparison groups, rather than to a standard comparison group, which makes study results non-comparable.
  • Existing studies do not account for conditions that may have existed prior to kinship care.

Kinship Care is Not Like Regular Foster Care
Data about kinship care families indicates that they are significantly different from non-relative foster families. Studies report the characteristics discussed below.

Children in Care - Compared to children in non-relative foster care, children placed with relatives:

  • are usually removed due to neglect as opposed to abuse, often due to substance abuse
  • may have lived with relatives before coming to child welfare
  • have parents more likely to have substance abuse problems
  • are younger if in formal kinship care, but older if in informal kinship care
  • are much more likely to be African American, - about 60% of all kinship placements versus 45% of non-relative placements.

Studies report a variety of results about children’s well -being in kinship care :

  • Report of how many children were placed with their siblings vary - 45% (the same as foster care) or 68%.
  • One study using medical evaluations reports that 90% of children have some medical problems. Another study based on caregivers reports that 30% of children have medical needs.
  • Studies report that school behavior is acceptable for 60% of children, and school performance is poor in 36%-50% of children.
  • Some studies find that kinship care children have fewer behavior problems than children the same age in foster care, but they also score at least one standard deviation above norm on the Behavior Problem Index.
  • One study reports that 35% of children score in the clinical range for behavior problems on the Child Behavior Checklist.

Parents of Children in Care - are more likely to be young and never married and more likely to have substance abuse problems.

Kinship Caregivers - have significantly fewer resources and more problems than non-relative caregivers. Studies report that most:

  • are African American, other minority groups are not disproportionately represented
  • have little advance preparation for taking children which may be precipitated by a family crisis
  • receive little training
  • are women, 50% grandmothers and 33% aunts
  • are older, likely to be retired and on Medicare
  • are likely to be single
  • are likely to be never married
  • have lower incomes and are more likely to receive some kind of public assistance
  • have less education
  • are more likely to report being in poor health
  • are more likely to report depression.

Kinship Families Receive Less Supervision and Service
All studies report that services given to kinship care families are deficient. Families are less likely to receive services than foster care families, and 91% of caregivers receive no training. Case workers provide fewer contacts, less supervision, and less information about the child welfare agency to kinship caregivers.

Caregivers and children request and are offered fewer services, and are less likely to receive the services they do request. Children in kinship care are significantly less likely than children in non-relative care to have seen a health care provider in the past year.

On the other hand, birth parents of children in kinship care are offered and request services to the same degree as non-relative birth parents.

Kinship Care Maintains Family Connections
Formal kinship placements appear to reduce disruption and trauma for children because:

  • bonds with extended family members are maintained
  • children are more often placed with their siblings
  • children are more often placed in locations close to their parental homes and within their communities
  • children have more contact with their birth parents and siblings.

Are Kinship Placements Safe?
Some writers are concerned that kinship caregivers may maltreat the children in their care. Past studies have suggested that physical and sexual abuse is transmitted from one generation to the next, so grandparents or other family members may be abusive in addition to the birth parents. However, recent research sees abuse more as the result of a variety of environmental factors. Also, most kinship placements are due to neglect rather than abuse. There are two existing studies on whether kinship caregivers abuse children, and one reports that abuse is less likely, while the other reports that it is more likely in kinship placements.

Are Increased Parent Visits Good or Bad?
Kinship placements provide more contact between children and their parents which may be an advantage, although some writers are concerned that some of the contact may be inappropriate or unsafe for the children. One study reports that only 43% of parental visits in kinship homes are prearranged, versus 80% for non-relative homes. Because caregivers receive less training and have fewer resources, they may be less able to respond when visits are unsafe. However, observation of homes, caregiver reports and children's reports suggest that kinship homes are as safe as non-relative homes.

Children Stay Longer in Care
Most studies report that children in kinship placements stay in care longer than children in non-relative placements, although one followup study found that both kinship and foster care children stayed in care an average of 12 years. Some writers suggest that the children do not have a permanency plan or workers consider the placement a permanent arrangement. Long term placement with relative is a more frequent permanency goal for kinship placements than for non-kin placements. Also, younger children and African American children are more likely to stay longer in kinship placements, and they represent the majority of kinship placements.

But Children Have Fewer Placements
Several studies report that children in kinship placements have fewer placements, which is associated with better well-being. For example, two studies published in 1998 found:
Study 1 Study 2
Kinship cases with 1 placement 80% 52%
Non-Kin cases with 1 placement 65% 36%
Kinship cases with 3+ placements 3% 22%
Non-Kin cases with 3+ placements 23% 38%

Reunification is Less Likely
Studies report that children in kinship placements are less likely to return to their parents than children in non-kin placements. However, when children are returned home, they are less likely to reenter care. It is unclear if reunification is more, or less, frequently a permanency goal for these children. Some writers suggest that case workers may believe that reunification is not urgent for kinship placements, or parents may not seek it because they do not want to lose the support payments.

Adoption is Less Likely
Adoption is a less frequent permanency goal for kinship placements, and the adoption rate is also less than for non-kin placements. One study found that caregivers were just as willing as non-relatives to adopt. However, several studies suggested that caregivers may not be open to adopting, for these reasons:

  • children are already part of family
  • it would cause conflict with the child's parent over termination of parental rights
  • caregivers want to hope the parent will improve
  • it may reduce financial support
  • caseworkers may agree with these points and not encourage adoption.

However, studies by Gleeson and Testa in Illinois found that relative caregivers were willing to adopt or consider adoption when they receive complete information about it from caseworkers.

Many Unanswered Questions
There are many unanswered questions about kinship care, including:

  • What are benefits and drawbacks of current kinship policies and practices?
  • Is kinship care more or less expensive than non-kin care?
  • How do workers implement state policies?
  • Why do kinship children and caregivers have different characteristics than non-kinship participants?
  • Why do kinship children and caregivers receive fewer services?
  • What is the long-term outcome for children?
  • How hard is it for caregivers to limit access by birth parents?
  • How often do caregivers adopt and how is this affected by case worker behavior?
  • What is role of fathers?
  • How often and why does private kinship care lead to formal placements?
  • How does the maltreatment of children coming into kinship care compare to those in non-kinship care?

New Projects Will Provide More Information
The following research projects are in progress. They may be very helpful in answering questions about kinship care:

  • The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being was funded in 1997 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a 6-year study of 2000 children in foster care and their caregivers and parents.
  • Children's Bureau Demonstration Grants were funded in 1997 and awarded to several states for projects addressing various aspects of kinship care.
  • Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration Projects of 5 years were funded in 1997 and awarded to several states, including Illinois, to test the effectiveness of subsidized guardianship programs.


3. Factors That Affect Children's Well-Being     top

Altshuler, Sandra J. (1999). "The Well-Being of Children in Kinship Foster Care." Pages 117-143 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Past research suggests that children in kinship care function better than children in regular foster care, although their functioning is still lower than that of the general population. We assume that kinship care children 'do better' because they experience less separation trauma than children placed with strangers.

Data From the Illinois Achieving Permanency Project
The Achieving Permanency for Children in Kinship Foster Care project described by Bonecutter on page 19 included an investigation of the well-being of children in kinship care. Data on cases for 77 children were reviewed and six African American children were interviewed. Although this was not a rigorous study, the results suggest that poorer well-being of the children was associated with the factors discussed below.

Mothers Had Inadequate Housing
Children may have fared less well when their mothers lacked adequate housing because the children worried about their mothers. Inadequate housing is also an indicator of more severe problems such as substance abuse, mental illness, poverty, or more severe child abuse or neglect, which would continue to affect the children's well-being.

Mothers Were Married
Children may have fared less well when their mothers were married because children are removed less often from two-parent families. A child of married parents in placement may indicate that the family problems were relatively severe, and perhaps included domestic violence.

Caseworkers Identified Caregiver Problems
Children fared less well when case workers noted that their caregivers experienced problems. It is important for case workers to understand caregiver needs and determine if services can support them.

Use Genograms With Children
Interviews with six of the children in the study suggested that children faring well had received love and kindness from their caregivers and had involvement with their extended families, which helped them deal with trauma. The researcher found that creating genograms with the children was very helpful in establishing rapport with them and suggests it to case workers.


4. Kinship Care May Not Help Drug Exposed Children     top

Brooks, Devon and Richard P. Barth (1998). "Characteristics and Outcomes of Drug-Exposed and Non Drug-Exposed Children in Kinship and Non-Relative Foster Care." Children & Youth Services Review v20 n6 p475-501.

The authors mailed a survey to over 1,100 kinship caregivers and foster parents associated with Berkeley Children's Services and asked them to rate the children in their care. The study collected information about four groups of children:

  • non drug-exposed children placed with kin
  • drug-exposed children placed with kin
  • non drug-exposed children placed with nonrelatives
  • drug-exposed children placed with nonrelatives

School Performance Similar
The study found that children in all groups were doing equally well with school grades although the drug-exposed children were more likely to be enrolled in special education classes.

Differences Due to Placement and Health
However, there were important differences between the groups in emotional/behavioral problems. Three variables were found to predict the likelihood of children showing problem behavior:

  • Not placed at birth - Children not placed at birth were more than six times as likely to show problem behavior as children placed at birth.
  • Health only 'fair' - Children in fair health were more than twice as likely as children in good or excellent health to show problem behavior.
  • Drug exposure and kin placement - Non drug-exposed children with kin were the least likely to show problem behavior, while drug-exposed children placed with kin were 3.8 times as likely to show problem behavior. The list below shows the relative likelihood of problem behavior in each group:
    0 Non drug, kin placement
    2.2 Non drug, nonrelative placement
    3.3 Drug-exposed, nonrelative placement
    3.8 Drug-exposed, kin placement

Kin Placement May Not Help Drug-Exposed Children
Although non drug-exposed children may be better off with kin than with nonrelatives, placing drug-exposed children with kin may create a challenge for them. One explanation may be the relatively lower level of resources kinship caregivers have to meet the needs of drug-exposed children. This study asked caregivers about the services they received from their agency and found that they received lower payments than the other groups as well as the lowest number of contacts from case workers.

Services May be Less Helpful to African Americans
Also, African Americans were overrepresented in the group of drug-exposed kinship placements. This suggests that African Americans have different help-seeking behaviors than other ethnic groups, or that services provided are less sensitive to or effective with African Americans.


5. Children In Kinship Care May Have Fewer Behavior Problems     top

Heflinger, Craig Anne, Celeste G. Simpkins, and Terri Combs-Orme (2000). "Using the CBCL to Determine the Clinical Status of Children in State Custody." Children and Youth Services Review v22 n1 p55-73.

The authors studied 254 children in state custody in Tennessee, using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). They found that one-third of the children had significant behavior problems. When children scored in the clinical range on the CBCL the problems most commonly indicated were Aggressive, Delinquent, and Withdrawn.

However, children from kinship homes were more likely to score in the non-clinical range than children from foster or group homes.

Placement Type: Non-Clinical Score: Borderline Score: Clinical Score:
Kinship 74% 8% 18%
Foster 67% 11% 22%
Group 60% 12% 28%

The study suggests that children in kin homes may do better than other children. However, a significant number of children in care have relatively high levels of mental health problems and treatment needs. Case workers should be trained to recognize these problems and refer them for treatment.


6. Less Homelessness in Adults from Kinship Care     top

Zuravin, Susan J., Mary Benedict and Rebecca Stallings (1999). "The Adult Functioning of Former Kinship and Nonrelative Foster Care Children." Pages 208-222 in Kinship Foster Care: Policy, Practice, and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

There have been at least 27 studies about the functioning of adults who were in foster care as children. Unfortunately, most of the studies are not very rigorous. However, they suggest that as compared to the general population, adults raised as foster children:

  • have lower educational accomplishment
  • have higher rates of unemployment
  • are consistently overrepresented in studies of the homeless
  • have higher arrest and conviction rates, especially in men
  • have poorer mental health.

Children Raised in Care are Less Self-Sufficient Adults
The authors studied 229 adults raised in regular foster care and 423 raised in kinship foster care. The study did not find higher arrest/conviction rates or clear evidence of higher rates of mental health problems in these groups. But it did find that as compared to other adults, both groups were less self sufficient. They:

  • were less likely to be employed
  • completed fewer years of school
  • were more likely to have been homeless
  • experienced a lower "material level of living."

Less Homelessness in Adults From Kinship Care
However, the adults raised in kinship care were less likely to have been homeless than the foster care group. This suggests how important it is to help children maintain family ties while they are in care, because weak family ties may contribute to homelessness.


7. Caregivers Share Their Experiences     top

Osby, Olga (1999). "Child-Rearing Perspectives of Grandparent Caregivers." Pages 215-232 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

The author interviewed 10 kinship caregivers associated with the Illinois DCFS and attempted to understand their 'world view'. All were grandparents, 8 were women, and 9 were African American. Most of the grandparents had taken the children due to substance abuse problems in their mothers, and they were nonremoval cases.

The researcher reports the following impressions of the caregivers:

  • The caregivers were strongly dedicated to their families and committed to the children. They often made sacrifices in order to take the children and experienced personal isolation as a result.
  • They believed that their years of child rearing experience were not appreciated and were sometimes frustrated by being told how to discipline and care for children.
  • They felt significant anger at the parents for abandoning their responsibility, but still loved them and hoped that the parents would solve their problems.
  • They felt frustrated that the parents still had control over the children and had so much freedom, while the caregivers had all the rules to follow. Some were frustrated with the parents being allowed to visit, which interfered with the relationship between the children and the caregivers.
  • Many had good experiences with child welfare, but they believed caregivers need more help negotiating the system. Dealing with the court was particularly intimidating.


8. Caregivers Have Important Strengths     top

Petras, Donna D. (1999.) "The Effect of Caregiver Preparation and Sense of Control on Adaption of Kinship Caregivers." Pages 233-255 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

The author studied 80 kinship caregivers who were located in Cook County and associated with the Illinois DCFS. Most were African American women, single heads-of-households, and employed at least part-time, with an average annual household income of $20,000-$25,000.

Experienced as Caregivers
Most (90%) of the caregivers had one child of their own, and 88% had three children, thus most cared for more than one child. Sixty percent had previously held child care jobs, and 80% had cared for friends or family children in the past. Thus, 71% said they were very good at caregiving.

Most Had Health Problems
Most of the caregivers had at least one health problem themselves, such as hypertension, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, or arthritis. Over one-third cared for children with at least one disability or health problem.

Caregivers Had Low Control But High Satisfaction
Studies of people who care for the elderly have found that an external (as opposed to internal) locus of control is associated with depression in caregivers. However, this study found that an external sense of control - here called 'caregiver denial of responsibility for success' - was related to higher caregiver satisfaction. Thus, the traditional 'locus of control' concepts may not apply well to these caregivers.

Three possibilities may explain this difference:

  • African Americans have a history of experience with discrimination, which may help them view negative external events as being outside their control while maintaining a strong sense of personal efficacy.
  • For most of these caregivers, the children were placed due to parental substance abuse. Solving that problem was the responsibility of the parents and not the caregivers.
  • The caregivers frequently stated that religious faith was central to them and gave them the strength to deal with the challenges in their lives.

Stress Related to Child Behavior Problems
Studies of people who care for the elderly have found that caregivers experience more stress when the person in their care has more impairments. This study showed a similar relationship between child behavior problems and the caregivers' depression. The children they cared for were likely to have externalizing behavior problems (acting out), which are difficult to deal with. The caregivers showed symptoms of chronic, low grade depression.

Depression and Satisfaction Co-Exist
Studies of elderly caregivers have also found that stress or depression can exist along with caregiver satisfaction. The caregivers in this study were similar – they had symptoms of depression, but also reported high levels of satisfaction.

Strengths are Preparation and Faith
This study suggests that kinship caregivers have important strengths. They are confident in their caregiving abilities and have substantial preparation for the role. They have a high level of satisfaction with their role, and the centrality of faith in their lives supports them in dealing with its challenges.

Needs Include Health Problems, Depression and Child Behavior Problems
However, this study also found that caregivers have significant health problems, are dealing with children that have special needs, and suffer from depression. Child welfare must do more to address these needs and provide adequate support to kinship caregivers.


9. HIV-Affected Families Need More Support     top

Mason, Sally J. and Nathan L. Linsk (1999). Kin Caregivers of HIV-Affected Children: Identifying Services That Support Permanency. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Children and Family Research Center.

The authors studied the caregivers of 28 children in kinship care with the Illinois DCFS. Seventeen of the children were 'affected' by HIV, meaning that a family member was HIV positive or had died due to HIV. Only a small number of children are HIV-infected themselves.

HIV-Affected Families May Keep it Secret
Case workers may not be aware that a child is affected by HIV, but affected children have special health and mental health needs. The child's whole family may experience stigma, guilt, anger, and fear, and be mourning the death of a family member. Studies have found that caregivers commonly keep HIV within the family a secret, so they experience little informal support, they withdraw from interacting with others, and ignore their own needs.

HIV-Affected Caregivers Have Extra Burdens
This study revealed the following characteristics about the sample of HIV-affected caregivers as compared to the non-HIV-affected caregivers.

In demographic characteristics, the HIV-affected caregivers:

  • were older
  • had various relationships to the children
  • cared for more bi-racial children
  • more likely to be the only adult in the home
  • had fewer children at home.

In use of services, the HIV-affected caregivers:

  • were more likely to use transportation services for themselves; the other group did not use any transportation services
  • used the childrens' counseling/therapy services the most; the other group used daycare services the most
  • wanted more services for the children than were available, such as counseling, assessing development, and special school placement.
  • were more likely to find services on their own or rely only on the caseworker, the other group used a variety of referrals
  • were more likely to consider adoption or guardianship
  • described more negative relationships with their caseworkers, that workers were unresponsive in returning calls, providing support, and providing quicker access to services.

In describing their levels of burden, the HIV-affected caregivers:

  • had little expectation that the child's parent should help with care
  • were more likely to be depressed
  • experienced more severe and a wider range of psychological behavioral-developmental issues for the children and greater stress for themselves
  • experienced more external concerns, such as personal or family health issues or death in the family
  • were divided 50-50 on whether or not they told the family about being HIV-affected
  • found it problematic for the children to deal with HIV-related changes in their parents.

In describing their coping methods, the HIV-affected caregivers:

  • usually had basic information about health precautions needed for HIV, although some were following extreme precautions
  • were more likely to mention health practices, good nutrition, and abstinence as coping methods
  • were less likely to mention use of support networks as coping methods
  • were equally likely to indicate the importance of faith and prayer in their lives.

HIV-Affected Families Need More Support
This study suggests that caregivers of HIV-affected children are underserved. The following supports are needed:

  • We need to identify more of the HIV-affected children in custody.
  • More worker training is needed to help address the health needs of caregives and especially the mental health needs of both children caregivers.
  • Caregivers need information on appropriate HIV precautions.
  • More sensitive services are required, particularly to help caregivers deal with stress and depression, and to address children's special emotional needs.


10. A Survey of Illinois Grandparent Caregivers     top

Shaver, Mike (1998). Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Family Challenge. Illinois Department of Aging. 57P.

There has been a 40% increase in grandparent-headed households in the U.S. since the 1980s, due to increases in divorce and separation, substance abuse - especially of crack cocaine, the drug used most by women - parental incarceration and HIV/AIDS. Nationwide, 12% of African American children are now raised by grandparents, while 6% of Latino children and 4% of white children are raised by grandparents.

A Survey of Illinois Grandparent Caregivers
In 1996, the Illinois Department of Aging and the Illinois DCFS conducted an informal survey of 350 Illinois grandparents who are raising their grandchildren, including those not involved with Illinois DCFS. The survey found the following:

Grandparent Demographics

  • 75% of grandparents are under age 65
  • 56% are married, less than the national average of 75%
  • 46% are unemployed, less than the national average of 58%
  • 50% have annual incomes under $20,000, 27% are below the poverty level
  • in 83% of the households, no parent is present
  • 40% of the households have two or more children
  • 76% of the children are aged 3-11.

Grandparent Situations

  • Reasons for Care – grandparents are caring for children due to: abuse, neglect or abandonment (39%), parental substance abuse (29%), and parental emotional or mental problems (21%)
  • Permanency - 55% of grandparents consider the arrangement permanent, 14% consider it temporary, and 30% are unsure.
  • Legal Relationship - 45% of grandparents have legal custody, 33% have informal agreements with the parents, and 20% are kinship foster parents.
  • Concerns - The top three concerns of grandparents are first, child education; second, financial concerns and parenting skills; and third, child care. Other national studies say that financial concerns are the top priority.
  • Support - About 62% of the grandparents and about 42% of the grandchildren do not receive financial support or services from a state agency.

Limit Resources
Caring for grandchildren has a major impact on the lives of grandparents. Many have limited financial resources and struggle to meet basic needs. They may need to learn about assistance programs that are entirely new to them in order to make ends meet.

Limited Legal Authority
Grandparents have limited authority to make legal decisions about their grandchildren. Their authority may not be accepted for school enrollment, medical visits, immunizations, school field trips, day care, and religious instruction.

Parenting Plus Special Problems
Grandparents may be overwhelmed with the challenges of taking on parenting once again, especially since times have changed. But in addition to this challenge, grandparents also face the difficult family situation that made the parents unable to care for the children. The children may have developmental delays, learning disabilities, health problems, behavioral and emotional disorders, delinquency, or teen pregnancy. Grandparents may have health problems, or reduced strength and energy, and may already have a spouse needing care.

Service Providers Unprepared
Service providers have been unprepared to serve grandparent-headed households. Most services, such as parenting classes, health care and job training, were designed for parents and children. They may not help grandparents who are not going to be employed again, have special health needs and already have parenting experience. Schools may not cooperate with grandparents unless they have proof of legal guardianship. State programs may not have clear guidelines about which benefits grandparent can qualify for.

Illinois Department of Aging Efforts
In 1997, the Symposium on Legal and Supportive Services for Grandparents Raising Grandchildren was convened by The Illinois Task Force on Grandparents Raising Grandchildren, The Illinois Department of Aging, and BlueCross/BlueShield of Illinois. As a results of the symposium's recommendations, the Department of Aging has undertaken the following tasks:

Public Education and Awareness

  • publishing the resource guide, Starting Points for Grandparents Raising Grandchildren available on the Web at http://www.ebvonline.org/Grandparent/index.html
  • establishing a Senior HelpLine at 800-252-8966
  • offering workshops for grandparents, service providers, and state agency staff
  • planning outreach to the wider community including schools, churches, and medical clinics.

Supportive Services

  • establishing more grandparent support groups
  • working with service providers to make more services available to grandparents, such as TANF payments
  • preparing tip sheets on issues affecting grandparent caregivers
  • preparing a risk assessment tool for grandfamilies
  • working with mental health providers to develop services for grandparent caregivers.

Legal Services

  • submitting a training proposal to local Bar associations
  • investigating how grandparent authority could be increased
  • working toward developing mediation options and a Court Rule requiring mediation before trial.


11. Latino Grandparent Caregivers Have Extra Challenges     top

Cox, Carole B., Lisette Resto Brooks and Carmen Valcarcel (2000). "Culture and Caregiving: A Study of Latino Grandparents." Pages 218-232 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents . New York: Springer.

The trend of grandparents raising grandchildren is increasing in the Latino community as well as in other groups in the U.S. Nationwide, about 6% of Latino children live with grandparents or relatives. Substance abuse, HIV/AIDS and incarceration are some of the factors supporting this increase.

Extra Challenges Face Latinos
The challenges faced by Latino grandparents are substantial. The older Latino population:

  • do not feel fluent in English (only about 61% feel fluent)
  • have completed a median of 7.5 years of school compared to 8.4 years for blacks and 12.2 years for whites in the same age group
  • are less likely to receive social security benefits than whites or blacks
  • have higher rates of disability, lower rates of medicare coverage, and make fewer physician visits than blacks or whites
  • experience social isolation and psychological distress, especially Puerto Ricans
  • worry over their immigration status and service eligiblity
  • rely on family members, especially a spouse or adult child, for their primary source of help, and they are more likely to live with their adult children than blacks or whites.

Latino Culture Supports Caregiving
That grandparents should raise their grandchildren is also supported by traditional Latino culture, which emphasizes familism, that the needs of family are more important than the needs of individuals. Important cultural concepts are 'respeto,'or respect toward family authority figures, and 'personalismo,' or the importance of personal relationships. Elders are relied upon for child care and are expected to play an important role in the upbringing of children. Women are expected to help their children and grandchidren, and adults are expected to care for their parents. However, when grandparents raise grandchildren, the missing parents may not be available to support the grandparents.

New York Program Helps Latino Grandparents
In 1995, the Children's Aid Society Community Schools of New York started a Kinship Parenting Education and Support Program to help the 40% of its students cared for by Latino grandparents. In addition to the language barrier, high rates of poverty, and the death or incarceration of the children's parents, the families often moved frequently between homes in New York and homes in Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic.

Parenting Workshops in Spanish
The program offered 16-week parenting workshops taught in Spanish by Latinos. Workshops were offered in homes for those homebound by physical and health problems. Workshops were also offered on domestic violence, nutrition, special education, and Alzheimer's. The group discussions revealed that the grandparents experienced extensive grief and loss. Many felt that their parenting mistakes led to the death, incarceration or illness of their children. Many were not born in the U.S. and had not applied for citizenship or learned English well. Strong faith was central to most grandparents.

Latinos Hestiate to Seek Help
The grandparents hestitated to seek help for several reasons:

  • limited English
  • lack of information about services and programs.
  • believing they should not need help outside the family
  • believing they should not show vulneratilibity to or divulge family concerns to outsiders
  • believing they should ignore their own needs to perform their duty of providing care to the family.

Programs Must Understand Latino Culture
The program helped the grandparents become active in the school and neighborhood. The grandparents also became comfortable talking with their peers because the groups promoted personal relationships between the participants ('personalismo') who were thus able to see each other as extended family members. It is essential that any services to the Latino community be offered in Spanish and be based on a thorough understanding of its cultural background.


12. Support Groups Help Grandparents     top

Cohen, Carol S. and Rolanda Pyle (2000). "Support Groups in the Lives of Grandmothers Raising Grandchildren." Pages 235-252 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents. New York: Springer.

Cox, Carole B. (2000). "Empowering Grandparents Raising Grandchildren." Pages 253-267 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents. New York: Springer.

Roe, Kathleen M. (2000). "Community Interventions to Support Grandparent Caregivers: Lessons Learned From the Field." Pages 283-303 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents. New York: Springer.

Support groups for grandparents raising grandchildren can be extremely valuable. The first support groups were started in the late 1980s, and as a result of the growing 'grandparent's rights' movement, there were over 500 groups in 1998. Currently, organizations supporting grandparent caregiving range from small programs, to comprehensive service programs, to nationwide advocacy groups.

Important Grandparent Caregiver Programs
Some important nationwide or regional programs include:

  • ProjectGUIDE of Detroit - a comprehensive program receiving federal funding and emphasizing African American pride.
  • Project Healthy Grandparents of Atlanta - a comprehensive program receiving federal funding providing home based services, parenting classes, support groups, child care and transportation. (See page 24)
  • Grandparent Caregiver Project of San Jose, CA – has created a resource center, promoted interagency collaboration and a more responsive child welfare and aging services, and helped establish a grandparent caregiver advisor to the family court.
  • The Grandparent Caregiver Advocacy Project of Oakland, CA - brings together the Grandparents as Second Parents support network with agencies that offer political advocacy.
  • Grandfamilies House of Boston – is the first program to meet the housing needs of grandfamilies with a specially renovated apartment complex. In the complex, the Boston YWCA operates preschool and after-school programs in on site computer labs, as well as fitness classes, educational workshops, support groups, counseling, and transportation.

Resource Centers About Grandparent Caregivers
Resource centers have also proved to be important in promoting advocacy and the development of local programs. Some important resource centers include:

  • Grandparent Information Center, American Association of Retired Persons - the largest, national resource center which responds to inquiries from individuals, maintains a database of support groups, and publishes a newsletter. The center conducts an annual survey of grandparent caregivers and educates the media about policy changes affecting grandparent caregivers. http://www.aarp.org/confacts/programs/gic.html
  • Grandparent Resource Center, Department of Aging, New York - operates senior hotlines and provides technical assistance for program development. http://aging.state.ny.us/caring/ grandparents/index.htm
  • Brookdale Foundation Relatives as Second Parents Program - provides seed grants and collaborative technical assistance to support new grandparent caregiving programs at the state and local levels. It has prepared the curriculum guide, Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Series of Workshops to Help You COPE which gives plans for workshops on various topics. http://www.ewol.com/brookdale/rapp1.html

Video and Television Programs
Local television programs, professional videos and programs aired on national public television are now being produced. Some examples include:

  • Divided Loyalties (Ortiz/Simon Productions)
  • A Gift for My Children (Family Center of New York City)
  • Raising Grandkids: A Love Story (Nebraska ETV network).

Suggestions for Support Groups
More support groups for grandparent caregivers are still needed. The experience of existing groups and grandparent programs suggests the following points:

  • Groups can be directed by grandparents, by a professional, or with mixed leadership. Professional leadership can direct attention away from developing connections between members, which is the main purpose of the group. Grandparents should be involved at all levels of the program, with support from professionals.
  • Group membership can be based on geographic area, the type of custody held by the caregivers, or the age or special needs of the children cared for. Meetings must be held at a non-threatening location, not a mental health clinic, with child care available. The content can be open or structured as a class. Intergenerational programs are desirable.
  • Outreach to find new members needs to be ongoing and broadbased. There are constantly new waves of people needing support, and individuals may need several invitations before they participate.
  • The local agencies dealing with aging, child welfare, public schools, health care, the courts, and financial assistance must be brought together around the concerns of grandparent caregivers. It is workable to create a coalition around the task of gathering data about numbers of local grandfamilies locally, with representatives of the agencies forming working groups. Grandfamilies should be presented as good role models, not as dysfunctional families. Remember that grandparents can be very powerful advocates.
  • Seed grants are very helpful, as well as in-kind resources from local organizations. Continued technical assistance may be needed, of which the Brookdale RAPP is the largest source, and program evaluation should be planned.

An Empowering Grandparents Project
Cox describes a project intended to help empower 14 African American grandmother caregivers located in New York. The grandmothers were members of a grandparents support group. For eight of the grandmothers their children had died due to drug use or AIDS. The group held 12 sessions at a local university with transportation provided.

The curriculum, Empowering Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Training Manual for Group Leaders by Carole B. Cox (New York: Springer, 2000) covered parenting and community advocacy skills. Role playing was a central teaching method and helped participants rehearse strategies for dealing with agency staff. Participants also made presentations to the group to improve their public speaking skills. An official graduation ceremony was held at the university, which was attended by a reporter from National Public Radio.

After this empowering event, the participants began making community presentations and attending community meetings. The success of this project suggests that although grandparent caregivers may have significant challenges, they also have resources and resiliency that can be developed to help meet their own needs and the needs of others.


13. Extra Burdens When Mothers are Incarcerated     top

Porterfield, Jeff, Paula Dressel, and Sandra Barnhill (2000). "Special Situation of Incarcerated Parents." Pages 184-202 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents. New York: Springer.

Young, Diane S. and Carrie Jefferson Smith (2000). "When Moms Are Incarcerated: The Needs of Children, Mothers and Caregivers." Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services v81 n2 p130-141.

Rate of Incarcerated Mothers is Rising
The incarceration of women has increased three times since 1980, at a faster rate than the incarceration of men. Women are usually incarcerated for nonviolent property crimes and drug offenses. In 1999, 67% of incarcerated women were mothers, most of whom previously lived with their children.

Children Affected Negatively
When their parents are incarcerated, children suffer. Studies suggest that children's normal development may be impacted, and the nature of the affect depends on the age of the child:

  • at age 0-2, capacity for trust and bonding may be affected
  • at age 2-6, development of autonomy and initiative may be affected
  • at age 7-10, learning to get along with others may be affected
  • at age 11-14, may reject rules and authority
  • at age 15 and up may express a negative attitude toward law and become involved in crimes. Up to 50% of incarcerated juveniles had incarcerated parents.

Children Usually Live With Grandparents
When fathers are incarcerated, their children usually continue living with their mothers. But when women are incarcerated, their children usually experience a disruption. Most go to live with grandparents or other relatives.

Grandparent Caregivers Have Pressing Needs
Taking custody of children when their mothers are incarcerated can create significant stress and distress for grandparents, particularly in terms of finances, health, and family relationships. The trauma of the arrest and separation and the stigma associated with incarceration increase the distress for all members of the family. The inherent difficulty of accessing services is increased because agencies react negatively to the stigma of incarceration.

Services Needed for Three Generations of the Family
In recent years, public attention has been focused on the difficulties of grandparent caregivers and on increasing support for them. However, we should not aim to help one generation over another; the entire family across generations needs to be supported. For example, programs that promote grandparent custody of children may tend to undermine efforts to help mothers resume their roles when they are released.

Support Mother's Parental Role
Policies and programs should help a mother continue and develop her parenting role while she is incarcerated. Research indicates that mothers want to stay involved with their children and that maintaining mother-child bonds reduces recidivism. While she is in prison, a child is a mother's hope and reason to change. Both mothers and children worry about each other during the separation, adding to their loss, depression and stress.

Many Barriers to Helping Mothers Parent
A focus on supporting incarcerated mothers with parenting is difficult because:

  • Public opinion is that incarcerated parents have lost their rights to parent or at least cannot be good parents.
  • The prison environment tends to reduce self-esteem and self-sufficiency, increasing the likelihood that parents will be poorer parents when they are released.
  • Our society generally does not invest in caregivers in order to help children.
  • Prisons are far from residential areas making it expensive for families to visit, have restrictive visiting rules and facilities that do not accommodate families, and also have restrictive telephone policies that discourage family communication. It is logistically challenging for families to maintain contact, thus increasing the strain on relationships and making reunification more difficult.

Programs for Mothers Show Some Positive Results
There are a growing number of programs for incarcerated mothers, but few have been evaluated. The authors summarize studies evaluating six programs:

  • Four parent education programs reported some positive changes in mothers.
  • One prison visitation program reported positive results for mothers.
  • One program allowing children to stay in a live-in nursery reported possible reduction of recidivism.

The affect of the programs on caregivers and children was not studied, but anecdotal evidence from the visitation program indicated that teachers and caregivers found less anger, frustration and aggressive behavior in children, as well as improvement in their school performance.

Policy Changes Needed in Corrections
Correctional institutions should consider the following policy and program changes:

  • identify the families of incarcerated parents and assess their situations
  • create more hospitable visitation settings, with full family visits where possible, and less restrictive telephone privileges
  • create parenting programs to help parents maximize their contributions to their families even though they have fewer opportunities and resources in prison
  • support release programs to promote self sufficiency in housing and work
  • support the transition back to parental roles.

Policy Changes Needed in Human Services
Human service agencies need to:

  • understand the needs of incarcerated parents and their families
  • consider revising time limits for reunification to allow for the current trend in longer sentences
  • seek input and advice from the other systems and agencies in order to work together to support the families.


14. African American Fathers are Involved With Children     top

O'Donnell, John M. (1999). "Involvement of African American Fathers in Kinship Foster Care Services." Social Work v44 n5 p428-441.

O'Donnell, John M. (1999) "Casework Practice With Fathers of Children in Kinship Foster Care" Pages 167-188 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

African American Fathers Participate With Children
There is little research or writing on the involvement of African America fathers in child welfare services. However, there are a few studies on how African American fathers contribute to their families. These studies indicate that African American fathers play a variety of roles toward their children such as playing with them, contributing to their socialization, and shared participating in caregiving. One national survey reported that African American fathers are more involved in child care than white fathers.

Unemployment Can be a Barrier
The provider role is an essential component of manhood and fatherhood and inability to fulfil that role has negative personal consequences for fathers. Some studies report that African American fathers are more likely to participate when they have higher income; other studies have found that even unemployed fathers have a positive influence on their families. Be aware that unemployment or underemployment may be a barrier to fathers’ positive participation with their families.

There is little research on how fathers contribute in female-headed families. One study found that most of the fathers still contributed: 60% provided financial support, 79% provided other child support, and 66% saw the children monthly.

The Illinois 1993-94 Achieving Permanency for Children in Relative Foster Care Project
This project described on page 19 gathered information about the fathers of 74 families being served by two private agencies in Illinois. Most (83%) of the children had been placed as a result of neglect due to maternal drug use.

Caseworkers Knew Little About The Fathers
The caseworkers in this study had gathered limited information about the fathers. They did not know the:

  • age of 32% of the fathers
  • marital status of 41% of the fathers
  • housing status of 53% of the fathers
  • income for 57% of the fathers
  • problems for 34% of the fathers
  • strengths for 49% of the fathers.

Caseworkers Had Little Contact With Fathers
During the previous six months, the caseworkers had little contact with the fathers. Almost two-thirds received no contact, and few of the contacts made were home visits. Even the 39% of the fathers with children placed at paternal relatives received no contact.

  • 62% of the fathers received no caseworker contact
  • 45% of the fathers of a child placed with paternal relatives received no caseworker contact
  • 47% of the contacts were by phone
  • 21% of the contacts were at court or the agency
  • 9% of the contacts were home visits.

Fathers Had Low Service Participation
The fathers had low participation in service planning and delivery.

  • 60% did not contribute to the most recent case assessment
  • 64% did not contribute to the most recent service plan
  • 54% did not participate at all
  • 31% of fathers of a child placed with paternal relatives did not participate at all
  • 3% participated in all case activities.

Caseworkers Unconcerned About Fathers
Caseworkers expressed little concern about the lack of fathers' involvement.

  • Of the fathers who did not contribute to the case assessment only 4% were seen as a problem by the worker.
  • Of the fathers who had not participated in creating the service plan only 19% of these were seen as a problem by the worker.
  • For 93% of the fathers, workers did not discuss the father with their supervisors.
  • For 92% of the fathers, workers did not discuss the father with the court, agency or service providers.
  • For the fathers of children placed with paternal relatives, 66% of the fathers were not discussed with the paternal caregivers during home visits.

Possible Explanations
One implication of this study is that fathers and workers may have intentionally avoided each other. However, the following barriers may have contributed to the situation:

  • It may have been difficult to get information about the fathers from the mothers due to mothers' reticence or substance abuse.
  • Fathers’ relatives may also be unwilling to discuss the father.
  • Fathers also had problems that created barriers to involvement including substance abuse, past or present incarceration, or lack of stable housing.

Tradition and Attitudes May be Involved
As compared to mothers, lack of involvement is a traditional paternal role in child welfare. Courts routinely hold that mothers are better parents. Most case workers are women and social work practice is generally geared toward serving women.

In addition, poor fathers may feel distress about not being good providers and conflict about participating in their children's lives. From a father's perspective, the child welfare agency may just be there to tell him that he is not doing his duty. Some studies suggest that African American men make little use of social services because they experience them as deprecating, demeaning and coercive, demanding that men provide financial support but not offering them help to succeed in that role.

From the worker's perspective, the fathers may seem hostile, indifferent or perplexing, and the worker has no agency services to offer to help fathers fulfill their provider role.

Research, Training and Services Needed
This study highlights the need for research and program development to incorporate fathers in child welfare services. These needs include:

  • more research about fathers, their characteristics, the nature of their family involvement, and barriers to that involvement
  • studies of case workers' attitudes and perceptions
  • worker training on how to work more effectively with fathers
  • changes in practice to better assess and incorporate fathers' ability to make nonfinancial contributions to their families
  • better access to services to help fathers with job training, substance abuse, and parenting skills.


15. The Illinois Achieving Permanency Project     top

Bonecutter, Faith Johnson and James P. Gleeson (1997). Achieving Permanency for Children in Kinship Foster Care: A Training Manual. Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago. Available on the Web at: http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/college/kincare

Bonecutter, Faith Johnson and James P. Gleeson (1997). "Broadening Our View: Lessons From Kinship Foster Care." Pages 99-119 in The Challenge of Permanency Planning in a Multicultural Society. New York: Haworth Press.

Bonecutter, Faith Johnson (1999). "Defining Best Practice in Kinship Care Through Research and Demonstration." Pages 37-59 in Kinship Care: Improving Practice Through Research. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.

The Achieving Permanency for Children in Kinship Foster Care project was funded by the U.S. Children's Bureau through the Illinois DCFS. Its aim was to develop and test a practice model to improve the chances for children in kinship care to return home, be adopted, or be transferred to legal guardians.

Cases of 77 Children Were Studied
In the first phase of the project (1992-1993), cases of 77 children in kinship foster care were studied to learn about current practices. The cases had the following characteristics:

  • caseworkers were mostly female (80%) and African American (54%)
  • children were African American (96%) and placed due to neglect (82%)
  • caregivers were single (70%), related to the mother (80%), and 61% were grandparents (61%)
  • most mothers (81%) were unable to parent due to substance abuse.

Obstacles Were Identified
The study found that the following conditions were obstacles to permanency for children in kinship care:

  • Family Environment - the burden, resource drain, and complex family relationships experienced by kinship families. In the cases studied, the caregiving burden was longstanding and significant. Most caregivers were single grandmothers with limited resources. Most households accommodated more than five people.
  • Own Goals - the emphasis placed on its own goals by the child welfare system as opposed to the goals of the families
  • Narrow Family - the child welfare system's narrow definition of family and lack of involvement of family in case decision making. The people who contributed to the service plans for the cases studied included:
    67% supervisors
    45% other service providers
    21% mothers
    5% fathers
    0% other relatives
  • Procedures - the child welfare system's emphasis on completing procedures and complying with mandates
  • Short-Term - the child welfare system's short-term view of permanence and child-rearing. Workers did not discuss long-term care issues with caregivers, such as how the family would deal with the teen years or the death or illness of the caregivers.

Training Curriculum Developed
In the second phase (1993-1994) a draft training curriculum was developed based on the information gathered. The complete training curriculum, with printed materials and videos, is available on the Kinship Care Practice Project website listed above.

Practice Principles and Methods
The training curriculum is based on four practice principles and methods that help incorporate the child's kinship network in decision-making about the child, and support and strengthen the kinship network rather than replace it.

1. A broad view of family:

  • going beyond the child, caregiver, parent constellation
  • identification of members of the children's kinship network
  • facilitating building or strengthening of the kinship network around the goals of protection, permanency, and well-being of the children
  • tools: genogram, eco-map.

2. Ongoing striving for cultural competence:

  • self-awareness
  • valuing diversity
  • knowledge of cultural strengths and natural helping traditions
  • recognition of the enduring nature of family ties
  • knowledge and use of formal and informal systems of support.

3. Collaboration in decision-making:

  • convening relevant members of the kinship network
  • engaging the kinship network in a plan to ensure the child's protection/safety and well-being
  • facilitating the family's definition of permanence
  • facilitating the family's redefinition of relationships
  • use of principles of 'successful' permanency planning and family preservation projects.

4. Building the case management capacities of kinship networks:

  • using a long-term view of child rearing
  • supporting permanent plans
  • building the network's skills to anticipate needs and access to services in the future, and to ensure that other needs of the children and family are met.

To Create Change, Training Must be Ongoing
In the third phase (1994-1996) outcomes of the training program were evaluated. A field test of cases for 267 children were assigned to a demonstration group and a comparison group. In the demonstration group, case workers showed low rates of applying the training they had received during the following six months. Multiple demands on the workers, worker turnover, and especially supervisor turnover were identified as major barriers.

To support changes in practice, training sessions are not enough. This project suggests:

  • Input from a wide range of people involved with the child welfare system, supervisors, workers, clients, experts, court personnel, etc. is needed to define best practice.
  • New skills are only developed and used with constant reinforcement.
  • High worker turnover requires ongoing training for new workers.
  • Supervisors must provide ongoing encouragement and reinforcement to workers, and supervisors themselves need to be reminded and supported.


16. Illinois Develops Kinship Care Evaluation Instruments     top

Wells, Susan J. and Jean M. Agathen (1999). Evaluating the Quality of Kinship Foster Care: Final Report. Children and Family Research Center, School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available on the Web. Scroll down to find it listed at: http://cfrcwww.social.uiuc.edu/pubs/listresults2.asp

In order to develop instruments designed to evaluate the quality of kinship care, the Children and Family Research Center (CFRC) conducted a literature review, a survey of state policies, a review of national standards, a review of existing evaluation instruments, and a set of focus groups.

Instruments and Manual Available
The resulting instruments and the manual for using them is also available from the web location listed above, under the title, "Evaluting the Quality of Kinship Foster Care: Evaluation Package." Or you can telephone 217-333-5837 to request the package. Included are:

  • a kinship foster care provider interview
  • a child interview
  • a worker self administered instrument
  • a case record review.

Ten Areas of Evaluation
The instruments cover ten areas of evaluation. For the first five areas, CFRC developed new measures because these issues are new to kinship care. For the remaining five areas, measures already used in non-relative foster care and other social service settings can be applied to kinship care.

  1. Caregiver Attitudes About and Cooperation/Contact With the Agency. It is important to understand caregiver attitudes that will affect cooperation with the agency. Research on this topic is unclear about whether the reduced contact that caregivers receive from the agency is due to their preference or for agency reasons.
  2. Caregiver Commitment to the Child and Acceptance of Role. It is important to understand how caregivers see their role in the child's life. Two studies report that kinship caregivers are more likely to expect to keep a child to adulthood. Research is unclear on why kinship care may have lower rates of reunification and adoption.
  3. Caregiver History of Causing Child Maltreatment and Ability to Protect Child from Parental Maltreatment. Research indicates lower rates of maltreatment in kinship homes, but this may be because they receiving less monitoring, so it is still important to evaluate placement safety. Some studies suggest that kinship caregivers, being older, may have a more positive attitude toward using physical punishment as discipline. An additional factor new to kinship care is that caregivers must protect children from their parents. The child's need for protection, the caregiver's ability to provide it, and the caregiver's willingness to limit access to the child must all be evaluated. Some studies suggest that kinship caregivers are more likely to believe that the child was not in danger at home.
  4. Nature of Relationship Between Caregiver Family and Child Biological Family. Existing measures for foster parents are not adequate for kinship caregivers. Some studies suggest that kinship caregivers feel more responsible than non-kin foster parents for facilitatiing the child-parent relationship . The parent's tendency toward violence toward the caregiver or child should also be investigated. A violent parent may make a kinship placement unsafe.
  5. Caregivers Economic Functioning. This is rarely considered in foster care but is important for kinship caregivers because studies indicate their incomes are more limited. It is important to know how much income the family will need to support the child. Several studies suggest that due to limited resources and significant problems, caregivers have more extensive need for support and services, but do not receive them. Caregivers may also need more time to adjust to an unexpected placement than a non-kin foster home.
  6. Caregiver Capacity to Meet Child Developmental, Social, Emotional Needs. These areas are covered by existing measures used with foster parents.
  7. Caregiver Capacity to Meet Child Physical Needs. These areas are covered by existing measures used with foster parents.
  8. Caregiver Physical and Emotional Capacity to Provide Care. Studies done with custodial grandparents and kinship caregivers find they may have significant emotional and health problems. It is important to evaluate the health of kin caregivers with more than a single question about health.
  9. Kinship Family Functioning. There are several measures used in non-relative foster care but more emphasis on substance abuse is needed.
  10. Caregiver Social Functioning. These measures have been developed for regular foster care. It is also important to consider support from Latino and African American family networks in kinship placements.


17. Illinois Kinship & Professional Care Compared     top

Testa, Mark F. and Nancy Rolock (1999). "Professional Foster Care: A Future Worth Pursuing?" Child Welfare v78 n1 p108-124.

In order to cope with the growing shortage of foster care homes, child welfare agencies have increasingly relied on the altruism of relatives to provide care for children in custody. Another option is to pay foster parents an annual salary to care for children. Paying foster parents acknowledges the complex demands placed on them and the value of the service they provide.

Various Foster Care Programs Compared
In this article, the authors update their 1996 evaluation of a professional foster care program operated by the Illinois DCFS, comparing it to other DCFS foster care programs. The programs evaluated during 1996 and 1997 included the following:

  • The Professional Foster Care Program is for sibling groups of 3 or more children when at least one of the children has special needs. Foster parents are paid an annual salary of $16,000 plus the $600 per month per child board payment.
  • The Urban Foster Care Program pays a tax-free housing subsidy of up to $550 per month and a board payment of $350 per month per child.
  • The Sibling Foster Care Program pays a tax-free housing subsidy of up to $800 per month plus a board payment of $350 per month per child for groups of two or more siblings.
  • The Regular Foster Care pays licensed households an average of $350 per month per child.
  • The Home of Relative Program is for nonlicensed kinship caregivers and pays an average board payment of $252 per month per child.

Five Criteria Used for Evaluation
The programs were evaluated according to five criteria:

  • Closeness to the Child's Community was best in the Home of Relative program. The Professional and Urban placements were better than the Regular Foster Care placements, because Regular Foster homes are usually in the suburbs.
  • Placement of Siblings Together was best in the Home of Relative and Professional programs. The Sibling program was good only for groups of three or more.
  • Stability of Placements was best in the Professional and Home of Relative programs, but still 26%-30% of the children in these placements changed homes.
  • Percentage of Removal to a More Restrictive Setting was only 3%-6% for all groups, but lowest in the Professional and Urban programs.
  • Achieving Permanency was best in the Home of Relative program in which 14% of the children were returned home, adopted or came under guardianship. However, the Professional program had a much higher reunification rate than the other programs, at 13%. The others program rates were Home of Relative 7.4%, Regular 7.1%, Sibling 5.3% and Urban 4.9%.

HMR and Professional Programs Perform Best
Overall, the best performance was achieved by the Home of Relative Program and the Professional Foster Care Program. I