Understanding the Complexity of Practice in Kinship Foster Care

Dramatic growth in the number of children in state custody has been accompanied by an increasing use of kinship foster care-the placement of children in state custody with their relatives. Research on kinship foster care has not kept pace with the use of this placement option, although work to date suggests that children in kinship foster care remain in state custody longer and are less likely to be returned home or adopted than children in the care of nonrelatives. In-depth interviews with caseworkers serving children in kinship foster care revealed the complex nature of practice in this area and identified potential obstacles to permanency for these children. Results suggest practice principles that may facilitate permanency for these children. Dramatic growth in the number of abused, neglected, and dependent children placed with their relatives by the child welfare system has caught the attention of child welfare administrators, policymakers, and the general public. These are increasingly funded and regulated as a type of family foster care and referred to as relative foster care, kinship care, or kinship foster care [Berrick et al.1994; Child Welfare League of America 1994; Gleeson & Craig 1994; Kusserow 1992a,1992b; National Commission on Family Foster Care 1991]. The child welfare field has been caught off guard by the sharp increase in the use of kinship foster care since 1985, particularly in Illinois, New York, and California, where the number of children in kinship foster care exceeds or approximates the number of children placed with nonrelative licensed foster parents [Goerge et al. 1995; Kusserow 1992a]. Historically, many African American children have been successfully reared by extended family members [Hill 1977; Martin & Martin 1978; Stack 1974]. Many Latino and Asian families involve grandparents, godparents, and others in the care of children and in decision making and planning in behalf of these children [Lum 1986]. These informal kinship care relationships have generally operated without the oversight or support of the publicly funded child welfare system. It is not yet clear what happens when a formal child welfare service is superimposed over the informal practice of kinship care or whether public child welfare policies that guide family foster care are relevant to this new formal child welfare service [Gleeson & Craig 1994]. These policies stress achievement of permanent homes for children through rapid reunification of children with their parents, or adoption of children by their foster parent or some other suitable adult. Prevailing family foster care practice models were developed in the 1970s to facilitate permanency through a child's return home or adoption [Emlen et al. 1978; Pike et al. 1977; Stein et al. 1978; Stein & Gambrill 1985]. It is not known whether these practice models are relevant to kinship foster care or even whether permanency can be best defined by a child's return home or adoption when a child is living in kinship foster care. Research in kinship foster care is only in its beginning phase and has not kept pace with the dramatic growth in this service [Barth 1994; Berrick & Barth 1994; Dubowitz 1994]. We do know that kinship placements have been concentrated in large urban centers and have been used predominantly with economically disadvantaged children of color and their families [Berrick et al.1994; Kusserow 1992a; Testa 1992, 1993; Wulczyn & Goerge 1992]. Placements with relatives have been less likely to disrupt and tend to last longer than nonrelative placements [Goerge 1990; Testa 1992; 1993; Wulczyn & Goerge 1992]. These placements have also resulted in lower rates of reunification and adoption [Barth et al. 1994; Thornton 1991]. One study, however, suggests that reentry rates are lower for children who return home to their families of origin after placement in kinship foster care [Barth et al. 1994]. Several studies have reported that children in kinship foster care have significant physical, mental health, behavioral, and educational problems, but receive fewer services than children placed in nonrelative family foster care [Berrick et al. …