Jill Duerr Berrick

A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation

Abstract In recent years, child welfare caseloads have expanded rapidly, and increasing numbers of children have been placed with kin. Much of the current discussion surrounding kinship foster care stems from its rapid growth and the paucity of information about the placement type compared to our knowledge of other forms of foster care. The study reported here provides information about kinship foster care and foster family care focusing on the demographic characteristics of providers; the services providers receive; the children served in care; and issues of visitation with birth parents. The study highlights marked differences in providers and in the services they receive. Policy and practice considerations in the development of this field are also offered.

When children cannot remain home: foster family care and kinship care

Despite the best efforts of child welfare agencies, community agencies, and individuals, some children are not safe in their homes and must be placed in substitute care settings by child welfare authorities. Increasingly, as this article points out, child welfare agencies are placing children in the homes of their relatives rather than in traditional foster family homes (31% of all children in out-of-home care in the early 1990s were living with kin). This article discusses how such factors as the availability of foster homes, the demand for foster care, attitudes toward the extended families of troubled parents, and policies regarding payment for the costs of care have contributed to the rapid growth in kinship foster care. It discusses differences in the personal characteristics of kin and traditional foster parents and in the supports provided to the caregivers by child welfare agencies. Research findings suggest that kinship homes can promote the child welfare goals of protecting children and supporting families, but they are less likely to facilitate the prompt achievement of legal permanence for children. To forge a coherent policy toward kinship caregivers, officials must balance the natural strengths of informal, private exchanges among family members with the power of government agencies to provide both resources and oversight.

Assessing and Promoting Quality in Kin and Nonkin Foster Care

This article provides a comprehensive look at the elements that indicate quality of care in kinship and nonrelated foster homes, highlighting the philosophical reasons for providing quality care and the theoretical underpinnings of kinship care. The sparse literature on quality of care in foster homes is then augmented with indicators of quality in nonfoster homes, identifying a series of domains of quality. By articulating these domains we intend to frame an understanding of quality of care, to provide a guide for constructing a quality assessment tool for kinship and nonrelated foster homes, and to promote quality improvement in these vital areas.

Kinship care: an evolving service delivery option

It has been eight years since the Children and Youth Services Review first special issue on kinship care. That issue was prompted by the large increase in kinship care placements that occurred in the mid-to-later 1980s and the developing research base documenting the relatively new and often controversial practice. Eight years later, state child welfare agencies continue to rely significantly on kin to act as foster parents. Moreover, federal and state policies have added legitimacy and support for kinship care placements. However, when and how kin should be used as foster parents remains an issue of immense debate. This volume adds more fuel to the fire, providing much needed research to inform the debate, yet at the same time raising more questions than it answers.

Research on kinship foster care: What do we know? Where do we go from here?

Pergamon Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 16, Nos. l/Z. pp. 1-S. 1994 CopytightB 1994 Ekvier Science Ltd Primed in the USA. All rights reserved

Specialized foster care and group home care: Similarities and differences in the characteristics of children in care☆

6.00 + .@I Research on Kinship Foster Care: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here? Jill Duerr Bet-rick Richard P. Barth University of California, Berkeley In recent years, kinship care has gained increasing notice from practi- tioners, policy makers and researchers. Our attention has been captivated by the large numbers of children now being served in foster care by kin. The development of kinship care as a foster care resource has been stim- ulated by legal, demographic, and value-based changes. First was the Miller v. Youakim Supreme Court (1979) case which determined that kin could not be excluded from the definition of foster parents and that under some conditions, kin might be eligible for foster care benefits. Second, the burgeoning foster care census and changing economic circumstances that leave far fewer conventional unrelated foster parents at home to care for children have contributed to greater inclusion of kin and fictive kin as fos- ter caregivers (National Commission on Family Foster Care, 1991). Third, kinship care’s development has been spurred on by a refocussing of values and priorities regarding the role of family--broadly defined--in the lives of children. Kinship foster care has developed at a time when calls for family preservation have grown increasingly urgent (National Commission on Children, 1993). Many child welfare experts believe that children will be better served if their care is provided by family members within the community of origin, rather than strangers (Chipungu, 199 1). Research in the area of kinship care has not kept pace with its development as a placement alternative. Until recently, few studies were available that focused on the characteristics of kinship providers or on the children in their care. Neither were studies available which addressed the services provided to kin through the child welfare system, or about the providers’ views of their roles within this system. Researchers are finally embracing this issue. In the meantime, kinship care is becoming the pre- dominant form of out-of-home care in several large states (Barth, Court- ney, Bet-rick, & Albert, 1994; Wulczyn & Goerge, 1992).

Community-based child abuse prevention: Outcomes associated with a differential response program in California

Abstract Until recently, foster children who presented special medical or behavioral problems were largely served in group care environments. Specialized (or “treatment”) foster care has recently been developed to serve some of these challenging children. Although growing evidence points to the special needs of children in foster care, much is still unknown about how children placed in various out-of-home care settings differ from one another. The growth of specialized foster care as an alternative placement to group care, calls for examination of how children in these settings compare on demographic, educational, health, and behavioral characteristics. A cross-sectional mailed survey was distributed to all group care and specialized foster care agencies in a large state to address topics related to childrens characteristics. Comparisons point to two groups of very difficult children, with unique mental health and health needs.

The formalized framework for decision-making in child protection care orders: A cross-country analysis

Traditionally, the American child welfare system intervenes in cases of evident and severe maltreatment. Families in need of help, but who have not reached a crisis, are excluded from typical services. Some suggest that if these families were served, few would be rereferred to the child welfare system. California’s Differential Response (DR) has three tracks, of which ‘‘Track 1’’ targets families screened out of child protective services (CPS) and refers them to agencies that provide voluntary, home-based services and referrals. This study examined child-welfare trajectories for families receiving Track 1 DR services in one California county. Using survival analysis, treatment group children (N = 134) were compared to children eligible for services but denied due to program capacity (comparison group N = 511). Findings suggest no statistically significant differences between groups on the likelihood of a re-report following program participation, timing of maltreatment reports, or report investigations. The ability to draw strong conclusions from this study, however, is limited by selection bias because prior child maltreatment reports were more common in the treatment group. The intervention may provide families with important supports, but evidence for maltreatment prevention may not be supported. Future studies should examine potential effects on a range of family domains.

The policy implications of welfare reform for older caregivers, kinship care, and family configuration

Care orders within the child protection system are some of the most invasive interventions a state can make. This article examines the discretionary space governments set out for child protection workers when they prepare care orders. We analyse the formalized framework for these decisions in England, Finland, Norway and the United States. We focus on knowledge, timelines, how children and parents are involved and accountability. We find that Norway and Finland have highly de-regulated systems with wide discretionary space, whereas England and the United States are highly regulated systems with narrow discretionary space. The United States differentiates itself with relatively little parent and/or child involvement in decision-making. England and Finland do not have defined deadlines for terminating the process, and Norway has few directives on what information to collect. Such differences will influence the quality of decisions as well as the principles of the rule of law.

Sexual abuse prevention education. Is it appropriate for the preschool child

Abstract Although welfare reform will largely impact the lives of children living in single-parent households, a growing number of children residing with relatives may also be affected. This paper offers an overview of welfare reform legislation in California and provides data on the size and characteristics of older adult households on AFDC in that state. The implications of the new law for relative caregivers both within and outside of the welfare and child welfare systems are discussed and a call for close attention to this vulnerable population is suggested