Kinship care: Suggestions for future research.

Abstract

The number of children in out-of-home placements is increasing exponentially. In 1992, 243,000 children were in one of several forms of out-of-home care; by 1992 this figure had grown to 429,000, and it is expected to exceed 840,000 by 1995 [National Commission on Foster Family Care 1991]. In the majority of states, kinship care is the preferred option for out-of-home placements [Gleeson and Craig 1994]. The percentage of children placed in kinship care grew from 18% in 1986 to 31% in 1990 in the 25 states responding to a national survey [Kusserow 1992a]. In Illinois and New York City, approximately half the children placed into out-of-home care by child protective services (CPS) are in kinship care [Illinois Department of Children and Family Services 1990; Meyer and Link 1990].Despite its widespread use, little research has been done on kinship care. Instead, there are deeply felt ideological beliefs, illustrated by the comment, I'd rather my child be placed with my worst relative than with a stranger. Although it is clear that some issues, such as the extent of families' responsibilities to care for their kin, are not amenable to empirical research, both public policy and clinical practice should be guided by the best available knowledge and theory, not by personal or ideological preferences.Kinship care offers several potential benefits to children who must be placed. Placement with strangers in an unknown environment is avoided. Relatives may have a special investment in one of their kin (i.e., blood is thicker than water). In contrast to nonrelative family foster care, children in kinship care are more likely to maintain contact with their biological parents [Duerr-Berrick et al. 1994], relative caregivers appear more invested in working with biological parents toward family reunification [Le Prohn 1994], and children's racial and ethnic identity may be more likely to be preserved. Children placed with relatives move less frequently and enjoy great stability [Duerr-Berrick et al. 1994; Iglehart 1994]. Duerr-Berrick et al. [1994] found significantly more large sibling groups placed together in kinship than in nonrelative family foster homes. Kinship care is also congruent with family preservation with its emphasis on maintaining biological ties and avoiding out-of-home care [Spar 1993]. Most professionals appear to agree that efforts to preserve families are valuable, and that priority consideration of relatives for out-of-home placements is reasonable.Kinship care, however, has also raised several concerns. A number of studies have found that children in kinship care typically remain there longer than those in nonrelative family foster care [e.g., Duerr-Berrick et al. 1994]. Although it may be unfair to assume guilt by association, some studies question the wisdom of placing children with relatives (usually grandmothers) who raised the parents now deemed unable to care for their children.It is also thought that kinship providers are inadequately screened by public child welfare agencies and that the services provided to kinship families are often fewer compared to those provided nonrelative foster families [e.g., Duerr-Berrick et al. 1994]. This is worrisome given that foster children have far more than average health and educational problems [e.g., Kavaler and Swire 1983; Halfon and Klee 1991] and children in kinship care face similar difficulties [Dubowitz et al. 1994]. Two studies comparing children in kinship and those in nonrelative family foster care found both groups had similarly high levels of mental illness and educational problems [Duerr-Berrick et al. 1994; Iglehart 1994]. Furthermore, kinship providers appear eager for services to help them care for these children [Duerr-Berrick et al. 1994]; many are low-income, minority grandmothers struggling to care for young children with serious problems [Minkler et al. 1992].Some argue that public agencies should not be intrusive and should instead allow kinship families to lead normal lives. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 52 citations exist upstream.