Informal and Formal Kinship Care Populations: A Study in Contrasts

Abstract

This article contrasts a group of informal kinship care providers with two kinship care groups, examining similarities and differences in child and caregiver demographics and service needs. One program's response to the needs of informal kinship care providers is presented. Kinship care as a child welfare service has had a cyclical existence. For many years a preference was shown for placing children in orphanages, a practice that was succeeded by the use of family foster homes. In 1978, the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act gave the concept of kinship placement new preference. Further legal foundation was laid in 1979 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Youakim [1979] that kin must be given equal opportunity to qualify for foster parent status. As this placement category has expanded, studies have focused on those children and families who are a part of the public or kinship care system [Dubowitz et al.1993; Berrick et al. 1994]. A large population of kinship caregivers exists outside this formal system. In 1991, it was determined that threequarters of a million children receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children lived in the home of kin--10% of the total AFDC roll [National Commission on Family Foster Care 1991 (cited in Hegar & Scannapieco 1995)]. In Philadelphia, the site of the present study, an estimated one in six children--approximately 62,500--live with relative caregivers [Maryniak 1993]. Of those children, fewer than 800 are living in kinship foster care homes under the supervision of Philadelphia's Department of Human Services [Woodall 1993]. Informal kinship caregivers face many of the same challenges as their counterparts in the system, yet, in many cases, work unassisted to obtain the services necessary to care for their young kin. To better understand these families, this article examines a sampling of this population in Philadelphia, comparing it to kinship care populations studied in Baltimore [Dubowitz et al. 1993] and in California [Berrick et al. 1994]. The Sample This study focuses on a sample of kinship caregivers compiled through almost three years of hands-on practice and includes families served by the KIDS'n'KIN Program from December 1992 to August 1995. The KIDS'n'KIN Program (hereinafter the program) was initiated in 1990 by the Philadelphia Society for Services to Children, a private child welfare agency, and the Support Center for Child Advocates, a private child advocacy organization. The program offers legal and social services as well as in-home therapeutic intervention to kinship caregivers who are rearing their young kin in Philadelphia County. The program is voluntary and has two main goals. First, it seeks to stabilize the child's place in the family by helping the caregiver to access community resources and by promoting a permanency plan. Second, it seeks to stabilize kinship caregiving families so that they may avoid entering or reentering the public child welfare system. The program employs a broad definition of family, including not only all relationships by blood and marriage, but also godparents or close family friends with whom the child has developed a strong familial relationship. To be eligible, the caregiver must be free of all protective service concerns and the family must be caring for at least one child under the age of 10. Referrals come from two sources. First, Philadelphia's Department of Human Services (DHS) diverts families from its caseload who, because of the absence of any risk or safety considerations, are not in need of DHS' intensive, protective support. Referrals also come from the community at-large, hospitals, schools, and, at times, the caregivers themselves. Information for the study was drawn from a review of case files, including entry and exit demographic reports, caseworkers' summaries, and family service description plans. The Children The program has served 165 children, ranging in age from three months to 21 years. …

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 — 44 citations exist upstream.