KINSHIP CARE VERSUS NON-KINSHIP CARE
Angelica Banuelos
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2009
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
KINSHIP CARE VERSUS NON-KINSHIP CARE
A Project
by
Angelica Banuelos
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
David Demetral, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Date
ii
Student: Angelica Banuelos
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
, Graduate Coordinator
Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Date
Division of Social Work
iii
Abstract
of
KINSHIP CARE VERSUS NON-KINSHIP CARE
by
Angelica Banuelos
Over the last two decades there has been a significant increase in the amount of children
in our child welfare system (Schwartz, 2007). This increase has led to an increase in the
amount of children in kinship care. According to several studies kinship care results in
more positive outcomes for the child than non-kinship care. In the past two decades
federal and state policy has leaned towards kinship care (Park & Helton, 2010). This
researcher conducted an exploratory quantitative study that surveyed professional child
welfare employees and interns at Lilliput Children’s Services about their attitudes and
beliefs about kinship care versus non-kinship care and the positive outcomes. This study
investigated their attitudes and beliefs and how factors such as academic degree, years
worked in a child welfare agency and age may contribute to the individual attitudes and
beliefs of the participants. The study also examined whether or not employees attitudes
and beliefs about kinship versus non-kinship care were in accordance with federal and
state policy as well as the current literature.
The study revealed that all Lilliput
Children’s Services employees and interns attitudes and beliefs supported current federal
and state policy.
iv
__________________________________, Committee Chair
David Demetral, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
____________________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible if it weren’t for my mother’s dedication
and contribution towards my education. I’m so grateful for the wonderful opportunities
that have been given to me in this life but they did not come without out the great
sacrifice of my grandparents. They sought out the American dream for their children to
have prosperous lives and in return I too have benefited from those sacrifices. I owe my
deepest gratitude to my family, fiancé and friends for supporting me and encouraging me
to fulfill my dreams. I am indebted to my thesis advisor Dr. David Demetral and Lilliput
Children’s Services; without their support this project wouldn’t have been possible.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. THE PROBLEM .............................................................................................................1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .....................................................................................2
Statement of the Research Problem .........................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................4
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................5
Major Questions .......................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................8
Assumptions.............................................................................................................9
Justification ..............................................................................................................9
Delimitations ............................................................................................................9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................10
Kinship Care vs. Non-Kinship Care ......................................................................10
Positive Outcomes .................................................................................................20
vii
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................25
Design ....................................................................................................................25
Variables ................................................................................................................26
Participants .............................................................................................................27
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................28
Data Gathering Procedure ......................................................................................29
Protection of Human Subjects ...............................................................................30
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................32
Introduction ............................................................................................................32
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ..............................................................................98
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research Study ..................................................105
Appendix B. Research Questionnaire ..............................................................................106
References ........................................................................................................................109
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 A kinship placement should be considered for a child before a nonkinship placement ..................................................................................................34
2.
Table 2 A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment for a
child than a non-kinship placement .......................................................................35
3.
Table 3 A kinship placement will offer a child greater academic
achievement than a non-kinship placement ...........................................................36
4.
Table 4 A kinship placement will offer a child a more positive self-esteem
than a non-kinship placement ................................................................................37
5.
Table 5 A child in a Kinship placement will engage in more social
interactions than a non-kinship placement .............................................................38
6.
Table 6 A child in a kinship placement will have a better sense of
spirituality than in a non-kinship placement ..........................................................39
7.
Table 7 A child in a kinship placement will be more involved in
extracurricular activities than a non-kinship placement ........................................40
8.
Table 8 A child in a kinship placement will display more healthy behaviors
than a non-kinship placement ................................................................................41
9.
Table 9 A child in a kinship placement will more likely have more positive
outcomes than a non-kinship placement ................................................................42
10.
Table 10 A kinship placement should be considered before a non-kinship
placement ...............................................................................................................79
11.
Table 11 A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment than
a non-kinship placement ........................................................................................80
12.
Table 12 A kinship placement will offer a child greater academic
achievement than a non-kinship placement ...........................................................81
13.
Table 13 A kinship placement will offer a child a more positive
self-esteem than a non-kinship placement .............................................................82
ix
14.
Table 14 A child in a Kinship placement will engage in more social
interactions than a non-kinship placement .............................................................83
15.
Table 15 A child in a Kinship placement will have a better sense of
spirituality than a non-kinship placement ..............................................................84
16.
Table 16 A child in a Kinship placement will be more involved in
extracurricular activities than a non-kinship placement ........................................85
17.
Table 17 A child in a Kinship placement will display more healthy
behaviors than a non-kinship placement ................................................................86
18.
Table 18 A child in a Kinship placement will more likely have more
positive outcomes than a non-kinship placement ..................................................87
19.
Table 19 A kinship placement should be considered before a non-kinship
placement ...............................................................................................................88
20.
Table 20 A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment than
a non-kinship placement ........................................................................................89
21.
Table 21 A kinship placement will offer a child greater academic
achievement than a non-kinship placement ...........................................................91
22.
Table 22 A kinship placement will offer a child a more positive
self-esteem than a non-kinship placement .............................................................92
23.
Table 23 A child in a Kinship placement will engage in more social
interactions than a non-kinship placement .............................................................93
24.
Table 24 A child in a Kinship placement will have a better sense of
spirituality than a non-kinship placement ..............................................................94
25.
Table 25 A child in a Kinship placement will be more involved in
extracurricular activities than a non-kinship placement ........................................95
26.
Table 26 A child in a Kinship placement will display more healthy
behaviors than a non-kinship placement ................................................................96
27.
Table 27 A child in a Kinship placement will more likely have more
positive outcomes than a non-kinship placement ..................................................97
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1 Kinship placement ...................................................................................33
2.
Figure 2 Kinship placement versus MSW .............................................................43
3.
Figure 3 Kinship placement versus LCSW ............................................................44
4.
Figure 4 Kinship placement versus MFT...............................................................45
5.
Figure 5 Kinship placement versus LMFT ............................................................46
6.
Figure 6 Secure attachment versus MSW ..............................................................47
7.
Figure 7 Secure attachment versus LCSW ............................................................48
8.
Figure 8 Secure attachment versus MFT ...............................................................49
9.
Figure 9 Secure attachment versus LMFT .............................................................50
10.
Figure 10 Academic achievement versus MSW ....................................................51
11.
Figure 11 Academic achievement versus LCSW ..................................................52
12.
Figure 12 Academic achievement versus MFT .....................................................53
13.
Figure 13 Academic achievement versus LMFT ...................................................54
14.
Figure 14 Positive self-esteem versus MSW .........................................................55
15.
Figure 15 Positive self-esteem versus LCSW ........................................................56
16.
Figure 16 Positive self-esteem versus MFT...........................................................57
17.
Figure 17 Positive self-esteem versus LMFT ........................................................58
18.
Figure 18 Social interactions versus MSW ............................................................59
19.
Figure 19 Social interactions versus LCSW ..........................................................60
xi
20.
Figure 20 Social interactions versus MFT .............................................................61
21.
Figure 21 Social interactions versus LMFT...........................................................62
22.
Figure 22 Sense of spirituality versus MSW .........................................................63
23.
Figure 23 Sense of spirituality versus LCSW ........................................................64
24.
Figure 24 Sense of spirituality versus MFT ...........................................................65
25.
Figure 25 Sense of spirituality versus LMFT ........................................................66
26.
Figure 26 Extracurricular activities versus MSW ..................................................67
27.
Figure 27 Extracurricular activities versus LCSW ................................................68
28.
Figure 28 Extracurricular activities versus MFT ...................................................69
29.
Figure 29 Extracurricular activities versus LMFT.................................................70
30.
Figure 30 Healthy behaviors versus MSW ............................................................71
31.
Figure 31 Healthy behaviors versus LCSW...........................................................72
32.
Figure 32 Healthy behaviors versus MFT .............................................................73
33.
Figure 33 Healthy behaviors versus LMFT ...........................................................74
34.
Figure 34 Positive outcomes versus MSW ............................................................75
35.
Figure 35 Positive outcomes versus LCSW...........................................................76
36.
Figure 36 Positive outcomes versus MFT .............................................................77
37.
Figure 37 Positive outcomes versus LMFT ...........................................................78
xii
1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Currently our child welfare system is flooded with over a half a million children
in need of a permanent home (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). Kinship placements in
most instances are sought out by child welfare workers but they may not be a priority.
This researcher examined the attitudes and beliefs of child welfare employee’s and
interns at Lilliput Children’s Services as it pertains to the positive outcomes of children in
kinship care versus those children in non-kinship care. This researcher conducted an
exploratory quantitative study that examined the attitudes and beliefs of child welfare
professionals, employed or interning at Lilliput Children’s Services. This researcher
surveyed their personal attitudes and beliefs about kinship care versus non-kinship care
and its positive outcomes. This study specifically surveyed professional BASW, MSW,
LCSW, MFT and LMFT employee’s at Lilliput Children’s Services. Lilliput is a nonprofit organization with several locations in Sacramento and outlying counties. Currently
this researcher is an intern at the South Sacramento Kinship Office. This office is one of
two that provides support and focuses on kinship caregivers. The other offices focus on
adoptions that are both by kinship caregivers and non-kinship caregivers. Through this
study the researcher surveyed employees and interns who don’t work in a Lilliput office
that focuses on kinship care.
2
This study examined the attitudes and beliefs of employees and interns at Lilliput
Children’s services. Using the Likert Scale, participants were asked how kinship care and
non-kinship care can impact positive outcomes for children such as a secure attachment,
academic achievement, positive, self-esteem, social interactions, spirituality,
extracurricular activities and healthy behaviors. With the over whelming amount of
children in our current foster care system it would be beneficial for social workers and
child welfare professionals to better understand whether or not kinship care has more
favorable outcomes than children who are in non-kinship care. For social workers,
having more knowledge about this topic could influence a social workers plan of action
for a child. Resources could be better delegated if child welfare workers are aware of
which type of care has more positive outcomes.
Background of the Problem
There is currently over a half a million children in the United States living in
foster care (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). In California we have seen the number of
children in kinship care double from 1988 to 2000 while non-kinship care has remained
stable (Ryan, Hong, Herz, & Hernandez, 2010). In 2004 there was an estimated 122, 528
children living in kinship care in the United States (Taussig & Clyman, 2011). In 2008
there were 2.5 million grandparents serving as kinship caregivers for their grandchildren
(Kelley, Whitely, & Campos, 2010). These children are one of the most vulnerable and
at risk populations. It’s within their best interest to make sure that their care promotes
positive outcomes. In recent years kinship care has begun to emerge as a preferred
3
placement type for children (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). With the growing push
towards kinship care it’s important to know whether or not this type of care can meet the
short term and long term goal of positive outcomes for children (Fechter-Leggett &
O'Brien, 2010).
Over the last two decades there has been an increase in the amount of children in
our child welfare system in need of a placement (Schwartz, 2007). Although we have
seen a rise in the need for placements, the amount of non-kinship placements has
decreased (Schwartz, 2007). This has placed an emphasis on the need for kinship
caregivers. In the past child welfare workers did not believe kinship placements were an
ideal placement for children (Schwartz, 2007). In more recent years state and federal
legislation have placed an emphasis on kinship care (Park & Helton, 2010). The
Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 places emphasis on kinship care by stating that
a relative caregiver who can meet the needs of the child according to state child
protection standards should be given preference over non-kin caregivers (Park & Helton,
2010). There is still much debate over the positive outcomes children will experience in
being placed in kinship care versus non-kinship care. Many studies do show that children
in kinship care will experience a more positive self-identity, positive self well-being,
family preservation, placement stability and academic improvement (Crumbley & Little,
1997; Koh, 2010; Metzger, 2008; Schwartz, 2007; Zeltin, Weinberg, & Kimm, 2004).
4
Statement of the Research Problem
Our current foster care system leaves children with unfavorable odds of facing
many challenges such as a 50% odd of becoming homeless (Television Commercial on
Statistics of Children in Foster Care, 2010). Finding children’s kin to take them in may
have favorable positive outcomes. This researcher explored the attitudes and beliefs of
professional child welfare employee’s and interns at Lilliput Children’s Services and
their views as to whether or not kinship care is a better alternative to non-kinship care
because it yields more positive outcomes for children. Lilliput currently has no research
about the attitudes and beliefs of its employee’s and interns and whether or not they
believe there are more positive outcomes of children in kinship care versus those who are
in non-kinship care. This study provided Lilliput with data that may impact the type of
supportive services they provide and the training they may provide their employees and
interns with.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the attitudes and beliefs of Lilliput
Children’s Services employees and interns. This study evaluated the way they feel about
kinship care versus non-kinship care and which type of care they think yields more
positive outcomes for children. The positive outcomes that are included in the survey
are: secure attachment, academics, self-esteem, social interaction level, spirituality,
extracurricular activities and behavior. The research tends to favor kinship care over
non-kinship care and this researcher would like to find out how Lilliput employees and
5
interns feel about kinship care versus non-kinship care. Their personal feelings could
impact their work and the amount of emphasis and effort they place on finding a child a
kinship placement versus a non-kinship placement. This researcher would like to present
her findings to Lilliput Children’s Services in hopes that the research will be valuable in
giving them an idea of how the employees and interns feel about kinship care and
whether or not that lines up with the agencies mission and the current research out there.
Theoretical Framework
The theories that were applied to this study are ecological theory, social systems
theory, and attachment theory. Ecological theory focuses on the relationship between the
individual and their environment (McNown Johnson & Rhodes, 2010). An
understanding of the individual or the environment can only be understood by
acknowledging the relationship between the two (McNown Johnson & Rhodes, 2010).
The ecosystems perspective also places importance on adaptation (McNown Johnson &
Rhodes, 2010). The ecosystems perspective links the child’s relationship with their
environment and in examining this one can better understand the relationship whether it
be positive, negative or neutral (McNown Johnson & Rhodes, 2010). The ecosystems
theory best explains how a child and their relationship with their environment can
promote or decrease positive outcomes. The ecosystems theory can also explain how
Lilliput employees and interns and their interactions with other child welfare
professionals as well as the families they work with can lead and directly impact their
personal attitudes and beliefs about kinship care and non-kinship care.
6
The social ecosystem framework is comprised of the mutual transactions between
people and their environment (Mooradian, Cross, & Stutzky, 2006). The social systems
theory focuses on the reciprocal relationship between the people and their environment
and how both experience change from every interaction they have with each other
(Mooradian et al., 2006). This theory acknowledges that systems operate on various
different levels and communication and interaction happens on different levels (McNown
Johnson & Rhodes, 2010). This theory is applicable to this study because it accounts for
the various levels of systems children must interact with, when they are in the child
welfare system. This theory is also applicable to the various levels that child welfare
employees and interns must interact with as well as the caregivers that they provide
support to. We can see how policy on the federal level impacts policy on the state level
which in turn directly impacts child welfare workers which in turn impacts the caregivers
and the children that are in our child welfare system.
Attachment theory places emphasis on the interaction between the child and its
parent or caregiver (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2007). It focuses on the emotional
bonding as a result of attachment. Attachment is established by the amount of time spent
together, attentive care provided, emotional responsiveness and availability to the child
over a long period of time (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2007). Children who are able to
obtain secure attachment tend to exhibit more positive social interactions with peers
(Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2007). A child developing healthy attachments with a
caregiver is an essential part of development and has long-term implications if not
7
achieved. Children who are in the child welfare system are more likely to move around
more often and this can lead to placement insecurity (Fernandez, 2009). Placement
insecurity can directly impact a child’s attachment security (Fernandez, 2009). Children
that are in the child welfare system are at higher risk for attachment insecurity (TarrenSweeney, 2008). The experiences that children have while they are in care can directly
impact there attachment experiences (Tarren-Sweeney, 2008). A child’s attachment
experiences can directly impact their development and mental health (Tarren-Sweeney,
2008). Since this study will use secure attachment as a positive outcome for children,
attachment theory can best explain how attachment can lead to positive outcomes or
negative ones.
Major Questions
Do Lilliput Children’s Service’s employees and interns think that a kinship
placement should be considered before a non-kinship placement? Would it be beneficial
to implement kinship training on the pros and cons of positive outcomes for children in
kinship care for Lilliput staff? Could staff knowledge about kinship placements and its
outcomes potentially impact the child placement? Do the amount of years working in a
child welfare setting impact the employee’s attitude and beliefs about kinship care and
non-kinship care? Do variables such as age and academic degree influence the
individuals’ attitude and beliefs about kinship care and non-kinship care?
8
Definition of Terms
Adoption
A practice in which an adult assumes the role of parent for a child who is not his
or her biological offspring (adoption, n.d.).
Foster Care
Foster care is a system by which a certified, stand-in "parent(s)" cares for minor
children or young people who have been removed from their birth parents or other
custodial adults by state authority (Service, 2007).
Kinship Care
The Child Welfare League of America defines kinship care as "the full time care,
nurturing and protection of children by relatives, members of their tribes or clans,
godparents, stepparents, or any adult who has a kinship bond with a child,”
(Service, 2007).
Non-Kinship Care
This includes traditional adoptions and foster care arrangements that don’t involve
kin (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HDDS], 2005).
Positive Outcomes
For the purpose of this study, positive outcomes for children will be defined as
academic success and progress, positive self-esteem, appropriate levels of social
interaction and involvement in extracurricular activities, presence of spirituality,
and the display of healthy behavior.
9
Assumptions
It’s explicit that Lilliput Children’s Services employees and interns are familiar
with the concepts kinship care and non-kinship care as they pertain to this study. It is
implicit that Lilliput Children Service’s employees and interns work with children placed
in both kinship care and non-kinship care.
Justification
This research benefited the social work profession especially social workers
working in child welfare settings such as Lilliput Children’s Services as well as other
agencies. The data helped them to better understand their attitudes and beliefs and how
that could potentially impact the type of placement a child ends up in. The type of
placement can greatly impact the positive and negative outcomes a child may experience.
With the current state of our child welfare system, understanding our attitudes and beliefs
as child welfare professionals can impact our views.
Delimitations
This researcher did not survey children or measure their positive outcomes. This
researcher did not survey any child welfare workers outside of Lilliput Children’s
Services. This researcher did not survey individuals that she regularly works with at her
internship.
10
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Kinship Care vs. Non-Kinship Care
Kinship adoptions are currently on the rise and grew from 15% in 1998 to 23% in
2003 (Addison & Richardson, 2005). In 2005 approximately 25% of all the children
adopted in the foster care system were kinship adoptions (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). Over
the last two decades there has been a significant increase in the amount of children that
make up our child welfare system. This increase has been linked to an increase in the
amount of reporting of maltreatment (Schwartz, 2007). There has also been an increase
in the amount of parents with substance abuse problems. While the amount of children in
our child welfare system has increased the amount of non-kinship care placements has
decreased (Schwartz, 2007). This has been linked to the inadequate reimbursement that
foster care parents receive as well as factors such as the negative stigma around foster
care, and more women working rather than staying at home (Schwartz, 2007).
African American children not only represent our child welfare system at
significantly larger rates but they also make up a large portion of the children in kinship
care placements (Schwartz, 2007). Addison and Richardson’s (2005) study also noted an
increase in kinship adoptions for African American and Hispanic children from 1998 to
2003 (Addison & Richardson, 2005). There is a significantly larger amount of African
American children in our child welfare system and that means that they would need to be
adopted in larger rates (Addison & Richardson, 2005). Poor recruitment efforts of
11
African American adoptive parents have been the blame for the current trend (Addison &
Richardson, 2005). In order to change this some say that the emphasis should be placed
on kinship adoptions which would allow children to remain with their biological families
(Addison & Richardson, 2005).
Kinship care can be an informal or formal arrangement; formal arrangements
usually involve legal guardianship, foster care or adoption (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). It is
also important to take into consideration that many children remain in kinship care with a
kin caregiver but are not recognized in the data or statistics because it is an informal
arrangement. Informal arrangements occur often and do not involve Child Protective
Services (CPS) (Gleeson et al., 2009). There is limited research on informal kinship
placements and the positive outcomes (Gleeson et al., 2009).
Kinship adoptions are practiced worldwide and in several countries they are the
sole means for adoption. According to one study, in several countries such as the Middle
East, South Asia and Africa, kinship adoptions is the only form of adoption that is
practiced (Megahead & Cesario, 2008). This is mainly because of cultural and religious
differences (Megahead & Cesario, 2008). Kinship care is the primary means of care for
children in Australia in all age groups except for 16-17 year olds (Ryan, Hong et al.,
2010). Kinship care has also been shown to last longer than other forms of care and
overall the care being provided is considered quite stable (Hegar, 2009). Studies also
report more favorable behavioral outcomes of children in kinship care versus those in
non-kinship care although some studies did have mixed findings (Hegar, 2009).
12
Although kinship care has been the primary means of care for children in other
countries it has not been practiced for an extensive period of time in the United States
(Koh, 2010). It was thought that caregivers learned their abusive or neglectful behaviors
from their families of origin (Koh, 2010). This type of thinking has kept children from
being placed with kinship caregivers in fear that their safety would be compromised.
Kinship placements were considered a last resort after exhausting other options such as
non-kin foster home or group home. It wasn’t until the late 1970s and early 1980s that
the number of available foster care homes began decreasing (Koh, 2010). This decrease
caused public child welfare professionals to turn to kinship caregivers. Approximately
24% of the children in our child welfare system are living in kinship foster care
placements (Koh, 2010). In the year 2006 124,471 children were living in a kinship
foster home placement (Koh, 2010).
Lately the trend has been federal and state policy leaning towards kinship care.
Many states avoid placing children in foster care and seek out kinship caregivers. Many
child welfare workers will not open a case if a kin caregiver is available (Park & Helton,
2010). Even federal legislation has begun to place an emphasis on kinship care. The
Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 places emphasis on kin care by stating that a
relative caregiver who can meet the needs of the child according to state child protection
standards should be given preference over non-kin caregivers (Park & Helton, 2010).
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 requires
child welfare agencies to notify the child’s relatives if they are removed from their home
13
(Park & Helton, 2010). This Act also allows states to waive non-safety licensing
standards for relative foster care homes and helps link these families to supportive
services (Park & Helton, 2010).
The need for legal foster care came about from the doctrine “Parens Patriae,”
which mandates state intervention if children’s safety and welfare are not being
maintained by their parents (Metzger, 2008). The concept of kin care has been around
for some time and is more prevalent in certain cultures such as that of African Americans
and Hispanics (Metzger, 2008). According to Metzger (2008) kinship foster care is a
service that is working just as well as non-kinship foster care. Kinship foster care
provides children with the strength of being with family and helps to bolster positive
child development (Metzger, 2008).
In California we have seen the number of children in kinship care double from
1988 to 2000 while non-kinship care has remained stable (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). In
2004 there was an estimated 122, 528 children living in kinship care in the United States
(Taussig & Clyman, 2011). In some counties such as Los Angeles county, kinship
caregivers make up a total of 53% of the out of home placements (Mennen, Brensilver, &
Trickett, 2010). Los Angeles County currently has one of the largest child welfare
departments in the country (Mennen et al., 2010).
Although kinship caregivers have been said to be more invested in the child, there
are negative aspects of kinship care (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). According to
one article, many kinship caregivers may struggle and have more obstacles to overcome
14
than non-kinship caregivers (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). Some of the struggles
faced by kinship caregivers is obtaining guardianship of the child and committing to
permanency (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). Kinship caregivers are demographically
said to be single, older women, have poorer health, have a lower education, and are more
likely to need government aid (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). Kinship caregivers are
also said to receive less emotional support and financial support than non-kinship
caregivers although both need the same amount of support (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien,
2010). All of these barriers have been thought to result in the ability to foster less
effectively (Cuddeback, 2004).
Many of the current kin caregivers are grandparents and in 2008 there were 2.5
million grandparents serving as kin caregivers for their grandchildren (Kelley et al.,
2010). These grandparents reported limitations that they have faced such as poorer
health, increased depression and less marital satisfaction (Cuddeback, 2004). They are
also more likely to be living on limited resources, living in poverty and receiving public
assistance (Kelley et al., 2010). The increased distress that kinship care giving
grandmothers experience may be a result to the circumstances that led them to become
kinship caregivers. The reasons that grandparents become kin caregivers is due to factors
such as incarceration, substance abuse, abandonment, and neglect that is involved the
biological parents (Kelley et al., 2010). Grandparents in this situation are dealing with
their children’s problems and may experience feelings of loss, guilt, anger and failure as a
parent because of their current circumstances (Kelley et al., 2010). In many cases
15
grandparents who are kinship caregivers have to deal with behavioral problems and
developmental delays that the child may be experiencing (Kelley et al., 2010). This has
been found to lead to increased stress in kin grandparent caregivers which leads to
significant physical health problems (Kelley et al., 2010). Studies have suggested that
grandparent caregivers can benefit from support groups, educational groups and health
interventions (Kelley et al, 2010). According to studies grandmother caregivers who
attended kinship support groups reported less depression and stress although these
findings have limited generalizability (Cuddeback, 2004).
Denby (2011) evaluated kinship care and how kinship support can impact the
caregiver which in turn can impact the child. This study examined how kinship liaisons,
former kinship caregivers themselves, could support current kinship caregivers (Denby,
2011). Currently the data suggests that kinship caregivers are not receiving the services
and help that they need. Most caregivers are eligible for services that are needed but
ultimately they are not receiving them (Denby, 2011). Denby (2011) acknowledges the
burden and reliance that our social services agency places on kinship caregivers and often
in return they receive little support and services. Many kinship caregivers are in need of
financial assistance, childcare, food, housing assistance, and support (Denby, 2011).
Knowing how critical it is to have kinship caregivers, it’s also critical that in turn they
receive the services they need (Denby, 2011). Currently kinship caregivers receive fewer
services than non-kin sip caregivers yet kinship care is the preferred method of care
sought out by child welfare agencies (Denby, 2011). The inadequate services that
16
kinship caregivers have received has led to the lack of knowledge in areas such as
permanency, child safety, legal issues, and over all child well-being (Denby, 2011). This
study had kinship liaisons provide training, support and referrals to kinship caregivers.
The study found that the more knowledge caregivers were given about permanency the
more likely they were to serve as a more permanent caregiver and act as a permanent
resource for the child (Denby, 2011). This study also concluded that peer based
approaches should be given more consideration (Denby, 2011). Caregivers in this study
did report better coping abilities because of the support that they received from the
kinship liaison. The stronger coping capabilities that caregivers have the more likely the
child will have positive well-being (Denby, 2011).
There is also evidence that children who are in kinship care are not functioning as
well as children in the general population (Cuddeback, 2004). Children in kinship care
were found to have more behavioral problems than children in the general population
(Cuddeback, 2004). They also had more problems doing their homework and had below
average scores in several areas such as reading, math, cognitive functioning, reasoning,
problem solving, and listening comprehension (Cuddeback, 2004).
Research has suggested that there is a relationship between disruption at the
placement and psychosocial problems (Fernandez, 2009). Children who are moved
around more tend to display more signs of emotional and behavioral problems
(Fernandez, 2009). These types of problems in turn create placement breakdowns or
problems (Fernandez, 2009). The constant loss of attachments can threaten the child’s
17
sense of security (Fernandez, 2009). One study indicated that the longer a child stayed
with a family, the more positive outcomes they would experience (Fernandez, 2009).
It was found in previous studies that children in non-kinship care are more likely
to achieve legal permanency in a home. While another study found similar findings it
also found that exit from kinship care to family reunification is slower than it is for
children in non-kinship care (Zinn, 2009). Some studies have also found that there is no
difference in the ability to achieve legal permanency in a home. These discrepancies are
thought to be due to the inability to control for pre-existing group differences and
selection biases (Koh, 2010). One study found that the ability to achieve legal
permanence for kin varied from state to state (Koh, 2010).
According to the literature there are two main concerns that child welfare
professionals have regarding kinship caregivers, which include the differences in
character and neighborhood characteristics (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). The differences in
caregiver characteristics included being either younger or significantly older,
experiencing greater levels of food insecurity, being single and being less likely to have
completed high school (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). Kin caregivers are said to live in
neighborhoods that report fewer strengths than non-kin caregiver neighborhoods (Ryan,
Hong et al., 2010). There has been a connection between poverty, neighborhoods
characteristics and juvenile delinquency that concerns researchers. One researcher
concluded that the longer a child is exposed to poverty the more likely they will
experience juvenile delinquency (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). The more persistent the
18
poverty, the larger the effects of delinquency will occur. Neighborhoods indirectly effect
and contribute to juvenile delinquency by negative peer associations that may initiate
offending and contribute to ongoing offending. This study found that African American
and White male adolescents were at a slightly greater risk for juvenile delinquency
(Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). This study also found that Hispanic males and females were at
a decreased likelihood for juvenile delinquency.
Taussig and Clyman (2011) found that the longer a child lived in care the more
likely they would experience negative outcomes. Some of the negative outcomes
associated with kinship care were increased substance use, delinquency, risky sexual
behavior, poor grades, more risky behaviors, arrests and tickets (Taussig & Clyman,
2011). Approximately 84% of the children in this study that were in kinship care had
also been in non-kinship foster care. They did not just evaluate children who have solely
been in kinship care and solely been in foster care. They found fewer differences when
comparing children who had only been in kinship care to those who were in non-kinship
care (Taussig & Clyman, 2011). The researchers concluded that more research needed to
be done and that protective factors need to be examined and evaluated for their
contribution to the findings (Taussig & Clyman, 2011).
Research has also shown that children in the foster care system tend to suffer from
higher rates of mental health problems (Mennen et al., 2010). According to various
studies the percentage of children suffering from mental health problems for children in
the foster care system range from 31% to 82% (Mennen et al., 2010). There haven’t been
19
many studies that have focused on children in kinship care versus children in non-kinship
care (Mennen et al., 2010). Most studies point to a higher incidence of children in nonkinship care having a higher rate of behavioral problems. Children in non-kinship care
placements were found to score lower on measures of functioning in comparison to
children in kinship care placements (Mennen et al., 2010). One research study found that
35.8% of children in non-kinship foster care scored above the clinical range on the Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and only 16.4% of children in kinship care scored above the
clinical range on the CBCL (Mennen et al., 2010). Other studies have had similar
findings; the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) conducted
a survey and also found significant differences in CBCL scores between kinship care and
non-kinship care placements (Mennen et al., 2010). The NSCAW found that 63.1% of
children in non-kinship care placements scored in the clinical range on the CBCL while
only 39.3% of children in kinship care placements scored in the clinical range. When
children first enter care, it was found that children entering into kinship care had less
behavioral problems in comparison to children entering non-kinship placements (Mennen
et al., 2010). One study noted that 47% of children who stayed with their parents after
having experienced reported abuse or neglect scored in the clinical range on the CBCL
while 63.1% of children in non-kinship care scored in the clinical range and 39.3% of
children in kinship care scored in the clinical range (Mennen et al., 2010).
20
Positive Outcomes
One of the positive outcomes discussed is academic improvement. According to
one article, children in foster care are one of the academically most at risk populations in
the U.S. (Zeltin et al., 2004). Children in foster care are also more at risk for behavioral
problems at school. Approximately 75% of these children perform below their grade
level. According to this study many of the academic problems these children experience
has to do with the placement instability and constant moving around from school to
school (Zeltin et al., 2004). Children in the foster care system lack parents to advocate
for them that directly impacts how well they perform in school (Zeltin et al., 2004).
According to this study children need advocates, which could be provided by adopted
parents and liaisons. Children in kinship care when compared to the general population
were found to have fewer attendance problems, suspensions and expulsions (Cuddeback,
2004).
Previous studies have reported that kinship care placements offer more placement
stability than non-kinship care placements (Koh, 2010). According to Fernandez
placement instability can impact children in several negative ways. One research study
showed that the length of time a child remained with a family the more positive outcomes
(Fernandez, 2009). Some of the positive outcomes impacted by length of stay were better
ratings of adjustment, satisfaction, integration, academic progress and behavior
(Fernandez, 2009). An unstable living environment has been shown to negatively impact
21
a child’s psychosocial and social development. Placement instability can also impact
peer and adult attachments (Fernandez, 2009).
Another positive outcome I would like to discuss is the involvement of spirituality
in the child and families lives. According to one study religion was the primary reason
several families decided to adopt (Belanger, Copeland, & Cheung, 2008). These families
attributed their religion to helping them cope with stresses that were attributed to
controlling the child’s behavior. According to this study, religion has been shown to
impact mental health with positive outcomes (Belanger et al., 2008). In this study parent
stress was noted as one of the negative outcomes of adoption. A reduction in parent
stress was attributed to improvement in the behavior of the adopted child (Belanger et al.,
2008).
There are several benefits to kinship care. One of these benefits is family
preservation (Crumbley & Little, 1997). Family preservation through kinship care
provides the child with continuity of care (Crumbley & Little, 1997). Researchers
concluded that children in kinship care would have lasting placements if the following
criteria were met: full foster care payments, empathy, reciprocity and a sense of duty
from the caregivers (Ryan, Hinterlong et a.l, 2010). In an exploratory qualitative study,
interviews were done and the researcher found three common explanations for the use of
kinship care (Ryan, Hinterlong et al., 2010). These explanations included: “perceived
psychological benefit that came from the familiarity between caregivers and children,
strong sense of family obligation, the view that alternative forms of care such as foster
22
care were flawed and detrimental to children's interests” (Ryan, Hinterlong et al., 2010, p.
1632). This study also concluded that kin caregivers had greater support needs to help
alleviate the stress they experience from being kin caregivers (Ryan, Hinterlong et al.,
2010).
One study done wanted to compare the ethnic identities of African American
children in our child welfare system that are in kinship care placements versus those in
non-kinship care placements. One researcher speculated that ethnic identity could be
better established by a child staying with a kin caregiver rather than a non-kinship
caregiver (Schwartz, 2007). One study found that positive identity for adolescents is
directly linked to the connection they have with their birth family and ethnic community
(Schwartz, 2010). One of the benefits of kinship placements is that they increase the
likely hood of children and adolescents developing their ethnic identity (Schwartz, 2007).
Positive outcomes are thought to be a result of kinship care because of the
connectedness and the continuity of care the child receives (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). A
child being removed from their parents can be considered a traumatic event in the child’s
life; this trauma is thought to potentially be lessened by being placed with kin rather than
a stranger (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). This reduction in trauma is also thought to lead to a
reduction in placement disruption. The National Study of Child and Adolescent Well
Being (NSCAW) found that more children in kinship settings achieved early stability
compared to those in non-kinship care. The more stability the child has the more likely
he or she will develop resiliency (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010). The NSCAW also found that
23
children in kinship settings report more positive feelings about their placement compared
to children in non-kinship settings (Ryan, Hong et al., 2010).
Children’s thoughts and feelings about their placement are rarely sought out or
valued but could contribute to a child’s positive outcomes. Most studies do not include
or assess the child and their feelings regarding their placement (Merritt, 2008). Allowing
children to give input and be involved in the permanency process would give them a
sense of empowerment (Merritt, 2008). According to Merritt (2008) allowing children to
give input in their placements can lead to better success in their temporary and permanent
placements (Merritt, 2008). Another factor to consider is what the child desires in
regards to permanency. Some children may view foster care as enough without the need
for adoption (Merritt, 2008). In a study that was conducted it was found that although the
majority of children desired to stay in their foster care placement the majority did not
want to be adopted (Merritt, 2008). The children were more concerned with placement
stability than adoption (Merritt, 2008). Merritt (2008) suggests that children who are
satisfied with their placement will maintain its stability but if a child is dissatisfied with
their placement they may try to intentionally or unintentionally sabotage it.
Another positive outcome that should be considered is the overall well-being of
the child. Well-being is composed of several factors that include the child’s environment
and level of adjustment (Metzger, 2008). According to Metzger (2008) one consistent
finding is that children in kinship care are visited by their biological parents more often
than children in non-kinship care (Metzger, 2008). Children who had visitation with their
24
birth parents were viewed as being less depressed and better adjusted. This study also
concluded that visitation by birth parents contributes to a child’s resiliency, self-concept
and coping (Metzger, 2008). If a child is able to maintain their cultural customs and
contact with their extended family their well-being can be sustained or heightened
(Metzger, 2008). A child’s family can be considered social support and maintaining that
can help sustain their well-being. Social support plays a critical role in any individual’s
life including that of children. According to Metzger (2008), continual visitation by a
child’s biological parents can act as a coping buffer which can help deflect the negative
consequences of stress (Metzger, 2008). It can help children to maintain their well-being
which is a critical positive outcome that all children need.
25
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Design
This was an exploratory quantitative study. The advantage of a quantitative study
is that it provides more measurable outcomes that can be generalized to a specific
population (Royse, 2008). Quantitative data analysis was chosen because the questions
on the research questionnaire have measurable answers. In quantitative data analysis the
researcher can generalize the results of the data to a specific population and because a
large portion of professional child welfare social workers are being surveyed the results
can be generalized to the professional child welfare workers at Lilliput Children’s
Services. The disadvantage of a quantitative study is that the questionable or grey areas
of outcomes are not explored. An example of this would be that questions are measured
on the Likert scale in the questionnaire and the participant may agree with the statement
but on a situational basis and may not believe that it applies to all so they may choose
neither agree nor disagree. It can also be difficult to prove the researchers hypothesis or
have definitive answers to the researcher’s questions without doing further research
(Royse, 2008). Although the findings can be generalized to some Lilliput professional
BASWs, MSWs, LCSWs, MFTs and LMFTs employees and interns. There are Lilliput
employees and interns who work in case management dealing with kinship care and nonkinship care that did not meet the credential criteria for the study that may have had
differing opinions from those who participated.
26
Of the 22 participants surveyed, there was only one male so this researcher cannot
generalize the findings to be the beliefs of men and women. The advantage of an
exploratory study is that it provides insight into the attitudes and beliefs of kinship care
and non-kinship care. The disadvantage of an exploratory research study is that findings
are not conclusive or definitive. This exploratory research gives individuals insight to
their attitudes and beliefs but is limited in nature. The findings cannot be generalized to
other employees and interns within the agency who work in other areas of the office that
were not surveyed. A quantitative exploratory study best fits the researcher’s goal of
surveying professional child welfare employees and interns at Lilliput Children’s
Services to explore their attitudes and beliefs about kinship care versus non-kinship care.
Variables
This researchers major questions are included below: Do Lilliput Children’s
Service’s employees and interns think that a kinship placement should be considered
before a non-kinship placement? Would it be beneficial to implement kinship training on
the pros and cons of positive outcomes for children in kinship care for Lilliput staff?
Could staff knowledge about kinship placements and its outcomes potentially impact the
child placement? Do the amount of years working in a child welfare setting impact the
employee’s attitude and beliefs about kinship care and non-kinship care? Do independent
variables such as age and academic degree influence the individuals’ attitude and beliefs
about kinship care and non-kinship care? Some of the variables of major interest are
kinship care, non-kinship care, positive outcomes, amount of years working in a child
27
welfare setting, age, gender and academic degree. The predictive variables include
positive outcomes, kinship care, and non-kinship care. The criterion variables include
age, gender, amount of years working in a child welfare setting, and academic degree.
The dependent variables are attitude and knowledge.
Participants
The population of interest was the professional child welfare workers at Lilliput
Children’s Services. More specifically this researcher was interested in surveying 22
(n=22) employees and interns at Lilliput Children’s Services who have degrees in social
work and marriage and family therapy. In order to participate in the study research
participants had to have a BASW, MSW, LCSW, MFT or LMFT. The sampling method
used was purposive sampling. Since participants had to meet certain criteria such as
working or interning at Lilliput Children’s Services and having a specific degree in order
to participate, purposive sampling was the best method for sampling (Royse, 2008). To
obtain my sample this researcher traveled to several Lilliput locations and did not
encounter any major hurdles. One dilemma the researcher was faced with was when this
researcher showed up to one Lilliput meeting to distribute the research questionnaire the
meeting had been cancelled and so this researcher had to come back another time to
survey that specific Lilliput office. The sample size chosen was 22 Lilliput employees or
interns with a BASW, MSW, LCSW, MFT or LMFT. A sample size of 22 was chosen
because it was a realistic and attainable number of employees and interns at Lilliput who
held these credentials and would be willing to participate in the study.
28
Instrumentation
The instrument this researcher used to gather the data was a research
questionnaire that was created and developed by the researcher. The research questions
were developed based on the literature review and the researcher’s questions about the
subject matter. The researcher found very mixed literature that had various findings for
the positive outcomes and negative implications of kinship care. Through the literature
review the researcher identified several positive outcomes that researchers found valid
and identified those positive outcomes on the questionnaire. The researcher wanted to
see if the employees and interns at Lilliput Children’s Services had views similar to what
some of the literature supported. It was tested for external validity by randomly sampling
individuals who worked or interned at Lilliput Children’s Services offices other than this
researcher’s office. In order to achieve face validity the definitions of kinship care and
non-kinship care were on the questionnaire and the Likert-type scale was used so
participants had the same measurement process. The questionnaire was tested by
surveying and receiving input and feedback from the researcher’s supervisor at Lilliput
Children’s Services. This survey was not used in the findings.
Developing the questionnaire was challenging because it needed to be cohesive
and applicable to my topic of interest which is kinship care and non-kinship care and how
positives outcomes may be affected by the type of care a child receives. Surveying
children would likely be deemed high risk by the Human Subjects Committee. Working
with kinship caregivers has given this researcher new knowledge about this type of
29
relationships and its pros and cons. This researcher wanted to find out how working at
Lilliput has impacted their perceptions of kinship care and non-kinship care and which
type of care possibly led to more positive outcomes for the child.
Data Gathering Procedure
Before this researcher began her human subject application she talked to her
supervisor about the possibility of sampling Lilliput employees and interns. The
supervisor at Lilliput Children’s Services fully supported this researcher and contacted
other supervisors in different Lilliput locations and obtained their permission and support
for this researcher to survey Lilliput employees and interns. In order to gather the data
this researcher visited three Lilliput locations including El Dorado Hills, Sacramento
main, and North Sacramento. Each Lilliput office also had employees and interns from
other locations including Sonora and Granite Bay. At the beginning of each meeting this
researcher’s study questionnaire was explained and prospective participants were
screened for meeting eligibility criteria to participate. The consent form was then handed
out to Lilliput employees and interns who met the sampling criteria (see Appendix A).
Once the consent form was signed and obtained in a large blank envelope the
questionnaire was handed out. Participants were not given a specific time limit but most
participants finished within 10 minutes. Once the questionnaire was completed
participants placed their questionnaire in an unmarked solid folder (see Appendix B).
Participants were compensated with either a gift card to Starbucks or Jamba Juice for $3.
This researcher did not encounter any problems while gathering data.
30
Protection of Human Subjects
University requirements were met by this researcher by submitting a human
subject’s application to the Division of Social Work at California State University
Sacramento. The application was approved and the approval number is: 10-11-068. The
application was accompanied by the consent to participate form and the thesis
questionnaire. Request for Review by the Committee for the Protection of Human
Subjects was submitted and approved by the University as minimal risk.
The questionnaire was designed by this researcher and includes questions that the
researcher thought would pose minimal risk. The survey includes questions regarding the
individual’s sex, age range, academic level or degree, exposure to kinship and nonkinship care, and views about the positive outcomes of kinship care vs. non-kinship care.
To reduce the amount of risk to an acceptable level the researcher chose participants that
had professional degrees in either social work or family and marriage therapy. This
researcher also chose participants that were currently working and interning at Lilliput
Children’s Services because the subject matter and content would be something that they
had been previously exposed to.
Precautions were taken by this researcher and subjects may have been exposed to
a minimal risk of discomfort or harm. Subjects were not exposed to anymore discomfort
or harm than they were already exposed to in their daily job duties. The topic itself and
the questions being asked posed minimal risk to individuals working in the child welfare
setting at Lilliput Children’s Services. The professional employees were exposed to the
31
topic of kinship care and non-kinship on a regular basis. The consent to participate
included the Sacramento County’s Mental Health Services phone number that
participants can call should they feel any discomfort or harm from participating in the
survey.
32
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This researcher used SPSS to conclude the findings in the charts and tables below.
This researcher found that all Lilliput employees and interns either agreed or strongly
agreed that a kinship placement should be considered before a non-kinship placement.
All but one of the participants was a female making gender not applicable to this research
study. The following charts and graphs analyze how factors such as academic degree,
age and years worked in a child welfare setting may impact the participant’s answers to
the questions on the questionnaire. The results reveal mixed findings about how these
factors impact a participants attitudes and beliefs about kinship care.
Figure 1 shows that of the 22 individuals surveyed, they all either strongly agreed
or agreed that kinship placement should be considered before non-kinship placement.
Out of the 22 participants, 18.2%, or four of the participants, agreed and 81.8% or 18 of
the participants strongly agreed with the statement that a kinship placement should be
considered before a non-kinship placement for a child.
33
18.2%
81.8%
Figure 1. Kinship placement
Tables 1-9 show the answers that were given on the questionnaire for each
question regarding kinship and non-kinship care. Each table shows the number (N) and
percentage (% of total N) of answers given for each selection. Options not chosen by
participants are not displayed on each table. Table 1 shows that the only selections
chosen by participants were agree and strongly agree meaning that all participants either
agreed or strongly agreed that a kinship placement should be considered before a nonkinship placement for a child.
34
Table 1
A kinship placement should be considered for a child before a non-kinship placement
A kinship placement
should be considered for
a child before a nonkinship placement
Agree
Std.
3.2500 4
1.50000
3.00
Strongly Agree
3.0000 18
1.02899
Total
3.0455 22
1.09010
Mean
% Total % Total
N Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
3.0000
19.4
18.2
3.00
3.0000
80.6
81.8
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Table 2 shows that the majority of participants 45.5% selected agree and 40.9%
selected strongly agree that a kinship placement will offer a child a more secure
attachment than a non-kinship placement. While 9.1% of participants selected neither
agree nor disagree and 4.5% selected disagree regarding this statement.
35
Table 2
A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment for a child than a non-kinship
placement
A kinship placement will
offer a more secure
attachment for a child
than a non-kinship
placement
Disagree
Mean N Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
2.0000 1
Neither Agree Nor
2.5000 2
Agree
Std.
% Total % Total
.00
2.0000
3.0
4.5
.70711
1.00
2.5000
7.5
9.1
3.2000 10
1.13529
3.00
3.0000
47.8
45.5
Strongly Agree
3.1111 9
1.16667
3.00
3.0000
41.8
40.9
Total
3.0455 22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Disagree
Table 3 shows that the majority of participants either agreed 40.9% or neither
agreed nor disagreed 45.5% with the statement a kinship placement will offer a child
greater academic achievement than a non-kinship placement. While 4.5% of participants
disagreed with this statement and 9.1% strongly agreed.
36
Table 3
A kinship placement will offer a child greater academic achievement than a non-kinship
placement
A kinship placement
will offer a child
greater academic
achievement than a
non-kinship placement
Disagree
2.0000 1
.
.00
Neither Agree Nor
2.5556 9
.52705
Agree
3.4000 10
Strongly Agree
Total
Std.
% Total
% Total
Sum
N
2.0000
3.0
4.5
1.00
3.0000
34.3
40.9
1.26491
3.00
3.0000
50.7
45.5
4.0000 2
1.41421
2.00
4.0000
11.9
9.1
3.0455 22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Mean
N Deviation Range Median
Disagree
Table 4 shows that 59.7% of participants agreed and 13.6% strongly agreed with
the statement a kinship placement will offer a child a more positive self-esteem than a
non-kinship placement. Only 4.5% of participants disagreed with this statement, while
22.7% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed.
37
Table 4
A kinship placement will offer a child a more positive self-esteem than a non-kinship
placement
A kinship placement
will offer a child a more
positive self-esteem than Mean
a non-kinship placement
Disagree
2.0000
Std.
% Total % Total
N
1
.
.00
Neither Agree Nor
3.0000
5
1.22474
Agree
3.0769
13
Strongly Agree
3.3333
Total
3.0455
Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
2.0000
3.0
4.5
3.00
3.0000
22.4
22.7
1.03775
3.00
3.0000
59.7
59.1
3
1.52753
3.00
3.0000
14.9
13.6
22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Disagree
Table 5 shows that the majority of participants neither agreed nor disagreed with
the statement a child in a kinship placement will engage in more social interaction than
non-kinship placement; while 31.8% of participants agreed with this statement. Only
4.5% of participants strongly agreed and 9.1% disagreed with the above statement.
38
Table 5
A child in a Kinship placement will engage in more social interactions than a non-kinship
placement
A child in a Kinship
placement will
engage in more
social interactions
than a non-kinship
placement
Disagree
Mean
N
2.5000
2
.70711
1.00
Neither Agree Nor
3.1667
12
1.02986
Agree
3.0000
7
Strongly Agree
3.0000
Total
3.0455
Std.
% Total
%
Sum
Total N
2.5000
7.5
9.1
3.00
3.0000
56.7
54.5
1.41421
3.00
2.0000
31.3
31.8
1
.
.00
3.0000
4.5
4.5
22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Deviation Range Median
Disagree
Table 6 shows that 74.6 % of participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement a child in a kinship placement will have a better sense of spirituality than in a
non-kinship placement. While 9.1% strongly agreed, 13.6% agreed and 4.5% disagreed
with the statement.
39
Table 6
A child in a kinship placement will have a better sense of spirituality than in a nonkinship placement
A child in a kinship
placement will have a
better sense of
spirituality than in a
non-kinship placement.
Disagree
Mean
N
2.0000
1
.
.00
Neither Agree Nor
3.1250
16
1.08781
Agree
2.3333
3
Strongly Agree
4.0000
Total
3.0455
Std.
% Total % Total
Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
2.0000
3.0
4.5
3.00
3.0000
74.6
72.7
.57735
1.00
2.0000
10.4
13.6
2
1.41421
2.00
4.0000
11.9
9.1
22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Disagree
Table 7 shows that 68.2% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement a child in a kinship placement will be more involved in extracurricular
activities than a non-kinship placement. While 13.6% of participants both either agreed
or disagreed with the statement and only 4.5% of participants strongly agreed with the
statement.
40
Table 7
A child in a kinship placement will be more involved in extracurricular activities than a
non-kinship placement
A child in a kinship
placement will be
more involved in
extracurricular
activities than a nonkinship placement
Disagree
Mean
N
2.3333
3
.57735
1.00
Neither Agree Nor
3.1333
15
1.12546
Agree
3.3333
3
Strongly Agree
3.0000
Total
3.0455
Std.
% Total % Total
Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
2.0000
10.4
13.6
3.00
3.0000
70.1
68.2
1.52753
3.00
3.0000
14.9
13.6
1
.
.00
3.0000
4.5
4.5
22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Disagree
Table 8 shows that 45.5% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed while
40.9% of participants agreed with the statement a child in a kinship placement will
display more healthy behaviors than a non-kinship placement. Only 4.5% of participants
disagreed and 9.1% strongly agreed with the above statement.
41
Table 8
A child in a kinship placement will display more healthy behaviors than a non-kinship
placement
A child in a kinship
placement will display
more healthy behaviors
than a non-kinship
Mean
placement
Disagree
2.0000
Std.
N
Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
.
.00
2.0000
3.0
4.5
2.9000 10
.87560
3.00
3.0000
43.3
45.5
Agree
3.4444
9
1.33333
3.00
3.0000
46.3
40.9
Strongly Agree
2.5000
2
.70711
1.00
2.5000
7.5
9.1
Total
3.0455 22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor
1
% Total % Total
Disagree
Table 9 shows us that 45.5% of participants agreed with the statement a child in a
kinship placement will more likely have more positive outcomes than a non-kinship
placement. While 31.8% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed and 22.7% strongly
agreed with the above statement.
42
Table 9
A child in a kinship placement will more likely have more positive outcomes than a nonkinship placement
A child in a kinship
placement will more
likely have more
positive outcomes than a Mean
non-kinship placement
Neither Agree Nor
2.7143
Std.
N
% Total % Total
Deviation Range Median
Sum
N
7
1.11270
3.00
2.0000
28.4
31.8
Agree
3.4000 10
.96609
3.00
3.0000
50.7
45.5
Strongly Agree
2.8000
5
1.30384
3.00
2.0000
20.9
22.7
Total
3.0455 22
1.09010
3.00
3.0000
100.0
100.0
Disagree
Figures 2-5 represent how each academic degree answered the statement a kinship
placement should be considered before a non-kinship placement. There were a total of
eight individuals with an MSW, nine individuals with an LCSW, one individual with an
MFT and four individuals with an LMFT.
43
25%
75%
Figure 2. Kinship placement versus MSW
44
100%
Figure 3. Kinship placement versus LCSW
45
100%
Figure 4. Kinship placement versus MFT
46
25%
75%
Figure 5. Kinship placement versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 2-5, the majority (75%) of participants with an MSW degree
strongly agreed with the above statement while 25% agreed with it. All participants
(100%) with an LCSW strongly agreed with the above statement. The MFT agreed with
the statement while the majority (75%) of LMFTs strongly agreed with the statement and
25% of participants agreed.
Figures 6-9 are pie charts that represent how each academic degree answered the
statement a child in a kinship placement will develop a more secure attachment than a
non-kinship placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine
47
individuals with an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an
LMFT.
12.5%
12.5%
37.5%
37.5%
Figure 6. Secure attachment versus MSW
48
11.1%
44.4%
44.4%
Figure 7. Secure attachment versus LCSW
49
100%
Figure 8. Secure attachment versus MFT
50
50%
50%
Figure 9. Secure attachment versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 6-9, participants with an MSW degree answers varied with
12.5% of participants stated they disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the
above statement while 37.5% either agreed or strongly agreed with it. The majority of
participants with an LCSW (44.4%) either agreed or strongly agreed with the above
statement and 11.1% neither agreed nor disagreed. The MFT agreed with the statement
while 50% of LMFTs either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement above.
Figures 10-13 are pie charts representing how each academic degree answered the
statement a child in a kinship placement will have greater academic achievement than a
51
non-kinship placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine
individuals with an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an
LMFT.
12.5%
37.5%
50%
Figure 10. Academic achievement versus MSW
52
11.1%
33.3%
55.6%
Figure 11. Academic achievement versus LCSW
53
100%
Figure 12. Academic achievement versus MFT
54
25%
75%
Figure 13. Academic achievement versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 10-13, participants with an MSW degree answers varied with
12.5% of participants stating they disagreed, 50% of participants neither agreed nor
disagreed with the above statement while 37.5% agreed with it. The majority of
participants with an LCSW (55.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the above
statement, while 33.3% agreed and 11.1% strongly agreed with the above statement. The
MFT agreed with the statement while 75% of LMFTs agreed and 25% strongly agreed
with the above statement.
55
Figures 14-17 are pie charts that represent how each academic degree answered
the statement a kinship placement will develop a more positive self-esteem than a nonkinship placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine
individuals with an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an
LMFT.
12.5%
12.5%
25%
50%
Figure 14. Positive self-esteem versus MSW
56
11.1%
22.2%
66.7%
Figure 15. Positive self-esteem versus LCSW
57
100%
Figure 16. Positive self-esteem versus MFT
58
25%
25%
50%
Figure 17. Positive self-esteem versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 14-17, participants with an MSW degree’s answered varied
with 50% of participants agreeing and 12.5% of participants strongly agreeing. Only
12.5% of participants stated they disagreed with the above statement, while 25% neither
agreed nor disagreed with it. The majority of participants with an LCSW (66.7%) agreed
with the statement above. Approximately 11.1% of participants strongly agreed with the
above statement and 22.2% neither agreed nor disagreed. The MFT agreed with the
59
statement while 50% of LMFTs agreed and 25% of participants either strongly agreed or
neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
Figures 18-21 represent how each academic degree answered the statement a
child in a kinship placement will engage in more social interactions than a non-kinship
placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine individuals with
an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an LMFT.
12.5%
50%
37.5%
Figure 18. Social interactions versus MSW
60
11.1%
11.1%
11.1%
66.7%
Figure 19. Social interactions versus LCSW
61
100%
Figure 20. Social interactions versus MFT
62
50%
50%
Figure 21. Social interactions versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 18-21, participants with an MSW degree answers varied with
12.5% of participants stating they disagreed, while 37.5% neither agreed nor disagreed
with the above statement and the majority (50%) agreed with it. The majority of
participants with an LCSW (66.7%) neither agreed nor disagreed, while 11.1% of
participants strongly agreed, agreed, or disagreed. The MFT neither agreed nor disagreed
with the statement while 50% of LMFTs either agreed or neither agreed nor disagreed
with the statement above.
63
Figures 22-25 represent how each academic degree answered the statement a
child in a kinship placement will have a better sense of spirituality than a non-kinship
placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine individuals with
an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an LMFT.
12.5%
25%
62.5%
Figure 22. Sense of spirituality versus MSW
64
11.1%
11.1%
77.8%
Figure 23. Sense of spirituality versus LCSW
65
100%
Figure 24. Sense of spirituality versus MFT
66
25%
75%
Figure 25. Sense of spirituality versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 22-25, participants with an MSW degree answers varied with
12.5% of participants stating they disagreed, while 62.5% of participants neither agreed
nor disagreed with the above statement while 25% agreed with it. The majority of
participants with an LCSW (77.8%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the above
statement and 11.1% either agreed or strongly agreed. The MFT neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement while 75% of LMFTs neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement above while 25% strongly agreed.
67
Figures 26-29 represent how each academic degree answered the statement a
child in a kinship placement will be more involved in extracurricular activities than a
non-kinship placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine
individuals with an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an
LMFT.
12.5%
25%
62.5%
Figure 26. Extracurricular activities versus MSW
68
11.1%
11.1%
11.1%
66.7%
Figure 27. Extracurricular activities versus LCSW
69
100%
Figure 28. Extracurricular activities versus MFT
70
25%
75%
Figure 29. Extracurricular activities versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 26-29, participants with MSW degree’s answers varied with
12.5% of participants stating they agreed with the above statement while 62.5% neither
agreed nor disagreed and 25% disagreed with the statement. The majority of participants
with an LCSW (66.7%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the above statement and 11.1%
strongly agreed, agreed or disagreed with the above statement. The MFT neither agreed
nor disagreed with the statement while 75% of LMFTs neither agreed nor disagreed
leaving 25% of participants agreeing with the above statement.
71
Figures 30-33 represent how each academic degree answered the statement a
child in a kinship placement will display more healthy behaviors than a non-kinship
placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine individuals with
an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an LMFT.
12.5%
37.5%
12.5%
37.5%
Figure 30. Healthy behaviors versus MSW
72
11.1%
22.2%
66.7%
Figure 31. Healthy behaviors versus LCSW
73
100%
Figure 32. Healthy behaviors versus MFT
74
25%
75%
Figure 33. Healthy behaviors versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 30-33, participants with an MSW degree’s answered varied
with 12.5% of participants stated they disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the
above statement while 37.5% either agreed or strongly agreed with it. The majority of
participants with an LCSW (66.7%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the above
statement, 22.2% agreed and 11.1% strongly agreed. The MFT agreed with the statement
while 75% of LMFTs agreed and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement
above.
75
Figures 34-37 represent how each academic degree answered the statement a
kinship placement will more likely have more positive outcomes than a non-kinship
placement. There were a total of eight individuals with an MSW, nine individuals with
an LCSW, one individual with an MFT and four individuals with an LMFT.
37.5%
50%
12.5%
Figure 34. Positive outcomes versus MSW
76
11.1%
22.2%
66.7%
Figure 35. Positive outcomes versus LCSW
77
100%
Figure 36. Positive outcomes versus MFT
78
25%
25%
50%
Figure 37. Positive outcomes versus LMFT
As noted in Figures 34-37, participants with an MSW degree answers varied with
50% of participants stating that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the above
statement while 37.5% strongly agreed and 12.5% agreed with it. The majority of
participants with an LCSW (66.7%) agreed, with 22.2% of participants neither agreeing
nor disagreeing leaving 11.1% strongly agreeing with the above statement. The MFT
agreed with the statement while 50% of LMFTs agreed leaving 25% of participants either
strongly agreeing or neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement above.
79
Tables 10-18 shows how participants answered questions based on their age
group. There were a total of nine participants aged 15-32, four individuals aged 33-40,
six individuals aged 41-50, two individuals aged 51-64 and one individual aged 65 and
up.
Table 10
A kinship placement should be considered before a non-kinship placement
Cumulative
Current Age
25-32
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
2
22.2
22.2
22.2
Strongly Agree
7
77.8
77.8
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
Valid Agree
33-40
Valid Strongly Agree
4
100.0
100.0
100.0
41-50
Valid Agree
1
16.7
16.7
16.7
Strongly Agree
5
83.3
83.3
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
51-64
Valid Strongly Agree
65 and up Valid Agree
80
Table 11
A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment than a non-kinship placement
Valid
Current Age
25-32
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Disagree
1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Neither Agree Nor
1
11.1
11.1
22.2
Agree
4
44.4
44.4
66.7
Strongly Agree
3
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Agree
2
50.0
50.0
75.0
Strongly Agree
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Agree
3
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
3
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
Disagree
33-40
Valid
Disagree
41-50
Valid
51-64
Valid
Strongly Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
65 and up
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
81
Table 12
A kinship placement will offer a child greater academic achievement than a non-kinship
placement
Current Age
25-32
Valid
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
Disagree
1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Neither Agree Nor
5
55.6
55.6
66.7
Agree
3
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
2
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor
2
33.3
33.3
33.3
Agree
3
50.0
50.0
83.3
Strongly Agree
1
16.7
16.7
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
Disagree
33-40
Valid
Disagree
41-50
Valid
Disagree
51-64
Valid
65 and up Valid
100.0
82
Table 13
A kinship placement will offer a child a more positive self-esteem than a non-kinship
placement
Current Age
25-32
33-40
41-50
51-64
Frequency Percent
Valid Disagree
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
3
33.3
33.3
44.4
Agree
4
44.4
44.4
88.9
Strongly Agree
1
11.1
11.1
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
2
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
5
83.3
83.3
83.3
Strongly Agree
1
16.7
16.7
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Valid Agree
Valid Agree
65 and up Valid Agree
100.0
83
Table 14
A child in a Kinship placement will engage in more social interactions than a non-kinship
placement
Current Age
25-32
33-40
41-50
51-64
Frequency Percent
Valid Disagree
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
5
55.6
55.6
66.7
Agree
3
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
3
75.0
75.0
75.0
Agree
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
1
16.7
16.7
16.7
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4
66.7
66.7
83.3
Agree
1
16.7
16.7
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Valid Disagree
Valid Agree
65 and up Valid Agree
100.0
84
Table 15
A child in a Kinship placement will have a better sense of spirituality than a non-kinship
placement
Current Age
25-32
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
1
11.1
11.1
11.1
6
66.7
66.7
77.8
Agree
2
22.2
22.2
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
4
100.0
100.0
100.0
4
66.7
66.7
66.7
Agree
1
16.7
16.7
83.3
Strongly Agree
1
16.7
16.7
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
Valid Disagree
Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
33-40
Valid Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
41-50
Valid Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
51-64
Valid Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
65 and up Valid Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
100.0
85
Table 16
A child in a Kinship placement will be more involved in extracurricular activities than a
non-kinship placement
Current Age
25-32
33-40
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
2
22.2
22.2
22.2
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
6
66.7
66.7
88.9
Agree
1
11.1
11.1
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
2
50.0
50.0
75.0
Agree
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Valid Disagree
Valid Disagree
41-50
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
6
100.0
100.0
100.0
51-64
Valid Agree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
65 and up Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
100.0
86
Table 17
A child in a Kinship placement will display more healthy behaviors than a non-kinship
placement
Valid
Current Age
25-32
33-40
41-50
51-64
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid Disagree
Cumulative
Percent
1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
5
55.6
55.6
66.7
Agree
2
22.2
22.2
88.9
Strongly Agree
1
11.1
11.1
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
3
75.0
75.0
75.0
Agree
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
2
33.3
33.3
33.3
Agree
4
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Valid Agree
65 and up Valid Agree
100.0
87
Table 18
A child in a Kinship placement will more likely have more positive outcomes than a nonkinship placement
Valid
Current Age
25-32
33-40
41-50
51-64
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Cumulative
Percent
5
55.6
55.6
55.6
Agree
2
22.2
22.2
77.8
Strongly Agree
2
22.2
22.2
100.0
Total
9
100.0
100.0
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Agree
3
75.0
75.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
1
16.7
16.7
16.7
Agree
3
50.0
50.0
66.7
Strongly Agree
2
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
6
100.0
100.0
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
1
100.0
100.0
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Valid Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Valid Agree
65 and up Valid Agree
100.0
Tables 19-27 show how participants answered each question based on the amount
of years they have worked in a child welfare agency. Only one participant did not answer
88
the question leaving one participant working zero years, one individual has worked three
years, two individuals have worked four years, three individuals have worked five years,
two individuals have worked six years, one individual has worked eight years, one
individuals has worked nine years, one individual has worked 10 years, two individuals
have worked 12 years, one individual has worked 14 years, one individual has worked 17
years, one individual has worked 17 years, one individual has worked 18 years, three
individuals have worked 20 years and one individual has worked 24 years in a child
welfare setting
Table 19
A kinship placement should be considered before a non-kinship placement
Years worked in child welfare setting
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
89
Table 19 continued
Years worked in child welfare setting
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
14.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 20
A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment than a non-kinship placement
Years worked in child welfare setting
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Agree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
90
Table 20 continued
Years worked in child welfare setting
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
Disagree
10.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
Disagree
14.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
91
Table 21
A kinship placement will offer a child greater academic achievement than a non-kinship
placement
Years worked in child welfare setting
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Agree
1
33.3
33.3
33.3
Strongly Agree
2
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
100.0
92
Table 22
A kinship placement will offer a child a more positive self-esteem than a non-kinship
placement
Valid
Years worked in child welfare setting
Frequency Percent Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Agree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Agree
1
33.3
33.3
33.3
Strongly Agree
2
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
100.0
93
Table 23
A child in a Kinship placement will engage in more social interactions than a non-kinship
placement
Valid
Years worked in child welfare setting
Frequency
Percent Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
33.3
33.3
33.3
Agree
1
33.3
33.3
66.7
Strongly Agree
1
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
100.0
94
Table 24
A child in a Kinship placement will have a better sense of spirituality than a non-kinship
placement
Years worked in child welfare setting
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
33.3
33.3
33.3
Strongly Agree
2
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
100.0
95
Table 25
A child in a Kinship placement will be more involved in extracurricular activities than a
non-kinship placement
Years worked in child welfare setting
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
Disagree
1
33.3
33.3
33.3
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
2
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
6.00
Valid
8.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
2
66.7
66.7
66.7
Strongly Agree
1
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
100.0
96
Table 26
A child in a Kinship placement will display more healthy behaviors than a non-kinship
placement
Valid
Years worked in child welfare setting
Frequency
Percent Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
2
66.7
66.7
66.7
Agree
1
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Strongly Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
5.00
6.00
Valid
Valid
8.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Agree
2
66.7
66.7
66.7
Strongly Agree
1
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
100.0
97
Table 27
A child in a Kinship placement will more likely have more positive outcomes than a nonkinship placement
Years worked in child welfare setting
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
33.3
33.3
33.3
Agree
2
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
3
100.0
100.0
5.00
Valid
6.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
1
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
2
100.0
100.0
14.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.00
Valid
Agree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.00
Valid
Strongly Agree
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.00
Valid
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
98
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Currently our child welfare system is flooded with over a half a million children
in need of a permanent home (Fechter-Leggett & O'Brien, 2010). State and federal
policy are favoring kinship care (Park & Helton, 2010). While the amount of children in
our child welfare system has increased, the amount of non-kinship care placements has
decreased (Schwartz, 2007). With the current status of our child welfare system it is
important to examine kinship care and non-kinship care and the positive outcomes that
accompany these types of care. It’s also important to examine how professional child
welfare workers feel about kinship care versus non-kinship care and which type of care
yields more positive outcomes. A child welfare workers opinion regarding placement
can impact the outcome of the child’s success.
This researcher conducted an exploratory quantitative study that examined the
attitudes and beliefs of child welfare professionals, employed or interning at Lilliput
Children’s Services. Participants were surveyed about their personal attitudes and beliefs
about kinship care versus non-kinship care and its positive outcomes. This study
specifically surveyed professional BASW, MSW, LCSW, MFT and LMFT employee’s at
Lilliput Children’s Services. Lilliput is a non-profit organization with several locations
in Sacramento and outlying counties.
99
Approximately 24% of the children in our child welfare system are living in
kinship foster care placements (Koh, 2010). In California alone we have seen the number
of children in kinship care double from 1988 to 2000 (Ryan, Hong et al, 2010). In 2004
there was an estimated 122, 528 children living in kinship care in the United States
(Taussig & Clyman, 2011). With the growing number of children in the child welfare
system it’s important to evaluate placement options and which type of placement will
result in the most positive outcomes for the child.
Kinship care has been the primary means of care for children in other countries
but it has not been practiced for an extensive period of time in the United States (Koh,
2010). Lately the trend has been federal and state policy leaning towards kinship care
(Park & Helton, 2010). The Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 places emphasis
on kin care by stating that a relative caregiver who can meet the needs of the child
according to state child protection standards should be given preference over non-kin
caregivers (Park & Helton, 2010).
Some studies reported that kinship care placements offer more placement stability
than non-kinship care placements (Koh, 2010). Positive outcomes are thought to be a
result of kinship care because of the connectedness and the continuity of care the child
receives (Ryan, Hong et al, 2010). While several studies have had similar findings other
studies have had opposite findings. Some of the negative outcomes associated with
kinship care were increased substance use, delinquency, risky sexual behavior, poor
grades, more risky behaviors, arrests and tickets (Taussig & Clyman, 2011). There are
100
two main concerns that child welfare professionals have regarding kinship caregivers
which include the differences in character and neighborhood characteristics (Ryan, Hong
et al, 2010). These characteristics can negatively impact the child.
The current foster care system leaves children facing many obstacles to overcome
and it is important to assess whether or not kinship care may lead to more positive
outcomes for children in our foster care system. This researcher examined the attitudes
and beliefs of professional child welfare employee’s and interns at Lilliput Children’s
Services and their views as to whether or not kinship care is a better alternative to nonkinship care because it yields more positive outcomes for children. Prior to this study
Lilliput did not have research data regarding the attitudes and beliefs Lilliput Children’s
Services employees have about kinship care versus non-kinship care and their positive
outcomes.
The purpose of the study was to examine the attitudes and beliefs of Lilliput
Children’s Services employees and interns and how they feel about kinship care versus
non-kinship care and the positive outcomes associated with them. This study also
evaluated which type of care they think yields more positive outcomes for children. The
research data collected helped Lilliput management to evaluate whether or not they felt
that Lilliput’s employees and intern’s attitudes and beliefs were aligned with the current
data and literature available. It also allowed Lilliput Children’s Services to evaluate
whether or not employees attitudes and beliefs are in accordance with Lilliput’s mission
and policies and procedures.
101
The first major question was, “Do Lilliput Children’s Service’s employees and
interns think that a kinship placement should be considered before a non-kinship
placement?” The findings show that all Lilliput employees and interns either agreed or
strongly agreed that a kinship placement should be considered for a child before a nonkinship placement. The next major question was, “Would it be beneficial to implement
kinship training on the pros and cons of positive outcomes for children in kinship care for
Lilliput staff?” Implementing training for Lilliput Children’s Services staff would be
beneficial. Staff answered that they neither agreed nor disagreed to several of the
questions on the survey. More knowledge in the area of kinship care versus non-kinship
and the positive outcomes could help improve staff’s knowledge and understanding of the
subject matter. The next major question was, “Could staff knowledge about kinship
placements and its outcomes potentially impact the child’s placement?” Staff knowledge
about kinship placements and the potential outcomes can greatly impact the child’s
placement. The literature and federal legislation currently favor kinship care over nonkinship care. Depending on the knowledge that staff has they may favor kinship or nonkinship care which can directly impact the child’s outcome. The next major question
was, “Do the amount of years working in a child welfare setting impact the employee’s
attitude and beliefs about kinship care and non-kinship care?” There was a trend with
certain questions that the longer the individual had worked in child welfare services the
more likely they were to agree with the statements in the questionnaire. This was not true
for every question so this would be a specific area where more research would need to be
102
done. The final major question was, “Do variables such as age and academic degree
influence the individuals’ attitude and beliefs about kinship care and non-kinship care?”
Variables such as age and academic degree do impact an individual’s attitudes and beliefs
about kinship care. The older the individual is, the more likely that they will have an
increased amount of years working in child welfare. The more years that the individual
has worked in a child welfare setting the more they may favor kinship care over nonkinship care. These findings are very limited and more research would need to be done.
Please refer to Chapter 4 for results.
The research does show that over the last few decades the amount of children in
kinship care has grown (Schwartz, 2007). State and federal policy have shifted towards
the favor of kinship care (Park & Helton, 2010). Research currently shows mixed
findings about kinship care versus non-kinship care and the positive outcomes. A large
portion of the literature favors kinship care and believes that this type of care will result
in more positive outcomes for the child.
This researcher found that all Lilliput Children’s Services employees and interns
do believe that a kinship placement should be considered for a child before a non-kinship
placement. These results mean that the individuals who participated are all in accordance
with The Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 which states that relative caregivers
who can meet the needs of the children should be given preference over non-kinship
caregivers (Park & Helton, 2010). The way child welfare professionals view kinship care
versus non-kinship care can impact the outcome for the child.
103
The researcher also found that employees and interns at Lilliput Children’s
Services had mixed feelings about the majority of the statements regarding positive
outcomes of the child being in kinship care versus non-kinship care. This shows that
Lilliput employees and interns need more education and training regarding the positive
outcomes of kinship care versus non-kinship care.
Delimitations included that the researcher did not survey children or measure their
positive outcomes. This researcher did not survey any child welfare workers outside of
Lilliput Children’s Services. This researcher did not survey individuals that she regularly
works with at her internship. Next time this researcher would sample more males, only
one male participated in the study which made the researcher unable to evaluate the way
the questionnaire was answered based on sex.
This researcher recommends that Lilliput Children’s Services employees receive
further training about kinship care versus non-kinship care and the positive outcomes.
This researcher also recommends that further research be done about the attitudes and
beliefs of professional child welfare workers including those who work at Child
Protective Services.
104
APPENDICES
105
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate in Research Study
You’re being asked to voluntarily participate in a research study being conducted by Angelica
Banuelos, an MSW student with the Division of Social Work at California State University,
Sacramento. You may refuse to participate or discontinue participation at any time.
This study is intended to assess professionals who work in service agencies that work with
children who may be in kinship or non-kinship care. This study will examine their feelings and
attitudes about the benefits and disadvantages of kinship care versus non-kinship care. If you agree to
take part in this research, you will be asked to complete a single questionnaire. This will take about 15
minutes.
You may experience some emotional discomfort as a result of filling out the questionnaire. Feel
free to skip any questions you are not comfortable answering. By filling out this questionnaire you
may learn more about your personal attitudes and beliefs towards kin-ship care and non-kinship care.
If you should feel any discomfort from filling out this questionnaire please contact Sacramento County
Mental Health Services at 916-875-1000.
In return for your participation, you will be compensated with a $3 gift card to either Starbuck’s or
Jamba Juice. If you do not wish to participate in this study, you will not be compensated.
Only the researcher Angelica Banuelos will have access to the research questionnaires. To make
sure your participation is confidential, please do not disclose any identifying information such as your
name, address or telephone number. Your questionnaire will temporarily be stored in a manila
envelope for transportation. It will then be locked in a file cabinet that I will only have access to.
Upon completion of the study, questionnaires will be shredded by me and will be thrown away.
Questions regarding this research study should be directed to the primary investigator Angelica
Banuelos; she can be reached via email at angiebanuelos@yahoo.com or by phone 916-296-7831. Her
advisor Dr. David Demetral, Ph.D, & LCSW, Professor, Division of Social Work can be reached via
phone at 916-278-7168. You will receive a copy of this consent form.
I certify that I have read this form and volunteer to participate in this research study.
Print Name: _________________________________
Signature: _________________________________
Date: _________________
106
APPENDIX B
Research Questionnaire
The purpose of this study is to survey BASWs, MSWs, LCSWs, MFTs and LMFT’s
working at Lilliput Children’s Services. This study will examine your attitude and
beliefs about kinship care and non-kinship care. This survey will help the researcher to
better understand how child welfare professionals feel about kinship care and non-kinship
care. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
For the purpose of this research study The Child Welfare League of America will define
“kinship Care”:
The full time care, nurturing and protection of children by relatives, members of their
tribes or clans, godparents, stepparents, or any adult who has a kinship bond with a
child. (This includes adoption or foster care placement of a child with kin)
For the purpose of this research study The Child Welfare League of America will define
“Non-Kinship Care”:
This includes traditional adoptions and foster care arrangements that don’t involve kin.
Please circle the response that best fits your answer:
1. What sex do you identify with?
Female
Male
2. What is your current age?
18-24
25-32
33-40
41-50
51-64
3. What is your current academic level or degree?
65 and Up
BASW
MSW
LCSW
MFT
LMFT
Other
4. Have you ever worked, volunteered or interned in a position where you were exposed
to Non-Kinship Care?
Yes
No
5. Have you ever worked, volunteered or interned in a position where you were exposed
to Kinship Care?
Yes
No
6. How many years have you worked in child welfare setting that involved kinship care and
non-kinship care?
107
Using the Likert Scale, please check ( ) the answer that best fits how you feel about
the following statements.
7. A kinship placement should be considered for a child before a non-kinship placement.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
8. A kinship placement will offer a more secure attachment for a child than a non-kinship
placement.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
9. A child in a kinship placement may have greater academic achievement than a child in a
non-kinship placement.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
10. A child in a kinship placement will have a more positive self-esteem than a child in nonkinship care.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
108
11. A child in a kinship placement will engage in more social interactions with his/her peers
than a child in non-kinship care.
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Disagree
nor disagree
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
12. A child in a kinship placement will have a better sense of spirituality than a child in nonkinship care.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
13. A child in a kinship placement will be more involved in extracurricular activities than a
child in non-kinship care.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
14. A child in a kinship placement will display more healthy behaviors than a child in nonkinship care.
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Disagree
nor disagree
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
15. A child in a kinship placement will more likely have more positive outcomes than a child
in non-kinship care.
Strongly
Disagree
( )
Disagree
(
)
Neither agree
nor disagree
( )
END
Thank you for your time!
Agree
(
)
Strongly agree
(
)
109
REFERENCES
Addison, K., & Richardson, N. (2005). Black adoptions on the rise. Black Enterprise,
36(4), 44. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
adoption. (n.d.). Mirriam-Webster Online dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adoption
Belanger, K., Copeland, S., & Cheung, M. (2008). The role of faith in adoption:
Achieving positive adoption outcomes for African American children. Child
Welfare, 87(2), 99-123. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Crumbley, J., & Little, R. L. (1997). Relatives raising children. Arlington: Child Welfare
League of America, Inc.
Cuddeback, G. S. (2004). Kinship family foster care: a methodological and substantive
synthesis of research. Children & Youth Services Review, 26(7), 623-639.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.01.014
Denby, R. W. (2011). Kinship liaisons: A peer-to-peer approach to supporting kinship
caregivers. Children & Youth Services Review, 33(2), 217-225.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.004
Fechter-Leggett, M. O., & O'Brien, K. (2010). The effects of kinship care on adult mental
health outcomes of alumni of foster care. Children & Youth Services Review,
32(2), 206-213. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.017
110
Fernandez, E. (2009). Children's wellbeing in care: Evidence from a longitudinal study of
outcomes. Children & Youth Services Review, 31(10), 1092-1100.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.010
Gleeson, J. P., Wesley, J. M., Ellis, R., Seryak, C., Talley, G., & Robinson, J. (2009).
Becoming involved in raising a relative's child: reasons, caregiver motivations
and pathways to informal kinship care. Child & Family Social Work, 14(3), 300310. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00596.x
Hegar, R. (2009). Kinship care and sibling placement: Child behavior, family
relationships, and school outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(6),
670-679. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.01.002
Kelley, S. J., Whitley, D. M., & Campos, P. E. (2010). Grandmothers raising
grandchildren: Results of an intervention to improve health outcomes. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 42(4), 379-386. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01371.x
Koh, E. (2010). Permanency outcomes of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care:
Testing the external validity of kinship effects. Children & Youth Services
Review, 32(3), 389-398. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.010
McNown Johnson, M., & Rhodes, R. (2010). Human behavior and the larger social
environment. Boston: Pearson.
Megahead, H. A., & Cesario, S. (2008). Family foster care, kinship networks, and
residential care of abandoned infants in Egypt. Journal of Family Social Work,
11(4), 463-477. doi:10.1080/10522150802428418
111
Mennen, F. E., Brensilver, M., & Trickett, P. K. (2010). Do maltreated children who
remain at home function better than those who are placed? Children & Youth
Services Review, 32(12), 1675-1682. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.010
Merritt, D. H. (2008). Placement preferences among children living in foster or kinship
care: A cluster analysis. Children & Youth Services Review, 30(11), 1336-1344.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.04.002
Metzger, J. (2008). Resiliency in children and youth in kinship care and family foster
care. Child Welfare, 87(6), 115-140. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Mooradian, J. K., Cross, S. L., & Stutzky, G. R. (2006). Across generations: Culture,
history, and policy in the social ecology of American Indian grandparents
parenting their grandchildren. Journal of Family Social Work, 10(4), 81-101.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Park, J., & Helton, J. (2010). Transitioning from informal to formal substitute care
following maltreatment investigation. Children & Youth Services Review, 32(7),
998-1003. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.027
Ryan, J. P., Hong, J., Herz, D., & Hernandez, P. M. (2010). Kinship foster care and the
risk of juvenile delinquency. Children & Youth Services Review, 32(12), 18231830. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.003
Ryan, S. D., Hinterlong, J., Hegar, R. L., & Johnson, L. B. (2010). Kin adopting kin: In
the best interest of the children? Children & Youth Services Review, 32(12), 16311639. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.06.013
112
Royse, D. (2008). Research methods in social work. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole.
Service, T. A. (2007). An Internet based statewide directory of agencies providing help to
those in need. Nashville, TN: Tennhelp.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HDDS). (2005, May 18). Report to the
Congress on kinship foster care. Washington, DC: Author.
Schwartz, A. (2007). “Caught” versus “taught”: Ethnic identity and the ethnic
socialization experiences of African American adolescents in kinship and nonkinship foster placements. Children & Youth Services Review, 29(9), 1201-1219.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.006
Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2008). Retrospective and concurrent predictors of the mental health
of children in care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 1-25.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.014
Taussig, H. N., & Clyman, R. B. (2011). The relationship between time spent living with
kin and adolescent functioning in youth with a history of out-of-home placement.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(1), 78-86. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.09.001
Television commercial on statistics of children in foster care. (2010, May). Sacramento,
CA, United States of America.
Zastrow, C., & Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2007). Understanding human behavior and the
social environment. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
113
Zeltin, A., Weinberg, L., & Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education outcomes for children
in foster care: Intervention by an education liaison. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 9(4), 421-429. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier
database.
Zinn, A. (2009). Foster family characteristics, kinship, and permanence. Social Service
Review, 83(2), 185-219. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.