BENEFITS, TRENDS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF KINSHIP CARE
IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Trudy Mallory
SPRING
2014
BENEFITS, TRENDS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF KINSHIP CARE
IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
A Project
by
Trudy Mallory
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Trudy Mallory
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.
__________________________, Division Chair
Robin Kennedy, Ph.D.
Division of Social Work
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
BENEFITS, TRENDS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF KINSHIP CARE
IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
by
Trudy Mallory
This study focuses upon the growing placement of foster care children in kinship
placements. With an emphasis on the family preservation model and the growth of
kinship care foster placements by Child Protective Services (CPS), it is necessary to
analyze the accessible and beneficial programs available to these families. Policies,
agencies and community programs have adapted to the growth of kinship families;
however, the effectiveness and accessibility of these programs to kinship families has yet
to be analyzed. The research for this project examines past and present policies affecting
kinship foster care families in the United States, specifically in California. The project
centralizes on Sacramento County. The research contained in this project is based upon a
qualitative, descriptive approach. Sacramento County CPS social workers providing
direct case management were asked to participate in the research. The majority of
participants have approximately one-quarter of their caseload occupied by kinship foster
care placements. Based on the experiences of these social workers, it was identified that
the main resource needed by kinship foster caregivers is financial support. Many of the
barriers identified by these social workers, and explained more thoroughly over the
course of this project, were linked to the lack of monetary aid. A surprising outcome of
iv
the study is the grave need for social and familial support services to these families.
While the researchers’ general hypothesis of a need for additional resources was
sustained, the multitude of available resources to these families in the Sacramento County
region disproved the academic research stating otherwise.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense.
Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't.
And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be.
And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
-Lewis Carroll
Through The Looking-Glass (1871)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments ………………………………….………………………………. vi
List of Tables………………………………….……………………………….……. xi
List of Figures………………………………….……………………………….…... xii
Chapter
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ………………………………………..…... 1
Background of the Problem…………………………………………....2
Statement of the Research Problem……………………………………3
Study Purpose ………………………………………………………...4
Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………….5
Definition of Terms …………………………………………………...6
Assumptions …………………………………………………………..6
Social Work Research Justification...………………………………….6
Study Limitations ……………………………………………………..7
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………….……8
History of Kinship Care ………………………………………………9
Indian Child Welfare Act – ICWA (1978) ……………………10
Miller v. Youakim (1979) ……………………………………..10
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (1980) …….........11
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (1996) ………………............……............12
vii
Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) ……............……...…12
Demographics …………………………………………………….......13
Race ……………………………………………………..........13
Income, Employment and Education …………………………14
Age and Health ……………………………………………….16
Overview of Child Demographics ……………………………17
Needs of Kinship Caregivers ………………………………………....17
Financial Aid …………………………………………………18
General Services ……………………………………………...19
Social Support ………………………………………………..20
Education ……………………………………………………..22
Current Policies ……………………………………………………....23
State of California …………………………………………….24
Sacramento County …………………………………………..26
Overview of Existing Service Gaps ………………………………….27
Local Programs …………………………………………….....29
Worker Perceptions of Kinship Services and Kinship Caregivers….....30
3. METHODS……………………………………………………………………….33
Study Objectives ……………………………………………………...33
Study Design ………………………………………………………….34
Sampling Procedures …………………………………………………35
Data Collection Procedures …………………………………………..36
viii
Instruments …………………………………………………...............37
Data Analysis …………………………………………………............37
Protection of Human Subjects ………………………………………..38
4. STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ………………………………..........40
Demographics………………………………………………...……….40
Overall Findings ………………………………………………...........43
Academics………………………………………………..…...44
Visitation………………………………………………..…….46
Kin-GAP………………………………………………..…….47
Requested Resources…………………………………………49
Caregivers Accessibility to Resources………………………..50
Resources Pertinent to Placement Stability……………..……56
Interpretations of the Findings ……………………………………….57
Academics……………………………………………….……57
Visitation………………………………………………..…….58
Kin-GAP………………………………………………..…….58
Requested Resources…………………………………………59
Caregivers’ Accessibility to Resources……………………….59
Resources Pertinent to Placement Stability……………..……60
Summary ………………………………………………...……….......60
5. CONCLUSION, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ……………........61
Summary of Study ……………………………………………..……..61
ix
Implications for Social Work ………………………………………...65
Recommendations ……………………………………………..……..67
Limitations ……………………………………………..………….....68
Conclusion ……………………………………………..………….....69
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research …....……..…………......……..…70
Appendix B. Kinship Questionnaire …....……..…………......……..………….......72
Appendix C. Protocol for the Protection of Human Subjects Approval Letter.…….76
Appendix D. Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services
Research Review Committee Approval Letter………......……..…….77
References …....………………………………………..…………...........................78
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Table 1 Requested Resources by Kinship Caregivers……………………....50
2. Table 2 Are Resources Being Accessed? Are Needs Being Met?..................54
3. Table 3 Pertinent Resources to Placement Stability with Kin Caregivers…..57
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Figure 1 Participant Locations………….……………………………………….41
2. Figure 2 Participants Self-Identified Ethnicity and Gender…………………….42
3. Figure 3 Assigned Participant Case Placements………………………………...43
4. Figure 4 Academic Resources…………………………………………….……..45
5. Figure 5 Kinship Caregivers’ Ability to Access IEPs…………………………...46
6. Figure 6 Visitation Barriers……………………………………………………...47
7. Figure 7 Kinship Caregivers Interested in Kin-GAP……………………………48
8. Figure 8 Barriers Present to Kinship Caregivers Accessing Kin-GAP…………49
9. Figure 9 Kinship Caregivers Afflicted by a Health Condition………………….51
10. Figure 10 Kinship Caregivers Requesting Educational, Parenting-Focused
Resources………………………………………………………...…………..….52
11. Figure 11 Benefits to Kinship Caregivers to Accessing Educational,
Parenting-Focused Resources………………………………………...….……...52
12. Figure 12 Kinship Caregivers’ Request for Financial Assistance……………….53
13. Figure 13 Gaps in Services……………………………………………………...55
xii
1
Chapter 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Child Protective Services (CPS) exists to aid in the safety, protection and wellbeing of children. Since the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978,
and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, CPS has begun to focus
upon the available resources within the family unit and a switch towards a family
preservation model. With this change has come the legal recognition of kinship
placements. Kinship is the placement of a child with a family member other than the
child's biological parents. These caregivers provide similar care for dependent and nondependent children with sometimes limited resources. Unlike traditional foster care
parents, kinship caregivers do not always receive access to resources or are not always
made aware of resources granted to families caring for dependent children. California and
New York have the highest rates of dependent children placed in kinship-foster homes.
Within California, the higher rate of kinship placements has led to the creation of
additional services offered to these caregivers, but many of these resources continue to be
limited or inaccessible to kinship foster families. As alterations in state policy are made,
kinship caregivers continue to nationally lack access to services they are entitled to as a
variation on traditional foster home caregivers. Many kinship homes providing care for
dependent children are lacking in needed resources, such as money and education,
surrounding child care.
Kinship foster care has only recently been recognized as a legal and beneficial
placement option for dependent children. In developing the needs and services for
2
families, however, the battle for resources for kinship care providers has been ongoing
since the 1970’s. This project is meant to examine the needs of kinship foster caregivers,
what resources are available and accessed, and what resources are most beneficial to
kinship caregivers. This project will examine completed questionnaires with Sacramento
County Child Protective Service social workers working with families providing
supervision of dependent children in kinship placements. The questionnaire examined has
been designed specifically to assess the worker’s perception of kinship caregivers’ needs,
available resources, accessed resources and pertinent resources – as well as what barriers
may be present in their ability to access these resources. This project is not meant to
examine the deficiencies of kinship caregivers or service providers but to identify the
gaps in needed resources and what resources are most pertinent to placement stability.
Background of the Problem
Prior to the United States government recognizing kinship care as a legal
placement option for a child dependent on the State, kinship care had been a popular
alternative for many families in which the parents were unable to provide for their
child(ren). Kinship care is rooted in several cultural traditions, including in the African
American community (Smith, Rudolph & Swords, 2002). With the child welfare
emphasis on a family preservation model, kinship placements have become a preference
for dependent children. Despite this stated preference for kinship placements, these
homes have continued to access fewer services and furthered a stigma of insecurity and
instability for dependent children. The existing pathology of kinship networks is rooted in
preconceived opinions surrounding intergenerational dysfunction. With this bias has
3
come a hierarchy in placements, furthering a barrier in funding to kinship specific homes.
Kinship homes are not required to pass foster care licensing, which provides strict
standards regarding the governance of a family’s home. Due to the lack of required
licensing, additional funding is not always accessible due to the stringent licensing
prerequisites not being met. Many kinship caregivers seeking assistance have been
referred to access government welfare programs such as Temporary Aid for Needy
Families (TANF). These programs generally provide payments 50% lower than
traditional foster care reimbursements (Smith, Rudolph & Swords, 2002). While funding
continues to be limited or unavailable, there has been a greater reliance upon these
placements; approximately 51% of dependent California youth having experienced a
kinship placement (Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). With the increase in kinship foster
placements over the last twenty years, the services available for these families’ needs to
be made accessible and increase at a comparable rate so as to not place children into
“state sanctioned poverty” (Hegar & Scannapieco, 1995, p. 213).
Statement of the Research Problem
With the emphasis of the family preservation model and the prevalence of kinship
care placements by Child Protective Services (CPS), accessible and beneficial programs
need to be made readily available to these families. Programs have been created,
including kinship specified units within CPS to aid in the licensing process for these
families. CPS and other government funded programs, however, are not capable of
independently meeting all of the monetary and educational needs of these families.
4
This project will identify government funded services offered to kinship foster
care placements in California and, more specifically, Sacramento County. Select
employees from Sacramento County Child Protective Services working with kinship
foster families will identify their views and opinions of service gaps, families’ ability to
access resources, and what program expansions are most needed for these families.
Study Purpose. The purpose of this study is to identify pertinent services to the
success of kinship foster care placements. With an increase in kinship foster placements,
it is necessary to examine the services being offered to these families. Research has
indicated a lack of needed services, including monetary and education resources.
However, this research has not identified whether or not existing services are beneficial,
accessible or known to kinship foster caregivers. With dependent children in need of
these services it is important to examine how government agencies and recommended
community services are responding to these needs and circumstances.
This study aims to identify the availability of services to kinship foster families
within the state of California. This study will include responses from Sacramento County
Child Protective Services’ employees working directly with kinship foster families. These
employees will identify, from their present experience working with these families, what
resources are most frequently requested, fulfilled and needed for placement stability. The
focus of the study is to identify imperative services currently being offered to kinship
caregivers, as well as where services gaps may exist. Ultimately, this study aims to make
recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services based on its
5
outcomes, identifying programs pertinent to placement stability, resources exemplifying
best practice and value to the client base and where service growth may be necessary.
Theoretical Framework. In identifying a framework from which to work from, it
is necessary to consider the multitude of community resources available, including CPS.
Analyzing the benefits of kinship care from an ecosystems perspective incorporates the
various aspects of community that are affected by the implementation of this form of
placement. Kinship placements naturally focus on the family unit and consider the
positive outcomes of keeping children near their community and culture of origin. The
ecosystems perspective aids in this project by extending kinship foster family services to
include community resources, to which many caregivers of dependent children are
referred. Using this framework emphasizes the purpose of this study: bringing
recognition to existing resources and acknowledgment to needed programs. Ecosystems
theory in application to this project will specifically acknowledge the standpoint of
kinship foster caregivers placement to community services.
In determining the importance of researching this topic, it is necessary to be
critical of the application of traditional developmental theories. It is impossible to
disregard the role of child development theories when examining CPS policies; however,
it is important to be critical of the implications of overarching assumptions surrounding
child development. Taking an alternative approach and focusing on child development
from a strengths perspective allows for a more prevalent focus on resilience amongst
children and their successes upon entering the realm of CPS.
6
Definition of Terms.
Kinship foster care is a dependent child’s placement with a blood relative,
i.
godparent, family friend, or someone with a strong emotional bond to the child by
a CPS employee under the authority of the dependency court system.
ii.
Voluntary kinship is an interchangeable term for kinship foster care; it is a
dependent child’s placement with a blood relative, godparent, family friend, or
someone with a strong emotional bond to the child by a CPS employee under the
authority of the dependency court system.
iii.
Private kinship care is the placement of a child with a blood relative, godparent,
family friend, or someone with a strong emotional bond to the child without the
involvement of CPS or the dependency court system. Private kinship care has
been referred to as “informal kinship care” but for the purposes of this study it
will be referred to as private kinship care (Geen, 2004).
Assumptions. Assumptions of the researcher in completing this project are rooted
in the belief that kinship care is more valuable to dependent children than traditional
foster care. This position includes believing that kinship foster care is a valuable
alternative resource to traditional foster care and should be funded and supported
accordingly.
Social Work Research Justification. The field of social work involves working
with a variety of different clients, from children to the elderly. Kinship foster care
involves placement of dependent children into homes of extended family members, often
those who are involved within the welfare system themselves. In researching kinship
7
placements, many children are placed with elderly women who are physically
handicapped (Gleenson, 1996). Kinship foster placement encapsulates working with both
dependent children as well as adults seeking services and the general community.
Examining this community is important to the field of social work as it analyzes current
methods of intervention while researching improvements to exemplify best practice.
Study Limitations. The scale of this research project is one of this project’s largest
limitations. While California provides kinship care to dependent minors at some of the
nation’s highest rates, the current research is limited to national policies and state specific
policies. Further, the research will be focused on only one of the states fifty-eight
counties and include the opinions and responses from participating Sacramento County
Child Protective Services’ workers. This project is meant to be an accumulation of
worker perceptions regarding services and families' access to resources, not a compilation
of existing services. This research is further limited on a time scale as it will involve only
a limited number of responses from currently employed individuals working with kinship
families in Dependency Units, available during March 2014. Due to the limitations of the
research, all conclusions and recommendations listed in the proposal will be confined to
the potential benefit of Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services,
Child Protective Services’ division.
8
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Kinship care is a relatively new policy development to, and growing section of,
public child welfare services. Kinship foster care within the parameters of this project
will be viewed as relatives caring for children without the legal parents’ support as
mandated through dependency court. While the premise of kinship care has long been
present in various cultures, it has recently become one of the fastest and largest sectors of
the public child welfare system. The development of kinship care as a formal option for
dependent children has led to much discussion but limited research. What has been
identified, however, is the great need for services to aid these families participating in
both kinship foster care and private kinship care. The literature review portion of this
project has been divided into six sections analyzing various components of kinship care.
The first section will analyze the development of kinship care as a legally recognized
placement for dependent children. Next, the population of children placed into kinship
foster care and the demographics of caregivers will be examined. The third section will
review the available research on the needs of kinship foster caregivers. The fourth section
will examine the available services to these families and what service gaps may exist; this
section will also include information regarding the steady increase in kinship foster care
and the minimal amount of services offered specifically to these families. The fifth
section will analyze current policies affecting and benefiting kinship caregivers from a
national, state and county perspective. The sixth and final section of the literature review
will examine research completed on worker perceptions and the relevance of worker
9
perceptions to kinship foster caregivers. This section will scrutinize available services in
Sacramento County and analyze how these services have been adapted to provide the
needs of these families.
History of Kinship Care
The child welfare system is comprised of multiple components that work towards
the safety and well-being of children. When an investigator decides that a family’s
situation is unstable and there is an imminent threat towards a child, the child may be
placed into protective custody. Once a child is placed into protective custody, the child is
considered a dependent of the state. These dependents are often required to stay with
strangers, through an organization providing shelter or a private home. These homes are
required to go through rigorous training and licensing in order to have children placed
into their care. According to Jed Metzger, a professor of social work at Nazareth College,
there has been a drastic increase in the number of children in need of foster placements
since 1985 (Metzger, 2008). The increase in needed foster care housing overburdened the
system and the notion of formal kinship care began to rise. With child welfare shifts
towards a family-centered model, kinship care began to be recognized as a formal
alternative to traditional foster care (Metzger, 2008). Metzger cites several legal moves
advocating for kinship care, including the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, the United
States Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Youakim in 1979, the Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, and the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997.
10
Indian Child Welfare Act – ICWA (1978)
Professors Hegar and Scannapieco have completed a great deal of research in the
realm of kinship care and its legal development through the late 1900s. One of the earliest
recognized legislative enactments stating direct preference for relative placement is the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (Hegar & Scannapieco, 1995). ICWA was intended to
be a direct response to the over-representation of Native American children in the foster
care system as well as the encroaching annihilation of an entire group of people and
culture due to years of systematic appropriation (Hegar & Scannapieco, 1995). ICWA
was the first legislation that placed preference for relatives upon a family's intervention
by dependency court (Hegar & Scannapieco, 1995). The act specifically created a list of
appropriate placements for Native American children giving priority to kinship foster
care placements whenever possible (Hegar & Scannapieco, 1995).
Miller v. Youakim (1979)
In an article by Dr. Gleeson, a professor at Jane Addams College of Social Work
in Chicago, the events leading up to the formal recognition of kinship foster care were
analyzed. One such event involved a Supreme Court decision that originated in Northern
Illinois. In 1976, an Illinois District Court stated that relative homes were excluded from
the definition of foster care homes and were therefore not entitled to foster care funding
(Gleeson, 1996). The decision was taken to the United States Supreme Court; who ruled
relatives providing care for children under state custody (within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile courts) were eligible for the same financial support as non-relative, licensed,
foster parents (Gleeson, 1996). The Supreme Court stipulated kinship care families were
11
required to seek the same licensing standards to receive those financial backings – an
option that is rarely afforded to kinship caregivers (Gleeson, 1996). The ruling of Miller
v. Youakim marked the first federal recognition of kinship foster care as a viable
placement, eligible for the same regulations and privileges as traditional foster care
(Gleeson, 1996).
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (1980)
Kernan and Lansford are researchers at the Center for Child and Family Policy. In
their analysis of recent child welfare acts, they were able to identify legislation largely
impacting the functioning of modern day child welfare systems - specifically, that of
kinship foster care. The 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act stated that
social workers were to make reasonable efforts to maintain a parent’s custody of a child
prior to the child's removal (Kernan & Lansford, 2004). The act was created to respond to
the high number of children being placed in protective custody, and began the child
welfare approach of family-centered practice (Kernan & Lansford, 2004). The new policy
focused upon reunification during circumstances of dependency court intervention.
Immediately following the enactment of the bill, there was a drastic reduction in the
number of children in the foster care system (Kernan & Lansford, 2004). This act is
relevant to the development of kinship foster care as it lists the importance of
permanency planning for children and reflects on the importance of identifying and
exhausting family connections prior to seeking placement within traditional foster care
settings (Kernan & Lansford, 2004).
12
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996)
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
was meant to offer an alternative solution to the “foster care drift” occurring during the
late 1980s and early 1990s; defined by Strijker, Knorth and Knot-Discksheit as the
movement of a child from one placement to another without consideration for
permanency through adoption, reunification or guardianship. The foster care drift began
as the child welfare system became burdened with another, drastic increase in the rates of
children entering the system (Strijker, Knorth & Knot-Dickscheit, 2008). Children
entering the system were moved from one placement to another for reasons such as
difficulty in adjustment and problematic behavior (Strijker, Knorth & Knot-Dickscheit,
2008). This constant movement in placement resulted in a lowered rate of reunification
and higher psychological consequences for minors (Strijker, Knorth & Knot-Dickscheit,
2008).
Scannapieco and Hegar noted that PROWRA, “amended federal law to require
that states give priority to relatives when deciding with whom to place children in the
foster care system” (p. 316). This included requirements to incorporate kinship foster care
into the traditional foster care model for states in order to maintain federal funding
(Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). The development of PROWRA was then expanded in
1997 with the enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997)
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) was created to end the foster care
drift and set deadlines for a child's time spent in the foster care system (Scannapieco &
13
Hegar, 2002). This included the creation of a time frame for the termination of parental
rights (Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). Social workers were allotted approximately twentytwo months to identify a plan of permanency for a child; ASFA allowed for states to
determine whether or not termination of parental rights was necessary if a child is placed
with kin (Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). In some instances, application of ASFA allowed
for guardianship (the long-term, legal placement of a child in kinship care) to be federally
recognized as a viable permanency option – allowing for continued placement stability of
a child with a family who might not have the financial resources to meet the requirements
for adoption (Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002). These clauses to ASFA were left to the states’
discretion: with over 50% of all dependent children in California having experienced at
least one kinship placement, California allowed for guardianship to be viewed as a
permanency option eligible for federal licensing waivers (Scannapieco & Hegar, 2002).
Demographics
As previously noted, kinship foster care is relatively new to the foster care
system. Kinship care has long been recognized as an alternative placement for children
by many cultures. In identifying the demographics of kinship caregivers, there appears to
be a distinct trend that matches that of poverty and oppression in the United States. It is
important to notice these factors and the roles they play in this sector of foster care and
the ways in which services and financial support are allocated.
Race
Smith and Devore, researchers from Syracruse University's School of Social
Work, conducted a study in 2004 measuring the disproportionality of children of color in
14
the foster care system. This study displayed the over-inclusion of African American
children in both the dependency court and the kinship foster care systems (Smith &
Devore, 2004). This disproportionality in kinship care is partially credited to the culture
of African American families and the traditions of kin care and value of close family units
(Smith & Devore, 2004). Smith and Devore discuss the need to monitor the
overrepresentation of minority races in the foster care system and the undertones of
racism, classism, and prejudice associated with this disproportionality. This
disproportionality is discussed by noting that children of color are more likely to be
reported and have higher long-term rates of foster care; this is partially due to the taboo
surrounding mixed race adoptions (Smith & Devore, 2004). The majority of kinship
caregivers continue to identify as African American; however, Caucasian families make
up the second largest percentage of kinship foster caregivers (Smith & Devore, 2004).
Income, Employment and Education
With the biases and over-reporting of families facing extreme poverty, it is
unsurprising that Professor Farmer from the University of Bristol would find similar
results among kinship caregivers. In a study examining kinship placements in 2009,
Farmer was able to identify the extent to which poverty impacts kinship families. In most
states, kinship families are not offered waivers to pass foster care licensing standards
which would allow the families to receive federal funding (Farmer, 2009 A). This leaves
many kinship caregivers without financial aid despite grave hardships (Farmer, 2009 A).
Kinship foster caregivers are encouraged to apply for welfare, such as Temporary Aid to
Needy Families, instead of taking the necessary procedural steps to receive significantly
15
more funding through foster care licensing (Farmer, 2009 A). Some kinship caregivers
struggle to make financial choices once a child is placed into their care (Farmer, 2009 A).
These kinship caregivers are met with accusations that they do not care for their family
and that they are not entitled to public support despite clear research that kinship
placements are far more beneficial for the children and families of the foster care system
(Farmer, 2009 A).
In a separate study completed by Geen, a researcher for Princeton University, it
was found that 39% of kinship foster caregivers are below the income poverty line,
compared to only 13% of licensed foster homes (Geen, 2004). Geen examined the
employment status of kinship foster caregivers and found various inconclusive
discrepancies. Of this completed research, it was determined that a minimum of 10% of
kinship foster caregivers were retired (Geen, 2004). Additionally, a majority of kinship
foster caregivers have less formal education than traditional foster caregivers; 32% of
kinship foster caregivers have less than a high school education (Geen, 2004). In
examining the household wages, it was found that many (48-62%) of the kinship foster
caregivers were single compared to less than 38% of traditional foster caregivers,
lowering the total possible household income (Geen, 2004). With the lack of financial
resources, employment, income, education and number of household wage earners, it is
clear to see how poverty is a predominant issue for kinship caregivers (Farmer, 2009 A;
Geen, 2004).
16
Age and Health
Kinship foster caregivers encompass a wide range of individuals, including both
extended family and friends (Farmer, 2009 B). The largest group of kinship caregivers is
grandparents, totaling 45% of all kinship placements (Farmer, 2009 B). The second
largest group, 32%, includes aunts and uncles, followed by family friends at 18%
(Farmer, 2009 B). Due to the high percentage of grandparents as kinship caregivers, the
average age of kinship caregivers is higher than those of traditional foster care parents.
Roughly 15-21% of kinship caregivers are over the age of 60, compared to less than 9%
of traditional foster care parents (Farmer, 2009 B). Due to this age difference, kinship
foster caregivers tend to have more health issues, 38% experiencing a limiting health
condition or disability (Farmer, 2009 B).
A separate study by Goertzen, Chan and Wolfson found comparable results
including elder caregivers in poor health. This study was more expansive, noting that
many kinship caregivers are afflicted by stress due to lack of financial support, emotional
support and a sense of social isolation and pervasive feelings of being overwhelmed
(Goertzen, Chan & Wolfson, n.d.). In noting the emotional concerns afflicting these
caregivers health, it is not surprising that kinship caregivers experience higher levels of
depression (Goertzen, Chan & Wolfson, n.d.). Both studies stated that kinship caregivers
frequently lack the resources and accessibility to seek medical treatment for themselves
(Farmer 2009 B; Goertzen, Chan & Wolfson, n.d.).
17
Overview of Child Demographics
In a study completed by a group of researchers from San Diego's Children
Hospital - Leslie, Landsverk, Horton, Ganger and Newton - the experiences of children in
kinship foster care placements were examined. During this study, it was found that the
majority of the children placed in kinship care are younger than those placed into
traditional foster care (Leslie et al., 2000). The authors note that the younger the children
placed with kin are, the fewer placement changes the children experience (Leslie et al.,
2000). Matching their adult counterparts, the majority of children placed in kinship foster
care identify as African American, followed by Caucasian and Hispanic (Leslie et al.,
2000). There is no significant statistical difference between the numbers of male to the
numbers of female children placed in kinship care versus traditional foster care (Leslie et
al., 2000). Like many of the children receiving intervention through the dependency court
system, children in kinship foster care are in need of greater academic support services,
including Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) (Leslie et al., 2000). Children entering
the foster care system tend to fare better in kinship placements, as the traumatization of
removal from their home of origin is minimized by the familiarity of the kin caregivers
(Leslie et al., 2000).
Needs of Kinship Caregivers
While kinship caregivers tend to have better rates of permanency and have
statistically proven preferred rates for child content and well-being, there continues to be
a shortage in services available to kinship caregivers. Unfortunately, many kinship
caregivers are not afforded the same services offered to traditional foster caregivers.
18
Many kinship caregivers are often called upon with short notice, making it difficult for
families to adjust to the additional child(ren) living in the household (Bartone, Rosenwald
& Bronstein, 2008). These caregivers are often caught off guard with the immediate,
often monetary, needs of the children (Bartone, Rosenwald & Bronstein, 2008). The
authors Bartone, Rosenwald and Bronstein were able to identify four major areas of need
for kinship caregivers, including financial support, access to general services, social
support and education surrounding child development.
Financial Aid
In 2007, Authors Palacios and Jimenez conducted a study on kinship foster care
placements. They were able to uncover various discrepancies in the treatment of kinship
foster care families and available services in comparison to traditional foster care
families, specifically within the realm of receiving monetary aid (Palacios & Jimenez,
2009). One of the contributing factors to this discrepancy is the focus on kinship
placements as the first choice when child removal is necessary (Palacios & Jimenez,
2009). The creation of kin as “defacto” parents, or first choice parents, in certain
situations has led to an increase in kinship care placements; however, the original cause
for growth in kinship foster care was the affordability of kinship housing (Palacios &
Jimenez, 2009). Government funded foster homes and group homes cost an exorbitant
amount of money in comparison to placing a child into a kinship foster care home
(Palacios & Jimenez, 2009). This discrepancy was relevant in the case of Miller v.
Youakim when the Supreme Court ruled that kinship foster care homes meeting the
standards of traditional foster care homes are entitled to the same allotment of monies
19
(Gleeson, 1996). Even with this adjustment in federal law, individual states have
implemented an array of standards that can be difficult for typically low-income kinship
homes to meet in order to receive the financial aid (Palacios & Jimenez, 2009).
In an examination of kinship caregivers’ views of child welfare services by Cheng
and Li, they were able to support the findings of Palacios and Jimenez. Cheng and Li
identified that many children are placed into out-of-home care by the child welfare
system and this overload of children has led to the need for additional placement services.
Kinship placements have taken the forefront of these placements; however, they do not
always have access or are aware of their ability to access services, particularly financial
services, as traditional foster care families (Cheng & Li, 2012). Kinship families can be
greatly aided through access to resources such as employment services, mental health
services and other financially demanding programs (Cheng & Li, 2012). Kinship
providers are typically underprepared when a child is placed into their care, and many
monetary items, such as food, clothing, bedding, etc., are not easily accessible; many of
the programs currently in place to aid families under such circumstances are available
directly through welfare or limited to licensed foster care homes (Cheng & Li, 2012).
While families hosting dependent children are permitted to obtain services for the
children, the additional care needed for the families are not always present (Cheng & Li,
2012).
General Services
In a study completed for the Children’s Aid Society in Ontario, Canada, it was
found that oftentimes there are “no universally available financial or community supports
20
for these families, and those who are eligible for financial assistance or other resources
through community programs receive lower levels of support” (Perry, Daly & Kotler,
2011, p. 460). Kin placements are often less likely to receive the same services given to
traditional foster care placements (Perry, Daly & Kotler, 2011). Traditional foster care
placements often receive child welfare monitoring on a monthly basis, where a case
manager social worker will interact with the family and bring needed services and make
necessary arrangements for the welfare of the children placed in the home (Perry, Daly &
Kotler, 2011). According to this particular study, kinship foster care placements are often
overlooked as many social workers assume that kinship care providers are either
uninterested in child welfare intervention or capable of solely providing for the additional
household members (Perry, Daly & Kotler, 2011). This lack of support combined with a
lack of financial and federal resources available to these families has limited the services
these families may access (Perry, Daly & Kotler, 2011). Despite this differentiation of
resources, kinship families continue to have higher rates of reunification with fewer
accommodations (Perry, Daly & Kotler, 2011).
Social Support
Psychologists for a Child and Family Research Group in Spain examined the
development and implementation of foster care and kinship foster care in Spain over the
course of twenty years. In examining the trends, the authors discussed the cultural and
historical grounding for kinship care within the Spanish culture and the related social and
communal support leading to its success (del Valle, Lopez, Montserrat & Bravo, 2009).
As previously stated, kinship care has been an ongoing tradition in many cultures and has
21
functioned as an acceptable alternative to traditional parenting without child welfare
involvement for many years. Within this study, the authors were able to identify not only
higher rates of adoption by kinship caregivers, but also higher rates of reunification with
shorter amounts of time in care (del Valle, Lopez, Montserrat & Bravo, 2009). The study
showed that there was not necessarily a dependency upon relatives but an expectation for
the community to aid the family during troublesome times (del Valle, Lopez, Montserrat
& Bravo, 2009).
A second international study, completed by Anne Black in Scotland, showed the
positive outcomes of kinship care. Similar to the findings of psychologists del Valle,
Lopez, Montserrat and Bravo, the context under which kinship care has been provided is
similar to that of the United States – in identifying demographics, immediate family
needs and community needs (Black, 2009). Unlike the study in Spain, however, Black
made note of the lack of social support from the immediate community. Similar to the
United States, Scotland has only recently begun to use kinship care as a mode of foster
care and continues to modify services to meet the appropriate needs of the caregivers
(Black, 2009). The needs of kinship caregivers, as identified by Black, could be greatly
addressed by providing financial subsidies and through community support systems (e.g.
temporary caregivers, individuals to aid and validate the additional stressors of parenting,
emotional support, etc.). While kinship foster care grows in Scotland, there continues to
be a lag in programs to aid kinship caregivers (Black, 2009).
Kinship foster caregivers are often placed into a relatively volatile situation. In a
domestic study by Cuddeback and Orme, doctorate social work students at the University
22
of Tennessee, several gaps were identified that kinship caregivers must combat in caring
for children placed into their care. The article specifically identified the need for social
and emotional support for kinship caregivers (Cuddeback & Orme, 2002). Kinship
caregivers are at a higher risk of battling anxiety and depression than non-kinship care
providers (Cuddeback & Orme, 2002). As stated previously, kinship caregivers are often
of a lower economic status and have limited access to health care services (Cuddeback &
Orme, 2002). This lack of access to services greatly impacts the general mental and
physical health of these caregivers, which can be severely exaggerated by the lack of
societal support (Cuddeback & Orme, 2002). Kinship caregivers can greatly benefit from
community support, for the betterment of the caregivers’ physical and mental health.
Education
Cuddeback and Orme go on to state that many kinship caregivers can benefit from
education surrounding childhood development. Oftentimes, kinship caregivers are not
offered the same educational resources and trainings that are afforded to traditional foster
care homes (Cuddeback & Orme, 2002). The authors state that issues for kinship
caregivers surrounding a lack of knowledge and understanding of children who have been
placed into protective custody and made a ward of the state can lead to maltreatment
(Cuddeback & Orme, 2002). This lack of education surrounding child development can
also infringe upon communication between child and care provider (Cuddeback & Orme,
2002). Cuddeback and Orme state that educational resources for kinship caregivers can
greatly impact a child’s life and better the relationship between child and care provider.
23
In an article by Eun Koh, a post doctorate research associate, the long-term effects
of kinship care is examined. Koh was able to identify several needs of kinship caregivers,
most specifically the need for educational resources. Koh was able to identify that
educational resources and better understanding of the legal and foster care system lead to
positive permanency outcomes. Kinship caregivers are typically not debriefed as to the
functioning of the child welfare system when a child is placed into their care and may
sometimes lack the resources necessary to obtain that information (Koh, 2010). Providing
kinship caregivers with information regarding not only the functioning of the juvenile and
dependency court system but also child welfare and child development can greatly impact
the success of permanency for these children (Koh, 2010).
Current Policies
Currently, there are no federal policies dictating the services states are required to
offer to kinship caregivers. Consequently, services offered to kinship caregivers vary
drastically from state to state (Smith, Rudolph & Swords, 2002). Smith, Rudolph and
Swords, Professors at Syracuse University, found that while states are held to the
standards of the previously mentioned policies, the availability of services by state are
determined significantly by the number of available kin homes and the percentage of
children placed in those homes (Smith, Rudolph & Swords, 2002). Progressive states
such as New York and California tend to have more liberal policies and a multitude of
services for kinship families but even then the services available to these families are
minimal in comparison to those of traditional foster care homes (Smith, Rudolph &
Swords, 2002).
24
State of California
Within the State of California, kinship care has been a vastly popular and growing
trend amongst child welfare placements (State of California, 2007 A). Any kinship
caregiver of a dependent child in California, has the opportunity to access identical
resources, specifically for the child, which are available to traditional foster caregivers.
Due to the growing population of kinship caregivers, California has extended their
services and developed a Kinship Support Services Program (KSSP). KSSP is available
to California counties that have at least 40% of their dependent children in a relative
home; this currently comprises eleven of the fifty-eight counties in California (State of
California, 2007 A). Programs available through KSSP can offer “support groups, respite,
information and referral, recreation, mentoring/tutoring, provision of furniture, clothing,
and food, transportation, legal assistance, and many other support services needed by kin
families.” (State of California, 2007 A, p. 1) These services are not necessarily offered
through each KSSP; agencies may receive funding for providing these services (State of
California, 2007 A). Kinship caregivers in California meeting the foster care licensing
requirements are available to receive “$425 to $597 per month, depending on the age of
the child.” (State of California, 2007 A, p. 1) Kinship caregivers who do not meet foster
care licensing standards may apply for welfare supplements and receive “a maximum of
$387 per month per child” (State of California, 2007 A, p. 1). These payments are
determined by the federal allotment for child welfare agencies and an exact indicator of
the minimal financial services available to non-foster care licensed caregivers of
dependent children (State of California, 2007 A).
25
In 1998, Senate Bill 1901 provided a voluntary financial allotment for kinship
caregivers (State of California, 2007 B). This bill was expanded in 2006 to increase
permanency and is the current outline for which the Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Payment Program (Kin-GAP) functions (State of California, 2007 B). Kin-GAP is
available to kinship caregivers who are exiting the dependency court / child welfare
system (State of California, 2007 B). This program allows for kinship caregivers to
receive some sort of financial aid once they no longer have access to services provided
through the child welfare system. Presently, Kin-GAP provides “100% of the basic foster
care rate”; however, kinship caregivers exiting the child welfare system are not
automatically qualified to receive funding (State of California, 2007 B, p. 1). In order for
kinship caregivers to access services through Kin-GAP, caregivers must receive a
recommendation from all of the following that apply: court, social worker, probation
officer (State of California, 2007 B). Additional requirements of Kin-GAP include the
child residing with the relative for a minimum of twelve consecutive months as mandated
by the court, establishment of legal guardianship and termination of court oversight (State
of California, 2007 B). Additionally, kinship caregivers receiving social security
payments or disability may not be eligible for Kin-GAP or may receive a decrease in the
amount they receive through their current subsidies (State of California, 2007 B). While
Kin-GAP and KSSP provide services that are not necessarily accessible in other states,
there continues to be a gap in services offered to kinship families compared to traditional
foster care and adoptive families.
26
Sacramento County
Sacramento County is one of the eleven counties that currently receives funding
for Kinship Support Services Programs (KSSP) (State of California, 2007 A). According
to Edgewood Center for Children and Families, a non-profit organization funded by the
Department of Social Security to manage kinship data, KSSP in Sacramento County is
implemented specifically through a private organization called Lilliput Children’s
Services (Edgewood Center for Children and Families, 2013; Lilliput Children's Services,
2013). Due to the limited funding and available resources available specifically to kinship
caregivers, Lilliput Children’s Services is the only provider of KSSP services to
Sacramento, El Dorado and Napa County families (Edgewood Center for Children and
Families, 2013; Lilliput Children's Services, 2013). Lilliput Children’s Services is the
only program in the region that works alongside and independently of Sacramento
County’s Child Protective Services to provide services specifically for dependent children
living with kinship caregivers (Lilliput Children's Services, 2013). Throughout Lilliput
Children’s Services three locations, the program provides resources and services
including “in-home support, counseling, support groups, respite funding, advocacy,
information and referrals, assistance with basic emergency needs, legal referrals,
guardianship workshops and adoption assistance, family activities, play care, mentoring,
children’s recreation and youth leadership development, and homework help / club and
tutoring referrals” (Lilliput Children's Services, 2013, p. 1). Lilliput Children’s Services
is an exemplary program displaying the benefits of KSSP and the numerous services that
can be administered to these families in need.
27
Overview of Existing Service Gaps
Kinship caregivers have the opportunity to provide children with a temporary safe
haven while their families finalize their involvement with the dependency court system
(Koh & Testa, 2008). Kin care providers have the unique opportunity to provide a child
with the support of a well-known guardian, as well as a liaison to the child’s parents (Koh
& Testa, 2008). In a study completed for the National Association for Social Work, Koh
and Testa identified the positive permanency outcomes of kinship caregivers. In the
process of identifying the positive permanency and reunification results, the lack of
services provided to these caregivers was also revealed. Kinship caregivers are capable of
providing higher rates of stability, most significantly during early stages of out of home
care (Koh & Testa, 2008). Kinship caregivers also provide the family with support
(producing lower rates of recidivism), higher rates of reunification and higher rates of
adoption compared to traditional foster care (Koh & Testa, 2008). While kinship
caregivers are able to provide such stellar outcomes, there are limited services available
to these families (Koh & Testa, 2008). While this study shows higher rates of adoption,
proportionally, it also indicates the adversity that many of these families overcome in
reaching such a legal status (Koh & Testa, 2008). Many kinship families are incapable of
passing licensing standards for traditional foster care due to economic status and living
conditions, and adoption homestudy standards are of a much higher caliber (Koh & Testa,
2008). The ability of kinship families to overcome such adversity should be awarded; it
should not be an indicator that the current system works meeting the minimum needs of
the family.
28
In a study examining the ecological impacts of kinship foster care by Hong,
Algood, Chiu and Lee, kinship foster care is noted to be one of the fastest growing forms
of child placement. This has been suggested in previous articles but within this study it is
highlighted as a success in creating positive outcomes for children placed into out of
home care (Hong, Algood, Chiu & Lee, 2011). The increase in kinship foster care is
partially due to a general population increase and need for placement but also to the
mutually beneficial outcomes for child and caregiver (Hong, Algood, Chiu & Lee, 2011).
The children are benefited through a stable environment with an individual they are
familiar with. Placement with kin has been shown to reduce symptoms of trauma and
stress associated with out of home care; similarly, this affords the caregiver the
opportunity to emotionally connect with the child and provide comfort and security to the
family with the knowledge that the child is in a relative home (Hong, Algood, Chiu &
Lee, 2011). Again, with the acknowledgment of the benefits of kinship care for both the
children and care providers, it is disheartening to see the continued lack of services
available to these families, particularly as many of these families are poverty stricken
(Hong, Algood, Chiu & Lee, 2011). Families meeting the requirements of licensing
standards for foster care homes are available for foster care funding through both the state
and federal government (Hong, Algood, Chiu & Lee, 2011). Homes not meeting this
criterion are referred to the local welfare office to apply for various programs such as
food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC); additional funding is not available to these families through their local
county programs (Hong, Algood, Chiu & Lee, 2011).
29
Many kin caregivers have taken temporary custody of children without the
intervention of dependency court (Falconnier, Tomasello, Doueck, Wells, Luckey &
Agathen, 2010). With over 75% of kin caregivers making arrangements without social
services intervention, Falconnier et al. were able to identify the main factors leading to
kin success. These factors include not only access to welfare programs but eligibility to
programs such as TANF and WIC (Falconnier et al., 2010). Families who arrange kin
placement without social services intervention are not eligible for foster care funding
(assuming the families met licensing requirements) (Falconnier et al., 2010). Several nonprofit organizations have been created to aid kin caregivers through the process of taking
on the responsibility of guardianship and aid these adults through the process of gaining
legal custody of the child(ren) (Falconnier et al., 2010). These programs are scarce and
may selectively provide service contingent upon caregiver ability and community income
(Falconnier et al., 2010).
Local Programs
In an article by Sacramento Bee contributor Sandy Louey, the programs of
Lilliput Children’s Services were praised in meeting the needs of kinship care providers.
The article discussed the assistance available through Lilliput Children’s Services and the
ways in which the agency has been to help a kinship care providers. The article highlights
the limited resources available to kinship families not meeting the licensing requirements
of traditional foster care homes. This program allows for kinship caregivers to access
resources, otherwise not provided, through education, parenting classes, monetary
assistance and community collaboration (Louey, 2008). The author noted the nearly 6
30
million children who were placed in some form of kinship care during the 2000 census
and the limited resources available to those families (Louey, 2008). During that same
year over 29,000 children in Sacramento County were placed with a non-custodial
parents and dependent upon limited funding, program access and community resources
(Louey, 2008).
Worker Perceptions of Kinship Services and Kinship Caregivers
There has been minimal research conducted on the perceptions of kinship social
workers and their views of services available to kinship families. One article, written by
Peters – a professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Maine - discusses
the ambivalence many social workers feel towards the kinship foster care families they
are working with after an extended period of time. This article discusses some of the
biases of social workers when working with kinship families and the stigmas surrounding
kinship caregivers. Amongst the positive thoughts, feelings and attitudes workers felt
towards kinship families, the results were primarily comprised of the known beneficial
outcomes of children staying with kin (Peters, 2005). The social workers interviewed
stated that kin placements were generally more successful at increasing children’s
development and maintaining a sense of family and community after removal from the
legal parents (Peters, 2005). One extreme view in favor of kinship care alleged that
traditional foster care is set up in such as to cause “failure for the family” (Peters, 2005,
p. 5). Overwhelmingly, the social workers interviewed for this particular article had
positive views of kinship foster care placements, citing incredible outcomes from
personal experiences (Peters, 2005).
31
The author of this study was looking to identify the reason(s) for lowered
placement with kinship foster care homes during a statewide training for social workers
directly aiding kinship families. Despite the initial positive responses from these social
workers, after prying for further information about the lowered rates of kinship
placements the workers were able to clearly articulate their negative views of kinship
foster care families. Some of the negative perceptions of the families included the
mentality that “the apple does not fall far from the tree”, meaning that if the legal parents
are unsuitable the entire family must not be appropriate (Peters, 2005, p. 9). Another
negative perception is the belief that kin caregivers are more likely to collude with
abusers and violate court orders (Peters, 2005). Social workers also admitted their dislike
for working with kinship caregivers because they feel kinship caregivers are more
abrasive than traditional foster homes and less cooperative with case plans (Peters, 2005).
Further criticism for kinship caregivers is their insistence to take children into a povertyridden and potentially dangerous environment (Peters, 2005). In analyzing the criticisms
offered through this examination of social workers’ perceptions, it is clear to see a bias
impacted by racism, classism and prejudice.
A study completed for the Journal of Contemporary Human Services examined
the outcomes of kinship care and workers’ perceptions. This study identified the leading
factors that contributed to permanency and reunification success for kinship care
providers. It was found that social workers’ response to families is one of the leading
causes of success for kinship families (Chipman, Wells & Johnson, 2002). A workers’
attention to the children, the needs of the family, continuous support for family
32
circumstances and production of referrals to outside agencies lead not only to a greater
appreciation between social worker and family but overall child stability (Chipman,
Wells & Johnson, 2002). As listed above, there are various opinions and biases that
impact work with kinship families. Identifying the needs of kinship families and aiding
workers with various approaches to responding with an empathetic and humble demeanor
can greatly impact the outcome of dependent children and the future of America.
33
Chapter 3
METHODS
With the emphasis on family preservation and the prevalence of kinship
placements by Child Protective Services (CPS), accessible and beneficial programs need
to be examined and recommended to these families. Programs have been sparsely created
to meet the specific needs of kinship foster caregivers and families. CPS routinely works
alongside other government-funded and community agencies to provide services to
families providing care for dependent children. While the multitude of available
programs are beneficial resources to dependent children, many of these programs do not
account for the potential barriers and needs of kinship foster caregivers.
Study Objectives
This research is meant to examine various areas of service delivery to kinship
foster caregivers in Sacramento County as perceived by CPS social workers. This
includes the availability of service programs deemed imperative by social workers for the
success and stability of the child(ren)’s placement, as well as the caregivers accessibility
to these resources. Another area of examination is the resources requested by kinship
caregivers and the requests potential for fulfillment in the Sacramento region. In
examining services requested and frequently referred, presenting barriers to caregiver’s
accessing these resources need to be considered – as well as any potential service gaps.
By identifying successful existing resources, service gaps, and resources routinely
accessed – research surrounding kinship caregivers and their families may be drastically
improved and expanded. There is a current lack of research surrounding services
34
available to kinship caregivers and the fulfillment of caregiver needs through available
existing programs. From the minimal existing research, it is clear kinship foster
caregivers are in need of additional resources, particularly in the form of monetary and
educational services. Sacramento County CPS offers services to all families providing
temporary custody to dependent children. Inquiring as to whether or not services are
being accessed, where available, has not yet been done. This study will identify pertinent
services available to kinship families and the caregivers’ ability to access these resources
as determined by CPS social workers employed by Sacramento County. This study aims
to contribute to the pool of knowledge held by the Department of Health and Human
Services and aid in the improvement of kinship placements by identifying programs
exemplifying best practice and value to the kinship client base.
Study Design
The design for this study includes a compilation of qualitative and descriptive
methods. The study has made use of a structured questionnaire, located in Appendix B.
The questionnaire has been used with the intention of measuring CPS Dependency Unit
social workers’ opinions and perceptions of kinship caregivers on their current caseload.
The questionnaire requests the demographics of the social worker, including their identity
preference for gender and ethnicity, as well as caseload numbers and the ratio of kinship
placements. Further questions have been grouped into six categories, including kinship
caregivers’ accessibility to resources, availability of academic resources, visitation, KinGAP, requested resources by the caregivers and social workers’ perceptions of resources
pertinent to placement stability and success. The study will focus on these descriptive
35
qualities of kinship caregivers from the sole perspective of the social worker. All data will
be coded and compiled for analysis following the completion of the questionnaires.
Sampling Procedures
The questionnaire will be administered through convenience sampling. As the
questionnaire is focused on Sacramento County resources, the questionnaire will be
administered to individuals working with dependent children placed in kinship homes.
Within Sacramento County’s Department and Health and Human Services’ Child
Protective Services’ Agency, this has been designed to specifically include Dependency
Unit social workers. The survey administered will be provided in person by the
researcher but the survey will be distributed amongst participating Dependency Unit
Supervisors to be administered at their own convenience between the dates of March 25,
2014 and April 1, 2014. The survey will be self-explanatory; however, the researcher will
be available both in person and via email to answer any questions and aid in survey
completion. The questionnaires have been composed of Likert scale, yes/no and fill in the
blank questions.
All completed questionnaires will be handled solely by the researcher. The
questionnaire will be administered to participants at only one point in time. The
researcher is the only individual who will have access to the non-coded data. Once the
data has been coded and a data set has been created, the original questionnaires will be
demolished. Participants will be identified through available Sacramento County Child
Protective Services’ Dependency Units as the researcher is referred by the acting Program
Manager. Those completing the surveys will assume consent upon completing the
36
questionnaire, as stated in the consent form located in Appendix A. The lack of signature
eliminates the possibility for participants to be identified and allows total anonymity
beyond their employment through one of CPS’ Dependency Units.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher first applied and received approval to complete the research
through California State University, Sacramento’s Human Subjects Review Committee,
located in Appendix C. The researcher then contacted the Sacramento County
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and provided a copy of the
researcher’s approved Human Subjects Review application and approval letter. The
researcher then received approval through Sacramento County DHHS Research Review
Committee (RRC), located in Appendix D. The researcher presented the approval through
the RRC to CPS’ Dependency Program Manager and Dependency Program Specialist.
The Program Manager and Program Specialist contacted Dependency Supervisors and
requested staff participation in the research. Dependency Supervisors willing to
participate in the research have independently contacted the researcher. Once subjects
meeting the study’s criteria were identified, the researcher administered the
questionnaires. There are no direct incentives to participants completing the
questionnaire; however, CPS will receive access to the final data collection and
researcher’s analyses. The researcher sought a minimum of twelve completed surveys
and obtained fifteen from Sacramento’s North, Central and East Bureau locations. All
participants were informed of the study’s objectives and how the information obtained
will be used, as well as who will receive copies of the finished research. There is no
37
personal information obtained through the consent form, the consent form clearly states
that consent is given by completion of the questionnaire to guarantee total anonymity.
The information collected by the researcher will then be compiled and analyzed for
trends and themes.
The researcher will administer the questionnaires in person, as permitted by acting
and participating Dependency Supervisors. By having the researcher present, participants
will be provided the opportunity to seek clarification regarding the survey purpose or
phrasing of the questions. The survey will take no longer than fifteen minutes to
complete, and the researcher will provide all required materials. For participants who are
not able to complete the questionnaire during the timeframe provided, the researcher will
be available via email and arrange a separate time to obtain the completed questionnaire.
Questionnaires will be completed at the participant’s place of employment. All
questionnaires will be taken to the researcher’s place of residence for safe-keeping and
further analysis.
Instruments
A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
The data will be collected and analyzed solely by the researcher. All information
listed in the questionnaire is completely anonymous and non-identifying. As the data is
compiled the researcher will identify themes and trends. These themes will be determined
by the averages and modes presented in the data compilation. The researcher has created
various tables and figures to present the data. The tables and figures will be analyzed to
38
examine reoccurring needs and services kinship foster caregivers access and request.
Major themes that will dictate the organization of analyses will include kinship
caregivers’ accessibility to resources, availability of academic resources, visitation, KinGAP, requested resources by the caregivers and social workers’ perceptions of resources
pertinent to placement stability and success. Limitations, recommendations and
implications for the field of social work will be discussed.
Protection of Human Subjects
The researcher has reviewed the Protocol for the Protection of Human Subjects
and has submitted and received approval. The researched proposed was exempt and
approved by California State University, Sacramento’s Division of Social Work; a copy
of this approval letter can be found in Appendix C. Each participant will be provided with
information as to the objectives of the project and consent to use the information in the
questionnaire is given upon completion and return of the survey. Participants in this
project will be comprised of Sacramento County DHHS CPS’ Dependency Unit social
workers providing case management to dependent children placed with kin. The survey
contains a variety of questions to which the researcher will be available to clarify any
confusion either in person or via email. There is no risk, discomfort or harm in
completing this survey. Participants will be identified to partake in the survey by their
Dependency Unit Supervisors but social workers will not be mandated to participate in
the project. Social workers have been asked to identify the number of years they have
worked in the field of social work, the number of cases they are currently assigned and
the number of kinship foster care families they are currently case managing. While
39
generic demographic questions are listed on the survey, no private information will be
collected. There will not be any equipment used in obtaining data for the research. The
only instrument that will be used is a questionnaire completed by the participant. There
will not be any devices, drugs or pharmaceuticals used in conducting this research. The
participants will not have any risk of discomfort or harm.
The research proposal is exempt for any risk to the participants. As previously
stated, there is no likelihood or anticipation of discomfort or harm to participants’ onset
by participation in this research. There is no likelihood of physical harm, as there are
minimal physical requirements. There is no likelihood of psychological harm, as the topic
pertains specifically to kinship families and does not meet the definition of “sensitive
topics” by the Guidance and Procedures of the Institutional Review Board. There is no
potential for economic or social harm. There is confidential information collected but the
questionnaire is completely anonymous. The participants are made aware prior to consent
that identifying information obtained within the demographic questions will be used
specifically for the purposes of an academic research project and all questionnaires will
be destroyed upon completion of the project.
40
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Sacramento County is one of only eleven counties in California eligible to receive
funding specifically for kinship foster families. This study aims to evaluate social worker
perceptions of available services to kinship foster families, identify what resources are
most beneficial and what barriers might exist in kinship foster families’ ability to access
these resources. Due to Sacramento County’s Child Protective Services (CPS) active
involvement with kinship foster families living in the region, CPS Dependency Unit
social workers with kinship foster families on their caseload were requested to complete a
questionnaire regarding the needs and services available to these families. Fifteen
questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher. The data collected through
the questionnaires have been compiled and analyzed using descriptive and qualitative
statistic methods.
Demographics
The researcher distributed the questionnaires at all three Sacramento CPS
locations. Figure 1 illustrates the number of participants who responded to the
questionnaire based upon their bureau location. All questionnaires were completed by a
current employee of CPS working within a Dependency Unit.
41
Figure 1
Participant Locations
Participant Locations
North Bureau
Central Bureau
East Bureau
As indicated by the chart, of the fifteen questionnaires that were completed and
returned, one came from the East Bureau, four were returned from the Central Bureau,
and the remaining ten were obtained from the North Bureau location. The highest return
rate was from the North Bureau location.
Participants were asked to identify the number of years they have been employed
in the field of social work, and the number of years participants had been employed by
Child Protective Services. The average number of years spent in the field of social work
was 15, with an identified range of 3 to 40 years. Participants identified an average of
10.6 years of employment w Child Protective Services, with another broad range of 3
months to 40 years. Figure 2 identifies with what gender respondents identify and what
ethnicity. They questionnaire provided a fill-in-the-blank space for both of these
42
questions, allowing for respondents to dictate the title of both their gender and ethnicity;
labels have been attached accordingly.
Figure 2
Participants Self-Identified Ethnicity and Gender
3
2
Participants Identifying with an
Ethnicity
Participants Identifying as Female
1
Participants Identifying as ♀
Participants Not Identifying with a
Gender
n
ck
ca
si
H an
isp
an
i
H c
m
o
M ng
e
N
ot xic
a
Id
en n
t
Po ifie
rtu d
gu
es
e
Ca
u
Bl
a
sia
A
A
fri
ca
n
A
m
er
ic
an
0
According to the University of California, Berkeley’s Social Services Research
point-in-time analysis, there were 619 dependent children placed in kinship foster care in
Sacramento County in 2012 (Needell et al., 2013). The social workers participating in the
questionnaire were asked to identify the number of cases they are currently assigned, and
the number of children within those cases currently in a kinship foster care placement.
Figure 3 shows the proportion of the 551 assigned cases and the 115 which are identified
as kinship foster care placements. In reviewing this data, it is important to note that two
respondents did not submit a number indicating how many children are currently placed
43
in kinship foster placements on their caseload; these two social workers continue to have
their total number of assigned cases represented despite this oversight. Social workers
were not asked to identify what the other forms of placement were for the remainder of
their caseload. “Other Forms of Placement” includes all other CPS sanctioned placements
available to dependent children.
Figure 3
Assigned Participant Case Placements
Overall Findings
Approximately 19% of Sacramento County’s dependent children living with a
kinship caregiver have been represented by the assigned social workers in the information
provided in the questionnaires. While this does not represent a statistically significant
proportion of children placed in kinship foster placements, it also does not take into
consideration the years and experience of the social workers completing these
questionnaires.
44
The questionnaires have been separated into six sections: Academics, Visitation,
Kin-GAP, Requested Resources, Caregivers Accessibility to Resources and Resources
Pertinent to Placement Stability. In reviewing this data through a holistic and ecosystems
lens, it is important to note that many of these topics are overlapping in both identified
struggles and strengths.
Academics
On the “Kinship Questionnaire” located in Appendix B, questions specifically
related to dependent children and their kinship caregivers ability to provide and access
resources necessary for academic success include questions 8, 9, 10 and 11. Figure 4
illustrates the social workers view of available academic resources available to kinship
foster care families. Social workers were asked to indicate “yes” or “no” to whether or
not there are an adequate number of academic resources, and if there are an adequate
amount of academic resources in the private sector and in the public sector. Nine of the
fifteen respondents indicated that there are enough academic resources available to
kinship caregivers. One participant commented that “if caregivers advocated for their
children” resources can become available. Another participant stated there are “enough
private academic resources if caregivers are willing to pay”.
45
Figure 4
Academic Resources
Public Academic Resources
Adequate Available
Resources
Private Academic Resources
Inadequate Number of
Resources
No Response
General Academic Resources
0
3
6
9
12
15
Social workers were then asked to identify their perception of kinship caregivers’
ability to request Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) as needed. Figure 5
illustrates the twelve positive indications that kinship caregivers are accessing IEPs as
needed for dependent children. One participant indicated that kinship caregivers access
IEP services for dependent children “if caregivers are active advocates”.
46
Figure 5
Kinship Caregivers’ Ability to Access IEPs
Kinship Caregivers' Ability to
Access IEPs
Yes
No
Visitation
Social workers were asked to identify whether or not dependent children living
with kinship caregivers were able to visit their biological parents, as permitted by the
dependency court and CPS case plan. Questions relating to kinship caregivers ability to
facilitate these visits and identify existing barriers can be found in questions 12, 13 and
14 of the questionnaire, located in Appendix B. Of the fifteen responses, fourteen stated
dependent children living with a kinship foster parent visit with their biological parents as
permitted. When asked if there are barriers present to kinship caregivers and their ability
to facilitate these visits, seven respondents indicated that there are barriers, seven
respondents denied the presence of barriers, and one individual did not respond to the
question. Participants were provided a list of potential barriers and were asked to identify
what barriers, if any, are present to kinship caregivers and their ability to attend scheduled
visitation. Figure 6 illustrates the barriers present as indicated by social workers to
47
kinship foster parents completing scheduled visits for the dependent child(ren) and their
biological parent(s). Social workers were encouraged to mark all barriers that apply.
Transportation received nine tallies, schedule conflicts received eight tallies, and the
remaining barriers received five or less tallies.
Figure 6
Visitation Barriers
9
8
No Barriers Present
7
6
Transportation
5
Schedule Conflicts
4
Lack of Social / Familial
Support
3
Location / Distance
2
Varies
1
0
Barriers Present to Kinship Caregivers' Ability to Complete
Scheduled Visitation
Kin-GAP
Social workers were asked to identify whether kinship caregivers had stated an
interest in participating and learning more about Kin-GAP services. Questions 20, 21 and
22 of the questionnaire, located in Appendix B, specifically look at social workers’
perceptions of kinship foster caregivers and their knowledge, ability and attempts to
access Kin-GAP services. Social workers were asked to identify how many kin caregivers
48
have stated an interest in Kin-GAP services; responses are illustrated in Figure 7.
Responses ranged from “none” to “most”, with six social workers stating “some” and five
social workers stating “most”. One respondent commented that “more information is
needed regarding Kin-GAP”.
Figure 7
Kinship Caregivers Interested in Kin-GAP
Participants were asked if they perceived there to be barriers present for kinship
caregivers accessing services to Kin-GAP. Two social workers did not respond to the
question. Twelve social workers stated there are “some” barriers present, the remaining
responses included a tally for “most” and one for “all”. When asked to identify barriers
present to kinship caregivers accessing Kin-GAP services, if any, no participant indicated
that there are “no barriers present. Figure 8 illustrates the most common barriers
identified by participants to kinship caregivers accessing services through Kin-GAP.
Several comments were left to specify the barriers present in kinship caregivers KinGAP, including a need for “help applying”, difficulty in the caregivers’ “ability to access
49
resources” or obtain “general information”. Participants equally identified “education”
and a “lack of information” as barriers to kinship caregivers.
Figure 8
Barriers Present to Kinship Caregivers Accessing Kin-GAP
Requested Resources
Dependency Unit social workers were asked to identify the most commonly
requested type of service by kinship caregivers in question 23, located in Appendix B.
The researcher provided five service categories, including “financial aid”,
“transportation”, “social support”, “counseling” and “academic resources”. The
researcher provided one blank slot in which social workers could identify an unlisted
service area. Social workers were asked to rank these six categories from one to six, with
one being the most frequently requested service and six being the least requested. Upon
reviewing the completed questionnaires, there appears to have been some difficulty in
properly responding to this question, as fourteen participants disregarded the fill-in-theblank space provided and ranked the categories on a hodgepodge scale of one to five,
50
with multiple “one’s”, “two’s” and “three’s”. Given the inconsistency in responses, the
researcher has averaged the response for each category and found the mode for each
category. The one participant who identified a sixth category listed “day care for kids”.
Table 1 displays the average and mode for the resource categories most frequently
requested by kinship caregivers as indicated by the participants, with one being the most
requested and five being the least requested. Despite several discrepancies in completing
the question the number one requested service by kinship caregivers, as indicated by the
mode, is financial aid.
Table 1
Requested Resources by Kinship Caregivers
Average
Mode
Financial Aid
1
1
Transportation
3
2, 3
Social Support
3.5
5
Counseling
3
3
Academic Resources
3.5
3
Caregivers Accessibility to Resources
Social workers were asked to identify kinship caregivers’ accessibility to
resources, gaps in current resources and CPS’ ability to fulfill kinship caregivers’ requests
for resources. Questions that are applicable to this segment of the overall findings include
numbers 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26 from the questionnaire, located in Appendix B.
Social workers were asked to identify if kinship caregivers on their case load are afflicted
by a health condition that impacts their ability to provide permanency. Figure 9 illustrates
the participants’ responses, with an equal distribution of responses indicating “none”,
“few” and “some” of the caregivers experiencing a level of debilitating health conditions.
51
Figure 9
Kinship Caregivers Afflicted by a Health Condition
Participants were asked to identify the proportion of kinship caregivers who have
requested educational, parenting focused resources. Social workers were also asked if
kinship caregivers would benefit from traditional foster parenting-training and education.
Figure 10 illustrates the number of kinship caregivers requesting educational, parentingfocused services and Figure 11 illustrates social worker perceptions as to whether or not
these resources would be found beneficial to these caregivers.
52
Figure 10
Kinship Caregivers Requesting Educational, Parenting-Focused Resources
Of the fifteen responses, eleven participants indicated that “few” kinship caregivers
request educational, parenting-focused resources. Two respondents indicated that “none”
of the kinship caregivers on their caseload have requested information or access to
educational, parenting-focused resources.
Figure 11
Benefits to Kinship Caregivers to Accessing Educational, Parenting-Focused Resources
Benefits to Kinship Caregivers to
Accessing Educational,
Parenting-Focused Resources
Yes
No
No Response
53
Two participants did not respond to this question, twelve respondents indicated that
kinship caregivers would benefit from educational, parenting-focused resources. One
respondent denied educational, parenting-focused resources being beneficial to kinship
caregivers.
Social workers were asked to provide the proportion of kinship caregivers having
requested financial assistance through CPS. Four responses indicated “most” and ten
responses indicated “all” kinship caregivers requesting financial assistance. Only one
participant indicated “some” of the kinship caregivers on their caseload requesting
financial assistance. Figure 12 illustrates the “some”, “most” and “all” of kinship
caregivers requesting financial assistance.
Figure 12
Kinship Caregivers’ Request for Financial Assistance
Kinship Caregivers' Request for Financial Assistance
All
Most
Some
Kinship Caregivers' Request for
Financial Assistance
Few
None
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Respondents were asked to identify if CPS was able to fulfill requests by kinship
caregivers for financial assistance. Three participants indicated that CPS was not able to
meet kinship caregivers’ needs for financial services; one commented that this is a “huge
54
problem” while the other commented the kinship caregivers’ need for financial services
cannot be met “if they are not federally eligible”. Twelve participants indicated that CPS
is able to fulfill requests for financial assistance for kinship caregivers.
Participants were asked to identify the proportion of kin caregivers accessing
known resources, as referred by the social worker. Ten participants indicated that “most”
kinship caregivers are accessing resources as recommended, while one participant
indicated that “none” of the kinship caregivers on their caseload are accessing services as
referred. Social workers were then asked to identify whether or not the needs of kinship
caregivers (stated and unstated) were met through available community referrals. Nine
social workers responded indicating that “some” needs were met, with three indicating
that “few” and three indicating that “most” needs were met through community referrals.
Table 2 compiles participant perception of kinship caregivers accessing known resources
and the proportion of kinship caregivers needs being met through community referrals.
Table 2
Are Resources Being Accessed? Are Needs Being Met?
Kin Caregivers Accessing Known Resources
Kin Caregivers Needs Met Through Community Referrals
None
1
0
Few
0
3
Some
3
9
Most
10
3
All
1
0
Social workers were asked to identify their perception of gaps in services
available to kinship caregivers. Participants were provided with the following categories:
“financial aid”, “transportation”, “social support”, “counseling”, and “academic
resources”. Two categories remained blank so social workers could identify a sixth and
seventh category, as needed. Upon reviewing the completed questionnaires, it was clear
55
the categories of “mental, medical, and dental health”, “day care / financial support for
children’s extra-curricular activities” and general “training” were major themes identified
by participants. Figure 13 illustrates social worker perceptions of gaps in services for
kinship caregivers.
Figure 13
Gaps in Services
Gaps in Services to Kinship Caregivers
Financial Aid
Transportation
Social Support
Counseling
Academic Resources
Mental, Medical & Dental
Health
Day Care, etc.
Training
Social workers were requested to check all categories that apply. Eight social workers
indicated “social support” being an area of need for kinship caregivers; one comment
stated “especially long-term” social support. Five social workers indicated “financial aid”
as an area needing further resources, and five social workers indicated “academic
resources” as an area experiencing a gap in services to kinship caregivers. Four
56
participants stated kinship caregivers were in need of additional “mental, medical and
dental health” services, and three for “counseling”. Three social workers indicated
“transportation” as an area experiencing a gap in services and two social workers
identified “day care and support for children’s extra-curricular activities”.
Resources Pertinent to Placement Stability
Participants were asked to identify if kinship caregivers utilizing recommended
resources increased placement stability for the children. Twelve social workers indicated
that kinship caregivers accessing recommended services achieved higher rates of
placement stability. Social workers were then asked to rank the following service
categories from one to six, with one being the most pertinent resource to placement
stability and six being the least pertinent to placement stability: “financial aid”,
“transportation”, “social support”, “counseling”, “academic resources” and an unlisted,
fill-in-the-blank category. Upon reviewing the completed questionnaires, there appears to
have been some difficulty in properly responding to this question, as fourteen participants
disregarded the fill-in-the-blank space provided and ranked the categories on a
hodgepodge scale of one to five, with multiple “one’s”, “two’s” and “three’s”. Given the
inconsistency in responses, the researcher has averaged the response for each category
and found the mode for each category. The one participant who identified a sixth category
listed “daycare resources”. Table 3 displays the average and mode for the resource
categories pertinent to placement stability, with one being the most pertinent resource and
five being the least. Despite several discrepancies in completing the question the number
57
one most pertinent resource to placement stability for kinship caregivers, as indicated by
the mode, is financial assistance.
Table 3
Pertinent Resources to Placement Stability with Kin Caregivers
Average
Mode
Financial Aid
1.1
1
Transportation
3.3
2, 5
Social Support
3.2
2
Counseling
2.9
3
Academic Resources
4.1
4
Interpretations of the Findings
The purpose of this study is to identify pertinent services to the success of kinship
foster care placements. Existing research has indicated a lack of needed services,
including monetary and education resources. However, this researcher has sought to
identify whether or not existing services are beneficial, accessible or known to kinship
foster caregivers. With dependent children and the kin caregivers in need of these
services it is important to examine how CPS and recommended community services are
responding to these needs and circumstances. In analyzing the data collected by the
researcher, there were six categories identified: academics, visitation, Kin-GAP,
requested services by the kinship caregivers, kin caregivers’ accessibility to resources,
and resources pertinent to placement stability.
Academics
Nine of the fifteen social workers providing case management services to
dependent children placed with kinship caregivers responding to the questionnaire stated
there is currently an adequate amount of academic resources available. When asked if
there are enough academic resources, eight of the responding twelve social workers
58
stated that there were not enough available to these families. While there is some
discrepancy in the availability of specified academic resources, twelve of the fifteen
respondents stated kinship caregivers are requesting and following through with
Individualized Educational Programs for dependent children as needed.
Visitation
An overwhelming fourteen of the fifteen respondents indicated that kinship
caregivers are providing dependent children with access to the biological parents for
visitation as permitted by the case plan and dependency court. Seven of the fourteen
respondents indicated that there are no barriers present to providing routine visitation.
When asked to dissect the barriers present, only three of the original seven respondents
restated there are no barriers present. Social workers indicated more than one barrier as
applicable to their current caseload; participants identified transportation and schedule
conflicts to be the largest barriers with nine and eight tallies, respectively. Five social
workers indicated a lack of social support as being a barrier.
Kin-GAP
Four of the fifteen social workers indicated they have never worked with a
kinship caregiver seeking services through Kin-GAP. When the same fifteen social
workers were asked what barriers might be present to kinship caregivers accessing
services through Kin-GAP, four social workers indicated a lack of information
surrounding the program and four social workers indicated a lack of education by the
kinship caregivers. Eleven social workers indicated “some” and “most” of kinship
caregivers having vocalized an interest in accessing Kin-GAP.
59
Requested Resources
Due to discrepancies in responding to this question (number 23, which can be
found in Appendix B), the mode has been identified to show the most frequently
identified requested service. Social workers indicated financial assistance as the most
frequently requested service by kinship foster caregivers followed by transportation,
counseling, academic resources and social support.
Caregivers’ Accessibility to Resources
Social workers were asked to identify the proportion of kinship caregivers on their
current case load who are afflicted by a health condition; all fifteen respondents indicated
“none”, “few” or “some”. No respondent indicated “most” or “all” of the kinship
caregivers on their caseload being afflicted by any sort of health condition. Participants
were asked to identify if kin caregivers have requested educational, parenting-focused
resources, and thirteen of the fifteen respondents stated “none” or “few” caregivers
having requested these services. Twelve of thirteen social workers indicated that kinship
caregivers would benefit from accessing educational, parenting-focused resources.
Similar to previous findings, ten of the fifteen respondents indicated that “most” or “all”
kinship caregivers have requested financial assistance; twelve of the fifteen respondents
indicated financial requests were met through CPS.
Eleven respondents indicated that “most” or “all” kinship caregivers were
accessing resources made known by the case carrying social workers. Nine respondents
indicated that “some” of the kinship caregivers’ needs were met through accessing these
60
resources. Twelve of fourteen respondents, however, stated that utilization of these
recommended services increased placement stability.
Resources Pertinent to Placement Stability
Due to discrepancies in responding to this question (number 24, which can be
found in Appendix B), the mode has been identified to show the most pertinent service to
placement stability for dependent children with kinship caregivers. Social workers
indicated financial assistance as the most pertinent to placement stability success,
followed by transportation, social support, counseling and then academic resources.
Summary
The researcher was able to complete this data analysis through descriptive
statistics. This form of qualitative statistics was used to identify six service needs and
gaps in six different categories: academics, visitation, Kin-GAP, kinship caregiver
requested resources, caregivers accessibility to resources and resources most pertinent to
placement stability. Analyzing this data showed several trends and themes of kinship
foster care, as discussed and further analyzed in the next chapter. Kinship caregivers’
need for financial assistance, transportation and social support are frequently needed
services and resources identified by social workers throughout the research. Many social
workers identified that these resources are available in the community but it is unclear as
to whether or not these services are meeting all of the needs of kinship caregivers. Social
workers identified that kinship caregivers’ routine utilization of recommended services
and advocacy for their dependent children are pertinent to placement stability and
success.
61
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this research project is to identify the pertinent services associated
with the success of kinship foster care placements as perceived by the assigned Child
Protective Services’ social workers. Fifteen CPS employees from Sacramento County
participated in the questionnaire, and provided their interpretation of kin caregivers
ability to access current resources, benefit from available services and identify gaps in
resources. Major themes identified in the research include academics, visitation, KinGAP services, requested resources by the kinship caregivers, kin caregivers’ accessibility
to resources and resources pertinent to placement stability. These themes will be analyzed
once more, as well as the implications for the field of social work on both a micro and
macro level. Recommendations from the researcher’s findings will be identified, and
study limitations and overall reflections will be reviewed.
Summary of Study
This study aimed to identify the availability of services to kinship foster families
within the state of California. This study included the responses of Sacramento County
Child Protective Services’ employees working directly with kinship foster families. These
employees identified, from their present experience working with assigned kinship foster
caregivers, what resources are most frequently requested, fulfilled, and needed for
placement stability. The focus of the study was to identify imperative services currently
being offered to kinship caregivers, as well as where services gaps may exist. This study
ultimately was aimed to make recommendations to the Department of Health and Human
62
Services for Sacramento County based on the outcomes of the research, identifying
programs pertinent to placement stability, resources exemplifying best practice and value
to the client base and where service growth may be necessary.
This study began by researching kinship foster care placements and the
development of kinship foster care services. Throughout the “Literature Review” portion
of this project, needs for kinship caregivers included financial assistance, general services
(medical coverage, transportation, etc.), social support and education (surrounding both
child development and the dependency court system). The “Literature Review” portion
identified a great need of services for kinship foster care families but a limited amount of
research on current services offered and available. Federal and state policies were
analyzed in relation to Sacramento County kinship foster caregivers. Local resources
were identified and found to be limited in providing resources specifically to kinship
foster families.
As the researcher compiled information pertinent to kinship foster caregivers,
including the availability to resources and the resources pertinent to placement success,
the researcher found that dependent children in Sacramento County have access to a
multitude of resources regardless of placement type – greatly decreasing the gaps in
services previously identified. While services offered may not be specified to “kinship”
families, the caregivers’ temporary custody of a dependent child qualifies the child for
services, including financial assistance to the family, potential child care, access to
mental and medical health for the child, and a multitude of other, previously unidentified
services. With this knowledge, the researcher altered the questionnaire to examine
63
whether or not these services were being accessed and how the utilization of these
services impacted placement stability.
In analyzing the research, it was clear kinship foster caregivers were in need of
additional services – as noted in the “Literature Review”. The precise needs of these
families did not always appear to be consistent amongst participants or available within
CPS or the community. Due to inconsistencies and the limited size of this research, the
recommendations will be minimal. It is clear that kinship foster caregivers are in need of
financial assistance. Once participants were able to identify financial assistance as the
most frequently requested service category by kinship caregivers, social workers were
asked to identify whether or not these needs were met through CPS. Many social workers
indicated that CPS was able to fulfill these needs; however, one worker left a comment
stating, “There’s a gap between initial placement and kinship approval and payment to
help cover the transition.” Due to the short-term notice involved in kinship caregivers
providing housing for dependent children, there is nearly no time for these caregivers to
prepare for the financial burden of an additional household member. It is reassuring to see
that while there may a be a lull present in the ability to access funding, there are financial
services available to these families that meet their overall needs.
Long-term social support was another prominent issue for kinship foster
caregivers. Given the difficult situation many of these individuals are placed into,
caregivers are left to balance the needs of the dependent child and dependency court
system, as well as their private lives and relationship with the biological parents. The
need for social and familial support was the most commonly identified service gap. One
64
way in which this gap may be addressed by CPS is through counseling and support
groups. Counseling and social support were identified by participants as the second and
third most pertinent resources available to kinship caregivers allowing for placement
stability. Furthering existing programs and resources and stressing the importance of
caregivers accessing these services can increase placement stability and caretaker wellbeing.
Some unexpected results included the lack of need for academic resources. The
majority of social workers indicated there is an adequate amount of academic resources
and kinship caregivers are requesting that dependent children are assessed for
Individualized Education Programs when necessary. Respondents had mixed reviews as
to whether or not there are enough existing private and public resources but the potential
lack of either of those categories did not inhibit their perception of kinship caregivers
accessing academic resources for their dependent children. Kinship caregivers’ health,
according to participants surveyed, was another area that was contrary to previous
findings. According to the “Literature Review”, one of the largest barriers present to
placement stability and kinship foster care placement success is the kinship caregiver’s
health. Only a third of participants indicated “some” kinship caregivers being afflicted by
a health condition.
The results generated surrounding kinship caregivers facilitating allocated
visitation between the child(ren) and biological parent(s) mirrored expectations set by the
“Literature Review”. Kinship caregivers have a unique, sometimes difficult position
mediating between the biological parent(s) and dependency court system. Routinely
65
affording the child(ren) the visits to which they are entitled with minimal barriers was
fairly expected. In dissecting the potential barriers, if and when they are present, there
was an interesting depiction of some of the socio-economic barriers that may be present
with a kinship foster caregiver as opposed to a traditional foster caregiver. The main
barrier identified was transportation, closely followed by schedule conflicts. These two
barriers can be present for individuals who do not work salaried positions or have the
luxury of private transportation.
Overall, this research was able to positively identify that “most” kinship
caregivers are accessing recommended resources and “some” of their needs are being met
solely through community referrals. Social workers identified that “most” kinship
caregivers are taking advantage of resources recommended and that this utilization of
resources increases placement stability.
Implications for Social Work
The field of social work involves working with a variety of different
communities, including the foster care system. Kinship foster care is an alternative to the
traditional foster care model that provides a multitude of benefits to dependent children
and greatly reduces the traumatizing experience to a child of removal from biological or
guardian of origin. The information compiled by this research project is pertinent to
improving services to these families and the continuing to develop alternative practices in
a multi-disciplinary field.
On an individual level, social workers interacting with kinship caregivers and
dependent children may be more equipped with the specific needs of this population.
66
Being aware of the financial hardships of these families and better preparing kin
caregivers for the transition of taking responsibility for a dependent child may improve
placement stability and success. Ensuring social support systems with kin caregivers prior
to a child moving into the home can also prepare caregivers for the hardships that arise
during such changes.
On a mezzo level, the community may be improved through ongoing networking
and improved communication. In seeking approval to complete this research, it was made
known that many services available to these families are accessed through community
referrals. Maintaining positive connections between service providers and an open
relationship amongst professionals can benefit the community’s residents. Having
pertinent services made known and accessible can greatly improve the well-being of the
caregivers and the dependent children in their care.
By compiling this information, it is clear that federal guidelines need to be
created, regulating the expectation of services available to kinship foster care families.
Many of the policies identified in the research were vague, and frequently left to the
discretion of the state. By dictating a national expectation for family-centered practice,
more states may be interested in implementing the appropriate resources necessary for
kinship placement success. By creating a national expectation for kinship preference, and
making this preference a possibility by appropriately supporting these families, kinship
foster care placements may flourish and provide the beneficial environment identified
through previous research.
67
Recommendations
This study was designed with the intention of making recommendations to
improve Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services’ Child
Protective Services’ functioning in regards to kinship foster care families. The completed
research has shown that while many services exist, few barriers are present in kinship
families’ ability to access these resources. Providing further financial resources and the
possibility of transportation may limit these barriers. Kinship foster caregivers may also
benefit from the development of a social support program, focused on catering to the
specific needs of these families. While not quite as apparent in the research obtained
through Sacramento County CPS, providing educational resources to kinship caregivers
and the functioning of the dependency court system may increase placement stability by
having informed caregivers who are familiar with the functioning and purpose of the
dependency court system. Providing social workers interacting with these families the
most up-to-date and available services might also eliminate many of the barriers for
kinship caregivers. Sacramento County is segmented in various smaller communities,
with numerous resources specific to each region. Social workers who take on the
additional burden of familiarizing themselves with ever-changing resources and services
can help kinship caregivers who do not have the experience of navigating resources. CPS
participants identified that financial assistance is the number one factor in allowing for
placement stability. While there is a financial burden to providing for a child, identifying
the specific needs of these families may decrease the financial burden by supplementing
the family with resources such as clothing, furniture, groceries, etc. Identifying accessible
68
services and the specific needs of the family, kinship foster care placements will continue
to flourish.
Limitations
One limitation of this research project was the sample size. Convenient sampling
was used, as the researcher solely contacted Child Protective Services of the researcher’s
county of residence. Further, in contacting Sacramento County CPS during a time frame
in which employment contracts were being discussed, few Dependency Units were made
known, and less were available to participate. Of the fourteen Dependency Units in
Sacramento County CPS, less than six participated in the research. Of the maximum six
participating Units, only fifteen social workers responded. While the research was already
limited to the state, and then the County of Sacramento, the research was further limited
to less than half of the eligible Dependency Units, and less than a third of eligible
participants within those units.
Another limitation of this research is the method in which the research was
collected. Several of the returned questionnaires were not fully completed or completed
inaccurately. Due to communication barriers or misunderstandings in expectations
regarding completion of the questionnaire, several questions were limited in their
usefulness due to a lack of response or participants not following the stated instructions.
While the researcher spent a great deal of time creating, updating and revising the
questionnaire located in Appendix B, another limitation may be any potential gaps in the
way in which the researcher intended to state questions and the ways in which
participants interpreted questions. This could have been resolved through simplification
69
of questions and definition of terms. Further limitations that may exist include language
barriers (the questionnaire was only available in English) and the lack of available
accommodations for participants who may have been sight impaired.
Conclusion
Limited research exists regarding the benefits, trends and availability of resources
to kinship foster placements. As kinship foster care placements continue to grow in
popularity, especially in California and with agencies following a family-centered model,
appropriate resources and services need to be made available to meet the needs of this
population. California and Sacramento County have developed several programs
specifically to address the need of this population, including Kin-GAP and Kinship
Support Service Programs; however, additional resources need to be created to meet the
financial and social needs of these caregivers immediately following the placement of a
dependent child with a kin caregiver. Sacramento County’s Child Protective Services has
created kinship specific units to meet the permanency demands of these placements and
the need for legally recognized guardianship. By providing monetary, educational and
transport services to these families upon placement of a dependent child in the care of a
kin relative, kinship foster care placements will flourish and continue to provide
dependent children with a beneficial and familiar family environment.
70
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate in Research
You are being asked to participate in research which will be conducted by Master of
Social Work Candidate, Trudy Mallory, at California State University, Sacramento. The
purpose of the study is to identify available services to kinship foster caregivers and
kinship caregivers’ use of these resources. With an increase in kinship foster placements,
it is necessary to examine the services available to these families, as well as potentially
needed resources. Research has indicated a lack of needed services (such as monetary and
educational resources); these stated needs do not reflect kinship caregivers’ inability or
failure to access available resources. With dependent children in need of these services it
is important to examine how government funded agencies are addressing these concerns.
This study aims to identify available, pertinent and accessed services to / by kinship
foster families within Sacramento County. This study will identify services available to
families and services frequently accessed by kinship caregivers. The focus of the study is
to identify imperative services currently being offered to kinship caregivers, available
services accessed by kinship caregivers, as well as what programs might be beneficial to
placement stability and success. This study will also look at available services to kinship
families that are not frequently accessed.
You will be given a survey questionnaire. You will be asked to fill out the form to the
best of your ability. This questionnaire is completely safe and is not associated with any
known health or psychological risks.
You may not personally benefit from participating in this research. However, the study
aims to make recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services based
on its outcomes, identifying programs exemplifying best practice and value to the client
base, as well as gaps in available services and barriers to caregivers’ ability to access
existing community resources.
This survey does not require any identifying information other than confirmation of the
knowledge that you are an employee through Sacramento County Child Protective
Services. Consent is given by completion of this questionnaire. The results of this study
will be shared with the Department of Health and Human Services for Sacramento
County and will become a matter of public record.
Upon completion and approval of this thesis project, all questionnaires will be destroyed
(presumably July 2014). You will not receive compensation for this study.
If you have any questions regarding this research, you may contact the researcher Trudy
Mallory via email at trudymallory@csus.edu. You may decline to be a participant in this
study without any consequences. This letter is meant to explain the objectives and
71
purpose of the research study. Completion of the questionnaire is assumed consent. The
supervising research advisor for this thesis project is Dr. Dale Russell; he may be reached
with any questions, comments or concerns for this project at (916) 278-7170 or by email
at drussell@csus.edu.
Thank you!
72
APPENDIX B
Kinship Questionnaire
1. How many years have you been in the field of social work?
______________________________
2. How many years have you been a social worker with Child Protective Services?
______________________________
3. Currently, how many cases are you assigned to?
______________________________
4. Of your current cases, how many are in a kinship placement?
______________________________
5. With what gender do you identify?
______________________________
6. What ethnicity do you most identify with?
______________________________
7. In regards to the kinship caregivers you interact with, how many are afflicted by a
health condition that impacts their ability to provide permanency?
1 None
2
Few
-
-
3
Some
-
4
Most
-
5
All
8. Are there enough academic resources available to kinship placed children?
 Yes
 No
9. In your perspective, are there enough private academic resources?
 Yes
 No
10. In your perspective, are there enough public academic resources?
 Yes
 No
73
11. In your perspective, are the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) being
assessed for kinship placed children as needed?
 Yes
 No
12. Do children placed with kin visit their biological parents as permitted by court
approval / case plan allowance?
 Yes
 No
13. Are there barriers present to dependent children living with kin in attending
scheduled visitation with biological parents?
 Yes
 No
14. What are the barriers present to dependent children living with kin in attending to
scheduled visitation?
 There are no barriers
 Transportation
 Schedule conflicts
 Lack of social support / Familial conflicts
 Other: ______________________________
15. Does the utilization of recommended resources increase placement stability for
dependent children with kinship caregivers?
 Yes
 No
16. In regards to the kinship caregivers you work with, on average, would you say
that these families would benefit from traditional foster parent-training and
education?
 Yes
 No
17. On average, how many kinship caregivers request educational, parenting focused
resources?
1 None
2
Few
-
-
3
Some
-
4
Most
-
5
All
74
18. On average, how many kinship caregivers have requested financial assistance
from your agency?
1 None
2
Few
-
-
3
Some
-
4
Most
-
5
All
19. On average, is your agency able to fulfill requests for financial assistance?
 Yes
 No
20. How many kin caregivers have shown an interest in Kin-GAP services?
1 None
2
Few
-
-
3
Some
-
4
Most
-
5
All
21. Are their barriers to kinship caregivers accessing Kin-GAP services?
1None
2
Rarely
-
-
3
Sometimes
-
4
Often
-
-
5
Always
22. What is the most common barrier to caregivers accessing Kin-GAP services?
 I have never worked with a family exiting dependency court seeking access to KinGAP
 There are no barriers
 Education
 Transportation
 Other: ______________________________
23. Please rank the following resources available to kinship caregivers from 1 to 6.
With 1 being the most requested resource by kin caregivers and 6 being the least
requested resource by kin caregivers.
______Financial Aid
______ Transportation
______ Social Support
______ Counseling
______ Academic Resources
______ Other: ______________________________
75
24. Please rank the following resources available to kinship caregivers from 1 to 6.
With 1 being the most pertinent to placement stability and 6 being the least
pertinent resource to placement stability.
______Financial Aid
______ Transportation
______ Social Support
______ Counseling
______ Academic Resources
______ Other: ______________________________
25. On average, of the kinship caregivers you have worked with, how many family’s
access needed resources once they are provided / made known?
1 - None
2
Few
-
-
3
Some
-
4
Most
-
5
All
26. In regards to the kinship caregivers you work with, do you feel that their needs
(stated or not) are met through community referrals?
1 - None
2
Few
-
-
3
Some
-
4
Most
-
5
All
27. While numerous services are currently in place to support families caring for
dependent children, in what areas have you witnessed a gap in services for
kinship caregivers? Check all that apply.
 Financial Aid
 Transportation
 Social Support
 Counseling
 Academic Resources
 Other: ______________________________
 Other: ______________________________
76
APPENDIX C
Protocol for the Protection of Human Subjects Approval Letter
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK
To:
Trudy Mallory
Date: November 18, 2013
From: Research Review Committee
RE: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION
Your Human Subjects application for your proposed study, “Benefits, Trends, Practices
and Perceptions of Kinship Care in Sacramento County”, is Approved as Exempt. Discuss
your next steps with your thesis/project Advisor.
Your human subjects Protocol # is: 13-14-025. Please use this number in all official
correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your approval expires one
year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will inform the Committee
promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you will make no modification in
the protocol without prior approval of the Committee.
The committee wishes you the best in your research.
Research Review Committee members Professors Maria Dinis, Jude Antonyappan, Serge Lee, Francis Yuen, Kisun Nam, Dale Russell,
Cc: Russell
77
APPENDIX D
Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services
Research Review Committee Approval Letter
78
REFERENCES
Bartone, A., Rosenwald, M., & Bronstein, L. (2008). Examining the structure and
dynamics of kinship care groups. Social work with groups, 31(3-4), 223-237.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609510801980690
Black, A. (2009). Kinship care: Current Scottish dilemmas and some proposals for the
future. Adoption and fostering, 33(3), 40-50. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61362576?accountid=10358
Cheng, T., & Li, A. (2012). Maltreatment families' receipt of services: Associations with
reunification, kinship care, and adoption. Families in society, 93(3), 189-195.
doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4215
Chipman, R., Wells, S., & Johnson, M. (2002). The meaning of quality in kinship foster
care: Caregiver, child and worker perspectives. Families in society, 83(5/6), 508520.
Cuddeback, G., & Orme, J. (2002). Training and services for kinship and nonkinship
foster families. Child welfare, 81(6), 879-910.
Edgewood Center for Children and Families. (2013). California kinship. Retrieved from
http://www.edgewood.org/kssp/county/sacramento.html
Falconnier, L. A., Tomasello, N. M., Doueck, H. J., Wells, S. J., Luckey, H., & Agathen,
J. M. (2010). Indicators of quality in kinship foster care. Families in society,
91(4), 415-420. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4040
79
Farmer, E. (2009 A). How do placements in kinship care compare with those in non-kin
foster care: Placement patterns, progress and outcomes? Child and family social
work, 14(3), 331-342. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00600.x
Farmer, E. (2009 B). Making kinship care work. Adoption and fostering, 33(3), 15-27.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61398130?accountid=10358
Geen, R. (2004). The evolution of kinship care policy and practice. The future of children,
14(1), 130-149. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602758
Gleeson, J. P. (1996). Kinship care as a child welfare service: The policy debate in an era
of welfare reform. Child welfare, 75(5), 419-449. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61615080?accountid=10358
Goertzen, A., Chan, A.S., & Wolfson, G.K. (n.d.) Kith and kin care: A review of the
literature. Retrieved August 23, 2013, from http://journals.ufv.ca/rr/RR12/articlePDFs/kith.pdf
Hegar, R., & Scannapieco, M. (1995). From family duty to family policy: The evolution
of kinship care. Child welfare, 74(1), 200-216.
Hong, J., Algood, C., Chiu, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). An ecological understanding of kinship
foster care in the United States. Journal of child and family studies, 20(6), 863872. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9454-3
Kernan, E., & Lansford, J. (2004). Providing for the best interests of the child?: The
adoption and safe families act of 1997. Journal of applied developmental
psychology, 25(5), 523-539. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.003
80
Koh, E. (2010). Permanency outcomes of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care:
Testing the external validity of kinship effects. Children and youth services
review, 32(3), 389-398. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.010
Koh, E., & Testa, M. (2008). Propensity score matching of children in kinship and nonkinship foster care: Do permanency outcomes still differ?. Social work research,
32(2), 105-116.
Leslie, L., Landsverk, J., Horton, M., Ganger, W., & Newton, R. (2000). The
heterogeneity of children and their experiences in kinship care. Child welfare,
79(3), 315-334.
Lilliput Children's Services. (2013). Kinship care services. Retrieved from
http://www.lilliput.org/Services_Kinship_Care.aspx
Louey, S. (2008, March 4). Family members adopting young kin get agency help - as
more and more children are raised by relatives, caregivers keep it all in the family.
But there's always room for support. The Sacramento bee. Retrieved August 23,
2013, from http://www.sacbee.com/
Metzger, J. (2008). Resiliency in children and youth in kinship care and family foster
care. Child welfare, 87(6), 115-141.
81
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M.,
Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Williams, D., Yee, H., Hightower, L.,
Mason, F., Lou, C., Peng, C., King, B., Henry, C.,& Lawson, J. (2013). Child
Welfare Services Reports for California. University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website.
URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare>
Palacios, J., & Jimenez, J. M. (2009). Kinship foster care: Protection or risk? Adoption
and fostering, 33(3), 64-75. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61363307?accountid=10358
Perry, G., Daly, M., & Kotler, J. (2012). Placement stability in kinship and non-kin foster
care: A Canadian study. Children and youth services review, 34(2), 460-465. doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.001
Peters, J. (2005). True Ambivalence: Child welfare worker’s thoughts, feelings and
beliefs about kinship foster care. Children and youth services review, 27, 595-614.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.012
Scannapieco, M., & Hegar, R. (2002). Kinship care providers: Designing an array of
supportive services. Child and adolescent social work journal, 18(4), 315-327.
Smith, C. J., & Devore, W. (2004). African American children in the child welfare and
kinship system: From exclusion to over inclusion. Children and youth services
review, 26(5), 427-446. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.005
82
Smith, C. J., Rudolph, C., & Swords, P. (2002). Kinship care: Issues in permanency
planning. Children and youth services review, 24(3), 175-188. doi:
10.1016/S0190-7409(02)80004-4
State of California. (2007 A). Department of social services: Kinship care. Retrieved
from http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/pg1351.htm
State of California. (2007 B). Department of social services: Kinship and guardianship
assistance payment program. Retrieved from
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/pg1354.htm
Strijker, J., Knorth, E., & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement history of foster
children: A study of placement history and outcomes in long-term family foster
care. Child welfare, 87(5), 107-124.
Valle, J., López, M., Montserrat, C., & Bravo, A. (2009). Twenty years of foster care in
Spain: Profiles, patterns and outcomes. Children and youth services review, 31(8),
847-853. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.03.007