Kinship Care in California:Issues and

Opportunities

Jill Duerr BerrickSchool of Social Welfare

University of California at BerkeleyPresented to the Child Welfare Council

April 14, 2008

Who is Taking Care of California’s Foster Children?

Kinship Care 36%

FFA Care 26%

Foster Family Care 10%

Group care 8%

Other 20%

Children in Foster Care 1988-2007

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Kin Foster FFA Group Total

Why Kin?

Legal imperativeLegal imperative

Moral imperativeMoral imperative

Who are Kinship Caregivers?

Adults related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree

Are they Foster Parents?

Relatives do not need to be licensed, but must beassessed using equivalent standards of foster parentlicensure – with allowance for waivers of some (non-safety) requirements on a case-by-case basis.

Kinship Care Across the Country

23%

Variability in Kinship Placementsby County

46%

24%

31%

34%

37%

28%

What are the Characteristics of Kin and Non-Kin Caregivers?

Kinship Caregiver Characteristics

Similar to Non-Kin

Poor

Mental Health

# Children in the Home

Kinship Characteristics

Age

Similar to Non-Kin

Education

Poor

Mental Health

Physical Health

Very Poor

# of Siblings cared for in the Home

Dissimilar to Non-Kin

# Children in the Home

Ethnicity

Single Parent

Distressed Neighborhoods

If April is placed with kin, what are her likely experiences and

outcomes?

Experiences in Kinship Care

• Removal may be less traumatic• Visitation with birth parents and

siblings is more frequent• Placement with siblings more likely• Fewer placement changes while in

care

Children’s Views of their Caregivers

Children “like who they’re living with”

Children feel like they’re “part of the family”

Kinship Outcomes

Similar to Non-Kin

Less Likely to be Adopted

Adult Outcomes

Preparation for Independent Living

May Remain in Care Longer

Less likely to Reunify in 5 years

Dissimilar to Non-Kin

More likely to exit to Guardianship (Kin-GAP)

May be Less Likely to Re-enter Care

System Challenges vis-à-vis Kinship Care

• Family Finding• Relative approval

Ongoing Caregiver Challenges

• Need for KSSP services in all counties

• Support, information, and responsiveness of child welfare system

• Coordination across service systems to make access for children easier

References

Needell, B., et al., (2007). Child welfare services reports for California. University of California at Berkeley, Center for Social Services Research.

Wulczyn, F., Chen, L., & Hislop, K.B. (2007). Foster care dynamics: 2000-2005. Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Geen, R. (2004). The evolution of kinship care policy and practice. The Future of Children, 14(1).

National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW). Foster children’s caregivers and caregiving environments. Administration for Children and Families.

Fox, A., Berrick, J. D., & Frasch, K. (in press). Safety, family, permanency, and child well-being: What we can learn from children. Child Welfare.

Robin Ford

Regina DeihlLegal Advocates for Permanent

Parenting

Common Challenges Facing Caregivers

• Access to services/resources

• Placement issues• Approval/Licensing

problems• Lack of access to

information about the child/case

• Subsidy concerns• Court information

and participation • Practical effects of

permanency options

• Educational assessments and services

Caregivers are a lynchpin to improving safety, permanency,

and well-being,

BUT

Inclusion is lacking Engagement is often poor

Caregiver Support Needs

• Individualized assistance• Communication network• Leadership development/advocacy

assistance• Access to policy making forums• Training and informal support

systems• Respite and other practical supports

Possible CWC Engagement

• Develop strategies to assist caregiver families to access services for children/youth across systems

• Establish policies for integrated communication

• Collaborate to develop integrated training and technical assistance models for all relevant agencies

• Practical supports to participate in policy making forums

• Develop statewide policy on respite and practical supports