between two systems: children in tanf child-only cases with relative caregivers
Post on 05-Sep-2016
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
28 (2006) 435–446
www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
Between two systems: Children in TANF child-only
cases with relative caregivers
Deborah Gibbs a,*, Jennifer Kasten a, Anupa Bir a,
Dean Duncan b, Sonja Hoover a
aRTI International, Post Office Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, United StatesbUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
Received 11 March 2004; received in revised form 27 April 2005; accepted 11 May 2005
Available online 5 July 2005
Abstract
The TANF program provides financial assistance to more than 500,000 children in relative care
through child-only TANF grants, yet little information exists to describe this population. This study
explored the service needs and well-being of children in TANF child-only cases with relative
caregivers, using secondary analysis of national survey data and case studies in five states.
Secondary analyses suggested that these children compare favorably to children in kinship and foster
care on many measures of well-being, but some indications of behavioral and mental health
problems were seen. Case studies suggest that many children in TANF child-only cases with relative
caregivers have extensive service needs. Taken together, these findings suggest advantages of
relative caregiver arrangements for children in TANF child-only cases, as well as cause for concern.
Relative care is generally believed to be preferable to foster care with nonrelatives when children
cannot remain with parents. However, children often experience substantial difficulties as a result of
their previous experiences and separation from parents, and the TANF system lacks the necessary
resources to respond to them.
D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: TANF program; Relative caregivers; Kinship; Foster care; Well-being; Case studies
0190-7409/$ -
doi:10.1016/j.
* Correspon
E-mail add
Children and Youth Services Review
see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
childyouth.2005.05.004
ding author. Tel.: +1 919 541 6942; fax: +1 919 990 8454.
ress: dag@rti.org (D. Gibbs).
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446436
1. Introduction
A substantial body of recent work has examined the characteristics, service needs and
well-being of children in the care of relatives (USDHHS & ACF, 2000; USGAO, 1999;
Geen, 2003). An estimated 2.3 million children are cared for by relatives (Ehrle, Geen, &
Clark, 2001), under auspices that range from nonbinding agreements among family
members to legal custody established by public child welfare agencies. The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides financial support to more than
500,000 children in relative care through child-only TANF grants (DHHS & ACF, 2003).
Yet little information exists to describe the population of children in TANF child-only
cases with relative caregivers and how they are being served.
This article describes the role of child-only TANF grants as a source of financial
support for kinship care within and outside the child welfare system. It hypothesizes that
the support available to children in kinship care may be determined by the circumstances
precipitating the kinship care arrangement and by states’ program structures, rather than by
children’s needs. The final section of the article identifies areas of concern regarding
supports for children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers.
2. Background
Kinship care arrangements are defined by disruptions in parenting, relatives’ responses
to these situations, and the response of the service system to relative caregivers. Fig. 1
illustrates how various combination of these events determine kinship care arrangements,
which in turn determine the support, supervision and services available to the caregiver
and child.
The boxes with heavy borders, in the lower part of the figure, represent children who
enter kinship care without formal involvement of the child welfare system. Arrangements
in which parents or relatives initiate kinship care may represent three very different
situations. Some may be in response to circumstances in which parents are absent or are
impaired, but children have not been seriously maltreated. Others may represent
maltreatment that would have justified child welfare intervention had it been detected,
but which was not detected by public agencies or by those charged with reporting child
maltreatment to public agencies. Finally, kinship care arrangements may be negotiated to
avert children’s entry to child welfare custody. While data on the circumstances
precipitating relative care is sparse, parental substance abuse and child maltreatment are
frequently cited as causes (Edelhoch, 2002; Ehrle et al., 2001; Farrell, Fishman, Laud, &
Allen, 2000; Schofield & Fein, 2000; Wood & Strong, 2002).
The shaded boxes in Fig. 1 illustrate kinship care arrangements in which children are in
the legal custody of a child welfare agency as a result of substantiated maltreatment.
Relatives who care for these children may be licensed as foster parents, under flexible
licensing or certification options available to relative caregivers in most states (Boots &
Geen, 1999).
For kinship foster parents, financial support depends both on licensing status and
children’s eligibility for federal foster care assistance under Title IV-E of the Social
Parent-ChildCircumstances
CWA* Responseto Child
Relative Response toChild
System Responseto Relative
Parentunable
to care forchild
Child takeninto CWAcustody
Child notmaltreated
Childmaltreated
Child placed infoster care
Relativereceives
kinship carestipend
Relative islicensed
foster parent
Relative isnot licensedfoster parent
Relativeagrees tocare for
child
No relative agrees to care
for child
Child not inCWA custody
Relative agreesto care for child
Relativereceives
child-onlyTANF
Relativereceives noassistance
Relativereceives foster
care stipend
CWA: Child Welfare Agency.
Fig. 1. Pathways to kinship care.
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446 437
Security Act (i.e., removal from a home that would have qualified for income assistance
under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, and custody by a state child
welfare agency). Kinship foster parents who meet licensing requirements and who care for
for IV-E eligible children are legally entitled to receive federally supported foster care
payments (Harvard Law Review, 1999). Those who do not fully meet the state’s foster care
licensing requirements or who care for children who do not meet Title IV-E requirements
may be offered a reduced level of support or child-only TANF (Boots & Geen, 1999).
Kinship care providers who care for children who are not in state custody typically rely
on child-only TANF. Some kinship care providers and unlicensed kinship foster parents
may choose to forego financial assistance rather than apply for child-only TANF. For both
children and kinship caregivers, the financial differences between child-only TANF and
foster care support are often stark. In South Carolina, for example, the base rate for foster
care payments per month for one child without special needs aged 6 to 12 years is $339
per month; the TANF payment to a relative caregiver for one child is 70 percent less-$102
per month (Edelhoch, 2002). Such distinctions are compounded by the fact that TANF
payments typically increase by smaller increments for subsequent children, while the
foster payments are the same for each additional child, and that foster parents are eligible
to receive quarterly clothing allowances and other supports.
Child-only TANF thus supports children in kinship care arrangements, both within and
outside the child welfare system. Fig. 1 underscores the fact that entry to a specific kinship
care arrangement may be determined by a variety of factors, including parental action,
relative response, and detection by the child welfare system, rather than children’s
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446438
experiences and needs. This article examines whether children in TANF child-only cases
with relative caregivers differ from others in out-of-home care, and–if not–whether they
are receiving adequate support.
3. Methods
The research described here was conducted as part of a study exploring the service
needs and well-being of children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers. In
addition to a comprehensive review of prior research, state TANF plans and Federal
program data, the study used secondary analysis of national survey data and case studies in
five states. This multi-method approach allowed researchers to describe policies that
determine entry to this population, children’s service needs and well-being, and how states
are responding to them.
3.1. Secondary analysis
The secondary analysis used data from two national surveys: the Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP) and the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-
Being (NSCAW). Because NSCAW data are better suited to identifying children in out-of-
home care, SIPP data are not discussed in this article. NSCAW collects longitudinal data
on 5400 children who have been investigated by the child welfare system. Data are
collected from first-hand reports from children, parents, and other caregivers, as well as
reports from caseworkers, teachers, and data from administrative records. It is important to
note that children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers in the NSCAW
sample are not representative of all such children, since many children in TANF child-only
cases with relative caregivers have no contact with the child welfare system. However, for
those children represented by this sample, NSCAW data allow analyses of child
performance, using well-established measures of development, social, emotional well-
being (DHHS & ACF, n.d), as well as their interaction with other service systems such as
the TANF program, Medicaid, housing assistance, and others.
Analyses of NSCAW data compared three groups of children in out-of-home care:
children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers (TANFCOR); children living
with kin, but not receiving TANF child-only payments (KINCARE); and those in non-
relative foster care (FOSTER). Groups were identified based on survey items defining
TANF receipt by the child or other household members, the child’s relation to the
caregiver, and foster care payment receipt by the caregiver. Table 1 shows the unweighted
and weighted numbers for each group.
Several caveats should be noted with respect to these analyses of NSCAW data. The
number of children actually sampled in the TANFCOR group is small (n =54) relative to
the other groups, so that some relationships which may be statistically significant do not
appear to be so. In addition, available data do not allow precise definition of comparison
groups. It is not possible to identify whether children in the TANFCOR group were in state
custody, and it is possible that some kinship care providers received foster care
maintenance payments, although we believe that this is to be rare based on examination
Table 1
Comparison groups for NSCAW analysis
Category Caregiver Foster care payments TANF N
Unweighted Weighted
TANFCOR Relative N Child 54 13,954
KINCARE Relative Some Some 456 92,247
FOSTER Other Y N 565 78,506
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446 439
of the data. The most informative comparison to the TANFCOR group will thus be
between the FOSTER group, in which all children are in state custody and receiving both
increased financial support and supervision.
3.2. Case studies
The case study component used multiple-case, exploratory–explanatory methodology
to investigate policies, services, and well-being for relative child-only cases. Five states
(Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, Washington and Wisconsin) were selected based on size
of the relative care caseload, efforts to address the needs of this population, lack of
extensive prior research and willingness to cooperate with the study. Applying similar
criteria, the study team worked with state agency contacts to select two local sites within
each state. Two-person teams spent approximately four days in each state, during which
they held discussions with state and local managers from both TANF and child welfare
agencies and offices on aging, as well as relative caregivers. Researchers used structured
discussion guides to ensure consistent data collection while allowing flexibility to tailor
discussions to respondents’ expertise and pursue emerging ideas. Document review, both
onsite and after the site visit, included reports, budget summaries, service manuals and
organizational charts.
Analysis of case study data used a combination of approaches to build a description and
explanation of current practices, policies, and initiatives regarding services for children in
TANF relative caregiver child-only cases. Researchers first identified themes streaming
through the data across states and across discipline (i.e., contrasts between TANF and child
welfare) to develop themes and hypotheses. They then tested hypotheses within and across
states to identify differences in policy and practice, factors contributing to these patterns, and
effects for children and relative caregivers. While the analysis process increased confidence
in the case studies’ usefulness in describing issues and explaining differences across sites
and disciplines, it should be noted that these findings cannot be generalized to other sites.
4. Findings
4.1. Secondary analysis
Comparisons among the TANFCOR, KINCARE and FOSTER groups identified few
statistically significant differences, which is not surprising given the relatively small size of
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446440
the TANFCOR group. Age and racial composition were similar among the three groups,
with children in the KINCARE group less likely to be male ( p b .10). The three groups were
similar in many measures of health care and preventive service use, as seen in Table 2.
Service utilization was similar across groups in many respects, including having seen a
dentist, having had a vision test, using emergency or urgent care and having an injury or
poisoning requiring medical care. The differences that were observed suggest favorable
status for children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers. The TANFCOR group
was more likely to have had a hearing test than the FOSTER group ( p b .10), and less likely
to have been admitted to a hospital overnight than either the KINCARE or FOSTER groups
( p b .05 and .01, respectively). The TANFCOR groupwas less likely to have been diagnosed
with learning problems ( p b .05 compared to FOSTER) and less likely to receive special
education services or classes ( p b .01 for both KINCARE and FOSTER).
Well-being measures for the three groups are shown in Table 3. For developmental
measures such as the Social Skills Rating System, Batelle Developmental Inventory and
Preschool Language Scale, higher scores are favorable. The TANFCOR group had
consistently higher scores for all measures in this area, but only for the Preschool
Language Scale were statistically significant differences observed (pb .01 for both
KINCARE and FOSTER).
Findings were less consistent for the problem-focused behavioral and mental health
measures in Table 3, where higher scores indicate greater indicators of difficulty. For
children under age 4, the TANFCOR group had higher scores on the Child Behavior
Checklist than did the KINCARE group ( p b .01), but similar to those of the FOSTER
group. Among children age 4 or older, the three groups were not statistically different.
Scores for the Children’s Depression Inventory and Trauma Symptom Checklist were not
statistically different across the three groups. Among older children, those in the
KINCARE group had higher scores on the Youth Self-Report than did the TANFCOR or
FOSTER groups.
Table 2
Child-reported service usea (for children over age 11 during the past year)
TANFCOR
(%)
KINCARE
(%)
FOSTER
(%)
Child saw dentist/hygienist 64 58 51
Child had vision test 55 56 48
Child had hearing tested 70 55 51*
Child admitted to hospital overnight for injury or illness 1 5** 7***
Child went to ER or urgent care for injury or illness 22 28 31
Child had injury/accident or poisoning requiring doctor or nurse 5 7 6
Child currently in any daycare program 21 26 30**
Child tested for learning problems 41 25 38
Professional says child has learning problem or disability 12 27 34**
Child currently receiving special education services or classes 17 81*** 89***
***Significantly different from TANFCOR at the 0.01 level.
**Significantly different from TANFCOR at the 0.05 level.
*Significantly different from TANFCOR at the 0.10 level.a Data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national survey of children
who have been investigated for abuse or neglect.
Table 3
Measures of well-beinga
TANFCOR KINCARE FOSTER
Social Skills Rating System
PS: Social skills percentile-preschool 50.74 32.26 23.53
PS: Social skills standard-preschool 100.53 89.43*** 85.34***
Battelle Developmental Inventory
BD: Perceptual discrimination-percentile 46.09 26.17 28.35
BD: Memory-percentile score 23.74 27.61 30.76
BD: Reason and academic skills-percentile 34.92 26.13 31.50
BD: Conceptual develop.-percentile 40.55 18.70 30.22
Preschool Language Scale
CO: Total language (auditory /expressive) std. score 98.91 91.71 88.43
Child Behavior Checklist
TC: Total percentile (0–4) 82.17 64.17*** 82.88
BC: Total percentile score (4–18) 68.62 69.55 82.00
Children’s Depression Inventory
CD: Depression: total CDI raw 11.20 8.59 11.18
Trauma Symptom Checklist
TR: Trauma: PTS raw score 13.46 8.28 9.89
TR: Trauma: PTS T score 57.85 48.93 52.03
Youth Self-Report
YB: Behavior probability: total raw score 29.46 43.59* 41.83
***Significantly different from TANFCOR at the 0.01 level.
**Significantly different from TANFCOR at the 0.05 level.
*Significantly different from TANFCOR at the 0.10 level.a Data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national survey of children
who have been investigated for abuse or neglect.
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446 441
Although the differences were not strong, some distinctions among groups are evident.
Compared to the KINCARE and FOSTER groups, children in the TANFCOR group had
similar or favorable status with respect to health care, educational measures, and
developmental indicators. This advantage may reflect caregiver effects for children in the
TANFCOR group, since the other categories of out-of-home care are likely to have higher
levels of service availability. By contrast, measures of emotional and behavioral well-
being suggested similar or higher incidence of problems for the TANFCOR group. These
children may experience detrimental effects related to separation from parents, and the
events precipitating separation, that are at least as severe as those experienced by children
in the other two groups. However, they lack the oversight and case management provided
to children under child welfare supervision.
As noted earlier, NSCAW data represent those children in TANF child-only cases with
relative caregivers who have encountered the child welfare system, rather than the entire
population. Within this population, and in light of the caveats noted earlier regarding
group definition, the most striking finding of these analyses is how similar the groups are
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446442
with respect to measures of emotional and behavioral well-being. Children the TANFCOR
group, some of whom may be in state custody, show similar or less favorable status when
compared to children in the FOSTER group, all of whom are known to have been
maltreated. The favorable status of the TANFCOR group on measures of health and
development may be attributable to either their lower incidence of maltreatment (when
compared to the FOSTER group) or the positive effect of financial support from TANF
(compared to the KINSHIP group).
4.2. Case studies
Across the five sites visited, three themes were voiced consistently, and from a variety
of perspectives. First, many, if not most, children in TANF child-only cases with relative
caregivers enter kinship care as a result of serious deficits in parental care. Kinship care
situations–most of which do not involve the child welfare system–were described as the
result of parental substance abuse, mental illness, incarceration, or abandonment. Second,
while informal kinship care arrangements generally improve safety, stability, and well-
being for children, many kinship care families experience high levels of material and
service needs. Staff in TANF agencies focusing on economic self-sufficiency lack the
expertise and resources to respond to these needs. Assistance beyond the child-only
TANF grant is typically available only to relative caregivers persistent enough to seek out
help, and limited to referrals to community resources. Finally, relative caregivers are
fiercely committed to the children they care for. However, they have deep concerns on
several fronts. They worry that they cannot protect children from the reappearance of the
same parents who failed them before. They recognize that their own child-rearing abilities
may be limited by the effects of aging, or inadequate to meet children’s behavioral,
emotional, and physical needs. The demands of child-raising require substantial material
sacrifices of relative caregivers, and may threaten what had previously been marginal
financial stability.
The states visited as part of this study have implemented a variety of strategies to
address the needs of children in TANF child-only cases and their relative caregivers. These
strategies include tailoring intake and recertification procedures to meet the needs of
relative caregivers, providing social support and resource networks for elderly caregivers,
and offering supplemental funds to augment child-only TANF grants. One state offers
enhanced financial support for low-income relative caregivers, as do several other states
not participating in the case studies.
A major distinction among the five states is their response to formal kinship care
providers who care for children in child welfare custody. Among the states for whom
estimates were available, the proportion of kinship caregivers who were licensed as foster
parents ranged from 10% to 50%. Caregivers who do not meet licensure requirements
receive substantially less financial support. These distinctions are offset in some states by
the availability of supported guardianship programs for relatives who assume long-term
custody of children formerly in state custody.
Informants in each of the case study sites recognized the similarities between formal
and informal kinship care populations, and the fact that many children travel between
child welfare involvement and informal kinship care over time. To varying degrees
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446 443
within and across the five states, collaborative efforts attempt to improve communica-
tion, share resources, and otherwise bridge the gap between child welfare and TANF
agencies. Only in one state have structural changes been implemented to bring children
in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers closer to the type of child-focused
services and supervision provided for children in child welfare custody.
Many TANF agency representatives pointed out that children in TANF child-only
cases with relative caregivers were likely to be better off in their current situation than
they had been with their parents. However, to the extent that these children would have
received services from a child welfare agency had their circumstances been known or if
a relative not intervened, they are substantially underserved. Children in TANF child-
only cases with relative caregivers do not have access to the comprehensive assessments,
support services, financial support, and permanency planning provided to those in state
custody.
Because informal kinship care providers receive far less caregiver assessment and
ongoing supervision, the risk remains that children are placed in the care of yet another
inadequate or even dangerous caregiver. The child welfare system, working under critical
resource constraints, has no mandate to serve these children; the TANF agency has neither
the resources nor the expertise to meet their needs.
5. Summary and discussion
The complementary research activities comprising this study yielded mixed findings
regarding the service needs and well-being of children in TANF child-only cases with
relative caregivers. Although the comprehensive literature review identified limited
information specific to this population, available research indicates that these children
have often been exposed to traumatic experiences leading up to placement with a
relative. Research on children in relative care also suggests children placed in relative
care have increased risk of medical, behavioral and educational problems. Secondary
analyses suggested that children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers who
have encountered the child welfare system compare favorably to other children in out-
of-home care on many indicators of well-being. However, these children fared no better
than those in kinship or foster care on measures of behavioral and mental health. Finally,
case studies in five diverse states concur with the previous literature and the secondary
data analysis finding that many children in TANF child-only cases with relative
caregivers have extensive service needs, to which TANF agencies are not equipped to
respond. In particular, case studies revealed a lack of assessment and case management
for children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers, and little collaboration
between TANF and child welfare agencies.
Taken together, these findings suggest advantages of relative caregiver arrangements
for children in TANF child-only cases, as well as cause for concern. Children who enter
relative care do so as a result of serious disruption in their parents’ ability to care for them.
Under such circumstances, relative care is believed to be preferable to either parental care
or foster care with nonrelatives. However, these children often experience substantial
difficulties as a result of their previous experiences and separation from parents, and the
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446444
TANF system lacks the necessary resources to respond to them. Key findings stress these
dual themes of protection and risk.
5.1. TANF relative care may avert foster care for many children
Previous research shows that many children enter relative care as a result of
maltreatment, substance abuse or mental illness of their parents, which may or may not
have attracted attention from child welfare agencies. The substantial number of children
in kinship care within NSCAW’s sample of children investigated for abuse or neglect
supports this contention. Service providers and relative caregivers in all five case study
sites agree that children enter relative care due to serious disruptions in parenting,
leading to serious risk or actual maltreatment. However, since children outside the child
welfare system do not receive comprehensive assessments, it is impossible to estimate
how many have experienced maltreatment that would have warranted child welfare
involvement had it been recognized by authorities. Nor is it known how frequently the
availability of kinship care averted abuse or neglect.
5.2. Relatives provide care with little external support
The Adoption and Safe Families Act requires child welfare agencies to give
preference to relative placements when possible, based on extensive research indicating
that children fare better with relative caregivers. Relative caregivers in case study sites
describe a fierce devotion to the children for whom they care, although many struggle to
meet the physical, emotional and financial demands of child-rearing. While acknowl-
edging the benefits of relative care, state policies frequently assume that relatives will
care for children with less financial support than is given to nonkin foster care
providers.
5.3. Many children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers have extensive unmet
needs
Previous research has established that many children in TANF child-only cases with
relative caregivers have physical, emotional, developmental, and educational needs at a
rate far higher than children living with their parents. In addition to effects of separation
from their parents, they can experience long-term problems related to the experiences
that precipitated relative care. Although secondary analysis NSCAW data found that
children in TANF child-only relative care had some advantages over others in out-of-
home care, they were not statistically different from children in foster care in many
respects. Case study informants from TANF and child welfare agencies and relative
caregivers participating in focus groups echoed these findings, describing a high
prevalence of complex needs among children in relative care. Many relative caregivers
have neither the personal nor financial resources necessary to respond to these needs.
Children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers may be better off in their
current situation than they had been with their parents, as suggested by several TANF
agency representatives. However, NSCAW data and case study findings suggests that
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446 445
they have needs comparable to those of children in foster care, and many of these needs
will not be met.
5.4. Children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers fall between the mandates
of the child welfare and TANF systems
The TANF child-only grant provides basic financial support to children cared for by
relatives not legally responsible for them. However, TANF agencies, with their primary
focus on self-sufficiency and employment readiness, typically offer neither assessments
nor services appropriate to these children’s needs. High caseloads and lack of expertise
in children’s issues limit the ability of TANF workers to respond to the complex needs
of children in TANF child-only cases with relative caregivers. The child welfare
system, by contrast, is oriented to child well-being and service provision, but its
resources may not be available to children in TANF child-only cases with relative
caregivers. While relative care has removed these children from actual or imminent
harm, it also effectively removes them from the child welfare system’s resources,
including additional financial support, child-focused assessments and services, case
management, and permanency planning. In addition, fear of the child welfare system’s
authority makes many relative caregivers reluctant to seek out services for which
children could qualify. Children who might have been entitled to the child welfare
system’s services had they been known to that agency are thus substantially
underserved. To bridge this gap, some child welfare agencies view children in TANF
child-only cases with relative caregivers as at-risk, and offer case management and
support services designed to maintain them safely outside the child welfare system.
Others dedicate TANF funds to increased services for children in TANF child-only
cases with relative caregivers.
5.5. Enhanced services to this readily accessible population could yield substantial impact
Their connection to the TANF system provides an opportunity–for the most part,
unrealized–to identify vulnerable children and provide services while maintaining
family bonds. Such support could strengthen the permanency offered by relative care
arrangements, increase child well-being and prevent entry to the child welfare
system.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), under contract
number 282-98-0022. David Nielsen served as the Federal project officer. The study was
conducted by RTI International and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The
study team particularly appreciates the contributions of TANF and child welfare agency
staff and relative caregivers who participated in the case studies. Requests for reprints
should be directed to the first author at dag@rti.org.
D. Gibbs et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 435–446446
References
Boots, S., & Geen, R. (1999). Family care of foster care? How state policies affect kinship caregivers.
Washington, DC7 The Urban Institute.
Edelhoch, M. (2002). Relative caretakers in child-only cases lack support services to fulfill crucial roles. New
York7 The research forum on children, families, and the new federalism.
Ehrle, J., Geen, R., & Clark, R. (2001). Children cared for by relatives: Who are they and how are they faring?
Assessing the new federalism project. Washington, D.C.7 The Urban Institute.
Farrell, M., Fishman, M., Laud, S., & Allen, V. (2000). Understanding the AFDC/TANF child-only caseload:
Policies, composition and characteristics in three states. Falls Church, VA7 The Lewin Group.
Geen, R. (2003). Kinship care: Making the most of a valuable resource. Washington, DC7 The Urban Institute
Press.
Harvard Law Review (1999). Note: The policy of penalty in kinship care. Harvard Law Review, 112, 1047–1064.
Schofield, E. C., & Fein, D. J. (2000). The ABC evaluation: Child-only cases in Delaware’s welfare caseload.
New Castle, DE7 Abt Associates, Inc.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), & Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
(2000). Report to the congress on kinship foster care. Washington, DC7 The Urban Institute.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), & Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
(2003). Fifth annual TANF report to congress. Washington, DC7 Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF). (n.d).
Overview of NSCAW Child Instrument. Accessed May 14, 2005, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/instruments/nscaw_child_instru.html
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1999, May). Foster care: Kinship care quality and permanency issues.
Washington, DC7 Author Publication No. GAO-HEHS-99-32.
Wood, R., & Strong, D. (2002, June). The status of child-only TANF families: Evidence from New Jersey.
Princeton, NJ7 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Issue Brief, No. 3.
top related