between two systems: children in tanf child-only cases with relative caregivers

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: [email protected] (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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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 [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


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.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/instruments/nscaw_child_instru.html

between two systems: children in tanf child-only cases with relative caregivers

Documents