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
