One of the key arguments put forward for the benefits of kinship placements is that they are likely to provide permanency for children. However, little is known about the factors which promote placement stability or the reasons for placement disruption. Eleanor Lutman, Joan Hunt and Suzette Waterhouse examine placement stability and disruption for a cohort of children placed in kinship care through care proceedings (Hunt et al, 2008). When compared with disruption rates for other forms of care, it appears that for younger children kinship care can be a positive option but the figures are less positive for older children. However, after disruption over half of the kinship-placed children remained within their family networks and many kinship carers retained a positive relationship with the child. The findings indicate placements of older children, placements with aunts/uncles and placements where the carer and child are less familiar with each other are more likely to disrupt and thus may need more support.

This study examined 50 referrals for temporary family placement to assess the extent of choice and matching. The findings, discussed here by Suzette Waterhouse and Edwina Brocklesby, revealed that three-quarters of the placements were made in a crisis-led and unplanned way. Such unplanned placements had negative consequences, particularly in terms of contact, lack of knowledge of the family and a need for a subsequent move. The lack of a child-centred focus in the process by which children came to be placed was notable. An acute shortage of carers meant that it was increasingly the norm for placements of children to be made outside of carers' approval criteria. In such circumstances carers did not receive compensating support to remedy the placement deficits. The authors conclude that fostering continues in a state of crisis without due recognition of the ***profession-alisation of the service now being offered.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract