Matched Comparison of Children in Kinship Care and Foster Care on Child Welfare Outcomes

Abstract

The documented growth of kinship care has boldly thrust this topic into the forefront of child welfare practice. This study compares the permanency, safety, and stability outcomes for a matched group of children placed in kinship care and foster care. After controlling for demographic and placement characteristics, children in kinship care had significantly fewer placements than did children in foster care, and they were less likely to still be in care, have a new allegation of institutional abuse or neglect, be involved with the juvenile justice system, and achieve reunification. These findings call for a greater commitment by child welfare professionals, policy makers, and researchers to make kinship care a viable out-of-home placement option for children and families.

Family Foster Care: Can it Survive the Evidence?

“…This study also found that 92 per cent of females and 86 per cent of males in detention had a diagnosed psychological disorder, including an attention or behavioural disorder, a substance abuse disorder, an anxiety or other mood disorder, or a psychotic disorder. Other studies reinforce these findings (Lawrence, Carlson, & Egeland, 2006;Kessler et al, 2008;Tarren-Sweeney, 2008;Winokur, Crawford, Longobardi, & Valentine, 2008).…”

Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption

“…Furthermore, although some research has indicated that kinship care does not impede adoption rates (Connell et al, 2006;Koh & Testa, 2008;Winokur et al, 2008), it makes sense that adoption would be less likely for children in kinship care if relatives are more comfortable with guardianship arrangements than adoptions (Testa, 2002). In sum, the findings on initial placement type indicated that connections to family or kin were important for reunification and even more so for guardianship.…”

“…Placement type was frequently defined as the type of initial placement, to include non-kin foster care, kinship foster care, group homes, and, sometimes, emergency shelters. In general, placement type was almost always found to have a significant association with foster care exits, (Connell, et al, 2006;Courtney & Wong, 1996;Goerge, 1990;Harris & Courtney, 2003;Park & Ryan, 2009;Smith, 2003;Vogel, 1999;Wells & Guo, 1999;Winokur, Crawford, Longobard, & Valentine, 2008) though the specifics vary by type of exit and type of placement, and a few studies found contradictions (Courtney, et al, 1997;Koh & Testa, 2008;PabustanClaar, 2007;Potter & Klein-Rothschild, 2002). Specifically, initial placement in group home settings or emergency shelters lowered the likelihood of reunification (Connell, et al;Courtney & Wong;Park & Ryan, 2009) and adoption (Connell, et al).…”

“…Given the high interest in kinship care, it was the most extensively studied type of placement among the reviewed studies. Several studies have found that kinship care delayed reunification (Connell, et al, 2006;Courtney, 1994;Courtney & Wong, 1996;Goerge, 1990;Harris & Courtney, 2003;Wells & Guo, 1999;Winokur, et al, 2008), but this was not always the case (Courtney, et al, 1997;Koh & Testa, 2008). Others found kinship care did not delay exits to adoption and guardianship (Connell, et al; Koh & Testa; Winokur, et al).…”

“…Others found kinship care did not delay exits to adoption and guardianship (Connell, et al; Koh & Testa; Winokur, et al). Among the reviewed studies, two used matched comparison groups to examine the differences in foster care exits between children in kin and non-kin foster care placements (Koh & Testa, 2008;Winokur, et al, 2008). Below, Koh and Testa's findings are highlighted because they used advanced statistical techniques for matching the samples and examining outcomes (i.e., propensity score matching and event history analysis).…”