Anderson

Subsidized Kinship Caregiving for Children: Issues Emerging in Two U.S. Program Contexts: 

Subsidized Kinship Caregiving for Children: Issues Emerging in Two U.S. Program Contexts Steve Anderson, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Mark Testa, Director & Associate Professor, Children and Family Research Center, School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

What is Subsidized Kinship Caregiving?: 

What is Subsidized Kinship Caregiving? Subsidized care by someone with a culturally recognized kinship bond Specific definition of kinship caregiver varies by program Growing importance in three large U.S. care systems Out of homes placements for abused children Child care for working parents Home-based care for the frail elderly

Overarching Public Policy Questions Concerning Kinship Care for Children: 

Overarching Public Policy Questions Concerning Kinship Care for Children What are appropriate measures of quality (or outcomes), and how can comparisons be made with non-kin providers? How much weight should be given to parental choice in the selection of kinship versus other care providers in subsidized programs? Is kinship care a desired or forced option in subsidized programs?

Overarching Public Policy Questions  Concerning Kinship Care for Children: 

Overarching Public Policy Questions Concerning Kinship Care for Children To what extent does subsidized kinship care supplant versus supplement care that is provided informally by kinship caregivers? What level of training and other support should be provided to kin, and how should this compare to that provided to non-kin caregivers? Should monitoring standards be the same for kinship providers as for other providers?

Selected Caregiving Issues in Two Large U.S. Programs: The Illinois Experience: 

Selected Caregiving Issues in Two Large U.S. Programs: The Illinois Experience Child care subsidies for low-income working families – focus on parental choice issues Out-of-home placements for abused and neglected children – focus on outcome comparisons with non-kin providers

State of Illinois: 

State of Illinois Pop. 12.7 million (5th) G.S.P. $529 billion (5th)

The Rapid Growth of Subsidized Child Care after Welfare Reform: 

The Rapid Growth of Subsidized Child Care after Welfare Reform Child Care and Development Fund created under 1996 welfare reforms Nationally, an average of 1.75 million low-income children received subsidies under this program in FY 2003 Program expenditures totaled about $6.6 billion in FY 2003 13% of children were served by relatives in non-licensed settings

State Discretion in Child  Care Program Development: 

State Discretion in Child Care Program Development States are given broad discretion in setting rules for child care subsidies Whether kinship providers should be offered subsidies, and under what conditions, is one such area of discretion Illinois has chosen to allow kinship caregivers with few restrictions, and charges parents the same co-payments whether they use kin or other providers (known as license-exempt care)

Illinois Study of License-Exempt Care: 

Illinois Study of License-Exempt Care Utilized both administrative and survey data to explore various aspects of license-exempt care use in the Illinois system Administrative data was used to examine the extent to which parents choose license-exempt care, and to assess whether there are differences in parental characteristics between license-exempt and other care users Survey data explored reasons parents offered for choosing license-exempt caregivers

Selection of Providers: 

Selection of Providers Parents are responsible for selecting providers, and may use either licensed or license-exempt care State issues payments directly to the provider Parents are assigned a co-pay based on income and family size, which providers collect from the parent Co-payments are the same regardless of type of care used Payment rate is $9.48 per day for full-day care in license-exempt home settings

Type of Care Providers Chosen by Illinois Parents: January 2003: 

Type of Care Providers Chosen by Illinois Parents: January 2003

Types of License-Exempt Provider Used: January 2003: 

Types of License-Exempt Provider Used: January 2003

License-Exempt Care Use Over Time, and Differences with Licensed Care Users: 

License-Exempt Care Use Over Time, and Differences with Licensed Care Users 70% of families entering program in FY 1999 used subsidized license-exempt care within 3 years 23% used both licensed and license-exempt care within 3 years Care spells were similar for both types of care License-exempt care users had slightly lower incomes, were much more likely to have more than one child, and were much more likely to have children age 6 and over

Most Important Reasons for Selecting  Current License-Exempt Provider: 

Most Important Reasons for Selecting Current License-Exempt Provider

The Importance of Care During  Non-traditional Work Hours: 

The Importance of Care During Non-traditional Work Hours 81.3% reported having consistent schedules 70.0% reported using some evening, overnight, or weekend care in last week 54.0% evening care 16.4% overnight care 48.4% weekend care 30% of respondents reported living with their care provider

Other Child Care Options Considered : 

Other Child Care Options Considered 29.8% reported considering other arrangements when choosing current provider Of those considering other options, 64.4% considered child care centers and 28.9% considered preschool or before/after school programs 94.7% said they would still choose current license-exempt provider if cost was not a factor 98.6% of parents and 94.4 percent of providers reported being very satisfied with their current caregiving arrangements

Slide17: 

Children and Family Research Center University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of Social Work TM Kinship Foster Care & Guardianship in Child Welfare Mark Testa Director & Associate Professor Horizons in Social Policy and Social Work World University Network November 14, 2005

Slide18: 

Informal & Formal Informal Formal Public Private

Slide19: 

Kinship Care in the United States 1,407,000 (48%) 889,000 (31%) 260,000 ( 9%) 361,000 (12%) Living Arrangements of Children, 2001 Survey of Income and Program Participation 4% 200,000 Kinship Foster Care

Slide20: 

1,407,000 (48%) 889,000 (31%) 260,000 ( 9%) 361,000 (12%) Survey of Income and Program Participation Kinship Care Fastest Growing Living Arrangement

Slide21: 

In some cultures, private-informal kinship care is interwoven with regular child-rearing practices, accounting for as much as one-half of children’s living arrangements in a Polynesian society. With urbanization and industrialization, kinship care commonly devolves into a residual component that compensates for problems in the nuclear family system. Communities and government rely on the altruism of kin and the unpaid labor of mostly female caregivers to limit the scope and costs of public-foster care. Development of Kinship Care

Slide22: 

Growth of Foster Kinship Care State of Illinois United States

Slide23: 

Build-up in Long-Term Care State of Illinois United States

Slide24: 

Uncontrolled Caseload Growth State of Illinois United States

Slide25: 

Per 1000 Child Population 1995/96 Highest Per-Capita Rate in U.S.

Slide26: 

Kinship Foster Care, 1999-2001

Slide27: 

Safety of Kinship Foster Care: Illinois

Slide28: 

Replicated with National Data National Survey of Child and Adolescent Welfare (NSCAW). found that children in kinship care were less likely than children in unrelated foster care to be substantiated as victims of child maltreatment at the18 month follow-up. Indicated report rate is lower in kinship foster care:

Slide29: 

Stability of Kinship Foster Care: Illinois Youth aged 13 to 16 assigned to the Illinois Subsidized Guardianship Waiver Demonstration were less likely to experience a placement disruption two years after their interview the more closely they were related to the caregiver. Placement disruption is lower in kinship foster care:

Slide30: 

Replicated with Swedish Data Swedish youth aged 13 to 16 placed in foster care in 1991were less likely to experience a placement disruption five years after their initial placement the more closely they were related to the caregiver. Placement disruption is lower in kinship foster care:

To allow “children to stay or be placed in a familial setting that is more cost effective than continuing them in foster care.”: 

Illinois’ Subsidized Guardianship Waiver To allow “children to stay or be placed in a familial setting that is more cost effective than continuing them in foster care.” -- USDHHS, 1995 Authorizes use of IV-E funds to subsidize legal guardianship by kin of children who have been in state custody for one year, resided continuously with the prospective guardian for one year and for whom reunification and adoption have been ruled out as permanency plans. Also available for children aged 12 and older who reside with an unrelated foster parent.

Slide32: 

Unlike adoption, guardianship does not recast kinship relations into the nuclear family mold of parent and child. Guardians retain their extended family identities as grandparents, aunts, and uncles. It does not require the termination of parental rights, which legally estranges children not only from their birth parents but also from their unadopted siblings. Under guardianship, children may also retain rights of sibling visitation. Birth parents may still exercise a limited role in their children’s upbringing. They hold on to certain residual rights and obligations, such the rights to visit and consent to adoption as well as the obligation for child support. If circumstances change, parents may petition the court to vacate the guardianship and return the children to their custody, unlike adoption that is consummated only after the birth parents’ rights to regain custody are permanently extinguished. Guardianship limits the financial liability of guardians for the upkeep of their wards, unlike adoption that reassigns these financial obligations fully to the adoptive parents. Addresses many of the concerns of kin adopting kin

Slide33: 

Spike in Adoptions & Guardianships 4,000 42,000 State of Illinois United States Guardianship Waiver

Slide34: 

Backlog in Long-Term, Foster Care Reduced 52,000 18,000 State of Illinois United States

Slide35: 

From Foster Care to Family Permanence State of Illinois United States

Slide36: 

Availability of SG boosted legal permanence … At round one of the evaluation (1998) there was a 8% permanency advantage for children in the experimental group who were offered the choice of subsidized guardianship compared to children in the control group. Increase in both adoptions and guardianships }8.3%

Slide37: 

Is the trade-off worth it? At round two of the evaluation (2000) there was still a 6% permanency advantage, but perhaps two-thirds of the completed guardianships might have eventually converted into adoptions in the absence of the option. Guardianships supplant adoptions }6.0%

Further Policy and Research  Work on Kinship Care Issues: 

Further Policy and Research Work on Kinship Care Issues Continued refinement of appropriate outcomes, and how these best can be measured Are kinship care policy issues unique to specific service systems, or should they be considered more generically? Should kinship care providers by treated in the same manner as other providers, or should special rules apply (i.e., compensation, training, monitoring)?

Further Readings: 

Further Readings Anderson, S., Ramsburg, D., & Scott, J. (2005). Illinois Study of License-Exempt Care: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Child Care Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Testa, M. & Miller, J. (2005). “The Evolution of Guardianship as a Child Welfare Resource.” Pp. 405-422 in Mallon, G. & McCartt Hess, P. (Eds.) Child Welfare for the 21st Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Testa, M. (2005). “The Changing Significance of Race and Kinship for Achieving Permanence for Foster Children.” Pp. 231-241 in Derrezotes, D., Poertner, J., & Testa, M. (Eds.) Race Matters in Child Welfare: The Overrepresentation of African Americans in the System. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.