Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10826-011-9454-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Abstract We review empirical studies on kinship foster Keywords Children Ecological systems theory
care in the United States. We conceptualize kinship foster Kinship foster care Parenting Race/ethnicity
care within the context of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1994)
most recent ecological systems theory. Because there are
multiple levels of influences on the developmental out- Introduction
comes of children placed in kinship foster home, under-
standing the interrelations between the individual (child) In recent years, increasing numbers of children in state
and his or her surrounding environments (e.g., biological custody in the United States have been residing with their
families, social-support network) is important. We argue relatives (Strozier et al. 2004). Kinship foster care has also
that Bronfenbrenner’s most recent ecological systems the- become the fastest growing form of child placement in
ory is an appropriate theoretical framework for policy and several countries around the world, such as England,
practice implications in addressing complex issues sur- Scotland, Ireland, Norway, and Ghana (see Burgess et al.
rounding kinship foster care system in the United States. 2010; Goertzen et al. (n.d.)). However, much of the
This review integrates the empirical findings collectively available empirical studies are derived from the United
on the factors associated with kinship foster care within States, where kinship care placement has increasingly
and between five systems levels of the ecological systems become a preferred form of child care arrangement
theory: micro- (caregiver-child relationship, attachment, (Cuddeback 2004; Ehrle and Geen 2002).
and kinship family environment), meso- (biological fami- The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
lies), exo- (social-support network outside the family), estimated that of the 25 states, the number of children
macro- (race/ethnicity and policies), and chrono- (welfare placed with their relatives jumped from 18% in 1986 to
reform) systems levels. Theories that are relevant to the 31% in 1990. Data from the National Survey of America’s
ecological factors (e.g., attachment theory) are also dis- Families (NSAF) conducted by the Urban Institute suggest
cussed. Finally, we draw policy and practice implications that in 1997, 194,000 children out of the 1.7 million lived
from the ecological systems analysis. with relatives. Of these, 284,000 children were living in
voluntary kinship care and 1.3 million children lived with
kin privately without involvement of the child welfare
system (Ehrle et al. 2001; Schwartz 2002). In 2007,
J. S. Hong (&) Y.-L. Chiu S. A.-P. Lee
School of Social Work, Children and Family Research Center, 123,390 out of 492,618 children in out-of-home care were
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, living with relatives, according to the Adoption and Foster
IL 61801, USA Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) of the
e-mail: jhong23@illinois.edu
National Data Archive for Child Abuse and Neglect
S. A.-P. Lee (NDACAN) and the Child Welfare League of America
e-mail: salee3@illinois.edu
(CWLA).
C. L. Algood Given the growing number of children being raised by
Howard University, Northwest, Washington, DC, USA relatives, the provision of services after children are placed
123
864 J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872
123
J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872 865
123
866 J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872
caregivers. The author notes that kinship foster caregivers quality of caregiver-child relationship can be influenced by
are also significantly more likely to feel responsible for the a larger system that is not directly experienced by the child,
child and wish to maintain a high level of involvement in such as social-support and involvement of child welfare
all aspects of the child’s life than do non-kinship foster professionals. Ecological systems theory highlights the
caregivers. importance of kinship foster caregivers’ experiences with
Researchers have also found that biological parents are social-support network outside the family (e.g., relatives,
more likely to maintain visitations with their children and friends, and neighbor), which can affect their relationship
be involved in kinship care placements than in traditional, with their children. According to Turner et al. (1998),
non-kinship foster care placements (Berrick and Barth conditions that may have some bearing on the availability
1994; Geen 2003; Greef 2001; Green and Goodman 2010). of social-support network theoretically fall within one of
Green and Goodman’s (2010) study examined birthparent six categories: 1) the caregivers’ placement in the social
involvement within informal and formal kinship families structure representing their socio-economic status; 2) the
from a survey of 351 custodial grandmothers. The relationship between the caregiver and the care recipient;
researcher found that birthparents were twice as likely to be 3) the demands and conditions of caregiving; 4) the care-
highly involved if there was an informal kinship arrange- givers’ social network attachment and their level of their
ment, and they were 39% more likely when there was a integration into the community or neighborhood; 5) the
close relationship with the grandmother. Biological caregivers’ personal assets and resources; and 6) the
parents’ involvement, which may include face-to-face or caregivers’ use of formal community services.
phone contacts, is critical to a child’s development; kinship There has been widespread interest in examining social-
placements enable parents to be involved, which is crucial support as a protective factor for stressful events in the
for healthy child development and positive identity, and research community (Green and Rodgers 2001). Under-
family reunification (McWey and Mullis 2004). standing how caregivers develop, perceive, maintain, and
As noted by Schweiger and O’Brien (2005), child engage in social-support is an important step towards better
welfare professionals in general oppose contact between knowledge about the types of social-support needed
children and their biological parents, citing the immediate in various situations (Cutrona and Russell 1990). Kin
disruptions in children’s behavior and emotional state. A caregivers’ social-support networks who engage in activi-
number of studies, which focused on biological mothers ties or exchanges of affective or material nature can reduce
who are incarcerated, suggest that maintaining contact with the likelihood of stress (Hashima and Amato 1994) and
biological parents has long-term benefits of providing a improve the quality of parenting practices (Cochran
sense of security and continuity to children placed in kin- and Brassard 1979). Several research studies (Bowers and
ship care (e.g., Baker et al. 2010; Cecil et al. 2008). A Meyers 1999; Kelley et al. 2000; Sands and Goldberg-
study by Cecil et al. (2008), which examined the adjust- Glen 2000) have examined an association between social-
ment of young children of incarcerated mothers, found that support and psychological stress among kin caregivers,
solidarity among co-caregivers is crucial for children’s particularly grandparents. These studies found that lack of
socio-emotional development and behavioral adaptation. social-support undermines parenting practices and nega-
Children’s problem behaviors escalate when there is a tively affects caregiver-child relationships. For example,
major lack of coordinating efforts between the caregiver Kelley et al. (2000) investigated several predictors of
and the biological parents. Baker et al. (2010) also reports psychological distress, such as social-support, family
from their study on mother-grandmother co-parenting resources, and physical health among 102 African Ameri-
interaction fewer child problem behaviors when mothers can grandmother kinship care providers raising 223
and grandmothers forge a collaborative effort to co-parent grandchildren. The researchers found that social-support
during a mother’s incarceration. Additional empirical was a major predictor; grandmothers who reported less
research is needed on child welfare professionals’ percep- social-support had higher tendency to experience high level
tions of kinship foster children’s connection with their of psychological distress, which had a major effect on their
biological parents, which would provide an implication for caregiving practices. Other studies (e.g., Cole and Eamon
the development of policies concerning contact between 2007) also report that foster caregivers who perceived their
children and their biological parents. social-support network as helpful were less likely to report
experiencing depressive symptoms. Intervention programs
Exosystem based on enhancing social-support has been recognized as
important in recent years, and thus research on social-
Exosystem consists of connections between two or more support process for informing an effective support-based
interactions or settings, but only one directly affecting the interventions for kin caregivers is critical (Green and
developing person (Bronfenbrenner 1977, 1994). The Rodgers 2001).
123
J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872 867
123
868 J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872
(e.g., historical and economic events) over the life course. are at a loss in their ability to comprehend the complexities
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon- of the child welfare system. This is a major contrast to non-
ciliation Act (PRWORA), or ‘‘welfare reform,’’ which was kinship foster caretakers who receive support and have
enacted in 1996, is an example of a major historical event, resources. In order to address some of the many challenges
which affected policies and services for kinship foster that beset policy and practice in kinship foster care, there is
caregivers. PRWORA replaced the Aid to Families with a need for ecologically grounded strategies that employ
Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was first micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystem levels of
established by the Social Security Act in 1935, with Tem- interventions.
porary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs.
TANF imposed five-year time limits on public assistance
receipt, and required employment and job training require- Micro-/Mesosystem
ments for public assistance recipients. After the welfare
reform, more kinship foster caregivers have turned to public At the micro- and mesosystem levels, there is a need for
benefits, such as TANF, SSI, Food Stamps, Free and clinical therapeutic intervention and case coordination to
Reduced Lunch, Social Security, and Medicaid (Berrick address issues such as caregiver-child relationships and
et al. 1994). However, benefits for kinship foster caregivers attachment problems kinship foster caretakers and children
were significantly lower than for licensed, non-kinship foster may experience. It is also important that childcare workers
caregivers after the welfare reform (Anderson 2006). have requisite understanding of the dynamics that the child
Additionally, TANF changes occurred at a time when and the caregiver present in a kinship foster care setting as
state child welfare systems were experiencing major opposed to non-kinship foster care setting. Several studies
increases in out-of-home foster care placements. Petit et al. on kinship foster care system provide insight into practice
(1999) reported that out-of-home foster care placements implications at the microsystem level of intervention. In her
increased by 89.5%, from 280,000 in 1986 to over 530,000 in study on the perceptions of children in kinship foster care,
1996 (as cited by Anderson and Righton 2001). TANF was Messing (2006) reports that children did not perceive kin-
also implemented simultaneously with the major changes in ship foster care as a stigma due to the fact they were living
the child welfare systems as mandated by the Adoption and with relatives rather than a complete stranger. Kinship
Safe Families Act of 1999 (P.A. 105-89, 1997). The act foster care arrangement was not complicated for them and
tightened decision-making timelines involving reunification represented a safe and secure environment. Initially, these
decisions, which resulted in increased demands for kinship children expressed concerns about being placed in a non-
foster care placements, but also tightened kinship care kinship foster home. O’Brien et al. (2001) report on relative
licensing requirements (Anderson and Righton 2001). caregivers’ perceptions of child welfare policy and prac-
tices. When caregivers were asked to express their thoughts
concerning the child welfare system, they stated that they
Practice and Policy Implications were seeking respect, and recognition of their parenting
skills. These caregivers wanted to be informed consistently
An ecological review of empirical studies on kinship foster of available services, and a major revision in the existing
care has major policy and practice implications for kinship foster care policies. They also expressed a need for infor-
foster caregivers and children. An important factor that mation on available support and services. The researchers
policy-makers and practitioners need to consider is that posit that although the caregivers expressed their love and
kinship foster caregivers are significantly more likely to be dedication to the child, they voiced concerns about their
older, have low educational attainment, live in poverty, and added responsibilities along with lack of resources. They
are more at risk of poor health than non-kinship foster expressed resentment towards the biological parents
caregivers. Geen (2004) argues that policy-makers and because of their new responsibilities as caregivers.
practitioners working with kinship foster caregiver and There are several interventions programs for kinship
children must initiate innovative intervention strategies for foster caregivers that have major implications for practi-
providing care and support, given their age, lack of tioners. One such intervention is the Parent Management
adequate resources, and health conditions. While kinship Training (PMT) program. Chamberlain et al. (2008) eval-
care has been accepted and expanded in all states, many uation study of PMT for foster caregivers indicated posi-
policy-makers fail to provide equal service provisions on tive outcomes for both caregivers and their children.
parity with services provided to foster families (Hawkins Another intervention that practitioners may consider is the
and Bland 2002). Geen (2004) also notes that many kinship Foster Pride/Adopt Pride. Christenson and McMurtry’s
foster caregivers receive little or no support before taking (2007) study found that the Foster Pride/Adopt Pride
children into their homes, have inadequate resources, and pre-service training and resources were effective family
123
J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872 869
development tools for parental training purposes for both minority families to a large degree are disproportionately
kinship and non-kinship foster caregivers. over-represented in child welfare system, and minority
Peters (2005) emphasized the importance of the child children are significantly more likely to be placed in
welfare workers’ attitudes toward kinship foster care sys- kinship care than White children. Several studies (Crewe
tem. The researcher conducted a content analysis of child and Wilson 2007; Gourdine 2007; Taylor et al. 2008) point
welfare workers’ responses during kinship foster care out that strong kinship bonds, religious connections, and
training. This was done based on the premises that child- extended family network are relevant source of social-
care workers beliefs and attitudes may influence placement support for African American families. Although Hill’s
decisions. Results of the analysis reveals that child welfare (2003) study found that the extended families appear to be
workers on the one hand have positive feelings toward steadily declining in African American families, grand-
kinship foster caregivers; on the other hand, child welfare parents play a major role in raising grandchildren in
workers expressed dissatisfaction towards the amount of African American communities (Gourdine 2007).
time it takes in kinship foster care placements, complica-
tions of using the child welfare worker to restructure the
Macro-/Chronosystem
power dynamics in the family, the lack of clear policies on
foster care system, and the risks associated with kinship
At the macrosystem level, there is a major need to review
foster care placements. Comprehensive Relative Enhance-
the existing child welfare policy in areas of permanency
ment Support and Training Project (CREST) is a viable
planning, disparities in funding for kinship versus
resource for kinship foster caregivers and child welfare
non-kinship foster caregivers, and placement outcomes for
professionals, as indicated in Hawkins and Bland’s (2002)
children in kinship foster care. Hawkins and Bland (2002)
study. CREST not only improved relative caregivers’
suggest that the current foster care policies must be revised
overall functioning but the program was also found to be
in order to provide support for kinship foster caregivers and
cost effective particularly when child welfare professionals
children rather than focusing solely on adoption. Geen
are involved. Gladstone and Brown’s (2007) study explored
(2004) concurs by arguing that legislators must implement
the circumstances under which grandparent caregivers and
policies that specifically meet the needs kinship foster
child welfare professionals have contact with one another.
caregivers, such as instruction and information about
The researchers found that positive relationships between
available resources, available support groups from the
grandparents and social workers can be perceived as
communities, and how to deal with children’s behavioral
exchange of resources. These studies point to the need for
problems (Strozier and Krisman 2007). One way to enact
more collaboration between child welfare professionals
policies that are in the best interest of kinship foster care-
and kinship foster caregivers, and pre-service training for
givers and their children is for policy-makers to collaborate
kinship foster caregivers and child welfare professionals.
with child welfare workers and practitioners working with
caregivers and children.
Exosystem
A number of researchers (Anderson 2006; Gourdine
2007; O’Brien et al. 2001) suggest that TANF requires a
At the exosystem level, there is a need for education and
re-evaluation to assess if the legislation is sufficiently
training, as well as increased social-support services for
meeting the needs for families in need, particularly kinship
kinship foster caregivers. Kelleyet al. (2001) conducted an
foster care families. Gourdine (2007) maintains that the
exploratory intervention study of a multimodal, home-
child welfare systems have increasingly relied on relatives
based intervention designed to reduce psychological dis-
to bear responsibility of childrearing since the enactment of
tress, enhance physical and mental health, and strengthen
TANF. Consequently, TANF and informal kinship foster
social-support and resources for grandparents raising
care arrangements resulted in substantially less financial
grandchildren. The intervention consisted of home visits by
support for families. O’Brien et al. (2001) assert that kin-
registered nurses, social workers, and legal assistants,
ship foster caregivers seeking permanent guardianship need
which lasted for duration of six months. The intervention
financial assistance and other tangible support.
resulted in improved mental health, decreased psycholog-
ical distress, and increased social-support, which in turn
improved the relationship between grandparents and their
grandchildren. Conclusion
It is also imperative that practitioners recognize the
importance of the extended family network particularly for Clearly, factors in all five levels of the ecological systems
racial and ethnic minority families. As studies have shown theory play a significant role in the well-being of kinship
(e.g., Christenson and McMurtry 2007), racial and ethnic foster care children and families. While empirical studies
123
870 J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872
reveal several benefits to kinship foster care such as encyclopedia of education (2nd ed. ed., pp. 1643–1647). New
increased contact with biological families, preservation of York: Elsevier Science.
Brown, S., Cohon, D., & Wheeler, R. (2002). African american
culture, absence of stigma as ‘‘foster care children,’’ and extended families and kinship care: How relevant is the foster
comfort of being with a family member, there is an care model for kinship care? Children and Youth Services
immense need for increased support from communities, Review, 24, 53–77.
child care workers, and policy-makers. Kinship foster Burgess, C., Rossvoll, F., Wallace, B., & Daniel, B. (2010). ‘‘It’s just
another home, just another family, so it’s nae different’’
caregivers, who are most in need of support and services, children’s voices in kinship care: A research study about the
are the ones who are receiving it the least; and in order to experience of children in kinship care in Scotland. Child &
ensure positive family environments for kinship foster care Family Social Work, 15, 297–306.
children, their needs must be addressed by practitioners and Cecil, D. K., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Pietsch, J. (2008). Female
inmates, family caregivers, and young children’s adjustment: A
policy-makers. research agenda and implications for corrections programming.
In sum, kinship foster care has been perceived as a Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 513–521.
viable option for children whose biological parents cannot Chamberlain, P., Price, J., Reid, J., & Landsverk, J. (2008). Cascading
care for them. Since the child welfare system continues to implementation of a foster and kinship parent intervention. Child
Welfare, 87, 27–48.
rely on this system as a means to accommodate children Chipman, R., Wells, S., & Johnson, M. (2002). The meaning of
in need, practitioners and policy-makers must actively quality in kinship foster care: Caregiver, child and worker
address their needs in order to ensure there service needs perspectives. Families in Society, 83, 508–520.
are on parity with children in non-kinship. Christenson, B., & McMurtry, J. (2007). A comparative evaluation of
preservice training of kinship and nonkinship foster/adoptive
families. Child Welfare, 86, 125–140.
Coakley, T. M., Cuddeback, G., Buehler, C., & Cox, M. E. (2007).
Kinship foster parents’ perceptions of factors that promote or
References inhibit successful fostering. Children and Youth Services Review,
29, 92–109.
Anderson, S. G. (2006). The impact of state TANF policy decisions Cochran, M. M., & Brassard, J. A. (1979). Child development and
on kinship care providers. Child Welfare, 85, 715–736. personal social networks. Child Development, 50, 601–616.
Anderson, J. A., & Mohr, W. K. (2003). A developmental ecological Cole, S. A. (2005). Foster caregiver motivation and infant attachment:
perspective in systems of care for children with emotional How do reasons for fostering affect relationships? Child and
disturbance and their families. Education and Treatment of Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22, 441–457.
Children, 26, 52–74. Cole, S. A. (2006). Building secure relationships: Attachment in kin
Anderson, S. G., & Righton, K. R. (2001). Impact of TANF on state and unrelated foster caregiver-infant relationships. Families in
kinship foster care programs. University of Illinois at Urbana- Society, 87, 497–508.
Champaign, School of Social Work, Children and Family Cole, S. A., & Eamon, M. K. (2007). Predictors of depressive
Research Center. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from http://cfrcwww. symptoms among foster caregivers. Child Abuse and Neglect,
social.uiuc.edu/pubs/pdf.files/tanf.pdf. 31, 295–310.
Baker, J., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2010). Mother- Crewe, S., & Wilson, R. (2007). Kinship care: From family tradition
grandmother coparenting relationships in families with incar- to social policy in the African American community. Journal of
cerated mothers: A pilot investigation. Family Process, 49, Health & Social Policy, 22, 1–7.
165–184. Cuddeback, G. S. (2004). Kinship family foster care: A methodolog-
Barrio, C., & Hughes, M. (2000). Kinship care: A cultural resource of ical and substantive synthesis of research. Children and Youth
African American and Latino families coping with parental Services Review, 26, 623–639.
substance abuse. Journal of Family Social Work, 4, 15–31. Cutrona, C., & Russell, D. (1990). Type of social support and specific
Beeman, S., Kim, H., & Bullerdick, S. (2000). Factors affecting the stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. Sarason, I.
placement of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional
Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 37–54. view (pp. 1–26). New York: Wiley.
Berrick, J., & Barth, R. (1994). Research on kinship foster care: What Downs, S. W., Moore, E., McFadden, E. J., & Costin, L. B. (2000).
do we know? Where do we go from here? Children and Youth Child welfare and family services: Policies and practices (6th
Services Review, 16, 1–5. ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berrick, J., Barth, R., & Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., Albus, K. E., & Bates, B. (2001).
foster homes and foster family homes: Implications for kinship Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state
foster care as family preservation. Children and Youth Services of mind. Child Development, 72, 1467–1477.
Review, 16, 33–63. Dubowitz, H., & Sawyer, R. J. (1994). School behavior of children in
Bowers, B. F., & Meyers, B. J. (1999). Grandmothers providing care kinship care. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 899–911.
for grandchildren: Consequences of various levels of caregiving. Eamon, M. K. (2001). The effects of poverty on children’s
Family Relations, 48, 303–310. socioemotional development: An ecological systems analysis.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, Social Work, 46, 256–266.
and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45, 1–5. Ehrle, J., & Geen, R. (2002). Kin and non-kin foster care: Findings
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of from a national survey. Children and Youth Services Review, 24,
human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. 15–35.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human develop- Ehrle, J., Geen, R., & Clark, R. (2001). Children cared for by
ment. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International relatives: Who are they and how are they faring? New
123
J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872 871
Federalism: National Survey of America’s Families, B(B-28), Johnson-Garner, M. Y., & Meyers, S. A. (2003). What factors
1-7. contribute to the resilience of African-American children within
Freundlich, M., Morris, L., & Hernandez, C. (2003). Proceedings kinship care? Child & Youth Care Forum, 32, 255–269.
from Race Matters Consortium: Kinship care: Meeting the needs Kang, H. (2007). Theoretical perspectives for child welfare practice
of children and families of color. Chicago: Westat. on kinship foster care families. Families in Society, 88, 575–582.
Fuller-Thomson, E., & Minkler, M. (2000). African American Kelley, S. J., Whitley, D. M., Sipe, T. A., & Yorker, B. C. (2000).
grandparents raising grandchildren: A national profile of demo- Psychological distress in grandmother kinship care providers:
graphic and health characteristics. Health and Social Work, 25, The role of resources, social support, and physical health. Child
109–118. Abuse and Neglect, 24, 311–321.
Geen, R. (2003). Finding permanent homes for foster children: Issues Kelley, S. J., Yorker, B. C., Whitley, D. M., & Sipe, T. A. (2001). A
raised by kinship care. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. multimodal intervention for grandparents raising grandchildren:
Geen, R. (2004). The evolution of kinship care and practice. Children Results of an exploratory study. Child Welfare, LXXX, 27-50.
Families and Foster Care, 14, 130–149. Le Prohn, N. S. (1994). The role of the kinship foster parent: A
Gladstone, J. W., & Brown, R. A. (2007). Grandparents’ and social comparison of the role conceptions of relative and non-relative
workers’ experiences with the child welfare system: A case for foster parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 16, 65–84.
mutual resources. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, McWey, L. M., & Mullis, A. K. (2004). Improving the lives of
1439–1453. children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation.
Goertzen, A., Chan, A. S., & Wolfson, G. K. (n.d.). Kith and kin care: Family Relations, 53, 293–300.
A review of the literature. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Messing, J. T. (2006). From the child’s perspective: A qualitative
http://journals.ufv.ca/rr/RR12/article-PDFs/kith.pdf analysis of kinship care placements. Children and Youth Services
Gourdine, R. M. (2007). Child only kinship care cases: The Review, 28, 1415–1434.
unintended consequences of TANF policies for families who O’Brien, P., Massat, C. R., Gleeson, J. P (2001). Upping the ante:
have health problems and disabilities. Journal of Health & Implications of the Adoption and Safe Families Act for Relative
Social Policy, 22, 44–64. Caregivers. Child Welfare, LXXX, 719-748.
Greef, R. (2001). Family dynamics in kinship foster care. In B. Broad Peters, J. (2005). True ambivalence: Child welfare worker’s thoughts,
(Ed.), Kinship care: The placement choice for children and feelings and beliefs about kinship foster care. Children and
young people (pp. 47–59). Dorset, England: Russell House Youth Services Review, 27, 595–614.
Publishing. Petit, M. R., Curtis, P. A., Woodruff, K., Arnold, L., Feagans, L., &
Green, Y. R., & Goodman, C. C. (2010). Understanding birthparent Ang, J. (1999). Child abuse and neglect: A look at the states.
involvement in kinship families: Influencing factors and the Child Welfare League of America 1999 Stat Book. Washington,
importance of placement arrangement. Children and Youth DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Services Review, 32, 1357–1364. Rushton, A., Mayes, D., Dance, C., & Quinton, D. (2003). Parenting
Green, B. L., & Rodgers, A. (2001). Determinants of social support late-placed children: The development of new relationships and
among low-income mothers: A longitudinal analysis. American the challenge of behavioural problems. Clinical Child Psychol-
Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 419–441. ogy and Psychiatry, 8, 389–400.
Harden, B. J., Clyman, R. B., Kriebel, D. K., & Lyons, M. E. (2004). Sands, R. G., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (2000). Factors associated with
Kith and kin care: Parental attitudes and resources of foster and stress among grandparents raising their gandchildren. Family
relative caregivers. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, Relations, 49, 97–105.
657–671. Scannapieco, M., & Jackson, S. (1996). Kinship care: The African
Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support, and American response to family preservation. Social Work, 41,
parental behavior. Child Development, 65, 394–403. 190–196.
Hawkins, C., & Bland, T. (2002). Program evaluation of the Schwartz, A. E. (2002). Societal value and the funding of kinship
CREST project: Empirical support for kinship care as an care. Social Service Review, 76, 430–459.
effective approach to permanency planning. Child Welfare, 81, Schwartz, A. E. (2007). ‘‘Caught’’ versus ‘‘taught’’: Ethnic identity
271–292. and the ethnic socialization experiences of African American
Hegar, R. M. (1999). The cultural roots of kinship care. In R. adolescents in kinship and non-kinship foster placement. Chil-
L. Hegar & M. Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care: Policy, dren and Youth Services Review, 29, 1201–1219.
practice, and research (pp. 28–53). New York: Oxford Schweiger, W. K., & O’Brien, M. (2005). Special needs adoption: An
University Press. ecological systems approach. Family Relations, 54, 512–522.
Henry, J. (1999). Permanency outcomes in legal guardianships of Smith, J. (2000). Race, kinship care and African American children.
abused/neglected children. Families in Society, 80, 561–568. African American Research Perspectives, 6, 54–64.
Hill, R. B. (2003). The strengths of Black families (2nd ed.). Lanham, Stack, C. (1974). All our kins: Strategies for survival in a black
MD: University Press of America, Inc. community. New York: Harper & Row.
Howe, D., & Fearnley, S. (2003). Disorders of attachment in adopted Strozier, A. L., & Krisman, K. (2007). Capturing caregiver data: An
and fostered children: Recognition and treatment. Clinical Child examination of kinship care custodial arrangement. Children and
Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 369–387. Youth Services Review, 29, 226–246.
Iglehart, A. P. (2004). Kinship foster care: Filling the gaps in theory, Strozier, A. L., Elrod, B., Beiler, P., Smith, A., & Carter, K. (2004).
research, and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, Developing a network of support for relative caregivers.
613–621. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 641–656.
Jantz, A., Geen, R., Bess, R., Andrews, C., & Russell, V. (2002). The Swann, C. A., & Sylvester, M. S. (2006). Does the child welfare
continuing evolution of state kinship care policies. Assessing the system serve the neediest kinship care families? Children and
New Federalism Discussion Paper, No. 02-11. Retrieved Youth Services Review, 28, 1213–1228.
December 19, 2008, from http://www.urban.org/publications/ Taylor, R., Seaton, E., & Dominguez, A. (2008). Kinship support,
310597.html family relations, and psychological adjustment among low-
123
872 J Child Fam Stud (2011) 20:863–872
income African American mothers and adolescents. Journal of Webster, D., Barth, R. P., & Needell, B. (2000). Placement stability
Research on Adolescence, 18, 1–22. for children in out-of-home care: A longitudinal analysis. Child
Testa, M. F., & Slack, K. S. (2002). The gift of kinship foster care. Welfare, LXXIX, 614–632.
Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 79–108.
Turner, H. A., Pearlin, L. I., & Mullan, J. T. (1998). Sources and
determinants of social support for caregivers of persons with
AIDS. Journal of Health and Human Behavior, 30, 137–151.
123
Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.