Report to the Congress on Kinship Foster Care. Appendix B: State Data

06/01/2000

Table B.1: States’ Definition of Kin1 (N=44)

State State Uses “Relative” Definition to Define Caregiver (May include relatives by adoption, marriage or step relation) State Defines Kin to Include Persons Beyond “Relatives”
Alaska X  
Arizona X  
Arkansas X  
California X  
Colorado   X
Connecticut X  
Delaware X  
District of Columbia   X
Florida X  
Georgia   X
Hawaii X  
Illinois X  
Indiana X  
Iowa X  
Kansas X  
Kentucky None
Louisiana   X
Maine X  
Maryland   X
Massachusetts   X
Michigan X  
Minnesota X  
Mississippi X  
Missouri   X
Montana   X
Nebraska X  
Nevada X  
New Hampshire   X
New Mexico   X2
New York X  
North Carolina None
North Dakota None
Ohio   X
Oklahoma   X
Oregon None
Pennsylvania   X3
Rhode Island N/A
South Carolina   X
South Dakota   X
Tennessee X  
Texas   X
Utah   X
Vermont X  
Virginia X  
Washington X  
West Virginia   X
Wisconsin X  
Wyoming X  
Total 26 20

Source: Boots and Geen, 1998.

 

Table B.2: Supervision of Kin and Unrelated Foster Care Parents (N=50 )

State Custodial Kinship Care
Supervise kin more Same level of Supervision Supervise kin less
Alaska   X  
Arizona   X  
Arkansas   X  
California     X
Colorado   X  
Connecticut   X  
Delaware   X  
District of Columbia   X  
Florida   X  
Georgia     X
Hawaii   X  
Idaho   X  
Illinois   X  
Indiana   X  
Iowa   X  
Kansas   X  
Kentucky   X  
Louisiana   X  
Maine   X  
Maryland N/A
Massachusetts   X  
Michigan   X  
Minnesota   X  
Mississippi   X  
Missouri   X  
Montana   X  
Nebraska   X  
Nevada   X  
New Hampshire     X
New Jersey   X  
New Mexico   X  
New York   X  
North Carolina   X  
North Dakota   X  
Ohio   X  
Oklahoma   X  
Oregon   X  
Pennsylvania   X  
Rhode Island     X
South Carolina   X  
South Dakota     X
Tennessee   X  
Texas   X  
Vermont   X  
Virginia   X  
Washington   X  
West Virginia   X  
Wisconsin     X
Wyoming   X  
Total 0 44 6

Source: Boots and Geen, 1998.

 

Table B.3: Type and Amount of Payments to Kin, and when varying payment rates within the same category, relevant payment criteria (N= 51)

State Custodial Kin Care
Fully Licensed Modified Licensed (Amount paid compared to foster care rate) Approved (Amount paid compared to foster care rate) Assisted
Alabama Foster Care Rate      
Alaska Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$125)
Arizona Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate   Other Rate: monthly allowance
Arkansas Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate  
California4 Foster Care Rate   AFDC for Non-IV-E eligibles: (-$117) Foster Care for IV-E eligibles  
Colorado Foster Care Rate      
Connecticut Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate  
Delaware Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$182)
District of Columbia Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate AFDC (-$205)
Georgia Foster Care Rate   AFDC (-$170)  
Hawaii Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate    
Idaho Foster Care Rate5   Foster Care Rate  
Illinois Foster Care Rate   Standard of Need Rate  
Indiana Foster Care Rate      
Iowa Foster Care Rate      
Kansas Foster Care Rate      
Kentucky Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate    
Louisiana Foster Care Rate6 Foster Care Rate   AFDC (-$276)
Maine Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$231)
Maryland Foster Care Rate   AFDC (-$375) AFDC (-$375)
Massachusetts Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate  
Michigan Foster Care Rate for IV-E eligibles; county option to pay non-IV-E     County option to pay these families AFDC (-$112)
Minnesota Foster Care Rate      
Mississippi Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate   AFDC (-$200)
Missouri Foster Care Rate  

Foster Care Rate for all grandparents(IV-E and non-IV-E) and all other IV-E eligibles 

AFDC for non-IV-E eligibles (-$121)

AFDC (-$200)
Montana Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate AFDC (-$280)
Nebraska Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate  
Nevada Foster Care Rate     Foster Care Rate
New Hampshire Foster Care Rate   AFDC (+$61)  
New Jersey5 Foster Care Rate AFDC (-$167)   AFDC (-$167)
New Mexico Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate    
New York Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate  
North Carolina Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$184)
North Dakota Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$261)
Ohio Foster Care Rate     AFDC+$100 per child for a maximum of 6 months (paid by state General Revenue) (-$241)
Oklahoma Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$248)
Oregon5 Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$140)
Pennsylvania Foster Care Rate      
Rhode Island Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate   AFDC (+$33)7
South Carolina Foster Care Rate   AFDC (-$134) AFDC (-$134)
South Dakota Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate AFDC8 (-$204)
Tennessee Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate    
Texas Foster Care Rate      
Utah Foster Care Rate      
Vermont Foster Care Rate   Other provisional rate paid by Child Welfare (-$88)  
Virginia Foster Care Rate Foster Care Rate    
Washington Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$24)
West Virginia Foster Care Rate     AFDC (-$251)
Wisconsin Foster Care Rate     Other Rate: Kinship Rate paid by AFDC/TANF (-$103)
Wyoming Foster Care Rate   Foster Care Rate  
Totals:

Foster Care for all families: 48

AFDC: 0

Foster care for IV-E eligible only: 3

Other: 0

Foster Care:9

AFDC: 1

Other: 0

Foster Care for all families: 10

AFDC: 4

Foster care for IV-E eligible only: 1

Other: 3

Foster Care: 1

AFDC: 19

At county option: 1

Other: 3

Source: Boots and Geen, 1998.

 

Table B.4: Placement Setting by Most Recent Case Plan Goal9

State Placement Setting (Relative and Non-Relative) Number and Percent of Total Children in Care Reunify with Parent(s) or Principal Caretaker(s) Caretaker(s) Other Relative(s) Adoption Long-Term Foster Care
Alabama Relative N 261 244 3 87
% 44% 41% 1% 15%
Non-Relative N 1.058 329 601 586
% 41% 13% 23% 23%
Alaska10 Relative N 170 5 17 1
% 82% 2% 8% 0%
Non-Relative N 362 5 37 15
% 83% 1% 8% 3%
Arizona Relative N 1,138 274 288 26
% 62% 15% 16% 1%
Non-Relative N 1,687 154 870 248
% 51% 5% 26% 7%
Arkansas Relative N 74 38 16 5
% 33% 17% 7% 2%
Non-Relative N 638 42 112 106
% 34% 2% 6% 6%
Colorado Relative N 477 69 115 48
% 62% 9% 15% 6%
Non-Relative N 2,790 98 727 500
% 61% 2% 16% 11%
Florida Relative N 10,189 445 81 77
% 94% 4% 1% 1%
Non-Relative N 5,048 N/A 2,599 1,478
% 54%   25% 16%
Georgia Relative N 1,647 209 274 340
% 64% 8% 11% 13%
Non-Relative N 4,008 197 1,033 695
% 66% 3% 17% 11%
Hawaii Relative N 512 38 161 8
% 60% 4% 19% 1%
Non-Relative N 674 23 225 92
% 53% 2% 18% 7%
Idaho Relative N 65 N/A N/A 2
% 80%     2%
Non-Relative N 445 N/A 30 24
% 73%   5% 4%
Ilinois Relative N 5,927 735 13,230 53
% 23% 3% 52% 0%
Non-Relative N 4,655 75 9,848 127
% 26% 0% 54% 1%
Kansas Relative N 44 6 5 2
% 71% 10% 8% 3%
Non-Relative N 289 2 92 29
% 70% 0% 22% 7%
Louisiana Relative N 469 89 34 44
% 72% 14% 5% 7%
Non-Relative N 2,072 178 909 688
% 52% 4% 23% 17%
Maine Relative N 104 3 25 7
% 67% 2% 16% 5%
Non-Relative N 927 N/A 614 170
% 49%   32% 9%
Maryland11 Relative N 1,397 456 157 26
% 46% 15% 5% 1%
Non-Relative N 1,535 1,043 1,115 1,596
% 24% 16% 17% 25%
Massachusetts12 Relative N 697 N/A 549 66
% 39%   31% 4%
Non-Relative N 2,773 N/A 2,185 734
% 42%   33% 11%
Mississippi Relative N 235 156 27 1
% 54% 36% 6% 0%
Non-Relative N 474 161 381 74
% 42% 14% 33% 7%
Montana Relative N 163 35 38 69
% 45% 10% 11% 19%
Non-Relative N 534 48 282 235
% 41% 4% 22% 18%
New Jersey Relative N 124 58 20 8
% 58% 27 9% 4%
Non-Relative N 2,851 445 2,341 350
% 47% 7% 39% 6%
New York Relative N 5,348 N/A 6,084 N/A
% 42%   48%  
Non-Relative N 17,376 N/A 9,342 N/A
% 58%   31%  
North Carolina13 Relative N 890 445 332 N/A
% 50% 25% 19%  
Non-Relative N 2,055 659 1,867 N/A
% 37% 13% 34%  
North Dakota Relative N 26 7 16 11
% 31% 8% 19% 13%
Non-Relative N 213 10 98 136
% 37% 2% 17% 24%
Ohio14 Relative N 842 N/A 31 82
% 44%   2% 4%
Non-Relative N 4,204 N/A 685 724
% 43%   7% 7%
Oklahoma Relative N 837 46 273 178
% 56% 3% 18% 12%
Non-Relative N 1,627 38 601 519
% 53% 1% 19% 17%
Oregon Relative N 1,391 23 235 93
% 77% 1% 13% 5%
Non-Relative N 2,914 N/A 849 433
% 69%   20% 10%
Pennsylvania Relative N 1.330 180 344 66
% 64% 9% 17% 3%
Non-Relative N 6,374 331 3,189 2,804
% 47% 2% 24% 21%
South Carolina Relative N 76 27 24 9
% 56% 20% 18% 7%
Non-Relative N 797 76 851 397
% 38% 4% 40% 19%
Texas Relative N 745 720 390 30
% 36% 35% 19% 1%
Non-Relative N 2,013 430 3,331 924
% 25% 5% 42% 12%
Utah Relative N 20 N/A 4 2
% 77%   15% 8%
Non-Relative N 876 N/A 203 196
% 66%   15% 15%
Washington Relative N 1,985 162 384 29
% 70% 6% 14% 1%
Non-Relative N 4,177 114 1,013 382
% 67% 2% 16% 6%
Wisconsin Relative N 442 49 29 13
% 78% 9% 5% 2%
Non-Relative N 5,998 130 479 339
% 81% 2% 6% 5%

Source: AFCARS, Children in foster care on March 31, 1998.

 

Table B.5: State Recruitment Efforts and Trends in the Kinship Foster Care Population

State Trends in the Number of Children in Kinship Foster Care over the past 3 years States which have increased recruitment efforts States which have not increased recruitment efforts
Increased significantly AK, CO, IN, OH, OK, OR, RI, UT, WY AZ, CT, DC, MS
Increased somewhat AR, ID, KA, MN, MT, PA, SC, SD, TN, WI DE, GA, IL, KY, MD, MI, MO, NE, NH, NV, NC, TX, VT
Not changed AL, HI15, NM, WA FL, IA, LA, ME, NJ, VA, WV
Decreased somewhat MA CA, NY
Decreased significantly    

 

Table B.6: Evaluation Approaches of the Title IV-E Demonstration Guardianship Programs

State Design Sample Design Data Sources Outcome Measures
California Experimental (random assignment) Assigned at a ratio of 5:3 to experimental and control groups. 1,400 children in the experimental group in the first year.
  • Foster Care Information  System (a case-specific tracking system for children in out- of-home care); and
  • CWS/CMS (Child Welfare Services/Children's Management System(all children's services database))
  • Reduce court caseload and/or costs;
  • Increase level of legal permanence for children in relativ care;
  • Reduce or maintan recidivism rate of target population so that of the general foster care population;
  • Reduce the number of children with relatives in long-term foster care;
  • Increase or maintain levels of child safety in the target population; and 
  • Achieve high levels of client satisfaction
Delaware Pre-post comparison 17 to date (6 pending)
  • Observations, caseworker interviews, and document review (process eval);
  • Family interviews;
  • DFS data (# of case reviews, visits, and other DFS requirements)
  • Family well-being;
  • Family satisfaction level with guardianship program;
  • Permanency and long-term commithments for children; and
  • Level of DFS involvement.
Illinois Experimental (random assignment)

Experimental: 1,620 

Control: 1,739

  • Administrative Data 
  • Caregiver and child interviews (in-person and mail and/or telephone)
  • Child and family well-being;
  • Health, special needs, safety. emotional adjustment, and educational status if children;
  • Family satisfaction level with placement arrangement;
  • Permanency level for children;
  • Government intrusiveness level into family relations;
  • Impact of guardianship assistance on children and their perceptions of being part of stable and permanent family;
  • Degree of resistance to adoption; and 
  • Impact of availability of guardianship assistance on willingness of parents to surrender their rights and families to adopt.
Maryland Experimental (random assignment)

Experimental: 468 

Control: 372

  • Administrative Data 
  • Caregiver and child interviews
  • Child and family well-being;
  • Health, special needs, safety. emotional adjustment, and educational status if children;
  • Family satisfaction level with placement arrangement; and
  • Permanency level for children.
Montana Experimental (random assignment)

Experimental: 90 

Control: 45

(40% children in state custody; 60% in tribal custody)

To be determined
  • Placement stability
  • Reduced number of children in long-term foster care
  • Improved child safety
North Carolina      
  • Family well-being;
  • Family satisfaction level with guardianship program;
  • Permanency and long-term commithments for children; and
  • Level of DFS involvement.

 


Some states define kin by title (e.g., grandparent, great-grandparents, etc.) or by degree of relationship (e.g., 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.).

2 Godparents only.

3 This definition was pending as of 1997. 

4 Kin must be caring for a IV-E-eligible child in order to become fully licensed foster parents.

5All non-related kin must meet this standard; related kin have the option of applying under the approved category.

6 Foster parents are eligible for a Special Board Rate based on need.

7 Payments are for 1995; 1996 not available.

And funds for special purchases from family preservation and support funds.

9 Totals do not add up to 100 percent due to missing categories of data (e.g., emancipation, guardianship, or goal not yet established).

10 Alaska data are for children in care as of September 30, 1997.

11 In Maryland, 30 percent of children in relative family foster homes and 4 percent of children in non-relative family foster homes had a case plan of guardianship.

12 Massachusetts data are for children in care as of September 30, 1997. Also, in Massachusetts, 19 percent of children in relative family foster homes and 4 percent of children in non-relative family foster homes had a case plan of guardianship.

13 In North Carolina, 4 percent of children in relative family foster homes and 13 percent of children in non-relative family foster homes had a case plan of guardianship.

14 In Ohio, 27 percent of children in relative family foster homes and 24 percent of children in non-relative family foster homes had a case plan of guardianship.

15 A 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court case (Doe) required that relatives be paid the foster care rate regardless of eligibility.

 

View full report

Preview
Download

"full.pdf" (pdf, 680.86Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®