In examining how Federal policies have evolved to include kin, it is important to understand how and why the child welfare system grew out of, and has been intertwined with, income assistance policy. This history illustrates the ongoing debate over the appropriate public response to child poverty, including when to remove poor children from their parents’ homes. It also explains why Federal support for foster care, including kinship foster care, is tied to the income of the foster child’s own parent or guardian and why the role of kinship networks has been particularly important in minority communities. Only recently has Federal child welfare legislation begun to acknowledge the role and unique circumstances of kin acting as foster parents. In the meantime, States have had some latitude in applying Federal child welfare policies designed for non-kin foster families to kinship foster families and considerable latitude in determining how to serve kin not receiving Federal foster care benefits.
-
The Development of Child Welfare Policy
-
Our nation’s child protection system emerged from a series of public and private responses to child poverty. Prior to 1850, poor children lived in almshouses, along with adult men and women, the aged and disabled, and the mentally ill. In the 1850s, the belief that the needs of poor children were distinct from those of adults gained acceptance, and a reform movement began. This movement demanded the removal of children from almshouses and their placement in separate institutions. While not new, orphanages proliferated in the second half of the 19th century, and by 1900 they housed approximately 100,000 children (Trattner, 1989). Concerns about the quality of many orphanages led to the creation of the Children’s Aid Society of New York in 1853, whose mission was the “placing out” of children and youth to family farms in the midwestern United States. The middle to late 19th century saw the emergence of child rescue efforts, based on the belief that poor children deserved court protection from “cruelty.” In 1874, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was founded and, serving in a law enforcement capacity, removed children from their parents when a private agency worker determined that they were being mistreated. This rescue movement was largely influenced by Christian philosophy and sought to save children from the demoralizing effects of poverty.
The early 1900s saw a reversal of child poverty policy. The new emphasis was on providing assistance to mothers and allowing children to remain in the home. Recognizing the growing social problem of homes without a male wage earner, New York established the first mother’s pension in 1897 (Frame et al., 1998). The preference for in-home care and a philosophy of family preservation was formally stated in the first White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children, held in 1909. The conference recommended that children not be removed from their homes solely on the basis of poverty. Thus, the conference acknowledged the difference between parents’ economic conditions and their ability to raise a child. The White House conference did state that children should be removed from homes of “unworthy” or “immoral” parents, although it did not define such parents.
In the following decade, most States passed mother’s pension laws, which typically included “suitable home” provisions that maintained the connection between aid to mothers and the welfare of their children. For example, the 1913 Ohio legislation stated that “ . . . the mother must, in the Judgement of the Juvenile Court, be a proper person, morally, physically, and mentally, for the bringing up of her children . . .” (Frame et al., 1998). Language regarding “suitable homes” and “worthy” parents lacked clear standards, often resulting in subjective assessments of parental fitness. Under such provisions, many minority and immigrant mothers were deemed undeserving and received lower benefits (Frame et al., 1998). Minority communities relied on relatives and kinship networks to assume the role of caregiver or developed their own informal programs to help raise dependent children.
The Social Security Act of 1935 formalized the separate definitions and administrations of welfare and child protection and emphasized the importance of providing services as well as financial assistance. While mother’s pension programs had prevented the removal of some poor children from their homes, the Great Depression stretched the capacity of States to provide financial assistance to these families. Title IV established Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), later renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a program that gave cash assistance to children whose fathers were absent or incapacitated. While the Social Security Act sought to meet the financial needs of dependent children, the government also recognized that some children would need to leave their homes because of abuse, neglect, or other factors. Therefore, the act also gave cash grants to States to work with these families and to “seek innovative practices” in solving their crises. Title V (later known as title IV-B) established the Child Welfare Services Program to help disabled, homeless, dependent, and neglected children.
The Social Security Act contained no mention of suitable homes and thus did not link aid to the fitness of the mother. However, it did allow States to determine eligibility criteria for ADC. Congress later noted that States could consider “moral character” in determining eligibility for assistance, but it did not provide guidelines for making such assessments. A 1942 study of 16 State ADC programs conducted by the Bureau of Public Assistance found that while States’ eligibility criteria did not explicitly exclude nonwhite and illegitimate children, the interpretation of suitable homes provisions made such discrimination “endemic” (Bell, 1965). Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Federal Government encouraged States to develop objective criteria for determining suitability. However, since the Federal Government did not declare suitable homes provisions illegal, States enjoyed considerable leeway in determining which families to help.
In January 1961, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Arthur Fleming revisited the suitable homes issue and determined that children should not be denied financial assistance because of the conduct of their parents. While his ruling did not deal directly with the problem of moral judgment, it did prohibit States from refusing to provide assistance to homes deemed unsuitable. Fleming wrote:
When a needy child who otherwise fits within the Aid to Dependent Children program of the State is denied the funds that are admittedly needed to provide the basic essentials of life itself, because of the behavior of the parents or other relative, the State plan imposes a condition of eligibility that bears no just relationship to the Aid to Dependent Children program. . . . Assistance will therefore be continued during the time efforts are being made either to improve the home conditions or to make arrangements for the child elsewhere (HEW State Letter No. 452, January 17, 1961).
Accordingly, it was necessary to provide for instances in which children lived in homes that were truly unsuitable and in which efforts to improve the conditions of the home were not successful. The alternative was foster care.
In 1961, Congress passed legislation requiring States to provide foster care as part of their AFDC programs. Two temporary amendments, later made permanent by the 1962 Public Welfare Amendments, were made to title IV, part E, providing Federal matching funds to States for the cost of providing foster care to AFDC-eligible children. Federal regulations required that States either continue welfare payments to the children’s parents and improve conditions in their homes or provide out-of-home care for the children. Thus, the first public foster care assistance payments, made under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, were the result of a liberalizing of the AFDC program.
-
-
Federal Kinship CARE Policy
-
Federal support for kinship care families is guided by both income assistance and child welfare policies. While Federal income assistance policy has specifically articulated the public support available to kin caregivers, Federal child welfare policy and guidance have been vague, allowing States latitude in determining when and how to support kin caring for children who have been abused or neglected.
-
-
State Policies Regarding Kinship CARE
-
With limited Federal guidance, State child welfare policies have come to treat kinship care differently from non-kin foster care. Moreover, States differ in whom they allow to be kin foster parents, how they supervise them, and what financial support they provide them.
-
-
Recent Federal Legislation
-
Three recent Federal laws are likely to affect kinship care: congressional amendments to the Social Security Act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).
-
-
State Implementation of Recent Federal Policy Changes
-
Because States are still implementing programs to reflect recent Federal policy changes, it is uncertain how these policy changes will affect kinship care families. States that have received IV-E waivers must undergo rigorous evaluation of the demonstration program they develop. Because these waivers are relatively new, however, it may be several years before anyone can determine whether States’ efforts to improve services to kinship care families have been successful. Similarly, while ASFA will probably affect State permanency planning practices, it is too early to tell how the act will extend to permanency planning for kin families. Moreover, it is uncertain how, if at all, the final rule implementing ASFA will affect States’ ability to receive title IV-E reimbursement for certain children placed in kinship care.
In January 1999, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) surveyed State TANF administrators regarding implementation of PRWORA provisions as they relate to kinship care.25 The survey found that all States are providing kinship caregivers with child-only payments and exempting providers who receive such payments from family caps, work requirements, time limits, and residency requirements. However, almost all States require kin caregivers to meet all welfare provisions if they themselves receive benefits, although several States exempt persons above the age of 60.
Several States have created separate programs within their welfare system for kinship care families. For example, under a 1996–1997 component of its welfare waiver, Wisconsin developed a payment system, funded through the State income maintenance program, that allows it to support public and private kinship caregivers separately from the foster care system. Under the program, families are subject to review every 12 months to ensure that safety issues are properly addressed. In Florida, TANF dollars are being used to fund the Relative Care Giver Program, which allows kin caring for children who may otherwise go into the foster care system to receive payments of up to 80 percent of the foster care rate.
-
-
Summary of Federal and State Kinship CARE Policies
-
Together, Federal and State policies create a maze of varying kinship care definitions, policies, and practices.
- Federal policies. Kinship care developed in two Federal policy arenas—the income assistance programs available under AFDC (now TANF) and the child welfare programs. Consequently, two distinct ways of treating kin evolved. Under AFDC, kin were used to support children in need of care and were financially compensated in this role. Under Federal child welfare policies, kin were initially ignored as potential foster parents. Starting with the Indian Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Acts, the Federal Government acknowledged the role that extended family members could play in caring for children requiring placement outside the home. However, Federal child welfare policies have largely remained silent on when and how States can and should treat kin differently from unrelated foster parents. Thus, States have generally served kin caregivers in a system that was developed with non-kin foster parents in mind. Recent Federal legislation, including 1994 amendments to the Social Security Act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), could have a significant impact on both public and private kinship families. Under the 1994 Social Security amendments and ASFA, States can apply for waivers of title IV-E regulations to develop special programs and test strategies for more effectively addressing the special circumstances of kinship care families. Under PRWORA, the entitlement to income assistance has ended, and kinship families may feel the effects of time limits and work requirements. Finally, ASFA recognized kinship care as an appropriate permanent placement option and allows States to waive certain provisions governing the timing of termination of parental rights when a child is being cared for by a relative. In addition, the final rules for implementing ASFA include provisions that may affect States’ kinship practices and their ability to obtain Federal reimbursement for children placed in kinship care.
- State child welfare policies. As States began to use kin as foster parents, they developed varying policies for how to treat them. As a result, a continuum of kinship care arrangements has emerged—with kin who are involved with the child welfare system being defined, licensed, supervised, and paid differently than non-kin caregivers in most cases. Specifically, 19 States have a broad definition of kin that includes godparents, neighbors, or persons who have a bond with the child. Almost all States give preference to kin over non-kin in deciding where to place a foster child. In addition, 41 States waive standards or have less stringent requirements for kin who serve as foster parents, and 22 pay them at the foster care rate. Finally, most State policies indicate that kinship care of children in State custody is supervised with the same rigor as non-kin foster care
-
-
Gaps in Knowledge and Potential Sources of Data
-
This chapter includes all available information on two of the items for which Congress specifically requested information: the costs and sources of funds for kinship care and State policies regarding kinship care. Listed below are additional information needed and potential sources of this information.
- Costs and sources of funds. Of all the items for which Congress requested information, this is the one for whilih there is the least information. There are no data available on the overall costs of kinship care. There is limited data on the extent to which different sources of funding support kinship care arrangements. No one knows how many kinship care families qualify for and receive foster payments or how many of these families receive other types of financial assistance, all of which may be provided at different rates or frequency than payments to non-kin foster parents. Likewise, no one knows how the cost of services for kinship families differs from that for non-kin foster care families. There is no information on how long kin and non-kin caregivers are financially supported or how this affects long-term costs.
Data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System should help identify the sources of funds used to support kinship care families. Under this system, States are required to provide data on the number of families who receive title IV-E Foster Care, title IV-E Adoption, TANF, title IV-D child support, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income. In addition, the HHS-funded National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being will collect data from local agencies on the percentage of kinship care arrangements that meet the normal licensing requirements, receive foster care but do not meet the normal licensing requirements, receive TANF but no foster care payment, and receive no financial assistance.
- State kinship care policies. The most recent information on States’ kinship care policies is from 1997. Given the recent Federal legislation affecting kinship care and the increased attention being paid to the topic generally, many States will probably be reconsidering their kinship care policies. More information is needed on how caseworkers interpret and implement States’ policies. For example, do caseworkers rely on kin to come forward themselves, or do they seek out potential kin caregivers? What criteria do social workers use in determining whether to place a child in kinship care? How do caseworkers choose among different potential kin caregivers? In many States it appears that kin have multiple options for becoming approved as foster parents. No one knows whether kin are informed of their options or how their decision affects the payment and services they receive. There is no information on how frequently kin choose each of the different approval options or how frequently kin who seek a higher standard of approval fail to meet the requirements.
In 1999, the Urban Institute surveyed all State child welfare administrators to get updated information on their kinship care policies, including definition of kin, when kin receive preference, and States’ policies for licensing, paying, and supervising kinship care providers. They received responses from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. The Urban Institute will analyze the data and publish a report of the findings.
The Children’s Bureau has provided grants to examine policies and procedures for making decisions regarding the appropriateness of public kinship care and regarding licensing requirements and their effect on the willingness and ability of extended family to provide care. Projects will also assess the service needs (including economic needs) of public kinship care and the strategies for training, supervising, and providing services to caregivers.
- Costs and sources of funds. Of all the items for which Congress requested information, this is the one for whilih there is the least information. There are no data available on the overall costs of kinship care. There is limited data on the extent to which different sources of funding support kinship care arrangements. No one knows how many kinship care families qualify for and receive foster payments or how many of these families receive other types of financial assistance, all of which may be provided at different rates or frequency than payments to non-kin foster parents. Likewise, no one knows how the cost of services for kinship families differs from that for non-kin foster care families. There is no information on how long kin and non-kin caregivers are financially supported or how this affects long-term costs.
-
View full report
"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®