Only 25 States could produce even a basic census for the last five years of children in
foster care with relatives. Four additional States began compiling data concerning relative
placements during the State's last fiscal year in response to rising public attention to these
placements. Four of the 29 State administrators expressed reservations about the accuracy
of the numbers supplied through their agencies' information systems.
The lack of complete, reliable information reflects the current state of child welfare data
collection systems in the States. Some of the lack of annual census information, and most
of the inability to provide descriptive or impact data concerning placements with relatives,
are due to inadequate and outmoded collection and processing systems that affect all
children in foster care.
However, there are also telling programmatic reasons why information about these
placements is not available. Most have to do with the way the individual States have
traditionally defined foster care with relatives. If States consider relatives' homes as part
of the general population of foster homes, children placed with related foster parents are
counted within the general foster-care population and cannot be distinguished from other
foster children. They frequently have no special status either in policy or within the
information management systems of those States. At the other extreme are those States
which consider some placements of children in foster homes with relatives as a form of
family preservation. The children are considered only loosely part of the foster-care
system. Unless included as part of a special data collection effort, children in these States
do not appear in State data systems.
These 80,000 children represented over 31 percent of the total number of foster children
in the legal custody of these States. The proportion of children shows wide variation
between the States, however. States tend to follow their own consistent patterns in the
degree to which children are placed with extended family members.
New York, Illinois and California account for nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the
number of children placed with relatives. Within these States, most of the placements
with relatives are in New York City, Cook County (Chicago), and Los Angeles and San
Francisco. If these three States are removed from the calculations of the total proportion
of foster children who are provided foster care by relatives, the figure of 31 percent drops
to 18 percent. (See Table 1 on the next page.)
As shown in Table 1, for those 25 States with data on placements with relatives, the
percentage of children cared for by relatives has grown from 18 to 31 percent over the
last five years. Excluding New York (NY), Illinois (IL) and California (CA), relative
placements show a more gradual increase from 12 to 18 percent from 1986 to 1990.
TABLE 1. PROPORTION OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE PLACED WITH RELATIVES
BY STATE FISCAL YEAR
All Reporting Reporting States
FY States (n = 25) without CA, NY, IL
1986 18% 12%
1987 22% 13%
1988 25% 14%
1989 28% 17%
1990 31% 18%
The proportion of children placed with relatives has increased by more than 10 percent
over the last 5 years in five of the 25 reporting States (Arizona, California, Illinois,
Maryland, and New York). As noted above, in three of these States (California, Illinois
and New York), the bulk of such placements are in major urban centers. The perception
of enormous increases in the number of children placed with relatives appears driven
largely by experiences in these three States.
Another three States have experienced more modest increases of between 5 to 9 percent.
The remaining 17 States have experienced increases of less than 5 percent or even very
slight decreases in the proportion of the States' total foster-care caseload placed with
relatives.
Administrators in 22 of the 26 States that cannot provide historic data on relative foster
care stated that staff reports indicated some growth or stability in the proportion of
relative caretakers. Administrators in two of these 26 States reported quite large increases
in the proportion of relative foster-care placements.
Most States with slight or moderate increases attributed the rise to the growing success of
State policies encouraging placements with extended family members. Most such policies
have been promulgated within the last decade as a response to the "least restrictive
setting" requirements of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 19805 and
relative placement requirements in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Administrators
believed that staff and court personnel were becoming more sensitive to children's need
for family supports, and therefore were more willing to search for and use relative
caregivers.
Litigation during the last decade has had a significant effect on the increases in the
proportion of children placed in relative homes who were classified as part of the foster-
care system in Illinois and New York. To some extent, the increases in these States
reflect a change in the categories to which the placements are assigned. In several other
States, suits brought or threatened by relatives have resulted in official agency procedures
requiring comprehensive pre-placement searches for relatives, which in turn have
facilitated additional foster-care placements with kin.
Since 1985, the Office of Human Development Services (OHDS), incorporated now into
the Administration for Children and Families, has issued three policy clarifications
reminding States of their responsibility to insure children placed with relatives undergo
periodic permanency planning reviews.6 Further, OHDS has demanded that States
include records of these children in the total records available for Departmental audits of
agency caseloads. This pressure by OHDS to insure that children placed with relatives
are guaranteed permanency planning protections undoubtedly has resulted in
reclassification of some existing informal arrangements with relatives as foster-care
placements.
While mentioned less frequently, administrators stated the increased use of relatives,
particularly in major urban areas, resulted from the shortage of foster family homes and
the inability of State agencies to find other homes for medically fragile and drug-addicted
children. A study conducted by the National Black Child Development Institute lends
support to this latter perception. In that study, relatives were considered as a resource
significantly more often in parental drug abuse cases than in non-drug abuse cases.7
Departmental regulations for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) in State foster-care
maintenance payments require States to license or approve homes providing 24-hour care
for children. Standards for licensing homes do exist and are used by the States. The
Child Welfare League of America calls upon agencies to select foster families on the basis
of "careful study and evaluation," and offers standards in eleven different areas for
scrutiny.8 Evaluations of traditional foster family homes use detailed standards or
approval guidelines specified in State policies.
This is not always the case for relative foster homes. Only 20 States license or approve
as meeting licensing criteria all relative foster homes. (See Table 2 on the next page.) In
27 States some relative homes are licensed or approved, but most are subject only to
review processes which may or may not be specified in policy.
TABLE 2. APPROVAL OF RELATIVE FOSTER HOMES
Practice Number of States
Licence 10
Approve 10
Formal Review 2
License or Formal Review 13
Unspecified Review 3
License or Unspecified Review 13
When relative homes are licensed or approved, the evaluation is nominally based upon the
same policy standards specified for all other foster homes. These standards are defined in
State policies, and administrators and staff are trained and held accountable for insuring
the standards are met. As with non-relative homes, the evaluation usually is conducted by
staff specializing in finding, assessing, and supporting foster family homes.
The evaluations conducted on relative homes not being certified vary greatly even within
the same State. Fifteen States have formal standards for reviewing homes which cannot
be licensed. These formal standards may be identical to those applied to licensed homes,
or may be basically similar but have various predefined exceptions or allow automatic
waivers in specific areas such as space requirements or age and marital status
requirements. The standards and allowable exceptions are explicit in policy, however.
The remaining sixteen States, while usually requiring some assessment before placing
children in the homes of relatives, do not provide detailed criteria in policy for conducting
reviews. Evaluations may be as detailed as the licensing reviews conducted in the States,
or be based upon protective services standards, or be based on a single visit to the homes
or reports of such visits made by staff of other programs. Whether formal or unspecified,
reviews of homes not preparing for licensing are rarely conducted by State foster home
specialists.
Home Studies Vary Widely
Home studies for relative placements vary widely in terms of their formality, contents and
stringency. Typically, prospective relative foster parents are held to lesser standards.
Standards for less formal review processes are frequently lower than those required for
licensing, and waivers are common even in the more stringent reviews. Administrators
reported that home studies sought to insure the basic health and safety of children in the
care of the agencies. Procedures for insuring that homes meet these minimal standards
are not clear.
Licensing or certification of foster homes is meant to insure the safety and suitability of
homes to accept children. If a family's home cannot meet minimum physical and
emotional standards, by policy that home cannot be licensed and consequently cannot
assume the care of children for whom the State is legally responsible. In 30 States,
however, children may be placed in all or some relative foster homes whether or not the
homes meet minimum certification standards. If homes meet licensing criteria, these are
certified; if the home cannot meet licensing criteria, the relatives are not certified, but
they are permitted to assume care for related children. In some States the inability of
relatives' homes to be licensed could be based upon such factors as relatives' refusal to
sign agreements concerning use of corporal punishment or to submit to criminal or
protective service record checks, or on the inability of homes to meet fire or water safety
standards.
Waiver Standards
All the administrators stated that standards related to the health and safety of children
would never be waived, although what was interpreted as a threat to children's health and
safety varied widely. For instance, space considerations and sleeping arrangements were
frequently waived, as were well-water tests and fire inspections. The most frequently
waived licensing requirement, and usually the primary distinction between licensed and
approved status, was the agency practice of dropping requirements for relatives to attend
orientation and training sessions.
Reduced Monitoring and Support
Lack of approval standards is troubling because monitoring relative foster homes may be
less rigorous due to their perceived stability. In only one State is the determination of
stability (which must precede relaxation of social worker visits) based upon specific
evaluation procedures. Evidence from studies in New York City and Baltimore is quite
clear that visits between agency staff and foster families is quite infrequent when the foster
parents are relatives and that provision of health and social services to the foster family is
inadequate.9
Few of the States provided training or policy guidance to staff on issues related to contact
between parents and children when the children were cared for by relatives, nor did any
State have policies or official procedures guiding staff on the use of court orders to protect
children if necessary. Because of the prior relationship between parents and relative
foster- care providers, the access of parents to children is different from most situations in
which children are placed with strangers. Intergenerational appearance of certain family
issues is also a unique potential factor in such placements. Neither difference is reflected
in policy or staff training in most States.
Effects of Lack of Stringency
No States had reliable data on the number of children re-abused while in foster care with
relatives. Two States reported recent cases which received publicity because children
were killed while in the care of relatives. But studies in New York, Maryland and
Colorado indicate children placed with relatives are in placements that "are good for
them" or perceived to be so by staff.10 Lack of rigorous pre-placement review coupled
with infrequent monitoring of children in placements potentially exposes children to
increased risk. There is no evidence, however, to allow for an evaluation of the safety
and well-being of children placed with relatives.
For unrelated foster parents, receipt of foster-care maintenance payments on behalf of
children in State custody is automatic. In order to be foster parents, these individuals
must first be licensed. Once licensed and caring for a child, foster parents receive
maintenance payments based on the child's age, and may receive additional monthly sums
to meet the expenses of children with special medical or emotional needs. Children
ineligible for Federal funds generally are supported through State or local budgets.
For individuals who provide foster care for related children, reimbursement for children's
expenses is not so automatic. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Miller vs.
Youakim, relatives who are licensed and caring for children who meet Title IV-E
eligibility requirements cannot be denied Federally-funded, foster-care maintenance
payments. As noted above, however, less than half the States license all relative faster
caregivers, apparently removing many relatives from the requirements of Miller vs.
Youakim. Further, Miller vs. Youakim made no findings about the use of State funds."11
In most States, the minimum regulatory criterion for provision of maintenance payments is
the licensing or certification status of the home. (See Table 3 below.) If the relatives
TABLE 3. CRITERIA FOR FOSTER CARE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
TO RELATIVE FOSTER HOMES
Criteria for Provision of Maintenance Number of States
All receive foster care maintenance 2
If licensed only 39
If licensed and child income-eligible 9
None receive foster care maintenance 1
are licensed or are officially approved as meeting licensing standards, however, they do
not necessarily receive reimbursement for related foster children. Some States have
prohibitions on using State funds for board payments to relatives, so only relatives caring
for children who meet the Federal Title IV-E income requirements are eligible for Federal
foster-care monies.
If relatives do not choose to go through the licensing process or cannot meet licensing
standards, they generally are not able to receive foster-care payments. Some of these
foster families may be eligible for AFDC and receive support as Grantee Relatives
through this program. Others, frequently referred to as "free homes," receive no
reimbursement for the care they provide.
In several States, relatives must request foster-care payments or be assessed as needing
financial assistance before they can receive maintenance. Most administrators identified
the "desire of relatives to be reimbursed" as a secondary determinant of whether these
foster caregivers were reimbursed. Further, while State-level regulations may permit
payment of foster-care benefits for eligible children in licensed relative homes, county
child welfare administrators in some States have wide discretion in the reimbursement
practices in their counties. Provision of maintenance payments in some locally
administered programs is not automatic even if relatives meet all criteria.
Whether most States help relatives make an informed choice concerning licensing and
reimbursement options is questionable. Foster-care staff encourage relatives to apply for
AFDC rather than foster-care maintenance as a matter of unofficial agency policy in some
States. The AFDC payments are generally considerably lower than foster-care payments.
(See Appendix A for a comparison of AFDC and foster-care maintenance rates.) It is not
clear in several other States whether relatives are fully apprised of their potential
eligibility for higher foster-care payments. Few relative foster-care providers participate
in orientation programs and even fewer are active in State Foster Care Associations.
Thus, they have few ways of learning of the discrepancies between the support programs.
According to several recent studies, children placed with relatives remain the legal
responsibility of the State longer than children in other alternative care arrangements.12
While these studies did not find any conclusive reasons for these longer stays, they do
point to several possible factors which contribute to this phenomenon.
Confusion over the goals for children placed with relatives results from definitional
confusion. This affects both agency and related foster-parent actions in the foster-care
relationship. Staff, unsure of where relatives fit in the system, do not clearly pursue
permanent placements. Because they frequently do not see themselves as part of the
foster-care system, relatives may pursue their own family goals regardless of agency
decisions. Since relatives rarely participate in orientation and training programs, they
have little chance to understand the roles the child welfare agencies expect them to play.
In addition, the very stability of these placements often works against permanency
planning initiatives. One administrator explained, "These are usually the quiet
placements. It is hard to convince staff to do the boat-rocking necessary to return
children home, especially since the parents also are satisfied."
States frequently do not have viable paths out of foster care for children for whom
continued care by the relative is the best permanent plan but for whom adoption is not a
practical option. For many of these foster parents, adoption of children who already are
part of their extended families flies in the face of cultural norms. When agencies and
relatives agree that the best long-term plan for a child is continued care by the relative,
social workers must continue to monitor the placement often on a monthly basis. In
several States, "permanent foster care" is not legally recognized as a final plan for a child.
Children who are understood to be in the care of a relative until adulthood in these States
must continue to appear in court on a regular basis for "dispositional" hearings since,
technically, the child does not have a permanent plan.
In many relative foster-care situations, assumption of legal responsibility for a child by the
relative through legal arrangements such as guardianship is the most effective permanent
plan for children. Except in six States, however, transfer of custody from the State to
relatives results in cessation of all foster-care benefits. As discussed earlier, the wide
differences in most States between foster-care maintenance payments and AFDC
payments, for which the children may or may not be eligible, creates a powerful economic
disincentive for relatives to take such action. This is particularly true when children have
special medical or psychiatric needs.
Six States provide financial assistance to relatives assuming legal custody for children in
foster care. The rationale for these States' guardianship subsidy programs is the same as
that guiding the creation of the Adoption Subsidy Program, namely, that expenditures to
assist families to assume legal responsibility for children in the care of the State will be
amply offset by savings in foster-care maintenance and administration created by removal
of children from the foster-care rolls. Such subsidies appear particularly valuable if foster
children are disabled. These subsidies can provide the support necessary for relatives to
assume legal responsibility for their kin and remove children from the foster-care system.
[Next] [Previous] [Table of Contents]