The problem of defining the role of relative foster caregivers must be resolved if child
welfare programs are to effectively tie into extended family care networks. Before either
the States or the Department can attempt such a definition, more must be known about the
participation of relatives in the child welfare system in general, and relative foster-care
placements in particular.

Initially we would recommend studies to examine the following questions:

• What are the short- and long-term effects of relative placements on
  children? This should include gross measures of well-being such as absence
  of re-abuse or illness, as well as the effect on the outcomes of foster care
  for children.

• What are the advantages and disadvantages for the States, for relative
  caregivers, and for the children regarding the various roles relatives could
  have? Where State laws and policies help define and determine relatives'
  roles, the impact of various policies should be studied.

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) should:

It makes little sense for State agencies to remove children from the homes of their parents
because the home situations are not assessed as safe only to place them in situations that
have not been thoroughly investigated and found to be safe. States may adopt special
standards for relatives' homes that recognize the unique contribution of continued
extended family ties, but children placed with relatives are the legal responsibility of the
State agencies, and like all other children in foster care, clearly should be offered a basic
level of protection. The current lack of standards for approving and monitoring relative
foster homes creates great potential for harm to children.

While ACF may not have clear regulatory authority to require States to insure the safety
and suitability of unlicensed (and therefore not Federally funded) relative homes, we

strongly urge that ACF take an active role in encouraging States to protect these children
adequately.

ACF should encourage States to develop clear criteria for providing foster-care
maintenance payments to relatives who provide foster care. All parts of State agencies
must then be held accountable for insuring that all foster parents are aware of the benefits
due them, and are offered such benefits as a matter of routine placement procedures.

States must begin to establish clear and consistent policies and standards for using and
supporting relative foster-care placements. ACF should participate actively in this
development effort by coacting, maintaining, and disseminating materials to assist States
in their efforts.

ACF must first develop its own explicit policy concerning relative placements through the
research agenda proposed above and through its continued participation in national
deliberations on the topic. ACF should continue to encourage national organizations to
address this topic. Based upon the research and national discussions, ACF can be in a
position to encourage States in the development of quality assurance standards for these
foster homes and of consistent requirements for relative foster-home support.

One specific area in which there seems to be a role for ACF is in the development of
training packages that address the needs of relative foster parents. Relative foster-care
parents are invited to attend foster-parent orientation and training in most States. As State
administrators reported, most relatives regard these sessions as irrelevant to the role they
have been asked to perform. It is clear from States' current experiences that revised
programs, specifically for relative caregivers, are needed if agencies are to secure their
participation. ACF should assist States and national organizations in this curriculum
development effort.

Guardianship subsidies appear to benefit those extended families willing to assume
permanent responsibility for children, but who require financial support because of the
special medical needs of these children. The same cost-benefit arguments applying to
adoption subsidies such as those offered through the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980 might also apply here. Namely, the increased costs of subsidies are
amply offset by the long-term savings in foster-care costs.