Beyond the dichotomy: Exploring variability in kinship care arrangements

Purpose: As already noted, many child welfare studies distinguish kinship care from non-relative foster care, but often treat kinship care families as a homogeneous group. Where studies of kinship care have examined variability, they have often done so based on dichotomies such as system involvement or licensure status. However, like many family relationships, kinship care arrangements may evolve over time in complex ways. This study is an attempt to capture the variety and complexity of kinship care arrangements. In-depth interview data are used to explore the caregivers' and children's experiences in kinship care, including whether differences among sub-groups of kinship families affect children's experiences in care. Findings highlight domains of caregiver and family functioning that, if measured in future research, might provide a more nuanced understanding of when and how certain kinship arrangements contribute to positive child and family outcomes. Method: This study is based on a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted in 2005 with 30 foster caregivers providing care for a relative child in their home. Caregivers were asked questions about their decision to provide care for a relative child, the involvement of extended family members, the family's need for and use of services, and permanency plans. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. In the first stage of analysis, units of text such as a phrase, sentence, or paragraph were labeled with a descriptive code of the content. Those descriptors were then reviewed for reliability and where differences occurred they were discussed and clarified until a consensus emerged. The descriptors were then used to create broad, non-mutually exclusive categories or themes, and these themes comprised the coding scheme. The coding scheme was applied to the transcripts using Atlas.TI, and output files were further analyzed for themes representing different domains of functioning. Results: Characteristics of sub-groups included the length and quality of a pre-existing relationship between the caregiver and child, the degree of support or strain among extended family regarding the decision to provide care, relative caregiver and child attitudes towards contact with the biological parent, and caregivers' attitudes towards child welfare system involvement, including participation in services. Implications: The rich information that emerged from this analysis provides an important contextual perspective on variability among kinship arrangements that moves discussions beyond dichotomous comparisons such as public vs. private arrangements or categorical distinctions based on the biological relationship of caregiver (e.g. aunts, siblings, or grandparents). Findings suggest dimensions of the caregiving relationships that future research studies might assess over time in an effort to capture the complexity of kinship care relationships and arrangements as well as explore how changes along those dimensions relate to the children's well-being.