Mapping the Needs of Kinship Providers: A Mixed-Method Examination

Background: Child welfare systems are becoming increasingly reliant on kinship caregivers for the placement of maltreated children. In 2014, there were an estimated 2.4 million youths being raised by relatives or family friends in the United States (Generations United, 2014).

Despite this growing dependence on kinship care providers, research in this area has not kept pace. There are gaps and inconsistencies in kinship research, and current literature offers few pragmatic steps for conceptualizing supports for kinship caregivers (Denby, 2015). As a result, states have struggled to develop and implement programs aimed at supporting relative caregivers. Some (e.g., Lin, 2014) have called for more research that explores the needs of kinship providers, particularly for those in informal custodial arrangements.

The purpose of this study was to explore the needs of kinship providers. Specifically, this research sought to address current limitations in the literature by answering two distinct, yet interconnected, queries:

(1) How do kinship providers conceptualize their needs pertaining to having successful placements?

(2) Is there a difference in the way that informal providers prioritize needs when compared to formal kinship providers?

Methods: This study utilized a convenience sample of kinship providers in one southeastern state (N = 107) and employed a mixed-method research methodology called Concept Mapping (CM). CM combines multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) with hierarchical cluster analyses (HCA) to analyze qualitative data. Results include visual depictions of data. Participants partook in brainstorming exercises where they came up with 67 unique statements in response to a focus prompt. Then, participants were asked to sort and rate each statement. To assess priority areas, participants rated each statement on one variable: importance.

In terms of analyses, individual similarity matrices were computed for each participant. Then, these matrices were aggregated into a matrix representing all participant sort data. The aggregate matrix was analyzed using non-metric MDS. The MDS analysis was used as input for the HCA, employing Ward's algorithm. The results of the HCA were superimposed on the MDS results creating a final cluster map.

Results: Analysis of the aggregate matrix converged after 17 iterations, producing a stress value of 0.26. The final cluster map yielded eight distinct clusters related to kinship needs: Financial, Permanency, Legal, Counseling, Family/Peer Support, Training, Outreach, and Resources. Bridging values for these clusters ranged from .14 to .71, with the Education cluster showing the most cohesiveness and the Resources cluster showing the least.

To examine priority differences for caregiver types, by cluster, researchers initiated Welsh’s t-tests. This analysis detected significant differences in mean ratings for the Financial, Legal, and Outreach clusters. Informal providers rated statements in these clusters significantly higher than did formal caregivers.  

Implications: Though previous studies have suggested that the needs of formal and informal kinship providers are similar, data from this study suggest otherwise. Data suggests service providers should be better educated about informal and formal kinship arrangements. Certainly, researchers should examine the needs of relative caregivers, with particular attention to the impact of placement type. This study can serve as a framework for these endeavors.