"Thanks for Taking the Kids...:" Workforce Perspectives on Kinship Care

Background: In 2023, the Biden-Haris administration announced new actions to support kinship caregivers. This shift in policy comes alongside significant research demonstrating positive outcomes for children in formal relative/kin placements, including fewer behavioral problems, retained connections with siblings and communities (Rubin et al. 2008), and higher graduation rates (Wiegmann, et al. 2014). Despite growing research into the benefits of kinship care for child welfare involved children, there is little research on what policy and practice best support kin caregivers. This research seeks to understand how child welfare agencies use “kin-first” policy and their capacity to support kinship care.

Methods: Twenty-two focus groups and interviews were conducted with 62 child welfare agency staff from a Midwestern state. Participants included direct service staff, supervisors, and administrators from multiple agency kinship and permanency departments. Participants were asked questions about their experiences providing support for kinship families and with agency and state kinship caregiving processes. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed professionally, and uploaded to Dedoose. An inductive approach was used to extract themes. To address rigor and trustworthiness, transcripts were coded through audit trail, paired coding, peer debriefing, and member checking.

Results: Our analysis identified four primary themes. Theme 1 is new and variable family finding processes result in disparate practice and outcomes for kin families. The emphasis on family finding is new and focused on placement, which has left “historical” cases of children behind and misses opportunities to maintain family connections outside of placement. Theme 2 is kinship families are often unprepared and under supported. Kin caregivers do not receive unequal financial support, compared to licensed foster homes, and are unprepared to deal with trauma-related behavior, leading to disruption. Theme 3 is kinship care is undervalued, despite being in a kinship state. Despite the state declaring kinship first, kinship workers are not provided formal training, and agencies focus on numbers, rather than family and worker well-being. Theme 4 is families and kinship placements are restricted by unnecessary boundaries. Judicial “cookie cutter” requirements and regulations for licensing often force families to jump through unnecessary hoops (e.g., drug tests, home modifications) that prevent or delay kin caregiver and child(ren) connections.

Conclusions/Implications: Analysis of focus group and interview transcripts indicates that, despite prioritization of kinship care in policy, kinship families remain under-resourced and under supported in practice. This research has important implications, as states continue to develop and implement kinship-first policy. Our results reveal potential avenues to improve kinship-first policy and practice. First, expanding “family finding” to all cases, beyond placement, could help maintain kinship connections. Second, equitable payment structures and formal training for kin caregivers will give families needed support. Third, kinship training for child welfare professionals and kinship-specific practices could improve kinship-first values. Fourth, using case-relevant court orders and kinship waivers could remove unnecessary boundaries for kin families. As kin-first state declarations are made, it is imperative for policy and practices to change to support kin families.