Kinship Care and Latino Children: An Analysis of ASFA

1. Kinship Care and Latino Children: An Analysis of ASFA Lorna Crystal Loera California State University, Long Beach May, 2012

2. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) Major Issues underlying policy: • Large numbers of children remaining in foster care for extended periods of time (Allen & Bissell, 2004) • Children in foster care at risk for further maltreatment as a result of the “reasonable efforts” mandate of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) of 1980 (Humphrey, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 2006) Goals of Policy: • Promote safety of children in foster care • Promote permanency by eliminating long term foster care and expediting timelines for decision making for children in foster care • Increasing accountability for child welfare agencies by tracking outcomes of children in foster care • Promoting permanency through adoption and placement in kinship care

3. Social Work Resonance of ASFA • Child welfare issues have long been a focus of social workers (NASW, 2005) • Number of Latino children entering child welfare system continues to grow (Child Information Gateway, 2011) • Latino children and families continue to be an underserved population in need of advocacy and culturally sensitive interventions which social workers can help to create and provide (Church, 2006; Committee for Hispanic Children and Families [CHCF], 2003)

4. Literature Review • Child welfare and income assistance policies related to kinship care: Miller v. Youakim, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), AACWA, Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act • Types of kinship care: private/informal kinship care and public kinship care • Over half (52%) of children in kinship care live below the federal poverty level (Murray, Macomber, & Geen, 2004) • Number of Latinos caring for relative children is rising (Minkler, 1999) • Although studies have generally found that most relative caregivers are grandparents, Minkler (1999) found that in the case of Latinos the type of caregiver varies and can include siblings, aunts, uncles and other relatives • Burnette (2000) found that Latino caregivers face a large number of stressors such as high poverty rates, caregiver health problems, and a high level of unmet service need. • Potential barriers faced by Latino caregivers: social, economic, language, lack of culturally appropriate services (CHCF, 2003)

5. Methods David Gil’s (1992) framework for analyzing social policy was used to analyze ASFA and its impact on kinship care practices for Latino children and families: SECTION A: ISSUES DEALT WITH BY THE POLICY 1. Nature, scope, and distribution of the issues 2. Causal theory(ies) or hypothesis(es) concerning the issues SECTION B: OBJECTIVES, VALUE PREMISES, THEORETICAL POSITIONS, TARGET SEGMENTS, AND SUBSTANTIVE EFFECTS OF THE POLICY 1. Policy objectives: overt objectives and covert objectives 2. Value premises and ideological orientations underlying the policy objectives: explicit and implicit value premises 3. Theory(ies) or hypothesis(es) underlying the strategy and the substantive provisions of the policy 4. Target segment(s) of society- those at whom the policy is aimed: a. Ecological, demographic, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, and cultural characteristics b. Numerical size of relevant sub-groups and of entire target segment(s) projected over time 5. Short and long-range effects of the policy on target and non-target segment(s) of the society in ecological, demographic, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, and cultural spheres a. Intended effects and extent of attainment of policy objectives b. Unintended effects c. Overall economic and social costs and benefits of the policy

6. Methods continued SECTION C: IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY FOR THE OPERATING AND OUTCOME VARIABLES OF SOCIAL POLICIES 1. Changes concerning reproduction, socialization, and social control 2. Consequences of changes concerning resources, work and production, rights, governance and legitimization, and reproduction, socialization, and social control, for: a. Circumstances of living of individuals, groups, and classes b. Power of individuals, group, and classes c. Nature and quality of human relations among individuals, groups, and classes d. Overall quality of life Sources used: Federal and state child welfare agency reports Peer reviewed articles Online child welfare databases such as the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) Census data

7. Policy Analysis Section A Nature, scope, and distribution of issues: • ASFA attempts to address problem of foster care drift and child safety by eliminating use of long-term foster care, shortening timelines for finding permanent placements, and making child safety paramount • ASFA promotes use of both kinship care and adoption through the use of incentives for states who increase number of adoptions Causal theories or hypothesis concerning the issues: • Causes of foster care drift and lack of child safety linked to social, economic, and policy factors affecting families involved in child welfare system (Pecora, Whittaker, Maluccio, Barth & Plotnick, 2000) Section B Policy Objectives • Shorten amount of time children spent in foster care, promote safety and well being of children and increase permanence through adoption of placement with relatives Value premises and ideological orientations underlying policy objectives • Importance of providing a safe environment for children in foster care • Importance of family connections Theories underlying strategy and substantive provisions of policy • Expedited timelines, use of concurrent planning, and termination of parental rights used to motivate parents to comply with court and child welfare agency mandates and services (Golden & Macomber, 2009) Target segments of society • Children in child welfare system who have been in care for extended periods of time, parents, foster parents, relative and kinship caregivers, child welfare workers and agencies, the courts, and potential adoptive families

8. Policy Analysis Continued Ecological, demographic, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, and cultural characteristics • Of the 408,425 children in foster care in 2010 41% were white, 29% black, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 2% Alaska Native/American Indian, and 1% Asian (USDHHS, 2011) • 48% of these children were placed in non-relative foster homes and 26% in relative foster homes • Children in private and public kinship care have high poverty rates (Swann & Sylvester, 2006) Numerical size of relevant subgroups • Since passage of ASFA number of children in foster care has declined from 567,000 in 1999 to 408,000 in 2010 (USDHHS, 2011) • Percentage of Latino children in foster care has increased from 15% to 20% between 1998 and 2010 (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2011) Intended and unintended effects and extent of attainment of policy objectives • Increase in number of adoptions of Latino children possibly due to increasing numbers of Latino children in child welfare system (Golden & Macomber, 2009) • Increased use of kinship care for children in child welfare overall, but no data available for Latino children specifically (Vericker, Macomber, & Geen, 2008) • Unintended effects kinship care used as long-term placement for children, licensing requirements limit amount of financial assistance and support given to relative caregivers (Allen & Davis-Pratt, 2009) Overall economic and social costs and benefits of the policy • State spending on child welfare increased from 5.7 billion in 1996 to 23.3 billion in 2004, a 40% increase (Scarcella et al., 2006) • Social benefits of ASFA: increased permanency via adoption or placement with relatives, increased connections of children to family through placement with kin • Social cost: Increased number of children who become legal orphans due to increased termination of parental rights (Raimon, Lee, & Genty, 2009)

9. Strengths & Challenges of ASFA Strengths • Increased safety and permanency for children via use of kinship care and adoption • Some improvement in financial support programs for kinship caregivers due to increased number of subsidized guardianship programs and improved access to programs like TANF Challenges • Large numbers of children remain in foster care in spite of improvement • Large number of legal orphans and children who age out of the foster care system without family connections • More research needed on how policy impacts specific groups such as Latinos

10. References Allen, M.L., & Bissell, M. (2004). Safety and stability for foster children: The policy context. In R.E. Berman (Ed.), The future of children: Children, families, andfoster care (pp. 49-73). Retrieved from http://futureofchildren.org Allen, M.L., & Davis-Pratt, B. (2009). The impact of ASFA on family connections for children. In S. Notkin, K. Weber, O. Golden, & J. Macomber (Eds.), Intentions and results: A look back at the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (pp. 70-82).Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Burnette, D. (2000). Latino grandparents rearing grandchildren with special needs. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 33(3), 1-16. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Foster care statistics 2009. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm Church, W.T. (2006). From start to finish: The duration of Hispanic children in out-of home placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1007-1023. Committee for Hispanic Children & Families. (2003). Creating a Latino child welfare agenda: A strategic framework for change. New York, NY: The Committee. Gil, D.G. (1992). Framework for social policy analysis and synthesis. Unravelling social policy: Theory, analysis, and political action towards social equality. Rochester, VT: SchenkmanBooks. Revised 5th edition. Golden, O., & Macomber, J. (2009). Framework paper: The Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA). In S. Notkin, K. Weber, O. Golden, & J. Macomber (Eds.), Intentions and results: A look back at the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (pp. 8-34). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Humphrey, K.R., Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull III, H.R. (2006). Impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act on youth and their families: Perspectives of foster care providers, youth with emotional disorders, service providers, and judges. Childrenand Youth ServicesReview, 28, 113-132. Minkler, M. (1999). Intergenerational households headed by grandparents: Contexts,realities, and implications for policy. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 199-219. Murray, J., Macomber, J.E., & Geen, R. (2004). Estimating financial support for kinship caregivers. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://www. urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311126 National Association of Social Workers. (2005). NASW: Standards for social work practice in child welfare. Washington, DC: Author. Pecora, P.J., Whittaker, J.K., Maluccio, A.N., Barth, R.P., & Plotnick, R.D. (2000). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. New York, NY: Walter deGruyter, Inc. Raimon, M.L., Lee, A.F., & Genty, P. (2009). Sometimes good intentions yield bad results: ASFA’s effect on incarcerated parents and their children. In S. Notkin, K. Weber, O. Golden, & J. Macomber (Eds.), Intentions and results: A look back at the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (pp. 121-129).Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011b). Trends in foster care and adoption: FY 2002-FY 2010. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars Vericker, T., Macomber, J., & Geen, R. (2008). The story behind kinship care caseload dynamics: An analysis of AFCARS data, 2000-2003. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 437-451.