http://aaf.sagepub.

com/
Adoption & Fostering
http://aaf.sagepub.com/content/25/2/33
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/030857590102500206
2001 25: 33 Adoption & Fostering
Bob Broad
Kinship Care: Supporting Children in Placements with Extended Family and Friends

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

British Association for Adoption & Fostering

can be found at: Adoption & Fostering Additional services and information for

http://aaf.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://aaf.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 2001 Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001 33
Kinship care Supporting children in placements with
extended family and friends
There is little written about children living in kinship
care placements, either generally about the role and
work of social services in supporting such place-
ments or specifically about kinship care from carers
and users perspectives. For a child in need who
can no longer live with their birth parents(s), being
supported by social services to live with a member
of her or his extended family can be another appro-
priate placement option. Given that a good-sized
proportion of looked after children, at least equiva-
lent to those in residential care, are placed with a
relative or friend, it is argued here that kinship care
merits much more discussion, research and
development than has hitherto been the case.
Based on an ongoing research project, Bob Broad
seeks to begin to redress this balance. After
reviewing the kinship care literature, as well as the
legislative and policy context, research findings from
an ongoing research project are presented. The
views of kinship carers are given, which suggest
they value the support of social workers and require
further support, financial payments, information and
recognition from social services. Questions are also
raised about the over-representation of black
children in such placements.
Background
Following the Children Act 1989 there
was an initial downturn in the total num-
ber of children looked after each year in
England and Wales. However, the period
since 1994 has seen a steady increase,
from 49,100 children as at 31 March
1994 to 55,300 children as at 31 March
1999, the most recent figure available
(Department of Health, 1999, Table A,
p 39). There have also been wider
changes in family structures towards more
diverse family types (Health Development
Agency, 2000), continued poor welfare
outcomes for children leaving care
(Biehal et al, 1995; Broad, 1998), a short-
age of suitable foster carers (National
Bob Broad is
Professor of
Children and
Families Research,
School of Health
and Applied Social
Sciences, De
Montfort University,
Leicester
Key words: kinship
care, placement
choice, extended
families, children,
identity, black and
minority ethnic children
Foster Care Association, 1997) and an
over-representation of black young
people in public care (Barn, 1991).
Against this background of increasing
numbers of looked after children, press-
ure on existing services and poor out-
comes for those children, it seems that
other appropriate arrangements for child-
ren in need warrant consideration. One
option is formal kinship care, whereby a
child in need comes to the attention of
social services and is placed, or supported
in living, with a member of that childs
extended family or a friend. Kinship care
is developing in a number of local
authorities, in some cases building on
Family Group Conference initiatives, in
others within a kinship care placement
strategy, and in yet others, in a local
policy vacuum. Kinship care can support
children and young people in need by
providing continuity of care, family,
school and friendship networks, and
sustaining cultural and individual iden-
tities. Yet it seems clear from the emer-
ging evidence that while it has benefits,
supporting children in need to live with a
member(s) of the extended family, or a
friend, is not without its problems and
challenges for social services, the child-
ren and the kinship carers.
Literature review: key themes
According to McFadden (1998), writing
in this journal in the context of the USA,
kinship care can be described as either an
informal family arrangement, taking
place outside the child welfare system, or
a formal family arrangement, arranged
and approved by child welfare agencies.
This is a useful distinction to start off this
review, which is concerned with the
second of these. Yet it should be noted
that the existing literature (whether rela-
ting to the USA or the UK) tends not to
make a further distinction within formal
kinship care, since the relatives or friends
may or may not be approved foster carers.
The research study described here
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
34 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001
addresses formal kinship care placements
not subject to a fostering agreement.
Published material about formal kin-
ship care in the UK appears to be mainly
confined to the last two decades. It
largely upholds the principle of kinship
care, as well as revealing a paucity of
empirical evidence and raising questions
about the support needed to sustain such
placements. In a rare study examining
outcomes, Rowe et al (1984) found that
children fostered by relatives seemed to
be doing better in virtually all respects
than those fostered by others, with only a
few placements giving real ground for
concern. The official number of place-
ments recorded as a foster placement
with a relative or friend is significant.
For example, according to the Depart-
ment of Health (1999, Table L, p 43), as
at 31 March 1999, out of the total number
of 55,300 children looked after in
England and Wales, 5,800 (or ten per cent
of the total) were in kinship care place-
ments. This figure compares with 6,300
children (or 11 per cent of the total num-
ber) living in a childrens home or hostel.
Besides the looked after population,
children in need may also live in a formal
kinship care placement on another legal
basis, for example subject to a residence
order.
Despite Rowe et als (1984) positive
findings, attitudes to relatives as child
carers continue to vary. A robustly
cautionary note was struck by Murphy
(1988) who asked why relative place-
ments are treated so differently from
ordinary foster placements. He con-
sidered that it was because of the myth
that relative placements are problem free
that they are always seen as the next best
thing to care by birth parents. He
concluded that:
. . . social services departments have a
duty to investigate these family
placements much more thoroughly and
much more critically . . . Even if a relative
placement is found and approved, it is not
satisfactory to presume that the place-
ment can be seen as self-regulatory and
of low priority. (p 29)
According to the National Foster Care
Association (NFCA), in a supportive
paper about family and friends as carers
(1993):
Obvious benefits to the child include
continuity of existing networks of sup-
port, with less likelihood of disruption of
schooling and neighbourhood links. Care
within the extended family is normal
practice in many communities where
parents are unable to care for their
children for periods of time. Identifying
possible carers from amongst family or
friends is an especially important
consideration in the placement of black
and minority ethnic children. (p 30)
The NFCA also observed that research
shows that relatives and friends see the
support of the local authority as crucial in
the success of placements (National
Foster Care Association, 1993, p 30). The
Social Services Inspectorate studied the
effects of residence orders made under the
Children Act 1989, and published a
report on the experiences of local author-
ities and groups of users with these
(Social Services Inspectorate, 1995). In
1994, 1,496 residence orders were made
in public law hearings and 24,012 in
private law hearings in England and
Wales, but the overall conclusion of the
study was that they are relatively new and
not yet very widely used. The Inspector-
ate concluded that local authorities are
developing their policies and gaining
experience in their use, but there was
evidence of considerable caution. While
some local authorities were using resi-
dence orders for cases where children
were well settled, other authorities were
resisting their wider use (Social Services
Inspectorate, 1995). In a wide-ranging
review of the potentialities for social
servicesfamily partnerships of these
kinds, Aldgate (1991) remarked that
kinship is making a comeback in central
government thinking. Thoburn (1996,
p 53) observed that pre-Children Act
1989 the general climate was perhaps one
where social workers tended to
discourage placements with a relative,
and shrewdly added that, if as a result of
post-Children Act 1989 guidance place-
ments with relatives are viewed more
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001 35
favourably, then the success rate may
drop as more risky placements are made.
More recently Tunnard and Thoburn
(1997) conducted an independent evalua-
tion of the Supporters Project of the
Grandparents Federation. The authors
argued that:
It is the lack of power, and the fear of the
consequences of stepping out of line,
which prevented these grandparents from
using official mechanisms to get their
voices heard . . . Most obvious of these is
the withholding of information about
residence order allowances, and policies
which specifically deny them to relatives
when adoption allowances are paid,
usually at a higher level, if the children
are adopted outside the family. (p iv)
Marshs work (1998) recognised the
necessity and likely positive outcomes
arising from closer partnerships between
young people leaving care, social services
and extended families, noting that social
workers understanding of partnership
normally did not extend beyond making
occasional invitations even to parents
(and not extended family members) to
attend review meetings. His finding, that
extended families and young people were
willing to be more closely consulted and
involved in decision-making about place-
ments than used to be the case, sets out a
challenge to social services departments
about how they liaise with extended
family members. The excellent review by
Jackson and Thomas (1999) of what
works in creating stability for looked
after children noted that placement with
relatives and placement with siblings
were among several main factors which
strongly supported placement stability
(p 97). The NFCA supports formal kin-
ship care and its training Family and
Friends Carers Handbook promotes the
benefits of formal kinship care generally,
and for black and minority ethnic
children in particular, as well as high-
lighting the support needed by kinship
carers, especially grandparents (National
Foster Care Association, 2000, p 5). Yet
despite the potential of kinship care for
meeting the needs of black and minority
ethnic children, a Family Rights Group
(FRG) survey of social services found
that startlingly few respondents made
any attempt to explore alternatives to care
which would be in keeping with a childs
cultural background (Richards and Ince,
2000, p 80), by which it is taken to mean
an extended family placement.
The literature about kinship care
arrangements in the UK then is fairly
sparse. It is beyond the remit of this
article to review the extensive US liter-
ature, but Emily Jean McFadden has
written a helpful summary which high-
lights the high proportion of African-
American children in kinship care
placements. She states that in the USA
formal kinship care has become part of
the array of foster care services and is
rapidly becoming the preferred option for
placement of children (1998, p 7). She
comments both that such placements for
children of colour are rising, and that
kinship care placements generally
account for 30 per cent of children living
in out-of-home care and coming to the
attention of the welfare services, with an
even higher figure in large urban areas.
McFadden suggests that this is a result of
a combination of the rediscovery and
revaluing of extended families as the
family unit (ie not narrowly defining the
nuclear family as the family), a re-
emphasis on family continuity (ie not
removing the child from the family) and
foster care shortages. She also cites
societal factors, including poverty, drug
abuse, the numbers of HIV-positive
parents, racism and homelessness. For
Katz (1996) permanency with a relative
or a foster/adoption placement is an
integral element of concurrent planning
or working towards family reunification.
However, McFadden and Downs (1995)
suggest that the more successful the
kinship care placement the less likely the
possibility that the child will return to
live with a birth parent.
Legislative and policy issues
The Children Act 1989 is broadly
supportive of kinship care. The three
main references are:

The Children Act 1989 encourages

placement of the child with a person
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
36 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001
connected with that child: a family
member or relative, or other suitable
person unless it would not be reasonably
practicable or consistent with his welfare
(section 23(6)) [emphasis added].

Before making any decision the local

authority must ascertain, as far as possi-
ble, the wishes of the child, his parents,
anyone who holds parental responsibility
and anyone else who the local authority
considers relevant. It must give these
opinions due consideration along with
the childs religious persuasion, racial
origin, and cultural and linguistic
background (section 22) [emphasis
added].

So far as is reasonably practicable and

consistent with the childs welfare, the
accommodation offered should be near
the childs home and siblings should be
accommodated together (section 23 (7)).
A disabled child should have accommo-
dation not unsuitable for her/his needs
(section 23 (8)) [emphasis added].
There are a number of important policy
issues which also bear on formal kinship
care. These centre on the increasing
numbers of children in the looked after
system, and the quality and choice of
other appropriate child welfare place-
ments available for a child suffering or
likely to suffer significant harm.
First, since 1994 the numbers of
children being looked after has increased,
with the associated mix of benefits, risks
and costs (National Foster Care Associa-
tion, 1997; Walby and Colton, 1999).
There remain serious and ongoing con-
cerns about the quality of care provided
for this growing number of children in
the looked after public care system. This
is especially so in relation to those in
residential care (see, for example,
Berridge, 1997; Berridge and Brodie,
1998) despite the continuing improve-
ments brought about by the Department
of Healths extended Quality Protects
initiative. Placement choice is restricted
by the shortfall in fostering resources,
especially for teenager groupings, ie 13
16 years of age (National Foster Care
Association, 1997).
Also, as Hill (1999, p 2) observes,
. . . fostering today is located within a
child care scene which has a less certain
sense of direction, in which, since the
1980s, permanency planning has been
both promoted and, for adolescents in
particular, questioned. Critically, a formal
kinship care placement can be regarded as
an example of alternative and more
complex guiding principles . . . taking
into account continuity, resilience,
multiple identities and network support,
as well as permanent belonging.
There are ongoing concerns about the
disproportionate number of black young
people in the looked after system (Rowe
et al, 1989; Barn, 1991), among those
leaving care (Broad, 1998), and in cust-
odial and penal systems (Home Office,
1998). The issue of achieving high-
quality appropriate services for black
children and families, which McFadden
calls cultural competence (1998, p 8), is
of particular relevance in kinship care.
Formal kinship care may be beginning
to contribute to the Department of
Healths Quality Protects placement stab-
ility agenda (Department of Health,
2000a; 2000b, p 48; 2000c, p 29). Yet, as
our research is suggesting, kinship care is
a complex issue and not a cosy option.
At the policy level it is nigh on
impossible to produce accurate figures
about formal kinship care placements
something that requires urgent attention
in itself. It is estimated that kinship care
arrangements (non-fostered) in the
London Borough of Wandsworth, where
the research study is being conducted,
account for 74 (three per cent) of all
current recorded living situations of
children in need (n = 2,715). This esti-
mate is based on the February 2000
children in need census data, where kin-
ship care was an added field to the local
authoritys children in need database/
Department of Health returns. It is also
the case that London Borough of
Wandsworth staff report an increase in the
number of kinship care arrangements
being made. If the figures for kinship
care (fostering) estimated at ten per cent
nationally (Department of Health, 1999)
were added together with the kinship care
(non-fostering) figures, the focus of this
research, there could be between ten to
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001 37
20 per cent of children in need in kinship
care placements in this particular
borough, and possibly elsewhere. All of
this points to the need for a national
review and analysis of formal kinship
care in local authorities which build on
such local research studies.
Kinship care research findings
There are three phases to this research
project being conducted in partnership
with the London Borough of Wandsworth
social services department. This article
will summarise the first two completed
phases and make reference to the work in
progress. In the study our working
definition of a child living in a kinship
care placement is:
A child living away from the parental
home and coming to the attention of the
local authority as a result of child welfare
concerns. The kinship care placement is
either initiated by the social services
department or via a relative or friend,
and involves some sort of assistance or
arrangement, including making decisions
about legal orders, financial and social
work support.
The study arose from the growing use of
formal kinship care (in non-foster place-
ments) in the borough because of an
ongoing shortage of foster carers for 12
to 15-year-olds. The authority recognised
a lack of reliable planning, financial and
outcomes data about those children in
current kinship care placements.
Phase one of the research consisted of
a mapping exercise of formal kinship
care by means of a structured question-
naire sent to all children and family social
workers, managers and teams in the
borough. It was found that there were 70
recorded kinship care placements known
to the local authority at the time. The
second phase of the study considered
carers views (Laws and Broad, 2000).
Twenty-two kinship carers from that
original sample were interviewed, looking
after 35 children and young people. The
third phase is a one-year research project,
funded by the Joseph Rowntree Founda-
tion, to record the views of all young
people, aged 14 and upwards, who are or
have recently been involved in a formal
kinship care placement.
The sample children and carers
The 70 children identified as living in a
formal kinship care placement were
spread fairly evenly across three age
groups (04 years, 59 and 1015)
though the largest proportion (40 per
cent) were aged ten and over. Ethnic
origin was recorded in all but one case.
The two most common ethnic groupings
were Caribbean or Guyanese, account-
ing for 22 or 31 per cent of the total
sample, and English, Welsh and Scots,
accounting for 19 or 27 per cent. The
third highest category, other, accounted
for 15 (or 21 per cent) cases, a further
examination of these other files reveal-
ing many black children. The category
more than one group accounted for a
further seven (or ten per cent of cases).
The ethnic origin of all but six of the
70 kinship carers was also identified. The
two largest groupings were those of
Caribbean or Guyanese ethnic origin
(26 or 37 per cent) and English, Welsh or
Scottish (19 or 27 per cent). There was a
very high level of matching, in terms of
the ethnic origin of children and the carers
with whom they were placed. Eighty-five
per cent of the children of Caribbean or
Guyanese ethnic origin were placed with
kinship carers of the same ethnic origin,
the remainder being placed with carers of
more than one ethnic group (non-
European). Eighty-nine per cent of the
children of English, Welsh or Scottish
ethnic origin were placed with kinship
carers of the same ethnic origin. Grand-
parents were the kinship carers in 27 or
39 per cent of all cases (n = 70). The next
most common grouping was aunts,
accounting for 18 or 26 per cent of cases,
followed by friends, in eight or 11 per
cent of all cases.
Black children and carers
It is therefore evident that a higher per-
centage of black children than white
children were placed with extended
family members in our Wandsworth sam-
ple, although the reasons for this will not
be known until the research is complete.
There was also found to be a much higher
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
38 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001
proportion of black children (at least 31
per cent) in kinship care placements than
black children being looked after by the
same local authority (24 per cent), itself a
high figure (London Borough of Wands-
worth, 1997a, 1997b). The interviews
with young people should help to un-
cover further information and relay the
experiences of black, as well as white,
children and young people in these place-
ments. The higher proportion of black
children placed with relatives may be a
good thing, in the sense of diverting
and preventing even more black children
entering the looked after system, with its
accompanying unsatisfactory outcomes,
as well as costs. On the other hand, the
higher proportion could be bad thing if
black children and families are being
inappropriately encouraged and channel-
led to take up a particular type of kinship
care placement, with or without supports,
and being denied other services of their
choice. Rashid (2000) has written about
the lack of exploration and acknowledge-
ment of the strengths which black
families bring to substitute families.
An alternative possibility is that the
strengths of the black families are valued
by social services but to a point of not
offering further support because that is
perceived as less necessary in a black
extended family compared with a white
family. The research evidence indicates
that both black and white extended
families want ongoing social services
support. Some extended family members
actively presented themselves as kinship
carers to the local authority, and initiated
the kinship care placement, to prevent
their child being taken from the family
and placed in care.
Half of the carers interviewed were
black. They were asked whether there
were particular issues for them, as black
carers, about these arrangements. A
second question, put to all black and
white carers, asked them to gauge the
extent to which culture and background
were important. Six of the eight carers
who commented on the issue of matching
the cultural background of carer and child
stated that it was very important. The
other two did not think it mattered
greatly. One black carer commented:
So long as they know about their
roots . . . If they went to a white family,
they might not know about black kids. It
might not, depends if they are living in a
multi-cultural area. They at least should
go to school with black kids. But if they
were in a white area, growing up in a
white family, then they go to school and
someone calls them black, it would be a
shock to them. As long as there are other
cultures there at least theyll have an
identity.
Of the two carers who said that shared
ethnicity was not (so) important, one
(African-Caribbean) stated that she would
look after any child that needed helping,
and that shared ethnicity was a secondary
consideration, although you have to
teach them their culture as they grow up.
Child protection aspects
Another key finding was the consistent
view of social workers, confirmed by
kinship carers, that had the extended
family not come forward, then in the
majority of cases (64 or 86 per cent of all
cases in the study) the children would
very likely have suffered significant
harm and formally been brought into the
looked after system. When social workers
were asked about why social services
became involved in the particular kinship
care case for which they had responsi-
bility, 28 or 27 per cent of the total re-
sponses (104 total responses in the 70
cases) were concerned with serious child
protection considerations arising from the
specific category chaotic lifestyles of
birth parents arising from multiple sub-
stance abuse. This category was con-
structed from social workers responses.
There were other high threshold cate-
gories about reasons for initial involve-
ment, including sexual and emotional
abuse or harm (34 responses) and on
Child Protection Register (ten respon-
ses). Some social workers had concerns
about the parenting capacities of the birth
parents parents as kinship carers. Signifi-
cantly, the most common issue raised by
kinship carers interviewed (alongside
financial support) was that that of child
safety. In fact they wanted social ser-
vices to visit the children more often to
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001 39
check on the childs welfare, as a pre-
cautionary measure.
Legal status and case history
In terms of the legal status of all place-
ment types (n = 69), the residence order
category was the most common, account-
ing for 29 per cent of placements,
followed by a temporary placement with
no legal order accounting for 27 per cent.
The two most common previous place-
ments for all the children placed with
relatives immediately prior to their
current placement were: at parental
home (41 per cent) and accommodated
in foster care (24 per cent). This finding
suggests that kinship care placements are
likely to be a hybrid group, with the
common factor of the children having a
predominantly high threshold child
protection origin, ie not early preventive
work. Most families had complex place-
ment histories and family dynamics.
Financial aspects
Phase two of the research revealed that
financial support for kinship carers was
provided within strict local eligibility
criteria and limits, according to the local
authoritys extended family and friends
policy. Payments were normally made at
around two-and-a-half times income
support levels, although in special
circumstances amounts were higher. The
payments were made from the section
17 children in need budget. The kinship
carers indicated that the sums received
were very modest compared with the
money they needed to bring up a child. It
was also the case that some kinship carers
stated they would have looked after their
family member (often their grandchild)
even if there had been no financial sup-
port. As one carer put it, We are his own
flesh and blood. I could not see my
grandchild go into fostering. Whether
the social services approached the family
for placement help, or whether the kin-
ship carer approached the social services
for support, helped to determine subse-
quent financial arrangements and entitle-
ments. The average weekly payment for
all the kinship carers was 61.50 per
week, with considerable variation, ran-
ging from a minimum of 9 a week (in
five cases), through over 100 (in another
five cases) to 287 (one case). In 20 per
cent of cases where the carers were identi-
fied as initiating contact and approaching
social services, there were slightly lower
average payment levels (between ten per
cent and 20 per cent less) than in those
45 per cent of cases identified where
social services made the approach to the
extended family. It is also notable that the
extended family-initiated contacts tended
to be those in the younger (under ten) age
group, and the higher amounts were
usually paid to those caring for those in
the ten to 15 age group, where social
services were often seeking a placement.
In the remaining 35 per cent of cases the
family histories were too complex to fit
neatly into one or other of these
categories.
The majority of carers had expected
more support from social services after a
residence order was made. The kinship
carers valued the social work support they
did receive, especially when the social
workers made themselves available for
regular visits and/or provided telephone
support, and the grandparent carers
valued the more experienced social
workers. As one kinship carer put it:
The link worker [via fostering team] is
wonderful . . . comes very quickly when
we have problems, very encouraging. If I
phoned they came that day.
Other kinship carers wanted, but did not
receive, regular visits from a social
worker to support both themselves and
the child. They also would have liked
more written information about kinship
care support and financial entitlements.
One senior social services manager
described such expectations as unreal-
istic on resources grounds. Yet as one
carer put it, not atypically:
Its very hard at times and now I feel that
Ive got the residence order Im pushed
out of the way. I miss having a key
worker.
During this second phase a kinship
carers support group has already been
arranged. More are planned and all the
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
40 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001
kinship carers received a copy of the
research report. It is important to empha-
sise that the kinship carers in this study
valued social work support and wanted
more, not less, contact with social ser-
vices, to talk through family and relation-
ships issues, especially about internal
family relationship matters.
Concluding observations
One key issue that has arisen from the
research study is the kinship carers com-
mitment to caring, in part as a natural
loving response, in part to prevent their
child from being taken away from the
family. Other key issues include the
valuing by carers of social work support,
as well as a need for it to be more consist-
ent, and dissatisfaction with finance.
There are also policy and practice issues
arising from the high proportion of black
carers found to be undertaking formal
kinship care.
As we have seen, the over-representa-
tion of black families in kinship care
work is not necessarily evidence of
racism. Yet given the extent of racial
discrimination in other public policy
fields, including survey findings about
poor services for black children and
families within social services (Richards
and Ince, 2000), all agencies need to be
vigilant that discriminatory mechanisms
are not repeated here. Kinship care should
not and must not become a second choice
and second-rate option for black and
indeed white families in need.
Next, at the heart of kinship care many
unanswered questions remain about pub-
lic and private roles, rights and responsi-
bilities, none of which are taken forward
or even addressed in the Children Act
1989 Guidance. A key question, still
unresolved, is What is the role of the
state, if any, in arranging, supporting and
endorsing kinship care arrangements?
This can dominate immediate practical
questions. For example, so far as most
kinship carers interviewed are concerned,
the pressing issue of financial support, or
lack of it, will not go away. It might help
if social services care, support and
protection responsibilities towards
children could be separated out from
provision of financial support to their
carers, perhaps through the provision of a
carers tax credit or grant.
In relation to policy implications, the
expressed needs of carers for more on-
going social work support presents a
challenging agenda to social services
childcare departments driven by child
protection concerns (Broad, 2001). In the
light of the research, especially from the
USA (McFadden, 1998), that outcomes
for children in kinship care placements
are at the very least comparable with
other stranger childcare placement
outcomes, and at best provide better and
more stable placements, kinship care
merits a closer and more immediate
examination. A kinship care policy frame-
work is probably best developed under
the auspices of the Department of
Healths Quality Protects Programme
(placement choice objective). The submit-
ting of bids by local authorities to the
Department of Health for kinship care
development workers is one local option
being pursued. Yet while policies and
practices are being developed the prin-
cipal ideas underpinning these kinship
placements must not get lost along the
way. It is for local authorities, children
and families to fully and openly explore
together the possibilities for placing and
supporting a child who can no longer live
with their birth parent with a member of
the extended family or possibly friends.
Kinship care, especially when properly
supported, can not only provide
continuity of care for the child within a
familiar context, but also help to maintain
wider family relationships and sustain
cultural identities.
References
Aldgate J, Partnership with parents: fantasy or
reality?, Adoption & Fostering 15:2, pp 110,
1991
Barn R, Black Children in the Public Care
System, London: Batsford/BAAF, 1991
Berridge D, Foster Care: A research review,
London: The Stationery Office, 1997
Berridge D and Brodie I, Childrens Homes
Revisited, London: Jessica Kingsley, 1998
Biehal N, Clayden J, Stein M and Wade J,
Moving On: Young people and leaving care
schemes, London: HMSO, 1995
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from
ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 2001 41
Broad B, Young People Leaving Care, London:
Jessica Kingsley, 1998
Broad B (ed), Kinship Care: The placement
choice for children and young people, Lyme
Regis: Russell House Publishing, 2001
Department of Health, Children Looked After by
Local Authorities Year ending 31 March 1999,
Table LA3, Children looked after at 31 March
1999 by placement 1999, London: DH, 1999
Department of Health, Quality Protects
Placement Choice, Seminar, 12 January 2000,
London: DH, 2000a
Department of Health, Tracking Progress in
Childrens Services: An evaluation of local
responses to the Quality Protects Programme,
Year 2, National Overview Report, London: DH,
2000b
Department of Health, Planning and Providing
Good Quality Placements for Children in Care,
London: DH, 2000c
Health Development Agency, Changing
Families, Changing Communities, London:
HDA, 2000
Hill M, Introduction, in Hill M (ed), Signposts
in Fostering: Policy, practice and research
issues, London: BAAF, 1999
Home Office, Supporting Families: A consulta-
tion document, London: Home Office, 1998
Jackson S and Thomas N, What Works in Creat-
ing Stability for Looked After Children, Barking-
side: Barnardos, 1999
Katz L, Permanency action through concurrent
planning, Adoption & Fostering 20:2, pp 813,
1996
Laws S and Broad B, Looking After Children
within the Extended Family: Carers views,
Leicester: Centre for Social Action, De Montfort
University, 2000
London Borough of Wandsworth, Race Record-
keeping Analysis, London: Wandsworth Social
Services Department, 1997a
London Borough of Wandsworth, Children
Looked After, London: Wandsworth Social
Services Department, 1997b
Marsh P, Leaving care and extended families,
Adoption & Fostering 22:4, pp 614, 1998
McFadden E J and Downs S W, Family
continuity: the new paradigm in permanency
planning, Community Alternatives 7:1, pp 229,
1995
McFadden E J, Kinship Care in the United
States, Adoption & Fostering 22:3, pp 715,
1998
Murphy M, Foster parents before relatives,
Social Work Today, p 29, 22 September 1988
National Foster Care Association, Friends and
Relatives as Carers: Making it work, London:
NFCA, 1993
National Foster Care Association, Foster Care in
Crisis, London: NFCA, 1997
National Foster Care Association, Family and
Friends Carers Handbook, London: NFCA,
2000
Rashid S, The strengths of black families:
appropriate placements for all, Adoption &
Fostering 24:1, pp 1522, 2000
Richards A and Ince L, Overcoming the
Obstacles: Looked after children quality
services for black and minority ethnic children
and their families, London: Family Rights
Group, 2000
Rowe J, Cain H, Hundleby M and Keane A,
Long-term Foster Care, London: Batsford/BAAF,
1984
Rowe J, Hundleby M and Garnett L, Child Care
Now: A survey of placement patterns, London:
BAAF, 1989
Social Services Inspectorate, The Children Act
1989 Residence Orders Study, London: DH,
1995
Thoburn J, The research evidence of the
importance of links with relatives when children
are in care, in The Grandparents Federation, The
Children Act 1989: Whats in it for grand-
parents?, Harlow: The Grandparents Federation,
1996
Tunnard J and Thoburn J, The Grandparents
Supporters Project, Norwich/Harlow: University
of East Anglia/Grandparents Federation, 1997
Walby C and Colton M, More children, more
problems?, Community Care, pp 1920, 1521
July 1999
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 aaf.sagepub.com Downloaded from