bs_bs_banner

doi:10.1111/cfs.12055

Strengthening kinship families: scoping the provision of

respite care in Australia
Juliette Borenstein* and Patricia McNamara† on behalf of the Respite Care Consortium
*Postgraduate Student, †Senior Lecturer, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University,
Bundoora, Vic., Australia

Correspondence: A B S T RA C T
Juliette Borenstein,
Department of Social Work and Kinship care is the fastest growing form of out-of-home care in
Social Policy, Australia, as it is in many other countries. The Victorian Govern-
La Trobe University, ment’s response has been to establish 18 programmes across the state
Bundoora, Vic. 3068, to provide support to kinship families. The scoping project described
Australia here, based on interviews with key programme staff, explores the
E-mail: julietteborenstein@gmail.com experiences of the new programmes in providing support, specifically
respite care, to kinship families. It has produced a picture, based on
Keywords: carer support, kinship, qualitative and quantitative data, of how respite care is understood,
respite care
the perceived respite needs of kinship families, how services are
Accepted for publication: organized and provided, identified barriers to families accessing
November 2012 support, the effect of respite provision and what constitutes optimal
practice. The findings establish a basis for a best practice model of
service provision for this increasingly significant family type.

The number of children in statutory kinship care in

BACKGROUND
Kinship care in Australia
A commonly accepted definition of ‘kinship care’ (also
known as ‘kith and kin’, ‘family and friends’, and
‘relatives’ care’) is: ‘the care provided by relatives or a
member of a child’s social network when a child
cannot live with their parents’. There is a further dis-
tinction made between ‘statutory (or formal) kinship
care’, where there is child protection intervention,
and sometimes a court order, and ‘private kinship
care’ (sometimes called ‘informal’ or ‘non-statutory’
kinship care) where children are cared for by relatives
or friends without any child protection intervention
(Victorian Department of Human Services Kinship
Program Model 2009, p. 2).
Juliette Borenstein is a postgraduate student at La Trobe
University and has worked for over 20 years in the out-of-
home care sector.
Patricia McNamara, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the Depart-
ment of SocialWork and Social Policy at La Trobe University.
Their shared interests include child and family welfare and
post-placement support for caregiving families.
Australia in 2011 was 17 276: 46% (cf. 45% in foster
care) of children in out-of-home care (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare 2012). It has also,
however, been estimated that there are another four
times the number of children in private kinship
arrangements (Victorian Department of Human
Services Kinship Program Model 2009).
Kinship care came to the attention of researchers in
Australia about a decade ago because of the steady
increase in the number of children living with members
of their kinship network. Consistent with trends in the
USA, the UK, New Zealand and elsewhere (McHugh
2009), it is now the fastest growing form of out-of-
home care in Australia (Bromfield & Osborn 2007;
McHugh 2009). To provide an international context,
Broad (2007) asserts that kinship care ‘[is] the most
significant form of out-of-home care globally for chil-
dren who are unable to live with their parents’ (p. 1).
Kinship families
With the increase in the number of kinship families
has come a greater research focus on the experiences
of the children and carers and their support needs.

50 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Consistent with international findings (Gladstone &
Brown 2007; Nixon 2007; Hunt 2008), kinship carers
in Australia are likely to be subject to a number of
structural disadvantages, with regard to age, health,
income and education (Boetto 2010). They also expe-
rience stress from their caring role, which can be
exacerbated by issues arising from family relation-
ships, and contributed to by the complex needs of the
children in their care (Dunne & Kettler 2008; Farmer
2009; Boetto 2010). It has been found that assuming
the care of a child or young person ‘places significant
burdens on carers’ (Nixon, 2007, p. 7), and that
kinship carers require ‘considerable personal and
other resources in order to manage the unexpected
and ongoing demands of kinship care’ (Department of
Human Services, Government of Victoria 2009). An
inverse relationship has also been found between carer
stress and quality of care provided to children (Farmer
2009).
In a Victorian Government report drawing on the
results of extensive consultation with stakeholders and
a review of the current national and international lit-
erature, it was noted that: ‘Most children in kinship
care have suffered considerable upheaval and adver-
sity . . . (t)he nature and extent of the trauma, grief
and loss experienced prior to placement by children
placed in statutory kinship care are very similar to
children placed in foster care or residential care’
(Department of Human Services, Government of Vic-
toria 2009, pp. 4–5). It has been found that these
background experiences result in more complex
behavioural issues (O’Neill 2011).
Kinship respite care
There is no universally accepted definition of ‘respite
care’, but a practical form that has been proposed is:
‘A short term alternative care arrangement that assists
in supporting and maintaining the caregiving role’
(Enduring Solutions 2003).
In studies relating to kinship care, there is a con-
sensus as to the importance of support for kinship
families, and respite care is often cited as a significant
support need (e.g. Cuddeback 2004; Worrall 2005;
Aldgate & McIntosh 2006; Boetto 2010). There is not
a large body of literature relating to respite care in the
context of out-of-home care for children. Hartley
(2008), in a review of international studies, concluded
that despite some methodological unevenness and
diverse study contexts, there was consistent indication
that respite care for primary carers reduced levels of
51 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
stress and use of alternative placements, and increased
the satisfaction of carers.
Another review conducted by O’Brien (2001)
was based more broadly on international outcome
studies, evaluations and the experience of welfare
practitioners. He similarly concluded that respite care
could contribute to the prevention of abuse, neglect
and family breakdown, by decreasing stress and iso-
lation, and increasing social supports. Aldgate (1998)
also found in the context of a study conducted in
Scotland that children reported respite to be a posi-
tive experience.
There is international evidence, however, that
related carers are less likely to be offered support
and other services, such as respite, than unrelated
carers, and that they are also less likely to request it
(Cuddeback 2004; Farmer 2009). Kiraly (2011)
noted that lack of support to kinship carers was a
consistent theme in Australian research reports and
publications.
The Victorian kinship model
In Victoria, the response to the increase in kinship care
has been the roll-out since 2010 of state-wide pro-
grammes to provide support to kinship families.These
programmes are government funded and are operated
by community service organizations.
The services provided by programmes under the
Victorian Kinship Model are information and advice,
family services (a limited number of hours per family,
accessible to statutory and non-statutory kinship
arrangements) and placement support (limited place-
ment establishment services, and case management,
for statutory kinship care only) (Victorian Depart-
ment of Human Services Kinship Program Model
2009, p. 15). There is no direct reference to ‘respite
care’ in the model, other than as an example of pos-
sible support that might be provided by the ‘extended
family network’ (Victorian Department of Human
Services Kinship Program Model 2009, p. 8).
The research
The rapid growth in kinship care has resulted in a lag
in research and policy development. There have been
increasing calls internationally for more work to be
done to establish a specific framework for practice for
this distinct form of care (Cuddeback 2004; Aldgate
& McIntosh 2006; McHugh 2009). There has also
been insufficient focus on respite care as a potential
support for kinship families. Farmer (2009) noted
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
that development in this area needs to be based on
practice evidence regarding outcomes and the services
required to maintain care arrangements.
A further impetus for this study was the opportunity
to tap into the emerging practice in the new Victorian
kinship programmes, and to inform their develop-
ment, and the broader field.
It was in this context that the present scoping
project was completed in Victoria, the second most
populous state in Australia, in late 2011 and early
2012. The study was funded and developed by the
Respite Care Consortium (see Note 1) as an exten-
sion of earlier work focusing on respite (Lewis et al.
2009; McNamara 2009; McNamara et al. 2010a,b;
Ochiltree et al. 2010).
The aim of the study was to broadly examine the
provision and organization of respite care for kinship
families in Victoria. The areas of inquiry were as
follows: the understanding of respite care, the respite
needs of kinship families, how services are organized
and provided, what are the barriers to families access-
ing supports, the effect of the provision of respite and
what are the elements of best practice in relation to
respite care.
It was intended to include in the study a specific
focus on the provision of respite care to Indigenous
children and their families. However, owing to the
later commencement of the Indigenous kinship pro-
gramme, there were insufficient data to allow for a
meaningful consideration of this specialized area of
practice. The available data also did not support a
specific exploration of how respite care operates for
children and families from culturally and linguistically
diverse communities.
DETAILS OF THE STUDY
A N D PA R T I C I P A N T S
The scoping project targeted the 18 funded kinship
programmes that were operating at the commence-
ment of the project. It is primarily a qualitative descrip-
tive study, using mixed methods to represent the views,
experiences and perceptions of programme managers
and team leaders with regard to the provision of respite
care.
The research team analysed respondents’ ‘lived
experience’ through phenomenological interpretive
analysis (Smith & Osborn 2008). Where appropriate,
Curtin & Fossey’s (2007) principles for ensuring
the validity of qualitative research have been fol-
lowed. To this end, descriptive statistics regarding
respite provision have also been collected from the
52 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
programmes. Human research ethics approval was
obtained for the project from Anglicare Victoria (see
Note 2).
The targeted sample for the study consisted of
17 mainstream kinship programmes and 1 more re-
cently established specialized Aboriginal kinship pro-
gramme.The number of kinship families working with
each programme varied (from 3 to over 130), with an
average capacity of around 50 statutory kinship fami-
lies per programme, together with a fluctuating
number of non-statutory kinship families.
An invitation was sent to agencies to invite their
participation in the project. All agreed to telephone
interviews being conducted by the research team with
an appropriate staff member (100% response rate).
These interviews were undertaken using a semi-
structured interview schedule, which was provided in
advance. The agencies and nominated interviewees
were given information about the project, and all pro-
vided written consent to participation.
Interviews ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 hours in length,
and a written record was made. Both qualitative and
quantitative data were collected and the responses
were analysed using Excel and thematic analysis
(Liamputtong 2010). No individual or organization is
identified, except with their consent.
FINDINGS
The analysed data are presented here organized into
areas of research interest: the make-up of the group
of carers working with the programmes, how respite
care was practically defined and understood, the
need for respite care, how this need was being met,
what outcomes resulted for the kinship families and
what was preventing access to necessary supports.
Also represented here are the views of respondents
about how the need for respite care would develop in
the future, how that need would best be met and
what would be best practice elements in the provi-
sion of respite care.
Composition of carer group
Of the 14 programmes that provided data about the
relationship of carers to the children in their care,
the majority reported that grandparents were their
largest constituency. However, non-grandparent carers
made up a significant minority. Overall, half of the
respondents reported between 30% and 59% non-
grandparent carers with their programmes. This
group included aunts, uncles, siblings, family friends
and one great-grandparent.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

A practical definition of respite care
The study explored the understanding of the term
‘respite care’ by asking respondents what they consid-
ered to be the purpose, as well as examples, of this
form of support.The results are shown in Figs 1 and 2,
with indication of the number of respondents nominat-
ing each category of response. Not all interviewees
answered each question.
The responses showed that respite care is seen more
commonly to provide a break for carers, rather than as
a mutual break for carers and children. There were,
however, separate benefits (different social and recrea-
tional experiences, and an expanded network) that
were identified for children.
The most commonly accepted idea of respite
involved stranger overnight care (foster care). It is
clear though that some respondents had a broader
understanding and use of the term ‘respite care’, and
applied it to describe other options (such as day care,
before and after school care, and carer support
groups), which did not involve overnight care.
Figure 1 Purposes of respite care.
Figure 3 Proportion of kinship
carers requesting respite care.
53 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
The need for respite care
Respondents were asked for an estimate of the pro-
portion of kinship carers who requested respite care;
the results are represented in Fig. 3. Not all respond-
ents gave enough information to answer this question
and one respondent (P7) provided separate figures for
statutory and non-statutory kinship carers requesting
respite care.
The estimated rates of requests for respite from
carers varied across programmes and were distributed
relatively evenly across the range from ‘never’ to
100%. One programme reported different propor-
tions of statutory and non-statutory carers requesting
respite (80% and 20%, respectively).
Worker assessed need for respite care was also variable,
as shown in Fig. 4. Not all programmes provided a
response to this question.
Nearly, one-third of the respondents expressed the
view that 100% of kinship carers need respite care,
and the majority indicated a medium to high (60–
100%) level of assessed need for respite care.
Figure 2 Examples of respite care identified.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
Further observations from the respondents suggested
that there was a higher rate of need for respite care
for carers of adolescents. It was also noted that the
level of need should be considered, in that while
100% of kinship carers might ‘need a break’, in 50%
of cases, respite care is required to avoid breakdown
of the care arrangement. A point was also raised
about addressing both immediate- and longer term
need for respite care. It was asserted that regardless
of current need, every kinship carer requires a con-
tingency plan for emergency respite for when the
need arises.
Respondents were also asked about the types of
respite care, which are requested/required by kinship
carers and the results are represented in Fig. 5, with
indication of the number of respondents nominating
each type of respite care.
Almost all respondents reported requests for
stranger overnight care (foster care). The majority
also cited day care, school holiday programmes and
use of family as requested forms of respite care.
Carers also asked for holiday camps and support
through their social network. The majority of
respondents talked about requests for a ‘regular
break’. ‘I want a weekend off a month’ was reported
as a common way for carers to express a need for
respite. Some of the ways in which the respite need
was described were as follows: ‘a break – something
regular and in school holidays – to go out for dinner,
sleep in, catch up with friends, chance to have other
grandchildren to stay’, ‘regular respite to have a
break, also activity based [respite so they can] catch
up on tasks, or overnight to relieve stress of care’.
One programme had received the rather poignant
request from a carer for ‘someone “able bodied” to
do the things they can’t do’.
Meeting the need
The proportion of kinship carers who had been
assessed as needing respite care, and who had been
54 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
Figure 4 Worker assessed need for
respite care.
Figure 5 Types of respite care required by kinship carers.
able to access it, is represented in Fig. 6. Not all
respondents directly answered this question.
From variable results across programmes, the
majority of respondents reported low to medium
(0–59%) access to respite care options. One respond-
ent noted that her programme’s carers had a high
rate of access to respite care because of the strong
advocacy of their workers. Comments were also
made about the significant amount of time spent by
workers (one respondent estimated up to 2 hours a
day) on identifying and accessing respite care for
kinship families.
The types of ‘respite care’ accessed by kinship carers
are represented in Fig. 7. The chart indicates just the
range of options accessed, rather than the proportions
used.
Again, there is great variation between programmes
in the respite care accessed by carers.
Respondents indicated that the arrangement of
respite care was carried out predominantly by the
kinship programmes, with also the involvement of
family. The reported providers of respite care are repre-
sented in Fig. 8, with indication of the number of
programmes nominating each type of provider.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara

Figure 6 Access to respite care with

assessed need.

Figure 7 Types of respite care accessed by kinship carers.

Formal foster care was used by nearly all the pro-

grammes. Family and social networks were also widely
used, as were other informal respite options such as
camps, school holiday programmes, before and after
school care, and family day care.
Most forms of respite care accessed by kinship fami-
lies were considered by respondents to be effective in
meeting the purpose of respite. Regular respite
was considered to be the most helpful and impor-
tant form of respite care because of ‘predictability,
developed relationship’ and allowing ‘rest and re-
charge’. It was also considered to be a means to ‘keep
the placement going’, to allow children new experi-
ences and to develop in children the ability to form new
relationships.
Family day care (within the community) was also
singled out as being a useful form of respite, as it was
delivered by trained carers, and as a relationship could
develop between the child and carer. Child care was Figure 8 Providers of respite care used.

55 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
considered to be ‘vital for working carers’ and positive
in terms of the child’s developmental needs.
While family and social networks were the first option
considered by programmes in identifying respite
opportunities, the potential issues were also identified
by respondents. It was noted that respite within the
family can be helpful, but there can also be complica-
tions, e.g. with the transfer of carer payments and
behaviour issues. Pressure can also be brought to bear
on carers by family members, especially in the context
of complex family relationships and court-ordered
contact arrangements.
Outcomes for carers and children
This study did not attempt to formally evaluate the
impact of respite on the well-being of kinship family
members. However, the overall response to the effect
of respite care on the functioning and well-being of carers
was unequivocal. All respondents considered that
carers benefitted from respite. This was especially
seen to be the case because of the older demographic
of kinship carers. Comments were made that the
value of respite care for kinship carers could not be
overstated, and that respite was ‘imperative’ and
made the difference between the placement continu-
ing or not. It was the view of one respondent that
three out of six placement breakdowns for kinship
families with their programme were attributable to
lack of respite. This appraisal was supported by other
responses.
The benefits of respite care for kinship carers were
seen to include:
• Providing a break (‘a calm clear space to breathe,
and to think about what is going on’)
• Allowing time for themselves
• Reducing stress
• ‘Re-charging batteries’ – replenishing emotional
and physical energy
• Increasing opportunities for self-care
• Having ‘time out to be normal’ and to do things for
themselves
• Allowing kinship carers to engage in the activities
‘of their life stage’
• Maintaining their contacts and connections
• Spending time with their partner and other family
members
• Reducing isolation and allowing for experiences to
be shared
• Allowing carers the time to deal with possible feel-
ings of grief and loss associated with their role
transition
56 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
The link was also noted between improved func-
tioning and well-being for carers through provision of
respite care and improved outcomes for children. As
one respondent stated: ‘If we can look after the emo-
tional wellbeing of carers through respite, the quality
of care will improve and this will assist with the emo-
tional stability and [developing a] sense of belonging
for the child.’ In practical terms, the respondent felt
that without respite care, the quality of care for the
child may not be different from the situation from
which they were removed.
The question of the effect of the provision of respite care
on the safety, stability, development and well-being of chil-
dren in kinship families was considered by respondents
to be more complex.There was agreement that respite
care could be of benefit to children. A strongly
expressed concern, however, was that this would only
be the case if the individual circumstances were care-
fully considered, the views of the child were sought
and respite was well managed and (preferably)
planned.
The benefits of respite care for children in kinship
families were identified as either those arising from
addressing problematic issues or, in a more positive
sense, from opportunities that are presented through
respite care. Issues that respite care was seen to
address were stress, relationship difficulties (especially
for adolescents), lack of contact with other children
and safety (‘providing another lens on the child’).
It was also considered that respite care can create
opportunities for children by increasing access to
activities and new experiences, increasing social con-
tacts and relationship possibilities, allowing the devel-
opment of resilience, self-esteem and other skills, and
creating opportunities to have fun.
The questions that need to be considered in assess-
ing whether respite care would benefit a particular
child were identified as follows:
• How long the child had been with the kinship family
• Whether the circumstances of the child would
render the experience traumatic, with consideration
to attachments and past trauma
• What the ‘message’ to the child might be in arrang-
ing respite care (‘shouldn’t be seen as punishment’)
• Whether there is sufficient consistency such that
stability is promoted
Comments made were that respite care should be ‘a
break and not a disruption’ and that it should be
‘normal and not special’. Also that: ‘[it is] attachment
which makes a placement last and not respite’. In the
context of the care of Indigenous children, concern
was expressed that respite can ‘separate the child out
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara

from family’, depriving the child of cultural experi- all children. Brokerage monies and adequate up-front
ences which they might have. funding were considered necessary to enable this (21%
of responses). Further resources were also deemed
necessary for more family work, so that the capacity of
Barriers to accessing respite care the family network could be identified and developed.
Developing relationships and protocols between
The majority of respondents (65%) believed that lack
kinship programmes and respite care providers was
of information or understanding is a factor in kinship
also identified (5% of responses) as a measure to
carers not expressing a need for respite care, com-
ensure a more flexible and responsive service to
pounded by issues of language and literacy.
kinship families. Also raised was a proposal for a cen-
Carer concerns and issues (about 70% of responses)
tralized information point to make information about
were also considered to significantly inhibit access to
respite care options readily accessible to workers and
respite care. These included guilt at letting the child
families. Education of kinship carers about respite
down and concerns for the child, difficulty in admit-
options was seen to be important in overcoming reluc-
ting that support is needed, apprehension about how
tance to access support.
they would be viewed by family and workers, reluc-
A point was made by several respondents about the
tance to be a burden and fear that the child would be
importance of early assessment of the need for support,
taken away from them. Some carers also did not want
and family work to determine an emergency contingency
to be part of ‘the welfare system’.
for the kinship carer to avoid future stress.
Some identified ‘system’-related barriers (20% of
responses) were the lack of support and responsive-
ness of the system, the lack of options for respite care, The future need for respite care
financial factors, the complexity and intrusiveness of
The majority of respondents (83%) expressed the
screening processes, transport issues and eligibility for
view that the demand for respite care would increase
services. The external factor of distance was also cited.
in the future; three respondents predicted that it
Child-related factors of relevance (5% of responses)
would stay the same. The prediction of increased
included the anxiety of the child and adolescents
demand was mainly based on the increasing incidence
making their own choices about what they want to do.
of kinship care, and the as yet untapped needs of
Respondents also noted that family issues (5% of
non-statutory kinship families who were just begin-
responses) or family conflict could influence whether
ning to engage with the programmes. The increasing
a carer expressed a need for respite care.
complexity of the issues of the children in kinship
families was also cited as a reason.
One respondent analysed the demand for respite
What is required to meet the need
care in the future succinctly:
The major identified issue was availability of both
It will remain high on the agenda. The need will remain high
formal and private care options (46% of responses).
and the supply will continue to fall short. Families will con-
There was a strong view that there should be a focus
tinue to get on with it – but placements will continue to break
on the recruitment of respite carers (of different cul- down without it.
tural backgrounds), with some prioritization and dedi-
cated funding. Another added to this analysis:
Respondents also identified a need for different There is no capacity to meet current need, let alone predicted
respite options to suit the range of requirements in a increased need in the future. The potential for placement
diverse group. The needs of adolescents were singled breakdown is shocking. Prior to breakdown, the child goes
out, as there was reported to be a lack of respite through emotional turmoil, and is probably subjected to
options for this age group. further harm, before the caregiver says ‘enough is enough’.
Comments were also made emphasizing the need
for flexibility in matching respite options to the indi-
Best practice in provision of respite care to
vidual circumstances of kinship families. It was also
kinship families
seen as important to ensure access to mainstream
options for kinship families (such as school holiday In considering optimal or best practice in provision of
programmes and camps), so that respite could be respite care for kinship families, respondents identi-
normalized and the same opportunities provided to fied the overall aim as enabling access to safe, regular,

57 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
planned, flexible, integrated and ‘normal’ types of
respite care. As a foundation for this, elements of
practice were identified addressing both process and
structural context, and are summarized as follows:
Structural context
• Accessible and coordinated information about
respite care
• An adequate supply of local options, with sufficient
appropriately trained carers
• More options for adolescents
• Coordination between the kinship programmes and
the respite care providers
• Consideration in rural areas of the effects of dis-
tance on the accessibility and suitability of respite
options, and on the amount of worker time con-
sumed with travel
Process
Early engagement and assessment of kinship families
• To gauge the viability of the care arrangement
• To provide information, including about respite care
• To collect information about the background, needs
and capacities of the carers and the children
• With attention to issues of attachment, trauma, and
cultural needs and sensitivities
• As an opportunity to start considering and engaging
the broader networks of the children and carers in
order to ascertain potential support options
• Using Family Group Conference and family
decision-making techniques and principles
• Establishing an emergency contingency at the outset
to avoid crisis-driven interventions
• Organizing timely screening of potential respite provid-
ers in a manner that is minimally intrusive
Ongoing work
• Using practice that is partnership and relationship
-based
• With an individualized approach to matching a family
with respite options that will fit the needs of the
children and carers
• Balancing the interests of children and carers with con-
sideration as to what ‘message’ a respite arrangement
would give to the child, and what would be the effect
of respite for the child
• Considering the importance of maintaining connec-
tions with siblings
58 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
DISCUSSION
Kinship carers
It is often assumed that kinship carers are almost
always grandparents, and that they are also a homo-
geneous group. Carer studies have established the
contrary (Broad 2004; O’Neill 2011). Broad (2007)
noted that ‘[t]he culture and social norms within dif-
ferent countries determine who is likely to look after
kin’. It has also been found that the relationship of the
carer to the child can affect the nature of the experi-
ence of kinship care (O’Neill 2011) and, one would
assume, also the individual support needs. In the
current study, while the majority of carers are grand-
parents, a significant proportion are other ‘kith and
kin’. The diversity of carers needs to be acknowledged
in any consideration of support needs.
The understanding of respite care
In accord with the limited literature that focuses spe-
cifically on respite care (e.g. O’Brien 2001; Hartley
2008), the current study indicates a diversity of under-
standing and use of the term ‘respite care’. This sug-
gests the need for more foundation work in developing
a common conceptualization and language.
The need for respite care and meeting the need
Three central observations from the data are firstly
that the majority of respondents reported a high level
of assessed need for respite care, secondly that the
assessed need exceeded the requests from carers for
respite support, and finally that there was significant
variation between programmes in access to respite,
and other practices and outcomes.
The fact that programme workers were assessing
need for respite care, where no request had been made
by the carer, is consistent with international findings
about the reluctance of carers to request support
(Cuddeback 2004; Farmer 2009). The respondents
identified that there were a number of factors that
inhibited carers from asking for support, such as lack
of information, carer concerns and issues, and
system-related barriers. This would need to be taken
into consideration in planning for the provision of
carer support.
The reason for the variation between programmes
in the requests for respite, the assessed need, the rate
of access to respite care and the range of options used
is unclear. It is likely that it is due at least in part to
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

differences in practices and approaches. Consistent
with the result of practice comparisons elsewhere
(Sinclair et al. 2007 cited in Farmer 2009), there were
clear differences between the approaches of the pro-
grammes participating in this study. Some promoted
formal care options because of the use of trained
carers, the structured nature of the care and also
because it avoids problematic issues within the family,
which may impact on the care of the child. Other
programmes intentionally avoid formal care options,
as they view them as not being ‘normal’ experiences
for children in kinship arrangements, and as inconsist-
ent with the goal of self-management.
When considering the data, it does appear that
more of the programmes that actively seek respite
options within the family’s kinship network reported a
higher rate of access to respite care.
Comments provided by respondents suggest that
other variation in outcomes may be a result of differ-
ent programme practices, such as how, when and what
information is given to carers and what questions are
asked, and the application of programme criteria, such as
considering respite only for families with sibling
groups. Lack of common understanding of what consti-
tutes respite care, and what language can be used to
describe it, may also be of relevance.
Other possible factors that were raised by respond-
ents are structural or contextual ones, such as local
availability of respite options, and relationships
between kinship and local foster care programmes.
Geographic or socio-economic factors also needed
to be considered, and a comparison was made of the
17 programmes with regional catchments through the
use of indicators of socio-economic disadvantage (Aus-
tralian Bureau of Statistics 2006a,b) and ‘remoteness’
based on information from the 2006 Australian
Census. The result is represented in Table 1.
The comparison made is somewhat inconclusive: It
would be almost equally likely to have low or medium
to high access to respite in a programme serving areas
of high disadvantage. However, for programmes in
Table 1 Impact of geographic and socio-economic factors on access to respite
Low access to
respite (0–39%)
Programmes serving highly disadvantaged areas
Programmes not serving highly disadvantaged areas
Programmes serving outer regional or remote areas
Programmes not serving outer regional or remote areas
59 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
areas that are not disadvantaged, there is more likely
to be medium to high levels of access to respite. Also,
for programmes subject to geographic factors, there is
more likely to be medium to high levels of access to
respite, but where there are no issues of remoteness,
low or medium to high access is equally likely. These
somewhat contradictory results may be due to varia-
tion within the catchment area of each programme, as,
e.g. with pockets of higher disadvantage, and more
outlying areas.
The effect of the provision of respite care
As Hartley (2008) noted, the understanding of respite
care has evolved from being seen as a support for
carers to having a focus on the benefits for both carers
and the children in their care. The findings of this
study suggest that although there is variation in how
respite is viewed, it is considered to be an effective
support for kinship families. It is also clear that there
needs to be an individualized approach to ensure that
the interests of both carers and children are consid-
ered, and that ultimately the outcome is positive for
both.
Development of best practice in kinship respite care
The distinct nature of kinship care as an alternative
care arrangement is now acknowledged (Cuddeback
2004; Aldgate & McIntosh 2006; McHugh 2009). In
Victoria, as elsewhere, kinship practice has been devel-
oped using a foster care paradigm, which in many ways
has proved not to be a ‘good fit’. In considering what
would constitute optimal or best practice in kinship
care, many comments were made by respondents
about the importance of early engagement with kinship
families and their supportive networks. This can be
seen to be of particular relevance to kinship carers, who
are often disadvantaged, and may have assumed the
care of a child suddenly and without planning, and as a
result of a critical incident in the family.
Medium access to High access to
respite (40–59%) respite (60–100%)
6 1 4
1 2 3
3 2 4
4 1 3
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
Limitations of the study
This scoping project was intended to provide a snap-
shot of the practice of the relatively newly estab-
lished kinship support programmes in Victoria. The
study is obviously located within a particular geo-
graphic context, and only key programme staff was
interviewed. While many voices are missing from
this picture, the findings are consistent with those
from other studies. The project has also been an
important means of tapping into the practice
wisdom, which has developed since the commence-
ment of the programmes.
CONCLUSION
This paper presents findings from a relatively small
but instructive scoping of the views of key kinship
programme staff. The respondents, in reporting on
their experiences in a new area of practice, have pro-
vided a valuable foundation in considering the role of
respite care in supporting kinship families.
The results of the study suggest that there is a
currently unmet need for respite care for kinship fami-
lies, and that the demand for respite care is predicted
by most programmes to increase. The findings also
indicate that respite for kinship carers can potentially
make the difference between the care continuing
or not. There was unequivocal agreement among
respondents that it is beneficial for kinship carers, and,
if properly managed, also of benefit to the children in
their care. The data, however, also highlighted signifi-
cant variation between the approaches and outcomes
reported for programmes, raising concerns about the
consistent and equitable operation of practice in the
kinship area.
Clearly, more discussion and research is required in
the field to share and extend knowledge about kinship
respite care, and to enable the development of a ‘best
practice’ approach to providing support to kinship
families.
REFERENCES
Aldgate, J. (1998) Measuring outcomes in family support serv-
ices: a case study using respite care. Children & Society, 12,
185–187.
Aldgate, J. & McIntosh, M. (2006) Looking After the Family:
Study of Children Looked After in Kinship Care in Scotland.
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/
06/07132800/0 (accessed April 2012).
60 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006a) Australian Standard Geo-
graphical Classification (ASGC) Remoteness Area Correspondences
(1216.0.15.003). Canberra, Australia. Available at: http://www.
abs.gov.au (accessed August 2012).
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006b) Census of Population
and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)
(2033.0.55.001). Canberra, Australia. Available at: http://
www.abs.gov.au (accessed August 2012).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) Child Protection
Australia 2010–11. ChildWelfare Series No. 53. Cat. No. CWS 41.
AIHW, Canberra.
Boetto, H. (2010) Kinship care: a review of issues. Family
Matters, 85, 60–67.
Broad, B. (2004) Kinship care for children in the UK: messages
from research, lessons for policy and practice. European Journal
of Social Work, 7 (2), 11–227.
Broad, B. (2007) Kinship Care: Providing Positive and Safe Care for
Children Living Away from Home. Save the Children UK,
London, UK.
Bromfield, L. & Osborn, A. (2007) ‘Getting the Big Picture’: A
Synopsis and Critique of Australian Out-of-Home Care Research.
Child Abuse Prevention Issues No 26. National Child Protec-
tion Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Melbourne.
Cuddeback, G.S. (2004) Kinship family foster care: a methodo-
logical and substantive synthesis of research. Children andYouth
Services Review, 26, 623–639.
Curtin, M. & Fossey, E. (2007) Appraising the trustworthiness
of qualitative studies: guidelines for occupational therapists.
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, 88–94.
Department of Human Services, Government of Victoria (2009)
A New Kinship Care Program Model for Victoria. Available at:
http://www.dhs.vic.gov. (accessed April 2012).
Dunne, E. & Kettler, L. (2008) Grandparents raising grandchil-
dren in Australia: exploring psychological health and grand-
parents’ experience of providing kinship care. International
Journal of Social Welfare, 17 (4), 333–345.
Enduring Solutions (2003) Sustaining Caring Relationships: Final
Report of the Met and Unmet Needs in Respite Care Project. June
2003. ACT Department of Health, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.ac-44057 (accessed August
2012).
Farmer, E. (2009) Making kinship care work. Adoption & Fos-
tering, 33 (3), 15–27.
Gladstone, J.W. & Brown, J.W. (2007) Grandparents’ and social
workers’ experiences with the child welfare system: a case for
mutual resources. Children andYouth Services Review, 29, 1439–
1453.
Hartley, R. (2008) Respite Care Literature Review. Commis-
sioned by the Respite Care Project Partners, Melbourne,
Victoria.
Hunt, J. (2008) Family and friends care. Dartington Hall
Trust Research and Practice Briefings. Available at:
http://www.rip.org.uk/my-rip/network-resourcebank/cat_view/
92-publications/150-ecm-research-briefings/158-family-and-
friends-care (accessed May 2012).
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Kiraly, M. (2011) Commentary: Kinship Care. Children Aus-
tralia, 36, 43–45.
Lewis, P., Cash, S., McNamara, P., Bock, J., Halfpenny, N. &
Wise, S. (2009) The Respite Care Project. National Alliance for
the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Conference, Perth,
Western Australia, October 14–16.
Liamputtong, P. (ed.) (2010) Research Methods in Health. Oxford
University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria.
McHugh, M. (2009) A Framework of Practice for Implementing a
Kinship Care Program. Social Policy Research Centre, Univer-
sity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
McNamara, P. (2009) Respite care: its role in family preserva-
tion. International Association for Outcome-Based Research in
Family and Children’s Services Seminar, St Catherine’s College,
University of Oxford, UK, July 10–12.
McNamara, P., Respite Care Project Consortium & Post Place-
ment Support Service (2010a). Respite care and mirror
families: promoting child and carer wellbeing in Victoria, Aus-
tralia. In: Inside out: How Interventions in Child and Family Care
Work: An International Sourcebook (eds E. Knorth, M. Kalver-
boer & J. Knot-Dickscheit), pp. 295–297. European Scientific
Association for Research in Residential and Foster Care,
Groningen, Netherlands. September 22–25, ISBN 978-90-
441-2697-6.
McNamara, P., Lewis, P., Carroll, R., Halfpenny, N., Elefsiniotis,
J., Webster, M. et al. (2010b) Respite Care inVictoria: Findings of
a Scoping Exercise. Australian Child Welfare Associations Con-
ference Sydney, August 5–8.
Nixon, P. (2007) Relatively Speaking: Developments in Research
and Practice in Kinship Care. Research in Practice, Dartington.
O’Brien, J. (2001) Planned respite care: hope for families
under pressure. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36 (1),
51–65.
61 Child and Family Social Work 2015, 20, pp 50–61
Kinship respite care J Borenstein and P McNamara
O’Neill, C. (2011) Support in Kith and Kin Care: the experience
of carers. Children Australia, 36 (2), 88–89.
Ochiltree, G., McNamara, P. & Halfpenny, N. (2010) Respite
Care: The Grass Roots of Prevention. Melbourne, Victoria:
Respite Care Project Partners.
Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2008) Interpretative phenomenologi-
cal analysis. In: Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to
Research Methods (ed. J.A. Smith), pp. 53–80. Sage Publica-
tions, London, UK.
Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Lee, J.& Gibbs, L. (2007) The Pursuit of
Permanence: A Study of the English Child Care System. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, London.
Worrall, J. (2005) Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Kin
Children in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Report commissioned by
the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Charitable Trust,
Auckland.
NOTES
1 The Respite Care Consortium is a partnership of Victorian
organizations concerned with out-of-home care for children.
The current membership of the Consortium comprises:
Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service, Berry Street
Victoria, Anglicare Victoria, MacKillop Family Services,
Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA), Office
of the Child Safety Commissioner-Victoria, Post-Placement
Support Service, OzChild, Foster Care Association of
Victoria Inc. and La Trobe University School of Social Work
and Social Policy as academic partner.
2 Ethics approval to conduct this study was provided by the
Human Research Ethics Committee of Anglicare Victoria
(2011-02).
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd