Increasing%20Permanency%20Options%20in%20Child%20Welfare:%20The%20Kinship%20Guardianship%20Assistance%20Payment%20(Kin-GAP)%20Program

1
Increasing Permanency Options in Child
WelfareThe Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Payment (Kin-GAP) Program

• Daniel Webster
• Joseph Magruder
• University of California, Berkeley
• Aron Shlonsky
• Bernard Wong
• Praveen Sawa
• Jonathon Schmidt
• University of Toronto
• The 11th National Child Welfare Data and
  Technology Conference
• Washington, DC
• July 2008
• The Performance Indicators Project is funded by
  the California Department of Social Services and
  the Stuart Foundation

2
Introduction

• 1979 Miller v. Youakim decision - relative
  caregivers serving as foster parents eligible for
  Title IV-E funding
• Foster care by relatives increased, peaking
• Nationally in 1998 at 29
• California in 2000 at 43
• Foster placements with kin are different
• More stable
• Reunification slower
• Reentry less likely for those who reunify
• Achieving permanency is more difficult - kin (and
  social workers) have resisted adoption by kin

3
Guardianship as a Kin Permanency Option

• The disparity between foster care and TANF
  payments is a barrier to kin becoming guardians.
• In response, states have established subsidized
  guardianship programs.
• The California program, KinGAP was implemented
  in January 2000.

4
KinGAP Requirements

• To be eligible for Kin GAP the child must
• have been a court dependent,
• have lived with the relative for 12 consecutive
  months,
• have had the guardianship established as part of
  a permanent plan, and concurrently or
  subsequently
• have had the dependency dismissed.
• Payment has been limited to the basic foster care
  rate (since revised to include difficulty of care
  rates clothing allowances).

5
Methods

• California Childrens Services Archive Data
  System
• Prospectively followed children who entered care
  after implementation of KinGAP.
• Preliminary analysis employed 2-stage probit
  model to examine potential selection bias
• --First stage modeled likelihood of exit to
  KinGAP
• --Second stage accounted for estimates from first
  stage, and modeled the likelihood of recurrence
  of maltreatment reentry to care within 24
  months.
• Results indicated that stage one had no
  significant influence on stage 2 (Prob gt chi2
  0.759).
• Further analysis is ongoing to examine other
  instrumental variables for predicting the
  likelihood of exit to KinGAP

6
Methods (continued)

• Due to results found in preliminary analysis, and
  in order to use censored information, ran event
  history analysis to model recurrence and reentry.
• Children entering foster care from Jan. 1, 2000
  Dec. 31, 2005 were chosen to allow at least 1
  year to see who became eligible for KinGAP
  (N51,412)i.e., had a kin placement of 12 months
  or moreand at least 1 year of follow up for
  those who did exit to KinGAP (N6,704).
• For multivariate models, children exiting to
  KinGap were followed from discharge to a
  subsequent substantiated referral, or reentry to
  care (or study end dateJanuary 1, 2008).

7
KinGAP Entries

• Of children entering care 2000-2005 who became
  eligible for KinGAP, 6,704 (13 of those
  eligible) left foster care for KinGAP by study
  date
• Median Age 8 years
• Median Time In Care 2 years
• Gender 51 Female

8
KinGAP Entries continued
Ethnicity
Black 2052 30.6
White 1266 18.9
Hispanic 3180 47.4
Asian/Other 154 2.3
Native American 49 0.7
Missing 3 0.04
9
KinGAP Entries continued
10
Net Permanency Gain Post KinGAP

11
Cumulative of Children with Substantiated
Referrals After Entering KinGAP (n6,704)
6 yrs
5 yrs
4 yrs
3 yrs
2 yrs
1 yr
Based on data through December 31, 2007.
12
Results

• Use of KinGAP appears to be decreasing, but there
  has been a net permanency gain since its
  inception
• Children exiting to KinGAP are relatively
  unlikely to experience a subsequent substantiated
  referral (about 3 within 1 year, 13 within 5
  years).
• For those children who exited to KinGAP
• Six to ten, and eleven to sixteen year olds were
  more likely than children less than six to
  experience recurrence.
• Females were more likely than males to experience
  recurrence.
• Children who entered care in 2002 and 2005 were
  less likely to experience recurrence than those
  entering in 2000.
• Children in a second or greater spell when they
  entered KinGAP were more likely to experience
  recurrence.

13
Cumulative of Children Re-Entering Foster Care
from KinGAP (n6,704)
6 yrs
5 yrs
4 yrs
3 yrs
2 yrs
1 yr
Based on data through December 31, 2007.
14
Results

• Children exiting to KinGAP are relatively
  unlikely to reenter foster care (about 1 within
  1 year, 6 within 5 years).
• Reentry for positive reasons (e.g., to reunify,
  be adopted by relative) were excluded.
• For those children who exited to KinGAP
• Eleven to sixteen year olds were more likely than
  children less than six to reenter.
• Children entering care in 2002 were less likely
  to reenter care than those in 2000.
• Children who had 3 or more moves prior to
  discharge to KinGAP were more likely to reenter
  care.
• Children from Los Angeles were more likely than
  those from other counties to experience reentry.

15
Discussion

• Use of KinGAP appears to be decreasing, but there
  has been a net permanency gain since its
  inception
• KinGAP children experience low rates of
  recurrence of maltreatment and reentry to foster
  care.
• KinGAP is an innovative program that provides
  public child welfare with an additional means to
  achieve permanency.
• Federal legislation permitting the use of IV-E
  funding for KinGAP could encourage more use of
  this permanency option.
• Future research will seek to make a comparative
  analysis of disruption rates between KinGAP,
  reunification, and adoption.