Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 113–131 | Cite as

Predicting Permanency Intentions Among Kinship Caregivers



This study examines kinship caregivers’ (n = 830) experiences and their perceptions of the children (n = 1,339) in their care in order to predict permanency intent. Permanency intent is a caregiver’s expressed intent to adopt the child in his or her care or to provide permanent, legal guardianship. The results of this study reveal that most caregivers’ permanency choice is guardianship and not adoption. However, binary logistic regression results uncovered six factors (i.e., thorough explanation of case plans, decreases in caregiver emotional stress, decreases in child depression, child lack of communication with birth parent, caregiver providing care for a sibling group, decreases in run-away behavior) that predict that a caregiver will adopt the child in his or her care. Policy, practice, and research implications are noted.


Adoption Child well-being Guardianship Kinship care Permanency 


  1. Allen, T., DeVoogth, K., & Geen, R. (2008). Findings from the 2007 Casey Kinship Foster Care Policy Survey. Washington, DC: Child Trends.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. G. (2006). The impact of state TANF policy decisions on kinship care providers. Child Welfare, 85(4), 715–736.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartholet, E. (1999). Nobody’s children: Abuse and neglect foster drift and the adoption alternative. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beeman, S., & Boisen, L. (1999). Child welfare professionals’ attitudes toward kinship foster care. Child Welfare, 78(3), 315–337.Google Scholar
  5. Beeman, S. K., Kim, H., & Bullerdick, S. K. (2000). Factors affecting placement of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beeman, S, Wattenberg, E., Boisen, L., & Bullerdick, S. (1996). Kinship foster care in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota School of Social Work, Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, S. L. (2002). Kinship and adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 5(3), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casey Family Programs. (2008). White paper: Kinship care. Seattle, WA: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Chamberlain, P., Price, J., Reid, J., Landsverk, J., Fisher, P., & Stoolmiller, M. (2006). Who disrupts from placement in foster and kinship care? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 409–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (2009). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2009. Retrieved online November 4, 2009, from
  11. Chipungu, S., Everett, J., Verduik, M., & Jones, J. (1998). Children placed in foster care with relatives: A multi-state study. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. (1991). Dummy variables in stepwise regression. The American Statistician, 45, 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, L. (2004). How do we choose among permanency options? The adoption rule out and lessons from Illinois. In M. Bissell & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Using subsidized guardianship to improve outcomes for children: Key questions to consider (pp. 19–22). Washington, DC: Cornerstone consulting and children’s defense fund. Available at
  14. Cox, C. B. (2002). Empowering African American custodial grandparents. Social Work, 47(1), 45–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, I., Landsverk, J., Newton, R., & Ganger, W. (1996). Parental visiting and foster care reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(4–5), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Ehrle, J., Geen, R., & Clark, R. (2001). Children cared for by relatives: Who are they and how are they faring? New federalism: National survey of America’s families. (series no. B-28). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Geen, R. (2003). Finding permanency homes for foster children: Issues raised by kinship care. New federalism: National survey of America’s families. (series no. A-60). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Generations United. (2006). All children deserve a permanent home: Subsidized guardianship as a common sense solution for children in long-term relative foster care. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Generations United. (2007). Time for reform: Support relatives in providing foster care and permanent families for children. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  22. George, R. M., & Mackey-Bilaver, L. (2003). The effect of race on reunification from substitute care in Illinois. Unpublished manuscript. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Hairston, C. F. (1999). Kinship care when parents are incarcerated. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 189–214). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hairston, C. F. (2009). Kinship care when parents are incarcerated: What we know what we can do. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Hanlon, T. E., Carswell, S. B., & Rose, M. (2007). Research on the caretaking of children of incarcerated parents: Findings and their service delivery implications. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(3), 362–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity and family structure with respect to timing of family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5–6), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1990). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Kay, R., & Little, S. (1987). Transformation of the explanatory variables in the logistic regression model for binary data. Biometrika, 74(3), 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelley, S. J., Yorker, B. C., Whitley, D. M., & Sipe, T. A. (2001). A multimodal intervention for grandparents raising grandchildren: Results of an exploratory study. Child Welfare, 80(1), 27–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Koh, E., & Testa, M. F. (2008). Propensity score matching of children in kinship and nonkinship foster care: Do permanency outcomes still differ? Social Work Research, 32(2), 105–116.Google Scholar
  31. Mackintosh, V. H., Myers, B. J., & Kennon, S. S. (2006). Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(5), 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Main, R., Macomber, J. E., & Geen, R. (2006). Trends in service receipt: Children in kinship care gaining ground. New federalism: National survey of America’s families (series no. B-68). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Murray, J., Macomber, J. E., & Geen, R. (2004). Estimating financial support for kinship caregivers. New federalism: National survey of America’s families. (series no. B- 63). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  34. National. Resource. Center for Family-Centered Practice, Permanency Planning. (2009). Tools for permanency: Tool #4–Kinship care. New York, NY: Hunter College School of Social Work.Google Scholar
  35. O’Brien, P., Massat, C. R., & Gleeson, J. P. (2001). Upping the ante: Relative caregivers’ perceptions of changes in child welfare policies. Child Welfare, 80(6), 719–748.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in quantitative methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2002). Effects of parental incarceration on young children. Paper presented at the From Prison to Home Conference, January 30–31, 2002. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. Shtatland, E. S., Cain, E. M., & Barton, M. B. (2001). The perils of stepwise logistic regression and how to escape them using information criteria and the output delivery system. Proceedings of the 26th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.Google Scholar
  39. Shtatland, E. S., Kleinman, K., & Cain, E. M. (2004). A new strategy of model building in proc logistic with automatic variable selection, validation, shrinkage and model averaging. Proceedings of the 29th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.Google Scholar
  40. Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. (1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334–349.Google Scholar
  41. Terling-Watt, T. (2001). Permanency in kinship care: An exploration of disruption rates and factors associated with placement disruption. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Testa, M. F. (2001). Kinship care and permanency. Journal of Social Service Research, 28(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Testa, M. F. (2004). When children cannot return home: Adoption and guardianship. The Future of Children, 14(1), 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Testa, M. F. (2004–2005). The quality of permanence: Lasting or binding? Subsidized guardianship and kinship foster care as alternatives to adoption. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 12(3), 499–534.Google Scholar
  45. Testa, M. F, Bruhn, C., & Helton. J. (2007). Comparative safety, stability, and continuity of children’s placements in formal and informal substitute care. Paper presented at the NSCAW Data Users’ Workshop, January 25–26, 2007. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Testa, M. F., Shook, K. L., Cohen, L. S., & Woods, M. G. (1996). Permanency planning options for children in formal kinship care. Child Welfare, 75(5), 451–470.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, B. (1995). Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply here: A guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United States Department of Commerce. (2008). Bureau of the Census, and United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey: Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement Survey, 2007 [Computer File]. ICPSR21321-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-07-29. doi:10.3886/ICPSR21321.
  49. Wells, K., & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and reentry of foster children. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(4), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wulczyn, F. (2003). Closing the gap: Are changing exit patterns reducing the time African American children spend in foster care relative to Caucasian children. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5–6), 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmerman, E., Daykin, D., Moore, V., Wuu, C., & Li, J. (1998). Kinship and non-kinship foster care in New York City: Pathways and outcomes. Report the City of New York human resources administration and administration for children’s services by the United Way of New York City.Google Scholar
  52. Zinn, A. (2009). Foster family characteristics, kinship, and permanence. Social Service Review, 83(2), 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social WorkUniversity of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations