Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Rationale for use of the Stepwise Procedure
There are potential problems inherent in the use of the stepwise technique. One such problem is the potential for the technique to render incorrect estimates of coefficients and associated error terms. This can be looked at as a degrees of freedom issue which is further complicated by the manner in which the SPSS results fail to reflect all the detail that went into creating the model. The issue at hand is that ideally the degrees of freedom should reflect all the variables that were entered into the model as opposed to only those that end up in the model. However, the degrees of freedom problem in stepwise methods is “situationally conditional” (Thompson 1995, p. 528). The results of the stepwise method can be generally more relied upon when the sample size is very large or when the number of predictor variables is small (Snyder & Lawson 1993). Although several of the original 830 caregiver cases were lost due to missing data or skewness, the analysis employed a relatively small number of predictor variables resulting in df = 22 for the adoption (n = 295) and df = 22 for the guardianship (n = 157) model.
A second drawback of the stepwise procedure is the fact that at times the study results may not be generalizable or replicable given potential sampling error as opposed to real variation in the population. Again, an attempt to minimize this risk was made by assuring that the number of predictor variables used was small relative to the number of cases available for observation. Additionally, the validity of the statistical results is reinforced by the manner in which the caregivers were chosen and the data were collected. The sampling frames were rich comprising several different types of caregivers with diverse socio-demographics. A random sample of names was drawn from the sampling frames in an attempt to equalize the chance of selection. Together these factors helped limit the risks of sampling error, which in turn bolsters the generalizability of the results.
The literature review and theoretical discoveries described earlier in this article were the basis for narrowing the selection of possible explanatory variables. However, even within the narrow field of variables contained in the literature, the stepwise procedure affords researchers something that theoretical arguments alone are unable to do. For example, Shtatland et al. (2001) advise: “even with rather moderate numbers of covariates we cannot do without stepwise selection. The stepwise technique allows us to decrease drastically the total number of models under consideration and to produce the final model” (p. 222). Also, sole reliance on theory and the literature would require that we have a very limited number of available explanatory variables. At this juncture we do not know enough about how relative caregivers’ experiences and characteristics shape their decisions to adopt the children in their care. In stepwise regression “purposeful selection which combines subject measure knowledge with statistical significance considerations can be performed only when we have a small number of models to compare originally” (Shtatland et al. (2001), p. 222). What predicts permanency intent among relative caregivers is open-ended at this point and thus the need for the field to start to uncover significant variables so that we can narrow our understanding of why caregivers do or do not adopt. It is not that the regression analyses employed here are atheoretical; it is the fact that there is not enough theory to fully narrow the field of potential models (Cohen 1991). Likewise, stepwise models allow us to build models and allow more examination of “models which might not otherwise have been examined” (Shtatland et al 2004, p. 1) if we relied on the literature or extant theoretical arguments alone. Moreover, in this analysis the author rejected the false dichotomy between data-driven (stepwise) model selection and theory-based model selection. Theory was used to cull a smaller set of explanatory variables from the much larger possibility of measures. Then, stepwise was used to pare the set down further. And finally, theory was again used to select among the stepwise models and to explain the results produced. As Osborne 2005 (2008) reminds “the researcher is not forced to blindly accept a single model determined by a stepwise algorithm” (p. 378). In short, the stepwise procedures used here were informed and interpreted by the permanency incentives and disincentives theoretical leads provided by the available literature.
A five-point Likert scale was used on the adoption and guardianship intent questions. A response of “I have made a decision to NOT adopt (to NOT provide guardianship) was scored and entered into the SPSS analysis as a 1, “I am not very likely” was a 2, “I am somewhat likely” was a 3, “I have made a decision to adopt (to provide legal guardianship)” was entered as a 4, and “I have adopted (I have finalized a legal guardianship)” was entered as a 5.
References
Allen, T., DeVoogth, K., & Geen, R. (2008). Findings from the 2007 Casey Kinship Foster Care Policy Survey. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Anderson, S. G. (2006). The impact of state TANF policy decisions on kinship care providers. Child Welfare, 85(4), 715–736.
Bartholet, E. (1999). Nobody’s children: Abuse and neglect foster drift and the adoption alternative. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Beeman, S., & Boisen, L. (1999). Child welfare professionals’ attitudes toward kinship foster care. Child Welfare, 78(3), 315–337.
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.
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.
Brooks, S. L. (2002). Kinship and adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 5(3), 55–66.
Casey Family Programs. (2008). White paper: Kinship care. Seattle, WA: Author.
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.
Childstats.gov. (2009). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2009. Retrieved online November 4, 2009, from http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp.
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.
Cohen, A. (1991). Dummy variables in stepwise regression. The American Statistician, 45, 226–228.
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 www.childrensdefense.org/childwelfare/kinshipcare/default.asp.
Cox, C. B. (2002). Empowering African American custodial grandparents. Social Work, 47(1), 45–53.
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.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Generations United. (2007). Time for reform: Support relatives in providing foster care and permanent families for children. Washington, DC: Author.
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.
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.
Hairston, C. F. (2009). Kinship care when parents are incarcerated: What we know what we can do. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
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.
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.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1990). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
Kay, R., & Little, S. (1987). Transformation of the explanatory variables in the logistic regression model for binary data. Biometrika, 74(3), 495–501.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in quantitative methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. (1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334–349.
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.
Testa, M. F. (2001). Kinship care and permanency. Journal of Social Service Research, 28(1), 25–43.
Testa, M. F. (2004). When children cannot return home: Adoption and guardianship. The Future of Children, 14(1), 115–129.
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.
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.
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.
Thompson, B. (1995). Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply here: A guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 525–534.
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.
Wells, K., & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and reentry of foster children. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(4), 273–294.
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.
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.
Zinn, A. (2009). Foster family characteristics, kinship, and permanence. Social Service Review, 83(2), 185–219.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grant funding from the State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services and the Clark County Department of Family Services. I wish to thank all of the individuals who devoted their time and talent to the research and evaluation efforts that supported the development of this article, including: Chris Kordus, Constance Brooks, Nancy Downey, Alicia Crowther, Jesse Russell, and Renee Brown.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Denby, R.W. Predicting Permanency Intentions Among Kinship Caregivers. Child Adolesc Soc Work J 28, 113–131 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0221-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0221-x