Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2008. / Full text also available online. Scroll down for electronic link.

This exploratory grounded theory study is a comparative analysis of kinship and foster care in the province of Ontario. This study sought the perspective of three constituent groups—caregivers (N=22), workers (N=14) and youth (N=9)—from both kinship and foster care constituent populations. The total number of participants was 45. This is one of the first comprehensive qualitative studies in the province of Ontario since the inception of the kinship model of practice implemented by the child welfare system in 2006. The study resonates with important practice, policy and research implications for Ontario and beyond. Recruitment for the study was generated through various child welfare organizations and a kin grandparents support network. Findings from each of the three groups include the following: (1) specialized kin workers recognize the complexities and unique needs of kinship placements; (2) foster parents and kin caregivers have very different needs related to training, financial remuneration and support; and (3) youth experience feelings of loneliness and frustration when moving to different placements, but also acknowledge the importance of relationships, particularly to their assigned worker. The analysis of these three group converges to a very simple but poignant conclusion: kinship programs are unique and require a level of intervention that is separate and discrete from the current foster care paradigm.

This exploratory grounded theory study is a comparative analysis of kinship and foster care in the province of Ontario. This study sought the perspective of three constituent groups—caregivers (N=22), workers (N=14) and youth (N=9)—from both kinship and foster care constituent populations. The total number of participants was 45. This is one of the first comprehensive qualitative studies in the province of Ontario since the inception of the kinship model of practice implemented by the child welfare system in 2006. The study resonates with important practice, policy and research implications for Ontario and beyond. Recruitment for the study was generated through various child welfare organizations and a kin grandparents support network. Findings from each of the three groups include the following: (1) specialized kin workers recognize the complexities and unique needs of kinship placements; (2) foster parents and kin caregivers have very different needs related to training, financial remuneration and support; and (3) youth experience feelings of loneliness and frustration when moving to different placements, but also acknowledge the importance of relationships, particularly to their assigned worker. The analysis of these three group converges to a very simple but poignant conclusion: kinship programs are unique and require a level of intervention that is separate and discrete from the current foster care paradigm.

Many countries have seen an increase in the last 20 years in the number of children cared for by their Grandparents (Edwards & Sweeney, 2007; Edwards & Taub, 2009; Worrall, 2009). In the UK, Looked After Children (LAC) are increasingly being placed with kinship carers, formally known as ‘Family and Friends Care’ following guidance from The Children’s Act (2004). Support for this growing group of carers appears sporadic, and there has been some delay both in practice and procedures in responding to this increase in placement type. Children who are looked after by any carer other than their birth parents are more likely to experience difficulties within the educational context (Dent & Cameron, 2003). The increasing number of these children has implications for child and educational psychologists and other professionals within Children’s Services, as research suggests that children’s success in school depends upon contextual variables associated with the child, their home and school environments. This study explores the characteristics of kinship carers, how they perceive their role and the support currently available to them and also examines the reported educational progress made by children in their care. In addition, this exploratory study considers whether a model developed from Positive Youth Development (PYD) is a useful conceptual framework for professionals supporting KCs. This research uses a case study design; qualitative data has been obtained using semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. Difficulties and support requirements varied across kinship carers, the majority of whom were pleased with the support they received, particularly from their families. There were some criticisms of Children’s Services support. Recommendations are made for both Children’s Services staff generally and child and educational psychologists specifically.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2007. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-105). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis advisor: Ruth McRoy / Historically, many midlife African American women have served as kinship care providers for children in the family. These parenting responsibilities present even greater challenges for the increasing and disproportionately high number of African American women in this age group who also are living with HIV/AIDS. Even though there have been technological innovations in treating and managing HIV infection, HIV is the fourth leading cause of death among midlife African American women. Despite the existing research on African American women with HIV/AIDS and on African American kinship caregivers, significant research with a specific focus on resiliency within this population has not been conducted. To fill this gap, using a resiliency model as a conceptual framework, the researcher conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 24 middle-aged African American women with HIV/AIDS who are providing informal kinship care. Implications for policy, research, and practice are provided and suggestions for health care providers and child welfare professionals regarding how to support these women and children through enhanced services and other interventions. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2012. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Social Work. / Discipline: Social Work.

A prospective, exploratory study examined the relationships between birth family contact factors and long-term placement outcomes for children who are in foster or kinship care in New South Wales. The present study utilized data which was collected for 338 children in the Children in Care study; which was conducted between 1999 and 2009. This included data that was collected from a baseline survey and a review of case files from the State Child Welfare database. The participants of the Children in Care study were between four and eleven years of age. The present study involved a series of statistical analyses including: correlations, chi-square tests, t-tests, ANOVAS, multiple linear regressions, and binary logistic regressions. Some linear associations were identified between frequency of contact and reported issues, frequency of contact and restoration, and children’s reactions to contact and reported issues. However; these associations were found to be insignificant when controlling for other significant predictors in regression models. None of the birth family contact variables examined in the present analyses were found to be significant predictors of further abuse/behavioural issues in care, placement stability, or restoration. Some of the significant predictors of such outcomes included: age at entry into care; pre-care mental health; previous placements, care arrangements; and caregivers support and contact with other foster carers. Overall, the present analyses highlighted that contact may not necessarily have detrimental, or beneficial impacts on children in care; however further research in this domain is required in order to identify if other contact factors may have any impact on outcomes for children in kinship or foster care.

No description available.

Children raised by their grandparents are a steadily growing demographic in schools throughout the United States. When parents are unable to care for their children, grandparents sometimes assume the role of primary caregiver. This is especially true when they are faced with the threat of placing their grandchildren in the foster care system. More often than not, these grandparents are not adequately prepared for the challenges of raising children who have lost their parent through death, drug abuse or incarceration and few resources exist to guide elementary school principals to engage this demographic. Regardless of the growing numbers of caregiving grandparents there exists a dearth of research and literature to guide school leaders in effectively engaging these grandparents in school involvement. The purpose of this study was to understand principals’ experiences with grandparents raising grandchildren (GRG), to discover grandparent’s experiences and perspectives on their own experiences in their grandchildren’s schools, and finally, construct theory on how elementary principals create and nurture positive and productive relationships with grandparents raising grandchildren. Analysis of date contributed to the development of propositions that reflect study findings. These propositions contributed to the development of a framework toward theory: Although principals were cognizant of the challenges GRG face, this knowledge did not influence their leadership. As a result, their leadership practices created school environments in which GRGs were effectively engaged in two-way communication but limited decision-making. Furthermore, the schools did not provide a bridge to resources to meet many of the challenges GRG and their families faced.

Dissertation (Ph.D.) -- The Institute for Clinical Social Work, 2000. / A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Institute of Clinical Social Work in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Includes bibliographical references (p. 238-254)