4.5 Article

Is higher placement stability in kinship foster care by virtue or design?

期刊

CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 99-111

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.003

关键词

Foster care; Kinship care; Placement stability; Policy preferences

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  2. Training Program in Population Studies by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [5 T32 HD007081]
  3. Population Research Center by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [5 R24 HD042849]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior research has repeatedly documented higher placement stability for children who enter kinship care rather than non-relative foster care. However, little is known about why, and under what circumstances, kinship care is more stable. This study uses longitudinal state administrative data to explore possible explanations. Results suggest that, while children in non-relative foster care are indeed at higher risk of any placement move than their peers in kinship care, this appears to be partly driven by child selection factors and policy preferences for kinship care. That is, the gap is not explained primarily by different rates of caregiver-requested moves. However, the gap was sizably smaller among select high-risk subgroups of foster children, suggesting that higher stability in kinship care may be partly explained by differences in the characteristics of children entering kinship care (versus non-relative foster care). Moreover, a large portion of the gap is explained by children in non-relative care being moved into kinship care; a move that is likely the result of policy preferences for kinship care rather than a defect in the initial placement. In sum, these results suggest that kinship care provides only a limited stability advantage, and the reasons for that advantage are not well understood. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据