Loading the library…
out-of-home care / kinship vs non-kinship care
Established that kinship care offers placement-stability advantages and is policy-preferred; the contested edge is whether its behavioral and academic benefits are causal or selection-driven.
Supported by systematic reviews (Xu 2018) and propensity/instrumental-variables studies (Font 2014; Koh 2010). The behavioral advantage largely attenuates once selection is addressed; the placement-stability advantage replicates across states, though one full-sample IV study finds kinship only as stable as non-kin. Kin caregivers are typically more disadvantaged and receive fewer services.
Font, S. A (2014). Kinship and nonrelative foster care: The effect of placement type on child well-being. Child Development.
Observational
Using OLS, change-score, propensity-weighting, and instrumental-variables strategies, kin placements showed a negative effect on reading, no effect on health, and mixed effects on math/cognitive and behavioral outcomes.
doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12241Xu, Y., & Bright, C. L (2018). Children's mental health and its predictors in kinship and non-kinship foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review.
Systematic review
Children in kinship care showed better mental health in bivariate comparisons, but associations were mixed in regression models and depended on whether designs addressed selection bias.
The behavioral advantage largely reflects selection and shrinks with adjustment; one instrumental-variables study finds kinship only as stable as non-kin, and one finds a negative effect on reading; kin carers are typically more disadvantaged and under-resourced; and safety and permanency tradeoffs are not resolved here.
Koh, E (2010). Permanency outcomes of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care: Testing the external validity of kinship effects. Children and Youth Services Review.
Observational
Positive advantages of kinship placements for placement stability were reported across all five states, though legal-permanence effects varied by state.
doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.010Keller, T. E., Wetherbee, K., Le Prohn, N. S., Payne, V., Sim, K., & Lamont, E. R (2001). Competencies and problem behaviors of children in family foster care: Variations by kinship placement status and race. Children and Youth Services Review.
Observational
Kinship foster children closely resembled general-population children on competence and problem behavior, whereas non-relative foster children scored worse.
doi.org/10.1016/s0190-7409(01)00175-xCarolien Konijn, Sabine Admiraal, Josefiene Baart, Floor van Rooij, Geert-Jan Stams, Cristina Colonnesi, Ramón Lindauer, Mark Assink (2019). Foster care placement instability: A meta-analytic review. Children and Youth Services Review.
Meta-analysis · N = 84,470 · child/adolescent
Meta-analysis of 42 studies finding that child behavioral problems, non-kinship care, and low-quality parenting were medium risk factors for foster care placement instability, with smaller contributions from older placement age and separation from siblings.
Bearing on this claim: [curated fold] Meta-analytic evidence that non-kinship (vs. kinship) care is a medium risk factor for placement instability — direct support for the kinship-stability advantage.
doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.002Counter-authority (1). Studies an adversary may cite — surfaced deliberately so the grade is honest about its limits.
Andersen, S. H., & Fallesen, P (2015). Family matters? The effect of kinship care on foster care disruption rates. Child Abuse & Neglect.
Observational
Using instrumental variables, kinship care was only as stable as other care types overall — additional stability appeared only when the kin caregiver was especially empathic and dutiful.
doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.06.0055 supporting · 1 counter verified sources