The Impact of Kinship Networks on Foster Care Children's Outcomes

• Author: Daniel A. Dickson,Scott C. Leon
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12340
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• Date: 01 April 2019

S C. L Loyola University Chicago

D A. D University of Wisconsin Madison

The Impact of Kinship Networks on Foster Care

Children’s Outcomes

Objective: To identify different kin and ctive

kin network support proles available to chil-

dren in foster care and examine whether these

proles predict behavioral outcomes.

Background: For kids in foster care,

individual-level strengths have been shown

to buffer the impact of maltreatment on negative

outcomes. However, little is known about the

possible benet of kin and ctive kin networks

on outcomes (e.g., internalizing symptoms and

externalizing behaviors).

Method: This longitudinal study measured

the involvement of 221 foster care children’s

(6–14 years of age) kin and ctive kin networks

(e.g., visits, childcare, homework help, trans-

portation). Strengths (e.g., coping, talents),

maltreatment, internalizing symptoms, and

externalizing behaviors were measured using

the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths

dataset.

Results: Using latent prole analysis, two kin-

ship involvement proles emerged: A low-

involvement prole (75.5%) and a

high-involvement prole (23.5%). The high-

involvement prole was negatively associated

with internalizing symptoms trajectories but not

externalizing behavior trajectories. However,

this effect was moderated by child-level

Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago,

1032 West Sheridan Road, Coffey Hall, 203, Chicago, IL

60626 (sleon@luc.edu).

Key Words: Extended family, foster care, social/human cap-

ital, social support networks, risk and resilience.

strengths: Children with more strengths and

in the high-involvement prole had the best

internalizing symptoms outcomes. Finally,

membership in the high-involvement prole

buffered the negative impact of maltreatment on

internalizing symptoms trajectories.

Conclusion: The presence of both child

strengths and kin and ctive kin involvement is

associated with better outcomes.

Implications: These results support efforts to

promote policies and practices designed to

engage kin and ctive kin networks, which is not

currently a priority in child welfare.

The relationship between child maltreatment

and negativeemotional and behavioral outcomes

is consistent throughout the literature (Zielinski

& Bradshaw, 2006). Yet research also points

to the presence of protective factors that can

help buffer this relationship (Bell, Romano, &

Flynn, 2013). For example, child-level strengths

(e.g., coping, talents) have been shown to buffer

the relationship between traumatic experiences

and emotional and behavioral problems and

risks (Grifn, Martinovich, Gawron, & Lyons,

2009). Despite the key role that child-level

strengths play in children’s responses to adver-

sity, they do not play the only role. Bell et al.

(2013) found that after child-level strengths,

family-level strengths in the form of positive

parenting was the next strongest predictor

of resilience.

Despite the gains made in the literature

regarding factors at the child and family levels

Family Relations 68 (April 2019): 169–184 169

DOI:10.1111/fare.12340

170 Family Relations

that are associated with adaptation, Masten

and Monn (2015) pointed out that more work

is required to study the interconnectedness

of these two variables in the resilience liter-

ature. Using a contemporary developmental

systems perspective, we follow Masten (2014)

in dening resilience as a process enabling a

dynamic system “adapt successfully to dis-

turbances that threaten its function, viability,

or development” (Masten, 2014, p.1018). If

child-level and family-level factors interplay to

affect developmental outcomes, then factors at

both levels must be studied, with a focus on the

way in which they interact as protective factors.

From this perspective, a protective factor is

any quality of the child or family that indepen-

dently or in concert helps buffer the relationship

between risk and outcome. Therefore, our use

of child-level and family-level protective factors

is consistent with the stress-buffering hypoth-

esis denition (Cohen & Willis, 1985). The

stress-buffering hypothesis has been used as a

model of how social support can be protective,

such as by providing esteem support or infor-

mational support in the context of adversity to

promote adaptation to the stress.

Notably, at the family ecological level, more

attention has been paid to the nuclear fam-

ily system, and relatively little is known about

the role of kin (e.g., grandparents, aunts/uncles,

cousins) and ctive kin (e.g., pastors, teach-

ers, family friends) network support in affecting

children’s developmental outcomes. Even less

is known about the possible protective bene-

ts of these networks among children in foster

care (Blakeslee, 2012, 2015). This study was

designed to meet a need in the empirical liter-

ature by examining the role of both child-level

strengths and nonparental kin and ctive kin

involvement (protective factors) as buffers in

the relationship between maltreatment (risk) and

longitudinal emotional and behavioral outcomes

(i.e., internalizing and externalizing behaviors;

indicators of adaptation) among children 6 to

13 years of age in fostercare.

C-L S  (F) K

I

The benets of child-level strengths, including

coping (Compas, Connor-Smith, & Saltz-

man, 2001), talents (Gilligan, 2001), optimism

(Brodhagen & Wise, 2008), ego overcon-

trol (Kim, Cichetti, & Rogosch, 2009), and

self-esteem (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997), have

been well documented in the literature regarding

their capacity to buffer the impact of adversity

on negative outcomes. However, a noteworthy

limitation in the literature is that more empha-

sis has been placed on child-level assets and

much less research has explored the possible

benets of kin and ctive kin networks (Scales

& Gibbons, 1996); even less is known about

these networks among children in foster care.

Extended family and ctive kin involvement

may be particularly benecial to children in

foster care given that African American chil-

dren are overrepresented in child welfare (Lu

et al., 2004) and that kinship networks are often

stronger and seen as more integral to devel-

opment in the African American community

(Cazenave & Straus, 1979; Hunter & Taylor,

1998; Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel,

1990). Research on children outside of the foster

care system has found that support (e.g., nan-

cial, emotional, or instrumental aid) from the

kinship network among ethnic minority families

can be protective regarding the development of

anxiety, substance use, and antisocial behaviors

(e.g., McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, & Borquez,

1994; Taylor, Seaton, & Dominquez, 2008).

Support from the kin and ctive kin net-

work may help foster parents manage some

of the daily hassles they report (e.g., Harnett,

Dawe, & Russell, 2012). Rhodes and colleagues

found that foster parent’s needs for help with

childcare, transportation, and nancial support

were statistical predictors of their intent to quit

being foster parents (Rhodes, Orme, & Buehler,

2001). Further, given some of the disappoint-

ment foster parents experience regarding case-

worker responsiveness, it is not surprising that

they often rely more on their families than on

caseworkers (Titterington, 1990) and report that

their family networks are among the most impor-

tant factors in their satisfaction and willingness

to continue to foster children (Rhodes, Orme,

Cox, & Buehler, 2003). This research suggests

that the broader kin and ctive kin network may

provide a supportivescaffold that helps to reduce

caregiver burden, with implications for place-

ment stability, foster parent stress, and resulting

effects on children’s well-being.

Kin and ctive kin networks may also have a

direct effect on children’s well-being. Research

has demonstrated that children’s relationships

with adult mentors outside of the nuclear family