Abstract
This paper examines whether placing foster children with relatives, instead of unfamiliar caregivers, institutions, or group homes, increases the effectiveness of foster care and consequently improves children’s well-being. As a source of exogenous variation in kinship placement, I use recent major reform of foster care – state policies that prefer kin placement over other types of foster care settings. Using individual-level panel dataset, the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), and employing difference-in-differences identification strategy, I find that in the short-run children exposed to law benefit from higher stability of placement and shorter length of foster care episode, but do not experience significant changes in either mental or physical health. In the longer term, kinship foster homes are more efficient in terms of improving safety and providing permanent home through discharge from foster care with a relative. Thus, given the effectiveness of kinship care, policymakers should focus on developing and implementing policies that further facilitate relatives’ involvement in foster care.
Appendix
Ever placed with a relative | Never placed with a relative | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Std. Dev. | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Obs | |
Length of foster care episode, days | 695.518 | 674.310 | 83,460 | 616.568 | 734.861 | 1,541,536 |
Stability of placement | 0.396 | 0.489 | 683,460 | 0.437 | 0.496 | 1,541,536 |
Living with a relative | 0.210 | 0.407 | 643,284 | 0.060 | 0.238 | 1,441,041 |
Reunification | 0.416 | 0.493 | 643,284 | 0.603 | 0.489 | 1,441,041 |
Adoption | 0.189 | 0.391 | 643,284 | 0.178 | 0.382 | 1,441,041 |
Guardianship | 0.128 | 0.334 | 643,284 | 0.021 | 0.145 | 1,441,041 |
Reentry | 0.086 | 0.280 | 594,416 | 0.121 | 0.326 | 1,191,918 |
Reentry due to caretaker’s abuse | 0.015 | 0.121 | 594,418 | 0.019 | 0.137 | 1,191,923 |
Any mental health problem | 0.043 | 0.203 | 612,477 | 0.084 | 0.278 | 1,339,080 |
Any physical health problem | 0.095 | 0.293 | 612,464 | 0.095 | 0.294 | 1,339,009 |
Age at removal | 6.225 | 5.083 | 683,460 | 8.433 | 6.004 | 1,541,536 |
Hispanic | 0.185 | 0.388 | 683,460 | 0.179 | 0.384 | 1,541,536 |
Black | 0.322 | 0.467 | 683,460 | 0.271 | 0.445 | 1,541,536 |
Female | 0.509 | 0.500 | 683,460 | 0.480 | 0.500 | 1,541,536 |
Ever placed with a relative | ||
---|---|---|
Model without time trends (1) | Model with time trends (2) | |
Exposed to law | 0.047*** | 0.035* |
(0.016) | (0.019) | |
Mean of dependent variable | 0.301 | 0.301 |
Observations | 2,224,996 | 2,224,996 |
Notes: The analysis uses AFCARS foster care data files. Each column reports the results of a separate model that also controls for child’s age, race and gender; removal reason, birth parent’s age and marital status, state and year fixed effects. Model in Column 2 also controls for linear state-specific time trends. Robust standard errors, clustered at the state level, are reported in parentheses.
denote significance at the 10 %
denote significance at the 5 %
denote significance at the 1 % levels, respectively.
Dependent variable | Coefficient | Mean of dependent variable | Obs |
---|---|---|---|
Panel A: Number of cases | |||
log(# of children entered foster care) | 0.048 | 7.938 | 528 |
(0.036) | |||
Panel B: Composition of children | |||
Removal reason child-related | |||
Alcohol abuse | −0.002* | 0.012 | 2,224,996 |
(0.001) | |||
Drug abuse | 0.001 | 0.027 | 2,224,996 |
(0.003) | |||
Disability | −0.001 | 0.025 | 2,224,996 |
(0.002) | |||
Behavior problem | −0.004 | 0.163 | 2,224,996 |
(0.009) | |||
Removal reason parent-related | |||
Physical abuse | −0.023** | 0.17 | 2,224,996 |
(0.010) | |||
Sexual abuse | −0.004 | 0.056 | 2,224,996 |
(0.004) | |||
Neglect | 0.031 | 0.535 | 2,224,996 |
(0.039) | |||
Alcohol abuse | −0.026 | 0.071 | 2,224,996 |
(0.016) | |||
Drug abuse | −0.009 | 0.198 | 2,224,996 |
(0.024) | |||
Parent died | −0.000 | 0.007 | 2,224,996 |
(0.001) | |||
Parent in jail | 0.001 | 0.063 | 2,224,996 |
(0.004) | |||
No cope | −0.024 | 0.181 | 2,224,996 |
(0.018) | |||
Abandonment | −0.026 | 0.054 | 2,224,996 |
(0.020) | |||
Relinquishment | 0.001 | 0.011 | 2,224,996 |
(0.001) | |||
Housing | −0.022 | 0.092 | 2,224,996 |
(0.016) | |||
Panel C: Composition of foster caregivers | |||
Receives subsidy | −0.041 | 661 | 2,079,822 |
(0.029) | |||
Receives subsidy, kin placement | −0.110** | 0.591 | 542,204 |
(0.054) | |||
Receives subsidy, all other placements | −0.017 | 0.685 | 1,537,618 |
(0.025) | |||
Subsidy amount | −7.122 | 710 | 1,861,004 |
(43.007) | |||
Subsidy amount, kin placement | −50.366*** | 216 | 489,330 |
(17.915) | |||
Subsidy amount, all other placements | 10.880 | 885 | 1,371,674 |
(56.305) | |||
Older foster parent | 0.007 | 0.125 | 1,403,192 |
(0.005) | |||
Older foster parent, kin placement | 0.010 | 0.142 | 442,605 |
(0.007) | |||
Older foster parent, all other placements | 0.004 | 117 | 960,587 |
(0.007) |
Notes: The analysis uses AFCARS foster care data files. Each coefficient is from the separate regression. Model in panel A, with the number of children entered foster care as a dependent variable, controls for state and year fixed effects, and state-specific linear time trends. Specifications in panel B, with one of the removal reason as a dependent variable, control for child’s age, race and gender; birth parents age and marital status, state and year fixed effects, and linear state-specific time trends. Specifications in panel C, additionally to controls in panel B, also include dummies for removal reason. Variable Older foster parent is equal to one if foster caregiver is over age 60 and zero otherwise. Robust standard errors, clustered at the state level, are reported in parentheses.
denote significance at the 10 %
denote significance at the 5 %
denote significance at the 1 % levels, respectively.
By 2011, has missing data on end date, entered before 2010 (1) | By 2011, has missing data on end date, entered before 2009 (2) | |
---|---|---|
Exposed to law | −0.001 | −0.003 |
(0.007) | (0.007) | |
Mean of dependent variable | 0.197 | 0.063 |
Observations | 2,224,996 | 2,224,996 |
Notes: The analysis uses AFCARS foster care data files. Each column reports the results of a separate model that also controls for child’s age, race and gender; removal reason, birth parent’s age and marital status, state and year fixed effects, and linear state-specific time trends. Sample includes all children that entered foster care system during the time period 1998–2009. Robust standard errors, clustered at the state level, are reported in parentheses.
denote significance at the 10 %
denote significance at the 5 %
denote significance at the 1 % levels, respectively.
Hazard Model | |
---|---|
Exposed to law | 0.088*** |
(0.026) | |
Mean of dependent variable | 641 |
Observations | 2,224,996 |
Notes: The analysis uses AFCARS foster care data files. The coefficient presented in the table is from a parametric hazard model with a Weibull distribution. Model controls for child’s age, race and gender; removal reason, birth parent’s age and marital status, state and year fixed effects, and linear state-specific time trends. Sample includes all children that entered foster care system during the time period 1998–2009. Robust standard errors, clustered at the state level, are reported in parentheses.
denote significance at the 10 %
denote significance at the 5 %
denote significance at the 1 % levels, respectively.
Discharged to live with a relative (1) | Reunification (2) | Adoption (3) | Guardianship (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Exposed to law | 0.013** | 0.008 | −0.002 | −0.003 |
(0.006) | (0.017) | (0.007) | (0.007) | |
Female | 0.004** | −0.017*** | 0.009*** | 0.002*** |
(0.002) | (0.003) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Exposed to law*Female | −0.003 | 0.011** | −0.004 | 0.001 |
(0.003) | (0.006) | (0.003) | (0.001) | |
Mean of dependent variable | 0.106 | 0.546 | 0.181 | 0.054 |
Observations | 2,084,325 | 2,084,325 | 2,084,325 | 2,084,325 |
Notes: The analysis uses AFCARS foster care data files. Each column within each panel reports the results of a separate model that also controls for child’s age, race and gender; removal reason; birth parent’s age and marital status; state and year fixed effects, and linear state-specific time trends. Robust standard errors, clustered at the state level, are reported in parentheses.
denote significance at the 10 %
denote significance at the 5 %
denote significance at the 1 % levels, respectively.
All children (1) | Age<7 (2) | 7 ≤ Age<13 (3) | Age ≥ 13 (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A: Mental Health | ||||
Exposed to law | −0.012 | −0.004 | −0.007 | −0.022 |
(0.010) | (0.006) | (0.015) | (0.020) | |
Girl | −0.023*** | −0.009*** | −0.040*** | −0.024*** |
(0.002) | (0.001) | (0.003) | (0.005) | |
Exposed to law*Girl | 0.008* | −0.002 | −0.003 | 0.026** |
(0.004) | (0.002) | (0.005) | (0.012) | |
Effect [p value of effect] for: | ||||
Girl | −0.004 | −0.006 | −0.010 | 0.004 |
[0.725] | [0.276] | [0.548] | [0.871] | |
Mean of dependent variable | 0.098 | 0.046 | 0.133 | 0.149 |
Observations | 2,053,045 | 970,847 | 477,900 | 604,298 |
B: Physical Health | ||||
Exposed to law | −0.003 | 0.006 | −0.005 | −0.010 |
(0.013) | (0.017) | (0.009) | (0.014) | |
Girl | −0.015*** | −0.013*** | −0.022*** | −0.018*** |
(0.002) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.004) | |
Exposed to law*Girl | 0.009** | −0.005 | 0.012*** | 0.030* |
(0.005) | (0.003) | (0.004) | (0.015) | |
Effect [p value of effect] for: | ||||
Girl | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
[0.658] | [0.935] | [0.504] | [0.278] | |
Mean of dependent variable | 0.112 | 0.127 | 0.107 | 0.088 |
Observations | 2,052,965 | 970,866 | 477,867 | 604,232 |
Notes: The analysis uses AFCARS foster care data files. Each column within each panel reports the results of a separate model that also controls for child’s age, race and gender; removal reason; birth parent’s age and marital status; state and year fixed effects, and linear state-specific time trends. P-value reported in the brackets is associated with the null hypothesis that the effect is zero for girls. Robust standard errors, clustered at the state level, are reported in parentheses.
denote significance at the 10 %
denote significance at the 5 %
denote significance at the 1 % levels, respectively.
Acknowledgments
I thank Aimee Chin, Chinhui Juhn, Andrew Zuppann, an anonymous referee, and participants at the Eastern Economic Association Conference, Fourteenth Annual Missouri Economics Conference, Midwest Economics Association Conference, the Ohio Association of Economists and Political Scientists 74th Annual Conference, Stata Texas Empirical Microeconomics Conference, the University of Houston graduate research workshop for helpful comments and suggestions. The data used in this paper were made available by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and have been used with permission. Data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) were originally collected by the Children’s Bureau and funded by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The collector of the original data, the funder, the Archive, Cornell University and their agents or employees bear no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.
References
Almond, D., and J. Currie. 2011. “Human Capital Development before Age Five.” In The Handbook of Labor Economics, edited by O Ashenfelter, and D Card, Vol. 4B1315–1486. New York: North Holland.10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02413-0Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, S. H., and P. Fallesen. 2015. “Family Matters? the Effect of Kinship Care on Foster Care Disruption Rates.” Child Abuse & Neglect 48 : 68–79.10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.06.005Search in Google Scholar
Argys, L., and B. Duncan. 2007. “Economic Incentives and Foster Care Placement.” Southern Economic Journal 74 (1): 114–142.10.1002/j.2325-8012.2007.tb00830.xSearch in Google Scholar
Barth, R. 2002. Institutions versus Foster Homes: The Empirical Base for the Second Century of Debate. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC, School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for Families.Search in Google Scholar
Berrick, J., R. Barth, and B. Needell. 1994. “A Comparison of Kinship Foster Homes and Foster Family Homes: Implications for Kinship Foster Care as Family Preservation.” Child and Youth Services Review 16 (12): 33–63.10.1016/0190-7409(94)90015-9Search in Google Scholar
Berrick, J., and B. Needell. 1999. “Recent Trends in Kinship Care: Public Policy, Payments, and Outcomes for Children.” In The Foster Care Crisis: Translating Research into Practice and Policy, edited by P.A. Curtis, and G. Dale. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bertrand, M., E. Duflo, and S. Mullainathan. 2004. “‘How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 249–275.10.3386/w8841Search in Google Scholar
Brooks, D., and R. Barth. 1998. “Characteristics and Outcomes of Drug-Exposed and Non Drug-Exposed Children in Kinship and Non-Relative Foster Care.” Child and Youth Services Review 20 (6): 475–501.10.1016/S0190-7409(98)00020-6Search in Google Scholar
Buckles, K. 2013. “Adoption Subsidies and Placement Outcomes for Children in Foster Care.” Journal of Human Resources 48 (3): 596–627.10.1353/jhr.2013.0024Search in Google Scholar
Chamberlain, P., J. Price, J. Reid, J. Landsverk, P. Fisher, and M. Stoolmiller. 2006. “Who Disrupts from Placement in Foster and Kinship Care?” Child Abuse and Neglect 30 : 409–424.10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.004Search in Google Scholar
Child Trends Databank. Foster Care 2014, http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=foster-care.Search in Google Scholar
Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2011. Home Study Requirements for Prospective Foster Parents. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.Search in Google Scholar
Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2012. Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.Search in Google Scholar
Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2013. Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.Search in Google Scholar
Conway, T., and R. Hutson. 2007. Is Kinship Care Good for Kids?. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.Search in Google Scholar
Cuddeback, G. 2004. “Kinship and Family Foster Care: A Methodological Substantive Synthesis of Research.” Child and Youth Services Review 26 (7): 623–639.10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.01.014Search in Google Scholar
Cunha, F., and J. Heckman. 2007. “The Technology of Skill Formation.” American Economic Review 97 (2): 31–47.10.3386/w12840Search in Google Scholar
Currie, J., and E. Tekin. 2012. “Understanding the Cycle: Childhood Maltreatment and Future Crime.” Journal of Human Resources 47 (2): 509–549.10.3368/jhr.47.2.509Search in Google Scholar
Currie, J., and C. Widom. 2010. “Long-Term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect on Adult Economic Well-Being.” Child Maltreatment 15 (2): 111–120.10.1177/1077559509355316Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, J. 2007a. “Can’t Buy Me Love? Subsidizing the Care of Related Children.” Journal of Public Economics 91 (1–2): 281–304.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.08.005Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, J. 2007b. “Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care.” American Economic Review 97 (5): 1583–1610.10.1257/aer.97.5.1583Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, J. 2008. “Child Protection and Adult Crime: Using Investigator Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of Foster Care.” Journal of Political Economy 116 (4): 746–770.10.3386/w13291Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, J., and E. Peters. 2007. “The Market for Foster Care: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Foster Care Subsidies.” Review of Economics of the Household 5 : 329–351.10.1007/s11150-007-9018-xSearch in Google Scholar
Ehrle, J., and R. Geen. 2002. “Kin and Non-Kin in Foster Care: Findings from a National Survey.” Child and Youth Services Review 24 (1/2): 15–35.10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00166-9Search in Google Scholar
Holtan, A., J. Rnning, B. Handegard, and A. Sourander. 2005. “A Comparison of Mental Health Problems in Kinship and Nonkinship Foster Care.” European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 14 (4): 200–207.10.1007/s00787-005-0445-zSearch in Google Scholar
Keller, T., K. Wetherbee, N. Le Prohn, V. Payne, K. Sim, and E. Lamont. 2001. “Competencies and Problem Behaviors of Children in Family Foster Care: Variations by Kinship Placement Status and Race.” Child and Youth Services Review 23 (12): 915–940.10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00175-XSearch in Google Scholar
Koh, E., and M. Testa. 2008. “Propensity Score Matching of Children in Kinship and Non-Kinship Foster Care: Do Permanency Outcomes Still Differ?” Social Work Research 32 : 105–116.10.1093/swr/32.2.105Search in Google Scholar
Lindquist, M., and T. Santavirta. 2014. “Does Placing Children in Foster Care Increase Their Adult Criminality?” Labour Economics 31 : 72–83.10.1016/j.labeco.2014.10.001Search in Google Scholar
(Miller versus Youakim) (1979).44 U.S. 125, 99 S. Ct. 957.Search in Google Scholar
Prior, V., and D. Glaser. 2006. Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice, 248–250. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Child and Adolescent Mental Health Series.Search in Google Scholar
Rubin, D., K. Downes, A. O’Reily, R. McKonnen, X. Luan, and R. Localio. 2008. “Impact of Kinship Care on Behavioral Well-Being for Children in Out-Of-Home Care.” Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 162 : 550–556.10.1001/archpedi.162.6.550Search in Google Scholar
Sacerdote, B. 2002. “The Nature and Nurture of Economic Outcomes.” American Economic Review 92 (2): 344–348.10.3386/w7949Search in Google Scholar
Santavirta, T. 2012. “How Large are the Effects from Temporary Changes in Family Environment: Evidence from a Child-Evacuation Program during World War II.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4 (3): 28–42.10.1257/app.4.3.28Search in Google Scholar
Testa, M. 2001. “Kinship Care and Permanency.” Journal of Social Services Research 28 (1): 25–43.10.1300/J079v28n01_02Search in Google Scholar
(The Annie E. Casey Foundation) (2012).Policy report Stepping up for Kids: What Government and Communities Should Do to Support Kinship Families.Search in Google Scholar
Winokur, M., A. Holtan, and D. Valentine. 2009. Kinship Care for the Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being of Children Removed from the Home for Maltreatment Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006546.pub2 CD006546.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston