(( 
Department of Health and Human 
Services 
OFFICE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL

USING RELATIVES FOR FOSTER 
CARE

s9VD. 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OEI-06-90-02390 
ltflaa  , "
EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

PURSE 
This report concerns foster home care provided by the relatives of those children in the 
legal custody of State child welfare agencies. It identifies issues in State regulations and
official practices concerning the use, certfication, and support of extended family
members within the foster care systems of the fifty States and the 
Distrct of Columbia. 
The companion report  State Practices in Using Relatives for Foster Care 
" describes 
policy and practices on a state-by-state basis. 
METHODOWGY 
We used a four-step process for data collection: 
we explored the many recently initiated reseach and policy 
development 
efforts in this area;

we interviewed foster care administrators in the fifty States and the 
Distrct 
of Columbia concerning policies and practices in using relative foster care 
providers; 
we reviewed relevant State policy documents; and 
we interviewed administrators of speial programs for relative foster-care 
providers concerning the features of their programs. 
FIINGS 
Few States collect detailed infonnaton about foster-care placements with relaves. 
Last yea, almost 80 000 children received foster care from relatives in the 29 States with 
the capabilty to identify such placements. 
Over the last five years, States have made increased use of relaves as 
foster parents. 
The growing success of State policies that encourage maintenance of extended family ties 
litigation, and the shortge of foster homes are key reasons for the increased use of 
relative foster homes.  Staes frequently lack fonnal policies 
for licensing or approving relave foster

homes.

Relative foster parents are generally held to lesser stadards 
unless they also care for non-
related foster children. 
Policies concerning the payment of foster-care maintenance vary widely 
between and 
within Staes.

There is evidence that children placed with 
relaves remain the legal responsibility of 
the State for longer than children in other alternatve care arrngements. 
RECOMMA 
TIONS 
The States, universities, and family and child welfare 
organizations should: 
Conduct further reseach concerning the use of relative caregivers within the child 
welfare system.

The Administration for Children and Familes 
(ACF) should: 
Encourage States to extend existing foster home 
stadards to relative foster homes
or to develop reasonable and consistent stadards for using and evaluating relative 
foster care homes that are not licensed or approved. 
Encourage States to develop consistent, straghtforward policies for informing 
licensed or approved relatives of their eligibilty for financial 
reimbursement. 
Assist States to accomplish the two prior 
recommendations through reseach 
consultation and technical assistace. 
Study the potential costs and benefits of providing subsidies to relatives who 
assume guardianship for special-nees children in their care. 
DEPARTMNTAL COMMNTS 
We recived comments from the Administration for Children and Families (AFDC), the 
Assistat Secreta for 
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), and the Assistat Secreta for 
Management and Budget (ASMB). Respondents were generally supportve of our 
findings, but the ACF and the ASMB expressed doubts about the ACF' s authority to 
intervene in the States' application of stadards or provision of foster care maintenance 
payments when foster care placements are not supported through Federal funds. 
We have 
amended the recommendations to meet these concerns by calling on ACF to "
encourage  , "
rather than "require" appropriate State actions. We have made other changes in the
recommendations to make the intent of the 
recommendations cleaer. Please 
refer to 
Appendix C  DIG Response to Deparmenta Comments " and to Appendix D for the full
text of all deparmenta comments. 
We are appreciative of comments received from staff of the Child Welfare 
Legue of
America and the American Public Welfare Association.  ..  . ..  .. .. . 
. . . . . . . ..  ..  ...   ....    ....    ....    ....    .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     ....    ....    .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     ......     . ... ..   .  ...  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .  .. ..  .  .. ..  .  .. ...  .   .. ...    . .....      ......      ......      ......      ..... .    ... ..    . .....   ... .. 
. . . . . . ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ....    ....    ....    ...   ...   ...  . . . . .  ..  ..  ..  ..  ... 
TABLE OF 
CONTENTS

EXECUT SUMARY

INTODUCTION. . . . . . . 
FININGS 
Lack of Data 
Increased use of relatives as foster parents 
Lack of formal policies for licensing or approving. 

Varations in policies concerning the payment of foster-care maintenance. 

Extended stays in foster care 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
ENDNOTE 
APPENDICES 
A: AFDC and Foster Care Maintenance Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A
B: Bibliography

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B

C: OIG Response to Deparment Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C
D: 
Full Texts of Deparment Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D , "
INTRODUCTION

PURSE 
The purpse of the study is to provide information on how States use and support foster 
homes provided by relatives. This report concerns foster home care provided by the 
relatives of those children in the legal custody of State child welfare agencies. 
It identifies 
issues in State regulations and official practices concerning the use, certfication, and 
support of extended family members within the foster-care systems of the fifty States and 
the Distrct of Columbia. A companion report  State Practices in Using Relatives for 
Foster Care " describes how each State uses, reviews and supports relative foster homes. 
BACKGROUN 
S. Census projections in 1985 indicated that close to 3. 
5 milion children were being 
rased in extended family households. About 1. 8 millon of these children were being 
rased in households in which their parents were not present.  The avenues by which 
these children come to live with relatives var along a continuum from informal 
intrafamily arangements to formal arangements between public agencies and the 
children s relatives; For examples: 
Children may be cared for in a relative s home as an arangement between 
the parents and the relative. The parent remains in the home some or all of 
the time with the child. 
Children may be left in the care of the relative either as a result of a 
mutually agree upon plan or because the parents have temporarly or 
permanently abandoned them.

A relative may assume the care of children at the request of outside pares 
(frequently the State child protection authorities or heath and welfare 
agencies providing treatment to the child) in an effort to prevent the nee 
for placing a child in foster care. 
Children may come into the legal custody of State child welfare agencies 
because they require care and protection. Through those agencies' efforts 
the children may be placed in foster care with the relative. 
The last legal and physical arangement is the focus of this report. These children 
although living with family members
, are the direct responsibility of the State child 
welfare agency and generally are cared for in programs underwritten with Federal child 
welfare funds. While legally and administratively these children are par of 
the general  foster-cae population, the family relationships involved in their placements result in 
unique policy and practice issues. 
The practice of placing children for whom the State is legally responsible with 
extended 
family members is not a new one. Child welfare agencies have long used " specific
foster homes drawn from familes' informal support networks to care for children in their 
legal custody. 2 In such placements, adults with biological or emotional ties to children 
were approved to care for only those 
children. Because they cared only for these 
parcular children, stadards for approving the home were less formal, if not less 
stringent, and services and financial support were based on individual case 
assessments 
rather than entitlements through policy. 
Clea policy and anecdota evidence indicates, however, such placements were considered 
as a last resort in many State child welfare systems and were actively discouraged in
others. Certnly 
the use of "specific" foster homes was considered less within the limits 
of agency policies than more traditional placements with foster parents having no previous 
relationship to the child. In some States, for example, children placed with relatives 
whatever their legal status vis-a-vis the State child welfare agency, were frequently 
considered the responsibility of the Assistace Payments staff who often supervised Aid to 
Familes with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments to the relatives. The 
role of these 
placements in the child welfare system was rarely clea in either policy or practice. Their
limited numbers allowed public policy makers to avoid the question on a systemic 
level. 
Three events in the late 
1970s and ealy 1980s pushed the States to begin rethinking these 
policies: 
enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 
1978;

enactment of the Adoption 
Assistace and Child Welfare Act of 1980; and

the 1979 Supreme Court decision in 
 Miler vs. Youaldm. 
The Indian Child Welfare Act (P.L. 95-608) called for preservation of the ethnic heritage 
of Native American children in foster care through a varety 
of protections, among them
extended family placements. The Adoption Assistace and Child Welfare Act (P.
L. 96
272) required placement of children who were the legal responsibility of the State in the 
least restrctive setting and in close proximity to their families. State policy makers have 
interpreted the "least restrctive" requirements as preferrng placements with relatives. 
Both pieces of legislation spurred States to adopt policies which used relatives as the first 
level of alternative care to insure continuity for children in foster care. In some States 
the policy language adopted subsequent to the Federal legislation implies that State child 
welfare agencies should look to relative care as an alternative to traditional foster care. 
Suddenly, relatives were given a priority role in a foster-care system in which they 
previously played only an incidenta par.

Miler  (440 US 125 (1979)) began a process of change in the 
The third event  vs. Youaldm  treatment of relative foster-care providers. The Court ruled that, if relative foster home 
argements 
meet the Federal eligibility stadards for Federal funding, States could not 
deny Federally-funded benefits based solely upon the fact that the caregiver was a relative. 
Foster parents who care for children in the legal custody of the State ordinarly receive 
foster-cae maintenance payments on behalf of those children. States 
or local jurisdictions 
provide the base monies, but a significant par of the funds for these payments are derived 
from Federal Social Security Title IV-E and IV- Miler vs. Youaldm 
B funds. Prior to 
many States routinely denied all foster-care maintenance payments, regardless of funding 
source, to children placed with relatives even though they met Federal criteria (Le. 
children who were adjudicated dependent, placed in a licensed or approved home, and
AFDC-eligible). The Supreme Court ruled there was no basis for denying Social Security 
Act funds to eligible children placed with relatives. 
This decision changed the financial arangements between large numbers of 
extended 
family foster parents and State child welfare agencies by making many relative foster-care 
providers eligible for Federally-supported, foster-care maintenance payments. By drawing 
relatives into the formal subsidy arangement to reimburse paraprofessional foster parents 
it opened placements with relatives to increased scrutiny and formalized the roles of 
relatives providing foster care in many States. 
Over the last five yeas, relative foster care has come under increasing scrutiny for several 
reasons: 
lawsuits in several States with large foster-cae populations (e.  , New 
York, Ilinois, and pending litigation in Oregon and California) have drawn 
attention to financial support and classification of relative foster parents; 
a rapid rise in State foster-care caseloads, a decrease in the number of 
traditional foster homes available, and the increasing severity of the 
problems causing the nee for substitute care have resulted in reconsidering 
many resources for placement of children ; and 
the trend toward recruiting and supporting foster parents as trained, para
professional members of child and family treatment teams highlights the 
differences between relative caregivers and individuals with no previous 
relationship to foster children. 
Organizations such as the Child Welfare Legue of America, the American Public Welfare 
Association , and the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, as well 
as Deparmenta staff and members of Congress, recently have begun to raise concerns 
about the nee for policy guidance in makng such foster-care placements. Child welfare 
administrators and public advocacy groups raise many issues concerning relative foster 
care as a practice. Undergirding many of these concerns, and most of the findings of this 
report, is the central question of how to define the role of extended family members in the  formal child welfare system. 
Questions and issues arse as public agencies, charged with
cang and planning for foster children, struggle to classify care provided by a relative as 
either foster care or family preservation. 
While most practitioners now agree that placing children within their extended family 
networks offers many benefits, the practice raises many public policy issues. A recent 
report from the National Commission on Family Foster Care 4 convened by the Child 
Welfare Legue of America and the National Foster Parent Association , presented the 
major issues: 
Child Protection and Nurturing- Policies must simultaeously protect 
children in foster care while allowing some leeway in recognition of the 
overrding benefits of placing children with extended family members. 
Permanency Planning- Permanency planning when children are placed 
with relatives must be defined and then made par of the casework process. 
Monitoring and Supervision- State child welfare agencies must insure the 
safety and well-being of children placed with relatives without unduly 
interfering in the reconstituted family.

Relative foster care presents public 
Equity and Fiscal Implications-
policy makers with three concerns to balance in determining the level of 
financial support available to relative foster caregivers: 1) 
equity and
adequacy for the relatives; 2) the implications of this equitable and adequate 
level of reimbursement for financial support to the families of origin; and 
3) the effect on public budgets of the levels of support. 
METHODOLOGY 
We used a four-step process for data collection. In the first level of the investigation 
, we 
explored the many recently initiated reseach and policy development efforts in this area. 
This review of works in progress provided an overview of emerging issues about relative 
foster-care placements. 
Second, in order to describe States' policies and legal frameworks for using relative 
foster-cae parents and to determine current practice, we conducted telephone interviews 
with public foster-care officials in each of the fifty States and the District of Columbia 
(hereafter referred to as a State). 
Third, in these interviews, we requested copies of written materials that give in-depth 
information on unique aspects of programs. Finally, we interviewed by telephone 
who were involved with public and private relative foster-care 
individuals in severa States 
programs identified by State administrators.  FINDINGS

Few States collect detailed infonnaton about foster-care placements with relaves. 
Only 25 States could produce even a basic census for the last five yeas of children in 
foster care with relatives. Four additional States began compilng data concerning relative 
placements during the State s last fiscal yea in response to rising public attention to these 
placements. Four of the 29 
State administrators expressed reservations about the accuracy 
of the numbers supplied through their agencies' information systems. 
The lack of complete, reliable information reflects the current state of child welfare data 
collection systems in the States. Some of the lack of annual census information , and most 
of the inabilty to provide descriptive or impact data concerning placements with relatives 
are due to inadequate and outmoded collection and processing systems that affect all 
children in foster care. 
However, there are also tellng programmatic reasons why information about these 
placements is not available. Most have to do with the way the individual States have 
trditionally defined foster care with relatives. If States consider relatives' homes as par
of the genera population of foster homes, children placed with related foster parents are 
counted within the genera foster-care population and cannot be distinguished from other 
foster children. They frequently have no special status either in policy or within the 
information management systems of those States. At the other extreme are those States 
which consider some placements of children in foster homes with relatives as a form of 
family preservation. The children are considered only loosely par of the foster-cae 
system. Unless included as par of a special data collection effort, children in these States 
do not appe in 
State data systems. 
Last year, almost 80 000 children received foster care  States
from relaves in the  29 
with the capabilit to identify such placements. 
00 
These 80  children represented over 31 percent of the tota number 
of foster children 
in the legal custody of these States. The proporton of children shows wide varation 
between the States, however. States tend to follow their own consistent patterns in the 
degree to which children are placed with extended family members. 
New York, Ilinois and California account for nealy two-thirds (65 percent) of the 
number of children placed with relatives. Within  , most of the placements 
these States
with relatives are in New York City, Cook County (Chicago), and Los Angeles and San 
Francisco. If these three States are removed from the calculations of the 
tota proportion 
of foster children who are provided foster care by relatives, the figure of 31 percent drops 
to 18 percent. (See Table 1 on the next page.
 Over the last five years, States have made increased use of relaves as 
foster parents. 
As shown in Table 1 , for those 25 States with data on placements with relatives
, the
percentage of children cared for by relatives has grown from 18 to 31 percent over the 
last five yeas. Excluding New York (NY), Ilinois (IL) and California (CA), relative 
placements show a more gradual increase from 12 to 
18 percent from 1986 to 1990. 
The proporton of children placed with relatives has increased by more than 10 percent 
over the last 5 yeas in five of the 
25 reportng States (Arizona, California, Ilinois
Marland, and New York). As noted above, in three of these States (California, Ilinois
and New York), the bulk of such 
placements are in major urban centers. The perception
of enormous increases in the number of children placed with relatives appeas driven 
largely by experiences in these three States. 
Another three States have experienced more modest increases of between 5 to 9 percent. 
The remaining 17 States have experienced increases of less than 5 percent or even very 
slight decreases in the proportion of the States
' tota foster-care caseload placed with 
relatives. 
Administrtors in 22 of the 26 States that cannot provide historic data on relative foster 
cae stated that staff reports indicated some growth or stabilty in the proporton of
relative caretaers. Administrators in two of these 26 States reported quite large increases 
in the proporton of relative foster-care placements. 
growing success of State policies that encourage maintenance of extended 
The  family
ties, litgaton, and the shonage of foster homes are key reasons 
for the increased use of 
relave foster homes. 
Most States with slight or moderate increases attributed the rise to the growing success of 
State policies encouraging placements with extended family members. Most such policies 
have been promulgated within the last decade as a response to the "
least restrictive 
setting" requirements of the Adoption Assistace and Child Welfare Act of  1980S  and  relative placement requirements in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Administrators 
believed that staff and court personnel were becoming more sensitive to children s nee 
for family supports, and therefore were more wiling to seach for and use relative 
caegivers. 
Litigation during the last decade has had a significant effect on the increases in the 
proporton of children placed in relative homes who were classified as par 
of the foster-
care system in Ilinois and New York. To some extent, the increases in these States 
reflect a change in the categories to which the placements are assigned. In several other 
States, suits brought or threatened by relatives have resulted in official agency procedures 
requiring comprehensive pre-placement seaches for relatives, which in turn have 
faciltated additional foster-care placements with kin. 
Since 1985, the Office of Human Development Services (OHDS), incorporated now into 
the Administration for Children and Familes, has issued three policy clarfications 
reminding States of their responsibility to insure children placed with relatives undergo 
periodic permanency planning reviews. 6 Further, OHDS has demanded that States 
include records of these children in the tota records available for Deparmenta audits of 
agency caseloads. This pressure by OHDS to insure that children placed with relatives 
guartee 
are  permanency planning protections undoubtedly has resulted in 
reclassification of some existing informal arangements with relatives as foster-care 
placements. 
While mentioned less frequently, administrators stated the increased use of relatives 
parcularly in major urban areas, resulted from the shortge of foster family homes and 
the inabilty of State agencies to find other homes for medically fragile and drug-addicted 
children. A study conducted by the National Black Child Development Institute lends 
support to this latter perception. In that study, relatives were considered as a resource 
significantly more often in parenta drug abuse cases than in non-drug abuse cases. 
States frequently lack fonnal policies for licensing or approving relave foster 
homes. 
Deparmenta regulations for Federal Financial Parcipation (FFP) in 
State foster-care 
maintenance payments require States to license or approve homes providing 24-hour care 
for children. Stadards for licensing homes do exist and are used by the States. The 
Child Welfare Legue of America calls upon agencies to select foster families on the basis 
of "careful study and evaluation " and offers stadards in eleven different areas for 
scrutiny. 8 Evaluations of traditional foster family homes use detaled standards or 
approval guidelines specified in State policies. 
This is not always the case for relative foster homes. Only 20 States license or approve 
as meeting licensing criteria 
 all relative foster homes. (See Table 2 on the next page.) In 
27 States some relative homes are licensed or approved , but most are subject only to 
review processes which mayor may not be 
specified in policy.  When relative homes are licensed or approved, the evaluation is nominally based upon the 
same policy stadards specified for all other foster homes. These stadards are defined in 
State policies, and administrators and staf are trained and held accountable for insuring 
the stadards are met. As with non-relative homes, the evaluation usually is conducted by 
staff speializing in finding, assessing, and supporting foster family homes. 
The evaluations conducted on relative homes not being certfied var greatly even within 
the same State. Fifteen States have formal stadards for reviewing homes which canot 
be licensed. These formal stadards may be identical to those applied to licensed homes 
or may be basicay similar but have varous predefined exceptions or allow automatic 
waivers in specific areas such as space requirements or age and marta status 
requirements. The stadards and allowable exceptions are explicit in policy, however. 
The remaining sixteen States, while usually requiring some assessment before placing 
children in the homes of relatives, do not provide detaled criteria in policy for conducting 
reviews. Evaluations may be as detaled as the licensing reviews conducted in the States 
or be based upon protective services stadards, or be based on a single visit to the homes 
or reports of such visits made by staff of other programs. Whether formal or unspecified 
reviews of homes not preparng for licensing are raely conducted by State foster home 
speialists. 
Relave foster parents are generally held to lesser standards unless they also care for 
non-relaed foster children. 
Home Studies Var Widely 
var 
Home studies for relative placements  widely in terms of their formality, contents and 
strngency. Typicaly, prospective relative foster parents are held to lesser stadards. 
Stadards for less formal review processes are frequently lower than those required for 
licensing, and waivers are common even in the more stringent reviews. Administrators 
reported that home studies sought to insure the basic heath and safety of children in the  cae of the agencies. Procedures for insuring that homes meet these minimal stadards 
are not clea.

Licensing or certfication of foster homes is meat to insure the safety and suitabilty of 
homes to accept children. If a family s home cannot meet minimum physical and 
emotional stadards, by policy that home cannot be licensed and 
consequently cannot 
assume the care of children for whom the State is legally 
responsible. In 30 States 
however, children may be placed in all or some relative foster homes whether or not the 
homes meet minimum certification stadards. If homes meet licensing criteria, these are 
certified; if the home cannot meet licensing criteria, the relatives are not certfied, but 
they are permitted to assume care for related children. In some States the inabilty of 
relatives' homes to be licensed could be based upon such factors as relatives ' refusal to 
sign agreements concerning use of corpral punishment or to submit to criminal or 
protective service record checks, or on the inabilty of homes to meet fire or water safety 
stadards. 
Waiver Standards 
All the administrators stated that stadards related to the heath and safety of children 
would never be waived, although what was interpreted as a threat to children s heath and 
safety vared widely. For instace, space considerations and sleeping arangements were 
frequently waived , as were well-water tests and fire inspections. The most frequently 
waived licensing requirement, and usually the primar distinction between licensed and 
approved status, was the agency practice of dropping requirements for relatives to attend 
orientation and training sessions. 
Reduced Monitoring and Support 
Lack of approval stadards is troubling because monitoring relative foster homes may be 
less rigorous due to their perceived stability. In only one State is the determination of 
stabilty (which must precede relaxation of social worker visits) based upon specific 
evaluation procedures. Evidence from studies in New York City and Baltimore is quite
clea that visits between agency staff and foster families is quite infrequent when the foster 
parents are relatives and that provision of heath and social services to the foster family is 
inadequate. 9

Few of the States provided training or policy guidance to staff on issues related to contact 
between parents and children when the children were cared for by relatives, nor did any 
State have policies or official procedures guiding staff on the use of court orders to protect 
children if necessar. Because of the prior relationship between parents and relative 
foster- cae providers, the access of parents to children is different from most situations in 
certn 
which children are placed with strangers. Intergenerational appeaance of  family 
issues is also a unique potential factor in such placements. Neither difference is reflected 
in policy or staf training in most States.  "" 
. , 
,..'"''"''''''''''..-,''' ",.."'. ...... ",-,.."......,...,....-....................." ..-....,..,............. .,. .... ......-..
.,...
-.... .~...'..."".~...:..'..:.~.'.:...'..:.~'.'.':.....:...:.".:...:...:....:....:'...'.:..'.-.:'..':..,'...:'...?' ..'. ..'.(.'.,,:'...'.-:-. .~....-..~.........~.........................
Effects of Lack of Stringency 
No States had reliable data on the number of children re-abused while in foster care with 
relatives. Two States reported recent cases which received publicity because children 
were killed while in the care of relatives. But studies in New York, Marland and 
Colorado indicate children placed with relatives are in placements that "are good for 
10 Lack of rigorous pre-
them" or perceived to be so by staff.  placement review coupled 
with infrequent monitoring of children in placements potentially exposes children to 
increased risk. There is no evidence, however, to allow for an evaluation of the safety 
and well-being of children placed with relatives. 
Policies concerning the payment of foster-care maintenance vary widely between and 
within States. 
For unrelated foster parents, receipt of foster-care maintenance payments on behalf of 
children in State custody is automatic. In order to be foster parents, these individuals 
must first be licensed. Once licensed and carng for a child, foster parents receive 
maintenance payments based on the child' s age, and may receive additional monthly sums 
to meet the expenses of children with speial medical or emotional nees. Children 
ineligible for Federal funds generally are supported through State or local budgets. 
For individuals who provide foster care for related children , reimbursement for children 
expenses is not so automatic. As a result of the  Miler 
vs. 
Supreme Court decision in 
Youalm  relatives who are licensed and carng for children who meet Title IV
eligibilty requirements cannot be denied Federally-funded, foster-care maintenance 
payments. As noted above, however, less than half the States license all relative foster 
caegivers, apparently removing many relatives from the requirements of  Miler vs. 
Further  Miler  made no findings about the use of State funds. 
Youam.  vs. Youaldm 
In most States, the minimum regulatory criterion for provision of maintenance payments is 
the licensing or certification status of the home. (See Table 3 below. ) If the relatives 
.. n 
)rrfrrft.  /f/tfrrrrffrfrffrrrrr?/ 
:::::tfiI ri:i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  are licensed or are officially approved as meeting licensing stadards, however, they do 
not necessaly receive reimbursement for related foster children. Some States have 
prohibitions on using State funds for board payments to relatives, so only relatives carng 
for children who meet the Federal Title IV -E income requirements are eligible for Federal 
foster-care monies. 
If relatives do not choose to go through the licensing process or cannot meet licensing 
stadards, they generally are not able to receive foster-care payments. Some of these 
foster familes may be eligible for AFDC 
and receive support as Grantee Relatives 
through this program. Others, frequently referred to as "free homes " receive no 
reimbursement for the care they provide. 
In severa States, relatives must request foster-care payments or be assessed as neeing 
financial assistace before they can receive maintenance. Most administrators identified 
the "desire of relatives to be reimbursed" as a secondar determinant of whether these 
foster caregivers were reimbursed. Further, while State-level regulations may permit 
payment of foster-care benefits for eligible children in licensed relative homes
, county 
child welfare administrators in some States have wide discretion in the reimbursement 
practices in their counties. Provision of maintenance payments in some locally 
administered programs is not automatic even if relatives meet all criteria. 
Whether most States help relatives make an informed choice concerning licensing and 
reimbursement options is questionable. Foster-care staff encourage relatives to apply for 
AFDC rather than foster-care maintenance as a matter of unoffcial agency policy in some 
States. The AFDC payments are generally considerably lower than foster-care payments. 
(See Appendix A for a comparson of AFDC and foster-cae maintenance rates. ) It is not 
clea in several other States whether relatives are fully apprised of their potential 
eligibilty for higher foster-cae payments. Few relative foster-care providers paricipate 
in orientation programs and even fewer are active in State Foster Care Associations. 
Thus, they have few ways of leaing of the discrepancies between the support programs. 
There is evidence that children placed with relaves remain the legal responsibilit of 
the State longer than children in other alternatve care arrangements. 
According to several recent studies, children placed with relatives remain the legal 
responsibility of the State longer than children in other alternative care arangements. 
While these studies did not find any conclusive reasons for these longer stays, they do 
point to several possible factors which contribute to this phenomenon. 
Confusion over the goals for children placed with relatives results from definitional 
confusion. This affects both agency and related foster-
parent actions in the foster-care 
relationship. Staf, unsure of where relatives fit in the system, do not clealy pursue 
Becuse they frequently do not see themselves as par of the 
permanent placements. 
foster-care system, relatives may pursue their own family goals regardless of agency 
decisions. Since relatives rarely paricipate in orientation and training programs, they  , " , "
have little chance to understad the roles the child welfare agencies expet them to play. 
In addition, the very stability of these placements often works against permanency 
planning initiatives. One administrator explained  These are usually the quiet 
placements. It is hard to convince staff to do the boat-rocking necessar to return 
children home, especially since the parents also are satisfied. 
States frequently do not have viable paths out of foster care for children for whom 
continued care by the relative is the best permanent plan but for whom adoption is not a 
practical option. For many of these foster parents, adoption of children who already are 
par of their extended families fles in the face of cultural norms. When agencies and 
relatives agree that the best long-term plan for a child is continued care by the relative 
social workers must continue to monitor the placement often on a monthly basis. 
severa States  permanent foster care" is not legally recognized as a final plan for a child. 
Children who are understood to be in the care of a relative until adulthood in these States 
must continue to appea in court on a regular  dispositional" heangs since 
basis for "
technically, the child does not have a permanent plan. 
In many relative foster-care situations, assumption of legal responsibility for a child by the 
relative through legal argements such as guardianship is the most effective permanent 
plan for children. Except in six States, however, transfer of custody from the State to 
relatives results in cessation of all foster-care benefits. As discussed ealier, the wide 
differences in most States between foster-care maintenance payments and AFDC 
payments, for which the children mayor may not be eligible, creates a powerful economic 
disincentive for relatives to tae such action. This is parcularly tre when children have 
nees. 
speial medical or psychiatrc 
Six States provide financial assistace to relatives assuming legal custody for children in 
foster cae. The rationale for these States' guardianship subsidy programs is the sae 
that guiding the creation of the Adoption Subsidy Program, namely, that expenditures to 
assist familes to assume legal responsibility for children in the care of the State 
wil be 
amply offset by savings in foster-care maintenance and administration created by removal 
of children from the foster-care rolls. Such subsidies appea paricularly valuable if foster 
children are disabled. These subsidies can provide the support necessar for 
relatives to 
assume legal responsibility for their kin and remove children from the foster-care system.  RECOMMENDA TIONS

The States, universities, and family and child welfare organizations should: 
relave 
Conduct further research concerning the use of  caregivers within the child 
welfare system.

The problem of defining the role of relative foster caregivers must be resolved if child 
welfare programs are to effectively tie into extended family care networks. Before either 
the States or the Deparment can attempt such a definition, more must be known about the 
parcipation of relatives in the child welfare system in genera, and relative foster-care 
placements in parcular.

Initially we would recommend studies to examine the following questions: 
What are the short- and long-term effects of relative placements on 
children? This should include gross measures of well-being such as absence 
of re-abuse or ilness, as well as the effect on the outcomes of foster care 
for children. 
What are the advantages and disadvantages for the States 
, for relative 
caregivers
, and for the children regarding the various roles relatives could 
have? Where State laws and policies help define and determine relatives 
roles, the impact of varous policies should be studied. 
The Adminiration for Children and Familes (ACF) should: 
Encourage States to extend existing foster home standards to relave foster homes or 
to develop reasonable and consistent standards for using and evaluatng relave foster-
care homes that are not licensed or approved. 
It makes little sense for State agencies to remove children from the homes of their parents 
because the home situations are not assessed as safe only to place them in situations that 
have not been thoroughly investigated and found to be safe. States may adopt special 
stadards for relatives' homes that recognize the unique contribution of continued 
extended family ties, but children placed with relatives are the legal responsibility of the 
State agencies, and like all other children in foster care, clealy should be offered a basic 
level of protection. The current lack of stadards for approving and monitoring relative 
foster homes creates great potential for harm to children. 
While ACF may not have clea regulatory authority to require States to insure the safety 
and suitabilty of unlicensed (and therefore not Federally funded) relative homes, we  strongly urge that ACF tae an active role in encouraging States to protect these children 
adequately. 
Encourage States to develop consistent, straightforward policies 
for infonning
licensed or approved relaves of their eligibility for financial reimbursement. 
ACF should encourage States to develop clea criteria for providing foster-care 
maintenance payments to relatives who provide foster care. 
All pars of State agencies 
must then be held accountable for insuring that all foster parents are aware of the benefits 
due them, and are offered such benefits as a matter of routine placement procedures. 
Assist States to accomplish the two prior recommendatons through research 
consultatn and technical assistance.

States must begin to establish clea and consistent policies and stadards for using and 
supporting relative foster-care placements. ACF should paricipate actively in this 
development effort by collecting, maintaning, and disseminating materials to assist States 
in their efforts.

ACF must first develop its own explicit policy concerning relative placements through the 
reseach agenda proposed above and through its continued parcipation in national 
deliberations on the topic. ACF should continue to encourage national organizations to 
address this topic. Based upon the reseach and national discussions, ACF can be in a 
position to encourage States in the development of quality assurance stadards for these 
foster homes and of consistent requirements for relative foster-home support. 
One speific area in which there seems to be a role for ACF is in the 
development of 
training packages that address the nees of relative foster parents. Relative foster-care 
parents are invited to attend foster-parent orientation and training in most States. As State 
administrators reported, most relatives regard these sessions as irrelevant to the role they 
have been asked to perform. It is clea from States' current experiences that revised 
programs, speifically for relative caregivers, are neeed if agencies are to secure their 
parcipation. ACF should assist States and national organizations in this currculum 
development effort. 
Study the potentil costs and benefis of providing subsiies to relaves who assume 
guardianship for special-needs children in their care. 
Guardianship subsidies appea to benefit those extended families wiling to assume 
permanent responsibilty for children, but who require financial support because of the 
speial medical nees of these children. The same cost-benefit arguments applying to 
adoption subsidies such as those offered through the Adoption Assistace and Child 
Welfare Act of 1980 might also apply here. Namely, the increased costs of subsidies are 
amply offset by the long-term savings in foster-care costs.  , "
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS

We received comments from the Administration for Children and Familes 
(ACF), the
Assistat Secreta for 
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), and the Assistat Secreta for 
Management and Budget (ASMB). Respondents were generally supportive of our 
findings , but the ACF and the ASMB expressed doubts about the ACF' 
s authority to 
intervene in the States' application of stadards or provision of foster care maintenance 
payments when foster care placements are not supported through Federal funds. 
We have 
amended the recommendations to meet these concerns by calling on ACF to "
encourage
rather than "require" appropriate State actions. We have made other changes in the
recommendations to make the intent of the 
recommendations cleaer. Please 
refer to 
Appendix C  OIG Response to Deparmenta Comments " and to Appendix D for the full
text of all deparmenta comments. 
We are appreciative of comments received from staff of the Child Welfare Legue of
America and the American Public Welfare Association.  , "
ENDNOTES 
s. Bureau of the Census  Census Projections Report: Living Arrangements of 
Adults and Children, Washington, DC: U. S. Deparment of Commerce
, p. 1 
1985. 
The data are based on samples from the 1980 u. s. Census projected to 1985. The 
1990 U. S. Census data concerning the Living Arrangements of Children 
wil not 
be available until 1992. Data from the 1980 projections should be used cautiously 
when considering children in foster care with relatives since there is some 
evidence, as presented in this report, of changing trends in this area of practice 
over the last decade. 
Lewis, Robert, and Mark Fraser  Blending Formal and Informal Networks in 
Foster Care  Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 9 , pp. 153-169 , 1987. 
A recent study of seven urban sites found that from 20 to 40% of all HIV-
infected 
children are placed with extended family members. (Lela Baughman 
, Cynthia 
Holmes-Morgan, Stephen Margolis, and Marn Kotler  Infants and Children with 
HIV Infection in Foster Care, Washington, DC: Assistat Secreta for Planning 
and Evaluation, U. S. Deparment of Heath and Human Services, September 
1989. 
An OEI inspection of programs serving crack babies found similar trends in urban 
areas for ths population of foster children (Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
Office of Inspetor General  Crack Babies, Washington , DC: U. S. Deparment of
Heath and Human Services, April 1990. 
National Commission on Family Foster Care  A Blueprint for Fostering Infants. 
Children. and Youth in the 1990'  , Washington, DC: Child Welfare Legue 
America, unpublished draft, March, 1991, pp. 75-82. 
Although neither Adoption Assistace 
and Child Welfare Act of 1980 nor 
Deparmenta regulations state a preference for relative placements , State agency 
State policies frequently 
personnel often stated they believed a preference to exist. 
describe a preference for relative placements. Administrators usually connected 
such policies to requirements in Federal regulations. 
ACYF Information Memorandum , ACYF-IM-91-11; Policy Information Question 
PIQ-82-12; and PIQ-85-06. 
Walker, Clarce, Patricia Zangrillo and Jacqueline Smith  Parenta Drug Abuse and 
African American Children in Foster Care, Washington, DC: National Black Child 
Development Institute, pp. 27- , Februar 1991.  , ", " , "
Child Welfare Legue of America  Standards for Foster Family Service (revised),
Washington, DC: Child Welfare Legue of America
, 1975. 
New York Task Force on Permanency Planning for Children 
Kinship Foster Care: 
The Double-Edged Dilemma (unpublished report), Rochester, New York, pp. 10
, October 1990. 
Dubowitz, Howard, M. The Physical and Mental Health and Educational Status 
D. 
of Children Placed with Relatives (unpublished report), Baltimore, Marland: 
School of Medicine, University of Marland at Baltimore
, pp. 106-109, August 24
1990. 
10.	 New York Task Force on Permanency Planning for Children  op. cit. , p. 9. 
Schatz, Mona	
Relative Foster Care: What Do We Know?"
 Fostering Families 
(unpublished report), University of Colorado School of Social Work
, Boulder 
Colorado, p. 2, December 1990. 
11.	
Litigation in Federal District Courts in Oregon  (Lipscomb v. Simmons)  and 
seeks to place such requirements 
California  (City of San Francisco v. McMahon) 
on the States. 
12.	 See, e.  , Benedict, Mar and Roger White  Factors Associated with Foster Care 
Length of Stay,  Child Welfare, vol. 70, p. 55 , Januar-Februar 1991; and 
Goerge, Robert  The Reunification Process in Substitute Care  Social Service 
Review, vol. 37, p. 436, September 1990.  APPENDIX A

AFDC AND FOSTER-CARE MAINTENANCE RATES
 APPENDIX A: AFDC AND FOSTER CARE MAINTENANCE RATES

States  AFDC  Foster Care Maintenance (FCM)2  Average  $ Diff.  % Diff. 
Payment  FCM  (($Diff 
For Children Aged:  Payment  (FCM 
AFDCJ  AFDC) 
x 100) 
For 1  All 
Child  years  years  years  Ages 
$ 59.  $181.00  $202.  $213.  $198.  $139.  236. 72% 
273.  519.  574.  635.  576.  302.  110. 
81.00  195.  210.  240.  215.  134.  165.43 
161.11  240.  240.  299.  259.  98.  61.17 
317.  294.  340.  412.  348.  31.15 
125.  284.  284.  338.  302.  176.41  140.47 
333.  319.  355.  407.  360.  26. 
169.  284.  286.  369.  313.  144.  85. 
240.  307.  307.  321.00  311.67  71.54  29. 
153.  286.  286.  360.  310.  156.  10 1. 97 
145.42  300.  300.  300.  300.  154.  106. 
315.  504.  504.  504.  504.  188.  59. 
136.  208.  230.  308.  248.  112.  82. 
98.  257.  286.  311.00  284.  186.  189. 
139.  268.  312.  369.  316.  176.  126. 
166.  177.  222.  279.  226.  59.  35. 
166.  205.  277.  351.00  277.  111. 00  66. 
147.  250.  266.  304.  273.  125.  85.46 
67.  234.  267.  300.  267.  199.  298. 
159.43  269.  276.  321.00  288.  129.  81. 06 
165.  460.  460.  477.  465.  300.  181.30 
385.  410.  410.  436.  418.  33. 
184.  347.  347.  433.  375.  190.  103. 
276.  308.  308.  399.  338.  62.  22. 
218.  145.  165.  175.  161.67  57.  26.  , "
131. 70  182.  222.  244.  216.  84.  64. 
74.  288.  288.  361.00  312.  238.  322. 
220.  222.  222.  222.  222.  1.66 
207.  281.00  281.00  337.  299.  92.  44.46 
309.  200.  251. 00  354.  268.  -41.47  13. 
168.  213.  226.  266.  235.  66.  39. 
143.41  258.  270.  281.00  269.  126.  88. 
287.42  339.  407.  471.00  405.  118.  41.14 
304.56  215.  215.  215.  215.  89.  29.41 
100.  250.  300.  400.  316.  216.  216. 
181. 06  237.  246.  290.  257.  76.  42. 
110.  300.  360.  420.  360.  249.  224. 
169.  212.  248.  335.  265.  95.  56. 
195.  291.00  323.  354.  322.  126.  64. 
294.  232.  232.  284.  249.  -4.  15. 
231. 83  182.  209.  275.  222.  -4. 
172  220.  270.  325.  271.67  99.  57. 
177.  213.  213.  250.  225.  47.  26. 
63.  390.  390.  390.  390.  327.  519. 
223.  240.  240.  240.  240.  16. 
267.  353.  353.  426.  377.  109.  40. 
160.  228.  267.  337.  277.  116.48  72.42 
306.  215.  265.  313.  264.  -42.  13. 
135.  161.00  202.  242.  201.67  65.  48. 
245.  163.  224.  284.  223.  21. 
188.  300.  300.  330.  310.  121.67  64. 
AVERAGE  $191.34  $267.  $288.  $335.43  $297.  $105.  55. 35% 
Family Support Admistration  Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients. 
FY 1989 , Washigton, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, p. 70
, 1990. 
Miler, Jennfer, Anelise Goldstein, and Theresa Finchio  Foster Care Rates, "  Washington
Memo, vol. 3, p. 8 , November 1991. 
A - 2  APPENDIX B

BIBLIOGRAPHY  ,,  "," ", " ,, , " ""
APPENDIX  BIBLIOGRAPHY

B -

Baughman, Lela, Cynthia Holmes-Morgan, Stephen Margolis, and Marin Kotler  Infants 
and Children with HIV Infection in Foster Care  Washington , DC: Assistat Secreta for 
Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Deparment of Heath and Human Services, September
1989. 
Benedict, Mar and Roger White  Factors Associated with Foster Care Length of Stay, 
70:45- , Januar-Februar 1991. 
Child Welfare 

Child Welfare Legue of America  Standards for Foster Family Care  Washington, DC:
Child Welfare Legue of America
, 1975. 
Dubowitz, Howard, M.  The Physical and Mental Health and Educational Status of 
Children Placed with Relatives 
 (unpublished), Baltimore, Marland: School of Medicine 
University of Marland at Baltimore, August 1990. 
Goerge, Robert  The Reunification Process in Substitute Care  Social Service Review 
37:422- , September 1990. 
Katz, Linda, and Chris Robinson  Foster Care Drift: A Risk-Assessment Matrix  Child 
Welfare  70:347- , May-June 1991. 
Lewis, Robert  The Use of Speific Foster Homes in the Substitute Care Program 
(unpublished report), submitted to the Uta Deparment of Social Services, Januar 1986. 
Lewis, Robert, and Mark Fraser  Blending Formal and Informal Networks in Foster 
Care  Children and Youth Services Review  9: 153- , 1987. 
Longino, Miriam  Kinship Care: Keeping It in the Family, 
The Connection 
 6: 1 ,
Spring 1991.

National Commission on Family Foster Care 
A Blueprint for Fostering Infants, Children 
and Youth in the 1990'  (unpublished), Washington , DC, March 1991. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections/Office of Inspector General 
Crack Babies 
Washington, DC: Deparment of Heath and Human Services, April 1990. 
Schatz, Mona  Fostering Familes 
Relative Foster Care: What Do We Know?"

(unpublished report), University of Colorado School of Social Work, Boulder, Colorado 
December 1990.  Task Force on Permanency Planning,  Kinship Care: The Double-Edged Dilemma 
(unpublished), Rochester, New York, October 1990. 
Thorton , J. L. 
An Investigation into the Nature of Kinship Foster Home
 (doctoral
disserttion), Yeshiva University, New York
, 1987. 
Walker, Clarce, Patrcia Zangrillo and Jacqueline Smith  Parental Drug Abuse and 
Afrcan American Children in Foster Care  Washington , DC: National Black Child 
Development Institute, Februar 1991. 
Whittaer Formal and Informal Helping in Child Welfare Services: 
, James 
Implications for Management and Practice  65: 17- , Januar-Februar 
Child Welfare 
1986.  APPENDIX C

OIG RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT COMMENTS  APPENDIX C - OIG RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 
We received comments from the Assistat Secreta for 
Planning and Evaluation, the
Assistat Secreta for Management and Budget, and the Assistat Secreta for Children 
and Families. Please see APPENDIX D for full texts. 
Assisnt 
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 
The ASPE concurred with the findings and recommendations of the report. They urged 
more speificity in some of the reseach recommendations. 
We have aded some aditional detail to the " Further Research. " 
Issues for 
Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget 
The ASMB concurred with the findings of the report and strongly 
supported the report' 
recommendations concerning ACF' s role in providing technical assistace to the 
States in 
their policy development efforts. 
The ASMB voiced strong concerns, however, about the recommendation that ACF require 
States to develop reasonable and consistent policies concerning the use
, evaluation , and 
support of relative foster care homes. The ASMB does "not believe the Deparment is, or 
should be require States to develop policies regarding relative 
, in a position to 
placements. .. . " 
We have made several changes in our initial recommendation to adress the concern 
expressed by the ASMB and ACF. First, we recognize that ACF may not have the 
authority to require application of standards to children whose care is not reimbursed 
through use of Federal fund, so we have recommended that ACF  encourage the 
application of standards. 
Second, our intention in the recommendation was not to encourage separate treatment of 
relative foster-care homes, and we have rewritten the recommendation to make our 
position clearer. We have not defined specifc standards  relatives, or even 
for approving 
called for separate standards for these homes. These decisions should come from the 
research efforts suggested, the standard review work of national organizations, and the 
deliberations of State administrators. Our inclusion in the recommendation of a statement 
that States might develop new standards for these foster care situations was meant to 
recognize that States may need some flexibilty in this area, not to imply a requirement for 
C - 1
 separate status for these children. Certainly our recommendations make no suggestion for
ACF to mandate or even promulgate any specifc Federal standards in this area. 
The recommendations do not, as implied in the ASMB'scomments, create a new class of 
potential IV-E recipients. Legislation, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Miler 
Youaldm, requires States to make available federally-reimbursed foster-care maintenance 
payments to relative foster-care providers if they are licensed and the child meets the
eligibilty 
requirements for foster care payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security 
Act. While State policies adhere to this requirement, several States allow or encourage 
the use of aditional limitations in practice (i. e. , encouraging staff to conduct needs 
assessments or to await a request 
from relative foster-care providers before initiating 
foster care payments). Our concern is that those relatives who are eligible for financial 
assistance should be made aware of the availabilty and 
requirements of such support. 
have claried this point in the recommendations. 
The ASMB urged that once basic reseach efforts have been completed, the Deparment
should establish a public position on relative foster care as a precursor to its efforts to 
assist the States in their policy development efforts. 
We agree. We believe that ACF should lead the Departent in developing an internal 
policy on this issue. We have aded language to the recommendation to support this 
effort. 
Assisnt Secretary for Children and Familes 
ACF expressed several concerns about the recommendations of the report. 
They did not concur with the first recommendation that ACF should require States to 
develop reasonable and consistent stadards for evaluating and reimbursing relative foster 
cae homes. Specifically, the ACF 
expressed confusion over the recommendation s call for stadards; 
Our recommendation speak only to the issue of health and safety standards, not to 
permanency planning review requirements. 
shared the ASMB' s concern that the report called for a mandate from ACF for States 
to develop separate stadards for relative foster care homes or to incorporate any 
Federally-defined stadards; 
We reiterate our response to the ASMB (as above). A requirement for ACF to mandate 
separate standards or to define specifc standards was not our intention. As A CF points 
(a) (10-11) requires that ACF review State standards 
out, Section  471  for evaluating the 
C - 2
 safety of foster home placements eligible for Federal Financial Participation. Despite 
current discussions, children in the legal custody of State child welfare agencies who are
placed with relatives are "in foster care,  and States should be accountable for their care 
and protection. Therefore, States should be encouraged to accord them the protections 
available to all children in foster care. 
maintaned that they have no legislative authority to require States to develop stadards 
for non-IV-E children in the care of relatives; 
We have changed the language of the recommendation, and callfor ACF to encourage
extension of existing standards or development of reasonable and consistent standards for
relative foster homes in order to protect the health and safety of children in the 
custody of 
State child welfare agencies. 
asked for clarfication concerning the recommendation for exploration of a program 
guardianship subsidies for special nees children. 
We have rewritten the recommendation. 
Finally, the ACF agree with the recommendation that ACF assist States in their policy 
development efforts. 
C - 3
 APPENDIX D

FULL TEXTS OF DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
 ; ,
. ,
/'/

..  .... .
.._ ,  &. '
D::P.o\RT!'  -r OF HETH  HUMA StRV1CES 
, .J 

CKN 
AND FAMIUES
.O.$T T1f 
oi th  .tary. Sune 
AulSnt 
2 8 \992  370 Lenient Promnaoe. S, 
Washingon, D.
C. 
TO:	 Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General 
FROP. :  Jo Anne B. Barnhart 
Assistant Secretary
for Children and F ies 
ce f 
Inspector General  af"t 
Comments on the Off 
SUB:TECT :  Report: "Issues in ative Foster Care, 
OE!-06-90-02390 
re the Administration for Children and Families 

Included below 
 (DIG) draft

(ACT) comments on the Office of the Inspector General 
inspection report entitled: "Issues in Relative Foster Care.

OIG RECOMMENDATION

The Administration for Children and Families should require

States, as a condition of participation in the Federal foster

to: 
care program , 
Develop and enforce reasonable and consistent standards for 
homes. 
using and evaluating relative foster care 
Develop consistent, straightforward policies for providing 
relatives. 
financial reimbursement for 
COMMENTS 
The first part of this recommendation can be understood in two

ways: 
as applying to the'health and safety requirements for 
; and as pertaining to the 
licensing/approving a foster home 
various foster care protections required under section 427 of the 
social Security Act. 
Regarding health an  $afety requirements for
icensin9/  pprovi 
9 relative homes as foster family homes: 
71 (a) (10-11) provides Ior the establishment and
section  eview of standards related to "I  adJission 
:pperioodiclicies, ,safety, sanitation :and protection of civil 
:rights... .41 Such standards  reasonably in accord"
-are to be  izations
stab	
ith the standards 
 standaisrhedd bsy .	.  ational 
oncerned with such  Page 2 - Richard P. Xusserow

established 
At this time national organizations have no 
st.andards speci  ic to relative homes, al'thC'ugh 1tany States 
use their regular foster home licensing requirements while 
placements. 
also granting some waivers for relative  Some 
Stat.es have established working criteria for the approval 
rather than the licensure of such hDmes as foster care 
homes. The main difference seems to be that standards for
rel?  ore flexible provided that the
ive homes are gsenaeraflley 
t.y of the child is not jeopardized. Because 
health and 
I homes 

no na ional standards have been set for relatives 

nei ther ,the State nor the Federal government in the course

0: approving State plans has any criteria against which to 
judge proposed State standards. It is not legislatively 
est.ablish 
permissible for the Federal government to 
71(a) (10) specifically indicates to

standards since section 

whi  h standards the Stat.es must conform. 
In addition, such a requirement would only be applicable to
ti tle 
IV-E children and not to the other 55 per cent of the 
IV-E. 
children in relative foster care not covered by title 
To cover non-title IV-E children, a legislative amendment to
ti tle 
!V-B, would be needed. 
The ACr, does agree, however, that states should adopt

andards for using relative homes that recognize the unique

benefits of continued,  extended family ties while continuing

to protect the health and safety of children in these homes.

Regarding standards for the application of foster care

safeguards and protections for children placed in the homes

of relatives:

We believe this aspect of foster care to be at least as 
important as the coridi tions or standards that are required 
protections 
care. The 
of the homes of relatives who provide 
required in section 427 are the primary tools we have to 
hold States accountable for providing ongoing services that 
need. 
all children in foster care  The Department has always 
taken a firm and unambiguous position that any child who is 
under the care and responsibility of the State agency and 
who is in substitute care must have the safeguards and 
protections specified under section 427 of the Social 
his includes children placed with relatives,

Security Act. 

regardless of whether the home is licensed/approved and

whether a payment is being made or what the source of the

ayment is. This is a condition of funding under

title IV-B. Accordingly, we feel that in this regard the

lready being met.

OIG recommendation is 
 'P. Xusserow 
3 - 1tichard 
Regarding the development of consistent, strai9htforward

policies for providing financial reimbursement fo=

relatives : 
, the 
Miller  Supreme Court  ruled that

Youa):i1t vs. 
In  parents, 
relatives who are serving as foster 
licensed/approved by the State for Federal reimbursement 
under the State foster care progra  ust be paid acco=ding 
to the same rate s ructure as o her foste= faThily homes. 
In many 'States, caretaker relatives receive AFDC payments

for children, usually considerably less than foster care

payments. In 
some instances, rei bursement is provided; in 
given.  instances, 
others, no reimbursement is  In both these 
S'tat.e 
the homes normally are not licensed or approved by the 
eeting the established foster care home
asgetnacy nas
dards. 
We agree that States should have clear, consistent policies

for providing foster care maintenance payments to relatives

who provide foster care and that all such foster parents

should be informed of the benefits they qualify fo=, and

offe=ed such benefits as a part of routine placement

procedures. To make such a requirement a condition fo=

funding under title IV-E, however, would be impractical

since the Supreme tourt decision already requires it fo=

children. 
title IV-E eligible  For those children who are in 
unlicensed or unapproved relative homes, no title IV-E claim 
is made and therefore, the requirement based on "a condition 
effect. 
of funding" would have no 
ight be more

To make it a xeguirement under title IV-B 
 involved, 
effective and would cover all the children 
however, it would be" very difficult to enforce and would 
mandated. 
have to be legislatively 
Thus, regarding the recommendation for licensure/approval

, we do not

standards as a condition of funding for the states
concur with the recommendation.

hrough program instructions and guidance issued to state

orking with them in the required joint

agencies and by 

itle IV-B State plans, the ACF will support and

development 
o adopt appropriate procedures and practices.

ncourage states 

ational organizations to address the issue

We can  lso  ncourage 
of relative foster care and take the lead in developing standards

se or adapt as appropriate.

which the states  ay then 
 Page  Xusserow 
-4 -
Richard 
o: G RECOMMATION 
o accomplish the above through research,
Acssoistn Sstautesl  
tation and technical assistance. 
CO!'!ME 
We concur with the recommenda ion that policies , standarcs,

ientation and training materials for relative fos er homes 
should be supported through study, consultation an - technical
racslsaisti  vanec feo. s. tTehre c AaCrF eh.a s begun consideration o  issues relaitlle d to
The OIG findings and observations  initiatives. 
provide a very useful base for developing ACF 
O!G RECOY.ENDATION

Study the potential costs and benefits of extending subsidies, 
such as those offered through the Adoption Assistance and Child

Welfare Act of 1980, to relatives who assume guardianship for

special-needs children in their care. 
CO!- ':ENT 
We cannot concur with the recommendation for a studY of the 
benef its of subsidies for relative foster care placements because
we do not understand the recommendation. 
Use of the term 
special needs children" suggests that eligibility be limited to
children who meet the cri ter ia of the 
adoption assistance 
prograro. However, the brief explanation of the recommendation 
refers to families who require a higher level of support than 
that available under AFDC. We suggest that you clarify the OIG 
intent. At that point, we will be pleased to consider the
recommendation once again.. 
and provide further comments. 
FURTHER RESEARCH

ISSUES  FOR 
The ACF is interested in gaining additional information about

relative foster care placements and has already included a study

of outcomes for relative foster care in our fiscal year 1992

Evaluation Plan. 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report.
 . - 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 11 HUM.u "  JCES  th See 
.Jit- Otflce of 
WashIngton. D.C. 2020'

TO:  Richard P. Kusserow 
Inpecor General 
FROM:  Assistat Secreta for 
Planng and Evaluation 
SUBJECT:  Comments on OIG Draft Report: "lssu  in Relative Foster Care " OEJ..
Per your request I have reviewed your draft inpecion report entitled "Issues in Relative Foster 
Care. " In general I found it a very helpful repon detailing imponat policy and programatic issues 
in an area of growing co  cem. I do have several relatively minor comments as outlined below. 
On page 7 the repon cites a study conducted by the National Association of Black Social Workers. 
First, the report being referred to was conducted by the National Black Child Development Intitute 
(NBCDI), under contract to ASPE and not by the National Association of Black Social Workers. 
addition, the paragraph strongly implies that this was a study of medicaly fragile children. This is 
nOt the cae. Data about child heath was not discussed in the NBCDI report, and, in fact, only a 
very few of the children in either the parenta drug  non-dg abuse groups had substatial 
abuse or 
heath problems. The study therefore does not suppon the hypothesis for which your report uses it 
namely that relatives are being used more often to care for medicaly fragile children. 
The fourt paragraph on page 9 could use clarification. First, it might be more clea to emphasize 
the tension betWeen potential benefits of increaed reliance on extended family netWorks and 
resources, on the one hand, and potential dangers of increaed parenta access to children and 
, I would suggest either specifying some 
intergenerational family dysfunction on the other. In addition
cert 
examples of the "  family issues " about which there should be concern or else broadening it to a 
more general statement of intergenerational family dysfunCtion. 
Regarding the first of the issues suggested ior furter reseach on page 14, I note that a study to 
determne the effects of relativ  placements on children wil be quite diffcult to design and conduct. 
Because ACYF has such a study planed, additional detail in this recmmendation would be useful 
Finaly, a very recent anicle in  Child Welfare may be of panicular interest to the authors of your 
repon and probably did not appea until after information colleCtion for your evaluation was 
complete. Entitled "Permanency Planing for Children in Kinship Foster Homes " I attch it for you 
information. 
Manin H. Ge

Attchment  Of 
(1- DEPARTM iNT Of HEALTH .. HUMAN SERVICES	 of th 
NOV 2 2 191

KEORAtJ 	 RICH 
P. mSSEROW 
Ins 
ctor Genera 
FROH:	 Kevl.n E. 
Assistan  MolSey  ecretary r Manag111ement 
Budget 
SUBECT:	 ASMB Comments on the OIG Draft Report: "Issues in 
Relative Foster Care" 
Thank you for sharing the draft report and affording us the 
provide comments. 
opportuni ty to  OVerall, the report is an
excellent sumary 
and discussion of the important policy issues 
in the emerging area of relative foster care, and it will be a 
useful resource document within and outside the Departent. 
I s first 
We are concerned, however, about the tone of the report 
two recommendations for ACF to "require States, as a condition of
participation in the Federal foster care program to: 
Develop and enforce reasonable and consistent standards for 
using and evaluating relative foster care homes. 
Develop consistent, straightforward policies for providing

financial reimbursement for relatives.

We agree that the varying. and inconsistent practices highlighted 
by the report indicate that States need to examine closely their 
area. 
policies in this  However, we do not believe the Department 
reauire 
States to develop 
is,  should be, in a position to 
policies regarding relative placements as a condition of 
participation in the federal foster care program. Our reasons
are three: 
Al though we would certainly defer to the opinion of the 
General Counsel, it appears that the legal authority for ACF 
reauire states. as a condition of DarticiDation in the 
to 
federal foster care DrOqram, to develop and enforce policies 
in the areas of standards and payments for relative foster
homes  questionable. The statute requires certain
is  Al children in 
policies and procedures be in place for 
substi tute care in the custody of the State agency. There 
is no explicit authority for the Departent to require a 
separate set of policies for children in relative care, and 
a dubious position 
tlreyingg tao rleqluiyre .t	his may place us 	 in The Departent already has a clear policy on eligibility for

Federal Financial Participation and minimum protections for 
all children in foster care, wbich includes children in
relative placements. 
Beyond these provisions, setting 
standards for and requlating foster care has always been
left to the States. 
The Administration has been very clear 
in its opposition to requiring standards, or even in

allowing states to impose standards, in the child care

arena--one group of child care providers we did not want to 
eliminate were relatives who may not meet state health and
safety requirements. 
Likewise, we would probably not 
support, and certainly do not want to require
, state efforts
that may have the effect of eliminating some relatives as
substi 
tute care providers. 
Finally, requiring certain policies for relative care,
especially in the area of payments, may result in even more 
"formalization" of placements and in increased claims for 
reimbursement under the Title IV-E program. 
We would be more comfortable with the report I s 
recommendations if 
encouraaed 
they  requsirteadte. s to develop policies in these areas, as
opposed to "
The report I s third recommendation--that ACF should assist states 
in developing clear policies on relative care through research,
consultation and technical assistance--is one that we strongly
support. 
Departent has 
However, given the  not yet developed
clear policies concerning the many and complex issues raised in 
step. 
your report, we believe there needs to be an interim  The
Departent, 
through the leadership of ACF, should first establish
posi tions on such issues as: 
What constitutes relative care?

Departent 
Should the  encourage the use of relatives as 
foster care providers; should they be licensed the same as 
other foster family homes? 
Departent 
Should the  dissuade states from retaining legal 
custody, encouraging instead that relatives take leqal 
responsibility for these children? 
What are the appropriate mechanisms and levels of payment

for relative caregivers?

We believe that a recommendation for ACF to develop policies in

these areas would then allow for the federal leadership called

for in your third recommendation.