Kinship care in the welfare system: The lived experience and the case for reform

Across the globe the customary practice of kinship care; family and friends caring for children unable to live with their parents, has become increasingly important as a government-sanctioned response to child protection concerns. This hybrid of public and private care (known in Australia as formal or statutory kinship care, and in the UK and USA as kinship foster care) has in many countries displaced non-related foster care as the preferred alternative care arrangement for children. With increasing use, this has proved problematic, with reports of unequal treatment, carer hardship, and worker confusion; especially concerning given the disadvantage of carers and their young kin. Research and policy development has been slow and restricted in its focus, with the views and experiences of stakeholders under-represented, leaving the practice field and service users inadequately supported. A recent study from Victoria, Australia aimed to bring forward the voices of stakeholders in scoping the operation of formal kinship care in 17 non-government kinship support programs. Taking a critical approach, the research drew on theoretical, empirical, and experiential evidence, and applied mixed methods, collaborative and participatory processes, and an ethical and ecological lens. Findings were based on a survey (n = 93), focus groups (n = 42), and interviews (n = 7), with carers, young careleavers, and workers, and data was analysed for themes and content. The research interrogated key elements of formal kinship care: its nature; the government’s engagement with carers; standards of care; the carer’s role and good care; the worker’s role and good practice. Findings highlight the complexity and distinctiveness of formal kinship care, not addressed in policy or practice, and resulting in worker confusion, unmet support needs, and compounded disadvantage for carers and their young kin. System elements identified as obstructing good care and practice include inadequate resourcing, paradigm conflict, confusion of imperatives, and misdirecting assumptions about family care. The study substantiates the pertinence of stakeholders’ views and experiences, and provides a basis and imperative for reform.