{"id":12,"date":"2024-05-02T20:48:38","date_gmt":"2024-05-02T20:48:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kinshipamerica.com\/?page_id=12"},"modified":"2026-04-13T11:38:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T11:38:03","slug":"home","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/kinshipamerica.com\/","title":{"rendered":"Home"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n

Welcome to Kinship America<\/h1><\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n

In early 2021 a group of organizations convened by the Ohio Federation for Health Equity and Social Justice and the Ohio Grandparent and Kinship Coalition, met virtually to discuss the needs, concerns and issues that kin caregivers face when they step forward to care for their relative children.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These organizations represented the following states in this initial meeting: The Children\u2019s Home Network of Florida; Kinship Resource Center, School of Social Work at Michigan State University; Children\u2019s Home Society of New Jersey; Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina; HALOS of South Carolina; Institute for Child Success of South Carolina; and Vermont Kin as Parents.<\/span><\/p>\n

As discussions continued, it was determined that a very simple tool was needed which could identify the services each state provided to kin caregivers. There was consensus that the document had to be reader friendly while highlighting the vast differences in supporting kin across states. It was agreed that the best format for this information would be a scorecard.<\/span><\/p>\n

Additional states joined as news of the monthly conversations were shared with those engaged in working with kin families. It was decided that the scorecard should be released at a national event. It was decided that as a recognition of Grandparent\/Kinship Month, the group would work to convene a virtual National Town Hall.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Our Mission<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Lay and strengthen the foundation for the beginnings of an enhanced network of national, regional, and state kinship advocates.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Educate policymakers, Legislators, and the general community on the challenges (financial, social and emotional) of kinship care.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Promote the creation and\/or expansion of programs and policies that support kin in their efforts to keep the children out of the formal out-of-home placement system \u201cfoster care\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n
<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Lay and strengthen the foundation for the beginnings of an enhanced network of national, regional, and state kinship advocates.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Educate policymakers, Legislators, and the general community on the challenges (financial, social and emotional) of kinship care.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Promote the creation and\/or expansion of programs and policies that support kin in their efforts to keep the children out of the formal out-of-home placement system \u201cfoster care\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n
\n

NEWS AND EVENTS<\/h2>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

Philadelphia<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n

Inside Philly\u2019s hidden foster care system, where parents \u2018voluntarily\u2019 give up their children<\/strong><\/h1>\n<\/div>\n

Parents report feeling coerced into accepting the agreements: Place the child here, they\u2019re told, or we\u2019ll take them into foster care.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In fall 2021, Tytianna Hawthorne received a phone message from an investigator with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services: Someone may have abused her 1-year-old daughter.<\/p>\n

The investigator was acting on a confidential tip to ChildLine from a caller who said a photo of Su\u2019Layah on a social media account showed \u201chookah charcoal burn marks\u201d on Su\u2019Layah\u2019s inner thighs.<\/p>\n

Hawthorne, a first-time mother at 20, had spent time in foster care herself and had no love for the system. She also knew DHS had the power to take away her child. She hoped that the evident good health of her daughter, Su\u2019Layah Williams, would speak for itself, and she called the investigator back.<\/p>\n

She told the investigator she first discovered the marks when her daughter returned after a weekend visit with her father. She treated them with Neosporin. Hawthorne said that money was tight, and that she and her daughter had been living with family members and friends.<\/p>\n

Read more...<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n

PLANTSVILLE, CT \u2013 MARCH 06: Cameron Comparone, 2 1\/2 places a stone on the grave of his father Benjamin Comparone, 27, as friends and family gathered on March 6, 2016 in Plantsville, Connecticut to commemorate the first anniversary of Benjamin\u2019s death from heroin overdose. The nationwide heroin epidemic has overwhelmed many small towns and suburban communities, with heroin overdose deaths quadrupling, according to the Centers of Disease Control. The victims\u2019 families, many of them facing stigma themselves, are increasingly going public to lobby for greater access to recovery programs and bring awareness of addiciton as a disease, not a moral failing. The CDC says that of first time heroin users, some 90 percent are white and 75 percent had used prescription pain killers before turning to heroin. (Photo by John Moore\/Getty Images)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

Hundreds of thousands of parents died from drugs. Their kids need more help, advocates say.<\/p>\n

More than 321,000 children have lost a parent to a drug overdose, a recent federal study found.<\/span><\/h2>\n

Every day, 8-year-old Emma sits in a small garden outside her grandmother\u2019s home in Salem, Ohio, writing letters to her mom and sometimes singing songs her mother used to sing to her.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Read More...<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

ACF-OFA-CB-DCL-24-01
<\/strong>December 30, 2024<\/p>\n

Dear Colleague:<\/p>\n

The whole of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is committed to improving the overall wellbeing of families by preventing child maltreatment, and values doing so through collaborative efforts that support and stabilize families and protect children. To clarify how this commitment can be realized by states and localities, the Administration for Children, Youth, and Family\u2019s (ACYF) Children\u2019s Bureau (CB) and Office of Family Assistance (OFA), both within ACF, offer this guidance and our ongoing support to states, territories, and tribal grant recipients as they address the basic economic needs of families as an evidence-informed strategy to prevent child maltreatment and ensure children remain cared for in their homes or with relative caregivers.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n
Read More<\/h5>

Poverty itself does not equate to maltreatment or neglect. The lack of income or economic supports, however, may increase the risk of material challenges that lead to significant stress within families or challenges for parents in providing for their children\u2019s basic needs. This stress can hinder children\u2019s cognitive development and\/or increase the risk of parents\u2019 inability to care for their children adequately, a risk which could be best mitigated with concrete economic supports.<\/p>\n

i<\/em>\u00a0<\/span>The differentiation between a family\u2019s inability to provide versus maltreatment is a top priority of ACF. In order to provide families with concrete financial supports and decrease the risk of the inability to provide, states, territories, and tribal grant recipients may use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to increase and support protective factors for children within their families and communities in ways that prevent their involvement in the child welfare system.<\/p>\n

We recognize, however, that across states, territories, and in tribal nations, the administration of the TANF grant and the child welfare program are often not situated within the same office or roles. Coordinated planning around program design and budget must occur across all jurisdictional offices and roles to ensure a holistic approach to support families\u2019 well-being. Both OFA and CB encourage states, tribes, and territories administering both programs to collaborate on a comprehensive prevention framework that centers investment in families\u2019 economic well-being, while operating within the requirements of each program. This approach can facilitate intentionality in braiding available supports to stabilize and strengthen families.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/span>
TANF funds may only be used in a manner reasonably calculated to accomplish one or more of four broad purposes outlined in the TANF statute, 42 U.S.C. 601(a)(1), or in accordance with the grandfather clause at section 601(a)(2). Within this framework, TANF programs provide a range of benefits and services that can serve as a critical support to families experiencing economic hardships.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first statutory goal of TANF, known as TANF purpose one, is to provide assistance to families experiencing financial need so that children can be cared for in their own homes or with relatives. States and tribes currently report using TANF funds for activities reasonably calculated to achieve TANF purpose one, including targeted prevention and reunification interventions in the child welfare system. Certain activities promoting prevention, reunification, or kinship care include parenting skills classes and supports, supports for parents preparing for reunification, and providing concrete and economic supports to prevent removal from home or to support kinship caregivers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nationally, 1 out of 5 federal TANF dollars are directed by states and tribes to child welfare activities, but on a state-by-state basis, the expenditures can be anywhere from 0 to 52 percent of federal dollars spent. A biannual survey conducted by Child Trends reports that TANF spending by child welfare agencies equaled approximately $2.6 billion in state fiscal year (FY) 2020.<\/span><\/p>\n

ii<\/strong> ACF\u2019s collection of TANF financial data shows that states spent $2.7 billion in federal TANF or state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds on child welfare services in federal FY2023, including foster care and child welfare authorized solely under prior law, which accounts for 8 percent of all TANF and MOE funds used in that year. Forty-three states reported spending some of their TANF or MOE funds on child welfare services and, of those, in 12 states child welfare services represented 20 percent or more of their TANF or MOE spending.<\/span><\/p>\n

Below, we offer examples of where a child welfare service can be reasonably calculated to meet a TANF purpose, and therefore be an allowable use of TANF funds.<\/span><\/p>\n

iii<\/strong> Jurisdictions may use TANF federal or MOE funds for certain family stability, prevention, and reunification services for families eligible under TANF purpose one. OFA and CB are encouraging states, territories, and tribes to leverage data and practice experience to identify opportunities to collaborate even further toward the economic stability of families to prevent unnecessary removal of children from their families\u2019 homes whenever possible, prioritizing circumstances where a lack of financial resources is the root cause of the potential child welfare involvement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Families experiencing both intergenerational poverty and immediate economic shocks are at greater risk of child welfare involvement.<\/span><\/p>\n

iv<\/strong> Children living in families with a low socioeconomic status (SES) have rates of child maltreatment that are five times higher than those of children living in families with a higher SES.<\/span><\/p>\n

v<\/strong> Similarly, research has articulated the negative impact of state policies that restrict TANF access (such as time limits of less than 60 months, severe sanctions for not meeting work requirements, work requirements for mothers with children under 12 months, and suspicion-based drug testing of applicants) on child well-being and safety trends.<\/span><\/p>\n

Access to appropriate economic supports influences whether a parent or caregiver is available and able to support their child\u2019s needs when factors that are associated with child neglect such as low income, income instability, food insecurity, or lack of health insurance exist.<\/span><\/p>\n

vii<\/strong> A recent literature review detailed the consistent correlation between providing economic supports and preventing child welfare involvement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Research simulating the effects of increased household income under three anti-poverty economic support program packages found potential reductions of 11 to 20% in CPS investigations annually. Relatedly, a study of a home-based family preservation program found additional cash supports to help families with concrete emergency insufficiencies\u2014such as utility payments, food, clothing for children, or transportation assistance\u2014resulted in reduced likelihood of experiencing a subsequent child maltreatment report than families receiving no concrete supports.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inversely, there is also a clear connection between reduced access to concrete and economic supports, such as social assistance in the form of programs like TANF, and increased involvement in the child welfare system.<\/span><\/p>\n

ix<\/strong> For example, recent research has found a 23% increase in substantiated neglect reports, a 13% increase in foster care entries due to neglect, and a 13% increase in total foster care entries in states with more restrictive TANF policies, such as lifetime limits, bans for drug-related felonies, and limited transitional supports for newly employed parents.<\/span><\/p>\n

The creation of the title IV-E prevention program was an unprecedented step in recognizing the importance of working with children and families to prevent the need for foster care placement and the trauma of unnecessary parent-child separation. The title IV-E prevention program is part of a much broader vision of strengthening families by preventing child maltreatment, unnecessary removal of children from their families, and homelessness among youth. It provides an opportunity for states to dramatically re-think how they serve children and families and creates an impetus to focus attention on prevention and strengthening families as primary goals, rather than foster care placement as the main intervention.<\/span><\/p>\n

Foster care is an extremely costly intervention, both financially and in the potential erosion of emotional health and well-being, as well as diminished productivity. One study estimates the lifetime economic burden of child maltreatment, based on 2015 investigations by child protective services, was $2 trillion.<\/span><\/p>\n

xi<\/strong> Additionally, a Chapin Hall resource provided the cost savings associated with prevention through economic and concrete supports to families.<\/span><\/p>\n

xii<\/strong> The Congressional Research Service estimates spending on prevention in title IV-E was approximately $183 million in FY2024 compared to nearly $4.8 billion in foster care and $4.7 billion in adoption and guardianship.<\/span><\/p>\n

xiii<\/strong> Increasing utilization of available prevention funding and decreasing reliance on foster care may both reduce the cost to government and improve the well-being of families for the long term.<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, research has demonstrated the impact of economic supports on the ability of parents to reunify with their children after a removal and for children removed from the home to remain with families in kinship care. For example, studies have found that mothers who lose access to cash assistance experience longer times before reunification than mothers who maintained benefits.<\/span><\/p>\n

xiv<\/strong> xv<\/strong> These studies underscore the relationship between increased monetary resources and the increased likelihood of reunification.<\/span><\/p>\n

We provide below a number of examples of possible actions TANF and child welfare agencies can take or strengthen in a range of areas. We encourage grant recipients to reach out to OFA and CB for support implementing the below strategies within their local contexts and in accordance with federal laws and regulations.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Establishing a Joint Vision and Strategy<\/span><\/h3>\n

TANF and child welfare agencies can work together to establish a joint vision and strategy in the following ways:<\/span><\/p>\n