“Kin-First” Isn’t the Problem
September was National Kinship Care Month, which gives us the opportunity to recognize and celebrate the relatives and close friends who care for children when their parents are unable to. While intended to raise awareness about the positive impact of kinship care on children, the month also sparks conversations among child welfare professionals, prompting an important question about kinship placements as the preferred option: Has “Kin-First” gone too far?
Kinship care means a child lives with relatives or other adults they already know. These caregivers could be grandparents, aunts and uncles, a godparent, neighbors, or the family friend who has been at every birthday since the child was born. Kinship care can be either formal or informal, and the difference between the two lies in whether the child welfare system is involved. Formal kinship care is prevalent; as of the 2024 fiscal year, 39% of children in foster care lived with relatives or kin. Some research and policy experts worry that the preference for placing children with kin has gone too far, and some of their concerns are fair. However, I think “should we prioritize kin?” is the wrong question. A more useful one is: How do we build a “Kin-First” system that prioritizes serving children well?
Using available data, I offer the following recommendations and considerations to support high-quality kinship care for child welfare-involved families:
Assess who counts as kin
Kinship care works because it allows for continued connection. A child placed with a family member or trusted family friend maintains their routines, culture, and connections to people who already love them. Definitions of kin should include chosen families. Black, Indigenous, and immigrant communities, in particular, have long relied on fictive kin as a primary way of caring for their children, and a definition based only on blood would exclude the very caregivers who best reflect a child’s community.
On the other hand, the definition cannot stretch until “kin” becomes devoid of meaning. A relative a child has never met can still be a valuable link to family history and culture, but each placement should be judged on the real connection and care a particular adult can offer that child. A child may be better off with the neighbor who has known them since infancy than with a third cousin they have never met, and we should be willing to say so.
Prioritize safety and discretion
A “Kin-First” presumption should never equate to automatic approval. If a background raises concerns in a stranger, it should raise similar concerns in a grandmother. Criminal records, past abuse reports, and substance use all warrant serious consideration. However, safety screening should not be a blunt instrument. A conviction from twenty years ago is not the same as a current danger, and a blanket ban can rule out an otherwise excellent potential caregiver. Hard-and-fast rules feel protective but can cause more harm than good. It is highly unlikely someone would place a child with an abusive uncle simply because a rule fails to forbid it (and such an action would indicate other, deeper issues). Child protection caseworkers should be trusted to assess caregivers on a case-by-case basis.
Consider an appropriate crisis response
It is important to understand how a child ends up in formal kinship care. Anyone can report a concern about child abuse or neglect, and a caseworker decides whether it warrants an investigation. If a child is believed to be in immediate danger, the local child protection agency can obtain court authority for a judge to issue temporary orders about where the child lives. The child can be moved to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation is ongoing. Despite a systemic preference for placement of children with relatives (e.g., state law in Pennsylvania tells agencies to use due diligence to notify the child’s adult relatives within 30 days of removal), in a crisis, “Who can we reach tonight?” is very different from “Who is best for this child?”
Most kin caregivers do not plan for the phone call that changes their life overnight. Many kin placements happen quickly or informally, and caregivers often bypass the full licensing process. This means they typically receive less training than other foster parents, who usually complete mandatory pre-service courses and a home study before a child arrives. Requiring a grandmother to complete all of that first, while the child sleeps elsewhere, creates its own harm.
However, waiving the requirements is not a fix by itself. Limited support can increase caregiver stress, especially if a child has medical, behavioral, or developmental needs. Licensing differences can leave kin with unequal access to benefits. Safety checks should be conducted first, with training, peer support, and assistance navigating services provided in the subsequent weeks. Colorado tested this approach with a randomized trial of its Kinnected program, where families received a needs assessment, monthly face-to-face visits for the first 90 days, referrals to benefits and services, and a search for other relatives and friends who could help, including a backup placement plan within 30 days. Among 402 children placed with kin, those in families participating in the program were more likely to return to their parents (53% versus 45%) and less likely to enter foster or congregate care in the six months after the placement ended (7.9% versus 14.5%). The federal clearinghouse rates the program “supported,” making states eligible for federal reimbursement under the Family First Prevention Services Act.
Designate payment guidelines
Kin caregivers are less likely to receive financial help and likely to receive fewer services. Some critics argue that because many children in foster care come from fragile families, we should think carefully about whether a safe extended network exists at all. While this may be a reasonable concern in individual cases, it is not a reason to reduce support for kinship care. We pay strangers to care for children in foster care; why would we refuse to help those already invested in a child’s well-being? Kin caregivers also provide a valuable service to the state: children placed with kin move less, and children need consistency and caring adults to thrive.
Families raising a relative’s or fictive relative’s child should not have to bear the financial burden alone. Unfortunately, many kinship caregivers are unlicensed because they cannot meet local standards for factors like age, income, or house size. In Pennsylvania for example, kin are licensed as resource parents under the same rules as strangers, but the support provided varies by county. A 2024 state courts report revealed that while some counties increased payments to kin or covered initial costs like beds, home repairs, and background checks, caregivers in focus groups still stated help “fell through the cracks.” While further consideration is needed for supporting unlicensed caregivers, establishing a foundation that does not set up kinship caregivers to struggle is a crucial first step.
Next Steps
Kinship care offers clear benefits, including fewer placement moves and stronger ties to family and community – but we must acknowledge what we do not yet know. Children placed with kin may differ from other children from the start, and some common measures, like placement stability, can be skewed when agencies prioritize relative placements. Claims that kinship care is definitively superior require robust research. This necessitates long-term studies that track children into adulthood, utilize state administrative data, and differentiate between close and distant relatives.
Uncertainty is not a case against “Kin-First”; it is a case for better research. By pairing a “Kin-First” presumption with thorough screening, prompt support, equitable funding, and improved research, we give children the opportunity to stay connected to the people who matter to them, and those people can get what they need to care for them well.
