8 pages paper

I looking for a 8 pages paper on permanency and child welfare I can provide the data and research. I have a graph I need converted into apa formate. I have the intro completed.Here is some data from online http://www.citizenreviewpanelsny.org/documents/chapin_hall_document.pdfhttps://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/racial_disproportionality.pdfI have a graph I need converted into APA format. Can you give me a completion estimation? It has to be double spaced as wellI will send the graph in a few


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
8 pages paper
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Instructions 7-10pg research paper
Using the Chapin Hall data archive, identify an answerable research question related to
permanency in the child welfare system. – What is the question your paper will answer? – Why is
this question important (how many people are affected- in MD/US/globally? What are the social
costs of the problem? How much money is spent addressing it or is lost by the problem?)? – You
may choose to cite a few academic or online sources to document the significance and
prevalence of this issue. If so, you must document using APA style. ? Why should child welfare
workers be interested in this question?
Find and review a study from a peer-reviewed journal that examines a similar question. What
was the research question addressed in the study? What was the data source: Administrative?
Other secondary data? Primary data collection? What was the sample? Describe sampling
frame/eligibility criteria. Describe demographics and other characteristics that are reported. What
was the answer to the research question in this study? Remember to cite the study using APA
Use the Chapin Hall data archive to answer the question for Maryland statewide or a specific
jurisdiction. How did you constrain the sample? Present findings in narrative and table or chart.
Who is included in the analysis? (table and narrative describing the sample) What is the answer
to the research question? (table or chart displaying answer to research question).
Discuss findings and limitations. What does the finding mean for permanency in Maryland?
What might this finding reflect? How do the findings compare to the similar study that you
identified and described? Are they similar or different? How might methodological differences
explain differences in findings? What are the limitations of this finding? (i.e., what might be
wrong with this finding?) In what ways could it be discredited?
Based on this finding, draw some recommendations for child welfare practice. Here are some
suggestions: How/should child welfare workers change their practice to better promote
permanency? Are there ways that child welfare supervisors should change their practice to better
promote permanency? Are there policies that should be created and advocated for that are
relevant to this finding?
Child welfare has been a progressive movement within the past centuries. The systems
that once gave children to willing families without exploring complete safety measures has now
become a theoretical and political driven agency that puts child’s safety, wellbeing, and
permanent placement first. Thus, it is always time to cultivate positive practices to enhance the
permanency status for children within the foster care system. Baltimore City Department of
Social Services spends $227 million on child welfare and $296 million on foster care
maintenance payments alone (MD.gov,2016). In addition, most recent data reports there are
about 8,000 children in the State of Maryland Out of Home Placement (MD.gov,2013). Overall,
BCDSS serves 60% of the state of Maryland needy families. This data, implicates there are a
vast number of needy children and they are mainly serviced in a highly impoverished
community. Said community entails many social dilemmas and a mass underserved minority
population. One could assume there is an influx of African America children in foster care
drift/without stable placement. This paper will explore the trends of African American placement
stability compared to their Caucasian counterparts. This paper will also provide a literature
review on a study that explores racial disparities in child welfare. Graphs and tables will be used
to further illustrate the data, and then the closing will include a discussion on findings,
limitations, and recommendations.
Significance and Prevalence
-The peer review articles are in the inbox (literature review of peer review articles are required in
the assignment)
-The following are websites for additional data
Here is some data from
online http://www.citizenreviewpanelsny.org/documents/chapin_hall_document.pdf
Base group Caucasian Comparison Group Black Children
Conclusion and Limitations
Connective Complexity:
African American Adolescents
and the Relational Context
of Kinship Foster Care
Ann Schwartz
Attempts to address racial disproportionality in child welfare must include a focus on the benefits and challenges
facing children in kinship care. African American children
not only are overrepresented in the child welfare system,
but also are placed disproportionately in kinship foster
care. Using a sample of 18 African American adolescents
ages 11 to 14, this article explores how the relational context of care experienced by adolescents in kinship foster
care differs from that of adolescents in nonkinship foster
family placements. Findings are presented regarding the
stability of relationships as well as complex role dilemmas
experienced by kinship youth as they relate to caregivers
and birthparents in the child welfare context. Implications
are given for practice with kinship families.
Ann Schwartz PhD is Associate Professor of Sociology, Concordia University Texas,
Austin, Texas.
0009–4021/2008/020877-97 $3.00 Child Welfare League of America
n the United States, African American children comprise the
second largest ethnic group in foster care (32%), after white,
non-Hispanic children (41%; U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services [USDHHS], 2006), and the largest group in kinship foster care (40.1%; Child Welfare League of America [CWLA],
2006). Over the last few decades, states have increasingly placed
children in kinship care, although both the proportion and number of children in kinship foster care seem to have leveled off
inmore recent years (Geen, 2003b). In addition, federal policy
changes have also promoted the use of a child’s relatives as foster
parents (USDHHS, 2000).
Although child welfare policies now encourage formal kinship
placements, informal care of children by relatives is not a new practice among African Americans (Hegar, 1999). Such care has allowed
children in West African societies to leave home to attend school. It
has been prominent in the United States since slave children who
were separated from their parents relied on family members and
fictive kin and is prominent whenever parents have faced economic hardship (Gutman, 1976; Stack, 1985). Informal kinship care
has also been necessitated by discriminatory practices that excluded African American children from formal child welfare institutions until after World War II (Billingsley & Giovannoni, 1972). As
policies have shifted from exclusion to inclusion, and as relatives of
African American children have become approved or licensed foster parents, the incorporation of children in informal caregiving
arrangements into kinship foster placements may have contributed
to more African American children in foster care (Testa, 1997).
Reliance on kin networks allows children to draw on an important, recognized strength of African American families. Strong
extended family ties provide members with support in facing difficulties, achieving successes, and performing important social func-
Address reprint requests to Ann Schwartz, Concordia University Texas, 3400 I-H 35 N.,
Austin, TX 78705.
tions (Hill, 1971; McAdoo, 1978; Nobles, 2007). Billingsley (1968)
recognized that kinship and community networks are also intertwined. Propinquity to kin remains a defining attribute of African
American families, as 85% of all African Americans live in a city
where relatives also reside (Hill et al., 1993). Among African Americans, kinship configurations continue to transcend the nuclear
family to include extended blood relatives as well as nonrelatives
(Dodson, 2007).
Within the kinship network, African American grandmothers
have played an important role in socializing and caring for their
grandchildren (Ruiz & Zhu, 2004; Jimenez, 2002). Older women
have also served as caretakers for nonrelated children in their community. African American grandmothers have often taken children
into their household so that their parents could work or even leave
to find work elsewhere (Jimenez, 2002).
Strong kinship networks may serve as a protective factor against
child maltreatment and help to explain why, despite the overrepresentation of African American children in the child welfare system, National Incidence Studies find no statistically significant differences in overall maltreatment rates between African American
and white families (Hill, 2006). In fact, African American families
exhibit lower rates after controlling for income level, unemployment, and degree of urbanization.
The disproportionate number of African American children in
the child welfare system together with the rise in kinship foster
care placements raises important questions regarding how African
American children are served by such placements and calls for
more nuanced research examining the benefits and challenges of
the kinship versus nonkinship setting. Little is known about how
the relational context varies by placement type beyond evidence
that children in kinship care remain more connected to people
they know, including their birthparents, compared to those placed
with nonrelatives.
Researchers have consistently shown that children in kinship placements maintain more connections with family and
community than those in nonkinship placements (e.g., Berrick,
Barth, & Needell, 1994; Testa & Slack, 2002). Children placed with
kin average fewer placements (Gibbs & Muller, 2000) and are also
more likely to remain in their first foster care placement (Courtney, 1995). They are reunified with birthparents less quickly and
less often than children in nonkinship homes (Testa, 1997), but
once they leave care, they exhibit lower reentry rates (Courtney
& Needell, 1997).
Although the kinship context may enhance connections to significant people, it may simultaneously result in confusion regarding relationships. Children in kinship foster care essentially have
multiple parents—birthparents with whom they retain contact, relative caregivers, and the state. In such a situation, children may
confront a certain amount of complexity regarding how they should
act and their sense of identity.
Connective Complexity: An Analytical Framework
The theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism provides a
useful lens for examining the relational context of kinship foster
care. Its central premise is that people attach symbolic meaning to
things and then act toward such things on the basis of the ascribed
meaning (Howard, 2000). Individuals reflect on the symbolic information they receive from others in order to define and evaluate
themselves (Roberts & Bengston, 1993). The structural branch of
symbolic interactionism assimilates role theory with the tenets of
the interactionist perspective (Stryker, 1981). Role theory focuses on
the behaviors of individuals dictated by the social positions they
hold and presents a number of useful concepts regarding role dilemmas that may challenge a person’s sense of self (Biddle, 1986).
Coupling theoretical insights with current studies, this research
contributes to the building of analytical frameworks through proposing the idea of connective complexity as a way of conceptualizing
the relational context of kinship foster care. This construct refers to
a possible relational situation in the kinship setting where a child
retains valuable connections that are also complicated in ways not
present in the parental care setting.
When a relative, such as a grandparent, becomes a young person’s custodial caregiver, that caregiver must deal with the dual
roles of grandparent and parent and determine how to balance the
two. The gerontological literature addresses such role dilemmas facing grandparents (e.g., Burton, 1996), but corresponding dilemmas
encountered by recipients of care have been ignored. Having dual
connections to a caregiver, a child may experience role ambiguity
when “shared specifications set for an expected role are incomplete
or insufficient to tell the incumbent what is desired or how to do it”
(Biddle, 1979, chap. 8). The child may wonder, “Is this person my
grandmother or my mother?” or “Do I relate any differently to this
person now that she has the responsibility to care for me?” Furthermore, because young people in kinship care often maintain contact
with birthparents, this situation may create confusion for them as
they seek to individuate and establish their own identity.
Role conflict may also emerge as the behavioral expectations of
dual roles come into contradiction (Biddle, 1979). At times, children
in kinship settings may experience tension when, for instance, the
expectations of grandchild and foster child are contradictory. As
young people strive to attain some degree of autonomy from their
parents during adolescence, they often look to grandparents and
other relatives for support (Brodzinsky, Schechter, & Henig, 1992).
If that supportive figure is now in a parental role, that source of
support may be lost. Holman (2001) also theorizes that when children living with grandparents are unhappy with their birthparents,
they may want grandparents who can function in a nurturing, outsider role. That may be difficult if those grandparents, now in a
more parental role, must be disciplinarians and set rules.
Continuing contact with birthparents may result in some degree of role reversal for children in kinship care who may struggle
with the desire to care for parents who cannot care well for themselves. These children may also experience role reversal with their
caregivers, if such caregivers are older and facing health problems.
On average, kinship caregivers are older than nonrelative foster
parents (Scannapieco, 1999).
Within a comparative, exploratory study, designed to investigate
the effects of type of foster care placement on the experiences of
African American adolescents, a particular emphasis was on how
the relational context of kinship and nonkinship placements differ.
Specifically, the following research questions were examined: How
does the maintenance of familial connections by African American adolescents in kinship and nonkinship foster family care differ? How do the
role dilemmas faced by African American adolescents in kinship and
nonkinship foster family care differ?
To evaluate the research questions, African American adolescents, ages 11 to 14, from kinship and inracial, nonkinship foster
family care were recruited for two samples.1 Those in kinship foster care were in the physical custody of at least one “relative or
someone else emotionally close to a child (e.g., friends, neighbors,
godparents)” (Leos-Urbel, Bess, & Geen, 1999, p. 1) and in the legal custody of the state. Early adolescents were selected since
they are beginning a crucial stage of psychosocial development
where they face the central crisis of identity versus role confusion
(Erikson, 1968).
Data were gathered from participants through an interview
constructed by the researcher, observations, and case files. Interview responses provided a qualitative assessment of the role
dilemmas experienced by the participants. Placement history
was measured through the interview, and case files were examined to corroborate responses. Participants’ connectedness to sig-
Initially, a third sample was also comprised of African American adolescents in transracial, nonkinship foster family care. The transracial versus inracial dimension of placement was never a major focus of the study. Because the number of transracial participants was so small, the analysis of this
group ended up being quite limited, so it is not discussed in this paper.
nificant individuals was measured through specific interview
questions, assessing whether participants’ contact with members
of their birthfamily had changed because of being in foster care.
Participants were asked if moving in with their current caregiver
had involved changes in contact compared to their living situation prior to removal.
Using information from the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services, packets were sent to individuals randomly selected from three regional areas. Several attempts to increase the response rate resulted in the 18 cases used in the analysis discussed
in this paper—9 kinship and 9 inracial, nonkinship placements.
All but two interviews took place in participants’ homes. Matching interviewers and respondents on social characteristics may result in respondents feeling more comfortable and reduce reactive effects (Fontana & Frey, 1998). Since all of the adolescents interviewed
were African American and the researcher was Caucasian, the researcher consciously recruited African American cointerviewers.
Data analysis entailed combining descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews
and observations, following the template organizing style of interpretation. This approach, developed by Crabtree and Miller (1992), allows
the researcher to develop codes a priori from known empirical or
theoretical findings and apply these to the collected data. Templates
can be modified during analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Participants from the two samples were similar on demographic
characteristics such as average age, grade level, and gender. The
nine participants in kinship care were placed with a variety of relatives and fictive kin, with the majority (56%) residing with a grandparent caregiver. Adolescents in kinship placements exhibited
stronger connections to people and places than those in nonkinship
placements but also greater role complexity in their relationships
with caregivers and birthparents as a result of those connections.
Placement Histories
Overall, adolescents in both samples had averaged 3.78 placements and 27.17 months in foster care, with an average duration
per placement of 6.99 months. Comparing samples, kinship participants exhibited greater placement stability than did nonkinship
participants (Table 1). Only one relative caregiver had permanent
managing conservatorship (PMC) of a participant at the time of
the interview, but by the end of data collection, another three had
obtained PMC of adolescents in their care, and one had adopted her
granddaughter. In contrast, six nonkinship participants remained
in the same foster home, one had returned to his birthmother,
one had entered a relative placement, and one was in a residential
treatment center.
Contact With Birthmother
In the two samples, all but one adolescent stated that they saw less
of their birthmother being in care. One young woman in a kinship
placement with her grandmother saw her mother on a daily basis.
In general, those in kinship care saw more of their mothers in their
current placement than did those in nonkinship care. Of the other
eight kinship participants, three reported seeing their birthmother
once a week, one several times a week, one twice a month, and one
Placement Variables
Average Number of Placements
Average Months in Foster Care
Average Months Per Placement
Average Months in Current Placement
Participants With Discontinuous Histories
once a month. One reported that he had only seen his birthmother
once in the last 10 months, and only one reported having no contact. In contrast, five of the participants in nonkinship placements
reported having no contact with their birthmothers.
Conta …
Purchase answer to see full

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15