This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h
Twenty years of foster care in Spain: Profiles, patterns and outcomes☆
Jorge F. del Valle a,⁎, Mónica López a, Carme Montserrat b, Amaia Bravo c
a
b
c
Child and Family Research Group, University of Oviedo, Spain
Department of Psychology, University of Girona, Spain
Child and Family Research Group, University of Oviedo, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 January 2009
Received in revised form 11 March 2009
Accepted 17 March 2009
Available online 25 March 2009
Keywords:
Foster care
Kinship care
Child welfare
Outcomes assessment
Disruptions
a b s t r a c t
This article presents data from the first nationwide study in this area, with the aim of analyzing its level of
establishment and in order to make comparisons with the situation in other countries. We analyzed a sample
of 649 cases, covering both kinship and non-kinship foster care. With the help of child welfare staff we
analyzed the cases and considered variables in relation to the profiles of the children, their birth families and
the foster caregivers, as well as some basic data on processes and outcomes. In general, the results indicate
substantial differences with respect to other countries, especially in view of the high levels of stability and
permanence of children in foster care. However, non-kinship care is scarcely established (15%, compared to
85% for kinship care), and the article analyzes some of the possible reasons for this. Kinship care differs from
non-kinship care in many aspects, including some as important as greater rates of family reunification and a
lower rate of placement disruptions. Due to the fact that non-kinship care frequently becomes a long-term
placement, and even in many cases ending with adoption by caregivers, they tend to take on no more than a
single experience of foster care.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. The context of child welfare in Spain
Recent years have seen a substantial increase in research on foster
care, with some general reviews (Sinclair, 2005) and others more
focused on kinship care in view of its increasing importance, such as
those carried out in the USA (Cuddeback, 2004; Geen & Berrick, 2002),
the UK (Farmer & Moyers, 2008; Sinclair, 2005) or the Netherlands
(Strijker, Zandberg, & Van der Meulen, 2003).
The type of foster care developed in each country, and especially
the relationship between kinship and non-kinship care, is the product
of highly complex historical and cultural factors that give rise to wide
differences. Unfortunately, the possibilities of making international
comparisons are limited by the lack of data in many countries. The aim
of this article is to contribute an appraisal of the practice of foster care
in Spain, where research in this field has been very scarce up to now,
as reflected in a recent review (Palacios & Amorós, 2006) that found
just four studies on foster care in our country.
This article presents a study, the first at a national level, that
includes both kinship and non-kinship care, with the aim of drawing
up a profile of the characteristics of fostered children, their birth
families and the foster caregivers, as well as providing essential data
about the process and some assessment of outcomes.
Until the 1980s the Spanish child welfare system was based on a
charity model in which large residential care institutions were the
only response when it was necessary to separate children from their
families (Del Valle, 2008; Del Valle & Casas, 2002). The Constitution of
1978 restored democracy in Spain and laid the basis for a welfare state
model founded on a system of social services characterized by
territorial decentralization and the community paradigm, the opposite approach to that represented by large institutions. As a result of
this decentralization Spain was divided administratively into 17
autonomous regions (Comunidades Autónomas), each with its own
government, its parliament and a range of administrative powers,
including personal social services.
As far as child welfare is concerned, 1987 saw the passing of the
reformed Civil Code, which gave the regions responsibility for child
protection, at the same time as establishing a community approach to
intervention with families, with the goal of prevention, and advocating a highly restricted use of residential care. Thirdly, it officially
created the concept of foster care, which had never been defined in
Spain's Civil Code, and established adoption processes (also previously
very difficult to apply) as a protective measure. Although foster care
was indeed present in Spanish society as an informal social practice,
this legislation facilitated and recommended its use as a preferential
protective measure for cases of out-of-home care.
Thus, with foster care just having celebrated its 20th anniversary in
Spain, it appears to be a good time to take stock of its situation. This
article attempts to fill a gap with regard to basic data on foster care in
☆ Note: this research was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Employment and Social
Affairs, through the grant CN-06-142 from the University of Oviedo.
⁎ Corresponding author. Facultad de Psicología, Plaza Feijoo s/n, 33003 Oviedo, Spain.
Tel.: +34 985 103246; fax: +34 985 104141.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.F. del Valle).
0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.03.007
Author's personal copy
848
J.F. del Valle et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
Fig. 1. Evolution of new residential care and foster care cases in the last 15 years. Graph
drawn up from Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs data (Ministerio de Trabajo y
Asuntos Sociales, 2005).
Spain, which national and international researchers have up to now
been unable to collate. There is only one national database (Ministerio
de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 2005), and which provides information
only on very general aspects, as we shall see below.
1.2. Foster care in Spain
The most specific data that can be obtained from national statistics
(Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, 1999, 2005) are those
provided in Fig. 1, which shows our own representation of the series of
annual data with the number of new cases (those coming into care) in
foster and residential care. It can be seen that at the outset there is a
great predominance of residential care, with almost four times more
admissions than cases of foster care. Subsequently, the trend was
toward growth of the new alternative of foster care and an initial
reduction in residential care up to 1999, when it began a tendency for
growth which is still maintained. The doubling of foster care cases in
15 years represents a very low rate of growth; furthermore, this data
covers both kinship care and non-kinship care, without the possibility
of its being broken down, so that we do not know which type of care
was responsible for this growth.
The study by Del Valle and Bravo (2003) was the first to provide
national data on the number of cases of the different out-of-home care
alternatives. In December 31st 2002 there were 14,211 cases of residential care (45.3%), 14,670 (46.8%) of kinship care and 2487 (7.9%) of nonkinship care. The proportions for foster care were 85.5% of kinship care
and just 14.5% for non-kinship care. That study also showed that kinship
caregivers lack the necessary support, as reflected in the remuneration
they receive, which was 150 € per month on average, compared to the
240 € received by non-kinship caregivers; indeed, some autonomous
regions do not pay foster parents at all if they are relatives of the child.
This lack of resources and the negative conditions in which kinship care
takes place have been reported in the scarce research carried out in
Spain (Del Valle, Alvarez-Baz, & Bravo, 2002; Montserrat, 2007).
The research presented in this article sets out to improve knowledge
of the practice of foster care in Spain, analyzing much more specific
aspects, including the characteristics of children and families, basic
information about the foster episode and outcomes, at least in terms of
outputs or final situation.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
Sampling of the regions was carried out so that it was as representative as possible of foster care practice in Spain. To this end, we chose
six of the 17 autonomous regions, including the four with the largest
populations and the highest rates of fostering (Madrid, Catalonia,
Valencia and Andalusia), to which we added two with lower fostering
rates, smaller populations and more rural characteristics (Galicia and
Castilla-León), to compensate for the urban bias resulting from the
presence of large cities in the other regions. These six regions can be
considered reasonably representative of the whole country, since they
account for 72% of all kinship care and 78% of all non-kinship care, and
there are no regional variables suggesting any substantial biases.
We finally obtained a sample of 649 cases (292 in kinship care and
357 in non-kinship care). The sample was stratified, so that the number
of cases in each region was proportional to the number of foster cases
they processed. Such a sample was expected to be sufficiently large for
describing the profiles of children and families and the processes
involved.
In order to assess the results we included the criterion that approximately half of the cases selected were closed in recent years (up to 5 years
previously). Thus, the total sample was 649 cases, 321 of which were
closed cases (179 in non-kinship care and 142 in kinship care).
2.2. Data-collection method and variables
A data-collection sheet was drawn up, divided into categories
referring to the following variables: birth families, children, foster
families, foster episode or process and, for the closed cases,
information relating to the duration of the fostering, the reasons for
its termination and the final situation.
This sheet was filled out by five specially-trained researchers who
went out to the respective regions to collect the data via interviews with
the professionals responsible for the case and the professionals in charge
of the foster care programmes. Cases were selected at random from lists
of open and closed cases (the latter having been closed within the
previous 5 years; equal numbers were chosen for each year). With the
help of the professionals it was possible to collect these data anonymously, without the need for the research team to access files. In this
way, personal data protection rights were respected, and consent could
be granted by regional authorities, according to the Spanish Personal
Data Protection Law. In addition, approval by the ethical board of our
university was given.
The data obtained, and presented in this article, are as follows:
(a) children: gender, age at fostering, age at opening the protective care
case, diagnosed disability, serious illness, national or ethnic origin;
(b) birth families: marital status, psychosocial problems in father and
mother; (c) foster caregivers: age, single/couple, relationship to child,
educational level, income, own children, previous fostering, multiple
fostering; (d) episode: previous situation, short or long-term, judicial
intervention, visits, place of visits, mother's and father's attitude prior to
Table 1
Children's characteristics in kinship and non-kinship care (n = 649).
Characteristics
Gender
Female
Age at placement
M
Distribution by stage⁎
0–3
4–8
9–12
+ 13
Age at opening of case
M⁎
Distribution by stage⁎
0–3
4–8
9–12
+ 13
Disability⁎
Serious illnesses
Origin
Other nationality
Gypsy
⁎p ≤ .05 (t / χ2).
Kinship care (n = 292)
Foster care (n = 357)
53.1%
49.9%
6.94 (SD = 5.18)
6.95 (SD = 4.56)
38.3%
26.6%
18.3%
16.9%
31.2%
35.4%
22.4%
11%
6.29 (SD = 5.04)
4.57 (SD = 3.97)
43.1%
24.5%
18.6%
13.8%
3.1%
5.5%
51.4%
33.1%
12%
3.4%
8.1%
9.2%
7.8%
5.5%
6.8%
5.9%
Author's personal copy
J.F. del Valle et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
the fostering; (e) outcomes (for closed cases): duration, reason for
closure, final situation.
Table 3
Characteristics of kinship and non-kinship caregivers (n = 623).
Characteristics
3. Results
3.1. Profile of fostered children
The sample has very similar numbers of boys and girls, with no
differences in this respect between kinship care and non-kinship care
(Table 1). Child's age was noted at two points: time of fostering and
opening of their protective care case. Mean age at fostering was around
7 years, for both kinship and non-kinship care. However, differences
emerge [χ2 (3, 643) = 11.60, p = .009] on comparing developmental
stages at the time of fostering, since in kinship care there were more
cases in the earliest stage (0–3 years) and the latest stage (13+ years),
whilst in non-kinship it was more common to find fostering that began
in the intermediate stages (especially ages 4–8). As regards mean age
at opening the protective care case, there are significant differences
[t (540) = 4.73, p = .000)]: in non-kinship care the mean was 4.5 years,
whilst in kinship care protective cases were opened, on average, nearly
2 years later. Indeed, it was observed that in kinship care 32.4% of cases
were opened from age 9 or later, whilst in non-kinship care this
occurred in just 15.4% of cases.
Significant differences were found [χ2 (1, 649) = 8.58, p = .035] in
the proportion of children with diagnosed disability, given that in
non-kinship care there were almost double the number of cases (8.1%,
compared to 3.1%). Although there was also a higher proportion of
serious illnesses, the difference was not significant.
As far as racial and national origin are concerned, there was little
variation (reflecting Spanish demographics), with few cases of
children of other nationalities (6–8% for each type). The only different
ethnic group with any significant representation was gypsies, with
around 6% in each type of care.
3.2. Profile of birth families
The study of birth families' characteristics was made on the basis of
number of families, rather than on number of children, since there are
some groups of siblings. Specifically, there were 344 families for nonkinship care and 280 families for kinship care (Table 2).
Marital status showed significant differences [χ2 (5, 523) = 17.24,
p = .004], though there is a high rate of broken families in general.
Divorce was more common in the kinship care sample (48.4%) than in
that of non-kinship care (38.8%), whilst single mothers were more
frequently found in non-kinship care (22.2% compared to 15.2%).
Table 2
Characteristics of birth families in kinship and non-kinship care (n = 624).
Characteristics
Marital status⁎
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Single mother
Father
Substance abuse⁎
Alcoholism
Prison⁎
Poverty
Mother
Substance abuse⁎
Alcoholism
Prison
Poverty
Mental disorder
Prostitution
⁎p ≤ .05 (t / χ2).
Kinship care (n = 280)
Foster care (n = 344)
19.2%
48.4%
16.8%
15.2%
28.2%
38.8%
10.7%
22%
33.2%
13.9%
20.7%
8.9%
18%
11.6%
14%
13.7%
40%
12.9%
13.9%
22.5%
17.9%
7.9%
25.6%
9.6%
14.1%
27.6%
20.1%
9.6%
849
Age⁎
Men⁎
Women⁎
Foster carer(s)⁎
Couple
Woman alone
Man alone
Kinship carers' relationship
Grandparents
Uncles/aunts
Siblings
Other
Educational level⁎
Higher
Intermediate
Primary
No formal education
Annual income⁎
24,001€ +
12,001–24,000€
6001–12,000€
− 6000€ or less
Foster caregivers with children
Have children older than foster child
Previous foster care⁎
Multiple foster care⁎
Kinship care (n = 281) Foster care (n = 343)
54.3 (SD = 14.1)
52.2 (SD = 13.5)
47.7 (SD = 8.4)
46.2 (SD = 8.6)
63.3%
35.6%
1.1%
82.9%
14.1%
3%
60%
32%
2%
6%
–
–
–
–
5.6%
10.4%
58.9%
25.1%
40.3%
32.2%
26%
0.6%
5.6%
26.2%
48.5%
19.7%
–
–
5.1%
33.9%
40.1%
39.4%
17.3%
3.3%
59%
77%
9%
22.5%
⁎p ≤ .05 (t / χ2).
The most prominent characteristic in the biological family profile was
substance abuse, for which there were significant differences, in that it was
always more common in kinship care, both for fathers [χ2 (1, 635)=21.75,
p=.000] and for mothers [χ2 (1, 635)=15.64, p=.000], with figures as
high as 40% for the latter. An additional 10% (or more) presented problems
of alcoholism, in this case with no differences between the two types of
foster care. A prison record is also more common for fathers in the case of
kinship care [χ2 (1, 635)=4.80, p=.028]. Other variables that are
relevant, but not showing significant differences, are for the cases of
mothers' mental health problems, time in prison and prostitution.
3.3. Profile of foster families
For the study of the foster families (Table 3) we worked with a
sample smaller than that of the children, since some of them were
fostered in the same family. The sample in this case was of 343 cases in
non-kinship care and 281 in kinship care.
In the case of kinship care the majority were grandparents and a third
were uncles/aunts, in addition to some siblings (2%, nearly all married)
and other relatives. The number of foster parents from the mother's side
was twice of those from the father's side, both for grandparents and
uncles/aunts. The presence of grandparents explains why the average
age of kinship carers is 6–7 years more [t (328) = 6.12, p = . 000] than
that of non-kinship caregivers. Although mean age was higher in kinship
carers, there is an appreciable group (5.7%) of foster parents aged under
30 in kinship care (elder siblings or young uncles/aunts), which in nonkinship care account for less than 1%.
Also significantly different is the type of caregiver, since while in
non-kinship care they were couples in 82.9% of cases, in kinship care
more than a third were women alone (almost always grandmothers)
[χ2 (2, 644) = 42.16, p = .000].
One of the greatest differences is found on comparing educational
level, insofar as 40.3% of non-kinship carers had been educated to
university level, while another 33% had a high school education; in
contrast, kinship carers had only primary education in 58.9% of cases,
and in 25.1% had no formal education at all (nearly all grandparent
caregivers) [χ2 (3, 566) = 203.41, p = .000]. In a similar line, over 40%
of non-kinship carers earned over 24,000 € per year, whilst this level
Author's personal copy
850
J.F. del Valle et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
of income was attained by only 5.6% of kinship carers [χ2 (3, 540) =
146.19, p = .000].
In the case of non-kinship carers a very important variable concerned
whether or not they had their own children (in the case of kinship carers
this data is not relevant, since their own offspring often include adults,
giving the concept a different meaning). More than half the families had
their own children (in 4% of cases adopted), a third of whom had three or
more. Age in relation to the fostered child was: older in 77% of cases and
younger in 11%; in the remaining 12% of cases the foster parent(s) had
both younger and older children.
Differences were found between the percentage of families fostering
more than one child at the same time, this being more common in
kinship care [χ2 (1, 634) = 10.18, p = .001]. Finally, there were very few
cases in which the caregivers had fostered previously, though in any case
this was more frequent in non-kinship care [χ2 (1, 653)= 6.32, p = .012].
3.4. The fostering process
The child's situation prior to the fostering differed considerably
between the two types of care (Table 4): in kinship care in over half of
cases the fostering took place after a period of informal care by the
eventual foster parents themselves — an uncommon situation in the
case of non-kinship care [χ2 (1, 649) = 102.22, p = .000]. On the other
hand, the commonest situation in non-kinship foster care was that the
child came from residential care; this only occurred in 23% of kinship
care cases [χ2 (1, 649) = 141.26, p = .000].
Prior situation of foster care with non-relatives also showed significant
differences [χ2 (1, 649)=7.25, p=.007], being more frequent in nonkinship care. Eighty percent of these previous fostering experiences ended
in placement disruption, but only a fifth of children had previously been
with two families, and only in one case had the child been fostered on
three previous occasions.
Finally, the kinship care cases had more commonly received interventions from community family support programmes than the non-kinship
care cases [χ2 (1, 649)=7.25, p=.007].
Contrary to expectations, the case plan with regard to time did not
show significant differences, since the percentages of long-term placeTable 4
Episode variables in kinship and non-kinship care (n = 649).
Variables
Previous situation
Residential care⁎
Informal foster care⁎
Foster care⁎
Family intervention⁎
Timescale
Long-term
Judicial intervention⁎
Family visits
Place of visits⁎
Caregivers' home
Neutral point
Birth family home
Public place
Prison
Other
Mother's attitude⁎
Absent
Cooperation
Opposition
Ambiguity
Father's attitude⁎
Absent
Cooperation
Opposition
Ambiguity
⁎p ≤ .05 (t / χ2).
Kinship care (n = 292)
Foster care (n = 357)
22.6%
(M = 1.82 years; SD = 2.03)
69.5%
(M = 2.25 years; SD = 1.8)
53.4%
8.2%
16%
15.1%
33.6%
51.7%
22.9%
18.2%
54.9%
46.5%
58.2%
38.8%
9.1%
24%
16.5%
2.5%
64.1%
6.8%
38.5%
18.2%
32.8%
3.1%
9.1%
30.3%
46.5%
5.5%
17.7%
39.5%
42.8%
7%
10.7%
12.5%
29.4%
34.6%
17.8%
18.2%
54.7%
18.4%
17.5%
9.4%
ments were very similar (51.7% in kinship care and 54.9% in non-kinship
care). Long-term is being defined as the planned placement of a child in
foster care for an extended period of time, when the goal of adoption has
not been possible.
An important indicator is the need for judicial intervention (which
arises when the parents do not accept the fostering decision by the
authorities, and it has to be decreed by the family court). Here the
differences are clear: in non-kinship there were more than double the
occasions, with respect to kinship care, in which judicial intervention
became necessary [χ2 (1, 641) = 38.21, p = .000].
As regards the percentage of cases with visits from the family of origin,
no significant differences were found, and over half the children received
them. On the other hand, there were large differences [χ2 (15, 191) =
38.31, p =.001] with regard to where the visit took place: in kinship care
the commonest location was the caregivers' home (38.8%), but this was
highly unusual in non-kinship care (6.8%). In this latter case the most
usual scenario (38.5%) was that it took place in a neutral and designated
location, normally to facilitate supervision by childcare staff. Where such
supervision was unnecessary, the visits took place in public places such as
parks, shopping malls or cafes.
The professionals dealing with the case were asked to assess the
attitude of the child's father and/or mother in relation to the way the
fostering was developing. An important result was that the figure of the
father was absent (because he was dead, his whereabouts was unknown
or he did not participate in the process) more commonly than that of the
mother; moreover, this happened more often in kinship care (54.7% of
fathers absent) than in non-kinship care (39.5%). The other highly
noteworthy difference is that there was greater opposition and less
cooperation from both parents in cases of non-kinship care than when
the fostering was done by relatives. In the case of fathers, cooperation
was double in cases of kinship care, and in that of mothers, opposition
was treble in cases of non-kinship care. The differences are significant
both for the case of the father [χ2 (3, 438) = 36.79, p = .000] and for that
of the mother [χ2 (3, 540) = 21.71, p = .000].
3.5. Assessment of closed cases
The results were analyzed for a sub-sample of closed cases (142 in
kinship care and 179 in non-kinship care) (Table 5). Duration of
fostering, as would be expected, is greater in kinship care, with a mean of
4.82 years; in non-kinship care it is 3.41 years [t (314) = 3.55, p = .000)].
This difference was basically due to the fact that placements lasting less
than 1 year accounted for 26% of non-kinship care cases, but just 15.7% of
kinship care cases; at the other extreme, cases lasting more than 7 years
were much more common in kinship care.
As regards the reasons for the placement coming to an end, three
main categories were identified: the child reaching adulthood (18 years),
premature disruption or interruption due to diverse problems, and a
decision by child welfare professionals (either because the objectives of
the placement had been achieved and the child could return home, or
because a more favourable alternative was available).
Reasons for the placement coming to an end showed significant
differences [χ2 (3, 313)= 14.77, p =.002]. In almost half the kinship care
cases (44.3%) the placement ended because the child became an adult,
whilst this occurred in only 24.3% of non-kinship care cases. Professional
decisions to make a change were the reason for terminating the placement in 46% of non-kinship care and 36.4% of kinship care cases. Finally, a
particularly relevant finding is that placement disruptions occurred in 1 in
4 cases of non-kinship care (25.4%), but less commonly in kinship care
(15.7%).
The second variable in relation to the outcome concerns the situation
after termination of the placement. Clearly, what happens after the end
of the fostering is intimately linked to the reason for its termination, and
we therefore consider this aspect in relation to each of the categories.
When the placement finished because of a professional decision, there
are significant differences [χ2 (5, 313) = 40.30, p = .000]. In kinship care,
Author's personal copy
J.F. del Valle et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
Table 5
Analysis of closed cases in kinship and non-kinship care (n = 321).
Variables
Duration
M (years)⁎
Distribution
− 1 year
1.1–3 years
3.1–5 years
5.1–7 years
+ 7 years
Reasons for termination⁎
Technical decision
Reached adulthood
Disruption
Other
Final situation after technical decision⁎
Return to family
Adoption by fosterers
Adoption by others
New placement
Residential care
Other
Final situation after
reaching adulthood⁎
Return to family
Adoption by fosterers
Remaining with fosterers
Independence
Final situation after disruption
Return to family
New placement
Residential care
Other
Disruption cases
Age when fostered (M)
Age at breakdown (M)
Kinship care (n = 142) Foster care (n = 179)
4.82 (SD = 4.18)
3.41 (SD = 2.86)
15.7%
27.1%
16.4%
19.3%
21.5%
26%
28.3%
19.1%
14.5%
12.1%
36.4%
44.3%
15.7%
3.6%
(n = 51)
64.7%
3.9%
0
21.6%
9.8%
0
(n = 48)
46.8%
24.3%
25.4%
3.5%
(n = 81)
27.2%
42%
9.9%
6.2%
11.1%
3.7%
(n = 37)
2.6%
0
92.7%
4.7%
(n = 21)
14.3%
9.5%
61.9%
14.3%
8.1%
13.5%
64.9%
13.5%
(n = 42)
9.5%
9.5%
71.4%
8.8%
8.65 (SD = 5.22)
11.79 (SD = 4.97)
9.35 (SD = 4.41)
12.26 (SD = 4.73)
⁎p ≤ .05 (t / χ2).
in almost two-thirds of cases (64.7%) this final decision involved family
reunification, and in another 21.6%, a change of foster parents (in the
majority of cases with other members of the extended family). In
contrast, in non-kinship care 51.9% of cases involved a change to
adoption, in most cases adoption by the foster parents themselves (42%),
and in 9.9% adoption by another family. Adoptions by relatives in kinship
care were scarce, given that the majority were grandparents, who could
not adopt in Spanish law, so that the adoptive parents in these cases are
uncles/aunts. A relevant finding is that there were fewer family
reunifications in non-kinship care (27.7%).
When the reason for termination was the child reaching adulthood
there were also significant differences [χ2 (3, 85) = 12.96, p = .011]. In
both types of care the majority of the young people remained living
with their foster parents, though in the case of kinship care it was
almost all of them (92.7%), while in non-kinship care it was 64.9%.
However, to this latter percentage we can add another 13.5% who were
adopted after age 18 by their non-kinship caregivers (which translates
into an actual figure of 78.4% remaining in the foster home).
Finally, in the case of termination involving placement disruption, no
significant differences were appreciated. The most common situations
in both non-kinship and kinship care is that they returned to residential
care (71.4% and 61.9%, respectively), returned to their family (9.5 and
14.3%, respectively), or were given new foster parents (9.5% in either
case). As expected, mean age of the children when disruption occurred
was very close to adolescence, around age 12 for either type of care,
though we are talking here about cases where the child had been
fostered, on average, around age nine.
4. Discussion
With regard to the child welfare context in Spain it should be stressed
that despite the intentions of legal reforms in the 1980s and 90s to
851
promote a preference for interventions designed to preserve the family
and to encourage foster care in preference to residential care, only
kinship care has shown notable growth. The predominance of residential
care and kinship care in Spain distinguishes the Spanish child protection
system from those of other EU countries, and especially from that of the
USA, where kinship care has become established at around 24% of all
foster care after rapid growth in the early 1990s (Administration for
Children and Families, 2008; Koh & Testa, 2008), or that of the UK, where
it accounts for 18% (Bullock, Courtney, Parker, Sinclair, & Thoburn, 2006).
The ages at which children are fostered differ considerably
depending on the study in question; while Berrick (1998) found no
differences between non-kinship and extended family care, Scannapieco, Hegar and McAlpine (1997) found significantly lower ages in nonkinship care cases, and Grogan-Kaylor (2000) found that children in
kinship care were fostered younger than those in non-kinship care, as is
found in data from Italy (Centro Nazionale di Documentazione e Analisi
per l'Infanzia e l'Adolescenza, 2002). In our own study, while it is true
that there are more children under three in kinship care, it is also the
case that there are more adolescents, and the mean evens out. In the
review by Berridge (1987), and in Triseliotis, Borland and Hill (2000),
age at which the child is fostered is around 4 years, whilst in our study it
is as high as 7, probably due to the delay between the opening of the case
and the actual placement in non-kinship care. Indeed, the relationship
between age at placement and age at opening of the case leads to the
conclusion that there is a gap, in cases of non-kinship care, of an average
of 2 years between the case being opened (mean of 4.57 years) and the
placement itself (mean of 6.29 years) — a gap in which, as we have seen,
the majority of the children have to remain in residential care. In
contrast, in the case of children in kinship care, age at opening of the case
and at placement coincide, so that they do not have to wait elsewhere,
and indeed are usually already fostered informally. In this sense, kinship
care represents an immediate, “natural” response which in many cases is
formalized a posteriori, the case being opened within the official child
welfare system due to the need for the authorities to assume custody of
the child in the face of opposition from the parents (necessary in 68.6%
of cases), or in order for the foster parents to receive benefits. This
natural and previous informal response may provide part of the
explanations for the lower rate of disruption in kinship care. Also, as
in other studies, we found more problems of disability for children in
non-kinship care (Farmer & Moyers, 2008).
As regards the profile of birth families there is a high incidence of
family breakdown and high rates of substance abuse, and our data
coincide with those of other studies in that these patterns are found to a
more serious degree in kinship care (Beeman, Kim, & Bullerdick, 2000;
Benedict, Zuravin, & Stallings, 1996; Farmer & Moyers, 2008). We also
concur with O'Donnell (1999), who found that fathers were more often
absent from the process, and with serious personal problems.
As far as the foster caregivers are concerned, our findings are in line
with those of previous research, which concludes that kinship caregivers
tend to be older, poorer and with lower educational level than nonkinship caregivers (Berrick, 1998; Berrick, Barth, & Needell, 1994;
Courtney & Needell,1997; Dubowitz, Feigelman, & Zuravin,1993; Ehrle &
Geen, 2002; Farmer & Moyers, 2008; Gebel, 1996; Le Prohn, 1994). As
regards family structure, again as in other studies, we find more women
alone in kinship care, normally grandmothers, and also more frequently
from the maternal than the paternal family (Thornton, 1991). Ages of
foster parents also coincide almost exactly with those of other studies,
for example in England (Pitcher, 2002), where average age of grandparents was 54, and in Italy (Centro Nazionale di Documentazione e
Analisi per l'Infanzia e l'Adolescenza, 2002), where the figures were very
similar.
As for the fostering episode, our data also support those from
elsewhere, in relation to a smaller number of changes of placement in
kinship care, since the majority were already in informal kinship care
previously, whilst in non-kinship care the majority come from
residential care, with an appreciable group from a previous, disrupted
Author's personal copy
852
J.F. del Valle et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
fostering experience. This greater stability in kinship care has been
found by numerous authors (Beeman et al., 2000; Courtney & Needell,
1997; Courtney, Piliavin, & Wright, 1997; Testa & Rolock, 1999).
Nevertheless, the data permit us to conclude as one of the most striking
characteristics of our study that the stability of foster care in general in
the Spanish context is greater than in other countries, since in our
sample just 15% of cases in non-kinship care had been fostered
previously (with relatives the figure is even lower), and very few had
had two or more placements. These data differ greatly from those
emerging from other countries, where changes give grounds for
considerable concern (Bullock et al., 2006; Sinclair, Baker, Lee, &
Gibbs, 2007; Ward, Skuse, & Munro, 2005).
As regards the percentage of cases in which there are visits from
the birth family, our data do not reflect differences between the two
types of foster care, in contrast to the findings from previous research
(Berrick et al., 1994; Farmer & Moyers, 2008; Iglehart, 1994; Le Prohn,
1994; Pecora, Le Prohn, & Nasuti, 1999). On the other hand, we find
substantial differences in relation to the place where such visits occur,
since in kinship care it is very commonly the caregivers' home, whilst
in the case of non-kinship care the usual practice is for the visits to
take place at a designated neutral location (when there is a need for
supervision) or in a public place. We also found greater cooperation
from parents with the fostering process in the case of kinship care,
reflected both in assessments by child care staff and in a lesser need
for judicial intervention, in contrast to the findings of Farmer and
Moyers (2008).
The outcomes assessed through closed cases coincide with those
studied in previous work, insofar as there is a longer duration of kinship
care (Davis, Landsverk, Newton, & Ganger, 1996; Scannapieco et al.,
1997), with figures practically identical to those found in the UK by
Farmer and Moyers (2008). There are two particularly positive indicators
for kinship care: the disruption rate is lower and that of family
reunification is more than double the figure for non-kinship care. As
regards reunification, these data are at odds with those of studies from
other countries (Courtney & Needell, 1997; Koh & Testa, 2008; Testa,
1997), where the reunification rate is lower than in non-kinship care. The
consequence of disruption is basically a return to residential care, in both
types of fostering. This represents a substantial difference from the case
of other countries, where disruption of a foster placement very often
leads to a new one being attempted.
It should be underlined that permanence is very high in kinship care,
since the majority continue until reaching adulthood, and indeed more
than 90% continue living with these relatives. However, permanence
after reaching adulthood is also very high in non-kinship care, in stark
contrast to the findings elsewhere (Sinclair, Baker, Wilson, & Gibbs,
2005). Once again, permanence and stability emerge as prominent
characteristics in foster care in Spain.
It is important to point out that in non-kinship care there are substantial numbers of adoptions — much scarcer in kinship care given that
the grandparents cannot adopt. However, it should be borne in mind
that the criteria of the different autonomous regions in relation to
adoption in non-kinship cases are highly divergent. Of the six regions
studied in our sample, one of them does not permit it, another positively
encourages it (and is responsible for many of the cases we found) and
the rest apply it in exceptional cases.
5. Conclusions
After 20 years of development, foster care presents some highly
characteristic features in the Spanish context. The enormous predominance of kinship care, with many positively appraised aspects as regards
permanence and stability, is one of these. On the other hand, the scarce
establishment of non-kinship care implies that children without relatives
prepared to foster them will have little possibility of enjoying the benefits
of fostering, and will have to remain in residential care, whose network
continues to be extensive, and indeed to grow. Some of the results of this
study can help to explain the scarce establishment of non-kinship care.
Probably, the great stability and permanence of foster care in Spain,
including non-kinship care, which is being used as a long-term care
response, and where children end up being adopted or are likely to
remain living in the foster home after adulthood, means that the
potential caregivers are not available for further fostering, their
involvement being limited to a single case. There is no culture of
fostering as a prolonged dedication to the concept whereby carers would
take on successive foster commitments, and this means that the families
available are very scarce. Developing such a fostering culture in which
caregivers devote part of their lives to fostering a succession of children,
as well as increasing cases of family reunification, are the great
challenges for foster care in Spain, challenges that should be met while
striving to preserve the features of permanence and stability identified in
the present study.
References
Administration for Children and Families (2008). Preliminary FY 2006 estimates as of
January. (14). Retrieved 8th August 2008 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm.
Beeman, S. K., Kim, H., & Bullerdick, S. K. (2000). Factors affecting placement of children
in kinship and nonkinship foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(1),
37−54.
Benedict, M., Zuravin, S., & Stallings, R. (1996). Adult functioning of children who lived
in kin versus non-kin family foster homes. Child Welfare, 75(5), 529−549.
Berrick, J. D. (1998). When children cannot remain home: Foster family care and kinship
care. The Future of Children, 8(1), 72−87.
Berrick, J. D., Barth, R. P., & Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and
foster family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation.
Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1–2), 33−63.
Berridge, D. (Ed.). (1987). Foster care: A research review London: The Stationery Office.
Bullock, R., Courtney, M. E., Parker, R., Sinclair, I., & Thoburn, J. (2006). Can the corporate
state parent? Children and Youth Services Review, 28(11), 1344−1358.
Centro Nazionale di Documentazione e Analisi per l'Infanzia e l'Adolescenza (2002). I
bambini e gli adolescenti in affidamento familiare. Rassegna tematica e riscontri
empirici. Firenza: Istituto degli Innocenti.
Courtney, M. E., & Needell, B. (1997). In J. D. Berrick, R. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Outcomes of
kinship care: Lessons from CaliforniaChild welfare research review, Vol. 2. (pp. 130−149)
New York: Columbia University Press.
Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., & Wright, B. R. E. (1997). Transitions from and returns to outof-home care. Social Service Review, 71(4), 652−667.
Cuddeback, G. S. (2004). Kinship family foster care: A methodological and substantive
synthesis of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(7), 623−639.
Davis, I. P., Landsverk, J., Newton, R., & Ganger, W. (1996). Parental visiting and foster
care reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4), 363−382.
Del Valle, J. F. (2008). Spain. In M. Stein, H. Ward, & E. Munroe (Eds.), Young people's
transitions from care to adulthood. International research and practice (pp. 173−184).
London: Jessica Kingsley Publisher.
Del Valle, J. F., Alvarez-Baz, E., & Bravo, A. (2002). Acogimiento en familia extensa. Pefil
descriptivo y evaluación de necesidades en una muestra del Principado de Asturias.
Bienestar y Protección Infantil, 1(1), 34−56.
Del Valle, J. F., & Bravo, A. (2003). La situación del acogimiento familiar en España.
Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.
Del Valle, J. F., & Casas, F. (2002). Child residential care in the Spanish social protection
system. International Journal of Child & Family Welfare, 5(3), 112−128.
Dubowitz, H., Feigelman, S., & Zuravin, S. (1993). A profile of kinship care. Child Welfare,
72(2), 153−169.
Ehrle, J., & Geen, R. (2002). Kin and non-kin foster care: Findings from a national survey.
Children and Youth Services Review, 24(1), 15−35.
Farmer, E., & Moyers, S. (2008). Kinship care. Fostering effective family and friends
placements. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Gebel, T. J. (1996). Kinship care and nonrelative family foster care: A comparison of
caregiver attributes and attitudes. Child Welfare, 75(1), 5−18.
Geen, R., & Berrick, J. D. (2002). Kinship care: An evolving service delivery option.
Children and Youth Services Review, 24(1–2), 1−14.
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2000). Who goes into kinship care? The relationship of child and
family characteristics to placement into kinship foster care. Social Work Research,
24(3), 132−141.
Iglehart, A. P. (1994). Kinship foster care: Placement, services, and outcome issues.
Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1–2), 107−122.
Koh, E., & Testa, M. F. (2008). Propensity score matching of children in kinship and
nonkinship foster care: Do permanency outcomes still differ? Social Work Research,
32(2), 105−116.
Le Prohn, N. (1994). The role of the kinship foster parent: A comparison of the role
conceptions of relative and non-relative foster parents. Children and Youth Services
Review, 16(1–2), 65−84.
Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (1999). Estadistica básica de protección a la
infancia. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.
Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (2005). Estadistica básica de protección a la
infancia. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.
Author's personal copy
J.F. del Valle et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 847–853
Montserrat, C. (2007). Kinship foster care: A study from the perspective of the caregivers,
the children and the child welfare workers. Psychology in Spain, 11(1), 42−52.
O'Donnell, J. M. (1999). Involvement of African American fathers in kinship care
services. Social Work, 44(5), 428−441.
Palacios, J., & Amorós, P. (2006). Recent changes in adoption and fostering in Spain.
British Journal of Social Work, 36(6), 921−935.
Pecora, P. J., Le Prohn, N. S., & Nasuti, J. J. (1999). Role perceptions of kinship and other foster
parents in family foster care. In R. L. Hegar, & M. Scannapieco (Eds.), Kinship foster care:
Policy, practice and research (pp. 155−178). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pitcher, D. (2002). Placement with grandparents. The issues for grandparents who care
for their grandchildren. Adoption and Fostering, 26(1), 6−14.
Scannapieco, M., Hegar, R. L., & McAlpine, C. (1997). Kinship care and foster care: A
comparison of characteristics and outcomes. Families in Society, 78, 480−488.
Sinclair, I. (2005). Fostering now. Messages from research. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Lee, J., & Gibbs, I. (2007). The pursuit of permanency. A study of the
English child care system. London: Jessica Kingsley.
853
Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Wilson, K., & Gibbs, I. (2005). Foster children. Where they go and how
they get on. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Strijker, J., Zandberg, T., & Van der Meulen, B. F. (2003). Kinship foster care and foster
care in the Netherlands. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(11), 843−862.
Testa, M. F. (1997). In J. D. Berrick, R. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Kinship foster care in
IllinoisChild welfare research review. (pp. 101−129) New York: Columbia University
Press Vol. 2.
Testa, M. F., & Rolock, N. (1999). Professional foster care: A future worth pursuing? Child
Welfare, 78(1), 108−124.
Thornton, J. L. (1991). Permanency planning for children in kinship foster homes. Child
Welfare, 70(5), 593−601.
Triseliotis, J., Borland, M., & Hill, M. (Eds.). (2000). Delivering foster care London: BAAF.
Ward, H., Skuse, T., & Munro, E. R. (2005). “The best of times, the worst of times”. Young
people views of care and accommodation. Adoption and Fostering, 29(1), 8−17.