Policy & Practice June 2018

legislative update By William Vesneski and Peter J. Pecora

Innovations in Using Guardianship to Preserve Families: A National Scan of Policy and Practice

C hildren in relative adoptions and foster care experience better outcomes than do children placed in non-kinship foster care. 1 These outcomes include greater place- ment stability, fewer school changes, higher levels of permanency, and better behavioral and mental health outcomes. While the existing research on relative guardianship has limita- tions, guardianship remans a crucial permanency option. In fact, many state and county child welfare agencies are building on federal law to help children achieve legal permanency through guardianship with relatives and fictive kin. To better understand state policies guiding guardianship, this article presents trends in state statutes and administrative codes for guardianship across all 50 states. Figure 1 provides an overview of the diversity of guard- ianship programs in the United States. In the summer of 2016, we analyzed legislation pertaining to guardianship assistance along with the federal Title IV-E Guardian Assistance Program (GAP). In addition, we conducted a survey of state experts in guardian- ship (or child welfare administrators in the states without a guardianship program), later that year. This study, developed in collaboration with the Chapin Hall Center for Children, was guided by a desire to clearly under- stand how states are, or are not, supporting guardianship placements in the law and in practice. We found that states fund their guardianship assistance programs with state or TANF dollars, and they fund federal GAP programs with Title IV-E funds. States may choose to draw down Title IV-E funds to subsidize

Figure 1: 35 States, D.C., and 8Tribes (as of Feb. 1, 2018)

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribe

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency

Tolowa Dee-Ni’ Nation of Smith River

DC

Navajo Nation

Eastern band of Cherokee Indians

Pascua Yaqui Tribe

GAP and no prior program

GAP and prior subsidized guardianship program No final approval for GAP

Source: www.grandfamilies.org

Oklahoma, and West Virginia) have program effective dates of 2013 or earlier but have not placed any children into subsidized guardian- ships. The remaining three states (Nevada, New Mexico, and North Carolina) have recent program effec- tive dates and are expected to begin showing GAP caseloads in FY 2017. 2 States choosing to draw down Title IV-E GAP money for guardianship subsidies must follow the parameters of federal law. However, many states using Title IV-E GAP funds to support guardianship either narrow or expand

state guardianship payments in which children and their adult guardians meet Title IV-E qualifications. They may also use additional state funds to subsidize guardianship cases in which the child or the adult guardian does not meet federal qualifications for the Title IV-E GAP program (see Figure 2). As of September 2017, 36 states and the District of Columbia, as well as eight Indian tribes, had approved GAP plans. However, challenges remain: six states with approved GAP plans reported no GAP caseload in FY 2016. Three of these states (Arkansas,

Policy&Practice June 2018 20