Reunification Outcomes Among Children In Relative and Non Relative Kinship Care In Florida, 2020-2024.

Background and Purpose: Kinship care is widely promoted within the child welfare system for its association with placement stability and continuity of care. However, children placed in kinship care, particularly with relatives, often experience longer stays in foster care and delayed exits to permanency, a pattern commonly described as the “kinship paradox.” Prior research has largely contrasted kinship care with non‑kin foster care, offering limited insight into variation within kinship placements.

To address this gap, this study examines reunification outcomes among children placed in relative versus non‑relative kinship care in Florida between 2020 and 2024. The study further evaluates whether reunification outcomes vary by developmental timing, race, and temporal context within the post-Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) period.

Methods: This study used child‑level administrative data from the Florida Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) from 2020-2024. The analytic sample included 59,680 children placed in relative or non‑relative kinship care who exited foster care between 2020-2024. Hierarchical logistic regression models were estimated to predict reunification outcomes. Models were built sequentially to include (1) child demographic characteristics (age at removal, sex, race), (2) case history indicators (prior removals) and kinship placement type, (3) federal fiscal year, and (4) interaction terms assessing moderation by race, age at removal, and time.

Results: Across models, relative kinship placement was associated with significantly lower odds of reunification compared to non‑relative kinship care (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.41, 0.45]), taking into account demographics and prior child welfare involvement. Children with prior removals also had lower odds of reunification (OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.66, 0.74]), as did children removed at older ages (OR = 0.90 per year increase, 95% CI [0.89, 0.91]). Reunification odds declined slightly across successive post‑FFPSA fiscal years (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.90, 0.93]). Moderation analyses indicated that the negative association between relative kinship placement and reunification decreased as age at removal increased (OR for interaction = 1.04, 95% CI [1.03, 1.05]) and narrowed over time (OR for interaction = 1.07, 95% CI [1.04, 1.11]). Interactions between kinship placement type and race were not statistically significant.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings indicate that reunification delays in relative kinship care are shaped by how permanency planning unfolds once children enter stable placements, particularly for younger children. The observed narrowing of the kinship reunification gap over time further suggests that system practices may be evolving. This highlights the importance of examining how policy environments shape case decision‑making within kinship care rather than treating kinship placement as a fixed risk factor.

Without sustained reunification management, stability within relative kinship placements may inadvertently function as a pathway to prolonged foster care rather than timely family reunification. Practice approaches that maintain active reunification planning and policy metrics that account for placement type and age at entry are therefore critical to ensuring that placement stability supports, rather than substitutes for, permanency.