Advancing Equity In Kinship Care: A Systematic Review of Support Services, Stability, and Policy Implications

Background and Purpose: Formal kinship care has expanded across developed nations due to policy shifts and evidence of improved permanency, stability, and cost effectiveness. Yet kinship caregivers who are disproportionately women, low‑income families, and caregivers of color continue to face inequitable access to financial supports, services, and training. These inequities threaten placement stability, permanency, and reunification and raise broader democratic questions about whose caregiving labor is recognized and supported. This review examined how support services shape equity, stability, and family outcomes in formal kinship care. The guiding question was: How do support services relate to caregiver needs, perceived success, placement stability, permanency, and reunification? Social capital theory guided the review by highlighting how networks shape caregiver capacity, access to resources, and child outcomes.

Methods: A systematic search of APA PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus identified English language, peer‑reviewed studies published between 2015–2025 in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Eligible studies examined formal kinship care for children ages 0–18 and reported on caregiver needs, perceived success, or permanency stability. Studies on foster care, informal kinship care, adoption, and non‑empirical sources were excluded. Screening in Covidence yielded nine studies (quantitative n=3, qualitative n=2, mixed methods n=3, systematic review n=1). Data were synthesized thematically with attention to equity, access, and policy implications.

Results: Three emergent themes were identified. Financial inequities were substantial: kinship caregivers received significantly lower subsidies than foster caregivers, with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) child‑only grants (e.g., $351/month in California) far below foster care rates. These gaps were linked to placement instability, and policy analyses highlighted limited subsidy access for unlicensed or informal kin, underscoring how financial structures shape stability and permanency. Service utilization and access formed a second theme. Kinship caregivers accessed formal services less often due to limited availability, inconsistent outreach, caregiver mental health, and perceptions of provider responsiveness. Many relied on informal networks and reported difficulty securing financial, respite, and counseling supports, reflecting structural barriers that constrain families’ ability to engage fully in systems intended to promote stability and reunification. A third theme involved policy and practice conditions, with inconsistent reforms, workforce instability, inadequate training, and fragmented service delivery continuing to undermine support for kinship families across jurisdictions.

Conclusion and Implications: Inequitable financial supports, inconsistent service access, and fragmented policy structures shape the experiences and outcomes of kinship families. Through a social capital lens, the findings show how limited access to networks constrains caregiver capacity, weakens placement stability, and narrows pathways to permanency and reunification. These gaps most affect women, low‑income families, and caregivers of color; groups overrepresented in formal kinship care and most impacted by resource inequities. Strengthening support services is therefore both a practice and policy imperative and a matter of democratic fairness. The findings highlight opportunities for social work to advance equitable policy reform, enhance culturally responsive practice, and build the social capital necessary for kinship families to thrive.