ChildrenNew Perspectives on Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children

GrandVoicesforAmerica’s

™

CHAIRJohn RotherDirector, Policyand StrategyAARP

VICE-CHAIRLawrence McAndrewsPresident & CEONational Association ofChildren’s Hospitals &Related Institutions

TREASURERJames FirmanPresidentNational Council onthe Aging

SECRETARYMary Lee AllenDirector, Child Welfare andMental Health DivisionChildren’s Defense Fund

BOARD MEMBERS:Shay BilchikPresident and CEOChild Welfare Leagueof America

Robert DuggerManaging DirectorTudor InvestmentCorporation

Marc FreedmanPresidentCivic Ventures

Robert GoodwinPresident and CEOPoints of Light Foundationand Volunteer CenterNational Network

Charles W. GouldPresident and CEOVolunteers of America

Irv KatzPresident National HumanServices Assembly

Michael S. MarcusPrincipalConsultants forCommunity Resources

Virginia L. MasonExecutive DirectorFamily Support America

William L. Minnix, Jr.President and CEOAmerican Association ofHomes and Servicesfor the Aging

Larry NaakeExecutive DirectorNational Associationof Counties

Susan SullivanDirector, Strategic Planningand PartnershipsThe Verizon Foundation

Paul N. D. ThornellVice President, PublicPolicy and PartnersUnited Way of America

Mary Ann Van CliefVice PresidentThe BrookdaleFoundation Group

Judy VredenburghDirector and CEOBig Brothers/Big Sistersof America

SPECIALADVISORS:Robert BlancatoPartnerMatz, Blancato,& Associates

Catherine Milton

STAFF:Donna M. ButtsExecutive Director

Ana BeltranSpecial AdvisorNational Center onGrandparents and OtherRelatives Raising Children

Brent ElrodManager, Program andPublic Policy

Doug LentMembership andCommunicationsCoordinator

Jaia PetersonPublic Policy andOutreach Director

Sheri SteinigSpecial Projects Director

John MartinOffice and Grants Manager

Roxana MartinezProgram Resource Assistant

Pamela PresselyPublic Policy Coordinatorand Newsletter Editor

Sachiko TairaOffice Assistant

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Cover photo by Beverly PersellBack cover photo by Carolyn Langley

Grand Voicesfor America’sChildrenNew Perspectives on Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children

™

September 2005

Generations United1333 H Street, N.W., Suite 500W

Washington, D.C. 20005Phone: (202) 289-3979

Fax: (202) 289-3952Email: gu@gu.org

www.gu.org

© 2005 Generations United

ContentsAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Summary of Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Preliminary Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Getting the Message Out: Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . 16

iiiGenerations United

Generations United v

Acknowledgements

This publication highlights the findings fromresearch sponsored by Generations United incooperation with other national organizations

dedicated to meeting the needs of grandparents andother relatives raising children. This was a collabora-tive effort and would not have been made possible with-out the commitment and support of many individualsand organizations. A special thank you to Ana Beltranand Mary Bissell for writing this publication and JaiaPeterson Lent who is leading this work for GenerationsUnited. The research was conducted by Margaret Markof Margaret Mark Strategic Insight, Inc. and MarvinWaldman of The Shadow Group, LLC. Funding for theresearch and development of this publication wassponsored by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts.Funding for the publication of this guide was providedby The Brookdale Foundation Group.

About GUGenerations United (GU) is a national membershiporganization focused solely on improving the lives ofchildren, youth, and older people through intergenera-tional strategies, programs, and public policies. GUrepresents more than 100 national, state, and localorganizations and individuals working on behalf of

more than 70 million Americans. Since 1986, GU hasserved as a resource for educating policymakers andthe public about the economic, social, and personalimperatives of intergenerational cooperation. GU actsas a catalyst for stimulating collaboration betweenaging, children, and youth organizations, providing aforum to explore areas of common ground whilecelebrating the richness of each generation.

Since 1997, one of GU’s main initiatives has been itswork to support relative caregivers and the childrenthey raise. GU’s National Center on Grandparents andOther Relatives Raising Children seeks to improve thequality of life of these caregivers and the children theyare raising by addressing the unique needs of eachgeneration. It provides a wide variety of resources,technical assistance, and training to service providersand professionals across the country, and educatespolicymakers on the importance of adoptingintergenerational public policies and programs.

About the ProjectIn December 2004, The Pew Charitable Trusts (theTrusts) awarded GU a generous grant as part of itsnational foster care policy initiative to help movechildren in foster care more quickly and appropriatelyto safe, permanent families and to prevent the unneces-sary placement of children in foster care. In May 2004,the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Carerecommended changes to address the reasons whychildren languish in foster care: (1) federal financingincentives favor foster care over other services andoptions, and (2) state and local courts frequently lackthe tools and information needed to oversee foster care

vi Generations United

cases. As part of the initiative’s third phase, multifundedadvocacy, the Trusts is collaborating with GU andother organizations to raise awareness of the commis-sion’s recommendations and to encourage support forthem. The Trusts is supporting GU to raise awarenessabout the need for federal guardianship assistance tosupport older Americans raising children in foster careand for improved court oversight of foster care.

The Pew Charitable Trusts serves the public interestby providing information, policy solutions, and supportfor civic life. Based in Philadelphia with an office inWashington, D.C., the Trusts will invest $177 millionin fiscal year 2005 to provide organizations and citizenswith fact-based research and practical solutions forchallenging issues.

More information about The Pew Charitable Trusts isavailable at www.pewtrusts.org.

The opinions expressed in this report are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofThe Pew Charitable Trusts or the Brookdale Founda-tion Group.

viiGenerations United

by Harriet Rosenberg

Introduction

“We might be hungry but we still have the familytogether – and family is everything”

Relative Caregiver FocusGroup Member

Across the country, there are more than sixmillion children living in households headedby grandparents and other non-parent rela-

tives. Both inside and outside of the child welfaresystem, these relative caregivers provide a vital safetynet – preventing children from going into foster care,caring for abused and neglected children who havebeen removed from their homes, and stepping for-ward as legal guardians to children who would other-wise remain in foster care. Despite their commitmentto the children they are raising, however, relativecaregivers often struggle to access even the mostbasic family supports — from enrolling children inschool to authorizing medical care.

To improve the lives of these families, we must beginto explore new strategies to bring to life the impactof their experiences on the general public. In short,we must find more compelling ways to encourage

1Generations United

grandparents and other relative caregivers to telltheir stories. Focusing public attention on potentialsolutions as well as existing problems is a tall order,however, especially in the face of the inconsistentand sometimes contradictory media accounts ofthese families. From heroic images of relativecaregivers as “silent saviors,” the glue that keepsfamilies together, to corrosive stereotypes ofintergenerational dysfunction, media messages play apowerful role in shaping public perceptions of andsupport for these families.

In the real world, of course, no single image — nomatter how compelling — tells the whole story. Theneeds and circumstances of these families are ascomplicated and diverse as the families themselves.At the same time, however, sharpening our collectiveability to shape a consistent national message that

elicits positive media coverage andbuilds widespread support for thesefamilies is the cornerstone of anysuccessful advocacy effort. And in asaturated media market that alreadyasks the public to care about dozens ofdifferent social issues in the course ofa single day, speaking on behalf ofgrandparents and other relativecaregivers raising children with astrong and unified voice has neverbeen more important.

With the generous support of The PewCharitable Trusts and the cooperation of other partnersinvolved in national and local efforts to support

2 Generations United

by Beverly Persell

grandparents and other relatives raising children infoster care, Generations United (GU) has enlistedStrategic Insight, a team of creative talent andqualitative research experts, to help develop an effect-ive message that will build public support for grand-parents and other relatives raising children. This guidesummarizes the preliminary results of this ground-breaking research. As such, the recommendationsoffered are neither intended to dictate all public dis-course around this issue nor to preclude more nuancedmessages for more specific audiences, such as policymakers or agency administrators. Instead, the researchfindings are designed to provide a dynamic first step indiscussing, developing, and implementing a compre-hensive national communications strategy on behalf ofgrandparents and other relatives raising children with aspecial emphasis on children in foster care.

3Generations United

by Hazel Soloman

Research ProcessHow did GU begin putting together an effective mes-sage strategy for grandparents and other relativesraising children?GU began the research process by working withStrategic Insight, a communications consulting firm,to conduct in-depth discussions with more than adozen experts on policies and programs that addressthe needs of grandparents and other relatives raisingchildren. These experts included representativesfrom the Children’s Defense Fund, AARP, CWLA,Casey Family Programs, Urban Institute, The BrookdaleFoundation Group, and a variety of other nationalorganizations. Following these initial brainstormingsessions, professionals from Strategic Insightdeveloped an appropriate messaging framework.Using 360 Probes©, a proprietary research procedure,the messaging professionals from Strategic Insightcreated and tested different kinds of language andlabels – sometimes referred to as “probes” — todescribe grandparents and other relatives raisingchildren and to present alternative rationales forpublic support of these families. These probes werethen tested with several focus groups — guided inter-views with groups of individuals specially selected toshare their opinions on these and related issues.

4 Generations United

How were the focus group participants chosen? Strategic Insight conducted a total of five focusgroups – two in New Orleans and three in New YorkCity. The locations for the focus groups were chosen instates that are already engaged in ongoing coalition-building efforts on behalf of grandparents and otherrelatives raising children led by GU through its grantfrom The Pew Charitable Trusts. In New Orleans, onefocus group consisted only of relatives raising children.The other group was made up of female members of thegeneral public over age 50 — the population mostlikely to vote and therefore influence policy makers. InNew York City, three groups were conducted: oneamong relatives raising children; one among femalemembers of the general public over age 50; and oneamong male members of the general public over age 50.

How were the focus groups conducted?The focus group leader began by asking the partici-pants in the general public focus groups to discussthe main issues on their minds without specificallybringing up the subject of grandparents and otherrelatives raising children. The participants in therelative caregiver focus groups were asked abouttheir own experiences in raising the children undertheir care. Both types of focus groups were then askedto write down privately their reactions to thefollowing “basic premise:” an increasing number ofgrandparents and other relatives are raising childrenbecause their parents are unable or unwilling to do so forone reason or another. Their written reactions werefollowed by a group discussion of the basic premise.Next, the participants were asked to respond to a

5Generations United

“I could

really care

less how

much money

we save. It’s

the welfare of

the child that

matters.”

General Public

Focus Group

Member

series of “motivational probes” – themes or statementsdesigned to elicit the strongest responses for andagainst these families. These probes were designed toexplore participants’ different perceptions of this issue,such as the relative caregiver’s role in keeping thefamily together or the larger impact of relative care-giving on society. Participants were then asked toreact to a range of different labels for caregivers andtheir families and for “subsidized guardianship,” anongoing financial subsidy some states provide tochildren who exit the child welfare system into thecare of permanent guardians, usually relatives. Aftertesting the group’s response to these potential labels,participants were asked – first as individuals andthen as a group – to respond to common counter-arguments against grandparent and other relative-headed families .

6 Generations United

by Rowena Scott-Johnson

Summary ofResearch FindingsWas the issue of grandparents and other relativesraising children a primary concern for participants inthe general public focus groups? No. Although most participants in the general publicfocus groups were aware of and concerned about arange of serious issues (e.g., disintegrating culture, theeconomy, health care, Social Security, and taxes), noone in these focus groups brought up the specific issueof children being raised by grandparents and otherrelatives until prompted. Many participants worriedabout the "future of children today," but did notconsider relative-headed families a "top-of-the-mind"issue.

How did focus group participants from the generalpublic react to the following basic premise?

An increasing number of grandparents andother relatives are raising children becausetheir parents are unable or unwilling to doso for one reason or another.

The attention of the participants in all of the focusgroups was drawn, first and foremost, to the plight ofthe child. Many participants in the focus groups

7Generations United

readily acknowledged the problems facinggrandparents and other relatives raising children andwere aware that, in most situations, relative caregiversare rescuing children from unfortunate circumstances.Interestingly, individual reactions to the basic premise,while mixed, were not grounded in the belief that the“apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” In fact,grandparents and other relative caregivers were largelyexempt from any criticism from the groups.

Where there was resistance to the basic premise, itwas primarily based on negative assumptions aboutthe children’s parents rather than on the notion of amulti-generational cycle of failure. In particular, manyparticipants reacted negatively to the idea that parentsare “unwilling” to care for the children — blaming“selfish” or “money-obsessed” parents for the fact thatrelatives have to step forward. A few participants inthe general public group also expressed doubt thatthe number of grandparents and other relativesraising children was really on the rise. “I don’t feellike there’s more now than there was before,”commented one participant, “but I do feel likegrandparents are playing a big role in children’s lives.”

In the final analysis, participants were most influ-enced by the innocence of the children and the moralstrength and sacrifice of their caregivers.

What did the focus groups composed of grandparentsand other relative caregivers think about the challengesfacing their families?For the most part, the grandparents, aunts, and unclesparticipating in the two relative caregiver focus groupsemphasized their strong sense of duty, family

8 Generations United

“I have

empathy. It’s

so important

to give a

child a

foundation to

grow on and

a stable

environment.”

General Public

Focus Group

Member

responsibility, and the need to step forward to care for achild when other family members are not available.Although most participants in these groups admitted tofacing a range of challenges in their caregiving roles,they also stressed that, in the end, their efforts wereworth it to keep their families together and thechildren out of the foster care system. Many partici-pants also expressed an interest in joining a supportgroup in their local communities that would give themthe opportunity to talk through shared issues withother relative caregivers in similar situations.

What was the most compelling theme or “probe”tested among the five focus groups?Again, the participants in all the groups focusedchiefly on the needs and circumstances of thechildren. In particular, there was a collective beliefthat no matter why parents can no longer take care oftheir children - death, divorce, neglect, abuse orpoverty - it is never, ever the "fault" of the child.Noted one participant: “often the things of theparents are thrown up in the kids’ faces – it’s nottheir fault.” Said another: “A child’s life is at stake.”

Were there other themes or “probes” that testedpositively among the focus groups?Most participants came together around the import-ance of keeping the family together for the sake of thechild. Those who supported the relative caregivers, forexample, were most focused on financial support as itrelated to the child’s needs. Some themes resonatedmore strongly than others based on the individualcomposition of the focus groups:

9Generations United

“It was easier

for them to

adjust with

me because

I’m their

grandmother.”

Relative

Caregiver

Focus Group

Member

◆ General public focus groups: Keeping siblings andfamilies together when something happens to theparents should be a major priority.

◆ Relative caregiver focus groups: It’s usually lesstraumatic for a child who has lost his or her parents tobe raised by responsible relatives than to be throwninto the foster care system.

◆ All focus groups: Foster care should be a last resort.All attempts should first be made to place children inhomes of caring relatives.

What themes or “probes” did not test well among thefocus groups?

◆ A relative who steps in to raise a child is giving thatchild a second chance. Many participants foundthis statement too sweeping. Said one, forexample, “not all relatives are necessarily givingthe child a second chance; they can be abusive.”

◆ The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. This probe wasgenerally perceived as too cold and unemotionalfor many participants.

◆ There is truth in the statement “blood is thicker thanwater.” This theme was rejected by some focus groupparticipants. Although it did resonate with somerelatives raising children, this statement wasoffensive to the adoptive and foster parents whoparticipated in the general public focus groups.

◆ It not only may be better for children to be raised inrelative-headed homes, it also saves taxpayerdollars. Generally, language that centered aroundthe financial impact of relative caregiving did not

10 Generations United

“The child

didn’t ask to

be brought

into this

world.”

General Public

Focus Group

Member

SUPPORT FOR SUBSIDIZED GUARDIANSHIP

T hirty five states and the District of Columbia now havesubsidized guardianship programs, an increasingly popularpermanency option that provides an ongoing financial

subsidy to eligible children who exit the child welfare system intothe permanent care of a legal guardian, often a relative. In itsnational report on child welfare reform, Fostering the Future: Safety,Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care, The PewCommission on Children inFoster Care, a nationally renown-ed panel of child welfare experts,recommended that federal guard-ianship assistance should beavailable to eligible childrenwho leave foster care to live witha safe, legal guardian whenadoption or reunification is not a viable permanency option.

As part of its research, GU explored the reactions to the conceptof subsidized guardianship. As a general principle, focus groupparticipants were open to the idea of a federal fund for caregivers,although more research is needed to determine the extent of suchsupport in the face of other national funding priorities. The focusgroups composed of members of the general public did not generallyoppose taxes going towards such a fund. In fact, there wasunanimous support for the fund going to those who “needed” the

11Generations United

resonate emotionally with the focus groups andprompted many in the general public focus groupsto bring the argument back to the support of thechild. For example, one participant noted "thesechildren need stability and that to me is acompelling reason.”

by Animesh Hardia

Generations United

help. Commented one participant: “there should be more supportwithin the community in taking on this responsibility.” Participantsin the relative caregiver focus groups also supported the idea of thefund, but were especially focused on supporting those in need. “Howcan you do it without the money?” pointed out one caregiver.Interestingly, even caregivers who would not necessarily qualify forthe assistance themselves were supportive of the fund.

GU’s team of messaging professionals also tested the generalreaction to the term “subsidized guardianship.” Focus groupparticipants favored labels that emphasized keeping the familytogether and that clearly communicated whom the fund will support.Labels such as Subsidized Guardianship, Keeping the Family To-gether Fund, Family Guardian Assistance, and Family PreservationSupport were the most popular. Participants in the general publicfocus groups also favored the term “fund” over “assistance” or“subsidy” because it was more dignified and less value-laden.

12by Billie Wright

Preliminary Conclusions

It’s about the Child.

◆ The advocacy community needs to raiseawareness about the issue of grandparents andother relatives and the children they raise beforesomeone else does. In framing an effective mes-sage, we must first do no harm. More specifically,we should avoid all references to:

• Parents as “unwilling” to raise their childrenbecause it only generates blame for the parents.

• Relative care as a “growing” problem becauseit invites a counter-argument that distracts thepublic from the central emotion of the issue.

• Relative care as “a problem” because it invitesa counter-argument that distracts from thecentral emotion that the families generate.

13Generations United

Generations United14

No matter

why parents

can no

longer take

care of their

children –

death,

divorce,

neglect,

abuse or

poverty –

it never, ever

is the ‘fault’

of the child.

◆ In framing an effective message, the mantra thatshould be used in describing the issue of relativecare to the public should be: “It’s about the child.”All messaging should focus on needs and plight ofthe children and their potential to overcome theirfate with proper and loving care from relatives.Put differently, the family should be kept togetherfor the children’s sake.

◆ Remember that a child-focused message isespecially powerful because it evokes thearchetype of the innocent – a universal, symbolicmodel that speaks directly to the public’s mostdeeply-held values and experiences. Peoplereadily acknowledge that a child is blameless, andthe innocence of the child grabs thememotionally. Grandparents and other relatives actas stewards of this fundamental value by preserv-ing and protecting this innocence.

◆ The advocacy community, where appropriate,should consistently use language that evokes thevalues and strength of grandparents and otherrelative caregivers who are willing to step up tothe plate on behalf of children.

◆ In discussing these issues with the general public,there does not seem to be as much leverage in lessemotion-laden language such as lauding the bene-fits of “tax savings” and “raising productive citizens.”Keep in mind, however, that such language maystill be appropriate for certain targeted audiences,such as policy makers.

Generations United 15

WHAT’S IN A NAME? USING THE TERM “KINSHIP CARE”?

T he language we use to describe a person or an issue plays animportant role in how the public reacts to them. Although“kinship care” has become popular shorthand for the more

cumbersome phrase “grandparents and other relatives raisingchildren,” preliminary research suggests that it does not resonate withthe public and, in some cases, with relative caregivers. In fact, focusgroup participants in this study generally shied away from anylanguage using “kin” or “kinship.” One participant said that kinshipcare “sounds like a social service term.” One of the New York City sup-port group participants said, “It’s a redneck term.” What’s the bottomline? Try not to use the term “kinship care” when talking tomembers of the public or reporters who know little about the issue.It elicits a neutral reaction at best and does not win any friends to thecause. So what terms work? Generally speaking, focus groupparticipants were drawn to more value-laden terminology – languagethat seems to embody and embrace the positive, emotional role thatgrandparents and other relative caregivers play in the lives ofchildren. These terms included Families Raising Families,Grandfamilies, and Stay Together Families.

◆ In discussing these issues with the general public,be sure to emphasize the most compelling theme:No matter why parents can no longer take care oftheir children – death, divorce, neglect, abuse orpoverty – it never, ever is the ‘fault’ of the child.

16 Generations United

Getting theMessage Out:Next Steps

T he messaging research summarized in thisguide is an important first step in develop-ing a common vocabulary to speak with the

public and the media about the needs of grand-parents and other relatives raising children. Groundedin a shared understanding of why some language andissues resonate with the public more than others, GUand its national, state, and local partners look for-ward to using this knowledge to support their ongoingadvocacy efforts with a clear and consistent state-ment of both challenges and solutions. We intend touse the information in new publications, presenta-tions, and work with media. We encourage you to dothe same and look forward to hearing about yourefforts.

As you are considering the new research contained inthis guide, keep in mind one of the fundamentalprinciples of messaging work. It is impossible to findan effective message that pleases everyone. In fact,

17Generations United

communications professionals maintain that themessages that satisfy virtually everyone are often theones that are least effective in building publicsupport for an issue. Why? Because in the process ofbuilding consensus among a number of diverse andequally important constituencies, messages canbecome easily watered down, appealing to a commondenominator of experts and advocates, but failing toexcite or engage the public at large. In addition,agreeing on an effective, new message can beparticularly difficult because our natural instinct is toembrace the familiar, even when change is needed tomove an issue to the next level.

Given these inherent challenges, this researchrepresents the initial stage of a more comprehensiveeffort to develop a common understanding around thelanguage we use, still taking into careful considera-tion the opinions of the families we serve and theadvocacy community. Over the next several months,GU and its partners will be building on the researchconducted in these first focus groups by sharinginformally its results with relative caregivers andservice providers across the country. Once you have achance to consider the information contained in thisguide, we encourage you to share it with the familiesand communities you serve and get back to us withany questions or comments you may have by e-mailing gu@gu.org.

Generations United18

OTHER HELPFUL RESOURCES ONEFFECTIVE MESSAGING AND

COMMUNICATIONS:

Do you want to learn more about how to build publicsupport for grandparents and other relatives raisingchildren? You can find out additional information about

how to communicate more effectively through the followingresources:

Generations United’s Grandparents and Other Relatives RaisingChildren: The Second Intergenerational Action Agenda includes ahistorical perspective on how the media has covered the issues ofgrandparents and other relatives raising grandchildren over the pasttwo decades, including the results of a review of more than 500relevant articles. 202-289-3979 or www.gu.org.

Frameworks Institute advances the nonprofit sector’s com-munications capacity by identifying, translating, and developingresearch for framing the public discourse on social problems.Especially helpful are FrameWorks E-Zines, on-line newsletters thatanalyze new and effective messaging strategies. 202-833-1600 orwww.frameworksinstitute.org.

The Communications Consortium Media Center is a public interestorganization dedicated to helping nonprofit organizations use newmedia and telecommunications technologies for public educationand policy change. 202-326-8700 or www.ccmc.org.

agoodman is a communications consulting firm that helps publicinterest groups, foundations, and progressive businesses reach morepeople more effectively with helpful publications. 213-386-9501 orwww.agoodmanonline.com.

19Generations United

Cause Communications is a nonprofit communications firm thatadvances the work of foundations and nonprofits through communi-cations that reach, inspire, and motivate. A free copy of theirCommunications Toolkit: A Guide to Navigating Communications for theNonprofit World can be ordered from their website. 310-458-2823 orwww.causecommunications.org.

Generations United1333 H Street, N.W., Suite 500W

Washington, D.C. 20005Phone: (202) 289-3979

Fax: (202) 289-3952Email: gu@gu.org

www.gu.org

™