Gleeson & Bonecutter report that informal systems that function well can "provide for children in ways that the formal child welfare system rarely can." They suggest mutuality, flexibility, capacity to self regulate, privacy, relevance to individual family systems and lack of stigma are major strengths which informal kinship networks can offer children and families. It should be noted that despite the rise in formal kinship care, there are many situations that never come to the attention of the child welfare system because effective kinship networks have intervened to ensure children's safety, well-being and permanency.
However, there continues to be a very real and important role for the formal child welfare system. Families who are referred for investigation and services may be those for whom informal networks have either failed or have yet to be mobilized to act. Once a child has been referred for services, the formal resources of the child welfare system are used to ensure the child's safety, well-being and permanency. The informal system of care then begins to operate under the authority and supervision of the child welfare system. Only when the goals of safety, permanency and well-being are realized can the child welfare system close the case and move on to the next challenge.
Families who are involved in formal kinship care are subject to the complexities and rules which are found in formal governmental systems. The formal and informal systems do not automatically mesh in ways that complement each other. Members of each system must work together and communicate how to best meet children's needs.
When an informal kinship care system comes into contact with the formal child welfare system, conflict and confusion can ensue. Outcomes important to the formal system are not necessarily the same ones that are important to the informal systems. While safety, well-being and permanency of children are consistent goals in both systems, differences exist with regard to how each system defines each goal. For example, many relatives feel that they have achieved permanency for children placed with them by committing to care for the child as long as the need for care exists. The formal child welfare system, on the other hand, defines permanency in terms of legal permanency. Thus for child welfare agencies and the juvenile court permanency does not occur until the child either goes home, is adopted, or private guardianship is assigned to a relative.
Characteristics of Informal and Formal Systems of Care | |
Informal System |
Formal System |
Mutuality |
Provision of help to one in need |
Flexibility |
Standardization - specific level of service for all |
Self-regulation, homeostasis |
External regulation and control |
Family privacy |
Intrusion into family life |
Relevance to individual family, community and culture |
Largely Influenced by mainstream societal values |
Person in need of help defined by family and person |
Service recipients defined by eligibility criteria and public policy |
Limited by Family Resources and Priorities |
Limited by Societal Resources and Priorities |