The study described in this report is a quasi-experimental evaluation of Kinnections conducted from 2021 to 2025. Kinnections is a kinship navigator program provided by Wayfinder Family Services[1] and operating since 2007 in seven counties[2] in Northern California. The program is a family-centered, strengths-based, community-responsive kinship navigator service model serving all kinship caregivers and the children in their care, including those in formal and informal kinship placements.[3] Kinship caregivers caring for children informally often lack access to services and supports that may be available to kinship caregivers who care for children in formal kinship placements. Uniquely, this study of kinship navigators includes both kinship caregivers caring for children with child welfare involvement and those with informal kinship care placements. Below, we describe the study design and methodology, present the key findings, and offer recommendations based on the findings.
Study design and methodology
The evaluation employed a mixed method, quasi-experimental outcome study comparing kinship caregivers in both formal and informal kinship arrangements in five treatment counties (Butte, Placer, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma) who received Kinnections kinship navigation services to a matched group of kinship caregivers in eight comparison counties (El Dorado, Fresno, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba) who did not receive these services. The intervention condition was the Kinnections program. The comparison condition was comprised of caregivers who lived in counties where Kinnections services were not available. To ensure a comparison of similar groups, we used propensity score matching, and our models are a difference-in-difference design to account for remaining differences at baseline. Our matched sample included 116 caregivers in each group (treatment and comparison). Our design also included a process study examining the extent to which Kinnections was implemented as intended, and with fidelity to the model as described in the manual.
For the outcome study, we collected surveys designed to answer our research questions at baseline and from 4 to 12 months later. We used previously validated measures wherever possible, and measures developed for this study were co-created with kinship caregivers and youth input. For the process study, we examined the agency service data, conducted focus groups and interviews, conducted a staff time study, and reviewed Kinnections peer review data. For more details about tools used, please refer to Chapter 2 of the full report.
Key findings
We examined and report on the following target outcomes as specified in the Title IV-E Clearinghouse manual[4]: adult well-being, access to services, satisfaction with programs and services, and referral to services. While we did examine child permanency, disruption from kin placement was such a rare event in both treatment and comparison groups that we were not able to test for significant difference between groups. We did not measure child safety or child well-being, as these were not feasible to measure given our study design. Below are key findings from the evaluation. For more details, please see the full report.
Two findings were statistically significant and met Clearinghouse baseline equivalence standards.
Adult well-being
Kinship caregivers in the treatment group experienced significantly higher increases in social support when compared to caregivers in the comparison group. The treatment group, on average, experienced an increase of 0.2 points more than the comparison group on the Protective Factors Survey social support subscale (range: 0-4) from baseline to follow-up after participating in Kinnections (p<.05).
Satisfaction with programs and services
Kinship caregivers in the treatment group were significantly more satisfied with services they received when compared to caregivers in the comparison group. The treatment group, on average, experienced an increase of 1.44 points more on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (range: 8-32) from baseline to follow-up after participating in Kinnections, compared to the comparison group (p<.01).
Two other findings were significant; however, these outcomes did not meet Clearinghouse baseline equivalence standards.
Access to services
Kinship caregivers in the treatment group were more likely to access at least one service at follow-up than caregivers in the comparison group. Caregivers were asked whether they had accessed 12 service types. Caregivers in the treatment group were 25-percentage points more likely to access services from baseline to follow-up than caregivers in the comparison group (p<0.01).
Referral to services
Kinship caregivers in the treatment group were more likely to have received at least one referral to services at follow-up than caregivers in the comparison group. Caregivers in the treatment group had a 39-percentage point greater increase in receipt of service referrals from baseline to follow-up when compared with caregivers in the comparison group (p<0.001).
Other key findings
There was a high level of fidelity to the Kinnections model at both the service and organizational levels. Staff served the intended population of kinship caregivers, including those with children with and without formal child welfare involvement, in all eligible counties.[5] Staff spent their time providing the prescribed services with little deviation from the model and caregivers were receptive to, and appreciative of, the services received. Staff received training to prepare them for their jobs and participated in ongoing, regular supervision. Kinship caregiver input was sought and included in practice via advisory boards.
Kinship caregivers in the treatment group had a greater increase in the rate at which they accessed counseling and financial services at follow-up compared to kinship caregivers in the comparison group. The most common service caregivers had accessed at follow-up was counseling (43% of treatment and 36% of comparison), followed by financial services (35% of treatment and 33% of comparison). From baseline to follow-up, caregiver access to these services in the treatment group increased by 79 percent and 118 percent, respectively.
Kinship caregivers caring for children in informal arrangements experienced poorer outcomes on several indicators when compared to kinship caregivers caring for children with child welfare involvement. Kinship caregivers in the matched sample (both the treatment and comparison groups) with no child welfare involvement had higher levels of stress and lower levels of family functioning, social support, concrete support, and total number of services and referrals received than kinship caregivers caring for children with child welfare involvement.
Kinship caregivers in general reported high levels of unmet needs for respite and child care. Kinship caregivers in both the treatment and comparison groups had difficulty finding respite opportunities and child care.
Recommendations
Based on our findings, we offer the following recommendations:
Ensure that all kinship caregivers have access to a service like Kinnections, which offers customized referrals and case management.
Kinship caregivers who participated in Kinnections were more satisfied with the services they received than kinship caregivers who did not participate in Kinnections, indicating that Kinnections is able to tailor services to the needs of each caregiver’s particular circumstances, including by offering case management when needed. This helps the caregivers and their families manage challenges that arise and thrive together.
Dedicate adequate funding for services like Kinnections to ensure full staffing and sustainability of the program.
Wayfinder has contracts with several county child welfare agencies that provide funding for Kinnections to serve both formal and informal kinship caregivers, which ensures that families receive supports and services they need. Sufficient funding is also needed for a full staff (i.e., kinship navigator I, kinship navigator II, supervisor, and parent partner) to support caregivers in each county.
Provide training for mental health and legal professionals in kin specific needs.
Counseling and legal services were among the most commonly accessed services for kinship caregivers in both the treatment and comparison groups. Kinship caregivers and their families have unique needs related to their circumstances and need professionals who understand and can provide guidance tailored to their needs.
Continue to offer a mix of virtual and in-person services, including support groups.
Some kinship caregivers want the convenience of virtual contact, especially when they are very busy and/or lack transportation. However, some kinship caregivers want to be able to connect in-person for case management as well as support groups. Alternating between virtual and in-person contacts can help meet the needs of most kinship caregivers.
Increase child welfare services and supports for kinship caregivers caring for children in informal arrangements.
Kinship caregivers caring for children in informal arrangements do not have access to the supports provided through the child welfare system, including financial and concrete assistance, and appear to be more isolated and lacking in social supports. These stressors can lead to placement instability and the risk that the child will come into state custody. Child welfare agencies can help address these needs and stabilize kinship placements by offering financial and other supports for kinship caregivers who care for children in informal arrangements.
Increase collaboration among multiple systems serving kinship caregivers to better serve kinship families.
Kinship navigator programs, such as Kinnections, can significantly improve the lives of kinship families. However, they cannot address all needs, such as the need for respite and child care. To address these needs, systems that serve kinship families—such as public benefits, aging and disability services, early childhood education, recreation, and mental health services—need to come together to plan for and provide a full array of services for kinship families.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.wayfinderfamily.org/
[2] Wayfinder has contracts with seven counties in California to provide Kinnections. Only five of the counties participated in this study.
[3] Formal kinship arrangements include kinship caregivers caring for a child who is in state custody and placed in the kinship caregivers’ home by the public child welfare agency. Informal kinship arrangements include kinship caregivers who are caring for a child with no child welfare involvement, although this may include a situation where the child welfare agency strongly recommended the placement as an alternative to formal state custody.
[4] Wilson, S. J., Brown, S. R., Kerns, S. E. U., Dastrup, S. D., Hedberg, E., Schachtner, R., Jackson, C., Norvell, J., Campbell, W., & Wall, A. (2024). Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0, OPRE Report # 2024-127, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
[5] The one exception was in Santa Cruz County, where the funding from the county only included services to kinship caregivers with children formally involved in the child welfare system.
Suggested Citation
Rushovich, B., Sepulveda Munoz, K., Wilkinson, A. & Martinez, V. (2025). Wayfinder Kinnections kinship navigator evaluation: final report. Child Trends. DOI: 10.56417/344u1896b