IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v14y2024i9p178-d1476047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-State Validation of a Tool Supporting Implementation of Rural Kinship Navigator Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Brianna Routh

    (Extension and the Department of Food Systems, Nutrition, and Kinesiology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Christine McKibbin

    (Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA)

  • David Wihry

    (Center on Aging, University of Maine, Bangor, ME 04401, USA)

  • Jennifer A. Crittenden

    (School of Social Work, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5770, USA)

  • Ayomide Foluso

    (Human Development and Community Health, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA)

  • Jennifer Jain

    (Center on Aging, University of Maine, Bangor, ME 04401, USA)

Abstract

While kinship care is prevalent and preferred over out-of-family care, there are relatively few measurement tools validated for use with this audience. The Title IV-E Clearinghouse, used to rate Families First Prevention Services such as Kinship Navigator Programs, requires valid tools. Such families face a myriad of needs in supporting children in their care. Previous research has established the significant challenges faced by rural families. Accurate assessment of these needs, particularly for rural families, is an essential component of kinship navigation services. In this study, we examined the face validity of the Family Needs Scale for use with kinship caregivers in rural programs. Methods: The evaluation teams with each respective kinship program conducted four virtual focus groups comprising kinship caregivers ( n = 18) in three rural states. Participants were recruited from outside an ongoing Kinship Navigator Program Evaluation sample but had previously received program support as kinship caregivers. All states received IRB approval from their respective universities. Verbal consent was obtained at the time of the focus group. Focus groups lasted approximately 60–90 min and participants received a gift card incentive. Data were transcribed and qualitatively coded by question set and individual questions to identify phenomenological trends. Findings: Across four focus groups, we found four themes: (1) Broad agreement regarding the face validity of most assessment items; (2) Lack of clarity and shared understanding of several terms used within the tool, (3) Responses change with Ages and Stages of kinship family, and (4) Perspective considerations varying when completing the assessment. Discussion: Findings indicate that most assessment items had strong face validity, where there are a few opportunities to clarify key concepts relevant to rural kinship families and assess additional needs to understand the situational scope of the kinship experience. Overall, the needs assessment tool appears to have validity in assessing current kinship needs and outcomes within Kinship Navigator program evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Brianna Routh & Christine McKibbin & David Wihry & Jennifer A. Crittenden & Ayomide Foluso & Jennifer Jain, 2024. "Cross-State Validation of a Tool Supporting Implementation of Rural Kinship Navigator Programs," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:14:y:2024:i:9:p:178-:d:1476047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/9/178/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/9/178/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koh, Eun & Daughtery, Laura & Ware, Allysa, 2022. "Informal kinship caregivers’ parenting experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meredith Kiraly, 2023. "In Loco Parentis : Informal Kinship Care in Australia—Social Benefit and Material Poverty," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Gómez, Anthony & Wollen, Sierra L. & Day, Angelique G. & Garcia-Rosales, Katherine V. & Feltner, Alanna & Shearlock, AnnaMarie & Delaplane, Geene, 2024. "“Now I am calm because they guide you:” A mixed-method exploratory study of the service needs and experiences of Latine kinship caregivers in Washington State," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Eun Koh & Laura Daughtery & Yongwon Lee & Jude Ozughen, 2024. "Parenting Experiences of Informal Kinship Caregivers: Similarities and Differences between Grandparents and Other Relatives," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Washington, Tyreasa & Despard, Mathieu, 2024. "Making a way out of no way: The importance of improving financial instability among African American kinship care families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    kinship; rural; resource;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:14:y:2024:i:9:p:178-:d:1476047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.