agency
Can a foster parent ‘over-advocate’ for their foster child?
30/12/2009 23:57
We follow a number of online forums and this came up over at www.fostercarecentral.com. A carer posted that they’d been told they ‘over-advocated’ for their foster child.
Over-advocate? That seems to be legal-speak creeping into the child services area. We are sure we could find some plain english expressions that are much clearer and, quite frankly, a whole lot more honest.
‘An advocate is someone who speaks on behalf of another person, especially in a legal context. … Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves.’ (Wikipedia)
So let’s be honest and decipher what that term might mean. As a foster parent, you attend case conferences, and talk with social workers on behalf of your foster child. Depending on their age or their circumstances they might lack the knowledge, skill, ability, maturity or capability to speak on their own behalf.
Can a carer ‘over-speak’, or ‘over-represent’? Are we saying more than we should?
We’d love to hear an honest debate on this one. We’d like to ask the social workers whether they are saying that we aren’t educated or qualified or experienced enough to make a contribution to the discussion about the child’s needs?
Or are they saying that we simply don’t have the right to contribute? Is our role to provide a home and care but leave the decision making to the ‘system’?
Sadly, this sounds like a turf war.
If the social welfare profession is so precious that outspoken foster parents cause grief, then we really need an overhaul. Business deals with outspoken, opinionated customers and shareholders all the time. We judge their contribution according to their talents, but we don’t – and can’t – prevent them from having their say.
We’ve had workers who spent a great deal of energy telling us, with diminishing degrees of politeness, to shut up and get back in our box. We had a role to play, designated by the system, and they were thoroughly annoyed that we didn’t stick to the script.
But interestingly, it’s our willingness to step outside ‘our role’ that sees us maintaining contact with children formerly in our care, long after they have become adults. It’s why we stepped up to help them ‘age out’ of foster care (emotionally, financially and with life skills), when the system, previous carers, and all those passionate social workers had left the scene.
If we applied some innovative thinking to the issue, then maybe the passion with which carers might speak on behalf of a child is a good thing? Business has long recognised that divergent viewpoints and passionate debate, if managed well, drive much better results.
So it gets down to frontline training. In all fairness we believe social workers have a large range of stakeholders to deal with – from authorities, to birth families, to agencies, to carers and beyond. But there are other professions that deal with such a range. The ability to manage people is not taught at university (and if anyone tells you it was, or is, they are lying). It is learned on the job, over many years, and requires both an interest in people and a willingness to be self-aware. Too often the fundamental skill that underpins both of those elements – listening – is absent.
So, listen up. We’ll over-advocate for the Camper as long as we can breathe.
(If you are a carer about to provide care, you might like to print these bullet points out, amend or add to them to reflect what you think you bring to the placements, and give them to your worker.)
And if doing any of that is a challenge, we suggest a great deal more training is needed. We’re happy to assist.
Over-advocate? That seems to be legal-speak creeping into the child services area. We are sure we could find some plain english expressions that are much clearer and, quite frankly, a whole lot more honest.
‘An advocate is someone who speaks on behalf of another person, especially in a legal context. … Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves.’ (Wikipedia)
So let’s be honest and decipher what that term might mean. As a foster parent, you attend case conferences, and talk with social workers on behalf of your foster child. Depending on their age or their circumstances they might lack the knowledge, skill, ability, maturity or capability to speak on their own behalf.
Can a carer ‘over-speak’, or ‘over-represent’? Are we saying more than we should?
We’d love to hear an honest debate on this one. We’d like to ask the social workers whether they are saying that we aren’t educated or qualified or experienced enough to make a contribution to the discussion about the child’s needs?
Or are they saying that we simply don’t have the right to contribute? Is our role to provide a home and care but leave the decision making to the ‘system’?
Sadly, this sounds like a turf war.
If the social welfare profession is so precious that outspoken foster parents cause grief, then we really need an overhaul. Business deals with outspoken, opinionated customers and shareholders all the time. We judge their contribution according to their talents, but we don’t – and can’t – prevent them from having their say.
We’ve had workers who spent a great deal of energy telling us, with diminishing degrees of politeness, to shut up and get back in our box. We had a role to play, designated by the system, and they were thoroughly annoyed that we didn’t stick to the script.
But interestingly, it’s our willingness to step outside ‘our role’ that sees us maintaining contact with children formerly in our care, long after they have become adults. It’s why we stepped up to help them ‘age out’ of foster care (emotionally, financially and with life skills), when the system, previous carers, and all those passionate social workers had left the scene.
If we applied some innovative thinking to the issue, then maybe the passion with which carers might speak on behalf of a child is a good thing? Business has long recognised that divergent viewpoints and passionate debate, if managed well, drive much better results.
So it gets down to frontline training. In all fairness we believe social workers have a large range of stakeholders to deal with – from authorities, to birth families, to agencies, to carers and beyond. But there are other professions that deal with such a range. The ability to manage people is not taught at university (and if anyone tells you it was, or is, they are lying). It is learned on the job, over many years, and requires both an interest in people and a willingness to be self-aware. Too often the fundamental skill that underpins both of those elements – listening – is absent.
So, listen up. We’ll over-advocate for the Camper as long as we can breathe.
(If you are a carer about to provide care, you might like to print these bullet points out, amend or add to them to reflect what you think you bring to the placements, and give them to your worker.)
- We will challenge you on decisions, and we will give you our well thought out opinion on what we see the child going through.
- We will raise issues and suggest decisions that need to be made for you to give us feedback on.
- We will tell you politely if we think you are wrong, and we will become less polite if you ignore us.
- We will expect you to be skilled enough to see the love/compassion we have for this child and understand the depth of our care for the child.
- As time goes by we will expect you to be skilled enough to see the love this child has for us, or the reliance they place on us, and take that into account.
- We don’t accept there is any ‘mark’ to overstep so we will have no tolerance for you complaining, overtly or covertly, about us doing that.
- We will expect that you, as the professional you hold yourself out to be, will be able to assess us and judge us and manage us and collaborate with us.
And if doing any of that is a challenge, we suggest a great deal more training is needed. We’re happy to assist.
|
Who should assess whether families are at risk?
11/07/2009 09:27
Every so often a very provocative article comes across our desk.
There are very frank conversations that should happen in relation to children’s services, but we’re not sure they happen very often, if at all.
So it’s refreshing to see a completely different viewpoint offered, especially by someone with relevant experience.
This article is quite challenging. Here James Barber suggests that there are people better qualified than social workers to assess families most at risk.
We’ll write more about it soon.
There are very frank conversations that should happen in relation to children’s services, but we’re not sure they happen very often, if at all.
So it’s refreshing to see a completely different viewpoint offered, especially by someone with relevant experience.
This article is quite challenging. Here James Barber suggests that there are people better qualified than social workers to assess families most at risk.
We’ll write more about it soon.
'Shattered father failed by DoCS system'
17/06/2009 22:30
OK, we’d like to warn anyone who has been more than an occasional reader of this blog to hold on. Because we are about to stand up for DoCS. Bet you never saw that coming, heh?
We regularly hold social work agencies and workers up to scrutiny for poor policy, poor performance, and poor people management. But we try to balance our rants with some constructive suggestions about what the preferred approach should be. And as we are foster parents in the system, we are actively putting our money where our mouth is. We’ve earned our right to have a say and it is an informed one. Right?
So we’ve been watching this week’s vitriol from the great uninformed about DoCS’ performance in relation to the 12 year old mum to be. If you follow us on Twitter (@fostercarer) then you’ll have seen some tweets (and if you don’t follow us on Twitter, give it a go. Pithy is good and we are at our pithiest there…)
Here’s the most recent, in depth (and we use that term loosely) article on the subject from The Daily Telegraph. It’s titled Shattered father failed by rotten DoCS system. That’s an award winning headline.
All fingers, including those of anyone who can type a comment on a news website, are pointing to DoCS as having failed the expectant child. Despite an order awarding custody to the mother, who was clearly not fit to care for the child or provide a safe home (so who made THAT decision?), when the non-custodial father raised his concerns to DoCS about the child’s welfare, they didn’t remove the child.
In work and life we believe you should cop it on the chin when you deserve it. But our sense of fairness is feeling a bit confronted.
Even Community Services Minister Linda Burney seems to have waved goodbye to the horse as it bolted past her out the gate, and has given up trying to provide any cogent explanation as to what really happened in DoCS when one of these cases hits the headlines.
So we applauded just a bit when we saw this piece from Tory Maguire on The Punch, entitled Blaming Government for rotten parents.
She writes: ‘Blaming the authorities has become the default position for so many people who don’t think the ultimate responsibility for the care of children lies with their parents.’
Spot on. We’re not sure who appointed DoCS as the only defence for children in this state, but they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when it all goes pear-shaped no matter what the previous circumstances. If they were resourced, and structured to do just that, then we’d be leading the calls for accountability. The problem with all this is that slowly, relentlessly, we are accepting the idea that DoCS is ultimately and finally responsible. Not the parents. Not the community. Not the police or the legal system. Not the other support systems like schools and the medical profession.
Maguire points out that ‘there were children in greater danger than this little girl’ that took the available resources.
Do you know, at some point that could have been our foster child? We have a child in care because the decision was made that her birth family couldn’t care for her properly. She was at serious risk of immediate harm and enduring hardship, and a worker mobilised the system to remove her and initiated the decision to keep her safe. Her case was, in an over-taxed system, given priority.
So here’s a quiet round of applause for all the dedicated DoCS workers who make the right decisions. Credit where credit is due. It’s a shame that the positive stories don’t sell newspapers, isn’t it.
We regularly hold social work agencies and workers up to scrutiny for poor policy, poor performance, and poor people management. But we try to balance our rants with some constructive suggestions about what the preferred approach should be. And as we are foster parents in the system, we are actively putting our money where our mouth is. We’ve earned our right to have a say and it is an informed one. Right?
So we’ve been watching this week’s vitriol from the great uninformed about DoCS’ performance in relation to the 12 year old mum to be. If you follow us on Twitter (@fostercarer) then you’ll have seen some tweets (and if you don’t follow us on Twitter, give it a go. Pithy is good and we are at our pithiest there…)
Here’s the most recent, in depth (and we use that term loosely) article on the subject from The Daily Telegraph. It’s titled Shattered father failed by rotten DoCS system. That’s an award winning headline.
All fingers, including those of anyone who can type a comment on a news website, are pointing to DoCS as having failed the expectant child. Despite an order awarding custody to the mother, who was clearly not fit to care for the child or provide a safe home (so who made THAT decision?), when the non-custodial father raised his concerns to DoCS about the child’s welfare, they didn’t remove the child.
In work and life we believe you should cop it on the chin when you deserve it. But our sense of fairness is feeling a bit confronted.
Even Community Services Minister Linda Burney seems to have waved goodbye to the horse as it bolted past her out the gate, and has given up trying to provide any cogent explanation as to what really happened in DoCS when one of these cases hits the headlines.
So we applauded just a bit when we saw this piece from Tory Maguire on The Punch, entitled Blaming Government for rotten parents.
She writes: ‘Blaming the authorities has become the default position for so many people who don’t think the ultimate responsibility for the care of children lies with their parents.’
Spot on. We’re not sure who appointed DoCS as the only defence for children in this state, but they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when it all goes pear-shaped no matter what the previous circumstances. If they were resourced, and structured to do just that, then we’d be leading the calls for accountability. The problem with all this is that slowly, relentlessly, we are accepting the idea that DoCS is ultimately and finally responsible. Not the parents. Not the community. Not the police or the legal system. Not the other support systems like schools and the medical profession.
Maguire points out that ‘there were children in greater danger than this little girl’ that took the available resources.
Do you know, at some point that could have been our foster child? We have a child in care because the decision was made that her birth family couldn’t care for her properly. She was at serious risk of immediate harm and enduring hardship, and a worker mobilised the system to remove her and initiated the decision to keep her safe. Her case was, in an over-taxed system, given priority.
So here’s a quiet round of applause for all the dedicated DoCS workers who make the right decisions. Credit where credit is due. It’s a shame that the positive stories don’t sell newspapers, isn’t it.
Social work survey says workers described negatively
26/05/2009 21:36
CommunityCare.co.uk did a survey. And they found that ‘Journalists used negative words to describe social work roughly five times as often as positive or sympathetic words’.
Their results were blunt. Consider this:
‘Words (describing social workers' conduct, ability or demeanour) varied from "inept" and "arrogant" to serious personal allegations, such as "bullying", and "blackmailing". Social workers will no doubt be alarmed that the second most used word was "bully" or "bullying".‘
There are many definitions of bullying, but here is the Wikipedia one.
In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim.
So it’s all about an inequality of power, and dominance.
The purpose of this blog is to share and educate. While the survey reviewed journalists’ reporting (and has some interesting things to say on whether all sides of the story are able to be presented), here’s our experience of some behaviour that was not social work’s finest hour.
A worker raising the same issue, after we had indicated we didn’t agree with it, at every single phone call, email message and visit. It was the wrong thing for the Camper and so we just kept saying no.
Now we’d call them on it, indicate we have answered the question and unless they have new reasons to raise it again, we consider the issue has been dealt with.
A worker who, when challenged, got frustrated and aggressive.
We stayed calm and suggested she learn how to receive feedback and work with various parties to achieve agreement. We thought she would have learned that at uni but maybe she missed that class?
Perjorative comments that were belittling or disparaging. Our particular favourite was ‘this is what you signed up for’ (so you as the carer don’t get a say).
We cheerfully advised that we signed up to care for a child, not to slavishly agree with the workers on everything without analysis and debate.
We took a support person with us to a meeting. When that support person spoke, they were told they were allowed to be present at the meeting, but not to speak.
If we were in that situation again, we would initiate a discussion at the start of the meeting as to the roles of all the people present and establish the ground rules.
All of these examples have one thing in common. The unspoken assumption, exhibited by the worker in each instance, was that they held the power, the decision-making responsibility, or the high moral ground. And when we disagreed, or challenged them, their behaviour veered dangerously close to bullying.
The interplay of all the adults responsible for a child’s life can be a delicate matter.
Carers expect the worker to have skill and experience, we care for this child and want to do the right thing for them, and we know the agency has a role to play. But workers are from an institution with all the authority that comes with it, and we are just a family or an individual. The power may not feel equal, and it doesn’t take much to shift it.
Lest we scare off any prospective carers out there, we hasten to tell you that we have experienced the other side of the spectrum. We know workers who are collaborative, wise, thoughtful and perceptive. They share their views without lecturing, and they are prepared to listen to the carers, and more importantly, the child.
We wish there were more of you. We hope you are recognized within the system as the exceptional workers you are, and we hope other, less experienced workers learn from you.
Their results were blunt. Consider this:
‘Words (describing social workers' conduct, ability or demeanour) varied from "inept" and "arrogant" to serious personal allegations, such as "bullying", and "blackmailing". Social workers will no doubt be alarmed that the second most used word was "bully" or "bullying".‘
There are many definitions of bullying, but here is the Wikipedia one.
In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim.
So it’s all about an inequality of power, and dominance.
The purpose of this blog is to share and educate. While the survey reviewed journalists’ reporting (and has some interesting things to say on whether all sides of the story are able to be presented), here’s our experience of some behaviour that was not social work’s finest hour.
A worker raising the same issue, after we had indicated we didn’t agree with it, at every single phone call, email message and visit. It was the wrong thing for the Camper and so we just kept saying no.
Now we’d call them on it, indicate we have answered the question and unless they have new reasons to raise it again, we consider the issue has been dealt with.
A worker who, when challenged, got frustrated and aggressive.
We stayed calm and suggested she learn how to receive feedback and work with various parties to achieve agreement. We thought she would have learned that at uni but maybe she missed that class?
Perjorative comments that were belittling or disparaging. Our particular favourite was ‘this is what you signed up for’ (so you as the carer don’t get a say).
We cheerfully advised that we signed up to care for a child, not to slavishly agree with the workers on everything without analysis and debate.
We took a support person with us to a meeting. When that support person spoke, they were told they were allowed to be present at the meeting, but not to speak.
If we were in that situation again, we would initiate a discussion at the start of the meeting as to the roles of all the people present and establish the ground rules.
All of these examples have one thing in common. The unspoken assumption, exhibited by the worker in each instance, was that they held the power, the decision-making responsibility, or the high moral ground. And when we disagreed, or challenged them, their behaviour veered dangerously close to bullying.
The interplay of all the adults responsible for a child’s life can be a delicate matter.
Carers expect the worker to have skill and experience, we care for this child and want to do the right thing for them, and we know the agency has a role to play. But workers are from an institution with all the authority that comes with it, and we are just a family or an individual. The power may not feel equal, and it doesn’t take much to shift it.
Lest we scare off any prospective carers out there, we hasten to tell you that we have experienced the other side of the spectrum. We know workers who are collaborative, wise, thoughtful and perceptive. They share their views without lecturing, and they are prepared to listen to the carers, and more importantly, the child.
We wish there were more of you. We hope you are recognized within the system as the exceptional workers you are, and we hope other, less experienced workers learn from you.
Children in care need a pushy parent
13/05/2009 06:41
‘England's care system needs a radical overhaul with the state acting as a "pushy parent" to get the very best for the children in its charge, MPs say.’
We understand the sentiment behind this call in the UK, reported on the BBC in April. Someone needs to – let’s say it like it is – fight for these children, or never give up, just like a parent who loves them dearly.
So in theory, OK. At a system level, the state should put in place the best care for these children, and use its considerable muscle to make sure that level of care is provided.
But the state – a collective, anonymous, corporate entity – cannot replicate a parent’s care. Individual workers of real empathy and talent may bond with and counsel children in care. But let’s hope the MPs haven’t gotten carried away.
‘A report by the Commons' Children, Schools and Families Committee says the state fails as a "parent" because it does not demand enough from services.’
Good luck to them. We hope the ‘services’ are up to it. As foster parents, we demanded more from our private agency. Like a seat at the table in decisions about Happy Camper, and an evaluation of whether their ‘one size fitted all’ policy really applied to our Camper. They didn’t like that. Junior manager, senior manager, and agency head honcho. They lined up one after the other like dominoes, to tell us that we were ‘just the carers’ and their policy won. We didn’t accept that and transferred to another agency.
‘We welcome the government's assertion that it should become exceptional for a young person to leave care before they turn 18, and hope that it will precipitate a culture change in local authorities.’
Well, yeah. Don’t you love how the most obvious principles are restated as if they are the Eleventh Commandment? But think about what the system teaches many of these children, by bouncing them from home to home to home through their childhood. By moving these children so many times, we are actively teaching them that attachment is transient, that they will survive moving homes, and that they really shouldn’t learn to care about a family. And we’re surprised when they leave?
‘(entering the care system) must be seen as a positive experience, but this will only happen if the state can better replicate the warm, secure care of good parents for every child in the system.’
We have a child in care, who has been with us longer than with anyone else. The system made a call when she was quite tiny. It recognized that she needed the warm, secure care of good parents. And so the love, warmth and security has overwhelmed any conscious memories of the earlier unsettled times. This is now her ‘real’ life. Importantly, her reality is stability, attachment, trust, and expectation.
‘For some children care should be seen as "the best available option rather than a last resort", they said.’
Care will be the best available option for children when it is permanent. Stable. And enduring. So maybe we need to have the courage to make a decision for the child’s sake early on. Does the birth parent have a perpetual right to try and get their child back, no matter what? Too often care becomes the last resort when a rehabilitation plan fails. Or too much of the plan with birth parent is visible to the child, before there are any indications it will be successful. And the person who suffers long term damage is the child.
‘…concern for the happiness and welfare of the 60,000 children in care should be at the heart of the system.’
Everyone says this. ‘It’s all for the children’ you hear. Sometimes it can be so piously quoted to justify a viewpoint you feel like shouting. But try to break this principle down to reasonable, sensible decisions that put the child first, and too often policy, process and research get in the way.
We understand the sentiment behind this call in the UK, reported on the BBC in April. Someone needs to – let’s say it like it is – fight for these children, or never give up, just like a parent who loves them dearly.
So in theory, OK. At a system level, the state should put in place the best care for these children, and use its considerable muscle to make sure that level of care is provided.
But the state – a collective, anonymous, corporate entity – cannot replicate a parent’s care. Individual workers of real empathy and talent may bond with and counsel children in care. But let’s hope the MPs haven’t gotten carried away.
‘A report by the Commons' Children, Schools and Families Committee says the state fails as a "parent" because it does not demand enough from services.’
Good luck to them. We hope the ‘services’ are up to it. As foster parents, we demanded more from our private agency. Like a seat at the table in decisions about Happy Camper, and an evaluation of whether their ‘one size fitted all’ policy really applied to our Camper. They didn’t like that. Junior manager, senior manager, and agency head honcho. They lined up one after the other like dominoes, to tell us that we were ‘just the carers’ and their policy won. We didn’t accept that and transferred to another agency.
‘We welcome the government's assertion that it should become exceptional for a young person to leave care before they turn 18, and hope that it will precipitate a culture change in local authorities.’
Well, yeah. Don’t you love how the most obvious principles are restated as if they are the Eleventh Commandment? But think about what the system teaches many of these children, by bouncing them from home to home to home through their childhood. By moving these children so many times, we are actively teaching them that attachment is transient, that they will survive moving homes, and that they really shouldn’t learn to care about a family. And we’re surprised when they leave?
‘(entering the care system) must be seen as a positive experience, but this will only happen if the state can better replicate the warm, secure care of good parents for every child in the system.’
We have a child in care, who has been with us longer than with anyone else. The system made a call when she was quite tiny. It recognized that she needed the warm, secure care of good parents. And so the love, warmth and security has overwhelmed any conscious memories of the earlier unsettled times. This is now her ‘real’ life. Importantly, her reality is stability, attachment, trust, and expectation.
‘For some children care should be seen as "the best available option rather than a last resort", they said.’
Care will be the best available option for children when it is permanent. Stable. And enduring. So maybe we need to have the courage to make a decision for the child’s sake early on. Does the birth parent have a perpetual right to try and get their child back, no matter what? Too often care becomes the last resort when a rehabilitation plan fails. Or too much of the plan with birth parent is visible to the child, before there are any indications it will be successful. And the person who suffers long term damage is the child.
‘…concern for the happiness and welfare of the 60,000 children in care should be at the heart of the system.’
Everyone says this. ‘It’s all for the children’ you hear. Sometimes it can be so piously quoted to justify a viewpoint you feel like shouting. But try to break this principle down to reasonable, sensible decisions that put the child first, and too often policy, process and research get in the way.
How do you become a foster carer?
06/05/2009 22:38
Our blog is about helping you understand all the things that the manuals and the agencies and the blurbs don’t tell you. So we won’t reproduce all the decent information already available from government and non-government agencies – but we will link to it.
If you are thinking about becoming a foster carer, here are our reminders as you go through the process.
Think about your circumstances…
A foster child will probably come to you with issues, depending on their age. You need to be able to give them time and attention. You may need to make up huge deficits in every aspect of their health, education, socialisation, emotional growth. Can you do it? Is your family committed with you in doing this? Do you have the time? Do you have the emotional and intellectual energy?
Why do you want to do it?
There are no right reasons, but we’ve written before about making sure that you know what you want or need out of it. It can be tough, and let’s be blunt, if you are doing it to meet some need of yours, then you may be disappointed. We fostered because we wanted to make a difference. We wanted to break the self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction that exists in some families. We know carers who came to fostering when they were unable to have their own biological children. We know other carers who have been very successful at everything they have done in family and career and want to give something back. The assessment process will quiz you on your motivation, so spend some time thinking it through. The more honest you are with yourself about it the better.
Who will help you?
Make sure you have a good support network available. This is no time to be gung-ho. You will need support ranging from a sympathetic ear, to constructive advice, to actual physical assistance. If you are already a parent then you may have this in place. But remember that these children have additional needs. To give them what they need and want means a very intense relationship. You need people looking out for you.
Research
Our blog is Australian, so the resources we will point you to are Australian. But there are equivalent organisations around the world.
There is plenty of information available online from both the Department of Community Services (NSW and other Australian states), and Non-Government Foster care agencies.
To get you started, visit the DOCS website.
General information on fostering
Types of care
What to expect
Non-government agencies provide foster care services and recruit carers. You will be able to click through to their websites for more information.
Note that the links are sometimes to ‘Out-of-home care’, which is another name for foster care.
There are differences in approach, support, structure and process between DOCS and the private agencies. We’ve experienced both over many years, and have made some suggestions on our site before. You need to make sure you know what to expect from the agency. They can over-service you, under-support you, have policies that say one thing on paper and mean something else in practice, and may have vastly differing levels of skills and experience in their workers. You may not be able to avoid the issues but it helps if you know what you are getting into. Just as child and you should be a good match, so too should you and the agency.
Next post we will outline the process of becoming a carer.
If you are thinking about becoming a foster carer, here are our reminders as you go through the process.
Think about your circumstances…
A foster child will probably come to you with issues, depending on their age. You need to be able to give them time and attention. You may need to make up huge deficits in every aspect of their health, education, socialisation, emotional growth. Can you do it? Is your family committed with you in doing this? Do you have the time? Do you have the emotional and intellectual energy?
Why do you want to do it?
There are no right reasons, but we’ve written before about making sure that you know what you want or need out of it. It can be tough, and let’s be blunt, if you are doing it to meet some need of yours, then you may be disappointed. We fostered because we wanted to make a difference. We wanted to break the self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction that exists in some families. We know carers who came to fostering when they were unable to have their own biological children. We know other carers who have been very successful at everything they have done in family and career and want to give something back. The assessment process will quiz you on your motivation, so spend some time thinking it through. The more honest you are with yourself about it the better.
Who will help you?
Make sure you have a good support network available. This is no time to be gung-ho. You will need support ranging from a sympathetic ear, to constructive advice, to actual physical assistance. If you are already a parent then you may have this in place. But remember that these children have additional needs. To give them what they need and want means a very intense relationship. You need people looking out for you.
Research
Our blog is Australian, so the resources we will point you to are Australian. But there are equivalent organisations around the world.
There is plenty of information available online from both the Department of Community Services (NSW and other Australian states), and Non-Government Foster care agencies.
To get you started, visit the DOCS website.
General information on fostering
Types of care
What to expect
Non-government agencies provide foster care services and recruit carers. You will be able to click through to their websites for more information.
Note that the links are sometimes to ‘Out-of-home care’, which is another name for foster care.
There are differences in approach, support, structure and process between DOCS and the private agencies. We’ve experienced both over many years, and have made some suggestions on our site before. You need to make sure you know what to expect from the agency. They can over-service you, under-support you, have policies that say one thing on paper and mean something else in practice, and may have vastly differing levels of skills and experience in their workers. You may not be able to avoid the issues but it helps if you know what you are getting into. Just as child and you should be a good match, so too should you and the agency.
Next post we will outline the process of becoming a carer.
'Make haste slowly' implementing the Wood recommendations
01/03/2009 21:54
We don’t go around quoting the ancient Romans, but this gem from Augustus has been in our family for years, and it seems entirely apt.
We take serious issue with Mr Crispin Hull from Barnardos on a number of points in his SMH article.
He is giving the Government a right hurry up in relation to the planning and implementation of the Wood Royal Commission recommendations. He warns that DOCs and member unions might be defending their territory and resisting change.
And yet his article is at risk of sounding like a territory grab. We’re sure his intentions are admirable. But his organisation stands to gain a great deal from the proposed changes - financially, in scale and in responsibility. We’d be much happier if the hurry up came from someone who didn’t have a vested interest in the outcome.
That would be Commissioner Wood, we hear you say?
Yes. He made the recommendations. But we haven’t seen him out there jumping about in relation to the timing.
A royal commission is a royal commission. Not a detailed business or organisational restructure blueprint. There is a level of detail Commissioner Wood would not have gone into. And he had to rely on submissions which had, as their purpose, WHY a change is justified. Not HOW it should happen. That’s a whole extra piece of work. And if DOCs is as dysfunctional as everyone says, then understanding that in order to hand it over to someone else will take time.
But we already outsource to these agencies, you say?
We do, but not on this scale, and not the breadth of cases we are talking about here. So we can’t assume that the system of governance and monitoring currently in place is sufficient. And we can’t assume the agencies have processes that will scale up. And we can’t assume they will have the skill base to cope with it. And we can’t assume that moving people across from DOCs to private agencies will actually change a thing.
Here are just some of the issues that need to be solved:
How will cases be handed off between organisations and departments?
Who will ultimately be responsible for the child’s welfare?
How will the relationships be monitored?
Where is the right of appeal if things go wrong?
Who sets the standards and policies?
Who monitors the agencies to ensure their approach is consistent?
Out-sourcing is a complex beast to handle. Many companies have done it in order to provide better service and cut costs, and have found the management of it quite extraordinary.
So take the time to plan it properly, for the childrens’ sake.
We don’t have territory to defend. We just think that such a huge change needs to be planned and implemented well.
Or we might find that we end up swapping an ‘unworkable’ monolithic government department for an outsourced model where no one is accountable and children don’t just fall through the cracks, they disappear into a chasm.
We take serious issue with Mr Crispin Hull from Barnardos on a number of points in his SMH article.
He is giving the Government a right hurry up in relation to the planning and implementation of the Wood Royal Commission recommendations. He warns that DOCs and member unions might be defending their territory and resisting change.
And yet his article is at risk of sounding like a territory grab. We’re sure his intentions are admirable. But his organisation stands to gain a great deal from the proposed changes - financially, in scale and in responsibility. We’d be much happier if the hurry up came from someone who didn’t have a vested interest in the outcome.
That would be Commissioner Wood, we hear you say?
Yes. He made the recommendations. But we haven’t seen him out there jumping about in relation to the timing.
A royal commission is a royal commission. Not a detailed business or organisational restructure blueprint. There is a level of detail Commissioner Wood would not have gone into. And he had to rely on submissions which had, as their purpose, WHY a change is justified. Not HOW it should happen. That’s a whole extra piece of work. And if DOCs is as dysfunctional as everyone says, then understanding that in order to hand it over to someone else will take time.
But we already outsource to these agencies, you say?
We do, but not on this scale, and not the breadth of cases we are talking about here. So we can’t assume that the system of governance and monitoring currently in place is sufficient. And we can’t assume the agencies have processes that will scale up. And we can’t assume they will have the skill base to cope with it. And we can’t assume that moving people across from DOCs to private agencies will actually change a thing.
Here are just some of the issues that need to be solved:
How will cases be handed off between organisations and departments?
Who will ultimately be responsible for the child’s welfare?
How will the relationships be monitored?
Where is the right of appeal if things go wrong?
Who sets the standards and policies?
Who monitors the agencies to ensure their approach is consistent?
Out-sourcing is a complex beast to handle. Many companies have done it in order to provide better service and cut costs, and have found the management of it quite extraordinary.
So take the time to plan it properly, for the childrens’ sake.
We don’t have territory to defend. We just think that such a huge change needs to be planned and implemented well.
Or we might find that we end up swapping an ‘unworkable’ monolithic government department for an outsourced model where no one is accountable and children don’t just fall through the cracks, they disappear into a chasm.
Do foster children always become troubled teens?
28/12/2008 23:48
‘AN AMERICAN academic is to run a five-year study of NSW children who are removed from their parents and placed in foster care in the hope of finding ways to stop them becoming troubled teenagers.’ SMH 26/12/08
Well Professor Fred Wulczyn, let’s get you started on the way.
The system often prevents these children from putting down roots with a new family. Either the legal process fails to catch up with the child’s needs and the child spends too long in ‘temporary care’, or the system applies the invisible brand to them – ‘foster child’ – and demands things of them that ‘normal’ children never have to contemplate. Let us explain.
Happy Camper had been bounced around the system for some years before she landed with us. She had been emotionally abandoned and that was obvious from the minute we met her. Her physical needs hadn’t been well looked after either, but they were relatively easier to fix. We threw every ounce of care, love and attention into making her feel that we were her family, that we were here to stay. As her level of understanding has grown, we’ve explained that she will get a say in anything that happens now.
But some workers viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion. They worked hard to redevelop the bond between the Camper and birth family, and increase her reliance on the social worker. So when the Camper was coming to grips with the fact that no one in her birth family was able to take care of her, and hadn’t, and she desperately wanted to believe she was finally somewhere safe, she had a worker telling her quite forcefully through actions and words that it was all about birth family. We could see the confusion and distrust in her eyes.
We know carers who foster with that particular agency, and the agenda (restitution with birth families) hasn’t changed. A new worker has suddenly told a carer, who has had a child in care from 4 months to early teen years, that she considers the child needs to have more contact with her birth mum. They see birth mum and other members of the birth family every school holidays and it is pitched at just the right level. The child is old enough to ask her foster mum, who she considers to be her mum, ‘why?’ We hope the carer has what it takes to ask the agency ‘why?’ on behalf of the child.
We can tell you that this particular child is thriving – winning awards at school, happy, a very capable sportsperson, very savvy about her circumstances - and she handles her birth mum’s probing for information with an ease well beyond her years. So she is one of Professor Wulczyn’s success stories. We’re working on the Camper being a success story as well.
So what characterises these two placements?
The children have put down roots. They feel stable. They trust that nothing is going to change.
The system recognises they have been put into long term care for a very good reason, and is not trying to undermine that. The children are free to get on with living.
They have contact with their birth families, but not at the expense of time with their new families and their sense of stability. It’s a delicate balance.
Imagine if you were a child, and had a worker continually telling you how important your birth mum was, insisting you cuddle the woman when you only see her 5 times a year, reminding you to your face that you are ‘a child in care’, not calling the mum and dad you live with ‘mum’ or ‘dad’, but ‘carer? Imagine if you couldn’t have a play date with your friends on a particular day in the school holidays because of contact with your birth family. Imagine if you knew you couldn’t go away on holidays with your family because you had to be back for access with your birth family?
The agency recognises a ‘good’ placement and plays a monitoring role.
There is often a huge lack of continuity of approach from one worker to the next. Good governance demands that new workers review placements and all the circumstances around them, but aspects of the placement should not be changed without very good reason. These should be thoughtfully monitored and individually researched reasons. They should be discussed and reviewed with the carers over time before any decision to change is made. Workers should be taught that leaving their individual mark on a case is not always a sign of success.
We are good carers.
Forgive us if we state it bluntly, but we are. We treat these children as if they were our own. We don’t expect them to do anything much differently to our other children. We’re not in it for any financial gain. We love them.
So we are genuinely puzzled as to why the system has such a hard time codifying what works?
Maybe it’s not talking to the right people? Maybe it is not prepared to hear what we are saying? Maybe there are agendas and policies that the system, and those who work in it, need to give up?
Posted by EssentialMum
Well Professor Fred Wulczyn, let’s get you started on the way.
The system often prevents these children from putting down roots with a new family. Either the legal process fails to catch up with the child’s needs and the child spends too long in ‘temporary care’, or the system applies the invisible brand to them – ‘foster child’ – and demands things of them that ‘normal’ children never have to contemplate. Let us explain.
Happy Camper had been bounced around the system for some years before she landed with us. She had been emotionally abandoned and that was obvious from the minute we met her. Her physical needs hadn’t been well looked after either, but they were relatively easier to fix. We threw every ounce of care, love and attention into making her feel that we were her family, that we were here to stay. As her level of understanding has grown, we’ve explained that she will get a say in anything that happens now.
But some workers viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion. They worked hard to redevelop the bond between the Camper and birth family, and increase her reliance on the social worker. So when the Camper was coming to grips with the fact that no one in her birth family was able to take care of her, and hadn’t, and she desperately wanted to believe she was finally somewhere safe, she had a worker telling her quite forcefully through actions and words that it was all about birth family. We could see the confusion and distrust in her eyes.
We know carers who foster with that particular agency, and the agenda (restitution with birth families) hasn’t changed. A new worker has suddenly told a carer, who has had a child in care from 4 months to early teen years, that she considers the child needs to have more contact with her birth mum. They see birth mum and other members of the birth family every school holidays and it is pitched at just the right level. The child is old enough to ask her foster mum, who she considers to be her mum, ‘why?’ We hope the carer has what it takes to ask the agency ‘why?’ on behalf of the child.
We can tell you that this particular child is thriving – winning awards at school, happy, a very capable sportsperson, very savvy about her circumstances - and she handles her birth mum’s probing for information with an ease well beyond her years. So she is one of Professor Wulczyn’s success stories. We’re working on the Camper being a success story as well.
So what characterises these two placements?
The children have put down roots. They feel stable. They trust that nothing is going to change.
The system recognises they have been put into long term care for a very good reason, and is not trying to undermine that. The children are free to get on with living.
They have contact with their birth families, but not at the expense of time with their new families and their sense of stability. It’s a delicate balance.
Imagine if you were a child, and had a worker continually telling you how important your birth mum was, insisting you cuddle the woman when you only see her 5 times a year, reminding you to your face that you are ‘a child in care’, not calling the mum and dad you live with ‘mum’ or ‘dad’, but ‘carer? Imagine if you couldn’t have a play date with your friends on a particular day in the school holidays because of contact with your birth family. Imagine if you knew you couldn’t go away on holidays with your family because you had to be back for access with your birth family?
The agency recognises a ‘good’ placement and plays a monitoring role.
There is often a huge lack of continuity of approach from one worker to the next. Good governance demands that new workers review placements and all the circumstances around them, but aspects of the placement should not be changed without very good reason. These should be thoughtfully monitored and individually researched reasons. They should be discussed and reviewed with the carers over time before any decision to change is made. Workers should be taught that leaving their individual mark on a case is not always a sign of success.
We are good carers.
Forgive us if we state it bluntly, but we are. We treat these children as if they were our own. We don’t expect them to do anything much differently to our other children. We’re not in it for any financial gain. We love them.
So we are genuinely puzzled as to why the system has such a hard time codifying what works?
Maybe it’s not talking to the right people? Maybe it is not prepared to hear what we are saying? Maybe there are agendas and policies that the system, and those who work in it, need to give up?
Posted by EssentialMum
Good things come to those who wait?
21/12/2008 23:26
It seems sometime since I updated you on my journey to become a foster carer.
“Where’ve you been?” you might ask.
Well, I’ve been sitting here waiting. Waiting for the agency to complete their paperwork. Waiting for checks to be completed and returned. Waiting for a worker to get to my name on their list. Now patience is something I oft struggle with and perhaps this is one of those life lessons that is long overdue.
But leaving that to one side, if there is shortage of carers and children who desperately need a home, then I am bemused, nay befuddled, by the lack of urgency with which the system seems to move. Each time I call to follow up and make sure that the agency has all it needs from me, I am met with the same story of how the process works and that they are very busy and will get to me in due course. Does this apparent lack of resources simply mean there aren’t enough workers? Or are there more kids needing care than previously? Or is it that there is a heightened awareness of children at risk which requires greater levels of investigation and the inevitable paperwork which follows.
I suspect it is a combination. So here I sit and wait for my new life to begin and wonder whether there is something else I should be doing in the meantime. I only hope it’s not like “waiting for Godot” for if my memory serves correctly, Godot never arrived.
Yours in anticipation
Dorothy
Posted by Dorothy
“Where’ve you been?” you might ask.
Well, I’ve been sitting here waiting. Waiting for the agency to complete their paperwork. Waiting for checks to be completed and returned. Waiting for a worker to get to my name on their list. Now patience is something I oft struggle with and perhaps this is one of those life lessons that is long overdue.
But leaving that to one side, if there is shortage of carers and children who desperately need a home, then I am bemused, nay befuddled, by the lack of urgency with which the system seems to move. Each time I call to follow up and make sure that the agency has all it needs from me, I am met with the same story of how the process works and that they are very busy and will get to me in due course. Does this apparent lack of resources simply mean there aren’t enough workers? Or are there more kids needing care than previously? Or is it that there is a heightened awareness of children at risk which requires greater levels of investigation and the inevitable paperwork which follows.
I suspect it is a combination. So here I sit and wait for my new life to begin and wonder whether there is something else I should be doing in the meantime. I only hope it’s not like “waiting for Godot” for if my memory serves correctly, Godot never arrived.
Yours in anticipation
Dorothy
Posted by Dorothy
The Commission Outcomes
27/11/2008 11:32
Dear Justice Wood, Premier Rees, Minister Burney and all those who will be working through Justice Wood’s recommendations,
It was big commission wasn’t it? 111 recommendations, and a significant part of those is in relation to moving responsibility for sheltering children at risk to the private sector.
Funnily enough, ask any business person and they will tell you that one of the greatest challenges in outsourcing a service is governance – who monitors the system to make sure it works as intended - and accountability. You can’t outsource accountability. So what structure will still be in place in government? I suppose that’s all to be worked out yet.
Our experience has also shown us a very great difference between DOCS workers and private agency workers – in skill, in maturity, in experience. So the uplift required for many agencies will be huge. But you knew that, didn’t you? And the officers from those agencies who presented to the commission were honest and upfront about how well they functioned, and what it would take to enable their agencies to effectively take over from DOCS. Weren’t they?
We’d like to recommend that one of the toolsets you implement, to maintain standards across this distributed agency group, and to give us carers a clearer picture of what we are entitled to expect, are service levels. They won’t solve all the problems but they will provide some clarity. You see, agencies can get pretty autocratic about how they do things, their policies and their processes. They can push an agenda relentlessly. If you are a carer with an opinion and push hard enough back they can even get a bit narky. But you knew that, didn’t you?
So good luck. It’s a shame that more of the submissions to the Commission were not made public. Then I think we’d all have a better understanding of all the issues we are dealing with. It’s not that we don’t trust you, but at present, having heard the agency and DOCS submissions, we’re just feeling a bit one-sided.
Yours faithfully,
EssentialMum
Posted by EssentialMum
It was big commission wasn’t it? 111 recommendations, and a significant part of those is in relation to moving responsibility for sheltering children at risk to the private sector.
Funnily enough, ask any business person and they will tell you that one of the greatest challenges in outsourcing a service is governance – who monitors the system to make sure it works as intended - and accountability. You can’t outsource accountability. So what structure will still be in place in government? I suppose that’s all to be worked out yet.
Our experience has also shown us a very great difference between DOCS workers and private agency workers – in skill, in maturity, in experience. So the uplift required for many agencies will be huge. But you knew that, didn’t you? And the officers from those agencies who presented to the commission were honest and upfront about how well they functioned, and what it would take to enable their agencies to effectively take over from DOCS. Weren’t they?
We’d like to recommend that one of the toolsets you implement, to maintain standards across this distributed agency group, and to give us carers a clearer picture of what we are entitled to expect, are service levels. They won’t solve all the problems but they will provide some clarity. You see, agencies can get pretty autocratic about how they do things, their policies and their processes. They can push an agenda relentlessly. If you are a carer with an opinion and push hard enough back they can even get a bit narky. But you knew that, didn’t you?
So good luck. It’s a shame that more of the submissions to the Commission were not made public. Then I think we’d all have a better understanding of all the issues we are dealing with. It’s not that we don’t trust you, but at present, having heard the agency and DOCS submissions, we’re just feeling a bit one-sided.
Yours faithfully,
EssentialMum
Posted by EssentialMum
'I've been instructed to...'
31/10/2008 22:42
How timely. In our last post we were being very reasonable about how one might ‘fix’ DOCs.
Well, here’s a problem that needs fixing.
It’s the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ message.
You might get it by email – or if you are lucky (and we have been) you might even get it in person. That’s really special.
Even when a first conversation might be a collaborative discussion, there will come a point where a worker will pull rank. You’ll be told to just do it. They might even move it up the food chain and state ‘I’ve been instructed to…’. Wow, by the Manager.
If we were trying to address all the problems, then we’d acknowledge that there are stubborn, careless, less than satisfactory carers out there who would try the patience of a saint (and probably break the heart of one sometimes) and need to be told what to do.
But we’re not trying to address all the problems. And we don’t need to be told what to do.
In business using the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ defence is called abrogating responsibility, and any manager worth their salary won’t let a team member get away with it. It teaches bad habits and leads to bad outcomes.
In this foster care world, it is toxic. Let us tell you the sub-text that sits behind that request. We’ll range from the generous to the less than….
So don’t serve up the ‘I’ve been instructed to…’ advice to us. It doesn’t wash.
Posted by EssentialMum
Well, here’s a problem that needs fixing.
It’s the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ message.
You might get it by email – or if you are lucky (and we have been) you might even get it in person. That’s really special.
Even when a first conversation might be a collaborative discussion, there will come a point where a worker will pull rank. You’ll be told to just do it. They might even move it up the food chain and state ‘I’ve been instructed to…’. Wow, by the Manager.
If we were trying to address all the problems, then we’d acknowledge that there are stubborn, careless, less than satisfactory carers out there who would try the patience of a saint (and probably break the heart of one sometimes) and need to be told what to do.
But we’re not trying to address all the problems. And we don’t need to be told what to do.
In business using the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ defence is called abrogating responsibility, and any manager worth their salary won’t let a team member get away with it. It teaches bad habits and leads to bad outcomes.
In this foster care world, it is toxic. Let us tell you the sub-text that sits behind that request. We’ll range from the generous to the less than….
- I’m genuinely too busy to negotiate any solution with these people.
- I haven’t got time to debate this.
- I have a job to do.
- You (carer) have a job to do.
- I’m obeying a court order for my case, there is no room in it to accommodate your (carer) needs.
- Your (carer) reason for not being able to accommodate this request is irrelevant.
- I decide what’s best.
- I know what’s best.
- I’m in charge – just do as you (carer) are told.
So don’t serve up the ‘I’ve been instructed to…’ advice to us. It doesn’t wash.
Posted by EssentialMum
Guarantees in foster care?
09/10/2008 23:51
An article in The Australian (Thursday Oct 2, 2008) ‘Potential carers put off fostering’ (Overington and Trup) reviewed some of the confidential submissions to the Wood Royal Commission. It is well written article.
The first paragraph states ‘Tens of thousands of affluent, educated and responsible couples are ready to take the nation’s abused and neglected children into their care, if only they could be guaranteed that the children would be allowed to stay’.
What an absolute tragedy.
There are tens of thousands of couples that might have missed out on what may be the most rewarding journey of their life? And, more importantly, there are thousands of children who might have found a life with wonderful parents?
Will better education and communication change the perspective of some of those potential carers? Maybe the ‘system’ needs to make a call earlier for some children and place them in a ‘permanent’ home as soon as possible?
We took the journey, and we have a little person in our life who is now safe, happy, thriving, loved. These statistics hit home because the littlest statistic is very real to us. But we didn’t take her in with any more guarantee than a court order.
The fact is, you don’t get many guarantees with foster care.
These children are not adopted – you don’t get to take them in and be left alone. You deal with birth families and workers, with the legal construct of fostering. The children themselves may often have issues.
But you can work towards some certainty, before you foster:
Is there a long-term order for the child? Would you be taking them on long-term? Does this mean until the age of 18 or of ‘maturity’?
What are the birth family circumstances? Is a birth parent working towards getting the children back in a realistic and meaningful way?
What’s the agency’s long term goal? Are they aiming for restitution or permanency planning for the child? What do they see your role as?
Is the placement long term and will the agency support that?
So to all those prospective foster parents - you want guarantees the child is with you to stay? Then get in there and fight for them. Take them in, care for them, love them, bond with them, become their parent. Then you won’t need guarantees, you’ll make them. You’ll face anyone who thinks moving this child might be an option with steely eyed determination. For you are their parent. And for the first time in their lives, these children have an adult to advocate for them. Not just mouth the words, but really do it. With love and care and something at stake.
You have to decide whether you are fostering for you, or for them?
Posted by EssentialMum
The first paragraph states ‘Tens of thousands of affluent, educated and responsible couples are ready to take the nation’s abused and neglected children into their care, if only they could be guaranteed that the children would be allowed to stay’.
What an absolute tragedy.
There are tens of thousands of couples that might have missed out on what may be the most rewarding journey of their life? And, more importantly, there are thousands of children who might have found a life with wonderful parents?
Will better education and communication change the perspective of some of those potential carers? Maybe the ‘system’ needs to make a call earlier for some children and place them in a ‘permanent’ home as soon as possible?
We took the journey, and we have a little person in our life who is now safe, happy, thriving, loved. These statistics hit home because the littlest statistic is very real to us. But we didn’t take her in with any more guarantee than a court order.
The fact is, you don’t get many guarantees with foster care.
These children are not adopted – you don’t get to take them in and be left alone. You deal with birth families and workers, with the legal construct of fostering. The children themselves may often have issues.
But you can work towards some certainty, before you foster:
Is there a long-term order for the child? Would you be taking them on long-term? Does this mean until the age of 18 or of ‘maturity’?
What are the birth family circumstances? Is a birth parent working towards getting the children back in a realistic and meaningful way?
What’s the agency’s long term goal? Are they aiming for restitution or permanency planning for the child? What do they see your role as?
Is the placement long term and will the agency support that?
So to all those prospective foster parents - you want guarantees the child is with you to stay? Then get in there and fight for them. Take them in, care for them, love them, bond with them, become their parent. Then you won’t need guarantees, you’ll make them. You’ll face anyone who thinks moving this child might be an option with steely eyed determination. For you are their parent. And for the first time in their lives, these children have an adult to advocate for them. Not just mouth the words, but really do it. With love and care and something at stake.
You have to decide whether you are fostering for you, or for them?
Posted by EssentialMum
Do agencies keep carer lists up to date?
29/09/2008 22:53
We had a phone call recently. A very pleasant young person identified herself as a new case worker with a particular private agency.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is well over 12 months since we have been carers with that agency.
When we mentioned this, the worker laughed and advised that she must have had an ‘old’ list.
We were surprised.
Does the agency maintain a ‘current’ list of carers? How often is that updated? Who is accountable for updating it? Are files in the agency marked ‘current’ and ‘past’? How do they manage privacy for ‘closed’ files that they no longer have any accountability for? Can any new worker access any closed file?
Oversights do happen. But we are not inclined to give this agency the benefit of the doubt. It is, sadly, representative of the lack of attention to detail from them.
At an annual case conference, a worker presented a case plan that listed Happy Camper’s only sibling by the wrong name. The same worker arranged a schedule of home visits for the year and completely omitted the most important – visits between Happy Camper and her birth mum. On another occasion the manager had been unable to advise us that birth mum was not attending an access visit because she’d been unable to find our up to date mobile number on the file.
Harsh words? Maybe. We have been known to take a service provider to task for poor service, failure to follow through, or sloppy work. Fine when we are battling over our iPhone bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will Happy Camper feel, many years on, when she reads the case conference notes and sees the errors? She is entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in her life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of her, of her information, of her feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is well over 12 months since we have been carers with that agency.
When we mentioned this, the worker laughed and advised that she must have had an ‘old’ list.
We were surprised.
Does the agency maintain a ‘current’ list of carers? How often is that updated? Who is accountable for updating it? Are files in the agency marked ‘current’ and ‘past’? How do they manage privacy for ‘closed’ files that they no longer have any accountability for? Can any new worker access any closed file?
Oversights do happen. But we are not inclined to give this agency the benefit of the doubt. It is, sadly, representative of the lack of attention to detail from them.
At an annual case conference, a worker presented a case plan that listed Happy Camper’s only sibling by the wrong name. The same worker arranged a schedule of home visits for the year and completely omitted the most important – visits between Happy Camper and her birth mum. On another occasion the manager had been unable to advise us that birth mum was not attending an access visit because she’d been unable to find our up to date mobile number on the file.
Harsh words? Maybe. We have been known to take a service provider to task for poor service, failure to follow through, or sloppy work. Fine when we are battling over our iPhone bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will Happy Camper feel, many years on, when she reads the case conference notes and sees the errors? She is entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in her life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of her, of her information, of her feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
Questions to ask a prospective foster agency
24/09/2008 00:17
People often ask us for advice on which agency they should approach. Does it matter?
Well, yes, it does.
Agency and carer should be well matched, just like carer and child.
Over 40 years and a number of agencies, we’ve experienced:
Escalating conflict as the worker is stretched beyond their capability, experience or comfort zone. Carers discovering the non-negotiable policies of an agency many years into the placement. Hidden agendas. Workers creating a false expectation for birth parents about the placement, and the long term possibilities for the child. Workers compromising the relationship or interaction between carers and birth family members. Workers insisting on a designated ‘role’ in the foster child’s life without consideration of the carers’ wishes. Workers being completely unavailable. Lack of trust in the carer’s intentions or approach. Lack of negotiation between all parties in creating a case plan for the child.
Of course these are one sided, and many workers could give you a list of carer behaviours that defy belief. But our aim here is to facilitate successful placements for the children, and informed carers are key to that.
If we were to foster again, we'd ask some specific questions. These directly relate to the day-to-day part of the placement. They may sound negative, or too forthright. Like any relationship, everyone expects the best, but it’s the detail and the mismatched expectations that cause the problems.
Here is the list of questions we'd ask an agency:
Posted by EssentialMum
Well, yes, it does.
Agency and carer should be well matched, just like carer and child.
Over 40 years and a number of agencies, we’ve experienced:
Escalating conflict as the worker is stretched beyond their capability, experience or comfort zone. Carers discovering the non-negotiable policies of an agency many years into the placement. Hidden agendas. Workers creating a false expectation for birth parents about the placement, and the long term possibilities for the child. Workers compromising the relationship or interaction between carers and birth family members. Workers insisting on a designated ‘role’ in the foster child’s life without consideration of the carers’ wishes. Workers being completely unavailable. Lack of trust in the carer’s intentions or approach. Lack of negotiation between all parties in creating a case plan for the child.
Of course these are one sided, and many workers could give you a list of carer behaviours that defy belief. But our aim here is to facilitate successful placements for the children, and informed carers are key to that.
If we were to foster again, we'd ask some specific questions. These directly relate to the day-to-day part of the placement. They may sound negative, or too forthright. Like any relationship, everyone expects the best, but it’s the detail and the mismatched expectations that cause the problems.
Here is the list of questions we'd ask an agency:
- What is the agency’s policy in relation to birth family contact? Is the agency working towards restitution of foster child and birth family? Does the agency want to re-establish a relationship between child and birth parent? Or is the agency aiming to maintain contact between child and birth family?
- What is the agency’s policy in relation to the foster child’s relationship with their birth family? Who attends access? What are the policies in relation to what the child should call birth and foster parents? What locations are used for access (agency offices, play centres)? How flexible is this? Do the workers always attend access? At what point might the worker not attend access?
- What is the agency’s schedule for visits and follow up (phone, email) with carers? How often will these occur? What happens if the carers can’t accommodate the schedule? Will this change over time and what will cause it to change?
- Clearly describe the social worker’s role. What are the service levels carers are entitled to expect from all parties? [Service levels are a business concept where the standard of service and the approach are set out and guaranteed. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has service levels. It makes interesting reading.]
- How often do agency workers change? How long is the foster child likely to have a relationship with one worker for? How will the transition to a new worker be handled?
- What do you see the carer’s role to be? How much input will the carer have in developing the case plan for the child?
- Who can carers talk to if they are unhappy with a worker’s approach, performance or policies? What is the process they follow and what is likely to occur? What are the options?
- Does the agency recognise that at some point the carer has the most up to date knowledge of the child? What weight is the agency prepared to give that?
- At what age does the agency recognise the child’s ability to state what they want?
- What is the agency’s policy in relation to adoption by the foster family? Will it consider it on its merits or is the agency opposed to it in principal? What limitations does the agency place on it (child’s age, parents’ situation)?
Posted by EssentialMum
Don't look now: your relationship is not working
18/09/2008 11:43
We had a great conversation recently with our social worker. It was around upcoming activities, holiday birth family contact and arrangements. What made it so great?
We exchanged views with the worker on a couple of issues. We listened to them, they listened to us, and we agreed on an approach that we were both happy with. Importantly, we both agreed that Happy Camper’s requirements were the most important ones. With such a clear agreement about the priority, coming to a solution was easy.
We had a quick word about what Happy Camper was up to. The worker reminded us of how far we have come and what great progress the Camper has made. It was wonderful to see that our worker recalls the journey we’ve taken, and trusts us to continue.
Sounds simple really. But it isn’t always.
We’ve experienced worker/carer meltdown. After several harmonious years, we were assigned a new worker who wanted to change the world, change Happy Camper’s life, and start ‘all over again’. We put our views to the the worker. They were never given a hearing. We outlined what part of the proposed changes we couldn't accommodate. We were told we simply had to. Suddenly issues that never rose before become deal-breakers. The agency and its workers had no room for a differing point of view. Even when Happy Camper had made outstanding progress under our care.
So what are your options? We can’t advise specifically, but here’s what we’ve seen.
Often a carer will try to put up with it because they are concerned that the child in care might become caught in the middle. Or they are concerned that any rising tension in dealing with a worker may flow over to the child. Often a carer, faced daily with numerous challenges in caring for the child, will simply roll with it. Too often a carer has no point of reference (or no time to chase a point of reference) to say ‘Is this really acceptable?’
The risk of going with it is that ‘bad situations’ don’t hold steady. They usually become worse. New issues give rise to new levels of conflict and irritation that build.
You need to work out where the relationship will end up.
Can you roll with it and manage around it? Can you stay calm and detached after contact with the worker? Can you manage the worker’s approach (or the agency’s policies) and still be happy with the outcome for your foster child?
If the answer to any of those is no, we’d suggest you act. Explain clearly to the worker your position. Call a meeting with their manager to discuss your perspective. Give it a go and work through suggested actions to resolve it. But if it still doesn’t work, don’t be afraid to take it higher.
We changed agencies when it became clear that the worker/agency approach was diametrically opposed to what we knew was best for Happy Camper. We were faced with an agency that would not modify any policy or approach one iota, because Happy Camper was ‘just one’ of their many children. The change wasn’t easy, but it was in Happy Camper’s best interests. And like any parent, we find it easy to put her interests first.
Posted by EssentialMum
We exchanged views with the worker on a couple of issues. We listened to them, they listened to us, and we agreed on an approach that we were both happy with. Importantly, we both agreed that Happy Camper’s requirements were the most important ones. With such a clear agreement about the priority, coming to a solution was easy.
We had a quick word about what Happy Camper was up to. The worker reminded us of how far we have come and what great progress the Camper has made. It was wonderful to see that our worker recalls the journey we’ve taken, and trusts us to continue.
Sounds simple really. But it isn’t always.
We’ve experienced worker/carer meltdown. After several harmonious years, we were assigned a new worker who wanted to change the world, change Happy Camper’s life, and start ‘all over again’. We put our views to the the worker. They were never given a hearing. We outlined what part of the proposed changes we couldn't accommodate. We were told we simply had to. Suddenly issues that never rose before become deal-breakers. The agency and its workers had no room for a differing point of view. Even when Happy Camper had made outstanding progress under our care.
So what are your options? We can’t advise specifically, but here’s what we’ve seen.
Often a carer will try to put up with it because they are concerned that the child in care might become caught in the middle. Or they are concerned that any rising tension in dealing with a worker may flow over to the child. Often a carer, faced daily with numerous challenges in caring for the child, will simply roll with it. Too often a carer has no point of reference (or no time to chase a point of reference) to say ‘Is this really acceptable?’
The risk of going with it is that ‘bad situations’ don’t hold steady. They usually become worse. New issues give rise to new levels of conflict and irritation that build.
You need to work out where the relationship will end up.
Can you roll with it and manage around it? Can you stay calm and detached after contact with the worker? Can you manage the worker’s approach (or the agency’s policies) and still be happy with the outcome for your foster child?
If the answer to any of those is no, we’d suggest you act. Explain clearly to the worker your position. Call a meeting with their manager to discuss your perspective. Give it a go and work through suggested actions to resolve it. But if it still doesn’t work, don’t be afraid to take it higher.
We changed agencies when it became clear that the worker/agency approach was diametrically opposed to what we knew was best for Happy Camper. We were faced with an agency that would not modify any policy or approach one iota, because Happy Camper was ‘just one’ of their many children. The change wasn’t easy, but it was in Happy Camper’s best interests. And like any parent, we find it easy to put her interests first.
Posted by EssentialMum
Which agency should I foster with?
31/08/2008 23:10
Who should I approach? I’m really interested in fostering, but I’m not sure which agency, public or private, I should go through. What’s the difference?
This came into focus when we caught up with a friend last weekend, who reminded us that she was interested in long term fostering, and wanted our advice on where to start.
Let’s take a big step forward. When you have a child in care, one of the most important aspects of that placement is a real ‘meeting of the minds’ between carer and agency. You may have challenges with the child. The last thing you need is conflict or frustration with the agency that monitors and supports you.
‘Meeting of the minds’ is actually a legal concept that underpins contract law, but we’ve found it works well in business and life. Are your thoughts aligned? Do you want the same thing? Are you working towards the same outcome?
In our experience, the best agency/carer relationships have the following features:
Posted by EssentialMum
This came into focus when we caught up with a friend last weekend, who reminded us that she was interested in long term fostering, and wanted our advice on where to start.
Let’s take a big step forward. When you have a child in care, one of the most important aspects of that placement is a real ‘meeting of the minds’ between carer and agency. You may have challenges with the child. The last thing you need is conflict or frustration with the agency that monitors and supports you.
‘Meeting of the minds’ is actually a legal concept that underpins contract law, but we’ve found it works well in business and life. Are your thoughts aligned? Do you want the same thing? Are you working towards the same outcome?
In our experience, the best agency/carer relationships have the following features:
- An ‘aligned’ vision of what is best for the child. Put simply, you all agree on the basics - of care, access, support etc.
- A fair and open process of deciding what is best for the child. Think about what happens. The carer takes a child in. The child needs to settle, to trust, to learn, maybe even to learn to love. The timeframe varies but most long term carers become the people who know the child best. We live with them. Put our ‘on the ground’ experience with an experienced, thoughtful, objective social worker, provide willingness to discuss an issue and decide an approach together, and the results can be constructive.
- Room for individuality. These children need to be treated as individuals who matter. Too often their needs as an individual have been completely ignored. This is not uncommon in their birth family circumstances, but surprisingly can also occur in short term placements, where the focus might be on their physical needs. So any approaches or policies should be adjusted for the individual child. For example, the policy that ‘Our approach is that children in care call their birth parent “X” ‘ becomes ‘While generally our policy is that children in care call their birth parent “X”, in Y’s case we agree that….’
- Mutual respect. This needs to happen at the individual level. The PERSONAL level. Carers need to be able to respect the social worker assigned to their case, and workers need to respect the capabilities and experience of the carers. All parties need to demonstrate this – in what they say, how they listen to each other.
- Support. Depending on the needs of your child, you may call on the agency for support. They should be there when you need it. With what you need. And on the other hand, they shouldn’t be in your ear every week with demands and actions and policies and plans. Unless that's what you want.
- A willingness to listen. From all parties. This means that a proper conversation is going on.
- Recognition. Some recognition of the child’s progress really makes a carer feel good. More importantly, a ‘good’ placement, and the carers’ part in that, should go to the carers’ credibility. If the child is thriving, learning, growing, loving and happy do you think we might just know what we are doing?
Posted by EssentialMum
Becoming a foster carer - Dorothy's journey
05/06/2008 00:40
Hi there. My name is Dorothy and I’m about to launch into the biggest adventure of my life.
I’m about to become a long term fostercarer.
So how did it all come about? Well, to cut a long story short, I was having a really bad time at work – really bad. A disagreement with my boss set me back on my heels and got me wondering what I was doing with my life. I’d studied hard and established a great career. I’d worked for the same company for 7 years and was now a successful executive. I was financially stable and owned my own home. I had a great life, so why did it all seem so empty? Having worked so hard for so long, what I was doing it all for?
My cousin is a longterm fostercarer. She is just awesome. You know, one of those people you aspire to be. I’d always known about fostercare, but never really thought seriously about it. I mean, can a 36 year old single woman be a fostercarer?
So after a good deal of self analysis and research and many conversations with my cousin, I called DOCS. I could have gone with an agency but found that DOCS were really responsive and easy to deal with.
So here I am about to undertake my fostercarer training and writing 'my story'. It’s an odd experience to revisit your life in five year increments from birth to your current age. A time to reflect on all the things that make you who you are today.
It’s been invaluable to be able to talk to my cousin about her experiences and the challenges and joys. Her foster child is a delight and it’s been a privilege to watch the development from a little person at risk into a robust, funny, energetic child who is self confident and nurtured and has a wonderful full life.
My cousin’s life is that much richer for the experience and it is this, more than anything else, that inspired me to start my journey.
I still have questions and doubts and wonder how I’m going to do it all. But I am secure in the knowledge that I am surrounded by wonderful family and friends who support me in this adventure and will be there when I need advice or help or just need to talk.
It’s a huge decision, to turn your life upside down and share it with someone new. To forego much of your personal freedom and defer to the needs and wants of a child who will have been through more than any child should.
But then I am incredibly fortunate and have the chance to make a real difference. And what could be more meaningful than that?
Posted by Dorothy
I’m about to become a long term fostercarer.
So how did it all come about? Well, to cut a long story short, I was having a really bad time at work – really bad. A disagreement with my boss set me back on my heels and got me wondering what I was doing with my life. I’d studied hard and established a great career. I’d worked for the same company for 7 years and was now a successful executive. I was financially stable and owned my own home. I had a great life, so why did it all seem so empty? Having worked so hard for so long, what I was doing it all for?
My cousin is a longterm fostercarer. She is just awesome. You know, one of those people you aspire to be. I’d always known about fostercare, but never really thought seriously about it. I mean, can a 36 year old single woman be a fostercarer?
So after a good deal of self analysis and research and many conversations with my cousin, I called DOCS. I could have gone with an agency but found that DOCS were really responsive and easy to deal with.
So here I am about to undertake my fostercarer training and writing 'my story'. It’s an odd experience to revisit your life in five year increments from birth to your current age. A time to reflect on all the things that make you who you are today.
It’s been invaluable to be able to talk to my cousin about her experiences and the challenges and joys. Her foster child is a delight and it’s been a privilege to watch the development from a little person at risk into a robust, funny, energetic child who is self confident and nurtured and has a wonderful full life.
My cousin’s life is that much richer for the experience and it is this, more than anything else, that inspired me to start my journey.
I still have questions and doubts and wonder how I’m going to do it all. But I am secure in the knowledge that I am surrounded by wonderful family and friends who support me in this adventure and will be there when I need advice or help or just need to talk.
It’s a huge decision, to turn your life upside down and share it with someone new. To forego much of your personal freedom and defer to the needs and wants of a child who will have been through more than any child should.
But then I am incredibly fortunate and have the chance to make a real difference. And what could be more meaningful than that?
Posted by Dorothy