new worker
Can a foster parent ‘over-advocate’ for their foster child?
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 a child in care 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 a child in care 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.
|
Social work survey says workers described negatively
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 particular child 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 particular child 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.
Contact with birth families is good
We are in favour of contact with birth families – 100%.
There are many reasons why it is beneficial for a child to know their birth family. Here are some of them.
‘Who is my birth mum and/or my birth dad?’
Knowing my origins - It is very difficult for a child, particularly when they start to attend school and families are on the curriculum, to cope with a complete blank where a birth parent’s identity might be. As a carer you need an explanation that increases in detail as the child matures.
‘Why isn’t my hair dark brown like yours?’
A sense of identity - This can be important physically, as the child begins to want to emulate or be part of their second family.
‘I’m only living with you because my birth parent is a rock star’
A sense of reality – as a child grows older they may want to know why they are not with their birth family. Contact can help prevent a fantasy life evolving around a birth parent. This in turn may prevent any ‘play-offs’ between birth and second families. It can be quite devastating for an older child to meet a birth parent and experience their shortcomings. Acceptance from an early age is helpful.
‘Why did my birth parents give me up?'
Understanding and communication - An opportunity for child and birth parent to communicate on these issues can be good. It’s tricky territory, for a birth parent may not be prepared to answer the hard questions, or may be in complete denial about what actually happened and their responsibility for it. That in itself is a useful conversation for a trusted person to have with the child.
So what is the issue, for the child, around birth family contact?
BALANCE
You can completely undermine a child’s sense of security if contact with birth family overwhelms them and over-rides their daily life. Let’s state the obvious – access for a child who has a good chance of restitution with their birth family, should be very different to that of a child who has been put into the care of the Minister until they reach 18 years.
We believe that the PURPOSE of contact should be an item on any case plan.
The frequency of contact is usually covered, but we’ve not experienced an open and frank discussion about the purpose. We’ve seen this come unstuck when a worker thought they were meant to re-establish the child/birth parent relationship, when the appropriate purpose of access was to ‘maintain contact between child and birth parent’. There is a world of difference between those two objectives.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you know how access should run.
We saw that world of difference played out in the behaviours of worker and birth parent. The workers pushed a level of interaction, and a set of rules, that alienated the child and increased her insecurity. It also resulted in a birth parent believing they had far more say in the child’s life than was the case. It was left to a more experienced worker to do damage control, and remind birth parent of the reality of the situation. It wouldn’t have happened if the issue had been discussed properly.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you help the child manage their response to birth parent.
It will help you know which behaviours, from child and birth parent, to support, and what you should hose down. You know the child best, and you know what their life is now, so you are best placed to understand the impact access with a birth parent may have.
We’re going to have the purpose of access firmly on the agenda at our next case conference. We recommend that you discuss this with your worker until you are really clear about what it means. We think it is a useful discussion for any birth parent to participate in. And we especially recommend it as a discussion with any new worker who wants to change some aspect of access.
Posted by EssentialMum
There are many reasons why it is beneficial for a child to know their birth family. Here are some of them.
‘Who is my birth mum and/or my birth dad?’
Knowing my origins - It is very difficult for a child, particularly when they start to attend school and families are on the curriculum, to cope with a complete blank where a birth parent’s identity might be. As a carer you need an explanation that increases in detail as the child matures.
‘Why isn’t my hair dark brown like yours?’
A sense of identity - This can be important physically, as the child begins to want to emulate or be part of their second family.
‘I’m only living with you because my birth parent is a rock star’
A sense of reality – as a child grows older they may want to know why they are not with their birth family. Contact can help prevent a fantasy life evolving around a birth parent. This in turn may prevent any ‘play-offs’ between birth and second families. It can be quite devastating for an older child to meet a birth parent and experience their shortcomings. Acceptance from an early age is helpful.
‘Why did my birth parents give me up?'
Understanding and communication - An opportunity for child and birth parent to communicate on these issues can be good. It’s tricky territory, for a birth parent may not be prepared to answer the hard questions, or may be in complete denial about what actually happened and their responsibility for it. That in itself is a useful conversation for a trusted person to have with the child.
So what is the issue, for the child, around birth family contact?
BALANCE
You can completely undermine a child’s sense of security if contact with birth family overwhelms them and over-rides their daily life. Let’s state the obvious – access for a child who has a good chance of restitution with their birth family, should be very different to that of a child who has been put into the care of the Minister until they reach 18 years.
We believe that the PURPOSE of contact should be an item on any case plan.
The frequency of contact is usually covered, but we’ve not experienced an open and frank discussion about the purpose. We’ve seen this come unstuck when a worker thought they were meant to re-establish the child/birth parent relationship, when the appropriate purpose of access was to ‘maintain contact between child and birth parent’. There is a world of difference between those two objectives.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you know how access should run.
We saw that world of difference played out in the behaviours of worker and birth parent. The workers pushed a level of interaction, and a set of rules, that alienated the child and increased her insecurity. It also resulted in a birth parent believing they had far more say in the child’s life than was the case. It was left to a more experienced worker to do damage control, and remind birth parent of the reality of the situation. It wouldn’t have happened if the issue had been discussed properly.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you help the child manage their response to birth parent.
It will help you know which behaviours, from child and birth parent, to support, and what you should hose down. You know the child best, and you know what their life is now, so you are best placed to understand the impact access with a birth parent may have.
We’re going to have the purpose of access firmly on the agenda at our next case conference. We recommend that you discuss this with your worker until you are really clear about what it means. We think it is a useful discussion for any birth parent to participate in. And we especially recommend it as a discussion with any new worker who wants to change some aspect of access.
Posted by EssentialMum
Do foster children always become troubled teens?
‘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.
We’ve cared for children who have been bounced around the system for some years before they landed with us. Often they have been emotionally abandoned and that is obvious from the minute we meet them. Often their physical needs haven’t been well looked after either, but they can be relatively easier to fix. We throw every ounce of care, love and attention into making a child feel that we were their family, that we are here to stay.
But some workers have viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion.
We know carers who foster with an agency that has a strong agenda around restitution of the children with their birth families. 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.
So what characterises these 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.
We’ve cared for children who have been bounced around the system for some years before they landed with us. Often they have been emotionally abandoned and that is obvious from the minute we meet them. Often their physical needs haven’t been well looked after either, but they can be relatively easier to fix. We throw every ounce of care, love and attention into making a child feel that we were their family, that we are here to stay.
But some workers have viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion.
We know carers who foster with an agency that has a strong agenda around restitution of the children with their birth families. 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.
So what characterises these 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
Do agencies keep carer lists up to date?
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 a fair while since we’ve had any dealings 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.
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 mobile bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will a child in care feel, many years on, when they read the case conference notes and see the errors? These children are entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in their life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of them, of their information, of their feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is a fair while since we’ve had any dealings 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.
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 mobile bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will a child in care feel, many years on, when they read the case conference notes and see the errors? These children are entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in their life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of them, of their information, of their feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
Questions to ask a prospective foster agency
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
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 the child’s requirements were the most important ones. With such a clear agreement about the priority, coming to a solution was easy.
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 our lives, 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.
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.
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 the child’s requirements were the most important ones. With such a clear agreement about the priority, coming to a solution was easy.
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 our lives, 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.
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.
Posted by EssentialMum
'This is what you signed up for'
We heard those words from a private agency social worker, justifying why a number of well-established routines needed to change, two years into the placement.
Nothing else had changed except the worker. Happy Camper had made great progress and settled in well. She still showed a reaction to access visits with birth family, and so every effort was made to normalize those visits for her. That meant EssentialMum came too, a safety blanket for a small child.
What was proposed was a major change:
We explained politely that we didn’t see why there was a need for such a change to the routine, when the existing one served Happy Camper well.
And those words came back to us with quite a deal of frustration from the worker.
‘This is what you signed up for.’
So what did we sign up for? It was obvious that in this circumstance the social worker’s view of it and ours were vastly different.
Did we sign up to care for this child as if she were our own? Yes.
Did we sign up to let social workers dictate, without discussion, how things should be done for this child? No.
In our family, we acknowledge the professional expertise of many people we deal with (we actually have quite a bit of professional expertise ourselves so we respect it in others). But we don't blindly accept it. Bringing our view of what's right and appropriate for this child (living with her means we actually know her REALLY WELL now) is called responsibility.
That's what we signed up for.
This same agency cheerfully gave us a copy of Mary Ann Goodearle's book Everything but the Kids - A Guide to Foster Parenting (for full publishing details see the Resources Tab). One chapter specifically talks about foster parents demanding a seat at the table and taking responsibility for decisions regarding the child, not merely updating a social worker on how the child is reacting and expecting the social worker to make the decision.
Our experience is that, like corporates and firms and government departments, some agencies and workers may talk the talk. But they will find foster parents confronting when they offer an opinion and are prepared to suggest a course of action. You may hear the words 'collaboration' and 'value your opinion'. If you choose to speak up, expressing your opinion may create tension. How you work through that, and whether in fact it can be resolved, is another issue.
Posted by EssentialMum
Nothing else had changed except the worker. Happy Camper had made great progress and settled in well. She still showed a reaction to access visits with birth family, and so every effort was made to normalize those visits for her. That meant EssentialMum came too, a safety blanket for a small child.
What was proposed was a major change:
- A new schedule for far more frequent social worker visits, on a day that suited the social worker but not the foster family.
- A new approach for visits between Happy Camper and her birth family that excluded EssentialMum.
- A more 'significant' role for social worker in Happy Camper's life.
We explained politely that we didn’t see why there was a need for such a change to the routine, when the existing one served Happy Camper well.
And those words came back to us with quite a deal of frustration from the worker.
‘This is what you signed up for.’
So what did we sign up for? It was obvious that in this circumstance the social worker’s view of it and ours were vastly different.
Did we sign up to care for this child as if she were our own? Yes.
Did we sign up to let social workers dictate, without discussion, how things should be done for this child? No.
In our family, we acknowledge the professional expertise of many people we deal with (we actually have quite a bit of professional expertise ourselves so we respect it in others). But we don't blindly accept it. Bringing our view of what's right and appropriate for this child (living with her means we actually know her REALLY WELL now) is called responsibility.
That's what we signed up for.
This same agency cheerfully gave us a copy of Mary Ann Goodearle's book Everything but the Kids - A Guide to Foster Parenting (for full publishing details see the Resources Tab). One chapter specifically talks about foster parents demanding a seat at the table and taking responsibility for decisions regarding the child, not merely updating a social worker on how the child is reacting and expecting the social worker to make the decision.
Our experience is that, like corporates and firms and government departments, some agencies and workers may talk the talk. But they will find foster parents confronting when they offer an opinion and are prepared to suggest a course of action. You may hear the words 'collaboration' and 'value your opinion'. If you choose to speak up, expressing your opinion may create tension. How you work through that, and whether in fact it can be resolved, is another issue.
Posted by EssentialMum