Hi, everyone!
As I’m sure you all know by now, I work for a local non-profit agency. The Children’s Home of Wyoming Conference was opened up just over 100 years ago as an orphanage. Today, the agency provides a wide variety of services to children and families in New York State. (Shameless promotion, you can find out more about the services that are offered through the Children’s Home here: www.chowc.org.) More specifically, I work in foster care and I’d like to talk to you all about the amazing group of people that I am fortunate to work alongside every day. I’m talking about foster parents.
For those who are not exactly sure what foster care is, it is
the temporary care of a child who cannot remain safely within their home. It is
important to note that the goal of foster care is almost ALWAYS reunification
with the biological family. While a child is in foster care, their biological
parents are, theoretically, participating in a variety of services (many
offered through other local non-profit agencies!) that will assist them in
better caring for their children in the future. Such services include
participation in anger management, addiction treatment, and attending basic
parenting skills classes.
This is where foster parents step in. Foster parents, first
and foremost, open up their homes. They are responsible for providing basic
necessities for their foster children – food, clothing, etc. On top of this, they
nurture, mentor, guide, discipline, and generally provide care for children who
are dealing with the trauma of having been separated from their families, on
top of whatever events that necessitated placement in the first place. They
take children back and forth to numerous mental health appointments. They
invite caseworkers, held responsible for monitoring the well-being of the
child, into their homes. They assist in maintaining a positive relationship
between the foster child in their care and the biological family. They do all
of this without pay and with the knowledge that they may never see the full
impact of their efforts.
I can think of no philanthropic act that so fully embodies
the idea of love of humanity with the concepts of donating time, talent, and
treasure quite like the act of becoming a foster parent.
With all of that said, I stumbled upon this article the
other day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/foster-care-is-increasingly-seen-as-a-profession-as-opposed-to-purely-philanthropic-1683488.html
The article suggest that the act of providing foster care is, and should be, looked at as a professional occupation rather than as an act of philanthropy. As a person who works directly in the foster care system, I completely disagree with this line of thought. However, I’d like to know what everyone else thinks!
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/foster-care-is-increasingly-seen-as-a-profession-as-opposed-to-purely-philanthropic-1683488.html
The article suggest that the act of providing foster care is, and should be, looked at as a professional occupation rather than as an act of philanthropy. As a person who works directly in the foster care system, I completely disagree with this line of thought. However, I’d like to know what everyone else thinks!
Do you believe that being a foster parent can be considered
an act of philanthropy? Or do you believe that providing foster care should be considered
a profession?
This is a super interesting topic, and honestly I had never thought of being a foster parent a form of philanthropy. It seems to be difficult to label foster parenting because it is both voluntary to sign up yet people need to be able to provide for the children. While the argument that the author of the article made is valid because foster parents do have to complete trainings and such a huge time commitment is required; I’m still not quite in agreement with her. And yes, one could say they should be paid but at the same time, who is going to pay them? More tax dollars? Don't mistake my hesitance to pay the foster parents for their services as labeling what they do as unimportant, because I have so much respect for them and how they open their homes up. But if we decide to pay them, they can not be considered philanthropists. Becoming a foster parent is a choice, and I think that for it to be considered philanthropic, it foster parents wouldn't be paid to have children live in . If foster parenting was considered a career, I would be worried about people taking kids in without truly caring about the well being of the children but how much their paycheck was every week. While the reimbursement they receive seems very fair and a good way to help foster parents provide a healthy and safe environment. I don't think they should receive any additional payments. Our class will not be getting paid because we are helping an organization, I do not think that if foster parents are paid anything more than the reimbursements they should not be considered philanthropists.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a great topic. I had never really thought about this before so thank you for bringing it up. I think that foster parents are incredibly important. I did not really think of them as being philanthropist. After reading what you and Meredith said I realize that being a foster parent is a form a philanthropy. Foster parents put in time and money to take care of the kid, provide meals and bring them to school and meetings.
ReplyDeleteI do have to give the author of the article credit though. It seems like being a foster parent takes much of your time with being on call 24 hours a day and all the training they must receive. With all of this it does not seem very easy to hold a paid job. It is good that the foster parents get reimbursements, I think it is still financially hard on the foster parents.However I do agree with Meredith. If foster parenting were to become a job then the issue of whether the parent actually cares for the well-being of the kid or just the money comes into play. On the flip side there could be people who want to be foster parents but are too concerned with finical uncertainties that they don't become foster parents. I think that if foster parenting were to become a career in which you need to go through a certain type of schooling this would eliminate some, if not all, of the people who are just doing it for the money. But it is true if this was to happen we would no longer be able to think of them as philanthropists.
For the sake of discussion, I'll say that foster parents deserve money for their work.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem, as the article addresses, is that being a foster parent requires immense knowledge, training, and skills in childhood development. Don't get me wrong, "maternal instinct" and "paternal instinct" certainly exist and are strong reasons as to why many parents do a great job with their kids. However, especially with emotionally damaged kids, they need special care that the average person can't automatically know how to handle. What makes this form of time philanthropy different from most other types is it requires much more training. If someone wanted to work at their local soup kitchen, they wouldn't need extensive schooling to do so. Any old person can volunteer at a soup kitchen whenever they want...but any old person certainly can NOT be a foster parent.
This is why potential foster parents should be paid. But paid, not in the sense that this is their career, but given money so that they can get the training to become good foster parents. This would solve the main problems Meredith and Emily discussed. First of all, the arduous nature of the training and actual foster care combined with the fact that the money isn't enough to justify a career will ensure that people only in it for monetary gain won't last. Secondly, this training will ensure that the people doing the foster care will actually be doing a great job. Would you rather save the money on the training but then have a parent who has no experience dealing with emotional trauma caring for a child? Absolutely not, because then the misinformed parent will likely make the situation worse, and at best have a negligible impact. Thus, this money would be an important investment.
Lastly is the question of calling it philanthropy. Firstly, I doubt any foster parent cares whether or not you call what they do philanthropy. I doubt you'll find a foster parent who will say, "you don't call this philanthropy?! Well then forget this! I want recognition!" Those kind of people are incredibly rare at best. Second, it would still be philanthropy. These parents would not be profiting from the money they were given. This money would simply enable them to do a better job at their philanthropic work. Like spending money on sports equipment at the local YMCA so the kids there have more options, this money would not be a salary but a tool to help these philanthropists do the best job possible.
I never really thought about foster parenting as a form of philanthropy, but after reading the arguments, I am convinced that foster parenting may just be the ultimate form of philanthropy. I cannot imagine the sacrifices foster parents must make when taking children into their homes. People often say that “parenting is a full-time job.” However, I do not believe that this means that parenting is a career. This means that the amount of work a parent must put into raising a child rivals that of a 9-to-5 job. If people think of foster parenting as a job or obligation, then they are probably not the most appropriate people to be taking care of children. Foster children need love and support. They cannot be thought of as burdens.
ReplyDeleteLabeling foster care as a profession implies that the parents will be paid for their actions. While I agree that foster parents should be partially reimbursed, these foster parents know that they have signed up for a sometimes-thankless experience. Once money is added into the situation, foster care becomes less of a form of philanthropy and more of a form of long-term day care. However, paying the parents does not make foster care less admirable. It simply makes foster care less selfless. If the extra money allows more suitable people to become foster parents, then I have no problem with giving a little more money to the parents. On the other hand, if the money is the only reason why someone wants to be a foster parent, then there is no way of initially knowing whether or not they are qualified to take care of a child in need.
Richard, I really appreciate you taking an opposite stance for the sake of discussion. I also really like the idea of foster parents' being paid for the training that they receive. Going to training is definitely a time consuming process, but it's an amazing opportunity to enhance the skills that will be needed to properly care for the children that enter the foster care system. I think a small financial incentive would encourage foster parents to pursue more than just the required trainings, which will then allow them to better serve the children that they become responsible for.
ReplyDeleteI'm very much in agreement with the point that all of you picked up on - offering a salary-type payment to foster parents may attract people that do not have the best interest of children at heart. It will also create a system that will push people to take in more children than they can handle, simply for the financial gain. Honestly, even with just the monthly stipend that is provided, this is already an issue within the foster care system.
Courtney, as the other commenters on this blog post have already mentioned, this is a great topic and one that I never really gave much consideration before reading your post. I hate to re-hash arguments and points that have been already made, but I think it's very important to consider the fact that some individuals will actually be swayed to become foster parents due to monetary incentives. This is obviously something that has to be avoided at all costs in that it will provide an incentive to those who should not (or would not otherwise) become foster parents. I think that there should be a system in place to help people that are foster parents, and a more in depth one than currently exists – perhaps if they could receive funds to cover a percentage of the costs they will incur, this would be helpful. I agree that training for foster parents is incredibly important – after all, parenting requires so much dedication and when we're speaking about children that have lived through and gone through so much (making it so that they have to go through foster care), these parents have to give 200 percent to the child. Also, I do think that being a foster parent is a form of philanthropy – in fact, it seems to be one of the most giving and selfless acts a person can undertake. It requires both money and time and considering the amount of discussion we have had about whether money or time are more critical to philanthropy, I think the fact that being a foster parent uses both, there are few things that truly encapsulate philanthropy and giving as much as that.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question you pose, Courtney.
ReplyDeleteI do see being a foster parent as an act of philanthropy. These parents take in a child and take them to many medical appointments that, surely, cost hundreds of dollars. In addition, they pay for clothes and food for the child as well. However, I believe foster parents do deserve to get paid for their actions.
These people who take in these children do selfless acts, but, as Courtney has said, do not even see the impact of their efforts. I believe getting paid for this selfless work would be helpful to the families and the parents would be able to give back more to the children they take in. With extra money, parents would be able to provide better doctors for their foster children and may be able to give them an even better standard of living.
I have a lot of qualms with the foster care system. In theory, it is a really good idea: it provides ordinary (meaning nonprofessional) people an opportunity to connect with a child who has come from a troubled past, and guide him or her through a tough time. However, a lot of these kids are just rung through a failing system that only sees them as another case. Granted, taking in someone into your home is a huge act of kindness and philanthropy, but seeing America's foster-care system in this light is misleading (here's some more facts: http://www.childrensrights.org/reform-campaigns/phases-of-reform/investigating-the-case/).
ReplyDeleteFoster-care services should absolutely be under the care of professionals, or, at least, by people who have been moderately trained before taking on the role as "foster parent". These kids are being taken from their biological parents and put into a stranger's home, or a group home in a lot of cases, doesn't this call for some emotional help from a professional?
My neighbors are a foster family. They always have different kids in and out of their house, and from what they tell me, they are lucky to be in that household. They are a very regular middle class family, and try their best to accommodate for their guests, but there are some things that the foster kids need help with, emotionally and psychologically, that case workers miss on their visits. I don't find anything wrong with foster parents being paid;the government should subsidize foster parents and group homes because they are providing a great service that does require a lot of time, money, and commitment. This isn't just community service, it is the lives of human beings that require special care on account of their difficult backgrounds. Although foster care is meant to be temporary, it should be seen as a pivotal step in foster kids' lives; they aren't a herd of sheep that can be bounced from house to house, they need real help. The foster care system should be taken more seriously, and deserves a lot more attention than it is receiving.
-Chelsea Desruisseaux
Courtney, I loved your post! I think this is such an interesting topic. My answer to your question is not yes or no, but, rather, it is another question all together: Do we need to separate philanthropic work with a profession?
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with you that fostering children is philanthropic work. It definitely falls into the definition of "loving humanity," and it is definitely a huge sacrifice. That being said, philanthropy is something that not everyone does because it is a life decision with no monetary return. Not only that, but it is also an action that many people take with out having any formal training. Despite their intentions being good, foster families could have negative impacts on children if they don't know how to properly care for them.
Turning foster care into a profession has a lot of positive impacts. First, it can inspire more people to foster children. Many people feel they want to help but can't because of their financial standing. Turning foster care into a profession allows them to satisfy their desire to help children in need by making it financially possible. This concept can also work the other way around. Maybe families never thought to foster a child, but the idea of a monetary return is enough motivation to get involved. Turning fostering into a profession can simply increase the number of parents getting involved. Another thing that professionalization creates is a system of training that would be required in any other career. Training parents to deal with the emotional and physical trauma of a foster child could be the difference between a successful and unsuccessful fostering experience.
So yes, fostering is definitely philanthropic because it requires personal sacrifice to better society, but it also needs to be a profession in order to keep it structured and keep people involved.