Professionalization Of Foster Care

PROFESSIONALIZINGFOSTER CARE
THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN

Thomas Waldock, Ph.D.

Introduction

    The professionalization of foster care is a long overdue reform in child welfare. The underlying rationale is that it is crucial to the quality of care that children in the system receive, and this has to be our primary concern. In many of the debates over the issue of professionalization, we do not appreciate the stakes.
    Issues such as the ‘recognition’ of foster parents are important, but their real significance stems from the larger concern for the welfare of children. Child protection agencies, child advocates, and government ministries must bear this in mind when developing future directions in child welfare.
    A number of interrelated considerations warrant the formal professionalization of foster case. The first recognizes the changing problems of the children coming into care, and the need to provide them with the best possible quality of care. Often this requires foster parents with skills and expertise that go beyond ‘parenting’ in the traditional sense of the word.

The second consideration is the need to attract competent foster parents, and then keep them in the system. All too often, role confusion and other factors – such as a lack of recognition within the system and in society generally – contribute to the loss of competent foster parents. This leads to an excessive turnover rate.
The third consideration is the need to bring foster parents into the decision-making process regarding children in their care to a much greater degree. While foster parents have practical insight based on everyday contact with children, their input is often relegated to the margins of decision-making.

Background While there will always be a need for institutionalized settings as a placement option for children and adolescents with sever psychological and behavioral problems (Weisman,1994), a general consensus has developed that foster care is the preferred option if such a setting is at all possible (Wolfensberger,1972). Clearly, an environment that feels like ‘home’ is a central component of the experience of belonging, and this experience is crucial to positive child development. The gradual development of this consensus coincided with a move toward deinstitutionalization in child welfare services. This mean that foster care became the preferred alternative for children coming into care, but it also put greater pressure on foster care services to provide for children with more extensive psychological and emotional difficulties.
It is important to recognize that the majority of children in care continue to be placed in foster care of one form or another, and that their experience in the child welfare system is a reflection of the quality of care that they receive. Their new ‘home’ will have a significant impact on their lives. While this is especially true for young children, it would be wrong to underestimate the importance of ‘home’ for children and adolescents who are beyond the most formative years.

... THE TREND TO INCREASED PROFESSIONALIZATION HAS OCCURRED OUT OF NECESSITY, IN RESPONSE TO THE DEMANDS OF DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION.

    Given the importance of the foster home in the lives of children in care, it is inexcusable that we still have confusion over the proper role of foster parents in the child welfare system. Are they volunteers? Are they ‘clients’ of child welfare agencies? Are they ‘staff’ of those agencies? Are they professionals?
    Role confusion is a topic that has been covered for a long time. Articles from the early 1960s deal with the need to clarify the role of foster parents in the child welfare system (Starr & Taylor, 1967; Pratt, 1967). The sad fact is that very little has changed. There has been a piecemeal evolution toward the professionalization of foster care, but nothing that resembles a coordinated effort. If anything, the trend to increased professionalization has occurred out of necessity, in response to the demands of deinstitutionalization.
    Role confusion continues to plague the child welfare system, undermining the quality of care that children receive. This confusion largely stems from conflicting ideas and attitudes about foster care itself, both within the child welfare system and in society generally. Specifically, the view of fostering as purely a ‘voluntary’ undertaking continues to conflict with efforts to recognize fostering as a profession.

The Rationale For Professionalization

Many child welfare agencies and government ministries charged with the responsibility for children's services have recognized the changing circumstances of children coming into foster care (O.A.C.A.S., 1988; M.C.S.S., 1979, 1990). Increasingly, foster parents are dealing with children who have greater emotional and psychological needs. This is partly due to deinstitutionalization, but also to a variety of stresses on modern families – marital breakups, single parent homes, latch-key children, poverty, and a lack of close-knit communities and extended families (Hauprich & Joy, 1988).
Other factors come into play, depending on the particular jurisdiction or agency in question. Depending on the degree to which a philosophy of family preservation is pursued, it is possible that children are coming into care later, often experiencing various psychological and emotional stresses within their own families for a longer period of time (Macdonald, 1994). When children do come into care, their degree of disturbance often causes placements to break down, and this leads to multiple placements. Frequent disruptions exacerbate their problems, and the cycle continues.

My point is this: the attempt to designate some foster homes as ‘specialized’ homes – thereby differentiating them from ‘regular’ homes – is making less and less sense over time, as most of the children coming into care are ‘special needs’ children (Steinhauer, 1988).

MORE AND MORE FOSTER PARENTS ARE BEING FORCED TO FUNCTION AS PARENT-THERAPISTS.

It has long been a reality for foster parents that what they are engaging in is far from ‘normal’ parenting. More and more, foster parents are being forced to function as parent-therapists. As a result, they increasingly require skills and expertise that only professionals are deemed to possess. While therapeutic intervention must continue to be provided by experts, those within the field need to stop pretending that this type of ‘outside’ intervention – that is, intervention provided by professionals who are really outsiders in the child's day to day experience, and generally taking the form of appointments scheduled at various intervals – is adequate to meet a child's needs. Children are not adults who ‘go to therapy’ to deal with their problems. Childhood is the most vulnerable period of development, and thus more rigorous attention is not only required, but is called for in the best interests of children. Foster parents are in the best position to give the child this type of active nurturing.

    Some commentators object to the professionalization of foster parenting. They point to the need for loving, caring relationships between foster parents and the children they care for, as though the recognition of foster parents as ‘professionals’ would undermine the voluntary, spontaneous nature of parenting that takes place in the home (Lemay, 1991). Aside from the view already expressed, that the task confronting foster parents today is not simply ‘parenting’ in the traditional sense, the assumption that ‘professionalization’ will undermine loving, caring relationships is based on a rather curious understanding of professionalism.
    In order for the ‘practitioner’ to be characterized as a ‘professional,’ the ‘practitioner/client’ relationship must be one of relative detachment. There is a conscious attempt to maintain a degree of separation from the client, and relationships are conditional (Lemay, 1991). Such views mesh with the scientific paradigm that dominates are understanding of the world. Objectivity implies detachment from objects of study. Yet the relevance of this paradigm to the child welfare field is limited. These children have long suffered from a type of detached treatment that is not caring enough.
    In any case, there is no need to hold such a narrow view of professionalization. Professionalism has everything to do with the provision of a recognized, valuable service that requires experience, education, knowledge and expertise, and very little to do with the type of relationship that develops between foster parents and their children. To suggest that ‘caring’ relationships would be undermined is to suggest that foster parents lack the common sense not to treat children as ‘clients’ within their own homes. If anything, professionalization would allow for a more informed caring, not less caring.

    Recruitment efforts, particularly of skilled people, are hampered by a lack of professional status for foster care. Under present circumstances, those with training in the child welfare field do not usually consider fostering as on of their options. Graduates of college and university programs in the social services or related fields are not a ripe source of recruitment for foster care. The problem is partly one of recognition and social status – a problem that we will turn to shortly – but it is also related to the ambiguous role of foster parents in the social welfare field. Recruitment efforts would be more success if this ambiguity were reduced (Galaway, 1972; Appathurai et al.,, 1986). Since foster parents continue to exist in a kind of limbo, with a status somewhere between volunteers and professionals, it is difficult to delineate roles, expectations and responsibilities.
    Recruitment is only one side of the coin. There is also the issue of retention, the ability to keep quality homes in the system. Recognizing that the rate of foster parent turnover is too high, commentators point out that foster parents need more status, higher levels of remuneration, and generally more support from child protection agencies (Eastman, 1982). Moreover, lack of role clarity contributes to the well-documented tensions that sometimes arise between foster parents and agencies, and in particular between foster parents and social workers. This often leads to increased levels of frustration and stress, which in turn undermine the performance of foster parents (Galaway, 1972; Tinney, 1985; Brown, 1987), and contribute to decreased feelings of achievement and self-actualization.
    Foster care initiatives that attempted to address some of these issues have had some success. Generally, the approach has been to clarify the role of foster parents’ vis-à-vis child protection agencies, in a way that empowers foster parents and makes them an integral part of the team. As Galaway notes, all to frequently the clarification of their role is stated in terms of helping foster parents to understand the policies of the placement agency and to function within these policies, rather than in helping them to find ways to influence agency policy and to take an active part in defining their expectations of, and relations with, the agency staff. (Galaway, 1972)

TO SUGGEST THAT 'CARING' RELATIONSHIPS WOULD BE UNDERMINED IS TO SUGGEST THAT FOSTER PARENTS LACK THE COMMON SENSE NOT TO TREAT CHILDREN AS 'CLIENTS' WITHIN THEIR OWN HOMES.

    To be effective, the approach to empowering foster parents must involve more than lip service to lofty principles. The actual niche of foster parents must be altered.
    The most direct approach has been simply to hire foster parents as agency employees. This ‘employee’ status has increased foster parent satisfaction, and has led to a more positive interaction with the agency and other employees, such as social workers. Moreover, the parenting role of foster parents has in no way been undermined by the employee role vis-à-vis the agency; the two roles have proven to be compatible (Pratt, 1967; Freeman, 1978). One of the key variables behind the increased levels of satisfaction is the mutual respect between foster parents and social workers, where both are recognized as equals and are viewed as integral to the provision of services to children. This type of mutual respect is difficult to attain when foster parents are not recognized as competent professionals.
    Aside from the recruitment and retention of homes, the extent to which foster parents are brought into the decision-making process bears upon the quality of care that children receive. Often the foster parents have more practical insight into the needs and concerns of children than anyone else does. Yet despite efforts to bring them into the process, and laudable declarations of intent by child welfare agencies, not enough has been achieved in terms of real interaction at the grassroots level.

    Foster parents are excluded in a variety of ways, some more subtle than others, yet the effects in all cases serve to alienate foster parents from the decision-making process. For example, many foster parents can recall times when they were not informed about decisions regarding children in their care, and their presence was either not requested, or was added as an afterthought. Occurrences such as these cannot be attributed solely to particular relationships, agencies, or even jurisdictions. A large part of the problem is systemic, and has to do with the subordinate position of foster parents.
    The voices of foster parents are not heeded as they should be, and this is particularly distressing in the legal realm. It is not only front-line workers who experience frustration when judges defer more to the testimony of psychologists and court-appointed lawyers – who often have met children only once – than to their own testimony. Foster parents are still further removed in terms of input; in fact, it is not unusual for them to be absent from court proceedings. Yet more often than not, their presence and advocacy is crucial to the welfare of the child in their care. So which foster parents have practical insight that needs to be heard – insight based on an intimate understanding of a child's life and experiences – they remain relative outsiders in the decision-making process.
    It is possible to view the problem of a lack of recognition or status for foster parents from the larger societal perspective. Carole Pateman notes that status in our society traditionally has been dependent on paid employment in the public sphere, and this has been dominated by male workers and professionals. The patriarchal separation of public and private spheres has gone hand-in-hand with the relegation of women to the private sphere. In short, women toil in the private sphere of the family. By extension, of course, ‘welfare work’ became associated with caring for ‘dependents’ in society. Pateman concludes: Welfare-state policies have ensured in various ways that wives/women provide welfare services gratis, disguised as part of their responsibility for the private sphere... It is not surprising that the attack on public spending in the welfare state by the Thatcher and Reagan governments goes hand-in-hand with praise for loving care within families, that is, with an attempt to obtain ever more unpaid welfare from (house) wives. (Pateman, 1988)

    Foster care can be considered ‘welfare work.’ It is largely pursued by women, and despite the gradual breakdown of the public/private dichotomy – a reflection of the acknowledgment that children are a social responsibility – it continues to be regarded as a voluntary service. Foster care is simply parenting; it represents a ‘natural’ expression of loving and caring that would be undermined by professionalization, (does this sound familiar?) – a concept reserved for the public sphere.
    Those versed in the history of child welfare services are aware of the lack of ‘professionalization’ that at one time characterized the whole child welfare field. Services were viewed as purely voluntary and an extension of ‘family’ work – work associated with the private sphere. In other words, services now provided by the social work ‘profession’ were at one time distinguished from ‘public’ employment that was rewarded financially. Those performing such work – generally women working under the aegis of some church group or organization – were engaged in ‘acts of charity.’ The important point is that within child welfare services, foster care represents the last vestige of this old view!
    Commentators are right when they call for the transformation of the role and status of caregivers in our society (Wharf, 1993). The argument for the professionalization of foster care can be viewed as part-and-parcel of such a transformation, in that rewards and status must be attached to people who care for children. There always will be opposition from those who view caring for children as the private responsibility of parents. Yet the ‘private responsibility’ argument makes little sense if it does not incorporate the reality that the welfare of children is also a social responsibility with immense social ramifications.

...FOSTER PARENTS CONTINUE TO EXIST IN A KIND OF LIMBO, WITH A STATUS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN VOLUNTEERS AND PROFESSIONALS...

    For example, if parents or other caregivers are not supported in the care of children, the consequences will not be contained in any ‘private’ sphere. Society is not made up of isolated spheres that can be divorced from one another; everyone has a practical stake in every outcome. At any rate, the ‘private responsibility’ argument has little bearing on the role of foster parents as caregivers. Children in foster homes are already very much a public responsibility.
    Not all jurisdictions and child protection agencies share the same philosophy concerning foster care. In some cases real efforts have been made to move in the direction of professionalization. Some agencies have endeavoured to bring foster parents into the decision-making process. Generally, this has gone hand-in-hand with increased responsibilities.
    The counseling of natural parents is a role particularly suited to foster parents. Moreover, highly competent and trained foster parents could take on tasks in the area of preventative intervention, perhaps working with families to avoid placement. Clearly, not all foster parents would be in a position to provide such services, but many caregivers would welcome the opportunity. Yet without some kind of coordination, these efforts are a continued uphill battle. Governments are in the most logical position to provide this type of coordination.

Instituting changes is no easy task, and I do not underestimate the extent of the required changes to the status quo. But in terms of general direction, the way ahead is clear enough. Foster parents should be considered staff of the child protection agencies that employ them. Their role, responsibilities and accountability should be absolutely clarified. It could be argued that a more achievable strategy would be for foster parents to become independent service providers, but this would court a privatization and decentralization of services that could undermine the quality of care. When children are placed in for-profit outside resources, the lines of responsibility and accountability can be blurred. The agencies, and in many cases the natural parents as well, can lose a measure of control, while standards and conditions may be eroded.

FOSTER PARENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED STAFF OF THE CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES THAT EMPLOY THEM.

With professionalization, recruitment would be based on qualifications, and practical and educational experience in fields related to work with children and youth would be relevant. This recognizes that the qualifications required for foster parenting are increasing, a discernible trend irrespective of our feelings about professionalization. If anything is dictating this development, it is the type of child now entering foster care, along with concerns for the quality of care. This has led to the expectation that foster parents receive meaningful training.

What Is The Alternative? Those who are wary of such changes need to consider the effects of the status quo on the quality of care. Aside from whether or not they agree with the analysis in this paper, there are certain realities that cannot be ignored. Year after and in study after study, we are faced with the ‘crisis’ in foster care. Recruitment of quality foster parents continues to be a challenge in virtually all jurisdictions, despite the effort and resources spent.
Do we turn increasingly to private institutions to solve this shortage of foster homes working under the aegis of child protection agencies? The potential consequences of this course of action must be considered. Do we, as some in the United States have suggested – in response to a shortage of foster homes – turn to institutionalized settings for children who could be placed in foster care? Opponents say that this is a costly alternative, but the real issue is the quality of care. When considering future directions in child welfare, let us not suggest old and regressive approaches that have proved costly in human terms.
Instead of going around in circles, continually dealing with issues of the shortage of good homes and the lack of qualified and experienced caregivers, we should recognize the contribution made by foster parents in the care of children. This recognition must take place in the child welfare field, and also in society. We cannot simply wait for a change in the collective consciousness, such as waiting for the value of children to increase in our society. The strategy must be proactive, not passive. Sadly, children do not have a strong voice in our society, and are in no position to demand better services when they are in foster care. Often they come from backgrounds characterized by abuse, poverty, and poor housing conditions. They may also lack a strong parental and family support system. Concrete changes that can be made within the child welfare field could contribute to the larger process of recognizing the value of children. The professionalization of foster care would contribute to this process of recognition, and would go a long way towards addressing the real issue, which is the quality of care.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Cherie Waldock (Foster Parent, Family Partner, C.C.A.S. of Metropolitan Toronto), Elaine Leiba (Manager, Foster Care Services, C.C.A.S. of Metropolitan Toronto), Joyce Cohen (Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto), and Elizabeth Brooks (Social Welfare, Nipissing University) for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I also thank Penny Sipkes (Co-ordinator, The Social Worker), as well as the editor and anonymous reviewers.

Dr. Thomas Waldock is an instructor at Trent and Nipissing Universities. He is also a foster parent in the Family Partner's Program of the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metro Toronto. This program draws on counseling abilities of foster parents, and stresses a close relationship between foster parents and natural parents: Thus it represents a movement in the direction of the professionalization of foster parenting. Dr. Waldock is married with five children, and over the past nine years he and his wife have fostered over 20 children. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from the University of Toronto.

twaldock@ican.net

Back To Articles