Deseret News | Foster families say they're underfunded

Reader comments
Foster families say they're underfunded

Anonymous | 7:03 a.m. Sept. 22, 2009

Foster parents are worth every cent we pay them however, the Foster Care Foundation is definately not. They have received millions in state funds, pay high salaries, which is why most of their staff are former DCFS employees and have excessive administrative overhead.

Yet, they fail miserably to recruit foster parents for teens, sibling groups, children with physical or mental health issues and at-risk youth. They recruit foster parents who want babies and toddlers and in many cases really want to adopt.

The State legislature should look seriously at the Foster Care Foundation and bring the services of recruitment and training back into DCFS. There would be great financial savings,to the taxpayer and more appropriate training for potential foster parents through the Division's training unit which could re-recruit some of the FCF's employees.

This group has been treated like a "sacred cow" for too long and they are a waste of taxpayer money.

Kelly Peterson | 7:22 a.m. Sept. 22, 2009

A point of clarification - Foster parents "drop out" or do not renew their license each year in Utah for many reasons. One of them is very positive - they "drop out" because they have adopted the children who were unable to return home, thus providing permanency and meaningful connections for them. In many situations, after the family has adjusted, they return to fostering again. Vigorous recruitment on the front end is always necessary to replace those foster parents who leave the system for any reason. It may become more and more difficult to recruit families if they are not adequately reimbursed to cover the basic needs of the children. These are not wealthy families. They are people who care deeply about the safety and well-being of children.

Kelly Peterson | 7:31 a.m. Sept. 22, 2009

A point of clarification - Foster families "drop out" or do not renew their licenses each year for many reasons. One of them is very positive; they drop out because they have adopted the children who are unable to return home, thus providing permanency and meaningful connections for them. In many situations, after the family has adjusted, they return to fostering again. Vigorous recruitment on the front end will always be necessary to replace those families who have dropped out. It may become more and more difficult to recruit families if the reimbursements are inadequate to cover the needs of the child. These are not wealthy families. They are people who care deeply about the safety and well-being of children.

Comments continue below

lawsuit | 10:23 a.m. Sept. 22, 2009

You think after the millions of dollars that they state had to pay out over the lawsuit (which they have just barely gotten out of after 10+ years) that they would get it.
If the government is going to take custody of children then they have to provide good care for the children.
As clarification 90% of teenagers in foster care are in structured homes that pay a higher rate of $30 a day. Still not alot but more then the $18 that was reported.

MamaGoat of 5 kids | 10:59 a.m. Sept. 22, 2009

Amazingly enough, the cuts started weeks after that lawsuit had been resolved. Apparently, the legislature didn't learn. Also, the foundation does a great work. The reason why Govenor Leavitt wanted it created was to aid DCFS, not take away from it. Foster care recruitment, training and retention has improved dramatically since the foundation was established. I volunteer to help with recruitment and all types of people sign up, not just ones that want to adopt little babies. The employees work very hard (and I am NOT an employee) to help foster families and foster kids.

of course | 1:33 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

As someone who is familiar with foster care issues.
If we took the money that is spent to keep a child in foster care.
And gave that money to the family in which the child was removed.
There would be alot less children in foster care.
More money needs to be directed to in-home services.
Generally the best place to keep the child, and work on problems is in the childs parents home.
Obviously this is not all cases, but many cases are a matter of lack of money, and resources in the parents home.
but this does not fix the problem of the lack of money in general that is spent by the state for these issues.
If the state does not properly fund the services then they will be sued and forced to do so, along with millions of more dollars to have a bunch of attorneys oversee the settlement.

LawSuit | 2:28 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

Isn't it amazing that the minute the DCFS lawsuit is settled, the cuts start? I beg to differ with "Mamagoat" but the retention has not improved since the FCF was established(there are studies and reports which document this) and the training could be done just as easily, and much cheaper within DCFS than by an outside entity. The Foundation is not viewed as an "aid" by many within DCFS who are on the frontline although it is considered politically incorrect to state this. I agree with anonymous's statements about the Foundation. This is not an attack on the FCF staff who are undoubtedly dedicated but the excessive state funding they receive is just one more drain on funds that would be better spent on in-home services to keep families together.

To Kelly Peterson | 2:51 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

"One of them is very positive; they drop out because they have adopted the children who are unable to return home, thus providing permanency and meaningful connections for them"

Isn't it unfortunate that we can't adequately fund DCFS to provide in-home and reunification services so we don't have to separate children from their birth families. There is nothing positive about family disruption, even in the cases where the children cannot return home because of abuse and neglect. There is always overwhelming loss to that child no matter how caring the adoptive family is. It would be better to pour our limited State resources into frontline services to preserve birth families where possible. Often the biggest hurdle to birth families is money, money for housing, daycare, medical treatment and other necessities of daily life.

glenda jeppsen | 3:10 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

I am the foster mother of 3 boys and close to 60 yrs old. I work full time so we can make ends meet. It takes what I recieve from the state and my pay check to take care of these kids. My Husband paycheck pays our Mortgage and bills. Do you realize that the state gives you zero dollars for Birthdays and only $50 to $65 for each child, depending on age for christmas and nothing for any other Holiday. We buy cleets and mouth guards for football, baseball ect,that includes jock straps base balls and bats, basket balls sneekers and recreation needs for the children. We pay for all school cloths and supplies. Can you imagine a child not going to the movies or to the Zoo. These children have so much hurt in them they only want to belong and be loved. It is how a child is raised that builds his or her charictor when they become an adult. So yes the State needs to step up. Thanks alot.

David | 3:55 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

First of all, foster parents are not paid by the state, they are reimbursed by the state, and the reimbursement is one month behind. For example, if placement happens in October, the state send the foster parents a reimbursement in November. No money is given to the foster parent at the time of the placement. Therefore, the foster parents can go an entire month of paying for all expenses out of pocket, and then get a reimbursement the following month. Secondly, it is appalling that the states reimbursement rate is less than what it costs to keep a dog in a kennel. That is absolutely wrong!

Foster Mom | 3:57 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

I think that we need to get back to the real issue that this article is about. It's the kids and their needs. It is sad that the legislators are unwilling to provide for the needs that the children in the state's custody have. I lose on an average of $100 a month per child in my care. Once a child is IN foster care, the "why are they there and not with their families" or the questions about DCFS or the foundation take a back burner to foster parents. What we focus on is how best to care for these children WHILE they are in our homes. That is what we need the help with and that is what we are raising awareness about. The kids need to come first!

Sheri | 4:28 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

I have been a foster parent for 10 years or more and i've had 32 different children in my home.and each one of them come from different tramas in there life. We do the very best we can for them. there is wear and tear on our homes the food bill is out of this world We have always made sure they are safe and happy the reinburstment we get doesn't even cover just there basic needs, we don't do it for the money we do it for the children every child deserves to have a second chance at being happy even if it's with another famly then there own we have adopted four children and they are doing very well.The Fostercare system need to really look at what it cost to take care of special needs children and adjust to fit their needs and other children in the system. Our children come first no matter what!

Amy | 4:58 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

What an informative article. Thank-you Jennifer for getting the word out on this issue. I hope are legislators take the time to read this and become familiar with the needs of kids in foster care. As most foster parents will tell you we do not do this for the money. In reality if I was doing it for the money you would have to pay me a whole lot more to go through the things our family has had to deal with. However, I love doing foster care. I appreciate the workers at DCFS and employees at the UFC and I love the children that come into my home. I just don’t know how much longer I can keep going into the hole because I chose to foster.

DCFS Employee | 5:47 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

This is definately about the kids and their needs and foster parents are wonderful people who are paying out of their own pockets to care for children who cannot live at home. Thank goodness for them and their dedication. However, there is a bigger issue, we cannot continue to rely on the altruism of people in this economy, we need to consider where is appropriate to cut funds which could be used to maintain and hopefully increase reimbursements to foster parents. So I agree with others who have said that the UFC receives too much money for too little return. Let's take significant funds millions apply them directly bio families and kinship placements to prevent disruption and if children must be removed, let's pay our foster parents for their expenses. In difficult times, when hard choices must be made, we cannot afford to protect any particular agency, especially if they are not meeting their mandate.

Annie | 8:00 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

Our finances have been impacted greatly since taking in four children. We have now since adopted four special needs kids. I am greatful for our amazingly resilent children. Who have endure many forms of abuse and neglect, however; our finances have been a challenge. I have started working a few times, but have been unable to work because my childrens needs. I never expected to not be able to work outside the home again. We are making it through with many blessings in our life, but it is a challenge. We don't do it for the money, we do it for love!

MattS | 8:09 p.m. Sept. 22, 2009

The frustrating thing about this (from someone who works in local government) is seeing the allocation of funding and the crazy reasoning behind it. I see health departments get millions of $$ for West Nile virus prevention programs. Millions spent on earthquake preparation etc. I am not arguing that those are not problems but they are "Possible" problems. It seems silly to spend so much $ on possible problems when there are known problems in the here and now that get left by the wayside. I take my hat off to those of you who sacrifice so much for these kids! I guess the ONLY plus here, if you can call it that, is that these kids are almost certainly NOT going to homes who just want the money.

foster parent | 11:21 a.m. Sept. 23, 2009

It would be great if providing additional funding would keep kids in their homes and sometimes this may be helpful, however when parents have been using drugs, engaging in Domestic violence, and abusing their children, these issues cannot be resolved by gving them money alone. It takes a desire to change their entire lifestyle. Because of this, we unfortunatley will always need to place children in foster homes. The foster home that takes a baby and works has to put them in day care and acutualy pays money of their own for this. They do this for a year, get attached to the children, and then their heart breaks at the same time they are smiling that the children return home.

As far as finding homes for teenagers. Asking people to take children with behavior problems and issues caused by years of abuse or neglect and use their own money to care for them does not give a person a lot of motivation to care for these kids. It is takes a group of people and services to support these families and adequately reimburse them to help these children be successfull.

Anonymous | 2:32 p.m. Sept. 24, 2009

We have fostered teen age girls for 6 yrs., in addition to raising our own. Ungovernable teens have a lot of demands. There are frequent court hearings, weekly therapy appointments, weekly drug therapy, Dr. apts. almost weekly, school youth in custody meetings, Ieop's, frequent school meetings, weekly visitation with families, team meetings, home visits, among others. We teach these kids how to treat one another with communication skills, how to learn to accept accountability, self respect and worth. We teach them how to become more self sufficient and successful adults. Common skills like personal hygiene, how to cook and clean their home, car care, about loans and other things you are not born knowing nor learn in school. Some of the kids from our home reunite, some don't. Our home has had to learn to go with out sometimes, and I have questioned how long we can continue. We know that there is a huge need and we want to continue to help, but are limited not in love, but in funds.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.