[thelowlanders]

What are the thoughts on this.

You hear of people doing foster care for the "money". At what 378 per month here, I just kinda laugh. Ya, my few cents an hour. Woo hoo. The Money.

But...then you hear of those receiving quite a LOT more for one child every month that really is not much harder than the one we're fostering. And they have 3+ to foster. So it's in the thousands...

So, what is your take on this? Does a child need 12-1500+ dollars a month to supplement what it cost us to raise them? Is 4-500 a month plenty? Should Fparents receive more than 1500 per month per child?

Just wanted to hear some views on this.

[GoddessDanu]

I don't know about getting more than $1500 a month for one child but I know of some foster families in the town I live in that have 8 foster children. Averaging $450 a month for these children, they make around $3600 a month, not including reimbursements for travel, clothing vouchers, WIC, etc. The older the child, the more money you get, so I know of families that will only take teenagers.

[RNFosterMom]

This topic always annoys me because it seems like the general public assumes the worst about FPs when we are doing a really hard job that most of them could never do because they'd "get too attached." Also, we are required to have one person at home FT for our age range, which in our household means that my husband is not working outside the home while we foster. The base rate for infants in our county is about $20.50/day, which we find to be adequate.

Here's what I think about the money thing. My husband could make a LOT more money working outside the home, but we decided to help kids by fostering. We love our FKs and they add a lot to our lives, plus I believe we are doing a lot for them. BUT all the people coming to my house (licensing worker, case worker, GAL, early intervention specialists, visit transporters), all the time I spend on the phone with all these folks setting up their various appointments, plus going to court hearings, training sessions and all of the 2-3 times a week 2 hour long visits that take 4 hours out of my day resulting in cranky babies knocked way off their schedules, not to mention the crappy, disrespectful way foster parents often get treated -- these are the things we get deserve to get paid for, the things that make it a J-O-B.

I do not have a lot of experience with the special needs kids, but we do currently have an infant who needs meds every 6 hours around the clock and her previous foster home disrupted her because of her extreme fussiness. We've filled out the Difficulty of Care rating form for her, but don't know what amount will be yet. Our other FC has a DOC rating assigned by CW for which we receive about $30 extra each month. If I had to take these kids to lots more appointments, or have specialists or workers in my home more often, those would be things that would annoy me and violate my privacy enough to be inclined to expect a bit more to care for the child. I can't imagine being paid thousands each month unless the child was basically at a nursing home level of care. Also, I wonder how much of it is the "squeaky wheel" factor in that these FPs may have learned what claims to make in order to trigger the higher reimbursement levels. As noted above, when WE filled out DOC for the one FC, we got a zero, but when the CW filled out the form, we got the extra $30/month, so we apparently weren't squeaky enough!

[ladyjubilee]

Originally Posted by thelowlanders

So, what is your take on this? Does a child need 12-1500+ dollars a month to supplement what it cost us to raise them? Is 4-500 a month plenty? Should Fparents receive more than 1500 per month per child?

I only know a few children who get that level of subsidy....and in their cases I'd says yes, absolutely hands down. The rate is FAR cheaper than the state would have to pay a nursing facility for the same level of care. These are kids that need 24/7 one on one attention--and where neither parent works outside the home.....AND in one case I snooped at the child's notebook while she had respite with me and all I can say is I could not have afforded to do what her foster parents did on what they got from the state. THEY paid for extras that Medicaid wouldn't pay. They paid for high dollar DME supplies and therapies Medicaid said had lower cost alternatives. They spent hours each week going to therapy appointments, helping teach the birthparent how to care for the child, PLUS almost weekly ER visits as the chld is medically fragile.

I know I couldn't have done it. The stress alone of caring for a child that could quite literally die on my watch almost wore me out for a weekend. So, no, I don't think that's nearly enough for some kids.

[dachshunds4you]

lowlanders - I can't believe your rate is so low. Guess you must be in a smaller area? I don't know how they base it, but CA and TX are pretty much the same as far as rate. About $20ish per day.

I feel the rate is right for a younger child. As the other pp said, all the time we take for dr visits, CW visit, other visits...it takes a lot of time out of schedule, not to mention money for gas to go to these places. As for new fp's, I don't think the money is enough. I think they should get a little extra the first few months to help buy certain necessaties like car seats, and all the other big ticket items.

Thankfully we've been fp's for a while, so we have tons of clothes and other essentials, but it can get pretty pricey when you have to buy new clothes all the time.

As for med kids, I think some fp's do abuse the system and that's why others doubt they really need the extra. But there are far more fp's who truly love and care for the kids and need more money to sustain them.

[CaddoRose]

The rate for young kids here is somewhere around $22 a day. It's is sufficient to provide food, housing, and clothes, but it is not enough to provide extra things like summer day camps, dance classes, sports or other activities that kids participate in. I find the $$ is just enough to provide the basics, but really not enough to provide a level of care that I am accustomed to giving and I don't live an extravagant lifestyle by any means. We live pretty simply and in a house that was built in 1904 in a semi-rural area. That means since I value something other than just providing food and housing, I must pay for anything else.

As others have mentioned, this $$ does not cover the expenses that come from all of the appointments and traveling that must be done. I have a home based business, but can't get any money for daycare because they assume that since I'm at home, I don't need daycare and I would be happy with two days. I don't need all day every day.

The people who decide what the rate is don't live at that level and neither do their children. If they were forced to do what we do on that amount of money, then they would think differently. I think in their minds we just take these kids in our home and there aren't any problems, just like having a sleepover for 6 months or a few years.

The mindset says that since we are parents, having a few more kids in the house shouldn't be looked at as a job, but more as well-meaning people who want to help kids and because of that, we don't deserve to be paid for what we do.

[thelowlanders]

These are great takes on this.

If there are children out there who mainly have the usual emotional stuff, then the base pay seems fine. But when I'm scrubbing feces off the walls very often, cleaning urine on my home and things, and car daily, etc... There needs to atleast be help for needing the carpets shampood and the car and all the extra, very nasty laundry. There were so many times I needed to wash our family's laundry but couldn't because her's would start to fester. So it was priority.

Sorry to ramble...

So what does everyone think? Do some do this for income? Is that necessarily "wrong"? Wanting to hear some other views on this, other than what I hear where I live.

[Prettyboicris]

I actually got flamed in chat section of this site for the same thing a few days ago.
**Disclaimer: I apologize from now if the real life experiences I am about to share about things I have witnessed and experienced triggers any feelings in anyone. With that said ...
A few days ago I was mentioning how some people abuse the high board rates and neglect kids. I DID NOT say all FPs do that but that is how they took it. In my state or rather city (NYC has higher rates than NY state due to the substantial difference in the cost of living). I know people who get anywhere from $600 to close to $2000 for a child a month depending on the age and/or special need status. When I was doing Case management home visits (Not related to foster care) I would do budget assessments and people would brag to me about how they got only $646 in SSI but they are able to live lavishly off of the FC money. Also 95% of the clients I was visiting with lived in Public housing so their rent was at most $250- $300. Some even went into details about how they cut corners. I have met many lovign and selfless FPs even before starting the process myself but people like the ones who were bragging to me about using the money for other things really bother me. Some have even asked me and other providers to exaggerate things in reports so that they could get a higher subsidy (but that is a whole other long issue that would need a lot more explaining and time). I went to one woman's house who was claiming that she wanted me to help her get more food stamps but her daughter was wearing new jordans and I guess she saw me looking at them and said that her biodaughter wanted jordans so she used the FCs clothing allowance to get the Jordans, gave the FC hand me down clothes and used receipts she found from the near by children's store to submit to ACS (I guess she thought telling me this would make the situation better?!). The workers are supposed to make sure the clothing purchased is somewhat consistant with the receipts but some workers aren't ... let's say "as thorough" as they should be. I have witnessed FC being abused in public and have heard FPs say "If it wasn't for the check I would throw you in the street."
On the other hand I also know many foster parents who have to go through hell just to get the FC Board check in a timely manner. I feel that the rate depends on the child and the needs to determine what the BR should be. I think that if someone has ill intentions no matter what they will find a way to cheat the child which is essentially what they are doing. Luckily the FPs in it for the children outway the number who aren't but it is unfortunate that when you hear about FPs in the news it is mostly about the ones who had the FC chained in the basement for weeks on end (This was an actual story in NYC a few years back and the FP admitted to it in court).

Like I said this topic is very touchy. My wife and I have been saving money and rebudgetting and when we tell people we can't do X,Y or Z because we are adopting through foster care the first words out of their mouths are "Don't you get money for taking care of them?" My wife and I have had to explain numerous times that the money is to ASSIST with the child's needs not payment for caring for the child. We also want to take the child places and do things that board checks don't cover. Also since my wife and I are planning to straight adopt through Foster Care things related to subsidies may not apply depending on the age of the child we have placed in our home. I'm done ranting for now.

[lovemy6]

If the fp's are providing for the kids in ALL ways, including emotionally, I don't mind that they use the subsidy as income.

I have a day care kid four days a month. I make $100 a day watching him for 15 hours. That money is MINE. I don't spend it on him. When I have a fc in my home, I get a $350 a month subsidy. That money is spent on him. If I got a $1000, it still wouldn't come close to what I profit with my day care kid, bc I already spend so much out of pocket on my fc.

BTW, the sw's profit from our fc, why shouldn't the ones directly caring for the kids? I'm talking profit as in able to stay home and nurture the child vs putting them in day care.

[thelowlanders]

I hope everyone realizes you're not generalizing all FPs. There's always the "shady" in any group you look at. Whether it's a team, a family, a gov., etc.

We can all have a healthy discussion onthis topic. I know it's one we have to be carful on, but it's always helpful to get other's takes on things. Even if things come up we don't agree with, we can atleast know where they're coming from.

[chevyjewel]

Sort of cross posted from another thread:

I'm a single mom but a stay at home one that's dualy licensed to run a daycare. I obviously have no childcare costs and my counties rates are extremely generous (for an infant usually $25-$30 a day - I don't even charge that for my daycare kiddos - rates are determined via a base rate + a needs scale of sorts (DOC rates), the higher the needs the higher the additional per day rates are provided). When WIC covers the cost of formula (not by my choice, participation is mandatory) and a generous clothing allowance covers the cost of all clothing, having two kids of my own and running a daycare I've got baby gear and toys bursting out the seams of my house, about all I've got to spend my monthly stipends on are diapers, wipes, soaps and lotions, photography and scrapbooking items to document the time they're here and store keepsakes.

Sometimes people imply that I'm doing something underhanded or disgusting, or don't "deserve" to apply some of those funds to my personal families expenses when I care for my foster children all day every day. That's like saying whom ever does YOUR foster children's care doesn't deserve to be reimbursed for the work they do in caring for them while you're at work outside the home. Someone's got to do it and I happen to think it's best for my bios and fosters if that person is me.

I would do it all for free if that was allowed but my county insists I'm no different than a parent working outside the home and I do deserve to be paid just as an outside daycare provider would be. It's why the rates are what they are, they figure in childcare costs, and they've said they're not going to discriminate against me and give me less simply because I've chosen to stay home with my bios in their younger years. I'm sorry if some are so offended that that works out in my families favor as far as fostering goes.



For the record I don't take infants-toddlers because I get "paid" more for them either - to the contrary, if I were taking older children I'd be recieving more. I take them out of respect for birth order should one of my fosters ever become available for adoption (my kids are just 4 and 6) and most of all I ENJOY babies, especially newborns. Flipping love them like no other age. And for anyone that implies caring for a drug exposed newborn is a good way to make a quick easy buck you need your head examined. I don't do it because it's easy... That alone takes sleep deprivation to a whole 'nother level and I NEVER get a break because I choose not to utilize respite (done it twice in the 3 years and 11 fosters I've had to date and that's it). Not to mention the extra doc appts, OT appts and evals, diapers, usually extra care with feedings and sleeping.


Because I am constantly judged about my situation I don't typically look at a number like $1500 and square it off as ridiculous and unnecessary. In my situation it would be, but my world isn't so small that I can't open my mind to the possibility that someone elses situation may warrant a need for that amount of funds for a foster they have. Without knowing every detail about every foster child's situation I would never judge and I certainly wouldn't thump for having that taken away if someone else needs it.

[thelowlanders]

Hence the thread to see others insight on this so as not to square it off as rediculous or unnecessary. Yet to gain understanding on this issue.

[DreamingAzure]

I'm also in Texas..I did the math to see if we (sister & I) could even AFFORD to become foster parents. We both work full time now(thank God!) and have a little extra each month. But I'm not sure that it's enough to make up the difference in what it would cost us to take in a school aged child and what we would recieve. If we recieved a child under 5 it wouldn't be as big of an issue as we could be able to get WIC to help cover formula and food.

We definately stood back and looked at fostering from a monitary stand. What would be get, how would it impact our finances, would it make things better, worse, no change. If FC needed medical care that medicaid wouldn't cover would be able to afford it? Could we take care of these children the way they deserved?

Yeah, I have met foster parents who take advantage of the system, and take in more kids then they really want or can properly care for so that they get that extra 500 a month...BUT...they are the exception I believe, not the rule.

[chevyjewel]

Originally Posted by thelowlanders

Hence the thread to see others insight on this so as not to square it off as rediculous or unnecessary. Yet to gain understanding on this issue.

I'm so very glad you posted it

[Prettyboicris]

Chevy- You make really awesome points about everything with regard to WIC, childcare and other cost cutting benefits you have to your advantage so if there are excess funds from the subsidy that makes sense.

This is one of the reasons why this topic is so sticky because people not familiar with the system can confuse good budgeting and money management with greed. Part of my expertise is in public benefits and assisting unemployed and under employed individuals with assistance in surviving in really expensive NYC so I know how to access a lot of free and cheap things that others may not know so if my wife and I had money left from the subsidy that would make sense. I have more issue with someone telling a FC that they can't be vegetarian because biochild needs new sneakers everytime they come out. I met a FC who was a vegetarian and her FMom refused to buy vegetarian food for her because she thought is was a waste of money. In NYC it is actually really easy to be a vegetarian and can be cheap if you know how and where to shop (but I digress).
I think what it comes down to a multitude of things. Like a FP with multiple kids may have mastered budgetting better than a FP who is just starting out so that could contribute to some aspects of why some FPs can handle some low board rates for their FC than others. Another thing is the science behind BRs in general make ABSOLUTLEY NO SENSE to me, but that is the system they have. Some states are more generous than others either because of the cost of living, their understanding that children need more than just life basics but assistance with socializaiton stuff such as reimbursements for extra curricular activities. Another thing is that different states and sometimes even cities have different priorities when it comes to what they cover and why.
I think somethings in general will always be touchy subjects two of which are raising children and money. When it comes to what is a " reasonable amount" different people will have things they think kids ABSOLUTELY need and other will think kids can do with out. For example I think all kids who are able to participate in some extra curricular activities (even if it the staring contest club.) will benefit from that in the long run. Some people think kids don't need extra curriculars but food, shelther, clothing and love. That doesnt make either side right it just means a difference in opinion.

thelowlanders- Thanks for starting this discussion.