The clarion call for change has been made: Sir Martin Narey and Mark Owers have been appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to conduct a National Foster care stocktake. The views on the current state of care in England; and how the prospects of children in care might be improved through changes to fostering, have been sought. A risky business, but the government had in many ways been backed into a corner. Perceived inaction is always more damaging than taking action. The problem is that the results may not be exactly to the governments liking. A considerable head of steam has been building up over a long period in connection with fostering. This means much opinion exists as to why the stresses and strains in the system have been brought about. And a lot of it is has been well researched and is well argued. The leading fostering charity, The Fostering Network – along with other organisations – have been tireless in their efforts to campaign for much needed change. The charity assuredly knows its stuff, and this, we are told, has been distilled into a magnum opus of some 10,000 words for the stocktake.

As the date for the findings to be released in December approaches, it is possible to detect the preliminary skirmishes of the many and various interest groups. First into the fray, it seems, are children’s services directors: The Association of Directors of Children’s Services has in recent days warned that efforts to professionalise Foster Carers could create “perverse incentives”. This concern was highlighted in an article ‘Children’s services directors wary of moves to ‘professionalise’ foster carers’, which appeared in Community Care. Points worth discussing are made later in the piece, but what is significant is that the first concern expressed was –

“In the context of reduced resources and increasing demand for services, establishing foster care as a profession would significantly increase costs to local authorities,”

I think most would agree, we long ago moved past the point of accepting that a fostering system that works will cost a great deal more. Did we need National stocktake to tell us this? The runes have been there to be read for a long time indeed. All, as a nation, we need to decide, is whether we want to pay for a system that delivers the stability required for successful outcomes. It’s a quite simple question: it should probably have been asked long ago. At the moment what we have in abundance is plenty of sticking plaster. Finding stable foster homes for teenagers and young people with complex needs is incredibly hard. Placement instability, with its seriously deleterious and costly social effects is much in evidence. Probably to the point we are now engaged in the stocktake in the first place.

What’s in a label?

There is an obvious disconnect in the thinking of the charity and the ADCS: in recent remarks,

The chief executive of The Fostering Network, Kevin Williams, stated:

“To debate whether or not using the term professional would be appropriate for foster carers is a redundant argument. Foster carers are professionals, bringing the training, skills and experience that they have to the vitally important role of caring for children.”

Kevin Williams has accepted that carers are already professionals. Do we agree? Lets think what ‘professional’ actually means: one dictionary defines it as “following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain”. This is what a foster carer does, so clearly can be regarded as a professional. What is revealing, and may shed light on this particular ‘Gordian Knot’, is how the term ‘profession’ is defined: “a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science”. This presents the idea of a cognoscenti – persons forming an elite, possessing superior knowledge and understanding of a particular field.

Now consider this contrary view:

“The idea of it (fostering) being a profession – like the idea of you having to be a qualified social worker for it – it’s just a nonsense, that’s not what we need from our foster carers,”

ADCS president Alison Michalska stated in the Community Care.

Alison Michalska continued, “What was concerning me, and I think the association, was if we start to use labels like ‘professional’, are we disenfranchising people who would be excellent foster carers who think ‘I haven’t got a degree, I haven’t got a higher level of qualification, they are not going to want me?”

The two views are irreconcilable. What is significant is that Alison Michalska assumes that to be a professional a degree is required. This is not, according to one definition at least, at all the case. Further, promulgating this idea could lead to the very effects she expresses concerns over: an example of a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. Perhaps the real clue to moving forward, lies in thinking instead about status. Humans are status driven – we like it. We strive for it – does it depend on having a degree? It shouldn’t, and anyone who has the intrinsic decency, patience and skill to turn around the life of a vulnerable youngster, should be accorded the respect of everyone in society. So perhaps it is more about the signals that we send. Accepting that many children who have been in foster care will end up in the prison system, or placing burdens on the health services, reveals how we think about the care system. If we increase funding substantially, we will have greater expectations of it – and by extension – of our foster carers too. And this is a good thing, for they will feel their efforts are being noticed and appreciated.

Another charity, CoramBAAF, has put forward the argument that a big part of the problem is that within the current system, foster carers feel they are not valued enough. There is also the feeling that foster carers feel excluded from important decisions made about the child in their care.

The ADCS also pointed to that:

“We have noted a rise in fostering being increasingly described as “parenting” or “parenting plus” in some parts of the sector.” Moves like this suggest there is almost an unconscious search for a label that will be a panacea: something all can rally around which creates a ‘feel good’ factor.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that bad professionals exist in all occupations. Perhaps we should all think more about how to be effective in what we do, before bothering overmuch about personal status.

Could you possibly foster a child or young person?

Been thinking that fostering might be for you? It’s one of the most worthwhile things anyone can do…but consider –

Would you then have the time and energy to provide care and support for a challenging child?

One thing you will need is a good sense of humour – have you got one?

Are you able to work effectively as a team player?

Would you be able to love a youngster as if it were your own?

Foster care is definitely a unique job that can bring with it all sorts of pressures – it’s also true to say fostering brings its own unique rewards. Whatever the background, life experiences or ethnicity of an individual, the decision to foster will certainly be life changing. This means plenty of thought is needed if you decide to foster: just one example to consider – you may have your own birth children, so you have to think how bringing a foster child into their home might affect them.

Find out more by simply contacting our specialist Foster Care Recruitment Team on 020 8427 3355. They give advice and support covering foster care and related issues.

For a lot more information on all aspects of foster care that could include fostering babies, fostering children; or indeed transferring to Rainbow if you are already approved to foster – visit

The post Status of foster carers in limelight appeared first on Fostering London - Blog.