On Today Programme - 7am to 9am - Messy Fostering

[Hels20]

Hi all - worth listening as one goes about one’s daily chores. Messy Fostering - guest edited by a Foster Carer and her foster daughter who has been with her for 8 years.

I thought the programme was, on the whole, good. However a massive mistake occurred when the presenter stated that foster carers were only paid £200 per week. This undid much of the good work of the programme in that many people who were maybe convinced to consider it would conclude they just couldnt afford to do it when in reality the going rate is double that (tax free) and in many instances much more.

An opportunity wasted to demonstrate that many people who thought they couldnt afford to do it, can in fact make ends meet and/or even give up their job.

There is a huge shortage of foster carers and one of the key reasons is a lack of awareness of the funds provided to take on this important role. In all other professions remuneration is out there front and centre, so why not for foster care ? Historically it was because pay was so low but now things are much better.

Two children ? That's about 44k tax free per annum. Yes you have to pay for the children but there are plenty of people raising two children who dont have that kind of after tax income.

I have emailed Radio 4 asking for a correction. I wont hold my breath....

Hi, Remuneration for foster carers can be complex as there are fees for carers and allowances for the children. Carers can qualify for different levels of fees depending on their level of experience and qualifications and different Local Authorities don’t always have consistent ways of deciding what level a foster carer should be at. I certainly don’t recognise the £44 figure, where does that come from?

In my area new carers get a fee of £100 a week per child, so for two children £200 a week would be correct. Of course, the allowance for each child would be on top of this.

The splitting of payments into money for children and money for carers is just bogus. What is relevant is what hits the bank account. There is no restriction on what it is spent on what and tax allowances (QCR) are so high that there is no need to separate for tax reasons. All this LA stuff about levels is just nonsense and is an excuse to pay some people less for doing the same job. Increasingly as LAs cant recruit they are getting rid of these differentials. The "going rate" for a standard placement is £55 - 65 per day depending on age (bonuses for birthdays, xmas, summer hols). Much more for more difficult children. So two children = £120 per day x 365 = £43,800. If these amounts are alien to you then you are being exploited because that's what most LAs and ifas pay.

"Difficult children" my heart sank when I saw that your user name suggests that you are a foster carer. That and the talk of pay and not separating money to look after the children. Foster carings should have enough money to live obviously but it should never been done to profit from.

Extract from skipton LA (the first one I pulled up on internet)

"The amount we pay you varies depending on the age of the child. Over two thirds of children placed with us are 11 or over and for this age group we pay you £536.48 per week* which is £27,973.60 per year.
Unlike some agencies we don’t reduce our payment to you per child for any additional children in placement. More than 60% of our carers have more than one placement and if two children aged 12 and 14 were placed with you the payment would increase to £55,947.20 each year. "

I think if someone gives up work to foster then it is not unreasonable to want that income replaced. To regard replacing that income as "profit" and in some way wrong is a strange position. I don't know any foster carer who does not regard their activities as "work" and it deserves to be rewarded. Social workers, paediatricians and others who work with children are allrewarded with income. Why not foster carers ? If you want to leave fostering to volunteers paid only expenses then the net result is that you have more occupants of childrens homes at a cost of 5K per week each minimum. Oh and thise children will have worse outcomes too.

On the subject of "difficult" children well there are many children who are more difficult to care for than others and remuneration for caring for these children does increase to reflect this. One example would be a foster carer in my road who cared for a severely disabled child, wheelchair bound, fed via a tube etc which clearly demanded a high level of care. In other circumstances a child may have to be placed on their own due to violent behaviour so a carer is paid extra to make up for the fact they cannot take an additional child.

These are the real world realities. I provide excellent care and don't apologise for my earnings. BY being a foster carer i save the state over £1,000,000 in institutional care fees.

Why is that anyone would think that care is better if you pay less ? In what other profession does this work ?

Hi f0stercarer,
I agree with your sentiments, the daily rate we received for our two smalls was less than half the £55 to £65 you are quoting!!! This is vocational work but as you say it still needs appropriate remuneration!

Dear EdJ IMO You should transfer to another LA or ifa that shows you some more respect for the work that you do (you can take the children with you). We should not reward poor organisations with our presence. Conditions will only improve if we vote with our feet. It's no wonder there is a recruitment problem. There must be so few people who could afford to do what you are doing.

Expecting anyone to foster with no financial 'profit' seems a very unreasonable expectation; foster caring is a vocation, a job, vitally important; it shouldn't be an unavailable option simply because one can't afford to do it.

Foster carers should be financially compensated for a host of reasons, not least because of their skill, time and advocation.