When it comes to the safety of children, there shouldn’t be any arguments and yet there are. The recent deaths of foster children in the last few years has raised some very pressing concerns and while it seems there’s some arguing going back and forth, nobody seems able to provide an answer for the real problem: there aren’t enough foster homes for all the children in foster care.
Last year, Saskatchewan’s child advocate, Bob Pringle, released a report saying that foster homes should be licensed. It wasn’t a new idea; in fact he said it a couple years even before that. Nevertheless, the government hemmed and hawed and dragged their heels instead of responding. Until just recently.
Our MLA, Donna Harpauer, publicly stated that licensing could create the perception that it’s another bureaucratic “hoop” for foster parents to jump through. It might scare off more prospective families. And let’s be real; if what she’s saying is true, that would cause a serious problem. The system is already overburdened and the number of foster families stepping forward is not increasing; in fact, it’s decreasing. In 2010, there were 691 foster homes. Now, there are only 551.
However, despite the potential doom and gloom of what she’s saying, that doesn’t mean Harpauer is correct. Pringle said that when he brought up the issue of licensing in last year’s report, 17 families called to say they either support licensing, or thought they already were. If, as Harpauer says, the province already has a rigorous screening process, then licensing shouldn’t be that much of a leap.
Moreover, even if the province has good policies, it was already proven with “Jake’s” death that they’re not always followed. There are no repercussions when the government is in breach of policy. Licensing would force a greater accountability to comply because they’d be breaking the law otherwise.
On the other hand, let’s say for argument’s sake that she’s right and it does scare off prospective families. I say that’s a good thing because that means those people weren’t serious about it in the first place. We’ve all heard the horror stories about people who choose to foster kids just because they’re another meal ticket. Perhaps licensing could scare off those types of people because it would mean regular quality assessments.
Harpauer says foster parents receive a certification after their screening process, but that isn’t embedded into law. This means that once foster parents make it through the six- to seven-week screening process, they’re home free. The government is not legally required to do anything except pay those foster parents to look after foster children. This has evidently caused one very extreme problem: foster parents are being overburdened with children.
There’s no denying that the system is being stretched to the limit. Allowing a foster home to be slightly overcrowded is technically only permissible when trying to keep siblings together (e.g. a foster home that is allowed a capacity of four children might be overburdened when it’s given three siblings in addition to the two they already have). Unfortunately, officials sometimes “temporarily” place foster kids at a foster home that’s maxed out “just until they can find somewhere else more suitable.” This “temporarily” usually turns into permanently and that’s how you end up with overcrowding.
Licensing would solve this problem in one sense, but potentially open up another can of worms. The upside is that licensing would legally force the government to take responsibility of overcrowded foster homes and limit children in the home. This means that foster kids will be able to receive better attention specifically catering to their needs. As Pringle says, a lot of the kids entering the system have special needs, either emotional or psychological.
The downside is that this will most likely put the government between a rock and a hard place. They’re already struggling to find a place to put foster kids. If they start putting limits and restrictions on the homes they already have, it’s going to bottleneck the system even more.
So the real question comes down to this: which of those options is worst?
There’s one last thought to chew on. Licensed daycares and senior care homes are publicly funded, which means they undergo regulation. Since public funds are paying for the same sort of services with child welfare, the public has a right to know what their money is going towards and that it’s being used effectively. Licensing would answer both those questions.
Furthermore, we can presume those children in daycares have parents and those seniors in care homes have adult children looking after them. Who’s there to speak for the foster children?
The situation is difficult for all the parties involved, but one thing is blatantly obvious: many of these problems can be solved if more people would step up and offer their services as foster parents. People are so quick to judge and point fingers when a foster child dies, but when the spotlight turns to them, suddenly they don’t have enough time or space in their lives for a child that has no one.
As Pringle once wrote, “If things are so bad that children are taken from their parents, you better make certain they are safe in foster care.”
