Reaction to foster care project ‘disappointing’

Press, 18 April 1986, Page 5

Reaction to foster care project ‘disappointing’

A lack of response from the community for a Presbyterian Support Services short-term foster care programme for teenagers has disappointed a P.S.S. child and family social worker, Mrs Jocelyn Wilson. In the light of the debate on the rising level of violent crime, especially among young people, it was disappointing to see an apparent lack of support for the many welfare agencies that were working towards the prevention of offending by young people, she said. Only two or three persons had offered their homes for the scheme, which would entail looking after a teenager for between a few days to two months so that family troubles could have a chance to be worked through.

If the community was so concerned about the level of crime, it should also be prepared to provide some practical support for the numerous welfare agencies that were endeavouring to give relief to families with problems in order to stop the "spiral” of crime, said Mrs Wilson. Calling for stiffer penalties was all very well, but from her experience, Mrs Wilson said, young offenders usually came out of detention institutions embittered and having learnt even more bad habits than before they went in. The offender may have been put out of the way of the community for a while, but the real problem had not been dealt with, she said. "I think the answer really lies with preventive

work, mainly aimed at working with young people who are most vulnerable (to offending).” To do this work, however, the various support agencies needed the help of the community. The alternative support care programme for teenagers reflected a change of emphasis by the P.S.S. from permanent relief care to short-term foster care. It also reflected the concern of an increasing number of parents who were approaching the agency to seek support for teenagers they found they could not cope with. In many cases the problem was that the parents were not handling very well their child’s need for independence, said Mrs Wilson. The agency first tried to talk to the family to see if the problem could be solved. In some cases it was necessary for parents and child to “have a break” from each other. This was where the sup-

port family was vital to the success of the alternative care programme. Support families would receive financial help, said Mrs Wilson. The P.S.S. received a capitation grant from the Social Welfare Department of $50.70 for each child in foster care. A preparation programme would be offered to prospective families in July. Social workers would also provide back-up for each family. A report to the Minister of Social Welfare in 1984 by the Advisory Committee on Foster Care showed that children in private foster care cost the taxpayer about $9O each week, compared with children in the Social Welfare Department’s family homes which cost about $lBO a week. Children in long-term institutions cost the taxpayer $6OO a week, in addition to the cost of social work, clerical support, and related overheads.