The continuing debate in this country over how to deal with our 400,000+ children in out-of-home placement has produced lots of sound bites, but no solutions. Some of the proposals being offered are thinly-disguised attempts to advance a particular political agenda Others are so draconian or impractical that they self-destruct under public scrutiny. The focus always seems to be on saving dollars rather than children, yet no one has projected a generally accepted figure of what it would cost to do the job rights". The wildly divergent estimates of program costs and effectiveness aptly illustrate the old adage that statistics can be found to support a lot of things, but mostly statisticians.

The social problems that funnel thousands of children into the care of the state are so complex that they defy simple solutions. America has become the twentieth century Humpty Dumpty. Even people who genuinely want to make a difference frequently become overwhelmed and do nothing.

One group of child advocates in Indiana, tired of the inherent futility of trying to solve the problem from a global perspective, took a different approach. They reframed the issue saying, "Given that we do not have the resources (or perhaps the political will but that's another article) to prevent the entry of large numbers of children into the foster care system, how can we make foster care more positive for the children who will experience it?" Viewed from that perspective, it was easy to identify the most glaring . defect in the system, namely, an insufficient number of appropriate stable foster homes.

The next step was to find out why, at a time when more children were coming in, more foster parents were opting out. If rationales could be discovered, perhaps remedies could also. Research into foster home dropouts fumed up several interesting findings.. Sometimes a family's departure could be traced directly to a negative experience with a particular child or to a problem with the placing agency. Some families hadn't been taught how to deal with aberrant behavior, such as an ll-year-old making: sexual advances to her foster father, or a 9-year-old who burned down the neighbor's team. Other times, the decision was dictated by economics: Families could no longer afford the luxury of keeping foster children when the amount they spent on them exceeded the minimal payment they received Changes in family structure also depleted the supply of homes available; families in which both parents were employed outside the home became the rule rather than the exception, and agencies were slow to adapt to these demographic changes. Outdated policies and in adequate funding denied some families the ability to continue fostering Many foster parents understandably began to feel that no one really valued their contribution.

These factors combined to cause a precipitous decline in the number of licensed foster homes in the late 70's and early 80's. Agencies were forced to utilize more institutional placements, not because they were the most appropriate choice, but because they had available beds. Since institutional care is considerably more expensive than foster home care, agency placement bud, gets skyrocketed. Advocates who saw children's needs going . unmet were eventually joined by administrators anxious to control spiraling placement costs This unlikely marriage produced a small but growing movement in the private sector of the U.S. known as Specialized Foster Care (SFC).

The goal of SFC is to increase the amount d permanence and stability that children experience in the system by retaining good foster homes. The hallmark of this approach is that foster parent are viewed as professional colleagues in the care and treatment of troubled children, and are not considered just glorified baby sitters. Empowered in this way, foster parents are more likely to hang in there with a difficult child - and even keep coming back for more!

As a first step in the empowering process, input was sought from foster parents about their needs. Their responses included between training, time off, contact with other foster parents, help in times of crisis, and pay commensurate with the demands of the job. Although none of these requests seem surprising the flexibility required to comply with them is rarely found in the public sector. Consequently, it fell to private agencies to professionalize foster parenting.

While not all SFC programs operate identically, most are more rigorous and comprehensive than state/county programs and incorporate the following characteristics:

1. Training Foster parents working under SFC programs receive demanding and relevant training. A certain number of sessions or hours are required, often incorporating a lot of role play. Experienced foster parents may be utilized as co-trainers. The training also serves as a device to screen out inappropriate candidates. Annual in service training is required to maintain licensing The connections made between foster families during this process are nurtured and encouraged with periodic social events. Some programs employ a mentoring system.
2. Supervision: SFC parents have phone access to a trained worker (generally their own caseworker) 24-hours a day. They can request a home visit whenever necessary. In addition there is mandatory, face to face, worker/child contact and worker/foster family contact on a frequent and regularly scheduled basis.
3. Pay: SFC parents are paid a salary to care for a child, not simply a per diem to cover the child's needs as is often the case in county/public funded foster homes. The amount varies but it is similar to what a parent could expect to earn working outside the home. Families who need two incomes remain available to provide quality care for children because one parent is able to earn a reasonable amount at home.
4. Working conditions: SFC families are generally allowed only one or two foster children at a time since each child's needs are so great. Respite from the heavy demands of fostering is seen as normal and necessary to prevent burnout.. Since the need is anticipated, the agency prepares families within its network to assume this responsibility periodically, or has families who serve as respite providers only.
5. Accountability. Families are shown how to keep appropriate documentation regarding the child in their cane and are expect to do so. They learn why it is important from both the child's perspective and the legal one. They are well versed on the issue of confidentiality They are given full information regarding a child prior to placement and are treated as valuable sources of information in the case planning process. SFC parents are clearly members of the treatment team.

It may be that empowering foster families by conferring professional status on them is the single biggest factor in the success of such programs - and they are successful. Children who had previously been viewed as too difficult to handle in a family setting have found stability and have been able to progress with some of these very committed families.

As with any new program, there are also cautions to be exercised in regard to SFC. It has been my experience as a CASA/ GAL (a court appointed advocate or guardian for individual foster children) that an overburdened public agency having wardship of a child may unintentionally surrender too much responsibility to the SFC provider, and very little connection with the child or supervision of the case will be maintained. When the child's review hearing is held, this public agency is so poorly informed of the child's current status that they merely parrot the recommendations of the SFC home or agency without their own independent corroboration.

Another potential minefield of disagreement between public legislation and/or case management is over the permanent plan for the child. Professional foster parents want to see their job through to the end This level of commitment works for the 16 - year-old who leaves the system when he/she is 18. But what happens when a very disturbed 12-year old comes into placement, makes remarkable progress in 18 months, and the agency holding wardship now feels that an adoptive family should be recruited for the child? This example is not intended to deter older child adoption considerations, which I do view as a highly beneficial placement option. I include it here only to highlight the fact that such an arrangement brings additional players to an already crowded stage. This may well translate into new avenues of investigation for the child advocate.

Although CASA/GAL (Court Appointed Special Advocates or Guardian Ad Litem for these proceedings) is a child advocacy organization only, making recommendations to the court based on information gathered from ail aspects of a child's life on a case by case basis, there are some interesting similarities between Specialized Foster Care and programs like these: Both began as grass roots movement and are known by various names in different communities. Local programs in both organizations gradually developed a national network to learn from each other. Most gratifying d all both programs foster the belief that, with appropriate training and support, committed individuals can make a difference in the lives of children, one child at a time.

Janet Ward is a Child Welfare Consultant who works as a Guardian Ad Litem in Juvenile Court in Indiana and she has served as faculty for National CASA on numerous occasions. She is the author of A Question of Balance: Decision Making for CASA/ GALs, and she recently coauthored another book with Rebecca Heartz entitled, Achieving Our Mission; A Guide to Volunteer Management.

For more information on CASA/GAL, contact Mercedes Lawry, Communications Director, National CASA Association 2722 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 220, Seattle, WA 98102; Phone (800) 628-3233; Fax (206) 323-8137.