I don't think it has to be either/or but an expansion in services. There are definitely people that will never be reached or want to be reached.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?

I am the former foster child. If the other three families were drinkers I think there would have been some mega parties going on in that building! However, that is the sort of non-conventional thinking we need for these problems.

As a follow-up, I lived with my mom full time after about age 10. A social worker visited us weekly for another year or so and then she disappeared. I am 50 years old and I remember that social worker very well. She was the only normal adult in my life and I really looked forward to her visits. She was like an auntie to me.

So we have 2 former foster kids on here - I’m the poster from 9:28 and haven’t posted since - so we have different experiences. (Hi FF PP, nice to find other people who have gone through this. Not something we talk about.). So, to answer this question from my perspective, our housing was all provided by family members. They would cover rent, and we moved every few years every time mom would trash a place. My mom has never held a job as far as I can recall. What is being proposed wouldn’t have worked for us because we would have gotten thrown out. Her screaming, hoarding, whatever... unfortunately there just aren’t answers that work for everyone. And unlike PP, I did not like the social workers. They scared me because I was taught to scare them (I was told I’d get out in a home where they would starve and hurt me. Yes, really).

There are supportive living programs, here more homeless family shelters and the goal is to provide them with all kinds of sports and eventually move them into their own housing. You would have needed a long term program and we don't have those. For some families, it could very well work and would probably be cheaper and better than foster care but there are parents who are so far out there in terms of mental health or substance abuse issues that no matter how much support you give them, it simply isn't enough. It works best for the teen/young parents but the real issue is most people in that situation have never been parented (like you are describing) so it is much harder to change them or teach when you don't get them young enough. They need everything from an education, life skills, money management to parenting. It can and should be done but not everyone is going to be successful so you still need foster care and adoption but it would be far better if we had more drug and mental health treatment programs where we could also send the young kids with them, same for women who go to prison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?

New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

As a social worker NO WAY. It is a great idea and there are programs like that and it can be very good but its round the clock staff vs. the social worker. Very different duties.

So heartbreaking. Big hugs to the former foster kids. I like the idea of the group home for parents with kids. We have them for disabled adults and although no solution is perfect, thinking outside the box is important. Regarding the upfront costs, when bad situations are allowed to continue, that's very expensive too. Our local and federal government spend loads of money on other things that it deems important. The human condition could certainly take priority.
Obviously there is no simple solution and each situation is its own but there is room for improvement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have and it’s hard. If your husband is not interested I think it can be very bad for your marriage tbh.

It’s been tough on mine and we are both on board. I would recommend looking into it to hear more:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fosterparents/

CWTA training classes function as a de facto support group. When they are meeting in person you would hear a lot of stories.

There is another local support group but I can’t find the name.

Do you ever have contact with the foster child's family? Wondering about safety issues.

PP again. We have one family member that we deal with (just one foster kid), but no parents in the picture. Here is the support group I was trying to think of. They have a support group that you can drop in on.

https://www.dcfapac.org/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?


New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

Because I don't think the social worker would live in that apartment as their permanent residence. Rather, it would be 3 to 4 social workers doing it in shifts, like firemen sleeping in the firehouse. As the former foster child above described---her life would have been more stable had her mom had some degree of supervision regarding staying sober, taking her meds, etc. It is just a fact that people who are low-functioning caregivers have children. Those children are ill-served by a system that shuffles them in and out between foster home and bio-family.

So you are saying the 4th apartment would not be set up like an apartment, but just like an office? That the social would just sit at a desk in there for their 8 hour shift? Then another would take over for second shift, and a third would take over for the graveyard shift? 365/year? That would require at least 6-8 social workers, since no one would work 7 days a week.
Would the other two apartments also be filled with families that are under the supervision of CPS?
So basically you'd have a team of 6-8 social workers for every 3 families?

Do CPS agencies in any jurisdiction have that kind of funding?

It sounds crazy but our taxes pay for foster care stipends, the therapies and other care needed for these children, food stamps and other benefits for children who age out with few resources, and often the costs associated with jail and prison. Then our taxes must pay to take care of the former foster children's children. There must be a way to divert funds to prevent these outcomes.

What the previous poster suggested may not be the best intervention, but it is on the right track. Spend money supporting the caregivers to avoid the expense of poorly raised children.

+100

These already exist for young adults, might as well build them to a slightly larger scale. Their usually used after teens age out, but preventing the age out process by assisting families is a better investment over the long haul. I actually can't wait to see what the Biden/Harris administration have in store for foster kids, and at risk families I know they've already approved some changes and theirs more to come. Kamala was very involved in new legislation for Foster Youth previously, hopefully it's carried throughout the term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?

I am the former foster child. If the other three families were drinkers I think there would have been some mega parties going on in that building! However, that is the sort of non-conventional thinking we need for these problems.

As a follow-up, I lived with my mom full time after about age 10. A social worker visited us weekly for another year or so and then she disappeared. I am 50 years old and I remember that social worker very well. She was the only normal adult in my life and I really looked forward to her visits. She was like an auntie to me.

So we have 2 former foster kids on here - I’m the poster from 9:28 and haven’t posted since - so we have different experiences. (Hi FF PP, nice to find other people who have gone through this. Not something we talk about.). So, to answer this question from my perspective, our housing was all provided by family members. They would cover rent, and we moved every few years every time mom would trash a place. My mom has never held a job as far as I can recall. What is being proposed wouldn’t have worked for us because we would have gotten thrown out. Her screaming, hoarding, whatever... unfortunately there just aren’t answers that work for everyone. And unlike PP, I did not like the social workers. They scared me because I was taught to scare them (I was told I’d get out in a home where they would starve and hurt me. Yes, really).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?


New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

Because I don't think the social worker would live in that apartment as their permanent residence. Rather, it would be 3 to 4 social workers doing it in shifts, like firemen sleeping in the firehouse. As the former foster child above described---her life would have been more stable had her mom had some degree of supervision regarding staying sober, taking her meds, etc. It is just a fact that people who are low-functioning caregivers have children. Those children are ill-served by a system that shuffles them in and out between foster home and bio-family.

So you are saying the 4th apartment would not be set up like an apartment, but just like an office? That the social would just sit at a desk in there for their 8 hour shift? Then another would take over for second shift, and a third would take over for the graveyard shift? 365/year? That would require at least 6-8 social workers, since no one would work 7 days a week.
Would the other two apartments also be filled with families that are under the supervision of CPS?
So basically you'd have a team of 6-8 social workers for every 3 families?

Do CPS agencies in any jurisdiction have that kind of funding?

It sounds crazy but our taxes pay for foster care stipends, the therapies and other care needed for these children, food stamps and other benefits for children who age out with few resources, and often the costs associated with jail and prison. Then our taxes must pay to take care of the former foster children's children. There must be a way to divert funds to prevent these outcomes.

What the previous poster suggested may not be the best intervention, but it is on the right track. Spend money supporting the caregivers to avoid the expense of poorly raised children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?


New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

Because I don't think the social worker would live in that apartment as their permanent residence. Rather, it would be 3 to 4 social workers doing it in shifts, like firemen sleeping in the firehouse. As the former foster child above described---her life would have been more stable had her mom had some degree of supervision regarding staying sober, taking her meds, etc. It is just a fact that people who are low-functioning caregivers have children. Those children are ill-served by a system that shuffles them in and out between foster home and bio-family.

So you are saying the 4th apartment would not be set up like an apartment, but just like an office? That the social would just sit at a desk in there for their 8 hour shift? Then another would take over for second shift, and a third would take over for the graveyard shift? 365/year? That would require at least 6-8 social workers, since no one would work 7 days a week.
Would the other two apartments also be filled with families that are under the supervision of CPS?
So basically you'd have a team of 6-8 social workers for every 3 families?

Do CPS agencies in any jurisdiction have that kind of funding?

These do exist, just not on a large scale. Here's a paper discussing some programs.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/other/sch/sch-paper2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?


New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

Because I don't think the social worker would live in that apartment as their permanent residence. Rather, it would be 3 to 4 social workers doing it in shifts, like firemen sleeping in the firehouse. As the former foster child above described---her life would have been more stable had her mom had some degree of supervision regarding staying sober, taking her meds, etc. It is just a fact that people who are low-functioning caregivers have children. Those children are ill-served by a system that shuffles them in and out between foster home and bio-family.

So you are saying the 4th apartment would not be set up like an apartment, but just like an office? That the social would just sit at a desk in there for their 8 hour shift? Then another would take over for second shift, and a third would take over for the graveyard shift? 365/year? That would require at least 6-8 social workers, since no one would work 7 days a week.
Would the other two apartments also be filled with families that are under the supervision of CPS?
So basically you'd have a team of 6-8 social workers for every 3 families?

Do CPS agencies in any jurisdiction have that kind of funding?

Anonymous wrote:My mother taught court ordered parenting classes in the 80s and the level of instruction needed was astounding. Many of the new moms didn't know that they needed to feed their infant several times a day, or change a diaper more than 1x a day. They had no idea how to mix a bottle of formula and couldn't read well enough to understand the instructions on the bottle. She let the moms know that they shouldn't feed their infants ice tea or kool-aid. She explained that they needed clean clothes daily and to be held and rocked. She told the moms to talk to their babies. She explained how to use a car seat and how to give a baby a bath. She explained when a baby needs to see a doctor.

Despite the remedial level of instruction, she always emphasized just how much those moms loved their babies, but also how their own neglected upbringing left the entirely unprepared to be a parent. She tried hard to help them. But the system isn't set up to fix decades and generations of neglect. You can't turn someone so unprepared into a fit parent with one class and monthly visits from a social worker.

Former foster child again. My mom would proudly tell me that I was such a calm baby that she could leave me alone to go clubbing...when I was a newborn!

My mother taught court ordered parenting classes in the 80s and the level of instruction needed was astounding. Many of the new moms didn't know that they needed to feed their infant several times a day, or change a diaper more than 1x a day. They had no idea how to mix a bottle of formula and couldn't read well enough to understand the instructions on the bottle. She let the moms know that they shouldn't feed their infants ice tea or kool-aid. She explained that they needed clean clothes daily and to be held and rocked. She told the moms to talk to their babies. She explained how to use a car seat and how to give a baby a bath. She explained when a baby needs to see a doctor.

Despite the remedial level of instruction, she always emphasized just how much those moms loved their babies, but also how their own neglected upbringing left the entirely unprepared to be a parent. She tried hard to help them. But the system isn't set up to fix decades and generations of neglect. You can't turn someone so unprepared into a fit parent with one class and monthly visits from a social worker.

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?


New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

Because I don't think the social worker would live in that apartment as their permanent residence. Rather, it would be 3 to 4 social workers doing it in shifts, like firemen sleeping in the firehouse. As the former foster child above described---her life would have been more stable had her mom had some degree of supervision regarding staying sober, taking her meds, etc. It is just a fact that people who are low-functioning caregivers have children. Those children are ill-served by a system that shuffles them in and out between foster home and bio-family.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?

New poster here.

Terrible idea.
How would they (the government?) get social workers to agree to live in that apartment. Social workers have families to, that might want to own their own home/live in a specific neighborhood. And who wants to live where they work? It would essentially make the social worker (and to some extent, their spouse and children) "on call" 24/7.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?

I am the former foster child. If the other three families were drinkers I think there would have been some mega parties going on in that building! However, that is the sort of non-conventional thinking we need for these problems.

As a follow-up, I lived with my mom full time after about age 10. A social worker visited us weekly for another year or so and then she disappeared. I am 50 years old and I remember that social worker very well. She was the only normal adult in my life and I really looked forward to her visits. She was like an auntie to me.