If you foster, is there really and $ left at the end of the month?

[cdmommie]

We really want to foster at some point. We knew before we got married we would eventually adopt. We went to an agency info session a few months ago and decided we definitely want to foster, were not sure the time was quite right for us since DD2 was still waking all night long.

We are in a tight situation and considering moving to a smaller place to save some money. However, my grandmother actually suggested maybe we should foster instead. I know we would get $660 per month for one child. My question is, would all of that end up being used on the child or do you generally have some left over to go toward rent?

Payment is certainly not a good ONLY reason to foster, but since we already know we want to foster at some point and need a little extra income at the moment, I'm thinking maybe we should go for it...

[laohaire]

My parents spent more than the payment they got on my foster sister. But that was their choice and they weren't hurting for money, they just considered the stipend some "help."

I have to be honest, I don't think it's right to foster children with the stipend as even a secondary reason to do it.

My mother and her brother and sister were all abandoned and had plenty of time in foster homes before they were adopted. There's a picture of my mother and her sister on the day they were brought home to grandma and grandpa, and though their faces were shining and full of hope (and they were clutching new dolls) what I keep seeing in that photo is how skinny they were. My DD is at the 3rd percentile on the growth chart, so I'm used to seeing a skinny girl, but my mother and aunt... They clearly were underfed. Too many people take in children because they think they are going to make a few bucks out of it. But it's not like they give you so much that there's anything left over after properly providing for a child. The only way to get that money is to shortchange the child.

I'm not saying you're like that but I am saying that fostering is not an income source and it shouldn't be.

[Sierra]

It depends on a lot of factors: where you live and the rates in your location (which I know you included in your OP), what age child you foster, whether the children you foster have any special needs, what activities the child you foster is currently involved in or would like to be involved in, and so forth.

Some things to consider:

1. "Is there money leftover at the end of the month?" is a backwards question. Usually the payment is made at the end of the month, like a reimbursement of sorts. So in most locations, you need to be prepared to spend money on the child throughout the month out of pocket. If you are in a tough financial position, this may be a good reason not to do foster care.

2. The money is for the child's care. That is its primary purpose. If there is "extra" money after the basics are covered (consider that in addition to food and so forth there will be things like extra water and electric uses) and the child is given an allowance, the child should have the option of enrolling in classes, activities, and extracurricular activities, and so forth with any money left before you use it to cover your own expenses. Even with babies. Think children's museum memberships, baby-swim, etc.

3. There is no guarantee of placements at any time. You might have times with a full house and times with no kids at all. It would be foolish to count on foster reimbursements as income.

4. States usually require you to prove that your income is enough to meet your expenses without any foster care payments. Depending on the specifics of your hardships, you might not even be able to get licensed. Also, sometimes getting licensed has costs associated with it. In one state in which we fostered, we got licensed twice and each time spent at least a couple thousand dollars getting our home license-ready and getting the required extra car seats, etc. In that state, there were very specific regulations about housing, and in our county, they were even *more* picky. So we needed, for example, to put new locks on all doors to the outside that allowed the door to be opened from the inside even when locked. They wanted us to have a gate around the cat litter box (which we then of course would have to rig to make it so the cat could still get in), etc. etc.

I have had months of fostering in which I have used up the full payment and spent additional money out of pocket to cover the child's expenses. I have had months when I have spent almost exactly what was provided. I have had other months when there was a little money left over (never a significant amount). I found for me there was no "usual." It all depended on what was going on with the kid.

While I can mostly agree with many things laohaire said, and the sentiment behind it, there are a couple places, such as in California, where the rates are over-the-top for a child without special needs.

That said, fostering isn't a job any way you "slice it." You'd have to be neglectful to "do it for the money," because otherwise, even if there is money left over, it wouldn't be near enough to cover the many hours -- day and night -- that you spend caring for the child.

[BunnySlippers]

I think if things are already tight, then taking on an extra child is not the right thing to do.
On the other hand, where might these foster children be living without your home?

Such a tough choice. I too want to foster (and adopt if need be), but I decided the best approach would be to get myself in a much better place before starting the journey. A foster child needs stability in all aspects of life.

[cdmommie]

Thanks for the input. I didn't figure it was really anything that would help pay the rent, but my grandmother is just convinced it would. But she's never fostered, so I wanted to get advice from parents that actually have.

I think we were right in our initial decision to wait until we are both working.

[christophersmom]

Sierra outlined it well. I would not go into fostering to "make money". I remember when we were taking our classes and they gave an example of a lady calling in for information and saying "How fast can I get a kid, I need to make my Navigator payment." It just makes me sick to my stomach that someone would do it for the money.
We got our DD and she was on formula and baby food and I spent about $200/month on that until her WIC kicked in almost three months later, then she had to go to the doctor. Luckily my ped took her based on me saying she was on Medicaid and I would provide the card when I got it. But, I didn't have her medicaid card and I spent $48 on a prescription. She also needed a presciption to the tune of $78 while we were out of state that medicaid didn't cover because we were out of state. Yes I may have been able to get that reimbursed but it would have been a PITA.
We also bought clothes, a car seat, a crib, re-did her dressers that were in her room, bought bedding, bought toys, took her on trips, etc. We didn't make money but it didn't end up a huge burden on us, either.
I am guessing some months we didn't spend the entire stipend, but most months we went over.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by cdmommie

but my grandmother is just convinced it would.

Perhaps this comes from another era?? I'd have to look back at the history of foster reimbursements to see. But the only time anyone has ever personally confided in me that she was thinking of getting licensed to foster partly because she wanted to help kids, but also because she was having trouble financially getting through each month, it was a woman in her late 60s or young 70s maybe. Like you, she had thought about fostering for a long time, so the money wasn't her only motivation, but it was one motivation. Also like you, she realized it wasn't going to help her, and that by doing it without the financial resources, she would put at risk her ability to actually help the children who might be placed in her home.

[Polliwog]

In addition to all that, fostering is a HUGE time and energy commitment. When you foster, you are raising a child 24/7. A child who could have huge emotional needs and therapy/family visits/etc. When you foster, you need to be "all in."

[marsupial-mom]

You might want to consider starting a home-based day care. It could earn much more than fostering and it's probably less work.

[queenjane]

I know people are trying to dissuade you from "fostering for the money" and obviously you shouldnt have to depend on the money if you do foster (and they do make sure you can support your family/bills independant of the stipend.)

however i do think its possible to have enough from the stipend to cover part of your rent/bills/etc. In fact, part of the stipend IS for that...the child's share of room and board. I dont think there is anything wrong with staying in a larger place with the idea that you would have enough room to foster and the stipend would help cover the difference IF you truly desire to foster anyway, AND if you would not be in serious financial trouble if that foster stipend went away (if you didnt have kids in your home for a period of time, for example.)

Lets say you get an infant....WIC covers the formula, so no expense there. You could purchase cloth diapers for a couple hundred bucks and not have the recurring expense of disposables. You could bargain shop for clothes and supplies (not saying buy worn out old handmedowns, but i've found so many nice barely used cheap things at second hand stores, Once Upon a Child, garage sales etc.) We get a clothing allowance twice a year, plus an initial clothing allowance when the child comes into care, and the yearly total is around $300. Not alot but goes a long way towards the clothing needs of a young child. So, i could see how there might be months where you DO have some of that stipend left over.

With older children, things like classes, new clothes (i do still by some stuff used, but i think its important that my 8 yr old also gets to go to a store and pick out brand new clothes), school supplies, shoes, outings, etc etc etc tend to eat up the stipend and you probably couldnt count on much left. But it depends on the *amount* you'd be getting...some states its like $200 bucks, others its $600. Thats a big difference.

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by queenjane

I dont think there is anything wrong with staying in a larger place with the idea that you would have enough room to foster and the stipend would help cover the difference IF you truly desire to foster anyway, AND if you would not be in serious financial trouble if that foster stipend went away (if you didnt have kids in your home for a period of time, for example.)

But that's not what the OP is describing, she's describing having trouble making ends meet and hoping fostering will help that.

So getting a bigger place if you want to foster is fine. If you need the stipend for it to work - it's not going to work.

Like I said, the state is not going to pay sums that make everything comfortable and have something left over. You have to shortchange the child to have extra for yourself. Even if the state was flush with money (and last I checked, we're in a Recession) they wouldn't WANT to give so much money that there was stuff left over - imagine the pool of "foster parents" they would attract. It's better for them to just help out and thus attract people who are in it for the fostering and know the money is irrelevant.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by laohaire

Like I said, the state is not going to pay sums that make everything comfortable and have something left over. You have to shortchange the child to have extra for yourself. Even if the state was flush with money (and last I checked, we're in a Recession) they wouldn't WANT to give so much money that there was stuff left over - imagine the pool of "foster parents" they would attract. It's better for them to just help out and thus attract people who are in it for the fostering and know the money is irrelevant.

That's not entirely true. I think a lot of states pay something that would cover a "middle class lifestyle" for the child plus a cushion for special circumstances.

Many state foster care departments are pretty realistic that the cushion, if not needed by the child, is essentially a token thank you for the foster parents. In the places we've been licensed, that's been talked about openly. You can't count on it, but sometimes, you'll have a little something. It doesn't amount -- in most states -- to enough to stress about whether the foster parent is going to "do it for the money."

Foster parents care for the children 24-7 (or need to be available 24-7, if the child is in school). The $100 leftover some but not all months, for example, is not going to be anything more than a token. For 744 hours, in a 31 day month, that $100 would work out to a 13 cent hourly rate of payment. Would YOU do 744 hours of hard and emotional work for the sole reason of making $100? I doubt you would.

I don't think that's enough to attract a seedy pool, and I think it is a well deserved token in months when it works out.

Determining fostering rates is a balancing act. Because you want to make sure it could cover a range of scenarios for children within the group for which you are determining a payment rate. Some kids will require more, some less. You can't make that stuff into a science. And you know that some families will have the skills to live more frugally than others. So you go as middle of the road as you can. And like I said, some months for some families that will mean having a little at the end, and some months for some families it will mean having to pitch in some out of pocket, and sometimes for some families it will come out even. But states mostly fault on the side of "slightly, but not overly generous," just to be sure.

My experience is not out of sync with what queenjane is saying.

[sesa70]

I don't have too much to add but did want to point out that in our state the way the initial stipend for clothing/baby needs works is that you get up to X amount and you have to purchase your items first, save your reciepts, and send them in to your worker for verification. Once they have been verified and the items are approved expenses, you get a reimbursement check. So, at least here, there is no way to have any additional money left over from that.

[cdmommie]

Originally Posted by queenjane

however i do think its possible to have enough from the stipend to cover part of your rent/bills/etc. In fact, part of the stipend IS for that...the child's share of room and board. I dont think there is anything wrong with staying in a larger place with the idea that you would have enough room to foster and the stipend would help cover the difference IF you truly desire to foster anyway, AND if you would not be in serious financial trouble if that foster stipend went away (if you didnt have kids in your home for a period of time, for example.)

That was kind of my thought process, I guess it didn't come out well in my original post. We are making other changes to help our financial situation at the moment, so the fostering $ would not be *needed* per say. And my delima here is that we are considering moving to a 1 bedroom to save money, but then we would be unable to foster once things are worked out financially. So, if we stayed in a bigger place and foster (at some point, not necessarily RIGHT NOW), I am just wondering if any of that money actually covers "room/board".

I DO NOT want to 'do it for the money' and we would NEVER EVER EVER deprive a child for financial gain. EVER. And when we do begin fostering we WILL be "All-in". Like I said, we had planned to do this long before we even started having our own children so it's not like this is coming out of left field.

I'm sorry if I sound like a horrible person for wanting to know if the state really covers any of the living expenses, but we are not rich, and if we wait to be rich to foster it will never happen.

I also understand fostering is variable and sometimes we wouldn't have a child to care for, which is why we have made other changes. I just don't want to keep paying for a bigger place thinking we need the space if we won't be able to foster anyway (like if the money they give doesn't actually cover everything for the child).

I regret posting this in the first place, but oh well, too late. Sorry if it came out sounding just horrible.

[RedOakMomma]

I don't think it's horrible--not the way you described it. Parents need to keep track of finances, and it's not every parent that has so much money they don't need to think balance sheets before making a big decision. No worries. It's just all the people who DO abuse the system (for $ or profit) that makes these questions sensitive.

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by cdmommie

I DO NOT want to 'do it for the money' and we would NEVER EVER EVER deprive a child for financial gain. EVER. And when we do begin fostering we WILL be "All-in". Like I said, we had planned to do this long before we even started having our own children so it's not like this is coming out of left field.

I'm sorry if I sound like a horrible person for wanting to know if the state really covers any of the living expenses, but we are not rich, and if we wait to be rich to foster it will never happen.

I also understand fostering is variable and sometimes we wouldn't have a child to care for, which is why we have made other changes. I just don't want to keep paying for a bigger place thinking we need the space if we won't be able to foster anyway (like if the money they give doesn't actually cover everything for the child).

I regret posting this in the first place, but oh well, too late. Sorry if it came out sounding just horrible.

I hope you didn't think my comments suggested I thought you were horrible. Not at all! I don't think you're in it for the money, but clearly this is a factor for you. I just wanted to say that realistically, I don't think you're going to come out ahead. When I said the only way to come out ahead is to shortchange the child, I certainly did not think you had any intention of doing it.

All I was trying to say is that from a financial standpoint, I don't think fostering is going to help you out.

The stuff I said about what people do to get the money was not at all implying that YOU would, I don't think that for a second. But only to show that from a financial perspective, it's not cash in the wallet, you have to do things that I don't think you will do in order to come out ahead. So, financially, a bad move.

There are people who make money from the system, but you are not one of those people.

[junipermoon]

Originally Posted by cdmommie

That was kind of my thought process, I guess it didn't come out well in my original post. We are making other changes to help our financial situation at the moment, so the fostering $ would not be *needed* per say. And my delima here is that we are considering moving to a 1 bedroom to save money, but then we would be unable to foster once things are worked out financially. So, if we stayed in a bigger place and foster (at some point, not necessarily RIGHT NOW), I am just wondering if any of that money actually covers "room/board".

I DO NOT want to 'do it for the money' and we would NEVER EVER EVER deprive a child for financial gain. EVER. And when we do begin fostering we WILL be "All-in". Like I said, we had planned to do this long before we even started having our own children so it's not like this is coming out of left field.

I'm sorry if I sound like a horrible person for wanting to know if the state really covers any of the living expenses, but we are not rich, and if we wait to be rich to foster it will never happen.

I also understand fostering is variable and sometimes we wouldn't have a child to care for, which is why we have made other changes. I just don't want to keep paying for a bigger place thinking we need the space if we won't be able to foster anyway (like if the money they give doesn't actually cover everything for the child).

I regret posting this in the first place, but oh well, too late. Sorry if it came out sounding just horrible.

I think that in general foster subsidies are intended to cover the child's portion of room and board, as per queen jane.

When I took in foster kids, I moved from a roomate situation where I paid, gosh, maybe 300 dollars a month plus utilities to a housing situation without roomie where I paid more than a grand plus utilities, and some of my kids stipend money definitely went to that.

That said, I think some of the caution you're getting is that sometimes you'll get placements where the stipend doesn't come close to covering expenses. I had long stretches of time where the money and state insurance provided didn't cover the services my kids needed, before factoring in rent. So I was "on my own" for rent and so on during those times, if that makes sense.

I think the tone of this thread might mislead you think people here are saying that only wealthy people should foster--I don't think that was the intention, though maybe it came off that way. It's just sensitive b/c many foster homes take in many kids at once, like 4, and the kids leave the placements talking about how they didn't get enough to eat, and their belongings arive at the next placement stuffed into a couple of trash bags (or just one bag) and include ill fitting clothing and broken toys or ill fitting clothes and no toys...at least that was my experience when I worked in a group home for foster kids. sad. and speaks to mismanagement of funding. so it is a touchy issue.

what kills me is that lots of kids in foster care probably wouldn't be there in the first place if their birthparents had access to the same amount of stipend funding! 60 percent, I think, of kids in care are there on charges of neglect. my kids got more than double what a welfare check would be...but that is totally off topic.

Have you done the foster parent trainings yet? You might think about starting there and then deciding later what makes the most sense to you.

Please don't feel bad for asking good questions!

[Sierra]

Note: This post was posted at the same time as another above.

Originally Posted by laohaire

I hope you didn't think my comments suggested I thought you were horrible. Not at all! I don't think you're in it for the money, but clearly this is a factor for you. I just wanted to say that realistically, I don't think you're going to come out ahead.

I have had times when I have fostered when I was starting out in a "tight situtation." There are times than it works out okay, and then there are other times...well, let's just say that one of the reasons we are not currently fostering is that we are in a really bad position financially.

Whether it can work out depends on many factors, related to the exact nature and degree of your financial struggles, and related to the type of fostering you do. Which is why I answered your question with my own suggestion of issues and questions to look at.

I hear the harshness that you are hearing, but I hope you realize it is not the tone of most folks' posts.

[junipermoon]

eek, one more thing that I didn't clarify--taking in foster kids for me meant hugie lifestyle changes--no more sushi restaurants, no more exclusive shooping at whole foods market, etc. it was the first time I encountered real and genuine financial stress-though I didn't have bio kids yet so it might be more an issue of going from zero kids to having kids.

so while I was meaning to clarify in my initial post that yes, I think foster stipends are meant partly for rent (to cover the extra space you need), you may have huge other issues that crop up that require lots of negotiating with the system for financial coverage (I didn't go that route but some do successfully) or major out of pocket expenses. I know I said that before but I might have downplayed it a little--because I think good people who want to foster, should foster, regardless of economic circumstances. Just be prepared for a ride, is my point, I guess. And don't let any of our posts discourage you if you know in your heart that fostering is for you.

Our family's income has increased quite a bit over the years because I eventually married someone who makes more than I did (before I became sahm/went back to school), but really money, or lack of it, didn't substantially impair my devotion to my kids. sorry, but it just didn't. not in the least. money was crazy at times but I hung on, just like most people with kids hang on. so don't be discouraged by my cautions about the rollercoaster of foster care costs, or by anyone else's cautions, just take them for what they are worth and try not to be too bothered. It's the situation of families who actually do siphon money for personal benefit out of foster subsidies that should feel horrible, not you!

best of luck.

[cdmommie]

Thanks. Sorry for getting defensive, it's all just such a touchy subject and I'm a little emotional at the moment due to factors completely unrelated. Thanks for the info though.